Medicinal - Recreational - Political and generally being a weed fiend.

[rangrz]

The medical and recreational effects are easily separated. You can argue the psychoactive effects and medical effects are not separable, but that is generally true for benzos, opiates, and amphetamine too. The essential difference is medicinal use would be directed at treating an an actual disease, with an actual underlying pathology, or manifestations thereof, whereas recreational use, by definition, is for the lulz.

The self reported merits of the legions of self-"medicating" cannabis "patients" are dubious at best. They usually make no reference to the background theory of the subject and seem to dispense with ALL of the rigor usually associated with any sort of physical science in general and specifically to those accepted as best practice in medicine.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

I agree rangrz but in response to this:

The self reported merits of the legions of self-"medicating" cannabis "patients" are dubious at best. They usually make no reference to the background theory of the subject and seem to dispense with ALL of the rigor usually associated with any sort of physical science in general and specifically to those accepted as best practice in medicine.

I would say that's not surprising if most of them don't have a background in medicine/science. In addition, its schedule 1 status precludes it from going through the same route of approval by the FDA (in the US) as other drugs. So unfortunately many have to rely on a (rather large) body of anecdotal literature instead. If the toxicity profile were no so low in comparison to many OTC medicines this would be a major issue but fortunately for many illnesses the potential benefits of a positive outcome received from trialing the drug outweigh any possible side effects of the drug. The downside is that there is the risk of it being oversold, perhaps even for minor conditions that could easily be treated successfully through other means and dare I say this is the situation we are in, with many people viewing it as a medical panacea when it clearly is not. Rick Simpson and his run from the cure video is a prime example of this.

Until things change we're in a catch-22; major research into therapeutic uses of the herb is unlikely to be done until it's removed from its schedule 1 status and the government is unlikely to move it down to schedule 2 or 3 until more promising research into it's medicinal use is made available. Of course they purposefully like maintaining the status quo but that's another discussion entirely.

Though as someone has pointed out, with low THC and high CBD(which I havn't tried). The user can have the medicinal effects without feeling, 'high'/'stoned'

Yes sometimes but not always from my experience.

This was for me, more a discussion, looking at recreational users saying there medicinal users. When in actual fact, they just want to smoke. Which in some way does go towards dampening the medical movement.

Given that it seems to be a common theme that many people with legitimate documented serious medical conditions often do not get relief from high CBD low THC genotypes, I'm not exactly sure what you suggest we do about it, since high CBD, low THC strains would be inadequate for lots medicinal users suffering from say MS for example. A lot of medicinal users take just enough to treat their symptoms and do not get high, or if they it's at a level that doesn't interfere with their everyday functioning. At the end of the day most people don't want to be high all day every day. And the medicinal users I see aren't just 22 year old hippies, but elderly women, professionals, middle aged people that just want to be able to live their life without suffering of feeling pain, so I don't think it's helpful to be so cynical. Please don't get me wrong, the system is definitely not perfect and it is definitely abused but for all its faults it's a lot better than the way it used to be. I really don't see what the alternative is but if you have any ideas, please do fire away.

FYI during GW pharma's research they found a similar issue and settled on a 50/50 THC/CBD mixture in the end because the mostly CBD genotypes were not as efficacious IIRC.

One more thing I'd like to add by the way. Your main point is that this abuse of the system you're talking about gives it a bad image, but I believe the evidence actually shows otherwise:

Medical marijuana:

NSFW:

Nearly three out of four Americans believe that the federal government should respect state laws regarding medical marijuana and halt raids on dispensaries, according to a poll released Wednesday.

“These results are consistent with the clear and growing body of evidence that documents substantial voter support for the legalization of medical marijuana,” said Larry Harris, a principal with Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

The polling agency found that 74 percent of Americans believed the federal government should respect states’ medical marijuana laws. Support for medical marijuana laws was highest among Independents, at 79 percent, and lowest among Republicans, at 67 percent. Younger age groups were more likely to think the federal government should respect medical marijuana laws than older age groups.

“The results of this survey demonstrate that there is virtually no support in the country for the Obama administration’s crackdown on state medical marijuana laws,” said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project.

