Medical pot distribution ruled unconstitutional in Canada

[marcustullius]

But here's the question: Is Marijuana the best way to treat the depression or pain? Is there nothing out there that would be more ideal to help with the problem? Somehow, I find the idea that something that comes from a plant grown in someone's backyard, prepared, and smoked is more effective than anything modern medicine has already come up with unlikely. Not impossible, just unlikely.

 

 

Can someone correct me on this?

 

I question the same thing. In terms of power. No. There are lots of drugs more powerful. However many leave the person unable to function, as in drive cars and such. Don't get me wrong. I don't want people driving marijuana driving cars. However they are more functional Than somebody on prescription pain killers. But honestly I don't see how it is particularly more effective than just high dosages of over the counter pain killers.

 

 

See my earlier post:

Marijuana wouldn't be useful as a main drug to treat the disease, it would be used to suppress symptoms of the disease/condition.

[Omar]

It can't really hurt to have another solution added to the gamut.

 

True, but it shouldn't be used as a treatment when a more ideal solution is available. The question should probably be asked case-by-case, but I'm just wondering how many times the answer is really yes. Times have moved on, and natural remedies are being increasingly overtaken by advances in medicine. It's been like that for a long time now.

Morphine is used on a regular basis and it's derived from poppies.

I haven't watched the video, but alcohol is much, more dangerous. Pot can help, but it shouldn't be used as a cure. In other cases, as marcus mentioned, it can help deal with chemotherapy. Of course, marijuana isn't going to solve all problems, you can't expect it to do that...

[obfuscator]

but alcohol is much, more dangerous. Pot can help, but it shouldn't be used as a cure.

 

In what way is alcohol so much more dangerous?

[Omar]

but alcohol is much, more dangerous. Pot can help, but it shouldn't be used as a cure.

 

In what way is alcohol so much more dangerous?

I don't have sources (or time) anymore, but alcohol consumption is more addictive and harmful to your body. Look through these:

http://www.physorg.com/news157280425.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2007/03/23/alcohol-tobacco.html

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Alcohol%20Kills/alcohol_is_worse.htm

 

Hope they'll answer your question (about weed, not whether Jesus is savior, or where the [bleep]oris is located if you're Dwight), I haven't fully read them.

[obfuscator]

Oh, I'm already aware that alcohol is dangerous - I haven't seen real evidence to suggest it is so much more dangerous than marijuana that their legal positions should be reversed.

[magegoogles]

Oh, I'm already aware that alcohol is dangerous - I haven't seen real evidence to suggest it is so much more dangerous than marijuana that their legal positions should be reversed.

 

Alcohol is worse for many body organs. Most notabely the brain and liver. Also it is much easier to abuse or over use alcohol. Blacking out, alcohol poisioning, and even death are consequences of drinking to much. I've heard rediculous figures like you need to smoke pounds of weed in a session to die. So thats not very probable.

[marcustullius]

Oh, I'm already aware that alcohol is dangerous - I haven't seen real evidence to suggest it is so much more dangerous than marijuana that their legal positions should be reversed.

 

Their positions shouldn't be reversed, but if alcohol is legal then why shouldn't marijuana (which is much, much less dangerous)? Because they can't control it completely?

 

e:

I've heard rediculous figures like you need to smoke pounds of weed in a session to die. So thats not very probable.

 

Actually, a common figure is about 1/3 your bodyweight in pounds, other figures vary all the way up to 1,500 pounds in 15 minutes. Of course, it's hard to determine a lethal dose when no one has ever died from ODing on it.

 

Also I found this pretty interesting tid bit from DEA Judge Young's Ruling on Medical Marijuana:

 

ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION

 

With respect to whether or not there is "a lack of accepted safety

for use of [marijuana] under medical supervision", the record shows the

following facts to be uncontroverted.

 

 

Findings of Fact

 

1. Richard J. Gralla, M.D., an oncologist and Professor of

Medicine who was an Agency witness, accepts that in treating cancer

patients oncologists can use the cannabinoids with safety despite their

side effects.

 

2. Andrew T. Weil, M.D., who now practices medicine in Tucson,

Arizona and is on the faculty of the College of Medicine, University of

Arizona, was a member of the first team of researchers to perform a

Federal Government authorized study into the effects of marijuana on

human subjects. This team made its study in 1968. These researchers

determined that marijuana could be safely used under medical supervision.

In the 20 years since then Dr. Weil has seen no information that would

cause him to reconsider that conclusion. There is no question in his

mind but that marijuana is safe for use under appropriate medical

supervision.

 

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is

the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

 

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal

effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in

the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented

cannabis-induced fatality.

 

- 56 -

 

5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on

marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana

is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world.

Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans

routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of

direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and

the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no

credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a

single death.

 

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter

medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

 

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called

an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of

test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced

toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine

marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply

stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to

induce death.

 

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around

1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce

death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as

much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied

marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would

theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within

about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

 

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal

response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

 

- 57 -

 

10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is

called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between

a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing

adverse effects.

