The LA Times reports:
The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research. . . .
In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.
“Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis,” said Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, noting that the limited number of studies was “insufficient to satisfy the current standards for a prescription drug product.”
This shift could be quite significant, as one major obstacle to medical marijuana has been the federal classification as a Schedule I controlled substance and the consequent limitations on medical research.
Stoner Phillips says:
Great, so I’ll still have to get a serious illness before I can partake in my preferred recreational substance.
Remember kids– there is only one right way to recreate with drugs... our friend alcohol!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:02 amjosh bornstein says:
One hopes that this will be the nudge to get past the political roadblocks that–till now–have prevented real research being done. I am dubious; I suspect that the same old BS will stop any progress. Politicians just don’t want to be seen as weak on drugs (other than re booze and cigarettes).
A real shame. I’d be happy if the fed govt just would turn it into a state’s rights issue, and let individual states truly decriminalize it, fund their own research, etc..
I’m not holding my breath.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:05 amLarryA says:
I don’t know why we should decriminalize marijuana and test it. There’s no medical evidence that it’s beneficial. [/sarcasm]
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:09 amAlbatross says:
So, after all these decades of convincing the American public that smoking cigarettes and cigars is the absolutely worst thing you can do for your body, now the AMA wants to conduct research on a drug that is smoked for its effect? They may say they want to “devise alternative ways to deliver the drug,” but will they go so far as to discourage the smoking of cannabis with the same vigor that they have been discouraging cigarette smoking? And will the average pot-head stand for that?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:11 amzuch says:
What if we call it a “nutritional supplement”?
Cheers,
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:29 amJames N. Gibson says:
“Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis,” said Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, noting that the limited number of studies was “insufficient to satisfy the current standards for a prescription drug product.”
Interesting comment since I remember cannabis being around almost 50 years ago. Why do I suspect that, like the actual history of enforcement of the 1792 militia act, someone just “Accidentally” lost any studies on the effect of cannabis done prior to the late 1960s. And of course they will now spend a decade looking into the various medicinal claims people are now making. Personally, since the claims are beginning to sound more like the Snake oil sales pitches of the old patent medicine crowd I suspect in ten years even the most Liberal Dem will not want to be connected to Medical Cannibis.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:04 amneurodoc says:
It does happen, but not often, that rigorous testing (double blind “randomized, controlled trials”) shows a therapeutic intervention, be it a drug or procedure, to be more effective than imagined on the basis of less rigorous testing. And I think the rigorous testing of cannabis that is being recommended is more likely to confirm marijuana as a “recreational” drug than as a new “therapeutic” one. (Marinol [Dronabinol], a cannaboid available by prescription, is used for relief of nausea.)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:24 amFrater Plotter says:
The preferred means of using medical cannabis is vaporization, not smoking. Vaporization avoids the formation of tars and other harmful materials present in smoke, while still allowing the user fine-grained control over dosage. However, medical cannabis is also used in a number of other forms such as tinctures and oil extracts, which can be taken with food.
(It should be noted that Drug War “studies” on the harm of cannabis smoke are done using the DEA-provided herb issued to the small number of Federal medical cannabis patients, which is much less potent than that available on the free market. More potent cannabis = less smoke per dose = less harmful, not more.)
It’s worth noting that all of these methods — unlike Marinol pills — make use of the other cannabinoid compounds present in the herb as well as THC. Much of the interest in medical cannabis research is in the use of these other cannabinoids. One of these, cannabidiol, is already noted in research as an effective antipsychotic and anxiolytic (anti-anxiety drug), while not producing the “high” or intoxication of THC.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:02 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Well Children it seems some of you need an education on Pot.
1. Pot had been studied for OVER 430 yeas BEFORE little me (not) started to do my own research in 1964. So do NOT give me this total B,S, about how we do not know enough about it.
2. As anyone who actually has knowledge of the subject knows, it is ONLY illegal due to a CONSPIRACY which included perjured testimony by the idiot in charge of the sub-committee looking into making pop illegal!
3. The AMA was AGAINST making illegal and so testified to the sub-committee.
4. It IS legal in various countries all around the world and they have NO PROBLEMS from it worth mentioning!
5. Over 400,000 are in prison for breaking STUPID LAWS PASSED BY STUPID PEOPLE!
They should not only NOT be in prison for pot, it is COSTING US MANY MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of $$ a year, EVERY Year!
6. EVERY Year an average of 900 people die from ASPIRIN!
People die from eating too much food and/or drinking too much water!
EVERY YEAR MANY MANY Hundreds of Thousands die from:
A. Medical malpractice
B Smoking
C. Drinking Booze
NOT ONE PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD as died as a direct result of smoking and/or from eating pot!
7. Families where pot has been smoked for generation after generation are different from families which have not done so.
They have much BETTER Night Vision and they have not been arrested as often.
Because it is late and this 74 year old is tired, I will end with this.
Anyone who is for keeping pot illegal IS A FOOL who is too lazy to get off their butts and do the research and is most probably too dumb to be able to understand the facts if they did do any research.
Opps, one last thing, the three Republican candidates for Governor are FOOLS as they are TOO DUMB to really know the facts about pot.
Thus, they are CHASING many of we Supporters AWAY because of it.
I will NOT work on their campaigns as I have on others in the past.
Not as long as they continue to prove they are TOO LAZY to get the facts and change their illogical, uninformed, irrational and totally stupid positions on Pot!!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:17 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
I forgot to say
1. Pot IS, and has been, used to effectively treat many various medical problems for hundreds of years,
2. Eating it in food provides the longest lasting and best results.
3. I’ve now been, OFF and ON, smoking and or eating pot for well over 40 years.
(I started after about a year and a half of doing my own research in to it.).
