Actually I'm not. And before I continue, let me add: this has little to do with advocacy, and even less to do with anyone trying to foist their perceptions of t

Actually I'm not. And before I continue, let me add: this has little to do with advocacy, and even less to do with anyone trying to foist their perceptions of the recreational or therapeutic value of anything upon you. I was only explaining what the therapeutic value of the substance is perceived to be, this isn't according to me -- though I obviously share that opinion and paraphrased. That's according to the qualified professionals that advocate its use. They have fairly robust reasons for this that result from experience using it in controlled settings for that purpose. It's interesting that you mention alcohol & marijuana, because it's sadly that sort of confusion and unwarranted comparison that got us here, it's actually the point of the article: one drug (ironically a legal perscription medication) was mistakenly given to test subjects, bad things happened. Consequently research on a totally different drug was curtailed. Retrospect deepens the irony as the first drug, the bad yet legally perscribed one, went on to wreak havoc in the streets through addiction and associated crime.