Okay, Peg. But Dean, who is a doctor, and who has been asked to express an opinion about Medical Marijuana, has specifically stated that he believes it will be found useful for cancer and aids patients, but not for glaucoma. This to me suggests that he has actually read the studies of MJ. Otherwise, why add these details? That's why I believe he actually HAS researched this. My point was that even when medical journalists do read studies, they almost always misconstrue or misreport the findings of said studies, and almost always exaggerate the good or bad qualities they are commenting on. Doctors, in my experience, are much more careful about this.

Your statement is "A doctor necessarily has knowledge of internal medicine and anatomy, but, unless they have specifically gone to soem effort to stufy the data and efficacy of medicinal marijuana, and that includes anecdotal reports, then they are no more qualified, and perhaps less so, than I am to speak on the subject." I agree in part with this, but the effort is not that hard to go to, and I suspect Dean, as a doctor AND a governor, who has had to make policy calls on issues like this, has either read the studies himself or had a staffer supply him with a good summary. He also has the advantage of that superior knowledge of internal medicine and anatomy, which is not irrelevant to the effects of marijuana.

My other point is the one you still haven't responded to: All Dean has said is that in the first twelve months he will have the FDA make a ruling on the use of medical marijuana. Surely he can't promise anything more than this, no matter how convinced he is of marijuana's usefulness. The president simply does not and shoukd not have the power to make independent rulings on on individual drugs. So exactly what do you want a candidate to say?