And Children, this “pot head” will OUT THINK most of you any time and any where!
4. I mentioned # 3 to lead up to this: I keep reading about how todays pot is so much stronger. To which I say, BS!
Maybe it is in some lab & maybe some are getting this strong
stuff, only it seems I am not getting it.
(DARN IT)
5. Anyone who compares smoking pot to smoking cigarette has no clue what they are talking about!
People who smoke cigarettes smoke more than one a day. While those of us who do smoke pot (at least me) and IF I had any to smoke, would smoke the equivalent of one half of a cigarette, IF THAT, a day.
(I would much rather
be eating it in cookies or brownies)
6. My mother died from her three pack a day habit and my dad smoked two packs a day. (Second hand smoke?)
And as for 5 years out of my first 7 years of life, we lived at 14,232 ft of elevation, I’m very surprised I’m still alive.
Much less, at nearly 75, still playing two person Beach Volley Ball in the deep sands of Manhattan Beach, Ca.
(Of course, being a paratrooper. deep sea diver, climber, spelunker, etc., etc. is not too good for life expententcy either.)
Last, IF I could get pot and could afford it, I would damn well be smoking it often.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:08 amSplunge says:
I’m always a little mystified by how worked up folks get about the illegality of recreational drugs.
I mean, if Prohibition were re-passed tomorrow, I don’t doubt I’d kind of miss my glass of wine at dinner. But not all that much. Certainly nowhere near enough to risk arrest and prosecution by defying the law. Most likely not even enough to base my vote for national-level candidates on the issue. The experience of being chemically buzzed just isn’t that precious to me.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I certainly understand the principle of the thing. I despise useless government interference in individual liberty as much as any man, whether it be criminalizing relatively harmless recreational drugs, or relatively harmless behaviour, like prostitution or driving over the speed limit.
But given the enormous, even life-and-death intrusions into personal liberty and choice that the modern state makes, the fact that it interferes with personal recreational drug use ends up way down on my list of priorities.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:12 amAnatid says:
Two different issues. Decriminalizing allows states to pass their own laws. But as any good post-doc desperate for funding knows, the Source of All Grants is the NIH, which is and will remain a federal organization. No state can afford to pour as much money into research as they do.
To second Frater Plotter, cannabis contains hundreds of cannabinoid-class molecules, each with different effects and side effects. Not only could different compounds be isolated, but taking the drug as a spectrum of molecules instead of a pure molecule produces less of a spike and crash and less tolerance. Think of it as the difference between having a cup of coffee versus taking a NoDoz.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:41 amChris Grainger says:
Does anyone else think that it isn’t a coincidence that the AMA is starting to speak out about this right as British drug experts are resigning in protest over the sacking of David Nutt?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:56 amjosh bornstein says:
Anatid,
You are correct, I was using shorthand (it was clear in my own mind). Of course it would be *ideal* if the fed govt would fund the research. It doesn’t matter which side of the pot issue you come down on–I think pretty much all of us think it would be a good idea to have solid research. But since most politicians are cowards on this issue, I would be happy (compared to the status quo of almost zero research) if states were given much more freedom to fund research, decriminalize it (with all the usual precautions, like no sales to kids, etc). Like gay marriage, I would be happy with some of the more ‘hot-button’ issues to have different states with different rules. Let’s give different approaches a chance, and let’s see if we all go to hell in a handbasket.
(Sorry to sort of threadjack, but since I just read that Lou Dobbs is quitting CNN, I do want to be the first to bet that he will end up on Fox. That’s his target audience, and I predict that he’ll do very very well there . . . close to GB’s numbers, even.) Goodbye (for now) Lou, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of straight reporting. (or as close as CNN gets to that goal nowadays)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 6:49 amBrett Bellmore says:
My own preferred recreational drug is caffeine. But I do get worked up about hundreds of thousands of people being imprisoned, civil liberties being eroded, and international terrorism being funded, as a result of restrictions of recreational drugs.
It’s not, after all, as though the only consequence of prohibition is that some people don’t get their preferred buzz. It barely starts there.
I’d get worked up about it if we did comparable damage in a war on okra, too, and I don’t LIKE okra.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:16 amAlan Polonsky says:
To second an old comment from Michael Kinsley
While in College I personally, along with my friends and other associates, conducted hundreds, if not thousands of such experiments and trials always keeping perfect notes as to the events. Now, if only I could find them.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:50 amJoe says:
But given the enormous, even life-and-death intrusions into personal liberty and choice that the modern state makes, the fact that it interferes with personal recreational drug use ends up way down on my list of priorities.
This in reply to a post about medicinal use of a drug that is blocked because of fears it will lead to more recreational use.
Talking about a “glass of wine” belittles things, of course. Alcohol is a basic part of many aspects of people’s lives, including meals, parties, trips to bars, and so forth. It hits unlike many regulations to the core of our private lives. This is especially the case for various cultures.
It is far from trivial. Likewise, the negative effects of criminalization does include sending people to prison and so forth.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:07 amJoseph Slater says:
This thread is totally worth it just for the phrases “the sacking of David Nutt” and “war on okra.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:16 amJoe T. Guest says:
I’m sort of agnostic on the question and leaning towards thinking we should legalize it, mainly to reduce government influence in an area of our lives that should be mostly private, partly to knock a leg out from under the drug mafias.
But everytime I start thinking that way the potheads crawl out of the woodwork with a discussion making it sound like a messianic drug to heal whatever ails ya, and more, and I start to think that maybe the stuff eats brain cells and should be banned. There is also the problem that all my friends who are potheads who are basically useless most of the time — though in their case I’m not sure whether that is causation or mere correlation.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:25 amMCM says:
God bless you, Mr. Neil C. Reinhardt.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:35 amPurple Kooaid says:
The AMA doesn’t represent all medical doctors any more than the ACLU does all lawyers.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:48 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Go Splunge.
