It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marijuana is Medicine "Journal of the American Medical Association" concludes

page: 4
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
I'm just curious as to when ATS will allow us to discuss our personal experiences with this medication....much like we can with ANY other medication except this one.


It is a bit silly.
Especially when a member can go on about how many brain cells they killed in a weekend of overindulgence of alcohol, or how they woke up in bed with a sheep or what not because they drank themselves stupid.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I think it has to do with the site's sponsors not wanting to sponsor a website that condones illegal activity, even if the majority of the country believes it shouldn't be illegal.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

I think it has to do with the site's sponsors not wanting to sponsor a website that condones illegal activity, even if the majority of the country believes it shouldn't be illegal.

That is correct, I'm sure.
It still seems silly.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

Until it's decriminalized in all states, that can be a slippery slope. While it's legal here in CO I don't condone breaking the laws of other states. It would be irresponsible for me to encourage or tempt people in any way.

I can openly discuss my medicinal use of coffee since it's legal in all states. Many people openly discuss their medicinal use of wine but it's legal too. My hubby just told me of a case in Kansas where a mom uses medicinally for Crohn's. Her well intentioned son spoke favorably about her usage during a classroom discussion. Now I think she's looking at 30 years.

We are free to discuss it openly here in CO but other states not so much. My advice is to first vote on it/demand decriminalization then we can discuss it without fear of litigation/incarceration.


edit on 6-24-2015 by Morningglory because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
I'm just curious as to when ATS will allow us to discuss our personal experiences with this medication....much like we can with ANY other medication except this one.



Quite possibly they will wait until the drug is no longer a Schedule I drug by law anymore



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
AMA OAODA: Leading The Way


originally posted by: butcherguy

So they have been silent for the last 97 years?

The AMA has made other recommendations over the years, including initiatives against alcohol advertising, supporting a national minimum drinking age of 21, opposing teen drinking, campaigning against drinking and driving (in association with MADD), recommending that a BAC of 0.10 be considered intoxicated for DUI purposes and more, and have an Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, which runs this website: AlcoholPolicyMD.com.

So no, they haven't been silent.

As a national association of medical professionals, however, the AMA's mission covers a broad range of healthcare issues, and because of that, alcohol is just one part of a very big picture for them.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

And in other news, humans need water to survive..

Wonderful share OP, glad the medical world is finally catching up with the times...

S&F
edit on 24-6-2015 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I mean, I'm 100% for legalization. I think people should be allowed to smoke up if they choose to and face zero consequences.
I think it is no more or less dangerous than alcohol.
However, I don't know if anyone actually read the study. I just did and here is the conclusion:



Conclusions and Relevance There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.


This is quite a glaring conclusions when contrasted to the opening paragraph in OP's article:



Marijuana is one hundred percent a form of medicine, researchers conclude in a bombshell series of reports released today by the Journal of the American Medical Association.


Really? 100% a form of medicine? lol ok...

Look...
Protest for its legalization but do so on the grounds that you want to get high. Period. Stop trying to take this scientific/medical approach - because every time you do, people who are actually paying attention will see those conclusions and believe you all to be clowns for trying to lead others astray with falsified information.
There are articles and articles and long-winded dissertations on all of these medical benefits, but when you actually read the study - the conclusions are nowhere near as great as you make them out to be and sometimes they are worse!
edit on 24-6-2015 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MrPlow

I will take "low-quality evidence" over "no evidence" any day.. If anything, it's a start and hopefully a direction to build from... As a person who suffers from severe crohn's disease, I can without a doubt state using has helped me. MUCH more than the steroids/infusions/drugs they make me take religiously and have me feeling horrible...



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow
I mean, I'm 100% for legalization. I think people should be allowed to smoke up if they choose to and face zero consequences.
I think it is no more or less dangerous than alcohol.
However, I don't know if anyone actually read the study. I just did and here is the conclusion:



Conclusions and Relevance There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.


This is quite a glaring conclusions when contrasted to the opening paragraph in OP's article:



Marijuana is one hundred percent a form of medicine, researchers conclude in a bombshell series of reports released today by the Journal of the American Medical Association.


Really? 100% a form of medicine? lol ok...

Look...
Protest for its legalization but do so on the grounds that you want to get high. Period. Stop trying to take this scientific/medical approach - because every time you do, people who are actually paying attention will see those conclusions and believe you all to be clowns for trying to lead others astray with falsified information.
There are articles and articles and long-winded dissertations on all of these medical benefits, but when you actually read the study - the conclusions are nowhere near as great as you make them out to be and sometimes they are worse!




If it has ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT AT ALL, it does not deserve a Schedule 1 classification. The studies showed "moderate quality and low quality evidence" but that is still evidence of THC having a medical benefit.

