Better question: Why?

Post #367,723 by drook 12/12/12 7:59:29 AM Reply	Better question: Why? For several serious conditions, it already works better than other known medications with fewer side effects. Right now, smoked. If there were a new pill that you could say that about, there would already be commercials on TV for it. Apropos Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. http://en.wikiquote....iki/H._L._Mencken -- Drew
Post #367,725 by crazy 12/12/12 8:03:27 AM 12/12/12 8:12:57 AM Reply	Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't articulate. And in your statement, limiting to serious conditions means there is a serious set of side effects that should be considered before prescribing it. Rethink. C'mon AS, do some more research. You'll come around. Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 08:12:57 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,744 by Another Scott 12/12/12 9:34:56 AM Reply	Project much? :-p Patience, grasshopper. All will be revealed in due time. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,745 by crazy 12/12/12 9:48:42 AM Reply	Hokay Take your time. I've had years working on this.
Post #367,756 by Another Scott 12/12/12 1:04:45 PM Reply	Just asking the question. See my reply to crazy, at http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367755 If the psychochemistry is as simple as crazy lays out, then surely there would be a pill that has the benefits, now. It's not simple. Smoke is not good for you, even if it does have beneficial drugs along with it. From 1997: http://nihrecord.od....11_97/story02.htm Dr. Reese Jones, professor at the Langley Porter Institute, University of California, San Francisco, began the science portion with an hour-long lecture on the clinical pharmacology of marijuana. He pointed out a number of issues that complicate the clinical study of smoked marijuana, including the difficulty of designing a blind trial, and the near impossibility of quantifying and standardizing the dosage of a drug that a study participant smokes (and thereby self doses). "It's the nature of smoking that people dose themselves," he said. "That's one of the advantages of it. But it does present a problem in designing the studies. [In order to get reliable data] a patient must smoke the same way each time, which is virtually impossible." Of major concern to many group members was the potential risk to the lungs and other organs that the act of smoking itself presents, an issue that must be balanced against any benefit marijuana may offer. A member of the group of experts, Dr. Paul Palmberg, professor of ophthalmology at the Bascom-Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, reported his success with a glaucoma patient who smoked marijuana as part of a compassionate use agreement with the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970's. He said the patient's symptoms were relieved -- with no apparent ill effects to date, nor intoxication. He also said the beneficial effects lasted only a couple of hours. The patient, a woman, had to smoke about 10 cigarettes per day to maintain the level of relief she was experiencing. In addition, Palmberg mentioned another patient also treated with marijuana cigarettes under an IND whose glaucoma was not relieved by the drug. The large number of major medical advances made in the last decade in treating glaucoma, he said, could diminish the rationale of smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms of the disorder. Marijuana cigarettes were made available for patients with certain conditions in 1978, under a Single Patient Investigational New Drug (IND) of the FDA. A total of 14 patients ultimately received marijuana under this IND. Compassionate use ended in 1992, due in part to the unpredictability of administering the drug, and the development of newer, more potent and longer lasting alternatives, Jones reported. [One such alternative is Marinol, a synthetic derivative of the major active constituent of marijuana, which was developed with support from NCI. In 1985, FDA approved Marinol for treating the nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy and, in 1992, for use in wasting in patients with AIDS. However some patients, especially those with nausea, say they have difficulty swallowing a capsule.] These reasons most likely contributed to the decline in research proposals to use marijuana in clinical trials. NIH welcomes clinical investigators to submit proposals for studying the therapeutic effects of marijuana, Leshner said. As with all NIH-funded research, he added, the studies must be carefully peer-reviewed and approved. "You can argue policy and you can argue politics all you want," workshop chair Beaver concluded, "but if you haven't got the data, then you haven't got an issue." The group will provide a written summary of its conclusions to NIH director Dr. Harold Varmus in 4 to 5 weeks. This will assist Varmus in considering what actions NIH could take to fund research on the therapeutic potential of marijuana for patients with certain diseases. It's a tough problem that deserves thoughtful consideration by those for and against changes in the laws. But it's human nature to see the seemingly obvious benefits and minimize the problems. Without more science to help build a consensus on the benefits and risks, it will be that much tougher to have sensible changes in the laws. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,760 by drook 12/12/12 1:17:03 PM Reply	But the laws now prohibit doing the science There's a term for that ... something about catching a multiple of 11 or something like that. -- Drew
Post #367,761 by Another Scott 12/12/12 1:24:21 PM Reply	That's an easier law to change than the others. Some say that Obama can sign an Executive Order to remove MJ from Schedule I (see the end of this story - http://www.huffingto...on_n_2165852.html ). If it were that easy, presumably it could be reversed just as easily during the next administration. Maybe that's another reason why Obama hasn't been persuaded thus far. I'm not for the status quo. I just want us to know more before we do our leaping. Letting the NIH do the science is a sensible, long-overdue, step. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,763 by mmoffitt 12/12/12 1:44:15 PM Reply	Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. http://www.usatoday....-effects/1751011/ Good thing we legalized it before we knew what we were doing though, eh?
