http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/ron-paul-versus-barack-obama-on-weed.html
QuoteDetails from a new book Barack Obama: The Storycontains in-depth details about his frequent marijuana use as a young man. Although Obama admitted to using marijuana in his memoir Dreams From My Father, we now learn for example that Obama was a frequently indulging aficionado who was a big fan of hot boxing in cars. While Obama's past marijuana use is treated as merely a funny anecdote, his hypocrisy on the issue of marijuana and the destruction his continued support for prohibition causes is no laughing matter.
???
George W. Bush was known to have done coke. Several early American Presidents made reference to using hemp recreationally, and the country didn't implode. What's your point? A link with no commentary doesn't say much.
Learning from one's mistakes isn't hypocrisy, it's wisdom.
Quote from: philosoraptor on May 26, 2012, 10:04:44 PM
???
George W. Bush was known to have done coke. Several early American Presidents made reference to using hemp recreationally, and the country didn't implode. What's your point? A link with no commentary doesn't say much.
The commentary is in the link and doesn't need much else added to it by me. I also never claimed GW wasn't a hypocritical asshole ass well. The point is he is continuing the laws that ruin young peoples lives; the same laws that could have ruined his life if he had been one of the unlucky ones to get caught.
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
Learning from one's mistakes isn't hypocrisy, it's wisdom.
I fail to see the wisdom in the drug laws.
Smoking marijuana is very bad for you. 1 joint deposits as much tar in the lungs as 4 filtered cigarettes. 5 joints a week deposit as many carcinogens as a pack of cigarettes a day. Marijuana smokers have higher rates of cancer, lung disease, and heart disease than non-smokers. There are about 400 chemicals in marijuana, many of which are also the dangerous chemicals found in cigarettes. Marijuana decreases motor skills, which decreases one's ability to avoid traffic accidents. Marijuana weakens the immune system. Marijuana is addictive.
The risks outweigh any benefits when one smokes marijuana for medical purposes. There are other, safer, more effective drugs for glaucoma. Smoking marijuana for cancer is supposed to help with nausea and loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy, but there are also safer, more effective drugs for that purpose. Someone who already has a weakened immune system could be severely hurt by the lower T cell count that is a marijuana side-effect.
There are studies that THC, or drugs derived from that, can be effective treatments for some ailments. However, that's not in the form of smoking the drug or eating it in a brownie or whatever. Marinol is one such effective synthetic THC drug approved by the FDA.
I am completely in favor of legalizing it, despite all these issues, because I don't think it's necessarily any more dangerous to people or society than alcohol or cigarettes. If those are legal, then I think we should be able to choose for ourselves whether we use marijuana. I would say it should be regulated, so that people know what they're getting when they buy it. It should be slightly cheaper than street value as well otherwise you would lose much of the benefit of lower crime (California wants to tax it so high it'll still be cheaper to get it on the street illegally, how does that make any sense?). Also, strict enforcement of driving under the influence of the stuff. I just think the people who are trying to legalize marijuana should just be more open about it. Using the debunked "medical marijuana" strategy is just dishonest.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html
As for the President... I don't know his motives. Could be political, could be perhaps he fears for America's children now that he has kids getting to be about that age. Maybe it's hypocrisy, maybe it's not. Then again, there is a lot of hypocrisy out there. Ron Paul seems to be pretty consistent on the roles of the Federal vs. State government, however, many who claim to be Libertarians say they would not have the Federal government telling the states what to do, but would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A constitutional amendment would, in effect, be the federal government telling the states what to do.
I personally have some tolerance for hypocrisy in my politicians. Oh, and I completely agree with ThinkAnarchy, that those laws do ruin peoples' lives. There is a stigma on drug convictions above that of many other crimes, like retail theft or beating up old ladies.
That's really not hypocrisy. A man can't change his mind? Plus, why are you singling out Obama? You agreed the Mr. Bush was an asshole as well, but you can't keep holding out for some imaginary candidate that plays be the rules. George washinton isn't coming back. Obama is still the one candidate that makes sense to vote for. I certainly ain't voting for mit.
Quote from: fester30 on May 26, 2012, 10:58:21 PM
Smoking marijuana is very bad for you.
. . .
Many of the points in the "justice.gov" piece are contradicted by others.
