It doesn't work, though. Several of my military PTSD types smoked the ganga. It did not ease the flashbacks or the reactions, the hallmarks of PTSD, not did it ease the depression. Light therapy (the light on the cornea thing), and prescription drugs (serotin plays a role) help. From the studies, and from experience, I can confidently say marijuana does not help, because I've seen these people, and as their academic advisor, relative and/or their friend, have had to help arrange the support for them. My university and community has a lot of Iraqi vets, I and II. The psychological community actually does a decent job of treating them here (probably because we don't have a VA, and the community is serviced by a Mayo Clinic regional). Amputees, regular depression, etc they don't do a good job on. We have plenty of pot smokers here (we joke you can't hit the bike path without finding some kids in the woods toking up, and I smell it a lot, on and off campus. Weed seems good for putting weight on anorexics, and calming the obsessiveness of anorexia/bulemia. I have no explanation for that, either.

Marijuana has medical uses for easing chemotherapy problems, but not for PTSD.

They don't have kids and they are financially stable. What's there to fight about? That's the first and second most common rationales for divorce. Since their inlaws are sane, they lack the top three. No infidelity, no four.

We could send the pothead from two letters back over there if they just need some drama. Otherwise, why is this LW trying to borrow trouble? Some people just can't enjoy their blessings. The letter's neurotic to me.

What makes this hilarious is that you were trying to get Brightstar banned weeks ago. Brightstar's yanking chains for yuks, but the one who really does attack people personally, unprofessionally, and obnoxiously, is you.

I gave you the Supreme Court citations. You don't have to like them; that won't change the fact that the Supreme Court is not accepting your arguments about marijuana being a fundamental right today. Go scream at them if you want, or scream at Dahlia Lithwick at slate, or a dozen other legal commentators and constitutional law pundits out there who don't agree with your analysis, either. Lawyers who bill $250 a hour are not coming here to bother with you. Your arguments have lost at the SC level.

You are a law student. When you've practiced for twenty years in the real world, come back and lecture. When you've worked for government agencies, or academe, and had to deal with this or apply this stuff to avoid lawsuits (as I have), come back and lecture. You are still in law school. You are NOT the fount of all wisdom, and you lack the experience to understand that.

One day you'll be a brilliant lawyer if you don't alienate people with that attitude. There's a different between arguing persuasively and arguing condescendingly. Can the condescension.

If the Supreme Court recognizes a fundamental right today to smoke marijuana, why are people in prison today? Why were the federal prosecutions upheld in 2001 and 2005? Once you have the precedent, you can file to overturn unconstitutional state laws.

When the advice seemed dangerously inappropriate (encouraging a male LW to think on his own actions when his female lover was physically attacking him, for instance), I was harsh and I will not apologize. Selfish LWs or those who endanger kids sometimes need a straight, unambiguous response. Delusional people also need that type of response. Far too often, people see what they want to see, and not how their actions hurt others. Hard and paractical comments are sometimes appropriate.

I've also sympathized with LWs, and urged them to get help or get out. It really depends on what the writer puts out there.

Mr. Tennis does a good job overall, but there are times that he should probably consult with someone expert in the field (battery and abuse are good examples). Those times scare me.

Feelings are sometimes overemphasized today. Sometimes the practical is a good thing.

The NCAA, according to it's website at NCAA.org, does not allow unapproved logos on wristbands. It doesn't say whether that includes statement, but that seems the case. Other athletes have been refused the right to wear "Free Mumia" and other such things on their uniforms.

"I wasn't there, the female lacrosse players weren't there, and the many opinionated trolls on this blog weren't there either."

Amen. We know what hired gun spinners want us to know, not the truth. Do people really trust the media's reporting of this case that much, of anything at all? The lacrosse women were not there, the journalists were not there, these bloggers were not there. The reports in the media contradict each other every few days. What we know for certain is that we know very little.

You really don't know people. You can live with them 40 years, and still miss things. The BTK killer's wife never knew. It doesn't matter whether these women knew the guys or not, they have no inside information that makes them more credible than anyone else.

On the other hand, we don't know whether these guys raped the woman. We were not there. We can not assume a false claim or their guilt.

It's frightening how confident people are in truly unreliable information from unreliable narrators in the press. A little more cynicism about both sides would be a little healthier for many people.

I do not see this as analagous to the Black Power salute at the 1968 games. That was to make a political statement. This seems more like attention hoing. I wonder if the meia hooha will break the team's concentration, or draw backlash anger from other teams about the attention.