“Across all demographic and ideological groups, the American people strongly believe the president should respect state medical marijuana laws, as he promised he would when he campaigned to be president. It is clearly time for President Obama to stand up to the members of his administration who are carrying out the morally wrong and politically unpopular policy of denying patients safe access to this beneficial medicine.”

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of medical marijuana. However, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration still classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug: the most restrictive classification reserved for dangerous drugs with no real medical value.

Following the election of President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice had suggested that it would not target state-authorized medical marijuana providers. The agency later clarified that it would still treat medical marijuana providers as criminal enterprises, although it believed prosecuting medical marijuana patients was not a good use of resources.

But marijuana advocates have told Raw Story that the Obama administration has staged “more than 200″ raids in the last three years — making his presidency far “worse than Bush” for drug reform advocates.

Source: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d7Wu)

Marijuana for personal use:

NSFW:

 

[Chainer]

can someone give me a tl;dr version of this thread? I've read through a good ton of this but some of the posts are HUGE and the formatting is a pain in ze brain.

I don't get what you want from us. We all want cannabis regulated. We all want people in pain that need cannabis to cope with daily life to get it. We all want to let the smokers smoke. We all know california's way of doing things is being abused by nearly everyone. It would be great if we could breed insanely medicinal cannabis.... but I think that is a role that synthetics will one day cover more then natural cannabis, due to the ease of altering the structure. This is obviously a ways off, theoretical, and belongs elsewhere.

I'm having trouble with the main point of this thread.

 

[Hear Me Roar]

The point has kind of been staggered, from the main ideology I was trying to put forward.
I guess in the simplest possible way, its a discussion based on -
Recreational users, who clearly aren't medicinal users, falsely hiding behind the label of a medicinal user. Giving such a movement a bad image. Not all recreational cannabis users of course.
Which in turn hinders the medicinal movement. As in other Countrys, like America, medicinal cannabis will and probably be looked at being legalised in its raw form first, before recreational use is looked at. Though it's hard for a Country which is so reserved like the UK, to take medicinal cannabis as a whole seriously, when there are so many people claiming medicinal use when there really in it for recreational use. Yes this point can be argued(an it has been throughout this thread).

I guess that's why I put across the fictional idea, of medicinal cannabis having no recreational value and how many people would switch if that was the case, because they'd rather get high. Yes, the, 'high', does have some factors when looking at it being a medicine for depression, anxiety etc... but for the sake of the thread, I put forward the idea that this fictional cannabis, still has ALL the medicinal factors cannabis has now, it just didn't get you high. In turn questioning, how many people would jump ship, because they can't get high and go back to smoking 'regular' cannabis. With a non-medicinal agender. (All fictional. I've just proposed this idea, to get people thinking).

I mean codeine gives me a high, but if it didn't, I'd still use it as a pain med regardless.

I think that is a role that synthetics will one day cover more then natural cannabis.

This is kind of my point. If the pharma company's synthesized a med(which they kind of have already), so it had all the medicinal benefits cannabis has, yet without the, 'high'. An instead of raw cannabis, they are prescribed this medication for there ailment. How many so called, medicinal users, would not take the medication, because there actually recreational users hiding under false pretence.

I'm not tarnishing all pot smokers with the same brush, as there's idiots in all walks of life. I just feel, cannabis, harbours a lot of lazy, selfish individuals, who don't do anything for the image of medicinal cannabis, or even recreational cannabis for that matter. An slow down progress in other Country's.

I find it quite enjoyable to hear others opinions on the subject.

 

[Hear Me Roar]

A lot of medicinal users take just enough to treat their symptoms and do not get high, or if they it's at a level that doesn't interfere with their everyday functioning. At the end of the day most people don't want to be high all day every day. And the medicinal users I see aren't just 22 year old hippies, but elderly women, professionals, middle aged people that just want to be able to live their life without suffering of feeling pain, so I don't think it's helpful to be so cynical.

