Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

Recommended Posts

I am upset over the misdirection and propeganda regarding cannabis (aka marijuana). Even the phrase "marijuana" is itself a propeganda word, made-up to make it sound like some evil mexican plant.

Anyway, this is regarding the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Cannabis

What stood out was the part about how the FDA issued a statement that ""marijuana...has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States..."

I couldn't help myself, and got onto the fda.gov website and sent them this comment through their comments page (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/)...

----------------------

Regarding your 20 April 2006 advisory against smoked medical marijuana stating that, "marijuana...has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States..."

That is real thick-headed and incorrect. Actually, the same page [referring to wikipedia link, which was included in a seperate URL box] lists the following organizations as SUPPORTIVE OF CANNABIS USE

* The American College of Physicians - America's second largest physicians group[21]

* Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - America's second largest cancer charity.[21]

* American Academy of Family Physicians[21]

* American Public Health Association[21]

* American Psychiatric Association[21]

* American Nurses Association[21]

* British Medical Association[21]

* AIDS Action[21]

* American Academy of HIV Medicine[21]

* Lymphoma Foundation of America[21]

* Health Canada[21]

Get your heads out of your asses, guys. It is upsetting to see how out-of-touch the U.S. government is. It's just total denial for you over there. Wake up! Why in the hell would someone make Marinol [government manufactured type of cannabis pill] if there were "no medical uses."

Please revise your thick-headed statement and issue a public apology for this negligent statement.

Thanks

---------------

Just had to share my plight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't think the government should be able to flatly declare any substance to be of no medical value. On the other hand, I don't think that justifies blatant disregard of the law in allowing the growing, selling of marijuana, and the "non-prescribing" by doctors. We don't allow that with cocaine, or opium.

a.m.

p.s. I agree we should stop using manufactured Mexican words. Death to tacos, burritos, enchiladas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the key legal weasel word is "accepted" - as long as the FDA refuses (for political or any other reason) to accept the medical value of marijuana then it is literally true that there is "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States".

On the other hand, I don't think that justifies blatant disregard of the law in allowing the growing, selling of marijuana, and the "non-prescribing" by doctors. We don't allow that with cocaine, or opium.

Cocaine and morphine are Schedule II. We don't demand that the people who have a medical need for those drugs just do without under they're better or dead. Personally I don't think that the intent of the law, or the benefits of its enforcement, justify the disregard for the suffering of those doctors' patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just slightly OT, but the current issue of Seattle Magazine has an article about the involvement of Norm Stamper, Seattle's former CHIEF of POLICE!!! - being active in the movement to LEGALIZE marijuana - and other drugs. NOT just de-criminalize them.

Maybe there are glimpses of hope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about this?

Ease Pot Restrictions, Lawmakers Urge

What about it? Other than the fact that copying an entire copyrighted article over to another site goes far beyond "Fair Use", marijuana possession is still a crime in the United States. This site condones neither practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope your point in this thread is to possibly suggest the use of cannabis for the medical treatment of cancer or glaucoma. I would hope you aren't trying to say that marijuana is useful to treat mental illness. There is no way I'll buy that claim. It only increases psychosis and depression. It might give someone very temporary relief from being miserable in general, but is in no way a legitimate treatment of mental illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marijuana doesn't treat Glaucoma, really. It lowers the interocular pressure for about an hour, but then the pressure goes right back up. You'd have to be stoned all the time for your pressures to be lowered.

olga

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pish.

There are a multitude of reasons I've heard cited, and they're not particularly valid ones. But this one isn't very compelling.

To say the gummint couldn't make money off of cannabis is ludicrous. "But you can grow it yourself, see, so they can't possibly make money off of it."

Right. Unlike YEAST.

Said by the woman who makes her own hard cider (and still buys taxed ethanol, not to mention taxed cider-making supplies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The government could 'make' money just by reducing the millions of dollars they are currently SPENDING on enforcing laws that have not reduced 'drug problems'. In fact the illegality and expense have - in many opinions - been the actual cause of the problems people associate with drugs. If THOSE problems could be minimized then the actual problems associated with drug use could actually be open to rational examination and treatment - at far less cost than our current policies create.

(Oops! The problem with the above is that society would lose a scapegoat! They'd just have to come down that much harder on prostitution and the MI, homeless, 'foreign religions' etc. Maybe invent some new threat? Any ideas? Maybe if we packaged legalization with a new, 'made-for-gummint', replacement scapegoat there would be a greater chance of success!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government could 'make' money just by reducing the millions of dollars they are currently SPENDING on enforcing laws that have not reduced 'drug problems'. In fact the illegality and expense have - in many opinions - been the actual cause of the problems people associate with drugs.

Very much off-topic, but I've little interest in providing another revenue source for BATF.

However, to the extent that a society or subculture can have an analogue to (personal) mental illness drug use does seem to worsen its effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marijuana doesn't treat Glaucoma, really. It lowers the interocular pressure for about an hour, but then the pressure goes right back up. You'd have to be stoned all the time for your pressures to be lowered.

olga

I have a good friend who's blind in 1 eye and has had glaucoma since 14 or something. His story is that he tried every medication he possibly could and nothing works as well as cannabis. He also says that if he doesn't smoke for 3 days (he is probably completely saturated due to habitual use) he has to go into a perfectly dark room with no noise and lay perfectly still. And it won't go away. So he uses daily pretty much.

I am not advocating the use of marijuana. Nor am I saying that it shouldn't be used. I'm just saying that if it helps some people, then so be it.