Thanks Plotter, but how is a drug ingested via “vaporization”?
And are there other less gross (but no less effective) ways of introducing cannabis into the system than smoking?
Ditto Slater. The front page editor must have thought he died and went to heaven the day “Nutt Sacked” became available as a headline.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:18 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
That’s a good thought.
I’m thinking of articles I’ve seen here and there, that indicate that marijuana has at least as many carcinogens as tobacco, that it appears to lead to memory loss, and that its use is correlated to onset of schizophrenia. But since those aren’t STUDIES I guess we can pretend we don’t know of anything bad about it. Heaven forbid that anybody put the skids on anything at all that anybody else thinks he might find pleasurable, regardless of reason. Recreation trumps all.
Anatid, what you’re saying about the different molecules is true, but then isn’t it better to narrow the therapeutic use of cannabinoids down to one molecule in particular in order to investigate side effects and so on? And as to your coffee/NoDoz analogy, just control dosage size?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:20 amLargo says:
The preferred means of using medical cannabis is vaporization, not smoking. Vaporization avoids the formation of tars and other harmful materials present in smoke, while still allowing the user fine-grained control over dosage. However, medical cannabis is also used in a number of other forms such as tinctures and oil extracts, which can be taken with food.
The oil can be extracted from the plant without too much difficulty. It will dissolve in many organic solvents, thus becoming free from the bulk of the plant fiber. If the solvent is volatile, it will evaporate, leaving the oil as an end product. (The oil is not highly volatile).
Letting a drop of the oil land on the lighted end of a cigarette (the cigarette being lit as a heat source only, but not smoked) will cause combustion of the oil which can be inhaled. It is not vaporization, but the amount of smoke inhaled is orders of magnitude less than would what one would inhale by smoking the burning plant.
As to efficacy, there is the question of the different psychoactive outcomes of vaporization vs combustion vs oral ingestion: which is not to say that the above procedure is psychoactivly ineffective, only that one should not (a priori, of course) expect the quality of the effect to be the same.
Although the high concentration of the yield suggests that dosage would be difficult to control, I have been told that with practice, the uniformity of the oil (compared to bulk plant) allows for easier titration.
(Not that I have ever done any of this personally, of course.)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:31 amAndy Light says:
It is really true that there’s no medical record that it is beneficial. Maybe we can find another medicines for our illness not only in marijuana. Anyway, Thank you for posting us like this so we can be aware what’s happening. Thanks
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:35 amFub says:
More likely Kaelean sampling bias.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:35 amAultimer says:
How about if you had 5 figures invested in a wine cellar that you had to pour out? Or if your major social outlet was a homebrew club? Emotional reaction is all about personal investment/commitment. It’s the same mechanism that lets majorities approve of conservative pace of change when a minority is disadvantaged.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:36 amNowMDJD says:
neurodoc says:
“Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis,”
Permitting cannabis and its purified derivatives to be subjected to clinical trials would clear the air regarding its therapeutic potential. My guess regarding the outcome of such trials is the same as that of neurodoc. Marinol is not widely prescribed for relief of nausea in chemotherapy; practitioners find that other drugs work much better in practice.
Whether marijuana should be legalized for non-medical (i.e., recreational) use is a separate issue, however.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:39 ampc says:
I’ll give you my okra when you take it from my cold, slimy pans.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:41 amAllan Walstad says:
I’m still trying to figure out where in the Constitution the feds think they get the power to ban marijuana. Perhaps we should investigate what the pols, bureaucrats, and justices have been smoking, and ban that instead.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:18 amTamerlane says:
Thanks to Neil C. Reinhardt for reminding us that the AMA originally supported medical use of marijuana and that perjured testimony denying that support was a main reason the original federal laws against marijuana were passed.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:25 amLargo says:
“Pothead” is problematic term. Connotations aside, it is often unclear (at least to me) what the term is intended to denote. I recognize the stereotype–but stereotypes are tricky: functional, but dangerous. “Pothead” may indeed point to an actual, recognizable class of pot users, but note: “drunk” points to a real, recognizable class of drinkers. So to those who have used the term “pothead” in this thread: can you please indicate whether you mean to equate “pothead” do mean:
(1) all marijuana users (without stereotype),
(2) a subset of marijuana users (with stereotype), or
(3) a “typical” marijuana user (with stereotype)?
(I have no problems in principle with either of these, but the third begs the question of whether the stereotype does in fact represent the typical user, as opposed to, perhaps, the users you have met. Maybe a “pothead” attitude correlates highly with an insouciant attitude to social norms, and is not typical of the majority of users–the truly typical user–who for reasons of law or custom choose to hide their use. Or maybe... a host of things. Selection bias is a bitch.)
And to any who happen to read this: if you happen to make use of the term “pothead” (I am not against the term itself), can you please remember that many of us (readers, not potheads!) will be unclear about what you are intending to say? (Also, since the term is used in some circles as an insinuating pejorative, you will help us from falling into the sin of taking uncharitably that which you, in good charity, are intending to say.)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:47 amLargo says:
Fub beat me to the statistical issue. What is “Kaelean”, Fub? I just googled it but got nothing.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:56 amFub says:
The problem with libertarians is that they never think of the children.
Children can be protected from the dangers of slimy okra by the simple expedient of cooking it the way Gawd intended:
1. Mix cornmeal and spices to taste.
2. Chop okra to bite sized roundish chunks, and place in bowl.
3. Loosely mix in just enough milk to wet the fuzzy okra skin.
4. Roll or shake chopped okra in prepared cornmeal breading.
5. Pan fry or deep fry breaded okra chunks until breading is crisp.
However, only partial protection is possible against the dangers of picking okra in the 90% humidity and 90 degree Farenheit ambient temperatures common where it flourishes. Skin rashes can be minimized by wearing loose and full cover clothing and gloves, which should be washed thoroughly immediately after use.
