Sunday, March 22, 2009

Medical Marijuana

The new administration seems to be moving in the direction of accepting medical marijuana as a legitimate option for those people whose doctors feel they need it. How much of this is just a front for people who want to get high, do you think? If there is a significant percentage abusing this option, do you think that'll ruin it for the people who really need it, the glaucoma patients, for example?

It seems to me that for every person with a true medical need for marijuana, there are probably two or three who are just taking advantage of the situation. But, I think that's a good thing, as long as that abuse does not hinder the overall program. For me, marijuana should be the first drug to be removed from the so-called "war on drugs." Perhaps what happened in Massachusetts last year along with these recent announcements by the Attorney General is the beginning of the long-overdue reversal of America's attitude towards recreational drugs.

What's your opinion?


  1. When you have pain does the doctor give you black-tar opium?

    No they give you medical morphine because it is regulated for purity and strength. Plant matter is amorphous and subject to genetics and growing conditions making medical dosing with it impossible.

    "medical marijuana" is just like "Sensible gun control" it's a ruse designed to get the the public closer to their real goal. "medical marijuana's" goal is to legalize the drug for recreational use (hence the amount of abuse in the prescription system that has occurred). "Sensible gun control" is simply taking steps to banning of all firearms. This is why both groups are populated exclusively with liars or the ignorant.

    If you have a medical condition that can be treated with Tetrahydrocannabinol, you may be prescribed Dronabinol which is medically regulated and can be given in controlled therapeutic doses.

    You want to get high? Well write letters to your political representatives, and work to get legislation drafted. Sadly most lobbies who are poised to make progress in this field are too damn baked to get anything done.

  2. If you aren't free to put what you like in your own body, you aren't free. Marijuana should be legal, but if the best we can do is treat it like morphine, it is a step forward.

    It isn't something I pay close attention to, but last I heard the prescription forms of THC were in pill form, and didn't work well for combating chemotherapy nausea. Pot can be measured for THC content, and there isn't the relatively narrow gap between a therapeutic dose and an overdose that opiates have.

    We need a drastic overhaul on the war on drugs--there is too much collateral damage. Doctors often can't properly treat chronic pain, for fear of losing their license and being prosecuted.

    I would support controls on growing and storing pot, in an attempt to keep it from kids as best we can.

  3. "It isn't something I pay close attention to, but last I heard the prescription forms of THC were in pill form, and didn't work well for combating chemotherapy nausea. Pot can be measured for THC content, and there isn't the relatively narrow gap between a therapeutic dose and an overdose that opiates have."

    I've read similar claims, tho I haven't researched them for validity, as there is so much "research" funded by legalization groups, and we've all seen how deeply science can be perverted in the names of political causes. (see gun control, crime statistics, and Global Climate Change)

    Still if THC isn't the magic compound for illness X, then other compounds need to be extracted, formulated and tested.

    Certainly inhaling smoke is not ANYTHING an ethical doctor would recommend. Also again with the unregulated compound amounts as well as non-active ingredients, a prescription joint or pipe-hit is an FDA nightmare.

    Again tho, if we're talking about recreational drugs, then why aren't we talking about it?

    I don't disagree with their end goal, I do STRONGLY disagree with their dishonesty to achieve said goal.

  4. Those are good points Weer'd raises. I agree that the difficulty in measuring the dose if administered by inhaling smoke is a problem. Could the answer be what Sevesteen said, that it's not so critical what the dose is when we're talking about marijuana, not like morphine?

    I do find it difficult to write off the whole lot of them though. I can see some people taking advantage, but not the whole system as "dishonest."

  5. Unfortunately even if the other compounds have a wide therapeutic dose, tar, carbon monoxide, and decedents from burning material and smoke have NO value and cause lasting harm.

  6. "Certainly inhaling smoke is not ANYTHING an ethical doctor would recommend."


  7. Vapor != Smoke. And all the vaporizers I've seen are loaded with regulated medicine or uncontrolled non-toxic compounds like water or sailine.

    Again I have no problem with the stuff being used for recreation (not my cup o tea, I'll stick with a dry martini) but claiming it's medicine is a total farce, and is only being propigated for the same reason why those who want to ban all guns mumble about .50 caliber guns, and "Assault weapons". It's a starting point, not a goal, and it's based on a lie.

    I have no problem with their end-goal, I DO have a problem with their dishonesty, and using terminally illl people to push a falce flag.

  8. I'd agree that smoked marijuana has dangers, and it isn't suitable for trivial conditions.

    The main place where I see it as possibly worth the risks is to help chemotherapy patients. If you are vomiting enough that you can't get enough to eat, an oral medicine is unlikely to be effective.

    There is a problem with the system we use to approve drugs--there is a strong bias against stuff that can't be patented and therefore profited from

  9. "an oral medicine is unlikely to be effective. "

    Most of the compounds in marijuanna are lippophillic making trans-dermal patches very effective non-clinical dosage methods.

    Sub-lingual tablets also work very well when polar compounds are adminstered.

  10. I actually agree with Weer'd. I think it should be legal (or at least decriminalized) whether it's "medicinal" or not.

    I do think that marijuana does have some valid medicinal uses. Hell, it's a plant that grows in the wild.

    If some old lady with chronic pain has a plant in her garage for personal use I say good for her.

  11. But, do you think decriminalizing marijuana would help with the Mexican drug wars? In other words, what percentage of that business is about pot?

  12. MikeB,

    About legalizing drugs, how many automobile manufacturers, how many wooden furniture companies, how many t-shirt manufacturers, etc; have armed gangs to protect their product?

    The violence in Mexico is related to the drug trade but it is the greed of the people in Mexico that is responsible for the violence.

    Surely there is enough money to be made, legitimate or not, but the drug cartels aren't happy with a portion...that is what is causing the violence.