That is the point people have been trying to make for years. The first step toward wide-scale legalization is to have it removed from the Schedule 1 classification at the federal level.

For a source to admit that it has even a slight medical benefit in SOME patients is huge. There isn't a drug on this planet that is effective on all patients.

Claiming that pro-legalization folks "just want to get high" is total crap. Do some research on the folks with life-altering illnesses who got some relief from cannabis when nothing else worked. We're talking about children with epilepsy who go from completely debilitated to managing their disorder because of cannabidiol... an extract of cannabis. Folks who manage their psychological disorders without wanting to commit suicide. People who are in less pain without horrendous side effects because they're able to use a 100% natural plant instead of the toxic addictive chemicals being pushed by the pharmaceutical companies.

Please educate yourself.
edit on 6/24/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: MrPlow

I will take "low-quality evidence" over "no evidence" any day.. If anything, it's a start and hopefully a direction to build from... As a person who suffers from severe crohn's disease, I can without a doubt state using has helped me. MUCH more than the steroids/infusions/drugs they make me take religiously and have me feeling horrible...



If it has ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT AT ALL, it does not deserve a Schedule 1 classification. The studies showed "moderate quality and low quality evidence" but that is still evidence of THC having a medical benefit.

That is the point people have been trying to make for years. The first step toward wide-scale legalization is to have it removed from the Schedule 1 classification at the federal level.

For a source to admit that it has even a slight medical benefit in SOME patients is huge. There isn't a drug on this planet that is effective on all patients.



You know what else is low quality evidence? "Heroin helps people with insomnia." "Meth helps people with low energy"

Come on man- low quality evidence can be not only useless, but hurtful to the argument.
The bottom line is this - people should be allowed to use it for WHATEVER reason they want - so long as the consequence of it isn't going to create a greater public health issue than not.

edit on 24-6-2015 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Soon enough the kettle will call the pot green-There will be some folk in the higher echelons of power that will get the needle stuck in the groove again and will argue against the findings.

But guess what? Pharmaceutical opiates are far more addictive and dangerous than cannabis, and IMO there needs to comparative clinical trial pronto. If cannabinoids can prove more effective than their opiate equivalent then hopefully that will lead to a transition to Cannabis based pharmaceuticals.

Now we need to convince manufacturers that hemp is a viable material, then maybe this wonder plant will get the respect that it has earned after a century of having it's reputation tarnished.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
Soon enough the kettle will call the pot green-There will be some folk in the higher echelons of power that will get the needle stuck in the groove again and will argue against the findings.

But guess what? Pharmaceutical opiates are far more addictive and dangerous than cannabis, and IMO there needs to comparative clinical trial pronto. If cannabinoids can prove more effective than their opiate equivalent then hopefully that will lead to a transition to Cannabis based pharmaceuticals.

Now we need to convince manufacturers that hemp is a viable material, then maybe this wonder plant will get the respect that it has earned after a century of having it's reputation tarnished.





Yes but...opiates provide medical benefits. That's the argument being used when it comes to marijuana, right?
So long as it provides SOME medical benefits- that is the litmus test you all are using, isn't it?
You make a strong argument for the use of opiates as well.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MrPlow

I'm not saying that low quality evidence is the end all, be all, but I do believe it shows that there "could/might" be medical benefits, and the products deserve to be researched at greater depth, with additional funding, without the Federal Govt. chiming in trying to derail the medical research, because their Big Pharm lobbyist/friends are getting flustered and upset...



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: MrPlow

I'm not saying that low quality evidence is the end all, be all, but I do believe it shows that there "could/might" be medical benefits, and the products deserve to be researched at greater depth, with additional funding, without the Federal Govt. chiming in trying to derail the medical research, because their Big Pharm lobbyist/friends are getting flustered and upset...


Researched at greater depth? This is the JAMA. OP rolled the article out like this was huge and ground-breaking - but now you're saying more research?
I don't get it. Is this research worth anything or not? Because really, low quality evidence - as I said above - isn't really good at all.
Laws will not change over low-quality or even moderate evidence. If that were the case, anything that makes anybody "feel a little better" for whatever they say is ailing them would be grounds for complete and total legalization.
Alcohol wasn't (re)legalized for its medical benefits.
I don't think that we will ever see complete and total legalization at the Federal level on medical grounds alone. Not with these kinds of conclusions being rolled out by the JAMA.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: MrPlow

I will take "low-quality evidence" over "no evidence" any day.. If anything, it's a start and hopefully a direction to build from... As a person who suffers from severe crohn's disease, I can without a doubt state using has helped me. MUCH more than the steroids/infusions/drugs they make me take religiously and have me feeling horrible...



If it has ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT AT ALL, it does not deserve a Schedule 1 classification. The studies showed "moderate quality and low quality evidence" but that is still evidence of THC having a medical benefit.

