Now we just have to wait and see what comes of it.

Sincerely,
MediaMentions

I’m going to be less polite about this than Chris was. You’re a bigot and a jackass, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. How do I know that, aside from being a legalization supporter who doesn’t drink, smoke pot or take any other mind-altering drugs?

Because after watching too many people I cared about with cancer and AIDS lose the will to live when they thought the cure was worse than the disease, I finally have a very close relative who’s alive thanks to chemotherapy he can tolerate only by smoking pot. Pot he got at the urging and with the help of his oncologist at a major cancer hospital, which unfortunately isn’t in a legalized medical marijuana state. But the doctors and staff take the legal risk of helping patients get it anyway, because they know that for some of them it’s all that works.

Because if you did even a little research before shooting your mouth off, you’d know that as long as 20 years ago, i.e., long before medical marijuana was legal anywhere in this country, almost half of surveyed oncologists had already recommended it as an anti-emetic to at least one patient, again, the legal risks notwithstanding (you can find your own links).

But you know these highly trained professionals only do that because they’re drug addled hippies, right? You idiot. I’d love to see you trot that argument out on any cancer ward. I’ve met some good, movement-conservative, cancer patient family members who’d have trouble restraining an excessive display of their Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, us librul pot-generation hippies would just sing Kumbayah, give you a flower and tell you to go f*** yourself.

ChrisTS: Yes, it does seem to be uniquely effective in treating the pain of glaucoma.

Actually it performs the key function necessary for treating glaucoma: it reduces intraocular pressure. Pain relief is simply a side effect of treating the primary damaging effect of the disease. Increased intraocular pressure is how glaucoma destroys eyesight.

Bob Randall, the first patient ever to receive a federal license to use cannabis to treat his glaucoma, thereby retained his eyesight until his death in 2001.

I had the privilege of meeting Bob in the 1990s. He smoked more cannabis than any 10 recreational users I’ve ever heard of. He was a brilliant inspirational speaker and role model. His mental acuity and quick recall of facts and theories was greater than that of any lawyer I’ve ever met. He dressed like a chamber of commerce representative. His mere existence shattered the folk myths about marijuana, mental acuity and motivation. His story is here.

You are quite correct that we have gotten a bit silly.

I certainly was not reflecting on your genitalia -of which I know nothing and want to know nothing. I was making a joke to Leo based on what I thought was a funny idea: ‘self-copulating.’ (I’m not new to this idea. I just always find it amusing, and Leo and I like to joke together.)

However, at the end of the day, you might stop and think about not only how people are responding to your comments but also why they are responding as they do.

You rail and carry on, ignoring or dismissing every reasonable response that is made to you. Yes, mj does have unique properties insofar as it works for some chemo patients while synthetic drugs and/or other delivery mechanisms do not. Yes, it does seem to be uniquely effective in treating the pain of glaucoma.

But you simply poo-poo all this, even when clearly informed people such as Anatid provide you with good evidence and explanations. Your posts are increasingly hyperbolic and rude.

So, surprise, people have stopped responding to you as a serious, rational interlocutor. I’m sorry if we have offended you. You might stop and reflect as to whether you were the first to give offense through fanatical, unreasoned treatment of the views of others.

How would we know what ‘actually happens’ when medical mj is legalized?

super-unique property of weed

Noo. That is your supposition. I think Anatid responded to this quite effectively. Short version: individuals are not all alike; it is good to have a variety of treatments for any given symptom/problem.

Leo Marvin: That’ll teach you to wait for something from a pot-generation hippie.

Ah, but the [real] question is whether you [really] support legal medical use of mj or whether you [really] just nefariously claim to do so that you can [really] supply your own evil habits.

ChrisTS:
Hmm. Persuasive and, yet… I still think RW is from another planet (possibly populated largely by hermaphrodites, but I’m waiting on confirmation from Leo on that).

That’ll teach you to wait for something from a pot-generation hippie.

So, lets sum up:

* We have some commenters who think that the super-unique property of weed is that you can smoke it. Apparently there is no other delivery system on earth that will do… and at the same time this miracle delivery system, that is so incredibly necessary for cancer patients… somehow no pharma company out there realized the desperate, desperate need for this incredibly difficult to create delivery system… this “smoking” system that no one heard about until the miracle of pot.

* We have some commenters hoping a loved one of mine gets cancer so I too can magically overcome the laws of biological reactions to realize that pot is the only one true drug for relief… and other commenters who claim that I personally made the first group up, that no one claims pot is uniquely effective, and when I point them out, the second group covers their eyes, going “la, la, la, can’t hear you!”. Yeah, real mature.

* We have some commenters claiming that the real reason is actually the fact that you can grow it yourself – and that somehow this really is the real reason, despite the silly people mentioned above… but then cannot explain why if that was the real reason, that almost no one is growing it themselves. Unless you are postulating that streetwalkers in LA aren’t hawking fake prescriptions, they’re really selling farmland?

* Anatid is the only person in this entire thread who’s actually attempted to make a case that medical MJ has a unique place… but you have to ignore the fact that his argument consists of waving his hand and saying “well, everyone’s different! That explains it!”

