Aidy wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't follow the path of least resistance. It follows every path of
>> non-infinite resistance.
>
> Including the path of least resistance, yes?  So electricity *does* follow 
> the path of least resistance?  BTW you are actually aware that "following 
> the path..." has really just become a figure of speach and not a scientific 
> principal, yeah?  I mean if I said "he wants the moon on a stick" would you 
> say my whole argument is flawed because the moon couldn't possibly be on the 
> end of a stick due to the gravational issues that displacing the moon from 
> its orbit would entail?  If I said "that's as much use as a chocolate 
> teapot" would you say that my whole argument was flawed as at least a 
> chocolate teapot has a use as a source of calories?  Of course 
> not....because if you did you'd be laughed at like a fool.

It looks like you've given up even tring to make sense.

>> It depends on a lot more than that. Given the same p.d. and two paths
>> of different resistances, more current will flow in the path of least
>> resistance but current will flow in both.
>
> In the same way that while crime will be large in lucrative areas like drug 
> running, it will still be present in the lesser areas like car stereo theft 
> etc?  So crime and electricity behave the same way in that the easier paths 
> to richness have more flow, but the other, harder paths, still have a flow 
> even though it is less.

That's not what you said before. If you don't even agree with yourself 
there's really no point discussing with you. 

>> If you've got any sparks at all, you've designed the circuit
>> incorrectly.
>
> Are you serious?  This is a joke, right?  I mean you're just having a 
> laugh....

If you beleive there should be sparks in a well designed circuit 
then that does explain some of your other bizarre beliefs. 

><stops reading> 

I believe you read the part where I pointed out that your analogy proves 
exactly the opposite of what you were trying to claim, found it too hard 
to refute and then pretended that you'd stopped reading rather than 
attempting to discuss it.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer

Active Component In Marijuana Targets Aggressive Brain Cancer Cells, Study 
Says
By Kelli Miller Stacy
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
April 1, 2009 -- 

The active chemical in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by 
essentially helping them feed upon themselves, researchers in Spain report.
Guillermo Velasco and colleagues at Complutense University in Spain have 
found that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, causes brain cancer 
cells to undergo a process called autophagy. Autophagy is the breakdown of a 
cell that occurs when the cell essentially self-digests.
The team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in 
mice with human brain cancer cells and people with brain tumors. When mice 
with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor growth shrank.
Two patients enrolled in a clinical trial received THC directly to the brain 
as an experimental treatment for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, a highly 
aggressive brain tumor.  Biopsies taken before and after treatment helped 
track their progress.  After receiving the THC, there was evidence of 
increased autophagy activity.
The findings appear in the April 1 issue of the Journal of Clinical 
Investigation.
The patients did not have any toxic effects from the treatment. Previous 
studies of THC for the treatment of cancer have also found the therapy to be 
well tolerated, according to background information in journal article.
Study authors say their findings could lead to new strategies for preventing 
tumor growth.

-------------------------
Slatts

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:19:19 +0100, "Sla#s" 
wrote:

>Aidy wrote:
>> "Sla#s"  wrote in message
>> news:h0k20v$t02$1@localhost.localdomain...
>>> One can obtain many drugs that do this already and society seems to
>>> be able to handle it OK.
>>
>> True, as I said in another post of course you can't eliminate harm,
>> that's silly.  However in some instances it is good to reduce the
>> chances of it.

>Which drug prohibition has rampantly failed to achieve!
>Look at the example of alcohol prohibition. That is exactly the reason the 
>eighteenth amendment was repealed.

It's not so much that prohibition has failed to reduce harm,
prohibition has tremendously increased harm, both to drug users and to
society.

It's incredible that something so destructive and counterproductive
has continued for so long. It is a testimony to the power of
ignorance, prejudice and stupidity.

Svenne