That is the point people have been trying to make for years. The first step toward wide-scale legalization is to have it removed from the Schedule 1 classification at the federal level.

For a source to admit that it has even a slight medical benefit in SOME patients is huge. There isn't a drug on this planet that is effective on all patients.



You know what else is low quality evidence? "Heroin helps people with insomnia." "Meth helps people with low energy"

Come on man- low quality evidence can be not only useless, but hurtful to the argument.
The bottom line is this - people should be allowed to use it for WHATEVER reason they want - so long as the consequence of it isn't going to create a greater public health issue than not.


Don't be obtuse.

There are less-addictive and less-harmful methods to treat anything that can be treated with heroin.

Amphetamines are prescribed to children and adults with ADD/ADHD... so while "Meth" might be illegal, big pharma is still using variations of it every day.

Cannabis is all-natural, not physically addictive, and has practically no side effects. It helps with a wide range of symptoms. It absolutely has medical benefits.

Arguing that MJ should be removed from Schedule 1 "because we want to get high, man!" is a pointless battle if ever there was one. The way to fight for legalization is to encourage more states to adopt medicinal marijuana policies so they can see that their fears are unfounded. Why do you think Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska now have recreational? Years of legal medicinal marijuana convinced people that there was money to be made and the anti-pot crowds complaints were proven to be unfounded. Medicinal marijuana is the experiment that will lead to full legalization.
edit on 6/24/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.


Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: MrPlow

I will take "low-quality evidence" over "no evidence" any day.. If anything, it's a start and hopefully a direction to build from... As a person who suffers from severe crohn's disease, I can without a doubt state using has helped me. MUCH more than the steroids/infusions/drugs they make me take religiously and have me feeling horrible...



If it has ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT AT ALL, it does not deserve a Schedule 1 classification. The studies showed "moderate quality and low quality evidence" but that is still evidence of THC having a medical benefit.

That is the point people have been trying to make for years. The first step toward wide-scale legalization is to have it removed from the Schedule 1 classification at the federal level.

For a source to admit that it has even a slight medical benefit in SOME patients is huge. There isn't a drug on this planet that is effective on all patients.



You know what else is low quality evidence? "Heroin helps people with insomnia." "Meth helps people with low energy"

Come on man- low quality evidence can be not only useless, but hurtful to the argument.
The bottom line is this - people should be allowed to use it for WHATEVER reason they want - so long as the consequence of it isn't going to create a greater public health issue than not.


Don't be obtuse.

There are less-addictive and less-harmful methods to treat anything that can be treated with heroin.

Amphetamines are prescribed to children and adults with ADD/ADHD... so while "Meth" might be illegal, big pharma is still using variations of it every day.

Cannabis is all-natural, not physically addictive, and has practically no side effects. It helps with a wide range of symptoms. It absolutely has medical benefits.

Arguing that MJ should be removed from Schedule 1 "because we want to get high, man!" is a pointless battle if every there was one. The way to fight for legalization is to encourage more states to adopt medicinal marijuana policies so they can see that their fears are unfounded. Why do you think Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska now have recreational? Years of legal medicinal marijuana convinced people that there was money to be made and the anti-pot crowds complaints were proven to be unfounded. Medicinal marijuana is the experiment that will lead to full legalization.

First of all - eliminate the "all natural" argument. Lots of things are "all natural" and can kill you.
Secondly - do not speak of the physical addiction of it if you don't understand addiction as a disease. The addictive qualities of something make little difference to the addict who just wants to get high.
Third - "practically no side effects" is a thinly veiled, big pharma, corporate way of saying "it has side effects"
Whether or not it helps a "wide range" of symptoms is subjective. For some it does and for others it doesn't
So, saying it helps a wide range of symptoms is lazy at best and a lie at worst.

I say if you take the same legalization route that made alcohol legal - you will have a sturdier argument.
You guys keep playing these shaky grounded medical games with the actual medical community - you are going to continue to lose and you're going to prolong its actual chance of full legalization.
You are doing nothing more than bogging the movement down in a muddy ditch of back and forth research with people trained to do this better than you.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow
Furthermore, and I would hate to kill the celebratory mood, but take a walk through a major medical journal such as pubmed and look for the studies that oppose medical legalization.
You will get your heart broken. I've found studies which conclude that not only does marijuana do jack squat for cancer or anxiety, but that it actually causes or aggravates it.

For every low quality study used by the "pro" crowd, there are just as many in the "con" crowd.
I'm telling you - this isn't the fight you want to be having.


Find me a legal drug that doesn't have pro and con studies associated with it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Wait all you want - that's not the point.
My point is - this study is no where near as conclusive and earth shattering as the OP is making it out to be.
Sure, there is low quality and even moderate evidence - but that means squat and based on THAT evidence alone, legislators will continue to argue against it. Ultimately It's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join