I'm being far from cynical, against actual medicinal users. If anything, in the sense of this discussion, I'm fighting for there rights as the ill, to have access to such medicine. I'm being cynical of those who aren't medicinal users, but claim to be.
Of which I don't mean -
Pain sufferers
Those going through cancer treatment
MS Sufferers and people with long term degenerative diseases.
Chronic insomniacs, who actually, use there medication for sleep.
Those with mental illness (tho this can be help/hazard)
and others with a high severity.

If you want to go home, after a hard days work, smoke a joint. Be my guest. The same as a person would if they have a beer. That's recreation and someone who used cannabis this way, would call it recreation.

But someone who smokes, for say, 'depression', yet has no depression, but just sits around feeling sorry for himself, smoking copious amounts of cannabis and calls it medicine. Isn't doing himself or the medicinal movement any good. I feel, not just in this example, but others, a segment of cannabis users, who are recreational users, do this.

Cannabis CAN be psychologically damaging when abused. Look through the forum, the effects are clear. Whether people would like to admit it or not.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

I'm being far from cynical, against actual medicinal users. If anything, in the sense of this discussion, I'm fighting for there rights as the ill, to have access to such medicine. I'm being cynical of those who aren't medicinal users, but claim to be.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I said you're being cynical about medicinal users, although I'm not sure you get what I mean by that. See this quote:

Yes, cannabis does have medicinal value, but I think ALOT (sic), hide behind that fact, so they can carry on excessive recreational use, purely craving the, feeling, rather than the medicinal properties regarding the plant.

Cynical definition: Believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.

If you want to go home, after a hard days work, smoke a joint. Be my guest.

Then I suggest simply campaigning for full on legalisation of decriminalisation of recreational use to remedy the issue you're talking about instead of complaining about what you don't know how to fix.

But someone who smokes, for say, 'depression', yet has no depression, but just sits around feeling sorry for himself, smoking copious amounts of cannabis and calls it medicine. Isn't doing himself or the medicinal movement any good. I feel, not just in this example, but others, a segment of cannabis users, who are recreational users, do this.

So what do you suggest that they do about this?

Isn't doing himself or the medicinal movement any good.

As said above the medicinal movement has never been so popular with the general public, so it hasn't exactly been damaging. See below:

Nearly three out of four Americans believe that the federal government should respect state laws regarding medical marijuana and halt raids on dispensaries, according to a poll released Wednesday.

It seems like it's mainly people like Fox news and other right wing social conservatives that complain the loudest about abuse of the system whereas public opinion has been rapidly shifting in favor of allowing patients safe access to medical marijuana. This shift coincided with the widespread introduction of dispensaries, so if the public had such a problem with it then the polls would indicate their dissatisfaction.

Cannabis CAN be psychologically damaging when abused.

No shit. Not sure what that's got to do with it though.

 

[nekointheclouds]

I guess that's why I put across the fictional idea, of medicinal cannabis having no recreational value and how many people would switch if that was the case, because they'd rather get high. Yes, the, 'high', does have some factors when looking at it being a medicine for depression, anxiety etc... but for the sake of the thread, I put forward the idea that this fictional cannabis, still has ALL the medicinal factors cannabis has now, it just didn't get you high. In turn questioning, how many people would jump ship, because they can't get high and go back to smoking 'regular' cannabis. With a non-medicinal agender. (All fictional. I've just proposed this idea, to get people thinking).

I mean codeine gives me a high, but if it didn't, I'd still use it as a pain med regardless.

I just dont think its as simple as that. I think with many drugs there really is no way to separate the "high" from the the benefits of the drug because the high you get is also what is helping you or is too directly to what is also helping you(like in many pain killers). I think of Benzo drugs, something used to treat anxiety. In cases of a person feeling manic or panicky, their emotions are running so high that a therapeutic dose puts them at baseline. There are cases where the same could for said for pot, i think of anxiety as one and also also for sleepy since party of that drowsiness one gets is from the high as well. I mean when the high is part of the benefit, like for relief of pain which many people do get and are able to greatly reduce their narcotic pain killer use, theres always gonna be some issues.

I'm not tarnishing all pot smokers with the same brush, as there's idiots in all walks of life. I just feel, cannabis, harbours a lot of lazy, selfish individuals, who don't do anything for the image of medicinal cannabis, or even recreational cannabis for that matter. An slow down progress in other Country's.

