Obama's Hypocrisy

[fester30]

ThinkAnarchy... instead of posting the entire sequence of our points in a reply, I'll say you have some good points in response to the book I wrote previously.  Again, I agree with the idea that marijuana should be legal, just not on the reasons I've heard in the news the most recently (medicinal purposes).  Especially since there are drugs with all the benefits and fewer side effects available out there for those things that medicinal marijuana is used for, including a synthetic THC that is currently legal.  I think marijuana should be legal because I see logic in the prison crowding and crime issues.  I see logic in the comparisons to alcohol and tobacco in the dangers they pose, and conclude that in my opinion it's simply wrong to keep those two drugs legal and pot illegal.

[Guardian85]

Add to all this the fact that Portugal decriminalized the taking of ALL drugs in 2001 and found that despite predictions of escalation of the drug problem, the program has been a tremendous success.
Based on this it should be obvious which is the best way to go.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[ThinkAnarchy]

ThinkAnarchy... instead of posting the entire sequence of our points in a reply, I'll say you have some good points in response to the book I wrote previously.  Again, I agree with the idea that marijuana should be legal, just not on the reasons I've heard in the news the most recently (medicinal purposes).  Especially since there are drugs with all the benefits and fewer side effects available out there for those things that medicinal marijuana is used for, including a synthetic THC that is currently legal.  I think marijuana should be legal because I see logic in the prison crowding and crime issues.  I see logic in the comparisons to alcohol and tobacco in the dangers they pose, and conclude that in my opinion it's simply wrong to keep those two drugs legal and pot illegal.

The only reason I tried to counter the possible misconceptions you had was for other people lurking this thread. Since we come to the same conclusion, the reasons for that conclusion aren't a big deal to me. Others reading this may not have an opinion about the topic though, so I simply wanted to argue the entire thing so they could see the counter argument and decide for themselves with more information.  Hope that makes since, my sleeping schedule is out of whack and I just woke up. 

[Recusant]

. . .

Especially since there are drugs with all the benefits and fewer side effects available out there for those things that medicinal marijuana is used for, including a synthetic THC that is currently legal. 

If you're talking about marinol, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but I have heard that it is not a good nor a sufficiently effective substitute for cannabis. You may find this link informative.

[Ali]

This is slightly off topic (when am I not?) but the whole medical marijuana thing is such a joke.  CO is one of the states with medical marijuana, and you can get your "license" for any made up complaint.  Heck, you can get your license at any of the outdoor festivals (including the one I was just at) around town.  Dispensaries will set up booths, have you fill out the paperwork, and have a so called dr look at you in the back of the booth right there at the festival and sign off then and there.  I'm sorry, but if your "drs office" has a grass floor, cloth walls, and is within smelling distance of the giant turkey leg stand, I'm going to have serious doubts about the standard of your medical care.

Having said that, it should just be legal anyway, without having to go through the whole "medical" charade.

Back to the topic, I don't know that it's hipocrisy to change your stance on something from when you were in high school.  But I do think that the reason pot is illegal has a lot more to do with following the money from the booze industry and possibly big tobacco than from any great overwhelming health concerns by recreational pot use.

I personally hate pot, both smoking it and being around people who have smoked it, but I still think it's a freaking joke that it's illegal.

[fester30]

. . .

Especially since there are drugs with all the benefits and fewer side effects available out there for those things that medicinal marijuana is used for, including a synthetic THC that is currently legal. 

If you're talking about marinol, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but I have heard that it is not a good nor a sufficiently effective substitute for cannabis. You may find this link informative.

Marinol was one of them.  But I was also talking about alternatives for cancer sufferers and AIDS patients to increase appetite and decrease nausea, and alternatives for glaucoma sufferers to decrease pressure.  Of course, that's a legalize marijuana website depending largely upon anecdotal evidence.  I've smoked marijuana before, and I'm sure I'd much rather smoke a doob than take a pill if given the option, especially if my illness is potentially terminal.  May as well go out on a cloud.  Doesn't mean the wacky tobacky is better for you than the alternatives, just more enjoyable.  What they didn't mention in that article is that marijuana lowers T-cell count.  For AIDS patients that is already a problem without weed. 

[Recusant]

So, you looked through those footnotes, and you wave your hand and call it all "anecdotal"? Yes, it's a site advocating decriminalization of medical cannabis. I don't blame you (a person who believes that cannabis is "very bad") for wanting to ignore any inconvenient facts that may be found there.

[Crow]

I personally hate pot, both smoking it and being around people who have smoked it.

So do I.

[fester30]

So, you looked through those footnotes, and you wave your hand and call it all "anecdotal"? Yes, it's a site advocating decriminalization of medical cannabis. I don't blame you (a person who believes that cannabis is "very bad") for wanting to ignore any inconvenient facts that may be found there.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence on that site, though.  Lots of "respondents claiming" better feelings with one method than another and such that could be their own bias to favor the marijuana due to their own beliefs.  I'm not ignoring inconvenient facts.  The website I cited probably has a few slanted points on it as well, being a DEA website, as ThinkAnarchy pointed out.  However, there is strong evidence that smoking pot does more harm than any medicinal good due to its link to lung and heart disease and weakened immune systems.  Other forms of use other than smoking may prove more effective, but that I don't know.  Again, I'm for legalization.  I remember smoking marijuana in college, and I remember loving it.  I love to drink and smoke cigarettes now.  Were it not for my current job, I would likely smoke marijuana from time to time now.  I just don't believe the argument for legalizing based upon its medicinal properties holds any water.  I think if someone wants to legalize it just for medicinal reasons and wants to be consistent, then their campaign should include legalizing only non-smoking forms of marijuana.  That might be more honest.

