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: 5
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MrPlow

For me, personally, i don't need any more research, I use for my disease and it helps me. I don't need a medical journal to confirm my findings I've personally experienced. But for the people who still seem to be stuck in "reefer madness" world I feel they need MORE evidence, apparently, so yes, the low-quality evidence may not be convincing to some, but to me it shows that there's something here worth exploring..




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MrPlow

As mentioned, the link in the OP is the only link I had looked at, and was the top link when I did a search for 'Marijuana legalization'. I certainly am not trying to pull anything over on anybody, if there is a fault in how the article in the OP is written then it is with the journalist involved in originally publishing it. It still seems accurate in that the AMA has said it is medicine in some form, especially for MS patients. As the months and years go by with more medically sanctioned studies then the data will show which diseases marijuana helps and which it doesn't. The more legitimate studies the better on the effectiveness or uneffectiveness of this original folk medicine.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: MrPlow

For me, personally, i don't need any more research, I use for my disease and it helps me. I don't need a medical journal to confirm my findings I've personally experienced. But for the people who still seem to be stuck in "reefer madness" world I feel they need MORE evidence, apparently, so yes, the low-quality evidence may not be convincing to some, but to me it shows that there's something here worth exploring..


And that's perfect. You want to use it and you shouldn't have to follow that up with reasons. It helps you in whatever way you think it does and that should be enough.
But once you start making the claim that this can do the same for everyone else - THAT is when the doctors and scientists will step in and say "meh"



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Believe me, I agree. Though keep in mind, it is only recently that we've been able to talk about the plant at all. The site's sponsors used to be WAY stricter about this topic. So I'm, personally, grateful for the allowances we currently have. Though I will always be in favor of more ability to speak freely.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I've been saying since my first year of really knowing of ganja that "marlboro greens" would be a thing in our lifetime. I think it's an overall good. Just hope they put relevant cautions and keep the science flowing on all the benefits and repercussions. They got the side label on smokes talking about risk of inceased complication during pregnancy, hopefully they can have something like "increased risk of psychosis if you have x92lg genetic polymorphism". It'll be fun to see how this plays out over the years.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.

Edit - Alaska is legal as well, for both. Medical did not come before recreational.
edit on 24-6-2015 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.



What?

Washintgon State Medicinal

Alaska Medical Marijuana

Washington D.C.

You might want to work on your research skills, sir.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.



What?

Washintgon State Medicinal

Alaska Medical Marijuana

Washington D.C.

You might want to work on your research skills, sir.



Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MrPlow

I'm waiting for the day when our politicians admit that Harry Anslinger duped them in the first place. When is that supposed to happen?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
this study is not helpful to the cause of legalization at all, and if you turn on a television or a radio, the media will be echoing that sentiment.

I live in California and have a recommendation. While I can demonstrate that I have that rec for a specific medical purpose, the medical system is heavily abused in California. You go into a shop here and it isn't about "delivering medicine." It's about selling a plant for the highest price possible to whomever can produce convincing documentation.

If we want legalization we need to stop trying to prove we NEED it for medical purposes.

A large portion of the population wants to smoke it to get high, and there is no credible scientific reason to keep them from doing so.

That is the slant that should be taken in regard to this issue.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: prostheticmind
this study is not helpful to the cause of legalization at all, and if you turn on a television or a radio, the media will be echoing that sentiment.

I live in California and have a recommendation. While I can demonstrate that I have that rec for a specific medical purpose, the medical system is heavily abused in California. You go into a shop here and it isn't about "delivering medicine." It's about selling a plant for the highest price possible to whomever can produce convincing documentation.

If we want legalization we need to stop trying to prove we NEED it for medical purposes.

A large portion of the population wants to smoke it to get high, and there is no credible scientific reason to keep them from doing so.

That is the slant that should be taken in regard to this issue.


I agree.
People speak of marijuana as if it's completely and totally lacking of a potential to be abused.
One needs to look no further than the states where it is legal for medicinal purposes.
Anything from a headache to nervousness when around the opposite sex and a well concocted story is reason enough to necessitate a prescription.
If that kind of behavior isn't drug abuse, then I don't know what is.
edit on 24-6-2015 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MrPlow

I'm waiting for the day when our politicians admit that Harry Anslinger duped them in the first place. When is that supposed to happen?