Post #367,769 by Another Scott 12/12/12 3:45:54 PM Reply	Thanks.
Post #367,787 by crazy 12/12/12 10:43:13 PM Reply	Your straw man, not mine Ok, AS, then do a balance of harm calc. Don't forget the include all the expense to treat aids cases from the prison anal rape that MM would like to subject some of us to.
Post #367,792 by Another Scott 12/12/12 11:12:14 PM Reply	You talking to me? :-) We all do balance of harm calculations every day. I'm not going to be changing my behavior any time soon. My job isn't to write the laws or regulations. I don't have the time nor expertise to present a strong enough case to get you to change your mind or modify your position. It's academic for me at the moment. Similarly, I'm upset by various other injustices in my state and country. I can't push learning more about marijuana pharmacology and drug laws up above the other things. It's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts and participation, but you're not going to win. :-) Have fun. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,798 by crazy 12/13/12 5:56:35 AM Reply	I didn't say it was your job And you certainly don't have to make a commitment to work for anything. But you have no goals, you have questions. And your questions will probably not be answered in your lifetime. Your questions are primarily long term harm compared to the short term cost, but since the immediate harm is not on your doorstep, it isn't worth your time, and costs are not just dollars, so there are subjective measurements involved. Until then, it is unprovable accusations. Any time I try to focus on a specific thing, and provide safer usage and alternatives to the ASSUMED harmful methods, you respond with a shitload of open questions, and no preferred direction for me to work with. Your questions seem to have nothing (or very little) to do with a person's behavior while under the influence, more along the long term health costs. Remove ALL smoking from the equation. Vaporizer only. Portable. Joints, pipes, bongs not used. Poof, most of your ASSUMED health issues disappear.
Post #367,800 by Another Scott 12/13/12 8:37:05 AM Reply	And how would that work, exactly? Law: "Pot is legal to consume if you use a vaporizer. If not, it's illegal due to the health risk to you and those around you." Stoner#1: "Man, that's messed up. I don't like vaporizers. It mellows my harsh." And so, Stoner#1 ends up in the same position as now - breaking the law. How would your proposal be a solution? I think I've outlined several of my concerns. You view them differently - that's fine. Whether they're resolved in my lifetime is immaterial to the discussion, isn't it? But you have no goals, you have questions. Again, I want rational, sensible policy. In my mind, the details of that policy are not clear and I think need to be reasonably clear before radical changes are made. Remember how things used to be before Sen. Harkin and others decided that the FDA had no business regulating "herbal supplements"? Do you see the differences between then and now? We're bombarded with ads for "5 Hour Energy" and "Vitamins" and so forth that make all sorts of wild claims about "helps promote XYZ health" while at the same time there's the ubiquitous 2 point text "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease." What do you suppose the marketplace would be like if pot were handled the same way? Yes, more questions. But questions in service of the goal of finding a rational, sensible policy. We seem to be talking past each other, so I'll quit now. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,802 by crazy 12/13/12 9:42:31 AM Reply	Easy At that point you can treat the actual issue, not the substance. Alcohol is illegal to inhale in some areas. Not others. http://en.wikipedia....ol_without_liquid The delivery mechanism is what makes it illegal. We already live in a world with many laws like that. My flavored rolling papers are illegal if they are sold with tobacco. Federal level. But it is not illegal when sold alone, or with "legal" herbs which can kill you. Buy any can of paint or solvent and you will see it various illegal uses. Oh well.
