Hi Peg

Sorry if I misconstrued what you said. Obviously, if another of the candidates comes down closer to you on the issues you care about, you must vote for that person.

I would, however, dispute your claim that as a freelance writer your investigations of the research on MJ are on the same order as a doctor's knowledge. Most journalists who write about medical topics get things wrong from the get-go, saying things like "Study shows Broccoli may cure Cancer" when the study really shows that people who ate more broccoli and other high-fiber foods (among other things) got less cancer of the colon. Even in the highest-profile places, such as CNN and the New York Times, medical reporting nearly always distorts the findings of the studies it cites. My family is friends with a health writer for the NY Times, for example, and my father one of the MDs she has often consulted. But she makes gaffes all the time, and almost always they are along the lines of exaggerating the conclusiveness of the evidence. I would be inclined to take Dean's word over yours on how conclusive the evidence really is.

By the way, having the FDA evaluate marijuana does not necessarily mean having them do new studies. It can simply mean evaluating it based on the studies you are citing as the sources for your own knowledge. If the doctors, scientists and public health officials at the FDA think that evidence is conclusive, they may not need to do any other studies. I would be inclined to take THEIR word on this over Dean's, and obviously Dean himself feels the same way, a healthy sign of humility, I think.

Finally, my point was also that, even if Dean is 100% convinced by studies that have already been done, he cannot simply make MJ a legal medicine without having the FDA examine it. Otherwise, another president (let's say George W. Bush) could simply make another drug legal without having the FDA look at it. Dean's point is that the process must be the same, and people asking for MJ to be certified for medical use by another process are opening a dangerous door, giving politicians more control than they should have over medicine.