You're being a bit selective there.
I was replying to a specific argument:
how high is the thc content in the oil he takes? I saw somewhere someone claimed it was a high thc content.
either way if it helps with his condition I don't see the problem. may as well just legalize the whole lot.
sure less of a problem than alchohol which doesn't have any benefits at all?
So I started my reply to that post by replying to that post. Being "a bit selective" is important, if not essential, when replying to a post.
The 2 drugs you have mentioned have caused more deaths in society than cannabis as ever done
Which is why they're particularly good examples of problems that can exist in drugs that can help with some conditions, even when that help is proven (which isn't the case with cannabinoids and every medical problem under the sun). I chose them because they're two drugs that I have used myself and which help with my medical condition, but they would have been good examples to use anyway
because they've caused a lot of problems.
Look at my post and links showing the amount of deaths from alcohol. Then look at tables 6a and 6b of the ONS report on drugs deaths. You can see Opiod based medical deaths are high (which you even acknowledge in the US it is a major problem, yet they are legal). Meanwhile cannabis as been smoked recreationally in the US for many years, mainly due to a lack of enforcement because the country is so big. I would even say it is part of American culture. Take a look at the Cheech and Chong series of films, glorying cannabis. There as been no mention of a mental health crisis due to cannabis use.
True, but irrelevant to the point of whether or not the existence of any beneficial effects on any medical condition automatically makes a drug completely problem-free and one that should be legalised.
Also, mental health is a big issue in the USA (and elsewhere) and cannabis use is a problem for mental health. It is a contributing factor and possibly a sole cause in some cases. The fact that it's not as obviously clear-cut as dying from an overdose doesn't make it any less real. But that's
Lets real talk, we do have proof one way or the other if we take it on a case by case basis. The question is simple, does taking this special cbd oil, which I assume as above the uk level limit thc level, help this child with his seizures? If it does, which the doctors here are saying it does, and the home secretary as obviously seen the evidence and expert opinion before making his ruling then it DOES work.
That's not how medical testing works and it's not how laws regarding drugs should be made. There are good reasons why drugs are tightly regulated and the existence of some cases that might or might not be connected to the drug aren't sufficient evidence to make law on it. Many people have had medical problems improved by eating inert materials, injections of inert fluids, etc. That's why double-blind placebo trials are required.
I agree with your position here. I went many years not having any medications, which surprised my doctors. But then we reach a point in life when we are nearly forced to take some medication to help. I take meds but I try to keep it at the most minimum, as you say, because of the side effects.
And I expect one of my chronic pains to get progressively worse and I expect that one day I will decide that being addicted to painkillers will be the course of least harm for me. If that happens then I, like you, will take the appropriate drugs at the minimum dosage I need. There's a limit to how much pain I can manage.
I'm not opposed to drug usage as a matter of principle. I will and do use drugs with medical benefits as and when they're useful to me, assessing them on a risk/benefit basis. I have used and will continue to use drugs for recreational purposes, assessing them on a risk/fun basis. Only alcohol nowadays, infrequently and at a low dose. I have a bottle of beer every few weeks because I find it pleasant and consider the risk negligable. In the past, I have used illegal drugs recreationally because my risk/fun assessment was different (and I now think it was wrong).
I'm also not opposed to otherwise illegal drugs being used by volunteers in extreme circumstances in wildly experimental ways with little or no knowledge of any effects. Drugs or other medical stuff. My father was in that position once - he had a guaranteed fatal medical condition that would have killed him in a few years and was offered a highly experimental procedure that the doctor thought
might stop him dying. Or might kill him there and then. It had been done twice before - one patient had died and one had survived. No bull, no sugar coating, no selling of "alternative" medicine (i.e. not medicine at all) at a high price to profit from other people's suffering. A genuine medical option and a genuinely informed choice made. He lived for another 40 years.
But I am opposed to the idea that a drug should be legalised because someone said it has medical benefits and I'm opposed to the idea that a drug should be legalised because it does have medical benefits and that means that the risks don't matter.
)
) because the results were so bizarrely unexpected. Not complete remission, but close enough for it to be initially unclear whether or not they still had cancer. 
