The writer wasn't speaking of a US situation. In the US, tho, other
remedies are illegal, e.g. nosodes must be prescribed by an MD (if I got
that right?) and remedies made from any controlled substance are apparently
just as illegal as the substance they are made from (e.g. opium, cannabis,
etc.).
I find it amusing that, on the one hand our remedies are quackbuster-bait,
placebo, etc., but on the other hand, substantial enough to restrict in this
way!
Shannon
on 9/1/04 3:02 PM, almonds1@aol.com at almonds1@aol.com wrote:
combination remedy legality / Asclepius in theBalance 1 Asc...
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: combination remedy legality / Asclepius in theBalance 1 Asc...
?? What term would you prefer?
Whether the term itself is perjorative or simply a label depends on the
viewpoint of the speaker, doesn't it. Of course I'm not in favor of
"quacks" ("one who misrepresents his ability and experience in diagnosis and
treatment of disease or effects to be achieved by his treatment"), but I
also don't consider homeopaths to be quacks, nor most of the folks these
so-called quackbusters target.
If their methods -- or even their intent -- were honest, the entire
situation would be different.
As far as the situation with cannabis etc., surely common sense dictates
that by the time there is *not a single molecule present*, it really has
nothing to do with "recreational drugs" any more.
And as far as this argument providing fodder for the quackbusters, they are
*long since* onto that one! They love it. And yes, they consider us
"airheads who violate the second law" etc., and more. We've already lost on
*those* counts, and the fact that there's none of the substance left at
highish dilutions is well-publicized and well-known already.
So... What basis is left for keeping these remedies "illegal"?
Shannon
on 9/1/04 7:11 PM, almonds1@aol.com at almonds1@aol.com wrote:
Whether the term itself is perjorative or simply a label depends on the
viewpoint of the speaker, doesn't it. Of course I'm not in favor of
"quacks" ("one who misrepresents his ability and experience in diagnosis and
treatment of disease or effects to be achieved by his treatment"), but I
also don't consider homeopaths to be quacks, nor most of the folks these
so-called quackbusters target.
If their methods -- or even their intent -- were honest, the entire
situation would be different.
As far as the situation with cannabis etc., surely common sense dictates
that by the time there is *not a single molecule present*, it really has
nothing to do with "recreational drugs" any more.
And as far as this argument providing fodder for the quackbusters, they are
*long since* onto that one! They love it. And yes, they consider us
"airheads who violate the second law" etc., and more. We've already lost on
*those* counts, and the fact that there's none of the substance left at
highish dilutions is well-publicized and well-known already.
So... What basis is left for keeping these remedies "illegal"?
Shannon
on 9/1/04 7:11 PM, almonds1@aol.com at almonds1@aol.com wrote: