For one: "The research suggests that the development of a legal drug that contains certain properties similar to those in marijuana might help prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease."
There already is a drug that contains properties similar to marijuana -- it's marijuana. While it may not be legal at the present time, I believe that it is important to, instead of attempting to find a synthetic alternative (which would be far easier to mass produce/sell/market/monopolize) attempt to reconcile the discrepancies within the pro/anti-cannabis legislature to better suit the needs of our current condition.
That said, I was even more disappointed with the article's implication that marijuana is "immoral."
I feel as if these students are forced to adjust to the conditions of their academic system, rather than challenge what they might believe to be fallacious. As a scientific objectivist, this struck me at my core.
In a perfect world, we would have no need for politicians because all desires would be maintained and there would be no competition over resources. A politician's job is to serve the greatest vocal majority, or the welfare of the people as a whole (if the majority is not acting in their own best interest).
However, science is squashed by these vocal majorities, as well as by politicians who don't understand the importance of the undergoing scientific research. I believe that it is ignorance which is the greatest enemy of science, not politics.
It's a shame that we have to resort to pandering in order to receive funding.