Some argue that okra should be banned because sending children to the garden to pick okra is abusive whether they are properly protected or not. But others claim the practice builds character and encourages foresight. Obviously the Supreme Court should devise a balancing test.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:01 amParatrooperJJ says:
The problem with it being a schedule I drung is that a DEA permit is required to run any studies. if you publish a study with positive results, the DEA will never grant you a permit again.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:03 amFub says:
Film critic Pauline Kael, reputed, perhaps spuriously, to have said something like “I can’t believe Nixon won. Nobody I know voted for him.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:05 amShelbyC says:
Well then I guess we better keep putting the people who use it to offset the side effects of chemo in jail, huh?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:06 amLargo says:
@Fub
Ah. :-)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:16 amTom952 says:
I heard it can make a whole state go bankrupt.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:21 amsecond history says:
FWIW, here is a 2008 LA Times article that summarizes health studies (positive and negative) of marijuana.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
How do you get that from what I said?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 12:27 pmTatil says:
Netherlands has some fine universities. Aren’t they working on any studies to see if marijuana has positive effects and how to replicate these effects in pill form?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 1:47 pmRyan Waxx says:
The other obstacle, of course, is the inappropriateness of putting the word “medical” and “marijuana” in the same sentence.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:35 pmBonze Saunders says:
The Drug Warriors are accomplished in all the modes of unintentional hilarity. E.g., in the L.A. Times article linked above:
From the Wikipedia article on Vioxx:
So the “proven efficacy” of Vioxx was “augmented”, and the drug caused “problems” (a/k/a “death”) for a minimum of 27,000 Americans.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:50 pmRyan Waxx says:
That’s liberal tolerance for you. You see, “science” means “what I want to hear” to a liberal. If someone cites the positive effects of marijuana, that person is a scientist (even if he actually happens to be a lawyer or a politican). If you cite negative effects — well then you want to lock up cancer victims, as you just now discovered.
Liberals make much of conservatives’ suspicion of science, but they commit a far greater crime: they corrupt science, abusing its authority and subverting its methods to achieve policy goals.
Hence, they think it’s OK to bypass the ballot box on pot legalization by cynically using “medical marijuana” as a camel’s nose.
Hence, although they claim to have science on their side in AGW, major parts of the underlying data are simply not available in a form that hasn’t been pre-massaged by an AGW supporter... and they can’t figure out why this is a PROBLEM.
Hence, politicians make millions... and sometimes billions... because they use government power to route business from existing companies to “green” ones that become profitable only because of that government intervention.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 2:56 pmRyan Waxx says:
The transparent lie that pot is needed for it’s “medical” properties was exposed in the last thread on this subject. When challenged, some of the supporters claimed it had less side effects, some claimed superior pain-relieving effects, some claimed it wasn’t for pain... it was for inducing appetite. Still another person claimed that the smoking delivery was the important part, so that the cancer sufferer didn’t vomit out the “medicine”. And finally, after it became clear that not even its supporters had any clue as to what set pot apart from existing medication choices, they fell back on the “well, we should have as many choices as possible... just in case”.
Well, I have news for you... there’s a thriving business now in CA with docs willing to write up prescriptions “just in case”. Anotherwords, not only is the science not on your side, it’s quite apparent that any imaginary legitimate business in the drug is dwarfed by the mass of people getting prescriptions based on their doctor’s willingness to lie.
This may come as a surprise to some, but I actually don’t care if pot is legalized. It won’t have any of the positive benefits that its supporters claim (the drug war has never been principally about pot), and I believe we’ll see more negative effects than the Netherlands is experiencing, but I don’t think the negative effects will be bad enough to justify its ban.
What I *do* care about is actual, legitimate medicines being stigmatized because of this idiocy. There are real medicines out there whose gatekeepers are physicians writing prescriptions... and right now we’re seeing that process corrupted by “medical” marijuana. Public support for physicians being allowed to prescribe a non-pot painkiller for me when I need it without the feds breathing down their neck can only suffer in a nation who sees docs blatantly writing “get high” scripts on demand.
Shorter version: Because YOU can’t be bothered to work for a honest legalization vote instead of this dishonest “prescribe me a high” crap, I’m going to have more trouble the next time I break a leg, or have to have a tooth removed, etc. Thanks a bunch.
P.S. Please note that even if pot WERE a wonderdrug, the above would apply, because the process which we ALL depend on is being abused.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 3:33 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The AMA Open to Medical … » Archive, Open, Medical, Blog, Conspiracy, Schedule » My 420 Friends WeedPress says:
[...] more here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The AMA Open to Medical … Related [...]
ShelbyC says:
I understood your comment to be opposed to research into medical mj. Appoligies if I misunderstood, rereading it I don’t see that as clearly.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:22 pmLeo Marvin says:
Ryan Waxx,
Fine. You hate liberals. We get it. Tell your doctor never to give you anything a liberal would tolerate. Maybe you’ll find a therapeutic use for waterboarding.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:25 pmRyan Waxx says:
O well, its not like I actually expected a substantive answer...
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:41 pmAnatid says:
Chronic stress and chronic sleep deprivation (and let’s not even talk about alcohol) both cause demonstrably more brain damage than chronic marijuana use does. The studies I have seen indicating cognitive impairments on marijuana users sampled subjects that had smoked 40+ joints a day for at least two years. I do not believe any physician would recommend this level of use.
Funny, most of my friends who use marijuana are successful students, business, and members of their community. My personal anecdote cancels out your personal anecdote.
