Post Number: 30
|Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 8:38 am: || |
Kjwick: many people who want to get rid of their nausea with pot cannot take pills because they feel sick to their stomachs. Also, these prescriptions are often very expensive and not affordable by those who are uninsured or underinsured. If you're sick to your stomach, taking a pill isn't doable. One joint, in that instance, is relatively affordable and ingestible for someone who's ready to vomit.
Post Number: 10962
|Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 8:57 am: || |
TWO HITS off that joint for medicinal dosage, depending upon the severity of the issue.
Any more and they're going for saturation and pleasure.
If they are as bad off as to need more than two hits, they deserve the buzz.
Marijuana is a wonderful substance, one of the Maker's absolute finest. (He seems particularly enamored with it, too, letting it grow any- and every-where on the earth!)
There are many, many beautiful and wonderful results from the various parts of that plant...where is the George Washington Carver of hemp derivatives?!
Surely there MUST'VE been such a character in history! I'd bet he worked on that non-steel Model A that ol' Hank the Once had commissioned when he KNEW that steel-stealing world war was inevitable.
My hemp clothes are the best ones I own, and I'm starting to wear through a thick four-season hoodie that some friends gave me from Sabastopol...I think it was from these folks.
Post Number: 31
|Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 9:05 am: || |
# of hits and how they affect you is different for each person, depending on lots of things including body weight, tolerance, how much they smoke daily if at all, etc. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be, Gannon. "Two hits!" It's more complicated than that.
Anyway, agreed on your general viewpoints, but yer tryin' a bit too hard to show us how "cool" you are with your hemp clothes references and namedropping. Yes, you're such a hippie because you own hemp clothes. Oohhh. Don't try so hard to be an expert and with it all the time, we love ya how you are.
Post Number: 10967
|Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 9:20 am: || |
Kiss my ass, Lafayette.
Linear thinkers cannot 'get' us stream-of-consciousness tangential synapse-dancers.
Get off YOUR high horse, I said enough to make it clear that in most cases a whole joint isn't necessary...but for those who need it, they deserve ALL they get from this wonderful substance.
What the fuck...name-dropping?
Kiss my ass again. ("no tongue!", in my best Madeline Kahn impersonation)
Post Number: 555
|Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 9:25 am: || |
Post Number: 65
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 1:32 am: || |
possibilities definitely exist for using active ingredients in marijuana therapeutically. arguments against treating active compounds the same as any other medication have been weak.
i acknowledge that access to prescription medications (and healthcare in general), is a huge problem (in my opinion, the largest our country has second to our current obsession with war). we need to advocate for universal healthcare access, not start a back yard pharmaceutical industry. until that happens? i doubt anyone holds a patent on delta-9-thc, and so the medications (if proven efficacious) would likely cost similar to other generics.
i think those advocating for legalization should recognize the general concerns over regulating marijuana's production and distribution.
morphine is a great medication, but we don't allow those who need it to grow it in their back yards.
while, like alcohol, many can use marijuana without detriment to their daily lives, supporters of legalization should recognize that many also can not. there's lots of epidemiological data exists that marijuana is a gateway drug (meaning that marijuana use often precedes the use of other illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine). obviously, the data doesn't say that all people who smoke pot go on to use heroin or cocaine, but it does say that very few cocaine and heroin users have not previously used marijuana.
allowing home production for the ill of this particular restricted drug would allow almost unregulated distribution and could also cause a shift in societal acceptance. granted their a many other factors contributing to societal acceptance of marijuana, but i think we want to limit them, from a public health standpoint, as much as possible. tobacco and and alcohol are the #1 and #3 causes of preventable death in the US (JAMA, 1993; 270:2001-11) (diet/inactivity) is #2 incase you're curious), and those two (tobacco and alcohol) accounted for over 500,000 deaths / year. Other illicit drugs? 20,000 all together. why the large difference? probably from the large difference in # of people using alcohol and tobacco versus other illicit drugs. increasing access and societal acceptance of marijuana use would almost surely lead to more sickness and death.
SO, for those who want to be compassionate and convince the michiganders (and the fed govt) who don't find marijuana such a wonderful plant to allow its therapeutic use, you might want to propose/support some mechanisms to regulate production and distribution.