ScienceDaily | "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm)
"Top 10 Common Myths About Cannabis" (http://listverse.com/2009/01/26/top-10-common-myths-about-cannabis/)
I think that it would have been more accurate to have written "
In my opinion, smoking marijuana is very bad for you." I would not argue that smoking marijuana is harmless. However, in my opinion, the anti-marijuana propaganda put out by the government and others which attempts to justify the continued federal prohibition on its possession and use is not to be trusted. The assertion that marijuana is "very bad" seems to be an overstatement, in any case.
I have to disagree with fester about the benifits of medical marijuana. A close relative of mine has sufferd for the last two decades from a debilitating back injury which causes him constant, sharp pain throughout his entire lower body. His doctors prescribed every pain medication on the market, from vicodin to oxycontin, all too no avail. The drugs did little more than fog his mind and slow his reflexes, while his back and legs ached every day and every night.
Finally, a new doctor suggested he try smoking pot, and although the pain did not go away completley, it was made much more manageable. I would also add that whatever addictive qualities marajuana possesses, it is a far safer remedy than most prescription pain killers. Oxycontin is know in rural Virginia as "hillbilly heroin," due it's immense power as an addictive substance. All in all I feel much safer knowing he's sitting comfortably in his chair smoking a joint, instead of wandering the streets looking for someone willing to sell their prescription.
I will agree that the glaucoma line is nothing more than a front for stoners seeking access to a dispensory. It makes me sick when losers like that give people who are genuinely in need a bad name.
Quote from: fester30 on May 26, 2012, 10:58:21 PM
Smoking marijuana is very bad for you. 1 joint deposits as much tar in the lungs as 4 filtered cigarettes. 5 joints a week deposit as many carcinogens as a pack of cigarettes a day. Marijuana smokers have higher rates of cancer, lung disease, and heart disease than non-smokers. There are about 400 chemicals in marijuana, many of which are also the dangerous chemicals found in cigarettes. Marijuana decreases motor skills, which decreases one's ability to avoid traffic accidents. Marijuana weakens the immune system. Marijuana is addictive.
Propaganda.
On addictiveness.
Cannabis can cause a psychological addiction, but not a physical addiction. A person can become psycologically addicted to nearly anything though. You want it for a few days and that is about it. There are no physical symptoms like when a person quits nicotine.
As for the carcinogens, I imagine that is mostly factual. However most of those carcinogens can be avoided by simply using a vaporizer.
http://www.canorml.org/health/vaporizers
QuoteLike tobacco, marijuana smoke contains toxins that are known to be hazardous to the respiratory system. Among them are the highly carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, a prime suspect in cigarette-related cancers. These toxins are essentially a byproduct of combustion, separate from the pharmaceutically active components of marijuana, known as cannabinoids, which include THC. Although there is no proof that marijuana smoking causes cancer, chronic pot smokers have been shown to suffer an elevated risk of bronchitis and respiratory infections. Respiratory disease due to smoking may therefore rightly be regarded as the primary physiological hazard of marijuana.
Cannabis vaporizers are designed to let users inhale active cannabinoids while avoiding harmful smoke toxins. They do so by heating cannabis to a temperature of 180 - 200° C (356° - 392° F), just below the point of combustion where smoke is produced. At this point, THC and other medically active cannabinoids are emitted with little or none of the carcinogenic tars and noxious gases found in smoke. Many medical marijuana patients who find smoked marijuana highly irritating report effective relief inhaling through vaporizers. Users who are concerned about the respiratory hazards of smoking are strongly advised to use vaporizers. Alternative devices, such as waterpipes, have been shown to be ineffective at reducing the tars in marijuana smoke (Report).
And yes cannabis reduces motor skills, but at the same time, the cannabis user is well aware of this decrease in motor functions. Whereas alcohol provides the user with a false sense of invincibility, cannabis provides the user with the knowledge they are impaired. Those driving under the influence of cannabis tend to drive slower and focus on the task at hand in order to compensate. If there as been a study that actually links cannabis use to more accidents I would love to see it. This article is not conclusive that it doesn't cause accidents either, but has some interesting information.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/
And here is a practical experiment about driving under the influence of cannabis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKjFiGFrcU
Quote
The risks outweigh any benefits when one smokes marijuana for medical purposes. There are other, safer, more effective drugs for glaucoma. Smoking marijuana for cancer is supposed to help with nausea and loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy, but there are also safer, more effective drugs for that purpose. Someone who already has a weakened immune system could be severely hurt by the lower T cell count that is a marijuana side-effect.
