Medical Marijuana

Just for good measure: LOL MARY JANE

Rambino wrote: Choop (and others) - I have no intention of spending 90 minutes watching a movie about pot.  The effort required would far exceed my care quota for this subject matter.   But I will go out on a limb and guess at the contents of the movie (feel free to correct/complete):   - Hemp is a totally awesome plant with many uses Yes - MJ was banned for economic reasons relating to hemp, not for any drug concerns Yes/no - MJ/THC is an awesome drug no - Synthetic THC just doesn't work as well don't remember - The pharmaceutical companies are conspiring to keep MJ illegal no   Pretty close?  If so, then I have heard it all before, and am not impressed.

It also talks about how much money is wasted fighting it, and other stuff that I can't even remember right now.

It's all about the time.  90 minutes... 

Rambino wrote: And this is the key.  This is exactly why the FDA will NEVER approve MJ in its natural form.  It is far too unpredictable.  Each of those individual compounds needs to be isolated and studied separately.  If one or more drugs can be developed that combine some or all the useful elements of MJ (Like Marinol), then those drugs could be approved by the FDA.  But an application based on "there are a bunch of things and stuff in the smoke" - not even close.  The FDA requires rigorous testing of all active ingredients.

You bring up very good points regarding FDA regulation. However, there is absolutely no synthetic procedure done to marijuana to develop it as a drug. It is simply plucked from plants, cured, and then smoked, vaporized, or eaten. I am not saying that the FDA should now approve of marijuana as a pharmaceutical drug, and I don't see them ever doing it, however the sole reason the FDA exists is to safeguard the public from harmful and potentially fatal drugs that are manufactured by drug companies.

This is a natural product that has been in use for thousands of years, and not a single reported death. There have been numerous studies on it's effects, many of them good, and some of them bad. I am willing to concede that marijuana is in no way a panacea for illnesses that could benefit from its use. I will say, contrarily, that even if the FDA has no business regulating marijuana, that doctors should be able to suggest it's use. The only reason it is currently prescribed is to bypass a bogus federal ban on the substance. If it were legal, a doctor could simply recommend its use. The proponents of "medicinal marijuana" are only in favor of legal prescription because there would be no other way for a patient to obtain and use marijuana in a federally compliant manner.

Rambino wrote: Not moot at all.  Irrelevant for general legalization, yes, but very much the center of the issue when specifically discussing medical marijuana.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'll clarify: if we can establish that marijuana is okay to use for medicinal purposes, then shouldn't a patient have the right to choose by which means they treat themselves? The way you make it sound, the FDA has the absolute say in which medicines we use. If I find a natural substance (that isn't illegal) that would alleviate my pain in a way prescription medication would, does the FDA have the right to tell me I have to buy their endorsed medicine? The answer is no, and I would classify cannabis in this regard. The FDA establishes which drugs are safe to use and regulates which artifical drugs are out on the market. It should have zero jurisdiction in what kind of plant I can grow and use in my backyard.

Lawles, the government DOESN'T bank big. I spends its ass off trying to prevent the drug trade.

Lawless wrote: Choop...come on man...you don't think the government makes a dime off the drug trade! Open your eyes my friend...and they don't "spend" on the "War on Drugs", they carefully waste.

Lawless wrote: Choop...come on man...you don't think the government makes a dime off the drug trade! Open your eyes my friend...and they don't "spend" on the "War on Drugs", they carefully waste.

You're kidding right? You have any idea how much of a financial drain the war on drugs is?

I'd like to know how they're making money off of this, so yeah, please do elaborate.

IMO the government is not making money off it, but plenty of private groups are.

Rambino wrote: Kind of.  The whole prescription drug system is build around the idea that we do need to be protected from ourselves in some circumstances.  Taking this logic to the final conclusion, no prescriptions should ever be required and Valium and Strychnine should be freely available at the grocery store.  That is certainly a defensible position, but it would be a fundamental change in the way we regulate substances.

I have to go to work in a couple of minutes, so I'll just address this point for now if that's fine with you.

There is a fundamental difference between Diazepam and Strychnine, and marijuana. With both of the former, there is a very real possibility of an overdose. This is impossible for marijuana. Also, Diazepam (or Valium) can lead to physiological dependence, whereas marijuana cannot. If you take a step back and look at the effects of marijuana, and then these two drugs, you'll see just how mild marijuana actually is. It's strain on the body is not so much a strain at all. Both of your drugs are also synthesized, leading to liabilities that cannot even begin to be covered by a grocery chain. The reason they need to be prescribed is because they have an inherent possibility to be dangerous, whether it is through overuse, overdependence, of just plain old bad manufacturing. This is not a problem with marijuana.

Coincidentally, I'm off to work at a grocery store (high school students need money, too). I will try to continue this later!

And you are right, it is certainly a defensible position. Even though no grocery store would sell such products because they would not sell in a manner that would be beneficial.