drugs are dumb
I would like to know where you got your so-called 'facts' from. Please post references. There has been extensive research done with medical mairjuana that points to this very beneficial plant being used for various medical problems. It helps with pain, wasting syndrome, stress & anxiety treatment, and much more. Compared to the other pain treatment options you have now (opiates) which have been proven to be MORE addictive and psychologically harmful then cannbis ever has, not to mention easy to overdose on.
I personally would choose to use this natural remedy far before I would ever start pumping myself full of a drug that is manipulated to make heroin and other strong painkillers. (Opiates, Noun, Any of various sedative narcotics containing opium or one or more of its natural or synthetic derivatives.)
As for it having tar? Just go to LA for a couple days and you will pick up enough toxic fumes to coat your lungs a nice blackish color...
The only real problems with it ? It does slow you down a bit if you use habitually, and those withdrawl effects are no joke. What does this mean ? That we simply have to use like responsible adults, like we would do with alcohol. You drink too much alcohol ? Puke city, breakouts, unappropriate behavior, in fact it's pretty easy to choke and DIE on your own vomit from simply drinking too much. Not to mention the irreversable brain damage that shys in comparison to the damage that THC facilitates. You think this drug should be legal and POT should be outlawed ? You are living in a dreamworld.
If anything we need to educate the masses about proper and educated use, how to be safe and how to not put themselfs in a dangerous situation. NOT this propoganda bullshit that has been spoon fed to you by our government. (and refuted by multiple paid government scientists)
I mean, just go back and look at those tapes that were released from nixons office that stated that after extensive clinical research with human test subjects that cannabis was actually safer and they started discussing decriminalization. But, due to the fact that we have people such as NIXON elected in the first place, the information was suppressed until just recently.
I don't think marijuana is a drug for everyone, no way, but the people who do choose to indulge for either medical or recreational use should not be prosecuted.Kevin Zeese, the President of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org), wrote a chilling note recently, presenting the political side of the marijuana health issue. Tapes have recently been released of President Nixon's discussions in the Oval Office during the 1970-1971 period. Congress was uncertain of the appropriateness of placing marijuana in Schedule I in the new Controlled Substances Act, and thus created a commission to research the subject and recommend a long-term strategy. Nixon did most of the appointing of the members, with Raymond Schafer being the Chairman (it became known as the Schafer Commission) and nine others. Most were pretty much law-and-order people and bigwigs from a law school here and a mental health hospital there. Four members of Congress served on it as well.
This Schafer Commission was officially known as the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, and it took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects and polled members of the criminal justice community. After reviewing all the evidence the commission came to an unexpected conclusion, unexpected to them, at least. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about removing it from the Federal drug law. Nixon heard about this, some months before the report was to be publicly released. He warned Schafer to get control of the Commission, and from the tapes one hears that they must avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders," who are "soft on marijuana."
Nonetheless, the Commission recommended the decriminalization or non-profit transfer of marijuana. No punishment -- criminal or civil -- under State or Federal law. The day before the Commission released its report, the tapes show that Nixon had a different opinion. "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Aiming towards the 1972 presidential election year, Nixon proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" that would make a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them." These tapes are at www.csdp.org.
drugs are dumb
Thank you for the reference for your "so called facts". Considering that it is a site for legalization of all kinds of drugs including the opiates you critisize I'll take their flaming editorials with a grain of salt.Originally Posted by datapimp
If you would like to post actual medical links though I'm sure they would be appreciated.
Take the time to read the entire thread, there are plenty of references.
And of course there is always google.
Hell, i'm all for the legalization of EVERYTHING. Personal freedom above all. You want to kill yourself ? Spend your days slamming heroin ? That is your perogative, but it's a waste...
Over 90% of contrabanned makes it through the borders EVERY DAY. There is obviously a market, and the key to abolishing irresponsible drug use is changing social views towards drug use, through education. Make it so people don't WANT to use drugs, and there is your key. Don't prosecute for a learned behavior. The problem is we are hardwired to accept and process complex chemicals, even our own body is capable of producing it's own source of morphine so living without them would be trifling, to say the least. Imagine surgery without anesthesia.