I find it quite enjoyable to hear others opinions on the subject.

You know i personally have known many pot heads through out my life, or pot users at those times in their lives, and never were they lazy people, and no more selfish than the average person. Atleast not is people who stickily smoked cannabis. Most of the pot smokers iv know, even the ones who were not in college like I, were hard workers. Im not saying there are some lazy pot heads...but there are lazy people who dont smoke pot. I'm not some miracle case of a person who's been using cannabis over half their life and is still very driven. I think if anything there are far more driven and intelligent people out there who have and do use cannabis and go very far in life but you might never know because they work hard to keep it quiet because its illegal. So those people who dont have much going anyways and have no kind of reputation to preserve are the people who blast being potheads and thats where we get this idea of the lazy pot head.

 

[Hear Me Roar]

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

No sorry, I don't think you've understood me. It's an ideology, I'm not a protester I'm a thinker. I don't have to fix something to think about it.
I can't discuss something with someone, who's going to get pissy over an IDEA, neither when you keep going back, time and time again to America.

I do have a dictionary, I do know what cynical means. I'm not being cynical. Purely because it's an idea. You don't seem to grasp, it's ONE idea. Maybe a cynical idea, but as a person I'm certainly not cynical.

But I think this thread has run it's course. It was never meant to be solely political. Though it has been made this way.

Cheers for the discussion, though it's nothing I haven't heard from a fellow cannabis user before.

Peace
HMR x

 

[Hazey420]

If they legalised cannabis medicinally, WorldWide, in herbal form/preferred forms. But kept recreational cannabis normal (you'll understand.next line).
BUT
Made it so you couldn't get, 'high'/'stoned', off the medicinal form, but it still had all the medicinal properties it does (theoretically, this question is more political then scientific. Don't just shoot me down on the scientific basis of it.)

How many of the current medicinal patients would switch from being medicinal users to recreational users?

It's not just about getting high right?.... right...?

Yes, cannabis does have medicinal value, but I think ALOT, hide behind that fact, so they can carry on excessive recreational use, purely craving the, feeling, rather than the medicinal properties regarding the plant. yes yes yes, some of the anxiety and the depression factors of the plant comes from the feeling blah blah. But for the sake of this question.

Lets make it as basic as. -
In a new system...

Medicinal cannabis is made so it has no recreational value only medicinal.
Were as recreational cannabis stays the same as it is now.
How many of the current medicinal patients would switch from being medicinal users to recreational users?

I'm a recreational user on a break. I use responsibly and take breaks when it kicks me up the backside. I'd say it doesn't have medicinal effects for me, though I know some people, who it does. An I also know some who say, they use it for anxiety and depression, yet the 'erb is exacerbating there symptoms. An it ruins a good argument when people hide behind
false pretence.

I use medicnal weed everyday, for my pain, Its weird, when I was younger like in my 20s I smoked everyday to get high, then I got hurt at work, and everything stopped, so now as I am older I use it for pain not to get high...and I am grateful that the dispensaries are here and are legal for people in major pain, not just someone who makes an excuse and acts like they are in pain. All I have known for 20 years is my pain and some days are just worse then others. I thank the Herb Gods every day!!

 

[Artificial Emotion]

No sorry, I don't think you've understood me. It's an ideology, I'm not a protester I'm a thinker. I don't have to fix something to think about it.

So far I don't see the point in the thread then. As far as I can see you just want to complain about there being lots of people that take advantage of the system. If you're a thinker then why don't you discuss how the situation can be remedied? You haven't done so much thinking as ranting.

I can't discuss something with someone, who's going to get pissy over an IDEA, neither when you keep going back, time and time again to America.

You yourself keep referring to America.

But I would gladly give up my right to smoke weed and help the medicinal movement, for someone who say, has cancer, over my right to smoke. Everyone has the right to smoke. But places like the UK, we don't legally have the right. An when flawed systems like America, which is clearly a joke, exist. Makes it harder for other Country's like the UK, to take such a system seriously.

someone, who's going to get pissy over an IDEA

I'm not getting 'pissy' lol I've been perfectly civil and it's just a discussion. There have been no insults so if you can't/won't have a discussion/debate then fair enough. Do you just expect people to agree with you and bite their tongue even though they question what you're saying? This is a discussion forum and so expect some of your points and ideas to be challenged. Just because I might not agree with everything you say it doesn't mean I'm having a go at you or are attacking you. Discussion on these forums might get heated but that's always been a part of discussion forum anywhere.