It only increases psychosis and depression. It might give someone very temporary relief from being miserable in general, but is in no way a legitimate treatment of mental illness.
Umm, sometimes. Sometimes it helps a person, and not just temprorarily. If one were to look at all my posts on this topic from as far back as 2005 you will find varying views on this. Depending on my placement in the mood cycle, I have different opinions. I won't go as far as to say it's legitimate but it's a whole hell of a lot better than other things people self medicate with. Have you SEEN heroin or crack addicts? Addiction stems from feeling better f*cked up than you do when you're not. Why would you need to feel better in the first place? I'm not saying the only drug users are those self-medicating but some are. Many are possibly. If I were a statistic person, I'd give you a statistic. But I'm not. I just know what I live and who I know. For that reason, arguments are not theorhetical for me, but experiencial. I like that word. Huh huh - where's the spray cheese...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a statistic person, I'd give you a statistic. But I'm not. I just know what I live and who I know. For that reason, arguments are not theorhetical for me, but experiencial.

So you trust your gut as a source of truthiness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guestat3am

Thing is, we sort of ultimately ALL 'trust our gut as a source of truthiness' - except in mathematics and logic.

Which opinions sound 'right'? That becomes our truth. (Or what we were indoctrinated with - taught - from childhood.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, we sort of ultimately ALL 'trust our gut as a source of truthiness' - except in mathematics and logic.

Which opinions sound 'right'? That becomes our truth. (Or what we were indoctrinated with - taught - from childhood.)

That reminds me of a similar argument that every action taken and decision made is ultimately selfish, because even if someone helps other people, it's ultimately because it makes them feel better inside in some way to help other people, so that's their real motivation for doing it. That is of course very easily dismissed. I'll risk Godwining the thread by using this example: Hitler liked killing Jews, and Gandhi liked to use non-violent protest in favor of freedom/civil rights. You could say, "Oh, they just did those things because that's what they internally wanted to do," but it's clearly ridiculous once you extend the argument to its logical conclusion like that, and it's confusing different meanings/uses of the word "selfish". That people make decisions internally doesn't mean that the external consequences aren't very different.

In the exact same way, arguing that we all believe in whatever "sounds right" to us without acknowledging that "sounding right" can be based on a lot of different things, some of which actually involve evidence or are reproducible or are even scientific, and some of which are completely faith-based or even completely nonsensical with nothing to support them beyond "because I say so" (and of course the whole spectrum between those extremes) is confusing things by focusing on a small piece and ignoring the big picture. Forest, trees, etc.

As a mathematician and logician, I couldn't help pointing out, well, the error in your logic. Heh. And if you really want to get into the truthiness of mathematics itself, you'd be surprised how much stuff in certain fields actually does rest on nothing more than, "Well, it seems like it should be right..." The difference is that it's explicitly acknowledged that those assumptions haven't been proven yet, or in some cases are even unprovable (the discovery of which caused a huge uproar that lasted most of the 20th century and still isn't entirely resolved), and people also explore all of the other possibilities (What if this thing we assume is true is actually false? What are the consequences of that?) to attempt to develop more support for one side or the other or find contradictions or a deeper understanding of the question that led to it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a statistic person, I'd give you a statistic. But I'm not. I just know what I live and who I know. For that reason, arguments are not theorhetical for me, but experiencial.

So you trust your gut as a source of truthiness?

For questions of truth along the lines of "Do you feel better when you use this drug?" "gut feelings" should be sufficient.

It's a logical extrapolation to assume that other people also feel better when they use that drug, or similar drugs. I know we can find others' posts that present similar results, as well as a number of posts reporting results that match CBL's thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were a statistic person, I'd give you a statistic. But I'm not. I just know what I live and who I know. For that reason, arguments are not theorhetical for me, but experiencial.

So you trust your gut as a source of truthiness?

For questions of truth along the lines of "Do you feel better when you use this drug?" "gut feelings" should be sufficient.

It's a logical extrapolation to assume that other people also feel better when they use that drug, or similar drugs. I know we can find others' posts that present similar results, as well as a number of posts reporting results that match CBL's thesis.

It's not a gut reaction nor is it an assumption. It's life experience, observations and the experience of others that have shaped my thinking. This is the basis for my thoughts on that matter. Isn't that the first part of the scientific method or something?

Nalgas said:

you'd be surprised how much stuff in certain fields actually does rest on nothing more than, "Well, it seems like it should be right..." The difference is that it's explicitly acknowledged that those assumptions haven't been proven yet, or in some cases are even unprovable (the discovery of which caused a huge uproar that lasted most of the 20th century and still isn't entirely resolved), and people also explore all of the other possibilities (What if this thing we assume is true is actually false? What are the consequences of that?) to attempt to develop more support for one side or the other or find contradictions or a deeper understanding of the question that led to it in the first place.
Hoorah for science speak to help those for aren't so scientific!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one question.

Does anyone know why cannabis became illegal in the first place? Everyone prolly has an opinion on why it should or shouldn't be, I'm just interested in why it factually is. Maybe someone can explain it from a historical/political perspective? Did someone profit too much from the crops back when, or did the slaves working with growing it become too lazy from being around it or what??!

And another question: Did illegalizing it actually bring down the usage? This is a difficult question I know but maybe there are estimates?

An addition to the list medical benefits:

I know someone with MS who is prescribed some pill-form of cannabis. It relieves him of painful cramps.

But again, this also has to do with pain management in terminal illness. Seems like the use of cannabis is restricted to that category for now. I wonder if cannabis could replace benzos on some occasions, and whether it's more or less addictive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...