 

11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a

therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose

for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a

lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross

injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.

 

12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly

around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive drug, may

cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the

recommended (therapeutic) dose.

 

13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much

lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to treat patients with

cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The

therapeutic ratio of some of the drugs used in antineoplastic therapies,

for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic

ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50

ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being

properly employed.

 

14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50,

is impossible to quantify because it is so high.

 

15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many

foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can

result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible

to eat enough marijuana to induce death.

 

16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest

therapeutically

 

- 58 -

 

active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis

marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.

 

17. Some of the drugs most widely used in chemotherapy

treatment of cancer have adverse effects as follows:

 

Cisplatin, one of the most powerful chemo-

therapeutic agents used on humans - may cause deafness;

may lead to life-threatening kidney difficulties and

kidney failure; adversely affects the body's immune

system, suppressing the patient's ability to fight a

host of common infections.

 

Nitrogen Mustard, a drug used in therapy for

Hodgkins disease - nauseates; so toxic to the skin

that, if dropped on the skin, this chemical literally

eats it away along with other tissues it contacts; if

patient's intravenous lead slips during treatment and

this drug gets on or under the skin the patient may

suffer serious injury including temporary, and in

extreme cases, permanent, loss of use of the arm.

 

Procarbizine, also used for Hodgkins disease -

has known psychogenic, i.e., emotional, effects.

 

Cyoxin, also known as Cyclophosphanide -

suppresses patient's immune system response; results

in serious bone marrow depletion; studies indicate

this drug may also cause other cancers, including

cancers of the bladder.

 

Adriamycan, has numerous adverse effects; is

difficult to employ in long term therapies because it

destroys the heart muscle.

 

While each of these agents has its particular adverse effects, as

indicated above, they also cause a number of similar, disturbing adverse

effects. Most of these drugs cause hair loss. Studies increasingly

indicate all of these drugs may cause other forms of cancer. Death due

to kidney, heart or respiratory failure is a very real possibility with

all of these agents and the margin for error is minimal. Similarly,

there is a danger of overdosing a patient weakened by his cancer. Put

simply, there is very great risk associated with the medical

 

There's more, but those are the most poignant I think

[Will H]

It can't really hurt to have another solution added to the gamut.

 

True, but it shouldn't be used as a treatment when a more ideal solution is available. The question should probably be asked case-by-case, but I'm just wondering how many times the answer is really yes. Times have moved on, and natural remedies are being increasingly overtaken by advances in medicine. It's been like that for a long time now.

Morphine is used on a regular basis and it's derived from poppies.

I haven't watched the video, but alcohol is much, more dangerous. Pot can help, but it shouldn't be used as a cure. In other cases, as marcus mentioned, it can help deal with chemotherapy. Of course, marijuana isn't going to solve all problems, you can't expect it to do that...

 

 

People used to use opium, now they use morphine. The best application in medicine would almost certainly come from a derivative, and it almost certainly wouldn't be smoked. For starters, the burning paper alone would introduce carcinogens, so using an inhaler would be much better.

 

I get the feeling I'm ruining people's fun here, but I'm trying to make a point. Don't pretend that you're taking it for medical reasons when you're really doing it only because you like getting high.

[marcustullius]

 

 

 

People used to use opium, now they use morphine. The best application in medicine would almost certainly come from a derivative, and it almost certainly wouldn't be smoked. For starters, the burning paper alone would introduce carcinogens, so using an inhaler would be much better.

 

I get the feeling I'm ruining people's fun here, but I'm trying to make a point. Don't pretend that you're taking it for medical reasons when you're really doing it only because you like getting high.

 

Aren't opioids still used for chronic pain? (Side note: The history of Canada banning opium is pretty interesting)l

Carcinogens are produced when you burn pretty much any organic material. The biggest draw to marijuana, I think, is that it has extremely mild potential side-effects compared to prescription drugs. That and for some people it really is a god send. The method of taking it I'm not too knowledgeable on. Smoking it has the advantage of entering the bloodstream directly from the lungs, which means the effects kick in a lot faster. Vaporizers from what I know are a pretty great alternative. But a question: if smoking works best for someone, and they are aware of the dangers or smoking, why should we deny them smoking it?

 

Also, there is a synthetic cannabinoid. It's called Marinol. It's inferior to marijuana though.

 

You seem to have some sort of stereotype of people who smoke, smoke for medicinal reasons, and advocate the legalization of marijuana as pot heads or something. This is simply not true. Marijuana is proven to have medical uses, and I have only so much as seen marijuana twice, never smoked it (probably never will). But yes, there are people who self-diagnose and take it when they don't need it, but this topic isn't about those people.

[Will H]

People used to use opium, now they use morphine. The best application in medicine would almost certainly come from a derivative, and it almost certainly wouldn't be smoked. For starters, the burning paper alone would introduce carcinogens, so using an inhaler would be much better.