I do have a dictionary, I do know what cynical means. I'm not being cynical. Purely because it's an idea. You don't seem to grasp, it's ONE idea. Maybe a cynical idea, but as a person I'm certainly not cynical.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're not cynical 'because it's an idea'. I'm not calling you a cynical person, I'm saying you in your criticism of the system of access to medical cannabis where you imply abuse of the system for personal recreational use is widespread is cynical. That should be quite clear. It seems like you're just trying to play with words tbh.

It was never meant to be solely political. Though it has been made this way.

You still haven't addressed the main thrust of the points I've made. All you're saying is no I'm not cynical, you're being pissy etc. So again, instead of complaining about the system, why don't you actually discuss solutions? Or is the whole point of the thread just to have a rant about the way things are and to stigmatize cannabis users as lazy, selfish people who just want to get high? And by the way, no, challenging you to actually be constructive and make suggestions about how the system can be improved doesn't mean I'm saying you should fix it yourself.

Cheers for the discussion, though it's nothing I haven't heard from a fellow cannabis user before.

You're welcome. Any time.

 

[rangrz]

I agree rangrz but in response to this:



I would say that's not surprising if most of them don't have a background in medicine/science. In addition, its schedule 1 status precludes it from going through the same route of approval by the FDA (in the US) as other drugs. So unfortunately many have to rely on a (rather large) body of anecdotal literature instead. If the toxicity profile were no so low in comparison to many OTC medicines this would be a major issue but fortunately for many illnesses the potential benefits of a positive outcome received from trialing the drug outweigh any possible side effects of the drug. The downside is that there is the risk of it being oversold, perhaps even for minor conditions that could easily be treated successfully through other means and dare I say this is the situation we are in, with many people viewing it as a medical panacea when it clearly is not. Rick Simpson and his run from the cure video is a prime example of this.

Until things change we're in a catch-22; major research into therapeutic uses of the herb is unlikely to be done until it's removed from its schedule 1 status and the government is unlikely to move it down to schedule 2 or 3 until more promising research into it's medicinal use is made available. Of course they purposefully like maintaining the status quo but that's another discussion entirely.

But just because they don't have the background to give it a rigorous treatment does not mean that methodologically flawed information suddenly becomes credible.

On a certain level, many of the, erm, I'll be VERY generous and call them case reports, are flawed in a way that exceeds simply not having a deep background in medicine. It is to the point of not having a background in either logic or reality.

What do I mean? One of them is a tendency to use the naturalistic fallacy. "Because cannabis is natural, it is therefore good, or at least not bad, on that simple fact." It takes very little familiarity with the general tenants of modern medicine see why that just ain't so. I don't mean having university studies in the life sciences, I mean having read a few newspapers, gone to high-school or otherwise having the general notion of things like "Bacteria and Viruses can be infectious!" or "Some types of mushrooms and even rocks are quite poisonous." type of understanding. That refutes on a logical level, the concept that "natural=good". The empirical support for cannabis specifically is now a separate issue and not realizing that requires one to be a) unable to use basic logic or b) having deluded oneself to a very deep level.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. "I smoked cannabis and then I got less sick; therefore the cannabis was the cause of that." I once ate a hamburger about half an hour before a solar proton event, therefore; eating hamburgers causes the Sun to eject mass from itself in abnormally violent manner.

Argument to (inappropriate) authority. A quote from a musician, athlete, political activist, or even a random scientist with no relation to biology or medicine[I dunno, like a semi-conductor engineer or a geochemist) is not really much of an argument in favor of it's medicinal properties, and this should, imo, be evident to someone without a science background.