While you all seem to differentiate so much from 'illegal' and 'legal' drugs I see them as nothing more then chemical compounds. You weigh the benefits verses the drawbacks. You can get high on CAUGH SYRUP or DRAMAMINE if you want to, you can kill your liver with asprin, what does this mean to me ? There is a reason these drugs are being suppressed, good old fashioned ignorance. Even the army is starting to use MDMA (ecstacy) as postwar therapy for soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I'll be happy to find some articles attesting to these FACTS, just give me a minute.
A little offtopic here, but do you realize child molesters get off in HALF the time a drug trafficer would get ? That seems grossly disproportionate to me.
As an Oregonian I am privilaged with medical marijuana and education about the subject, there is even a television show which features local DOCTERS and retired police officers who are more then happy answer questions and dispel common myths.
Medical studies ? Give me a minute or two, i'll post back right quick.
Here is some information from NORML. Sources cited at the bottm.
Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Of all the negative consequences of prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal cannabis to the tens of thousands of patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.
Evidence Supporting Marijuana's Medical Value
Written references to the use marijuana as a medicine date back nearly 5,000 years. Western medicine embraced marijuana's medical properties in the mid-1800s, and by the beginning of the 20th century, physicians had published more than 100 papers in the Western medical literature recommending its use for a variety of disorders. Cannabis remained in the United States pharmacopoeia until 1941, removed only after Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act which severely hampered physicians from prescribing it. The American Medical Association (AMA) was one of the most vocal organizations to testify against the ban, arguing that it would deprive patients of a past, present and future medicine.
Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief -- particularly of neuropathic pain (pain from nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. Marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia. Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors and are neuroprotective.
Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations -- including the American Public Health Association  , Health Canada and the Federation of American Scientists -- support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision. (Click here for a complete listing of organizations.) Several others, including the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association support the facilitation of wide-scale, clinical research trials so that physicians may better assess cannabis' medical potential. In addition, a 1991 Harvard study found that 44 percent of oncologists had previously advised marijuana therapy to their patients. Fifty percent responded they would do so if marijuana was legal. A more recent national survey performed by researchers at Providence Rhode Island Hospital found that nearly half of physicians with opinions supported legalizing medical marijuana.
Government Commissions Back Legalization
Virtually every government-appointed commission to investigate marijuana's medical potential has issued favorable findings. These include the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1982 the Australian National Task Force on Cannabis in 1994 and the U.S. National Institutes of Health Workshop on Medical Marijuana in 1997.
More recently, Britain's House of Lord's Science and Technology Committee found in 1998 that the available evidence supported the legal use of medical cannabis. MPs determined: "The government should allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for medical use. ... Cannabis can be effective in some patients to relieve symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and against certain forms of pain. ... This evidence is enough to justify a change in the law." The Committee reaffirmed their support in a March 2001 follow-up report criticizing Parliament for failing to legalize the drug.
U.S. investigators reached a similar conclusion in 1999. After conducting a nearly two-year review of the medical literature, investigators at the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine affirmed: "Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs ... for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. ... Except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications." Nevertheless, the authors noted cannabis inhalation "would be advantageous" in the treatment of some diseases, and that marijuana's short- term medical benefits outweigh any smoking-related harms for some patients. Predictably, federal authorities failed to act upon the IOM's recommendations, and instead have elected to continue their long-standing policy of denying marijuana's medical value.
Administrative Ruling Supports Medical Use
NORML first raised this issue in 1972 in an administrative petition filed with the Drug Enforcement Administration. NORML's petition called on the federal government to reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule II drug so that physicians could legally prescribe it. Federal authorities initially refused to accept the petition until mandated to do so by the US Court of Appeals in 1974, and then refused to properly process it until again ordered by the Court in 1982.
Fourteen years after NORML's initial petition in 1986, the DEA finally held public hearings on the issue before an administrative law judge. Two years later, Judge Francis Young ruled that the therapeutic use of marijuana was recognized by a respected minority of the medical community, and that it met the standards of other legal medications. Young found: "Marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record." Young recommended, "The Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, to make it available as a legal medicine."
DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young's determination, choosing instead to invoke a differing set of criteria than those used by Judge Young. The Court of Appeals allowed Lawn's reversal to stand, effectively continuing the federal ban on the medical use of marijuana by seriously ill patients. It is urgent that state legislatures and the federal government act to correct this injustice.
Public Support for Medical Marijuana
Since 1996, voters in nine states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- have adopted initiatives exempting patients who use marijuana under a physician's supervision from state criminal penalties. (Click here for a summary of state medical marijuana laws.) In 1999, the Hawaii legislature ratified a similar law. These laws do not legalize marijuana or alter criminal penalties regarding the possession or cultivation of marijuana for recreational use. They merely provide a narrow exemption from state prosecution for defined patients who possess and use marijuana with their doctor's recommendation. Available evidence indicates that these laws are functioning as voters intended, and that reported abuses are minimal.
As the votes in these states suggest, the American public clearly distinguishes between the medical use and the recreational use of marijuana, and a majority support legalizing medical use for seriously ill patients. A March 2001 Pew Research Center poll reported that 73 percent of Americans support making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe, as did a 1999 Gallup poll. Similar support has been indicated in every other state and nationwide poll that has been conducted on the issue since 1995. (Click here for a complete listing of polls.) Arguably, few other public policy issues share the unequivocal support of the American public as this one.
Medical Marijuana and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled on May 14, 2001 that federal law makes no exceptions for growing or distributing marijuana by third party organizations (so-called "cannabis buyers' cooperatives"), even if the goal is to help seriously ill patients using marijuana as a medicine. Nevertheless, the Court's decision fails to infringe upon the rights of individual patients to use medical cannabis under state law, or the ability of legislators to pass laws exempting such patients from criminal penalties. This fact was affirmed by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter, who wrote in a concurring opinion: "By passing Proposition 215, California voters have decided that seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution under state laws for cultivating and possessing marijuana. ... This case does not call on the Court to deprive all such patients of the benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution when the case does not involve any such patients."
NORML filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in this case, and hoped the Court would protect California's patient-support efforts from federal prosecution. The sad result of this decision is that tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who use marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering no longer have a safe and secure source for their medical marijuana. NORML calls on our elected officials to correct this injustice and is currently lobbying Congress to legalize marijuana as a medicine.
Sources for above article.
1. L. Grinspoon and J. Bakalar. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine (second edition). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; B. Zimmerman et al. 1998. Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You? A Factual Guide to Medical Uses of Marijuana. New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing.
2. T. Mikuriya. (Ed.) 1973. Marijuana: Medical Papers 1839-1972. Oakland: Medi-Comp Press.
3. AMA (American Medical Association) Legislative Counsel William C. Woodword told Congress on July 12, 1937: "The obvious purpose of and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on the medicinal use [of cannabis] as to prevent such use altogether. ... It may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial benefit."
4. Several books explore this issue in further detail. These include: A. Mack and J. Joy. 2001. Marijuana as Medicine: The Science Beyond the Controversy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; L. Iverson. 2000. The Science of Marijuana. New York: Oxford University Press; B. Zimmerman et al. 1998. Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You?; C. Conrad. 1997. Hemp for Health: The Medicinal and Nutritional Uses of Cannabis Sativa. Rochester VT: Healing Arts Press; L. Grinspoon and J. Bakalar J. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine; E. Rosenthal et al. 1997. Marijuana Medical Handbook. Oakland: Quick American Archives; and R. Mechoulam. (Ed.) 1986. Cannabinoids as Therapeutic Agents. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
5. NSW (New South Wales) Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes. 2000. Report of the Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes. Sydney: Parliament House; J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence. London: The Stationary Office; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. New York: Lindesmith Center; Grinspoon and Bakalar. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine.
6. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.
7. I. Galve-Roperph et al. 2000. Antitumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation of ERK activation. Nature Medicine 6: 313-319.
