Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:38 pm
heheehahahehhe
Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:44 am
Originally posted by Burningwick
Why does this topic get such emotional responses no matter what board it's on? Never understood it. Anyway, there seems to be some interest here in legalizing marijuana for medical reasons. I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind this. We already have a form of cannabis available in a pill form that is legal called Marinol (a schedule II drug). We use it for nausea/vomiting and for appetite stimulation. Don't use it for pain relief because studies have shown that marijuana isn't that effective compared to other drugs that we have. If we already have a pill that gives all the benefits of marijuana, there's no need to legalize the inhaled form for medicine's sake. If we're going to legalize it, do it for other reasons; don't use medical necessity as a crutch.
Marinol is synthetic THC, which is no where near as effective as the actual plant or products spun from the actual plant.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:23 am
Originally posted by Burningwick
Why does this topic get such emotional responses no matter what board it's on? Never understood it. Anyway, there seems to be some interest here in legalizing marijuana for medical reasons. I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind this. We already have a form of cannabis available in a pill form that is legal called Marinol (a schedule II drug). We use it for nausea/vomiting and for appetite stimulation. Don't use it for pain relief because studies have shown that marijuana isn't that effective compared to other drugs that we have. If we already have a pill that gives all the benefits of marijuana, there's no need to legalize the inhaled form for medicine's sake. If we're going to legalize it, do it for other reasons; don't use medical necessity as a crutch.
I ask you, why take away an option from a medical professional?
It IS an effective means of pain management, that is why terminal cancer patients (in some states) are medically allowed to grow their own. Sure they don't want you smoking it, and STRESS other means of consumption (humidifier more often than not). They also state that there are times when you need for the variously debated medically beneficial effects, sooner rather than later.
In my own experience, I have had better results managing my various physical issues via weed, than I have with both Vicodin and Flexaril. You tell me which runs the higher risk of dependancy and then tell me as well about the possible side effects. Then tell me why pot is a larger danger.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am
Vicodin...doctors write patients up for that stuff liek it is candy. When I seperated my should mountain biking I got a perscription for 180 of them(80 count and one refill, plus the origional 20 from the med center that was the first to treat me). After a year of physical theorpy I needed to go under the knife. Another 160(80 count plus 1 refill) was given to me.
Each time, I didn't need them after about a weeks worth of eating them(after roughly 50 pills). Each time I was well over 100 pills left that did not need to be taken. Guess what? I ate them, each and every single one of them. Why? Well, while the pain was gone, I sure had taken a liking to being on cloud nine all day.
Yet heaven forbid we give some cancer patient weed,a patient who has no appetite, is sick to their stomach and is in server pain.
Each time, I didn't need them after about a weeks worth of eating them(after roughly 50 pills). Each time I was well over 100 pills left that did not need to be taken. Guess what? I ate them, each and every single one of them. Why? Well, while the pain was gone, I sure had taken a liking to being on cloud nine all day.
Yet heaven forbid we give some cancer patient weed,a patient who has no appetite, is sick to their stomach and is in server pain.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:51 am
I'll tell you why people always bring up the medicinal uses of pot in these arguments: It's a way of illustrating the Moral Majority's irrational bias against pot. They would rather AIDs patients die then benefit from smoking pot, they would rather Migraine users suffer or use narcotics than to legalize pot. They have a knee jerk, no-facts-please drive to keep pot illegal and would rather make sick people suffer than to see a regular Joe smoke a joint and relax at the end of the day. They take the anti-pot zeal and they Thelma-and-Louise it right off the cliff.
They have no leg to stand on. Public Safety? nope 'cuz the same people against pot are against gun control. If these people's motivation in life was to prevent auto deaths, then they would lower the speed limit to 45 on the highway which would save tens of thousands of people each year. This is something we don't do because as the song says "I can't drive 55" nevermind 45. So saying no to legalizing pot because you think there will be an extra thousand car deaths (something I think is unlikely) doesn't wash.
No because it causes cancer? Nope, cigarettes are worse and they would be the first to go if we were really a society that cared about lung cancer. No because it's addicting? Nope, alcohol and prescription drugs are far more addicting and I notice we don't have a drive to get rid of those. The last argument: the gateway drug. It's been disproven time and time again.