I mean, you can let drug use exacerbate other personal problems so that you become an annoying waste of space, but any drug (or not even drugs, look at the addictive and socially-destructive properties of World of Warcraft) can do this.
A machine pulls hot air over the plant, aerosolizing the oils for inhalation. There is no combustion, and therefore no carcinogenic smoke. Can also be done with the pure oil extract, allowing for more careful quality control.
The carcinogenic activity in marijuana appears to derive from its combustion in smoking. Orally-consumed marijuana does not appear to act as a carcinogen, while chewing tobacco does. One Israeli scientist discovered anti-tumor properties of THC in vitro, but the results have yet to be replicated. (Nicotine further harms the lungs by depressing the motion of the cilia that clear the lungs of dirty mucous, and it hardens the arteries over time leading to arteriosclerosis. Still legal, though.)
It is correlated with memory loss, as are sleep deprivation, stress, and alcohol. The acute effect of short-term memory loss is an excellent reason that no one should drive a car, operate heavy machinery, etc. while stoned or intoxicated by any substance. Lasting memory damage is only regularly observed in the heaviest of users.
Schizophrenia is a genetically-based disease of psychosis. Persons with a family history of schizophrenia should take care to avoid the environmental factors that can trigger psychosis, including (you guessed ‘em) sleep deprivation, stress, and drug use. Psychedelics are the class of drug most likely to trigger psychosis from non-heavy use, and for these purposes, marijuana can be considered one of them. A physician should not prescribe marijuana for someone who has a family history of schizophrenia. (A physician should also not prescribe marijuana for someone who has heart complications, because the drug acts on vessel dilation and blood pressure.)
For research purposes, and for many medical purposes where dosage is crucial, single molecules are absolutely crucial. For patients who are using a substance long-term, the spectrum of molecules in a plant extract is gentler on your system and healthier, causing fewer long-term side effects. Plant extracts are common in Europe and Asia — you’ve probably heard of tonics?
These are two schools of thought in medicine, and I feel that both are important to pursue. For nearly a century, the AMA has crushed the mention of tonics or other plant-based medicine in this country. It’s nice to see that they may be starting to consider more options.
A pill that you have to be able to keep down for ~45min, that won’t become active for 1hr, really doesn’t seem like a very good choice.
Right now the best candidate I know that won’t nuke your liver or kidneys is subdural ondansetron. Good stuff, but it only alleviates, not eliminates nausea, and it doesn’t stimulate hunger at all.
That was all me, and you’ve done a smashing job of misrepresenting my original argument.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:50 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Last night, I was too tired to add the following.
1. Pot IS, and has effectively treated many various medical problems for at least many hundreds, and more likely, many thousands of years,
2. Eating it in food provides the longest lasting and best results.
3. I’ve now been, OFF and ON, smoking and or eating pot for well over 45 years.
(I started after about a year and a half of doing my own research in to it.).
And Children, this “pot head” will OUT THINK most of you any time and any where!
4. Anyone who compares smoking pot to smoking cigarette has no clue what they are talking about! People who smoke cigarettes smoke more than one a day.
While those of us who do smoke pot (at least me) & IF I had any to smoke, would smoke the equivalent of one half of a cigarette, IF THAT, a day. (I would much rather be eating it in cookies or brownies)
5. As far as I knopw, pot has three different effects on those who eat/smoke pot experience.
A. It makes FEW “Paranoid.” So unless they LIKE being paranoid, they should not smoke it.
B. It puts some others to sleep. So, those who have with reaction should not “use” it UNLESS they want to go Nite Nite.
C. The effect MOST or us have is a PERCEIVED INCREASE in the enjoyment
tactile feeling, Food, Music, Colors and SEX!
6. I SHOULD have as much RIGHT to use pot as does ANYONE who smokes ANY type of tobacco and/or drinks ANY type of alcohol.
And ANYONE who smokes ANY type of tobacco and/or drinks ANY type of alcohol and still thinks pot should be illegal is a low– life HYPOCRITE!
7. Pot should be made legal and WITH IN REASON, taxed
8. My mother died from her three pack a day habit and my dad smoked two packs a day. (Second hand smoke?)
And as for 5 years out of my first 7 years of life, we lived at 14,232 ft of elevation, I’m very surprised I’m still alive. Much less, at nearly 75, still playing two person Beach Volley Ball in the deep sands of Manhattan Beach, Ca.
(Of course, being a paratrooper. deep sea diver, climber, spelunker, etc., etc. is not too good for life expectancy either.)
Last, IF I could get pot and could afford it, I would damn well be smoking it often.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 4:58 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
OPPS SORRY!!!!
I did not realize part of my last post had posted before.
With my old WebTV & this stites software SOMETIMES I know I was successful in my attempt to post and other times, I have NO clue!
So AGAIN, I’m SORRY!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 5:09 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
OPPS SORRY!!!!
I did not realize part of my last post had posted before.
With my old WebTV & this sites software SOMETIMES I know I was successful in my attempt to post and other times, I have NO clue!
So AGAIN, I’m SORRY!
—————
Hey WAXX
You are so full of BS I will bet you have brown eyes and it dribbles from your nose & ears as
well as your idiot mouth!
HAVE YOU EVER USED POT TO TREAT ANY MEDICAL PROBLEMS?
IF NOT, SHUT THE HELL UP! As YOU CHILD have NO clue
as to the FCTS!
“Science is the on going, ever expanding, never ending and self– correcting search for truth.”
Which CHILD, IS how I live my life. I GO where the FACTS take me!
The odds of YOU (or anyone else) being able to DISPROVE ANYTHING on ANY subject I chose to comment on are so close to zero, they may as well be zero!
You talk of science, facts, etc. while you most probably believe in one of the hundreds of thousands of MYTHS, just little childish superstitions called religions.