8. M. Van der Stelt et al. 2001. Neuroprotection by delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity. The Journal of Neuroscience 21: 6475-6479; J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.
9. APHA (American Public Health Association) Resolution 9513: "Access to Therapeutic Marijuana/Cannabis," adopted November 1995 states in part, "[The APHA] encourages research of the therapeutic properties of various cannabinoids and combinations of cannabinoids, and ... urges the Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine."
10. Health Canada legalized the possession and cultivation of medical marijuana on July 31, 2001.
11. The FAS' (Federation of American Scientists) position on medical marijuana, adopted November 1994, states in part: "Based on much evidence, from patients and doctors alike, on the superior effectiveness and safety of whole cannabis compared to other medications, ... the President should instruct the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration to make efforts to enroll seriously ill patients whose physicians believe that whole cannabis would be helpful to their conditions in clinical trials, both to allow data-gathering and to provide an alternative to the black market while the scientific questions about the possible utility of cannabis are resolved."
12. In a July 24, 1997 letter to California Senator John Vasconcellos, American Cancer Society Legislative Advocate Theresa Renken wrote: "[California Senate Bill] 535 focuses on medical marijuana research. [The] American Cancer Society ... Supports S.B. 535 because it is consistent with our long-held position of supporting research of any agent or technique for which there may be evidence of a therapeutic advantage."
13. AMA (American Medical Association) Council on Scientific Affairs 1997 Report #10: Medical Marijuana contains the following statements supporting a physician's right to freely discuss marijuana therapy with a patient, and favoring further research into medical marijuana's therapeutic potential: "The AMA recommend that adequate and well-controlled studies of smoked marijuana be conducted in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy, including AIDS wasting syndrome, severe acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, dystonia and neuropathic pain."
14. R. Doblin and M. Kleiman. 1991. Marijuana as anti-emetic medicine: a survey of oncologists attitudes and experiences. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9: 1275-1280.
15. Reuters News Wire. April 23, 2001. "Physicians divided on medical marijuana."
16. "Cannabis and its derivatives have shown promise in a varieties of disorders. The evidence is most impressive in glaucoma, ... asthma, ... and in [combating] the nausea and vomiting of cancer chemotherapy. ... Smaller trials have suggested cannabis might also be useful in seizures, spasticity, and other nervous system disorders." Conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. 1982. Marijuana and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. "First, there is good evidence that THC is an effective anti-emetic agent for patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. ... Second, there is reasonable evidence for the potential efficacy of THC and marijuana in the treatment of glaucoma, especially in cases which have proved resistant to existing anti-glaucoma agents. Further research is ... required, but this should not prevent its use under medical supervision. ... Third, there is sufficient suggestive evidence of the potential usefulness of various cannabinoids as analgesic, anti- asthmatic, anti-spasmodic, and anti-convulsant agents." W. Hall et al. 1994. The health and psychological consequences of cannabis use: Monograph prepared for the National Task for on Cannabis. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
18. "Marijuana looks promising enough to recommend that there be new controlled studies done. The indications in which varying levels of interest was expressed are the following: appetite stimulation/cachexia, nausea and vomiting following anti-cancer therapy, neurological and movement disorders, analgesia [and] glaucoma." Conclusions of the National Institutes of Health. 1997. Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana: Report to the Director. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.
19. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report: Cannabis: the Scientific and Medical Evidence. London: The Stationary Office.
20. "Lords Say, Legalise Cannabis for Medical Use." 1998. Press Release. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Press Office.
21."We are concerned that the MCA [Medicines Control Agency] approach to the licensing of cannabis-based medicines ... place the requirements of safety and the needs of patients in an unacceptable balance. ... Patients with severe conditions such as multiple sclerosis are being denied the right to make informed choices about their medication. There is always some risk in taking any medication, ... but these concerns should not prevent them from having access to what promises to be the only effective medication available to them." Conclusion of the British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2001. Second Report: Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. London: The Stationary Office.
22. J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.
23. In the Matter of Marihuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket 86-22, Opinion, Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, September 6, 1988. Washington, DC: Drug Enforcement Administration.