The last one. If you clearly have no idea what the hell you are saying even means, you probably have nothing of value to add. Case in point, I was talking to someone at headshop, and they where saying cannabis is an immune simulator. I asked them "Like how/in what way?" and they gave me VERY jargony reply that amounted to "It mimics the effect of Granulocyte colony stimulating factor." I was intrigued by that by and asked what effects it had on lymphocytes and monocytes, if any. They gave me a blank look and upon pressing, they stated they don't know what any of those are and that they read it on a blog. ... If you don't even know what the words mean, it should be apparent you don't know the hell you are talking about.

Etc...

That no research exists on cannabis as a medicine/ or in bioscience fields in general? Not true, there is a HUGE body of scientific literature on Cannabis. Google scholar has 34,000 results for "cannabis therapeutic" and over 70,000 for "cannabis medical" and 101,000 for "marijuana medical" [vs 48,000 for sirolimus a somewhat obscure but approved and non-controlled drug that is more interesting on a biological level] many of them in very prestigious journals like The Lancet, Nature, Journ Amer Med Ass. Granted, the text is dense, verbose and does require a familiarity with medicine/biology on some level and more generally how to read scientific journals. Yes, most of the articles are likely to be quite irrelevant to anyone not in a specialized research field...but there are a lot of of them that are quite relevant to actual, real life, clinical use. Hell, as far as science journal articles go, medicine is probably one of the easiest and most understandable[compare to particle physics for e.g.], and the ones on cannabis seem less jargon filled and complex then most medicine papers.[compare to electrophysiology for e.g. ]

The SCI thing probably is not as big a deal as one might think. Being scheduled seems to be relatively small impediment to serious research, and a lot of research is done elsewhere in any event.

Sorry for the long post, but medical cannabis is an area that is subject to so much "woo" that I cringe and wince. I think the woo does harm to both medical legalization and recreational legalization because it makes the entire topic look silly. Part of that woo is extending legitimate medical research into reasons why recreational use is not only not a bad thing/something people should be allowed on basic freedoms ground into "It's like totally awesome for you because in vitro it inhibits a certain protein synthesis in astrocyte glioblastoma cell lines!" Either misunderstanding the concept/meaning or else using it explicitly or implicitly (to deal with cognitive dissonance on using recreational drugs) in a deceitful manner.

I'll STFU now.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

But just because they don't have the background to give it a rigorous treatment does not mean that methodologically flawed information suddenly becomes credible.

On a certain level, many of the, erm, I'll be VERY generous and call them case reports, are flawed in a way that exceeds simply not having a deep background in medicine. It is to the point of not having a background in either logic or reality.

What do I mean? One of them is a tendency to use the naturalistic fallacy. "Because cannabis is natural, it is therefore good, or at least not bad, on that simple fact." It takes very little familiarity with the general tenants of modern medicine see why that just ain't so. I don't mean having university studies in the life sciences, I mean having read a few newspapers, gone to high-school or otherwise having the general notion of things like "Bacteria and Viruses can be infectious!" or "Some types of mushrooms and even rocks are quite poisonous." type of understanding. That refutes on a logical level, the concept that "natural=good". The empirical support for cannabis specifically is now a separate issue and not realizing that requires one to be a) unable to use basic logic or b) having deluded oneself to a very deep level.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. "I smoked cannabis and then I got less sick; therefore the cannabis was the cause of that." I once ate a hamburger about half an hour before a solar proton event, therefore; eating hamburgers causes the Sun to eject mass from itself in abnormally violent manner.

Argument to (inappropriate) authority. A quote from a musician, athlete, political activist, or even a random scientist with no relation to biology or medicine[I dunno, like a semi-conductor engineer or a geochemist) is not really much of an argument in favor of it's medicinal properties, and this should, imo, be evident to someone without a science background.

The last one. If you clearly have no idea what the hell you are saying even means, you probably have nothing of value to add. Case in point, I was talking to someone at headshop, and they where saying cannabis is an immune simulator. I asked them "Like how/in what way?" and they gave me VERY jargony reply that amounted to "It mimics the effect of Granulocyte colony stimulating factor." I was intrigued by that by and asked what effects it had on lymphocytes and monocytes, if any. They gave me a blank look and upon pressing, they stated they don't know what any of those are and that they read it on a blog. ... If you don't even know what the words mean, it should be apparent you don't know the hell you are talking about.