So why the irrational drive against it? The majority of the anti-pot push comes from the Moral Majority types that simply can't stand the thought of Americans having another 'vice', or more to the point 'sin'. Given the number of Americans who die from obesity related illnesses which kill 300,000 Americans annually, I would think the anti-pot lobbyist would be too busy trying to change our eating/exercise habits than worrying about pot---unless they had some religious/moral angle on it that is
If I seem pretty 'pro-pot' for someone that doesn't smoke pot, it's only because what I really am is pro-freedom. I can't stand the constant attempts by the certain people to push their moral constraints on the whole country.
They have no leg to stand on. Public Safety? nope 'cuz the same people against pot are against gun control. If these people's motivation in life was to prevent auto deaths, then they would lower the speed limit to 45 on the highway which would save tens of thousands of people each year. This is something we don't do because as the song says "I can't drive 55" nevermind 45. So saying no to legalizing pot because you think there will be an extra thousand car deaths (something I think is unlikely) doesn't wash.
No because it causes cancer? Nope, cigarettes are worse and they would be the first to go if we were really a society that cared about lung cancer. No because it's addicting? Nope, alcohol and prescription drugs are far more addicting and I notice we don't have a drive to get rid of those. The last argument: the gateway drug. It's been disproven time and time again.
So why the irrational drive against it? The majority of the anti-pot push comes from the Moral Majority types that simply can't stand the thought of Americans having another 'vice', or more to the point 'sin'. Given the number of Americans who die from obesity related illnesses which kill 300,000 Americans annually, I would think the anti-pot lobbyist would be too busy trying to change our eating/exercise habits than worrying about pot---unless they had some religious/moral angle on it that is
If I seem pretty 'pro-pot' for someone that doesn't smoke pot, it's only because what I really am is pro-freedom. I can't stand the constant attempts by the certain people to push their moral constraints on the whole country.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:28 am
Originally posted by {CN}Doomfarer
I ask you, why take away an option from a medical professional?
It IS an effective means of pain management, that is why terminal cancer patients (in some states) are medically allowed to grow their own. Sure they don't want you smoking it, and STRESS other means of consumption (humidifier more often than not). They also state that there are times when you need for the variously debated medically beneficial effects, sooner rather than later.
In my own experience, I have had better results managing my various physical issues via weed, than I have with both Vicodin and Flexaril. You tell me which runs the higher risk of dependancy and then tell me as well about the possible side effects. Then tell me why pot is a larger danger.
Frankly, it's an option that most of us would not use even if we had it. We have Marinol, yet you rarely see that being used for pain control. You are correct, THC is somewhat effective in pain control. However, you put it up against the other drugs in our arsenal and it pales in comparison. Possibly, I could see a use for it if it were to be used in conjuction with other opioids. But, again, there's already Marinol. The problem with Marinol is not that it is not effective; the problem is usually in dosing. Patients often have a difficult time getting their dosages worked out for their liking and grow frustrated.
As for which runs the higher risk of addiction in your situation; I would not be worried about either. Even though there are a lot of stories out there about people getting addicted to narcotics that they took for pain relief, those who are genuinely taking them for chronic pain relief very rarely become addicted.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:32 am
Originally posted by cavalierlwt
I'll tell you why people always bring up the medicinal uses of pot in these arguments: It's a way of illustrating the Moral Majority's irrational bias against pot. They would rather AIDs patients die then benefit from smoking pot, they would rather Migraine users suffer or use narcotics than to legalize pot. They have a knee jerk, no-facts-please drive to keep pot illegal and would rather make sick people suffer than to see a regular Joe smoke a joint and relax at the end of the day. They take the anti-pot zeal and they Thelma-and-Louise it right off the cliff.
When my Grandmother was dieing from cancer, the nurse that would come over everyday refused to give her the morphine she was prescribed because she would 'become addicted to it.' If that nurse wasn't a female, I would have decked her. Do not give someone pain relief, in the last weeks of their life, with tumors wrapped around ribs and all over her lungs is nothing shorts of torture. At that point in time my grandmother looked like a mummy, a shell of her former self, all lose skin over bones. She was in so much pain she did not even know what was going on around her, and that was without the morphine. We finally had to start giving it to her ourselves(it was orally taken, not with a needle).
Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:35 am
Originally posted by Burningwick
Frankly, it's an option that most of us would not use even if we had it. We have Marinol, yet you rarely see that being used for pain control. You are correct, THC is somewhat effective in pain control. However, you put it up against the other drugs in our arsenal and it pales in comparison. Possibly, I could see a use for it if it were to be used in conjuction with other opioids. But, again, there's already Marinol. The problem with Marinol is not that it is not effective; the problem is usually in dosing. Patients often have a difficult time getting their dosages worked out for their liking and grow frustrated.