[Recusant]

It appears to me that you continue to willfully ignore the facts presented on that page which show that smoked cannabis has superior therapeutic benefits when compared to Marinol (and any of the other currently available substitutes). Also, the point is made that Marinol was not created in an effort to supply a therapeutic alternative to cannabis, but as a research tool for those investigating the psychoactive effects of cannabis. As such, it contains only one of the psychoactive components (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol) of cannabis, which in its natural form contains approximately 400 chemical components. Perhaps if an actual therapeutic substitute for cannabis is eventually developed, it would make sense to use it as a replacement, but Marinol is definitely not that substitute, and I really can't understand why you would think that it is. Neither are any of the other chemicals being promoted as "superior" to cannabis really worthy of consideration.

I don't deny that some anecdotal evidence is cited on that page, but it isn't only anecdotal. One of the more telling examples:

The most recent "new" drug receiving bureaucratic praise as a marijuana alternative is Zofran which costs $600 per dose and requires hospitalization at a cost of $500 - 1,500 per day. Zofran is said to be effective 75% of the time in helping patients vomit six times or less per chemotherapy treatment.  

By contrast, marijuana costs a penny per dose, patients can safely use it at home, and marijuana helps 90% of cancer patients unable to obtain relief using prescriptive antiemetic agents.

There is a final important difference. Zofran is not an appetite stimulant. Marijuana is. A patient employing marijuana at home can sit down to eat dinner with the family. This is not a matter of insignificant benefit.

The page says it well:

. . . it is medically unethical to use an elusive search for pharmaceutical perfection as an excuse to deprive millions of currently ill Americans of therapeutic access to an effective, albeit imperfect, treatment.

[philosoraptor]

The government tells us it's harmful, the heads tout it as a miracle cure.  I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two extreme attitudes you often see demonstrated on this topic.  Perhaps we should do our own personal research study to confirm the actual 'truth'? 

[McQ]

I don't deny that some anecdotal evidence is cited on that page, but it isn't only anecdotal. One of the more telling examples:

The most recent "new" drug receiving bureaucratic praise as a marijuana alternative is Zofran which costs $600 per dose and requires hospitalization at a cost of $500 - 1,500 per day. Zofran is said to be effective 75% of the time in helping patients vomit six times or less per chemotherapy treatment.  

By contrast, marijuana costs a penny per dose, patients can safely use it at home, and marijuana helps 90% of cancer patients unable to obtain relief using prescriptive antiemetic agents.

There is a final important difference. Zofran is not an appetite stimulant. Marijuana is. A patient employing marijuana at home can sit down to eat dinner with the family. This is not a matter of insignificant benefit.

The page says it well:

. . . it is medically unethical to use an elusive search for pharmaceutical perfection as an excuse to deprive millions of currently ill Americans of therapeutic access to an effective, albeit imperfect, treatment.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but your quote here caught my eye, Recusant. I wasn't able to trace it back to its source. Can you put the link in? I ask, because a couple of the statements are inaccurate.

For one thing, Zofran does not require hospitalization. It is available in oral form and can be taken at home, at the patient's convenience. It's usually taken about 30 minutes prior to a chemotherapy session. My son took his at home before we'd drive to the doctor for his chemo. The price quoted is also seemingly out of whack with what I know the price to be. Plus, it is often available at no cost to the patient, or with substantial co-pay assistance, keeping the cost to a couples of dollars per month for most patients. It is also covered by commercial insurance and Medicare. We paid $5 per dose, which totaled $60 for the entire six months of therapy.

Another thing is that it is in no way medically unethical to search for new pharmaceuticals, even when there are current medicinals available, especially when it comes to trying to "perfect" them (i.e. create more efficacious compounds with fewer adverse effects). The point of this research is to eventually create extremely effective drugs, with minimal side effects. Cost is another matter, however, and the outrageous costs of some new meds are exampls of profit over patient benefit - that much is shamefully true.

Last thing is that I question the value of the statement that Zofran is not an appetite stimulant and that somehow, that is a strike against it. That's just not a valid point to bring up, any more than stating that Zofran is not a hypnotic, or that it is not a pain killer.

For one thing, it doesn't need to be an appetite stimulant. When nausea is taken out of the equation, cancer patients' normal appetite returns. I'd rather have a normal return of appetite than use a side effect of something to artificially stimulate my appetite.

Anyway, just my two cents on the couple of bits of misinformation there. The rest is opinion, and mine's no better than anyone else's on this subject.

NOTE: Edited to correct horrendous typos. I don't like typing a lot on an iPad. Somehow, the autocorrect always screws me!

[Recusant]

Thank you for pointing out some of the inaccuracies in my source, McQ. The page from which those quotes were taken is a pro-medical cannabis site that I linked to earlier in the thread, "Marijuana as Medicine: A Recent History". The information regarding the cost of Zofran appears to be either intentionally misleading, and/or woefully out of date. The original source seems to be studies done by the National Cancer Institute, cited in Marijuana, Medicine & The Law, Vol. II, which was published in 1989.

[McQ]

Thank you for pointing out some of the inaccuracies in my source, McQ. The page from which those quotes were taken is a pro-medical cannabis site that I linked to earlier in the thread, "Marijuana as Medicine: A Recent History". The information regarding the cost of Zofran appears to be either intentionally misleading, and/or woefully out of date. The original source seems to be studies done by the National Cancer Institute, cited in Marijuana, Medicine & The Law, Vol. II, which was published in 1989.

Cool, thanks for the link and source.
I am, by the way, pro-cannabis, although not a partaker myself.

[Firebird]

Interesting how much of an argument there was even though everyone appears to be pro-legalization. Interesting that no one here has argued against it. Anyone here opposed to legalization? There must be at least one.