Post Number: 2193
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 6:33 am: || |
If the country wants the substance to be illegal, it should first pass the proper Amendments to the Constitution. Look at the history of legal alcohol sale and consumption, which required ratification of two Amendments to criminalize as well as legalize that substance.
No Amendment for Cannabis Sativa = UnConstitutional law.
Look up the history of Dow Chemical, oil and lumber industries to find out the actual motivations for demonization of this naturally occurring substance.
Post Number: 128
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 7:27 am: || |
Legal pot now.
Post Number: 649
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 11:28 am: || |
I doubt we'll ever see legalized THC.
Post Number: 2197
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 11:31 am: || |
How about legalizing NON 'Sativa' cannabis ? All forms are treated as illegal drugs, even those without THC. Why ? Ask the companies in my above post.
Post Number: 650
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 11:38 am: || |
^I don't know what that is. I understood that all pot contained THC.
Post Number: 713
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 12:07 pm: || |
while were at it why not legalize cocaine and morphine and heroin which all have medicinal purposes as well.
Post Number: 2776
|Posted on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 - 1:44 pm: || |
morphine is legal....... heroin is legal in the uk.........some notably william f buckley advocate the legalization of heroin in the states. Not for addicts but for severe pain.
Post Number: 4
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 10:08 pm: || |
Medical marijuana... give me a break. No way!
Post Number: 8057
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 10:27 pm: || |
In pill form, Marinol, is legal.
Coccaine (an anesthetic used as such by some ENTs) is legal for medicinal purposes
Post Number: 43
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 10:59 pm: || |
Can any lawyers or legal experts explain to me why this is federal jurisdiction and not the state's jurisdiction? I understand that the amendment repealing prohibition of alcohol allows for states to individually prohibit it, but shouldn't all restrictions of questionable substances be up to states and such amendments be unnecessary?
Post Number: 9
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:09 pm: || |
Yes marijuana does have beneficial medical uses.
Help the suffering to feel better. Why be so cruel.
Post Number: 934
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:26 pm: || |
Mike Palmer, a graduate student at Oakland University, wrote a wonderful column in this week's Oakland Post positing that there is no legitimate reason to prohibit any drug. I don't know if the OU student paper has an on-line presence, but if you are able to get to Oakland in the next day or two, grab a copy from one of the boxes. It's worth reading IMVHO.
The reason marijuana, cocaine and their friends are illegal is that there is an enormous infrastructure consisting of agencies and people whose phony-baloney existence requires this idiotic prohibition. I believe we proved beyond any doubt, from 1918 to 1933, that enforced prohibition does not work; the current status of tobacco in the United States also demonstrates that societal rejection of a drug will eventually reduce its use and restrict where it can be used.
Imagine if the government (at any level) in 1960 had tried to pass laws that you could not smoke tobacco at work, or in many other public places. The outcry would have been overwhelming and even if such a law had passed it never could have been enforced. Eventually, society reached a point in its social development that made such laws possible and practical; and yet still, no prohibition of tobacco will occur in my lifetime.
Society decides what is acceptable and what is not; the government only pretends to lead. The current system we have serves no useful purpose except for the thousands of people whose livelihood depends on being a part of it (either on the enforcement side or the production and distribution side).
Mike, by the way, is a card carrying Libertarian as you might expect. I am just a practical human being who hates seeing billions of dollars of our money wasted on the unwinnable drug air-quote-war-end-air-quote.
Anyone who cares to post the usual boilerplate objections to this viewpoint will get the usual boilerplate responses, by the way; creative thinkers will be rewarded with actual debate.
Post Number: 44
|Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:59 pm: || |
I say legalize it, tax the hell out of it, use part of the proceeds to fund rehab programs, and spare the money and lives wasted in the fight against drugs.
Post Number: 63
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 2:15 am: || |
Marijuana can be inexpensively grown in the basement or outdoors in Michigan. Synthetic marijuana, from a pharmacist, is much more expensive. So what if someone with MS or MD gets a little buzz.
I don't know the positions of all the candidates but Rudy Giuliani supports DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and their care givers. Romney wants medical marijuana to remain illegal. Ron Paul wants to allow sick or dying adults to decide such medical decisions for themselves and thinks any regulation should be done at the state or local level.