As for which runs the higher risk of addiction in your situation; I would not be worried about either. Even though there are a lot of stories out there about people getting addicted to narcotics that they took for pain relief, those who are genuinely taking them for chronic pain relief very rarely become addicted.
It isn't just the pain relief qualities with regards to marijuana, it is also that it gives you your apetite back and helps those with weak stomaches, which happens to those being treated with cancer.
It is not that it does one thing, it is that it does three things in one dose. Those three things are huge problems for patients with cancer and AIDS.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:04 pm
Originally posted by cavalierlwt
I'll tell you why people always bring up the medicinal uses of pot in these arguments: It's a way of illustrating the Moral Majority's irrational bias against pot. They would rather AIDs patients die then benefit from smoking pot, they would rather Migraine users suffer or use narcotics than to legalize pot. They have a knee jerk, no-facts-please drive to keep pot illegal and would rather make sick people suffer than to see a regular Joe smoke a joint and relax at the end of the day. They take the anti-pot zeal and they Thelma-and-Louise it right off the cliff.
They have no leg to stand on. Public Safety? nope 'cuz the same people against pot are against gun control. If these people's motivation in life was to prevent auto deaths, then they would lower the speed limit to 45 on the highway which would save tens of thousands of people each year. This is something we don't do because as the song says "I can't drive 55" nevermind 45. So saying no to legalizing pot because you think there will be an extra thousand car deaths (something I think is unlikely) doesn't wash.
No because it causes cancer? Nope, cigarettes are worse and they would be the first to go if we were really a society that cared about lung cancer. No because it's addicting? Nope, alcohol and prescription drugs are far more addicting and I notice we don't have a drive to get rid of those. The last argument: the gateway drug. It's been disproven time and time again.
So why the irrational drive against it? The majority of the anti-pot push comes from the Moral Majority types that simply can't stand the thought of Americans having another 'vice', or more to the point 'sin'. Given the number of Americans who die from obesity related illnesses which kill 300,000 Americans annually, I would think the anti-pot lobbyist would be too busy trying to change our eating/exercise habits than worrying about pot---unless they had some religious/moral angle on it that is
If I seem pretty 'pro-pot' for someone that doesn't smoke pot, it's only because what I really am is pro-freedom. I can't stand the constant attempts by the certain people to push their moral constraints on the whole country.
Looks like you're the one pushing your morals on the whole country. It works both ways doesn't it.
Maybe your religious beliefs are to smoke pot. If so, you are a religious zealot. If's funny how moral relativists always bring up "religion".
Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:37 pm
Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:41 pm
Originally posted by RCglider
Looks like you're the one pushing your morals on the whole country. It works both ways doesn't it.
Maybe your religious beliefs are to smoke pot. If so, you are a religious zealot. If's funny how moral relativists always bring up "religion".
And that's the difference, between the pushing: I won't try to make you smoke pot. How is it pushing morals?
Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:22 pm
Originally posted by cavalierlwt
And that's the difference, between the pushing: I won't try to make you smoke pot. How is it pushing morals?
You want it legalized. That's a moral judgement. I used to have a more Libertarian view and even contemplated legalization of all drugs because of my views on the FDA et al, but then when it was a reality in my family I became totally against it.
Why some use the "don't force your morality on me" argument is a bit humurous. You could pick any law on record and claim someone somewhere is forcing their morality on you.
Maybe at some point society will legalize marijuana. Maybe nothing will be illegal. However, we don't have a Right to smoke pot, just as we don't have a Right to lewd behavior or dump raw sewage in our back yards.
Also, I keep hearing about all these so-called studies claiming marijuana has no long term negative effects. Please cite them.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:45 pm
I don't know of any study that says pot has no long term effect, only about the studies that say it isn't a gateway drug.
As for the forcing of morality, laws are supposed to protect people and their properties from the actions of others, generally. We are supposed to tread very lightly when we decide to protect people from themselves, as things become less black and white. If I do something that unreasonably harms you or interferes with your quality of life, generally that's when the law steps in. We DO have a right to lewd behavior, as long as it is between consenting adults and doesn't affect you and or your property. I can do all sorts of weird, pointless, freaky things if it's behind my closed doors and doesn't affect you. If I do certain things in public that will affect you, then that's when laws kick in. Dumping Sewerage in my backyard is only illegal because it presents possible health hazards and quality of living problems to other people and their property, not because it has an innate 'wrongness' about it. I can't simply pick any law and claim it's someone forcing their morality on me. With few exceptions (we are human after all) any law I see is meant to protect people from the actions of other. The laws protect me from theft, from someone injuring me, ect. There are a few, very few, where people are protected purely from themselves.