Perhaps there is truth to the smoking argument, but that is only one way to consume the drug. Most doctors instruct their patients to eat or vaporize the drug.
Quote
I am completely in favor of legalizing it, despite all these issues, because I don't think it's necessarily any more dangerous to people or society than alcohol or cigarettes. If those are legal, then I think we should be able to choose for ourselves whether we use marijuana. I would say it should be regulated, so that people know what they're getting when they buy it. It should be slightly cheaper than street value as well otherwise you would lose much of the benefit of lower crime (California wants to tax it so high it'll still be cheaper to get it on the street illegally, how does that make any sense?). Also, strict enforcement of driving under the influence of the stuff. I just think the people who are trying to legalize marijuana should just be more open about it. Using the debunked "medical marijuana" strategy is just dishonest.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html
I stopped reading at point 1, "marijuana is an addictive drug..." The DEA certainly is not a trustworthy source in this debate, their existence relies on the illegality of drugs, including marijuana.
I can agree with most of the paragraph though. Medical marijuana has not been debunked however.
Quote
As for the President... I don't know his motives. Could be political, could be perhaps he fears for America's children now that he has kids getting to be about that age. Maybe it's hypocrisy, maybe it's not. Then again, there is a lot of hypocrisy out there. Ron Paul seems to be pretty consistent on the roles of the Federal vs. State government, however, many who claim to be Libertarians say they would not have the Federal government telling the states what to do, but would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A constitutional amendment would, in effect, be the federal government telling the states what to do.
I don't disagree with your statement about hypocrite libertarians, there are hypocrites in every group. I'm considered a hypocrite by many anarchists because I consider voting for Dr. Paul if he were to steal the republican nomination. :) It would depend on their reasons for opposing it however. Many libertarians likely agree with me that government should have no part in marriage. Regardless, a lot of people like to label themselves as libertarians without actually being one. A label means nothing if the actions are consistently hypocritical to what that label implies. I have come across many people who call themselves libertarians, but when you look at their actions and motives, they are simply republicans wearing the libertarian skin.
Quote
I personally have some tolerance for hypocrisy in my politicians. Oh, and I completely agree with ThinkAnarchy, that those laws do ruin peoples' lives. There is a stigma on drug convictions above that of many other crimes, like retail theft or beating up old ladies.
Indeed, if he had a drug conviction on his record, he may have been denied the opportunity to enter Harvard Law School. Without Law School he likely would not have been a successful politician.
Let me add some more context for the rest of the forum, particularly those of you not in the US. Several states, such as California, have passed laws allowing the growth and use of marijuana for medical purposes. But federal still does not allow use or distribution of marijuana for any purpose. So it's become this legal black hole. Federal law still trumps state law, so the federal government still has the right to crack down on any marijuana use it deems illegal under their laws, state law be damned. Obama and his justice department, however, had previously said they would not crack down on the dispensaries that have been set up in those states which distribute marijuana for medical purposes.
Unfortunately, they've suddenly changed their minds and started cracking down on the dispensaries after all. Obama really hasn't said much about this, but his Attorney General, Eric Holder, has made it clear he will continue to enforce federal drug laws, ie crack down on it even for medicinal purposes. So that's where a lot of the hypocrisy comes from.
I honestly don't know that Obama actually is against medicinal marijuana, but considering all the other hot-button issues he's dealing with already (gay marriage, etc) he probably feels that he can't afford to touch this one. Cowardly? Yes.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 26, 2012, 11:05:55 PM
That's really not hypocrisy. A man can't change his mind? Plus, why are you singling out Obama? You agreed the Mr. Bush was an asshole as well, but you can't keep holding out for some imaginary candidate that plays be the rules.
Seriously? I'm singling him out because this is current news and he is the current president. Bush is old news and no longer in a position of serious political power.
Quote
Obama is still the one candidate that makes sense to vote for. I certainly ain't voting for mit.
I would not vote for either of those two. I would consider bending my principles to vote for Ron Paul, but not Mitt or Obama.