Post Number: 3
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 7:46 am: || |
Drinking is legal and does far more damage to ones self and others than MJ ever could. I dont understand those who are against it.
As far as it being called a gateway drug, give me a break. Guess what everyone tried before MJ.....drinking. Alcohol is the original gateway drug.
How is getting a buzz from a joint any different than getting a buzz from drinking?????
Guess what? its not
Post Number: 571
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 11:13 am: || |
Dont bother trying to argue this point...the ones who don't get it are crazy!
Post Number: 67
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 1:29 pm: || |
you're absolutely correct, in the sequence of drug use progression, tobacco & alcohol precede marijuana.
i don't think anyone is trying to hide the negative societal effects of alcohol. it's the #2 cause of "lifestyle" deaths (which account for over 1/2 of the premature deaths in the US. i had access to the death statistic, but i'm willing to bet the affect on morbidity is just as high (if not higher) in addition to alcohol's contribution in just about any kind of abuse/violence, lost work productivity, etc.
you're absolutely right, drinking does far more damage. one major difference between the two is their prevalence. why would we want to allow another drug to gain the societal acceptance of alcohol (and tobacco)?
the current social rejection of tobacco is given above as an example of a (presumably good?) way to decrease/restrict a drugs use. let it flow through the community. get millions addicted. target children, so you get them hooked at an early age. let millions of people die of cancer. spend millions treating those people and the people who develop cancer from second hand smoke. then after decades, millions of deaths, millions of dollars in public awareness, millions of dollars in court costs fighting those profiting from the drug, after all that, THEN there will be enough public awareness to reduce use SO much that it remains the number 1 factor causing premature death. sounds like a great idea.
there are two arguments going on here; one, supporting medicinal use for those who are very sick and a second arguing for a free market on the drug.
certain molecules in mj quite possibly have therapeutic potential, and those should be explored and prescribed when appropriate. making an issue of prescription costs is a red herring, they need not be any more than the cost of a generic asprin.
Post Number: 5
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 10:04 pm: || |
Post Number: 8135
|Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 11:05 pm: || |
For medical use, it is legal with prescription now as Marinol. Why the ongoing debate?
Post Number: 940
|Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 12:23 am: || |
Kjwick, I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you claiming more people will suddenly start using, say, methamphetamine if we drop the legal prohibition on it? Do you actually think the status of a drug as legal or illegal has an effect on whether people choose to use the drug?
Post Number: 941
|Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 12:27 am: || |
Let me give an example to bolster my argument. Since the late 1970s, alcohol has been prohibited in Michigan for anyone under age 21, and that prohibition has been national almost everywhere since 1985.
Have any of you met anyone, even one single person, who drinks, and who began drinking when of legal age? Every person I've ever met who drinks (and whom I have asked this, which is a great many people) began to drink while alcohol was still prohibited. The average seems to be age 15, plus or minus a year or two. So the prohibition of alcohol does not seem to have any effect; some choose to drink as teens and some choose not to drink, but the legal status seems to have no bearing whatsoever as those who do not drink by age 17 also do not drink at age 35.
Those who favor prohibition (of anything) seem to have a persistent fantasy that people will not do what the law purports to prohibit. Vast experience tells us otherwise.
Post Number: 1322
|Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 8:13 am: || |
Post Number: 731
|Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 9:57 pm: || |
why tax it, if it works, why burden POOR people with their needs?
This only sounds like government socialist greed.
Post Number: 69
|Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 4:40 pm: || |
in a way, yes, in a way no.
i think the prevalence and acceptance of the substance in the general community plays the primary role leading to initial drug use. lots of alcohol and tobacco in the community = lots of people using it "legally" = "illegal" use.
hence, my argument for regulation of mj by the medical community just like any other psychoactive medication. thereby regulating distribution and use.
cc states that it is available under the name marinol. so, i agree, it is a non-issue (other than providing suffers access to the medicine at an "affordable" cost...which is a whole other debate, i think is going on somewhere on these threads).
"Those who favor prohibition (of anything) seem to have a persistent fantasy that people will not do what the law purports to prohibit. Vast experience tells us otherwise."
that's a silly statement. when laws are enforced, the fear of reprisal trumps craving for the prohibited. for a certain portion of the population, desire for the prohibited is greater than punishment by law. in these case, you are correct, the law doesn't work.