Yes, pot is illegal, and people who get caught are going to be punished, this I expect and agree with. We have to follow the laws that are currently on the books. But I don't give any weight to keeping a law on the books simply because it's always been in effect.
I still don't understand how you feel put upon by knowing (or not knowing) if your neighbor comes home at night and smokes a joints, sits on his couch and watches TV. I ask this not from a legal point of view, but from the point of view of individual rights and freedoms. Does it oppress or harm you, or make your life less enjoyable if you neighbor smokes pot in the privacy of his home? If he get's behind the wheel and hurts you, I understand that it's wrong, but it's the driving under the influence that should be punished, just as we prosecute drunk drivers, we don't make alcohol illegal out of respect to the vast majority who use it responsibly.
PS. I had to come back and edit this, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression. I don't feel imposed upon by your and your opinion, you are one man with one vote, the same as I. I don't mind being part of a democracy and living by it's rules. I am much more opposed to lobbyists, people who use money to actively leverage a disproportionate amount of power over the government. If people want to try and change each others minds through dialogue, that's fine. If a person wants to voice his/her opinion to their Congressional leaders, fine.
As for the forcing of morality, laws are supposed to protect people and their properties from the actions of others, generally. We are supposed to tread very lightly when we decide to protect people from themselves, as things become less black and white. If I do something that unreasonably harms you or interferes with your quality of life, generally that's when the law steps in. We DO have a right to lewd behavior, as long as it is between consenting adults and doesn't affect you and or your property. I can do all sorts of weird, pointless, freaky things if it's behind my closed doors and doesn't affect you. If I do certain things in public that will affect you, then that's when laws kick in. Dumping Sewerage in my backyard is only illegal because it presents possible health hazards and quality of living problems to other people and their property, not because it has an innate 'wrongness' about it. I can't simply pick any law and claim it's someone forcing their morality on me. With few exceptions (we are human after all) any law I see is meant to protect people from the actions of other. The laws protect me from theft, from someone injuring me, ect. There are a few, very few, where people are protected purely from themselves.
Yes, pot is illegal, and people who get caught are going to be punished, this I expect and agree with. We have to follow the laws that are currently on the books. But I don't give any weight to keeping a law on the books simply because it's always been in effect.
I still don't understand how you feel put upon by knowing (or not knowing) if your neighbor comes home at night and smokes a joints, sits on his couch and watches TV. I ask this not from a legal point of view, but from the point of view of individual rights and freedoms. Does it oppress or harm you, or make your life less enjoyable if you neighbor smokes pot in the privacy of his home? If he get's behind the wheel and hurts you, I understand that it's wrong, but it's the driving under the influence that should be punished, just as we prosecute drunk drivers, we don't make alcohol illegal out of respect to the vast majority who use it responsibly.
PS. I had to come back and edit this, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression. I don't feel imposed upon by your and your opinion, you are one man with one vote, the same as I. I don't mind being part of a democracy and living by it's rules. I am much more opposed to lobbyists, people who use money to actively leverage a disproportionate amount of power over the government. If people want to try and change each others minds through dialogue, that's fine. If a person wants to voice his/her opinion to their Congressional leaders, fine.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:10 pm
Random, that symbol you drew, sXe, means straight edged. Straight edged is taking it to the extreme. The people I have met that consider themselves straight edged are very closed minded skin heads, so I don't see what the point of being straight edged is. I understand being drug free, everything free, etc., but the intolerance of others is not necessary.
Anyway, back onto the topic. First thing first, I want to make one thing clear. Marijuana is not physically addictive. Let me rephrase that. The body does not grow a dependancy for marijuana. So therefore, it is very easy to quit smoking it. If people say they are having trouble quitting, that is BS. The simple fact, they just enjoy it too much. In other words, they suffer from depression, and aren't willing to see help through medical means, because they have a stigma about that, and mental health medications. And Marijuana just makes the depression worse in the long run. However, people don't get "hooked." And it is not a gateway drug. If anything, alcohol is the gateway drug. The memory effects of marijuana do seem to occur, losing long term memory, but after a period of non consumption, you eventually gain your full ablitiy to retain memory.