Edited: for spelling the wrong word correctly.
Anecdotally, I have seen a lot more damage caused by alcohol than by marijuana use. I also know a ton of recreational marijuana users who are perfectly functional contributors to society. I don't know of a single person who has ever hurt someone / lost their job / became a deadbeat, etc. because they like to smoke weed on the weekend. Just my two cents.
Even though weed isn't physically addictive its usually the physiological addiction that has the strongest influence, the physical addiction isn't really that bad with things such as nicotine and is the psychological addiction that keeps people hooked. Because weed isn't physically addictive doesn't diminish its addictive properties, believe me I know (should I say knew as I concisely cut them out of my life years ago) many people who are addicted, they say they are not but they can not go a day without the stuff and have watched them spend entire days trying to track down a supply rather than enjoying the day.
Give me a minuet talking to a person face to face and I will be able to tell you if they smoke weed or not, it leaves its track marks plain for all to see if you know what to look for, these traces are far from desirable and if I pick one of these up in a job interview situation they are not getting the job regardless of how good they are. Why? Weed smokers are the most unreliable people I have ever met, slow witted and can not focus on more than one thing at a time. Not only that i know one person who had a freak out and almost killed his friend, and two others have such severe mental illnesses they require regular psychiatric evaluations, and is officially documented as being caused by heavy marijuana use.
However saying the above I think all drugs should be legalized and regulated as the negative effects of illegal drug subculture is far more damaging than the effects.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 27, 2012, 12:20:55 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 26, 2012, 11:05:55 PM
That's really not hypocrisy. A man can't change his mind? Plus, why are you singling out Obama? You agreed the Mr. Bush was an asshole as well, but you can't keep holding out for some imaginary candidate that plays be the rules.
Seriously? I'm singling him out because this is current news and he is the current president. Bush is old news and no longer in a position of serious political power.
Quote
Obama is still the one candidate that makes sense to vote for. I certainly ain't voting for mit.
I would not vote for either of those two. I would consider bending my principles to vote for Ron Paul, but not Mitt or Obama.
Edited: for spelling the wrong word correctly.
Besides the fact that to bring up the evils of Bush to defend Obama in this case does not answer the original point of the thread as it was posted. Bush's presidency, hypocrisy, actions, etc. have no bearing on whether Obama is currently a hypocrite. That point could be argued on its own merits. I understand that when talking about things like the economy that Bush's presidency may still be affecting, bringing him up may have merits. But defending one guy by saying another guy is just as evil or worse isn't really a defense.
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.
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.
QuoteThe 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
Quote from: fester30 on May 27, 2012, 09:44:54 PM
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.
Quote from: fester30 on May 27, 2012, 09:44:54 PM
. . .
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 (http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Overview%20-%20Part%20IV.htm) informative.
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.
Quote from: Recusant on May 27, 2012, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: fester30 on May 27, 2012, 09:44:54 PM
. . .
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 (http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Overview%20-%20Part%20IV.htm) 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.
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.
Quote from: Ali on May 28, 2012, 01:15:36 AM
I personally hate pot, both smoking it and being around people who have smoked it.
So do I.
Quote from: Recusant on May 28, 2012, 08:13:06 AM
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.
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:
QuoteThe 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:
Quote. . . 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.
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'? ;)
Quote from: Recusant on May 28, 2012, 10:58:55 PM
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:
QuoteThe 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:
Quote. . . 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!
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" (http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Overview%20-%20Part%20IV.htm). 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.
Quote from: Recusant on May 30, 2012, 04:49:54 PM
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" (http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Overview%20-%20Part%20IV.htm). 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.
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.
Quote from: Firebird on May 31, 2012, 02:52:45 PM
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.
My only argument against would be that if it does get legalized, there should be a minimum age, just like with alcohol, cigarettes, and voting... the other things apparently too dangerous for a minor to do.
Quote from: Firebird on May 31, 2012, 02:52:45 PM
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.
Perhaps the nature of this site, being in favour of rational thinking and personal freedoms, is inherently liberal? :P
Quote from: Guardian85 on June 02, 2012, 05:19:20 PM
Perhaps the nature of this site, being in favour of rational thinking and personal freedoms, is inherently liberal? :P
That is strange, because I never met a rational liberal ;D
^+1