Post #367,803 by drook 12/13/12 10:14:13 AM Reply	View it from the other side Imagine there were no existing laws against marijuana. On what basis would you make it illegal? It may cause unquantified harm to some people when consumed via some delivery mechanisms? That's not enough to ban something. That makes the existing ban a bad law, which should be repealed. IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof. -- Drew
Post #367,805 by Another Scott 12/13/12 10:56:45 AM Reply	Thought experiments are easy. I'm sympathetic to the "minimal laws and no more" viewpoint - I really am. But like it or not, we live in a complicated society. Substances which are addictive (to some substantial fraction of the population), which interfere with judgement, motor control, etc., are different from others. They can destroy societies (and not just because they're illegal - look at the history of opium in China - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars ) It never hurts to ask the question "cui bono?" and see where things lead. Some consequences are easier to foresee than others. We tried "no laws against marijuana". Similarly with cocaine. Heroin was developed and touted as a safer, non-addictive alternative to morphine - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Heroin#History . There are good (and bad) reasons why we have the drug laws we do - they didn't popup out of no where. IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof. Logically, maybe. But practically, no. Practically, you have to convince enough legislators and the federal/state executive and the courts that you are right to demand changes. That means addressing their interests and concerns. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,806 by crazy 12/13/12 10:59:57 AM Reply	That's a crock You are comparing heroin to cannabis on addiction potential and lethality. Wow. No point in discussing, if you pull that type of false equivalence. $respect--;
Post #367,807 by Another Scott 12/13/12 11:10:05 AM Reply	Read me in my posts. Your persecution complex on this topic is getting in the way of your understanding. For some people, MJ is addictive (whether psychologically or physically, it doesn't much matter). For some people, heroin or crack is something they can take or leave and they'll never be addicted with casual usage. The underlying issue is the same: There are some substances that cause reduction in motor control, blurring of judgement, and in come cases, addiction. They're not like jellybeans. You have acknowledged that (at least in part). We (MM and I) don't fully accept the picture that you're painting, and you seemingly don't accept that there are issues that need to be addressed before legalization is considered. If that's the case, it's a stalemate and as you say, there's no point in continuing. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,808 by crazy 12/13/12 12:07:37 PM Reply	But the statement is wrong ALL people who use opiate based narcotics of heroin strength for more than 2 weeks WILL become addicted. No choice. You find a random outlier, it won't matter. This is pretty much a 100% of the population. A LARGE percentage of them who dabble with it over time WILL become addicted. Physical, with serious (but rarely fatal) withdrawel symptom. People go nuts during that phase, and the crime rate of this population will definitively jump as they steal for their next fix. For those that dabble and/or are addicted to opiate based narcotics, they have a decent likelyhood of screwing up their dose and are playing with death, directly, on every injection and crushed oxycontin. I have at least 1/2 a dozen cousin level reltaives that have died via a variety of narcotics. We can all be pretty sure the lethality of random dozing is unknown, but significant. Cannabis has no lethal dose that a mere mortal can consume by smoking. If someone is playing with concentrated extracts, I'm sure they can hit it sooner or later. Like any other random concentrated substance, you need to be careful with it at that point. Like cinnamon. Like don't consume enough for 10,000 doses, you will be unhappy. Probably won't kill you, but you will be unhappy for a few hours. No one has EVER died from THC overdose. While any mood altering substance can be addictive (jelly beans, pistacios, alcohol, cough syrup) we typically limit the attempt of controlling the individual at the point that addiction causes harm, while allowing all access to most substances, as long as they haven't proven dangerous. This is flipped on cannabis, with a huge amount of assumptions that need to be disproven, which is much more difficult and sometimes impossible. Why is it up to those in jail to prove this? Because their cultural method of relaxation pissed the gringoes off, and we are suffering for it this many years later? Because the jazz musicians scared the high class assholes? Because Dupont didn't not want hemp oil competing with petroleum based oil? Why is it up to the persecuted (when you are threatening to put someone in jail for behavior that does not affect you (at least no more than people buying alcohol and cough syrup) that you don't like, that's persecuting)? Not up you to accept. But I always want to know why, because why I may not agree with you on a subject, you are at least well read enough to see multiple sides and gather info on it. Demographics will win no matter what, it WILL be legal, it'll just take a while. I just will correct bullshit on the subject when I see it, and false equivalences is a major bullshit item.
Post #367,809 by drook 12/13/12 12:25:55 PM Reply	Different part of the issue Yes, the practical reality is that legislators would need to be convinced before anything changes. But shouldn't we try to establish some objective facts about the drug itself before deciding what to do about it? That's where I'm coming from WRT effects, side-effects, addiction, etc. There is plenty of recent research -- granted, much of it conducted outside the U.S. -- showing that marijuana has fewer and milder direct health consequences compared to both tobacco and alcohol, addiction rates nowhere close to the other substances you compared to, intoxicating effects milder than alcohol, and numerous profound positive effects. As long as people continue denying those facts, or (more commonly) denying that those facts have been sufficiently proven, it's not possible to discuss what laws are needed. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!