 

I get the feeling I'm ruining people's fun here, but I'm trying to make a point. Don't pretend that you're taking it for medical reasons when you're really doing it only because you like getting high.

 

Aren't opioids still used for chronic pain? (Side note: The history of Canada banning opium is pretty interesting)l

 

Carcinogens are produced when you burn pretty much any organic material. The biggest draw to marijuana, I think, is that it has extremely mild potential side-effects compared to prescription drugs. That and for some people it really is a god send. The method of taking it I'm not too knowledgeable on. Smoking it has the advantage of entering the bloodstream directly from the lungs, which means the effects kick in a lot faster. Vaporizers from what I know are a pretty great alternative. But a question: if smoking works best for someone, and they are aware of the dangers or smoking, why should we deny them smoking it?

 

Also, there is a synthetic cannabinoid. It's called Marinol. It's inferior to marijuana though.

 

You seem to have some sort of stereotype of people who smoke, smoke for medicinal reasons, and advocate the legalization of marijuana as pot heads or something. This is simply not true. Marijuana is proven to have medical uses, and I have only so much as seen marijuana twice, never smoked it (probably never will). But yes, there are people who self-diagnose and take it when they don't need it, but this topic isn't about those people.

 

They are, but it's not the same as traditional opium.

 

You shouldn't give it to patients to smoke because that method unnecessarily increases the chances of cancer with no benefit, that's going against the Hippocratic Oath. If a doctor gives you a prescription for anything in the form of an inhaler, you can't get away with going ahead and asking them if there's a form you can smoke instead.

 

Ah, good, so they are making derivatives. It'll be a matter of time before something better comes along, but at least people are making the effort.

 

I know a mixture of people with different relationships with Marijuana, but I appreciate that advocating it stems from thinking about why certain drugs are banned or not, not some kind of 'addiction' to it. I used to think otherwise, but I realise now I was wrong. I'm really trying to separate myself from that perception, but I apologise if I haven't succeeded in doing that in my posts. I'm trying to talk about people who are lying to themselves about Marijuana or lying to the medical system to obtain it legally, but I guess I've gone a bit offtopic. Eh, it was fun.

[Range_This11]

In my opinion, the success or failure of medical marijuana will ultimately decide whether or not marijuana becomes legalized fully. In a way, the arguments are one in the same.

[Omar]

Oh, I'm already aware that alcohol is dangerous - I haven't seen real evidence to suggest it is so much more dangerous than marijuana that their legal positions should be reversed.

Are there seriously no other pain medications as good as weed?

We can't really know unless solid research is done, but things seem to point in that direction.

I feel there's nothing wrong with consuming marijuana, even for pleasure. Yes, it's a superficial pleasure, but that doesn't mean you use it to replace what would otherwise be unhappiness; besides, that's none of your business. If healthy derivatives are introduced, I don't see why anyone could prohibit them, for any reason at all. It's kind of like banning video games.

[Omar]

The main point of emphasis I hear in well-reasoned debate about this topic is that it leads unwary kids into a street livelihood. I don't believe that marijuana is a "gateway drug", but when you interact with a dealer who may also be experienced with harder drugs, gang conflicts, etc. it's easy for a kid to get caught up. Some would say that this could be easily solved by selling marijuana legally by the government, heavily taxed. However, the marijuana "industry" is already well established - everyone who currently smokes pot buys it from somebody. Heavily taxed marijuana sold like cigarettes would probably cost average joe more than the grass he gets from the guy two doors down, especially if dealers lowered their prices to out compete the government stuff. As a result, I would favor a full legalization of marijuana set up in such a way to encourage farmers to produce it to be sold at supermarkets or gas stations untaxed. Alternatively, legalization with no government involvement in sales or production, allowing the communities to set up grow-ops at their own discretion to keep kids off the streets.

If it was legalized without government control, it would become a huge mess with people killing each other over it and stuff. It shouldn't be taxed at all, or only enough to cover the cost to health care, if any. That should keep it lower than the average 10$/g cost we have over here.

[Omar]

There are people that make their livelihood growing, transporting, and selling marijuana. If it is legalized, it will be cheaper for them to grow and transport, which means it will be cheaper to sell. The established dealers will be able to easily out compete brands.

 

I don't see why people would kill each other if it was legalized without government control.

Just drug wars. And it's not like the established dealers can't be associated to the government, or sales to the end consumer can't be managed by the government. What I'm saying is if marijuana is legalized as-is with an age limit people will be fighting over the demand.

[marcustullius]

No one is going to fight for weed.

[Range_This11]

I don't see anyone having a drug war over weed. It basically grows anywhere, it is after all a weed. Anyone can grow it.

[Omar]

Yeah, I suppose you guys probably know better than I do.

[Range_This11]

I don't see anyone having a drug war over weed. It basically grows anywhere, it is after all a weed. Anyone can grow it.

Not exactly true. You can't just throw some seeds in a pot and expect good weed. There's a lot of genetics, breeding, light schedules, water schedules, etc. etc. behind good pot.

I'm aware, I should have said anyone with the internet can grow it.