Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (344082)	7/24/2007 8:57:48 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574854

"Who's going to be held liable for the abuse of marijuana if it ever becomes legalized?" God. He's got the patent. Besides, how do you "abuse" marijuana? If you smoke too much, you fall asleep after stuffing yourself with cookies..

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (344082)	7/24/2007 11:36:30 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

"I sure hope the actual case had more merit than that." Of course it has. At the heart of the case is that the company misled doctors as to exactly how addictive it is. So, by providing false and misleading information they got themselves in hot water. So the initial wave of addicts were people who had legitimate prescriptions, like Rush. And some, like Rush, when their prescriptions ran out started going to extreme lengths to get more. And that generated media attention, which started attracting more interested users, leading us to the present day situation. The lawsuit is restricted to those who got addicted before 2001 when it hit the media.