== Toward a reasonable consensus == 
 Does anybody have a good reason to drastically change the paragraph on Marinol or move the paragraph to the Marinol article in the future? 

 (Please read my four points against drastic change and against moving the paragraph to the Marinol article before you answer the question!) 

  
 I don't think drastic changes are needed, here's why?: 

 * 1. There is just one paragraph on Marinol in this article. It is in the "experimental treatsments" section. It is made clear that the research is only preliminary. 

 * 2. In spite of the fact that Greg accused me (or at least somebody who posted to this article) of getting into the "politics of illegal drugs" and being pro "medical-marijuana" when it comes to Marinol (legal by Rx in all 50 states) Greg is wrong! In fact, this could actually be an arguement AGAINST medical marijuana, because it appears that the legal alternative (Marinol) is supperor to marijuana for treating TS! Greg should assume good faith, and learn that marijuana and Marinol are not the same thing. 

 The information does not belong in the Marinol article because: 

 * 3. The Marinol article just has information on what Marinol is and what it has been approved for. It has been used experimentally in treating all sorts of things, and therefore there is no laundry list of all Marinol research for all conditions in the Marinol article. That sort of information belongs in the articles about specific conditions. 

 * 4. Many medications' names have been posted to this article, and many of these medications have their own articles in wikipedia that don't mention Tourette's Syndrome at all! So the standard precident, in this very article and on wikipedia, is: Information about off the label research on a drug for treating a specific condition belongs in the article about the specific condition, not the article about the drug! 

 :This is from wikipedia's policy on consensus: 
 "Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.) 

 It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities." 

 We can argue all we want about semantics or if something is in context or not, but it is now time for people who are simply being stubborn to answer this question! 

 :By the way the defintion of factoid is 
 "A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: “What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoids—a profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon” (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt)." (answers.com) 

 :None of the information in the Marinol paragraph is unverified or inaccurate, so it contains no factoids! 

 ::  User 206.59.60.140, Please do not continue altering the talk page.  Your disruption of the talk page may lead other editors to conclude that your efforts here are not in good faith.  Adding a subheading for clarify is helpful:  moving entire sections of the talk page to make a point is disruptive.