24. Seventy-three percent of respondents supported allowing doctors "to prescribe marijuana." Sample size: 1,513.
25. Seventy-three percent of respondents said they "would vote for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe." Sample size: 1,018. Released March 1999.[/quote]
Ecstasy can block cancer growth 10-05-2005 14:42 (#3070400)
Ecstasy and anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac have the potential to stop cancer cell growth, research has found. A University of Birmingham, England, team tested the impact of amphetamine derivatives such as Ecstasy and weight-loss pills, and antidepressants including Prozac.
They found the drugs were effective at blocking cancer growth in more than half of lymphoma (white blood cell cancer) samples tested. It is hoped the FASEBJ Journal study will will lead to new cancer therapies.
The study focused on 17 samples of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and multiple myeloma.
Cancer growth was slowed down in nine out of the 17 samples when they were exposed to antidepressants, and in 11 out of 17 when exposed to one or both of the amphetamine derivatives.
Researcher Professor John Gordon said: "We think that a range of psychotropic agents that are being used, or sometimes abused, for other reasons will now help us in our fight against all different types of cancer.
"We are excited that drugs like Prozac are effective in killing these types of cancer cells, as these antidepressants are in such wide circulation and have an impressive safety record."
However, the researchers stressed that the use of ecstasy was not so straightforward - the dose required to block cancer growth was so high it would kill the patient.
Dr Nick Barnes, who also worked on the study, said he was still hopeful the drug could be one day be used to combat cancer.
"Perhaps by breaking down the actions of this designer drug we can extract its cancer killing properties from more general toxic effects associated with its use.
The research was supported by the Leukaemia Research Fund. Spokesman Dr David Grant welcomed the findings.
He said: "Around 10,000 people are diagnosed with a lymphoma in the UK each year and so the possibility that some of these patients can be treated with antidepressants that have cancer-killing properties is truly remarkable.
"Clearly there is a lot more work to do before this became a reality but it is very exciting that there may be other, much less aggressive ways, of treating this particular cancer."
10th May 2005 from BBC news website.
Doctors 'recommend cannabis use' 19-03-2005 03:56 (#2870123)
One in six people who take cannabis for pain relief say their doctor advised them to use it, a survey suggests.
The UK survey, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, asked just under 1,000 people about their use of the drug.
Almost 70% said cannabis significantly relieved their symptoms - 45% said it worked better than prescribed drugs.
But the British Medical Association said it had never heard of a doctor recommending the drug.
The survey was sent out to people who contacted the company GW Pharmaceuticals because they were interested in its research into using cannabinoids as treatments.
People with chronic pain were most likely to use cannabis for medicinal purposes (25%) followed by patients with multiple sclerosis (22%), depression (22%) arthritis (21%) and neuropathy, or nerve disorders (19%).
Most people used the drug at least once a week with a third of those surveyed said they used cannabis six or seven days a week.
Younger people, men and those who had used cannabis recreationally were also more likely to use cannabis for medicinal reasons.
Two thirds said a friend, or family member had suggested they take the drug, but 16% said their doctor had suggested it.
And 45% said cannabis worked better than prescribed medication.
'Harness the benefits'
Dr Mark Ware from McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Canada, told the BBC News website: "The results show that people with a wide range of conditions thought cannabis had benefits.
Dr Ware, who conducted his research with GW Pharmaceuticals, added: "To our knowledge this is the most extensive survey of medicinal cannabis use among chronically ill patients conducted to date."
A spokeswoman for the charity Drugscope said: "The medicinal benefits of cannabis have been widely discussed for some time, and pharmaceutical research is ongoing into finding a way of harnessing those benefits in an effective way."
She added: "I suspect doctors do sometimes say to patients that there's nothing else they can currently give them to relieve their pain, but that cannabis could work."
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said: "We are not aware of this happening".
But she said the BMA wanted certain cannabinoids - chemicals extracted from the drug - to be legalised for wider medicinal use.
Doctors 'recommend cannabis use'
March 19, 2005