YOU probably believe in one, or more, of the over 25,000 plus named “gods” humans have invented so far.
IF you are religious and you talk of science being the end all of every thing, you are a HYPOCRITE!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 6:29 pmBonze Saunders says:
(Lisa Waxx) “I’m going to become a vegetarian.”
(Homer Waxx) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?”
“Yes.”
“Bacon?”
“Yes Dad!”
“Ham?”
“Dad all those meats come from the same animal!”
“Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!””
All a the above plus lotsnlots more, but acourse thas just what sick people gettin high say. Thas why “Doctor” Lester Grinspoon refers to it as a “miracle drug”: heez a librul, coz he seen his son eatin after chemo when his wife done slipped his son a joint without atellin him! So whas he gonna do? Call the police? NAW! “Oh that wuz MEDICINE!”
The DEAs been heroically preventin clinical trials ta stop this librul mennis afore librul “sinetists” make a mockery a farmacology by “substantiatin” these “anecdotal” claims with their preverted “double blind studies”!
An acourse, “DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young wrote that cannabis in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man” coz, dammit, heez a librul, not on accounta the lethal dose a smokin that weed is mehsured by tunnage per hour!
I ainna goin inta a loooong borin list a government commiessions (Indian Hemp Commiession, Shafer Commiession, LaGuardia Commiession, LeDain commiession) splainin that marijuana aint totally eeeevil because alla these commie-issions wuz infiltrated by libruls out to undermine our Way A Life!
An acourse any body prattlin that growin marijuana for their “medicine” in hizzen own basement fer $400/yr is a better deal than Sativex fer $10,000/yr is a librul schemer out to undermine the foundations a our society by comparin “soiled, contaminated, genetically dubious, smoky, unpredictable quantities of CHEAP THC/CBD/etc. to hygienically pure, cloned, sprayed, precisely dosed quantities of CLASSY THC/CBD/etc.”
An what a gall these libruls flaunt in public there even sayin smokin that reefer don’t cause cancer.
Ya know it’s a lie coz it’s done been printed in High Times!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 7:12 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The AMA Open to Medical Marijuana Research -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sunil and Yancey Thomas, Todd Reade. Todd Reade said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The AMA Open to Medical ...: And I think the rigorous testing of cannabi.. http://bit.ly/3SCZFA [...]
Ryan Waxx says:
Are you quite done making yourself look foolish?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:36 pmTom952 says:
That is sooooo funny! Go ahead and post it again — you’ll probably enjoy it just as much as you did the first time.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:25 pmRicardo says:
And you know this because of which published scientific study on the medical effectiveness of marijuana?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:26 pmRyan Waxx says:
Assuming that there are any honest debaters here, perhaps I should have more clearly emphasized that my focus was not to say there are no benefits to pot whatsoever, rather that there were no unique benefits... that each of the various things pot advocates claims it does, other drugs do them better (with the one exception of being able to grow the drug in your backyard).
Although, ascribing fictional positions to a person and then attacking the fictional position is such a commonplace here, I’m not sure there’s actually any such misunderstanding.
In any case... as I said earlier, even assuming that it does have any significant medical benefits(which it does not), the fact is that the effect of medical marijuana is that the prescription process is, as we speak, being corrupted to the point that people are going to demand some sort of controls being imposed, which are likely going to backlash on people who want REAL, ACTUAL pain medication instead of this... politically-driven psuedoscientific fantasy.
You want to get high, do it in an aboveboard fashion instead of turning doctors into dealers. It’s hard enough to get effective meds without you people practically writing the next 60 minutes expose of “pot docs”.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:27 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
Tom962,
My double posts are ACCIDENTS!
(And if you think otherwise, you are a world class retard!)
WAXX
It is your totally uninformed comments which are Foolish. They prove you have absolutely NO knowledge of the various medical conditions which marijuana has VERY EFFECTIVELY treated.
The FACTS are Marijuana HAS effectively treated various medical problems in MANY, MANY people in MANY countries and has done so for MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS
It seems the only thing which exceeds your infinite ignorance of the subject of use of marijuana to treat medical problems is your astronomical arrogance you have the slightest clue.
And I assure you child, you DO NOT!
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:42 pmRicardo says:
And this is based on which published scientific studies comparing the effectiveness of marijuana to other medicines across a broad cross-section of potential patients? The reason we have lots of different medicines available for any given ailment is that different medicines can affect a given individual differently. Doctors often have to change a patient’s prescription if the initial prescription (one that may well have been rigorously shown effective in clinical trials) does not work for the patient.
Again, based on which published studies? You seem to be missing the point. Member doctors of the AMA have decided there is a need for actual research into the potential medical benefits of marijuana. How many years of experience do you have treating AIDS and cancer patients?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:46 pmBonze Saunders says:
Steve Kubby.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:20 pmOren says:
God, even when I agree with NCR he’s a total ass. Lay off the caps already, if you must use emphasis, there are bold and italics icons right about the post box.
Interesting. So you can’t use ibuprofen because naproxen does the same thing (and actually works by the same mechanism)? No oxycontin either because it’s not unique — oxycodone provides all the same benefits.
IOW, I have never heard the idea that a drug must have unique effect in order to be of medical utility. Certainly that’s not the policy of the FDA at the moment.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:08 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
OREN,
In case, you have not figured it out, I LIKE CAPS! (Besides I do not know how to do those other things with my WebTV)
Nor do I take commands or abide by stupid rules. Doing so is for SHEEP!
Are YOU a sheep?
As far as my being an Ass.
WHY?
Because YOU can NOT handle the TRUTH?
Because I do NOT suffer fools much a all, supposedly intelligent fools and liars much less?
Because I am VERY Blunt, Honest and Truthful?