Etc...

I wouldn't disagree with that and using tenous scientific evidence as a justification for legalization of medicinal cannabis for example definitely can do more harm than good. However anecdotal evidence is often underestimated, especially when it comes to the medical use of cannabis for example. Anecdotal evidence commands much less attention than it once did, however it is the source of a lot of our knowledge of synthetic medicines and plant derivatives such as insulin, aspirin and penicillin. It was clinical evidence that showed us the therapeutic potential of these compounds prior to any major clinical trials being done to establish their usefulness in medicine. It may be seen as irresponsible to suggest on the basis of anecdotes that cannabis may help people with with various illnesses because of the tendency to count the positives and ignoring the failures. For example, a physician treating 100 people with chronic pain using cannabis and the vast majority receive no benefit but a minority, say 20%, have amazing success, causing the physician to falsely have confidence efficacy of the drug even though there was actually an 80% failure rate. However this is not a problem like it is with other drugs like aspirin which can be extremely toxic if misused and can be fatal in overdose, because cannabis has a remarkably good safety profile. There are no recorded deaths and its pharmacological toxicity is extremely low.

Now I am sure you don't disagree with this but what I'm saying is if these patients claim they benefit from the drug where no other pharmaceutical seems to have helped, who are we to deny them the drug in case they might actually be abusing it?

That no research exists on cannabis as a medicine/ or in bioscience fields in general? Not true, there is a HUGE body of scientific literature on Cannabis. Google scholar has 34,000 results for "cannabis therapeutic" and over 70,000 for "cannabis medical" and 101,000 for "marijuana medical" [vs 48,000 for sirolimus a somewhat obscure but approved and non-controlled drug that is more interesting on a biological level] many of them in very prestigious journals like The Lancet, Nature, Journ Amer Med Ass. Granted, the text is dense, verbose and does require a familiarity with medicine/biology on some level and more generally how to read scientific journals. Yes, most of the articles are likely to be quite irrelevant to anyone not in a specialized research field...but there are a lot of of them that are quite relevant to actual, real life, clinical use. Hell, as far as science journal articles go, medicine is probably one of the easiest and most understandable[compare to particle physics for e.g.], and the ones on cannabis seem less jargon filled and complex then most medicine papers.[compare to electrophysiology for e.g.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was implying there was not a wealth of research on cannabis as a medicine. Quite the contrary. That said, unfortunately a lot of the research as I understand it is limited to invitro studies or animal models. What I meant is that there is a distinct lack of research into the medical usefulness of marijuana demonstrated by controlled studies, the rigorous, expensive, and time-consuming tests necessary to win approval by the FDA for marketing as medicines. As such, the government in the US is better able to justify keeping it as a schedule 1 drug i.e. one with no recognized medical value. I agree that in reality Obama himself can bypass congress and move it down to schedule 2 or 3 if he wanted to as it's in his power, but he refuses to for political reasons (he doesn't want to waste 'political capital' on such an act when people are more focused on the economy and other apparently more pressing matters).

The SCI thing probably is not as big a deal as one might think. Being scheduled seems to be relatively small impediment to serious research, and a lot of research is done elsewhere in any event.

Yes you're correct but having listened to what the researchers themselves have said, they seem to be given the run around when trying to organize the research and obtain the cannabis samples and often have to put up substantial funding and wait years for approval so that most researchers find that it's not worth wasting the effort. The quality of the cannabis that comes from the university of Mississippi is often poor and weak in potency as well. So the research is definitely possible but more could be done to facilitate it from what I gather.

 

[THC2LSD]

I would argue that all use of Cannabis is medicinal, but I'm just a pothead.

OP I kind of agree with you. Not that recreational users are fucking it up, reactionaries will use any excuse to oppose change.Both are inevitable for any drug halfway fun. And I feel that Cannabis is safer than a lot of the other legal shit. But I agree that a lot of them should just drop the hypochondriac shit and just admit they like to get blazed. I feel the same about some getting pain pills, tranquilizers, stimulants, and steroids/HGH. They should just admit the want to get high, or with steroids/HGH get buff. But sadly the law doesn't see it that way. Much like pornography had to hide behind being educational, and sex toys and contraceptives had to masquerade as medical devices due to the Comstock Act, so too do recreational users have to hide behind medical use due to the Controlled Substance Act.