Um, thanks.

His theory is reasonable and logical, but it simply does not match what actually happens when pot is legalized. Far from being one of many available options to be used when the others do not work, we find that the number of people “discovering” the need for it far outstrips the total number of people with cancer. Funny how that works.

Which leaves the commenters three options: They can either sit around guessing about my genitals, or they can grow the hell up and stop pretending that they’re fooling anyone when they demand “medical” marijuana. Alternatively, they could keep lying and making up new excuses each time they’re questioned… but what happens when you’re figured out? Maybe your deceit will come back to haunt you. Maybe you deserve it.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by charyl: From conservative “Volokh.com” A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana http://bit.ly/LZk2V NOTE: campaign promise kept #p2…

What other options exist for nausea control and appetite stimulation?

Some existing drugs have been partially effective at controlling nausea, but cannot be taken daily for long periods of time. There are drugs in existence that stimulate appetite, but no doctor would prescribe them to a chronic case. They’re for terminal patients only, whose illness (usually cancer and AIDS) will kill them before the horrible side effects of the comfort-bringing drugs do.

Ghrelin and orexin are now in clinical trials, although the enrollment criteria are strict. Development of a useful drug is still years away, and the hormones may not prove efficacious at all in the Phase II trials.

Meanwhile, what are the options? A drug that will destroy the patient’s liver? An experimental hormone, not yet available even on the grey market? Or a drug with comparatively few side effects that offers greater relief than any of the others, that the patient cannot acquire and use legally?

Not to mention, THC is one of hundreds of exocannabinoid-class molecules. Each molecule blend, each dimer and isomer, will have different properties. Some will offer little or no high at all, but be excellent for reducing intraocular pressure for glaucoma patients. Another might be best for cranial vasoconstriction to offer migraine relief but have an unfortunate side effect of visual hallucinations. There’s no way to isolate each specific one unless research is legalized.

Taking the whole plant extract, of course, is most effective overall because the blend of phytocannabinoids affects your system more widely and more gently than a pure molecule extract would. It’s similar to why coffee, with its blend of xanthine-class molecules, is a more pleasant pick-me-up than pure caffeine pills of similar dosage. The use of plant extracts as opposed to pure molecule compounds has fallen out of use in America, thanks to some political maneuvering by the AMA in the first half of the 20th century, but is alive and pharmacologically sound in many countries in Europe and Asia today.

Inhalation is a preferred method of administration of this drug because it has both a rapid onset and a relatively short period of therapeutic activity. Smoking any organic matter will, of course, produce carcinogens. Oral consumption requires being able to hold down a pill, up to an hour of waiting time, and then the side-effects for a good five or six hours. The technique of vaporization is popular amongst actual medical users, as it aerosolizes the active molecules without producing any carcinogenic smoke.

Chronic and heavy marijuana use has also been associated with loss of short-term memory. But then, sleep deprivation and stress are both far more damaging to short-term memory, both of which a suffering and inadequately-treated patient is likely to experience.

When you get down to it, it’s really a question of whether you think people should, in consultation with their doctors and after having been informed of the potential risks and benefits, be able to decide for themselves what to put into their bodies.

Ryan Waxx: There you go again, with the “pot as wunderdrug that no one realized how powerful it was until the pot generation came into political power, by SHEER COINCIDENCE” crap.

Wouldn’t it be a similar coincidence that the active ingredient in marijuana — delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol — was approved for medical use by the FDA after randomized control trials confirmed that, in fact, it is safe and effective for managing nausea related to AIDS “wasting syndrome” and chemotherapy? Problem is, some people with nausea have trouble swallowing pills and keeping them down.

(blush). Thank! I think that they truly believe that they are trying to uphold ‘morals’ and ‘standards’. They just have a very different idea of them than we do.

I almost concluded that most prohibitionists just don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us. But you’ve convinced me otherwise: they just have a weird way of getting high, by yammering about figments of their imaginations.

Hmm. Persuasive and, yet… I still think RW is from another planet (possibly populated largely by hermaphrodites, but I’m waiting on confirmation from Leo on that).

Randy: So, the only thing I can conclude is that when people do something that they enjoy and the derive pleasure from it, it’s a ‘high’, and no good can come of it. So they must do what they can to stop others from having their pleasure.

I guess that’s how they get high.

I agree. There also seems to be a large contingent who believe that only “washed up hippies” or other straw men support legalization.

What fascinates me about that is that it is the same BS I heard when I worked on the first California initiative almost 40 years ago. I still support complete legalization (ie: removal of all criminal and civil penalties) for users and producers of all drugs, but requiring truth in labeling as to actual contents. During those same years I’ve led a productive life earning a living, making investments, doing tons of relatively thankless volunteer work, attaining professional degree, licensing and the like. Everyone I know who has seriously worked on such law changes has done much the same. They just believe that drug prohibition is corrosive to a good society.

I almost concluded that most prohibitionists just don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us. But you’ve convinced me otherwise: they just have a weird way of getting high, by yammering about figments of their imaginations.