(The odds of meeting anyone who is MORE truthful than I am is ZERO!)
Because I KNOW what I am talking about?
(If I am wrong on ANY subject, PROVE IT!)
Because I say what I mean and mean what I say? Because I am not PC?
Next, what it seems those who post about scientific studies and how effective pot is for treating medical problems do NOT seem to get is:
A. Marijuana should have NEVER been made illegal in the first damn place!
B. It is ONLY illegal due to a Conspiracy, Money, Yellow Journalism, Racism, and Perjured testimony.
C. The AMA was AGAINST it being made illegal as they were already using it to treat medical problem and thought thy would discover more uses for it.
D. There are an estimated 400,000 in prison WHO SHOULD NOT BE THERE!
These people not only suffer for NO good reason, they could be out and working!
E. The COSTS we Taxpayers have to pay to keep them in prison is MILLIONS and MILLIONS A YEAR, EVERY YEAR!
F. Hemp USED to be used for MANY things Rope, Cloth, Paper and more. Now due to the STUPID laws it is restricted in use.
As I said before, ANYONE who smokes ANY type of tobacco and/or drinks ANY type of alcohol and still thinks pot should be illegal is a HYPOCRITE!
(And an ASSHOLE!)
Just why should others be able to enjoy tobacco and alcohol legally when POT is MANY, MANY, MANY times LESS bad for those who choose to use it?
THERE IS NO VALID REASON!
It should be legal and REASONABLY taxed!
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:41 amAnatid says:
Neil–
In internet etiquette, using capital letters is considered to be shouting, and is rude. Reading what you have typed has a similar effect as listening to someone who shouts word for emphasis in a sentence. As it is, your posts are abrasive to read because of the excess capitalization.
Eee PCs can be found for less than $300. Plus, they are tiny (9″ or 10″), so they have long battery life and are very portable. You don’t even need a USB mouse, the touchpad will do fine. Very cheap and easy way to be free from Web TV’s limitations. At a bare minimum, does your provider offer an attachment that allows for mouse as well as keyboard?
Italics and bold can also be accomplished with HTML. Use the following code, and replace the square brackets with angle brackets. You can also learn a bit of basic HTML for editing text at W3 Schools.
[strong]This text will be bold.[/strong]
[em]This text will be italicized.[/em]
[del]
This text will be crossed out.[/del][a href=“http://www.yoururl.com/”]This text acts as a link.[/a]
[blockquote]
[/blockquote]
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:33 amOren says:
It’s funny that you proceed to try to “convince” me of something I already believe and stated that I already agree with you on. Why bother?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:40 pmRyan Waxx says:
I’ll see you one Steve Kubby and raise you five people who believe in Dianetics and three that swear by ear candling.
Hey, while we’re at it, how much you want to bet I can’t find a few who swear that Jesus healed them?
The real problem here is that some people have defective skepticism when it comes to claims that they WANT to believe. If these same sources claimed that believing in god had the same effects, I bet you’d be finding problems with their testimony in a hurry.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:15 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
ANALID,
Thank you for your information.
I’ve living for nearly 75 years and I mostly do not follow any rules I am not in full agreement with. Doing so is for the SHEEP of the world. I have also been “internetting ” for over 10 years and I am well aware of the supposed rules.
ONLY I do NOT consider some, to many words here & there to be shouting. That said, I do consider entire e-mail s and/or perhaps entire paragraphs in caps to be shouting.
If some people CHOOSE to let their hang up on Caps get in the way of, to interfere with their comprehension skills in relationship to the content of the message, so be it. It IS their problem.
This IS the way in which I choose to communicate.
Again, THANK YOU for your input.
————–
OREN,
1. I am sorry you did not understand everything I posted AFTER “Because I
am not PC?” was NOT directed toward you in the least. (And I am at a loss why you did not understand it as the intent was clear.)
It WAS to ALL of those whose illogical arguments against marijuana being decriminalized due to some supposed lack of scientific studies or there are other ways to effectively treat what ever. These arguments have NOTHING to do with it and are mere smoke screens thrown up those who seem to have NO clue what the real issue is.
2. I note you did not inform me why you think I am such as ass. (I do admit to being a Grumpy Old Son Of a Beach and I am certainly far, far from being perfect.)
———
As far as WAXX and his comments on
SOME people having “Defective Skepticism”
Yes, they do and, it is more than “SOME” it is MANY.
On the other hand, SOME people, like a famous Skeptic James Randi, let their Skepticism over ride the fact what they are being informed is not only true, there are MANY, MANY FACTS to back it.
I KNOW Randi as done so as he has done it to me when he reported he was unable to get of the flu he had. I was willing to spend over $40,00 of my social security money and send him a bottle of a immune boosting MIRACLE I have been drinking and/or using topically now for over twelve years.
(It’s a junior “miracle” when I, an Agnostic Atheist Activist calls anything a “miracle”.)
Rather than his taking the time to look at the FACTS concerning it, he just called it “Snake Oil” he did not care about ANY proof which could be provided or that it has been used to effectively treat all kinds of things for over 5,000 years.
I did not care you could TEST IT for it’s fantastic abilities by simply measuring your Blood Pressure and Cholesterol Levels, then drink two ounces of it a day for a month. Then measure those levels again and you WILL see an improvement
(Unless you are some kind of a freak of nature)
You can also test it by accidentally burning yourself. This was just after a friend had given me a bottle of it and had told me it works on both the insides and outside of our bodies. (As well as ALL birds, reptiles, mammals and animals)
So here I was with the same size burn on two adjacent fingers. So I sez to myself:
“Self, here is a perfect way to test it, put in on one burn and not on the other one and see what happens”
The burn I did not put it on continued to hurt and left a scar. The other burn did not, I also used it on a large grease burn on my leg with the same positive results.