 

[Hear Me Roar]

I would argue that all use of Cannabis use is medicinal, but I'm just a pothead.

OP I kind of agree with you. Not that recreational users are fucking it up, reactionaries will use any excuse to oppose change.Both are inevitable for any drug halfway fun. And I feel that Cannabis is safer than a lot of the other legal shit. But I agree that a lot of them should just drop the hypochondriac shit and just admit they like to get blazed. I feel the same about some getting pain pills, tranquilizers, stimulants, and steroids/HGH. They should just admit the want to get high, or with steroids/HGH get buff. But sadly the law doesn't see it that way. Much like pornography had to hid behind being educational, and sex toys and contraceptives had to masquerade as medical devices due to the Comstock Act, so too do recreational users have to hid behind medical use due to the Controlled Substance Act.

Thank-you, you actually understand. That was partly my point. I agree to the rest of what you've put forward to. Especially with pain meds.

Hiding behind the name, medicinal, does help jump through legal hurdles. But maybe that's what is holding the whole movement of regulated drugs back. Not enough people standing up and saying. "WE ARE HERE, WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. YOU CANNOT ARREST US ALL. WE LIKE DRUGS AND WE LIKE GETTING, 'HIGH!'". or as you stated, 'Buff'.

Liberation, education and a healthy cleaner supply of drugs would pursue.
There would be a lot more research. Possibly, a lot more advanced medicines.
New forms of treatment, for drug rehabilitation. (The same as if someone got hooked on codeine, benzos, drink, cigarettes).
The taxation, licenses, permits, new jobs, economy of it all, would certainly out weigh the cost of setting up a whole new sector for the commercial sales, healthcare and recreational education and awareness side of things.

Its crazy to think what society would be like.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Hear Me Roar sorry if I've been a bit harsh but I just have had it with people attacking cannabis reform so you can see why it's easy to be sensitive about the issue. I know you're on the same side at the end of the day though so no hard feelings.

 

[Hear Me Roar]

No worries buddy forgive and forget. Everyone has a different opinion, can't hold that against anyone.

 

[Prelude2TragedyII]

Take away the 'high' that medical users experience,
and all you have is another marketed pharmaceutical.

Ofcourse people would turn away from that, I believe alot of MMJ smokers, would avoid any type of weed that has been tampered with by government or even pharmaceutical companies. (Just my opinion)

I just like the fact that I KNOW where my marijuana comes from, and I KNOW it's natural.
I'm not just popping some medications made in some lab somewhere far off in the middle of no where.

I just find Marijuana to be the lesser of the evils I have to pick from.




LoL, that's like asking a Heroin addict if he would rather have Subutex instead of getting high though.

Yes, I VERY much agree with people hiding under the term 'medical' marijuana, just so they can use MMJ in a recreational way.

But, I think you may not be seeing both sides of the coin.
Yes, many people hide under the term 'medical' because they don't want to get in trouble for it,
and I would be willing to bet that MOST of those people TRULY believe that they aren't doing anything wrong.

What do you think causes these people to lie?
Fear, fear of how they will be judged, mistreated.
Fear of what they have seen other people be put through by the police/government.

So , what? Only people with cancer, or someone dying should be able to smoke pot?

No, see, what you are doing is a VERY BROAD spectrum here, no matter what drug, no matter where you go, they WILL be abuse.
You can't stop that. Ever. That's just the way of the world. Unfortunately.

I do see your point,
I think most MMJ smokers do recieve SOME benefits from their Marijuana.
Just like people who have opiates, for legit reasons, I'm sure they've felt a buzz a time or two.
And I'm sure alot of people weren't even searching for that, but found it, and kept trying to chase that feeling.

Personally I smoke for many different reasons, mainly a bleeding stomach ulcer, and insomnia, though, I do in fact smoke for recreation a few times a week.

Blah, sorry this isn't very organized, I have very mixed feelings on this and many different opinions, I just don't know how to properly voice them.