Nicely done.

So, the only thing I can conclude is that when people do something that they enjoy and the derive pleasure from it, it’s a ‘high’, and no good can come of it. So they must do what they can to stop others from having their pleasure.

I guess that’s how they get high.

It was just my polite way of suggesting he self-copulate.

Ah! So you have reason to believe he is an hermaphrodite?

I suppose they have less need of recreational drugs.

I can only do the smileys and frownies*. Others seem to know how to do winks and other more subtle emoticons.

* colon-dash-front parenthesis.

Leo Marvin: (BTW, where do you get the emoticons?)

Just do a smiley: colon, dash, right paren, and it should come up as an emoticon :-)

(BTW, where do you get the emoticons?)

Re #2: That would mean some other person would have to suffer for RW to learn the lesson.

Ryan Waxx:

Leo Marvin: Ryan Waxx,A NORML supporter is a hippie-hating jackass with a loved one in chemotherapy.I hope you don’t have to learn that the hard way.

There you go again, with the “pot as wunderdrug that no one realized how powerful it was until the pot generation came into political power, by SHEER COINCIDENCE” crap.And meanwhile other commenters are desperately trying to pretend people like you, with claims like yours don’t exist.Reading is fundamental!

1. Yes, reading is fundamental, so respond to what I actually said. Or don’t. I don’t care. Just don’t argue with your own straw men and pretend it has anything to do with me.

2. I’m reconsidering what I previously hoped for.

Lying to the voters that you just want sick people to feel better, then passing a bill by cynically exploiting their compassion all so you can get high is also a lie.

No one person passes a bill. Lying to anyone is, yes, lying {‘a lie’}. Aside from these points, you are simply assuming that everyone who says marijuana should be legal for medical use is, in fact, really seeking to have marijuana available for their own recreational use. And that is unfounded.

Plenty of us have no interest in smoking marijuana and believe it should be legal for medical purposes. Some believe it simply should be legal for any use, but have no personal desire to use it.

I do not think the government should make it illegal to smoke this or that. I believe it is cruel to deny mj to those whom it could help and irrational to do so out of fear that someone else will use it for fun.

But, I don’t want to smoke that or any other substance and would not do so unless a doctor convinced me it could help me.

ArthurKirkland:
If the Obama administration begins to dismantle the War On Drugs, it should be congratulated.

Sure, that would be great. And if the policy was no federal prosecutions for activities that are legal under state law where no interstate transport is involved, someone might actually be fooled into thinking that this was more about federalism and less intrusive government rather than what it really is–a gift for washed up hippies and radicals and a carrot for those who value “cool” over substance in a President.

Last I checked, lying to your doctor that you are in pain so you can get medication, then getting high off that medication, was not only a lie, but a crime as well. Lying to the voters that you just want sick people to feel better, then passing a bill by cynically exploiting their compassion all so you can get high is also a lie.

If you want legalization, ask for that. If you don’t get it at first, ask again. That’s the way democracy works. But don’t be a slimeball and expect respect for your courage to be a liar.

Ryan Waxx: You mean, other than the fact that if they don’t need it for medical purposes, then the entire movement is a lie?

Still not following. I don’t need it for medicinal purposes, I don’t use it, but I support legalization for both medical and recreational use. But if folks are unwilling to legalize it for recreational use, I still support legalization for medical use so the folks who need it can get it.

Am I full of crap? Or are people who feel like I do but smoke full of crap? Why?

Leo Marvin: Ryan Waxx,A NORML supporter is a hippie-hating jackass with a loved one in chemotherapy.I hope you don’t have to learn that the hard way.

There you go again, with the “pot as wunderdrug that no one realized how powerful it was until the pot generation came into political power, by SHEER COINCIDENCE” crap. And meanwhile other commenters are desperately trying to pretend people like you, with claims like yours don’t exist.

Reading is fundamental!

ShelbyC: I’d imagine most of the supporters on this thread aren’t users, for example. And I’d imagine most users support legalization because they want to get high, and support medical marijuana because they want folks to have access to whatever works for their pain. How does that make them full of crap?

You mean, other than the fact that if they don’t need it for medical purposes, then the entire movement is a lie?

Why, nothing at all.

Dudeman:
There is a strong argument that it would not be a DUI/OWI if the THC levels are within the theraputic range.

There is no “therapeutic range” able to be stated for THC or narcotics that does not overlap with the judgment/reflex effects. Just because you are using the drug under a prescription doesn’t mean it magically loses it’s effects on perception. And no, you shouldn’t be driving on Percocet/Vicodin/Morphine/Oxycodone/Methadone etc. either.

It is subversive of the rule of law for a president or AG to refuse to enforce the law just because they don’t like it (liberals even claim they shouldn’t do this if the president things the law or part of it is unconstitutional), and especailly egregious to announce that unenforcement will be administration policy.

Liberals make no such claim. Liberals objected to the Bush Administration’s policy of declaring a law unconstitutional and making it Administration policy to violate it. There’s a world of difference between declining to enforce a law against third parties (in certain circumstances) and making it