Touche



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.



What?

Washintgon State Medicinal

Alaska Medical Marijuana

Washington D.C.

You might want to work on your research skills, sir.



Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.


I wish they'd come out and admit that prohibition was a monumentally stupid idea that has solved nothing but that'll never happen.

The first steps have been successful... next we need MJ to be reclassified so the DEA will lose its power to hassle growers and dispensaries. After that, we'll be on a good solid path toward AT LEAST letting each state decide how they want to proceed. As it stands, many states won't push the issue while it's illegal at the federal level.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: prostheticmind
this study is not helpful to the cause of legalization at all, and if you turn on a television or a radio, the media will be echoing that sentiment.

I live in California and have a recommendation. While I can demonstrate that I have that rec for a specific medical purpose, the medical system is heavily abused in California. You go into a shop here and it isn't about "delivering medicine." It's about selling a plant for the highest price possible to whomever can produce convincing documentation.

If we want legalization we need to stop trying to prove we NEED it for medical purposes.

A large portion of the population wants to smoke it to get high, and there is no credible scientific reason to keep them from doing so.

That is the slant that should be taken in regard to this issue.



Again, medicinal is the first step toward recreational. It has worked so far.

There are many proponents who think this should be an "all or nothing" issue but the federal government will choose "nothing" in that scenario every single time.

This isn't about ideals and principles, it's about what will actually work. There wouldn't be a single state with recreational marijuana right now if they hadn't opened the door first with medicinal use.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.



What?

Washintgon State Medicinal

Alaska Medical Marijuana

Washington D.C.

You might want to work on your research skills, sir.



Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.


I wish they'd come out and admit that prohibition was a monumentally stupid idea that has solved nothing but that'll never happen.

The first steps have been successful... next we need MJ to be reclassified so the DEA will lose its power to hassle growers and dispensaries. After that, we'll be on a good solid path toward AT LEAST letting each state decide how they want to proceed. As it stands, many states won't push the issue while it's illegal at the federal level.

I thought Obama instructed the DOJ to stop hassling growers and dispensaries.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MrPlow

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.


If you can show me a state that has legalized it for recreational use without first legalizing it for medicinal use, then I'll agree with your nonsense about "it's a losing battle and weighing down the legalization efforts as a whole."

Washington state.
Washington D.C. (while not technically a state, they still function as one)
Neither of these had medical legalization BEFORE recreational.
Oregon and Alaska also voted for legalization for recreational use however I am not sure if they had medical legalization in place prior.
I'm pretty sure Alaska did not.



What?

Washintgon State Medicinal

Alaska Medical Marijuana

Washington D.C.

You might want to work on your research skills, sir.



Well then. I was wrong.
It appears as though a shaky medical argument is the better route to legalization after all.

Very well. I concede.

I just hope the day doesn't come where our elected officials feel they have been duped and everyone is pushed back into another complete prohibition.


I wish they'd come out and admit that prohibition was a monumentally stupid idea that has solved nothing but that'll never happen.

The first steps have been successful... next we need MJ to be reclassified so the DEA will lose its power to hassle growers and dispensaries. After that, we'll be on a good solid path toward AT LEAST letting each state decide how they want to proceed. As it stands, many states won't push the issue while it's illegal at the federal level.

I thought Obama instructed the DOJ to stop hassling growers and dispensaries.


In legal states, yes... for now.

The problem is, that all could change with the next election. Removing MJ from Schedule 1 would be a more permanent solution.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
So is opium I think. But they're only allowed to prescribe synthetics apparently.
And you definitely can't smoke it.

Lucky you don't need a prescription for wine.

a reply to: Aleister


edit on 24-6-2015 by chrisss because: eta



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I actually don't mind the idea of prescription marijuana. Government-funded and controlled grow operations, at least up here in BC Canada, may actually produce stronger and more varied strains. I think right now edibles are still illegal. And every now and then there are still gang-related incidents at the medical grow-ops. But in the long run, it might be better off without them (the gangs). And government can reap taxes etc. As for synthetic Big Pharma weed - they can # off. LOL



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

Boy do my high school teachers owe me some apologies. I told them I wasn't high, just medicated.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join