I’m certainly not against cancer research, I just want to help patients find what works and not only what is politically acceptable. We need more truth in medicine.
]]>whig, if you can make that statement, you are not reading what I said. I do not support the ACS. I said that I didn’t. What part of that did you misread?
“… if my approach seems “juvenile” to you, well as a blogger I’ve been accused of worse.” – whig
Haven’t we all! But I did not accuse you of having a “juvenile” approach, only an ineffective one.
“If you think that my approach makes them less willing to take cannabis seriously, …” – whig
No, that’s not what I said, either. I said… and I’ll say it again in different words… that your approach will make ACS and other org’s ignore you utterly. They are big. You are one person. They have plenty of money to pursue their agenda. Your agenda is not included in their agenda right now, but there’s no fundamental incompatibility. Co-opting big org’s always, always works better than fighting them head-on.
If I thought this was really about a single newspaper article, or if I thought your mission was unimportant, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to make your efforts more effective. But I’ll defer to your determination of how best to pursue your goal, rather than risk evoking more misreadings or misconstructions of what I write on the subject. We must agree to agree on conclusions, but disagree on means. Matters could be worse.
]]>If you think that my approach makes them less willing to take cannabis seriously, then they really do deserve to go away. I’m not a member of the ACS and I’m not disrupting them in any way. They don’t have to pay any attention to me at all.
But they are not serving their clients. This is not about just a single study in 2001.
]]>whig, it is exactly like that. Everyone should direct their charitable contributions where they feel they will do the most good. But your arguments are precisely the same as those who deny money to an organization that is more than 99 percent a women’s health care provider and less than 1 percent an abortion provider, because of the abortion. Single-issue decision-making may be very personally satisfying, but it does not help you achieve goals in a world of multiple and interacting advocacies.
“Sure, damn it. Support the organizations which are promoting that kind of advertising which aren’t at the same time complete hypocritical and betraying their own mission.” – whig
I am glad to see you have made the scientific decision for the whole cancer research community based on a 2001 newspaper article. The damnable thing is… I am no fan of the ACS myself, and I agree with your conclusion: cannabis should, in fact, receive more attention in cancer research.
But it will not receive such attention, at least not from any major research organizations, as long as you and others “threaten” them not only with defunding but with nonexistence. It’s your choice, no doubt about that. But you will be ignored by the ACS, and probably by any other major cancer research organization, if you argue that the ACS should “cease to exist.” Defining away your opponent is not a good way to win an argument.
whig, you have to decide which you want more: the satisfaction of avoiding every association that may be “impure” but that has the potential ultimately to help you achieve your goal… or the greater satisfaction of persuading and eventually convincing those entities to support your goal. No doubt, the latter takes longer, and takes more effort.
I know you don’t want my advice, but here it is anyway: You may hate the ACS. But don’t eschew the ACS. Co-opt the ACS. It’s ultimately a more effective way to get what you want.
]]>Your contributions are, of course, your own to direct to whatever organizations you wish. But your argument is a lot like that of people who claim they are otherwise supportive of greater access to women’s health care, but who refuse to contribute to Planned Parenthood because it is also an abortion provider.
People who are anti-choice should probably not contribute to Planned Parenthood. Surely there are other organizations which support women’s health. That is not to say that one should or should not support Planned Parenthood specifically in any individual case, it is of course a matter of conscience.
My argument is nothing like that. My argument is that this is the American Cancer Society and it is denying people access to research that might cure them of cancer.
“Denying people health care is unconscionable, I don’t need the ACS to tell me that.”
Maybe you don’t, but it’s not only about whether you need them to tell you that. There are other, less perceptive people toward whom such advertising is appropriately directed. If there were not people who needed to hear this message, the US would long ago have joined the community of civilized nations in providing universal health care.
Sure, damn it. Support the organizations which are promoting that kind of advertising which aren’t at the same time complete hypocritical and betraying their own mission.
]]>She has gone gun-shy and will never make the choices necessary.
]]>I’m VERY disappointed. She’s calling it *universal*, but the only thing *universal* I see about it is that it’s mandated for all.
]]>They need something to get behind, and Medicare for all is probably the easiest way to go.
]]>