However, alcohol being consumed way too much can become very addictive, and the body does grow a dependancy on alcohol. In other words, it is dangerous for an alcoholic to try to quit drinking cold turkey without the proper detox procedures. So, to sum up this paper, instead if continually citing example after example on why alcohol is just as bad as marijuana, I'll sum it up. Alcohol and marijuana are just as bad. They both cause an altered state, so therefore, marijuana will still fall under being a DUI. I think if alcohol is legal, so should marijuana. I don't smoke MJ, but I love drinking, so I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal. As far as this medical reasons for marijuana being good, I don't think it has many medical benefits. It simply just makes those who are extremely ill feel good again. Which is great, but I'm not going to call it medical. And you would be surprised how many people out there are smoking Marijuana, not because they have an addiction they can't get over, but because they enjoy it. People past the age of 40, still smoking. And no, they don't look like cheech and chong. They aren't unemployed. Many of them are rich. And they are great at what they do. So as long as they aren't smoking it in public, then they shouldn't be arrested or fined for it. Most of the time it is just a slap on the wrist, so government is even seeing marijuana as trivial.
As for myself, I occasionally drink at social occasions.
I have tried pot, I hated it. I couldn't hold a thought, made me feel stupid, almost as if I was drooling on myself.
I don't care that it's illegal. Doesn't effect me, but I feel people have been fed a lot of misinformation about MJ. That, and I believe in cognitive liberty.
I do love Salvia divinorium, which I like to try on the occasion I feel like deep meditation. So I do it once every year or two. And, Salvia Divinorium is legal. That is one thing that I want to remain legal.
Anyway, back onto the topic. First thing first, I want to make one thing clear. Marijuana is not physically addictive. Let me rephrase that. The body does not grow a dependancy for marijuana. So therefore, it is very easy to quit smoking it. If people say they are having trouble quitting, that is BS. The simple fact, they just enjoy it too much. In other words, they suffer from depression, and aren't willing to see help through medical means, because they have a stigma about that, and mental health medications. And Marijuana just makes the depression worse in the long run. However, people don't get "hooked." And it is not a gateway drug. If anything, alcohol is the gateway drug. The memory effects of marijuana do seem to occur, losing long term memory, but after a period of non consumption, you eventually gain your full ablitiy to retain memory.
However, alcohol being consumed way too much can become very addictive, and the body does grow a dependancy on alcohol. In other words, it is dangerous for an alcoholic to try to quit drinking cold turkey without the proper detox procedures. So, to sum up this paper, instead if continually citing example after example on why alcohol is just as bad as marijuana, I'll sum it up. Alcohol and marijuana are just as bad. They both cause an altered state, so therefore, marijuana will still fall under being a DUI. I think if alcohol is legal, so should marijuana. I don't smoke MJ, but I love drinking, so I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal. As far as this medical reasons for marijuana being good, I don't think it has many medical benefits. It simply just makes those who are extremely ill feel good again. Which is great, but I'm not going to call it medical. And you would be surprised how many people out there are smoking Marijuana, not because they have an addiction they can't get over, but because they enjoy it. People past the age of 40, still smoking. And no, they don't look like cheech and chong. They aren't unemployed. Many of them are rich. And they are great at what they do. So as long as they aren't smoking it in public, then they shouldn't be arrested or fined for it. Most of the time it is just a slap on the wrist, so government is even seeing marijuana as trivial.
As for myself, I occasionally drink at social occasions.
I have tried pot, I hated it. I couldn't hold a thought, made me feel stupid, almost as if I was drooling on myself.
I don't care that it's illegal. Doesn't effect me, but I feel people have been fed a lot of misinformation about MJ. That, and I believe in cognitive liberty.
I do love Salvia divinorium, which I like to try on the occasion I feel like deep meditation. So I do it once every year or two. And, Salvia Divinorium is legal. That is one thing that I want to remain legal.
Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:41 pm
Originally posted by RCglider
Also, I keep hearing about all these so-called studies claiming marijuana has no long term negative effects. Please cite them.
The Carleton University did a preliminary study which was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Don't have a link, but you could always google it yourself. The study showed a drop of 4 points in a persons IQ while if smoking 5 or more joints a week. After stopping, the IQ was back to it's original point, meaning no long term effects. Again, preliminary because you woudl have to follow the subjects their entire life.
It is also obvouse why there is no long term effects to the brain. Pot does burn away brain cells. However, brain cells do grow back(once thought not to).
If you want to point to other problems, like restricted air flow, then yes, pot is evil. As evil as breathing air in any small to large city. THC has been proven to not cause cancer, in fact, in studies with mice, it showed that mice being given THC actually had fewer mice with cancer. Again, google it to find it, it is there.