I used it to cure a toe nail fungus which YEARS of doctor prescribed medicine had not, I have used it cure Athletes foot in HALF the time of other treatments.
I Do NOT have the normal aches & pains of aging I HAD 12 years ago. I do NOT suffer the muscle soreness & fatigue the days after playing beach Vball which I USED to. (I am soon 75 and still playing two person Beach V-ball)
I NO longer need to use “Bag Balm” to stop the cracking of the skin on the bottoms of my feet!
(One day on what we call a ‘double sock’ I found the sand to be 134% so it is no wonder the skin on the bottoms of our feet dry out.)
I’ve it used to cure bites, cuts and sunburns. It has improved my sleep and my dreams.
It VASTLY slowed the graying of my bead and hair, it reduced the amount of my hair loss.
At age 63, I USED to occasionally were eye glasses and I have NOT used them in the last 12 years. And On & On & On with the GREAT things it has done and is doing for me. Even after over 12 years, it STILL amazes me.
So while Skepticism is fine, it also has it’s limits.
And giggle giggle, Randi and all other close minded fools like him will just continue to suffer more than they need to while the multi-millions like me who drink it every day, do not.
(Test shows its over 70% as effective as Morphine in treating pain. Other research
show it boosts our immune system over 160%)
FYI I used to get the flu around once a year, I have NO flu in the last 12 years.
SO SUFFER, RANDI ‘et al’ SUFFER!
While I, DO NOT!
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:15 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
DAMN. no matter how many times I read and reread what I have written, I later find errors. I have found IF I wait a day and then proof read, I catch most of my errors.
One example: Where
I wrote “I did not care you could TEST IT” it should be:
“HE did not care you could TEST IT”
So SORRY!!!
I hope you can figure out what my various mis communications mean.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:36 pmBonze Saunders says:
Your claim: there are no unique properties of cannabinoids.
Steve Kubby has survived adrenal cancer long beyond the limits predicted by the prognosis for this disease. The doctor (a specialist in the illness) who treated him in the first years of his illness: “In some amazing fashion, this medication [marijuana] has not only controlled the symptoms of the pheochromocytoma, but in my view, has arrested its growth.”
Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells. There’s a known mechanism for THC causing cancer cell death; this property probably explains why marijuana smokers don’t suffer from abnormal rates of lung cancer.
The third-party experts quoted in the article are still skeptical about results from smoking marijuana as a treatment for cancer; OTOH, their opinions do not result from the findings of clinical trials :->.
And some people have “defective skepticism” (skepticism in excess) when confronted with claims that they DON’T want to believe.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 8:06 amLargo says:
This just in: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells!
Quote
November 14, 2009, 8:49 amLargo says:
sOME pEOPLE choose tO gET hUNG uP oN nONSTANDARD uSE oF cASE. iF tHEY fIND iT iNTERFERES wITH tHE rATE oF tHEIR rEADING (iN wORDS pER mINUTE)–bUT dON’T cONSIDER tHE eXTRA eFFORT tO bE wORTH tHEIR tIME (cOMPARED tO tHE wORTH oF wHAT i hAVE tO sAY)–sO bE iT. iT is tHEIR pROBLEM.
tHIS is tHE wAY iN wHICH i (sOMETIMES) cHOOSE tO cOMMUNICATE.
rESPECTFULLY,
lARGO
Quote
November 14, 2009, 9:04 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
So Largo,
You poor little thing, are you really so totally & completely clueless you actually compare what you wrote with my using caps on various words?
Well child, I have been doing this for for over the ten years I have been netting. And I send the things I write to OVER 400 people.
MOST of these people have been receiving what I send for over eight years. Not only can they have me drop them from my lists at any time, NONE, not one of them have complained about it at all.
Of course, I am very sure all of them are MANY MANY TIMES more intelligent than you are.
Does your poor mommie have to help you put your clothes on and feed you? Do you eat retard pills or are you the way you are naturally from birth ?
Ta Ta Child, please don’t spill on your bib.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 1:25 amNeil C. Reinhardt says:
And Largo,
The odds of you having any brain cells for pot to kill is so miniscule you should not worry about it.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 1:39 amLargo says:
Oh, but I do compare them. What I wrote was far less legible than what you wrote. By orders of magnitude. Do you not agree? In fact, that is why I rarely, VERY rarely, write that way.
bUT wHY tHE cONDESCENCION?
Respectfully,
L.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 3:38 ammarkm says:
Laura(southernxyl): I’m thinking of articles I’ve seen here and there, that indicate that marijuana has at least as many carcinogens as tobacco, that it appears to lead to memory loss, and that its use is correlated to onset of schizophrenia.
How do these hazards compare to alcohol abuse?
Carcinogenic smoke: Most heavy drinkers smoke far more tobacco than anyone smokes MJ.
Memory loss: Get drunk once, and you kill some brain cells and possibly forget the whole evening. Continue drinking heavily and you won’t be able to remember much besides where you stashed the next bottle. I don’t know how MJ compares to that, but old winos generally look far more dysfunctional than old hippies...
Schizophrenia: Ever hear of alcoholic psychosis? Continuous heavy use of most any drug will seriously mess you up — and that includes all prescription drugs. OTOH, anyone who chooses to obliterate the real world on a continuing basis wasn’t mentally healthy to begin with.
And one final difference: A quart of 80 proof liquor has more than enough alcohol to kill you. Every year several frat boys will prove it. The lethal dose of marijuana is too high to measure.
The issue should not be whether MJ is more effective as a medication than various pharmaceuticals — it’s why a substance that is safer than aspirin and cheaper than prescription drugs is banned out of fear that someone might enjoy their medicine.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:47 am