[fluxquanta]

Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out. That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it.

[civilian]

I know there's been an effort to use the word "Cannabis" as a way to sound legitimate, instead of pot/weed/marijuana. Do you react better to 'cannabis'?

[protomyth]

You're right, I don't react better at all. They should stick with saying "THC and related compounds" instead. Its basically the same argument I have for the thorium folks, do not use "reactor" or "nuclear" in any naming or marketing.

[tgb]

The word "nuclear" was dropped from MRI (nee NMRI) to improve its influence. And, surprisingly, I was even able to find significant documentation of this fact [1], I was honestly expecting it to be folklore at best. Though my own research [2] kind of contradicts the idea that 'nuclear' was ever a popular part of the name. Or maybe it was [3], I dunno.

[1] http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... [2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=NMRI%2CMRI%2C+... [3] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=nuclear+magnet...

[civilian]

I like it. I'm going to start referring to GMOs as "Advanced Varieties" and PHP as "Clarified Perl". :D

[tim333]

Not sure that's going to wash with Thorium. Thorium reactors are very much full on nuclear reactors whatever you call them.

(See the decomissioning section on the 1964-1969 Oak Ridge thorium reactor if you think they are problem free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment...)

[mjevans]

Sort of like my own personal stance on 'breeder reactors' being 'waste reduction reactors'.

The problem with most of that 'waste' (at least the non-byproducts kind) is that it's exactly that, actual waste instead of burnt fuel.

[fapjacks]

What about "spent nuclear waste reactors"? It's a big long-winded, but fully conveys that it runs on spent nuclear waste. I suppose it could be parsed weirdly.

[yarou]

I think the word you're looking for is cannabinoids. You don't call opiates "morphine and related compounds".

[protomyth]

True, but morphine and opiates in a known bad along with cannabinoids not sounding much better. Acronyms and "compounds" don't set off the hate generally.

[mistercow]

I don't see a strong argument that "THC" is any better. Everyone knows what THC is.

[protomyth]

You'd be surprised (very surprised - its almost a dihydrogen monoxide thing in reverse), and truly acronyms get more respect.

[reitanqild]

Depends on your definition of everyone. I for one trigger significantly less on THC.

It can also be argued that THC sounds more like a synthesised or refined version consisting of the active ingredients.

[nsxwolf]

Well every medical marijuana dispensary I've seen looks like a head shop. Granny walks in with arthritis and walks out with her "blueberry kush" and wearing a crochet rainbow hat.

[marssaxman]

Nothing wrong with head shops.

[cnp]

> That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it

> Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out

Ever think that you're contributing to the problem? Just ignore the editorializing.

[fluxquanta]

>Ever think that you're contributing to the problem?

How? The articles aren't for me. I'm fine with pot being legal for medical purposes or otherwise. The articles usually seemed to be aimed at (probably older) people who think marijuana is the devil's weed, and using stoner slang as part of an article to illustrate the positive side effects is counterproductive, in my opinion. Why does it matter if I ignore the article at that point?