New Law Requires New Mexico to Grow, Distribute Marijuana

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
There are more chemicals that affect the medicine than just THC, there are a slew of other cannabinoids that act in combination with it for different effects.

Perhaps this is a matter of clarification I need to point out. I was essentially talking about Cannabinoids that have gone through clinical trials and have been proven effective. While there are over 400 compounds found in Marijuana only around 60-70 of those can be classified as Cannabinoids, and only 4 of those are actually Active with THC being by far the most abundant one of those. This means that even though their are many chemicals that make up the plant, only 4 of them have any effect on the brain during synapse. All Cannabinoids are structurally similar to THC and most are present for the regulation of THC in the plant, and they all bind to the cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 postsynaptic receptors on the neuron to create the desired effect. There is no chemical in the Marijuana plant that cannot be effectively cultivated and manufactured into an oral pill, and because smoking the plant cannot be regulated as I mentioned before...Marinol is one of the only (not the ONLY one) current medications that can be effectively administered in regulated doses.

Originally posted by Jazzerman
First, Marinol does have an effective way to contribute to the control of the product in that dose control in Marinol is one of the main benefits of taking it. Doctors can regulate the amount of Marinol depending on the persons needs. But it also does not contain all the unneeded qualities as well. Of all the active chemicals in Marijuana only a handful have been found to have positive medicinal purposes (namely THC), anything else is just hearsay...it has never been proven, and there are too few regulated clinical trials to suggest that smoking Marijuana is anymore beneficial that taking Marinol.

Let's just agree to disagree. I find your post almost insulting. You agree what you are told, fine.

You consider yourself an HIV/AIDS patient helper yet you have not educated yourself enough with a drug that is being used by these poor souls.

Yes, doctors. Therein lies the problem. What if patients want to help themselves without going through a doctor's office? Why must we get doctor's notes for a problem that was probably created by them in the first place?

I see no reason to make a herb which has been around probably much longer than the human species has, illegal. Well, you know, driving a car has some pretty bad side effects. Do you wish that to be made illegal too? I wouldn't mind personally, but that's besides the point. I drive a car out of convenience. Patients smoke/vaporize out of convenience. They can self-meditate without the need of a doctor who may/may not have any idea what they're talking about. Doctors go to medical school. Schools are a part of the establishment. The establishment receives vast sums of money for sick people. I wonder why they want you to be sick? There'd be no reason for anymore doctors would there?

What unnecessary side effects are you talking about? The high? That's called a pain reliever. As soon as somene wishes to use a natural medicine all of a sudden its 'wrong,' but when someone takes a medicine made by the pharmaceutical companies its 'right.' I am calling CONTRADICTION. Bull#.

Ha! Never been proven, geez the ignorance on these boards sometimes.
Let me show you.

NORML summary of medicinal use

"Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medical use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule I drug ... to that of a Schedule II drug ... and regulate it accordingly."
- The New England Journal of Medicine, January 30, 1997

Cannabis and Mental Health

Recent Research on Medical Marijuana

* Alzheimer's disease
* Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
* Diabetes mellitus
* Dystonia
* Fibromyalgia
* Gliomas
* Gastrointestinal disorders
* Hepatitis C
* Hypertension
* Incontinence
* Multiple sclerosis
* Osteoporosis
* Pruritis
* Rheumatoid arthritis
* Sleep apnea
* Tourette's syndrome

State Pot Laws


Personal Use


Industrial Use


Cannabis Info from Erowid

Originally posted by Jazzerman
There is no chemical in the Marijuana plant that cannot be effectively cultivated and manufactured into an oral pill, and because smoking the plant cannot be regulated as I mentioned before...Marinol is one of the only (not the ONLY one) current medications that can be effectively administered in regulated doses.

I don't quite understand why you are so pro-pill and anti-plant? I don't quite see your motivation, perhaps you work for a pharmaceutical company yourself and wish to spread propaganda. Must be.

Wrong wrong and more wrong. Created THC is never going to be as pure or safe as one that comes directly from the plant. Fact.

I think the whole idea behind legalizing medicinal cannabis is so that it can't be regulated. How are you supposed to regulate a God-given herb? You're not SUPPOSED to!

Ha! Effectively administered. One hit of the magic herb can reduce said effects almost instantaneously. Why wait 45 minutes as MajorMalfunction stated when the desired dose can be inhaled anywhere?

Regulation, you sound like a freaking DEA agent. What a crock of #. Why don't you worry about a real 'issue' like the regulation of alcohol which causes thousands of deaths per year.

Not one, not a single person has EVER died from cannabis. Its not possible. The lethal dose if over five pounds in ten minutes. After a small dose, maybe a few grams or so one simply passes out. Even if you were in a room where massive amounts were being blown into your face, there is no possibility of an overdose.

So...you want to use THC from the herb, but not the herb strictly for REGULATION purposes? What a joke. Who are you to say what I can/can't put in my body? Are you the moral police? Do you have any say what I do? NO. So get your ideas out of my personal space. I find your comments offensive.

Marinol is FDA-approved as an appetite stimulant and for relief from nausea associated with chemotherapy. I have prescribed Marinol to some of my patients and it has proven effective in some cases. However, scientific and anecdotal reports consistently indicate that smoking marijuana is a therapeutically preferable means of ingestion. Marinol is available in pill form only. Moreover, Marinol contains only one of the many ingredients found in marijuana (THC). It may be that the beneficial effects of THC are increased by the cumulative effect of additional substances found in cannabis. That is an area for future research. For whatever reason, smoking appears to result in faster, more effective relief, and dosage levels are more easily titrated and controlled in some patients.
Still, patient preferences between Marinol and marijuana are not uniform. I have had patients who stopped smoking marijuana and returned to Marinol to address their nausea. Some report bothersome side effects, including the grogginess reported by some Marinol users. Still others, whose fellow patients have endorsed marijuana, have been reluctant to try it for legal, social or philosophical reasons. They cite the moral stigma attached to marijuana as an illegal "drug," their concern that others will learn of their "drug" use, and practical concerns about violating the law.
Means of ingestion is often critical to the efficacy of specific treatments. For example, insulin is far more effective when injected. Many medications are inhaled, while others are administrated intravenously or intramuscularly. DDAVP, a synthetic pituitary hormone, is administered through a rhinal tube, through which the patient sniffs the substance.
Like many substances, the efficacy of Marinol is particularly variable in refractory patients. Clinicians report a range of factors which appear to increase the difficulty of identifying effective treatment. For example, younger cancer patients seem to have more difficulty with the adverse effects of chemotherapy, possibly because they generally have more acute sensory reflexes. Adverse reactions are also more common among patients with co-existing conditions. They may present with more complicated symptom pictures, and their bodies may already be weakened by the effects of pre-existing illness. Emotional and psychiatric disorders, not uncommon in seriously or terminally ill patients, may also render traditional side-effect medications less effective.

www.drugpolicy.org...


[edit on 5-7-2007 by biggie smalls]

Biggie Smalls...just to answer a few of your statements...

1. Let's have a civil conversation here, I have no problem with any of your statements, but for some reason you seem to have a problem with mine. Lets leave the name calling at the door, and use some scientifically tested evidence to prove our points.

2. Do you want me to list every toxin found in cannabis? The list is pretty extensive, but I can go through them one by one if you want and discuss them in detail, but if you think I work for the DEA or believe I am with the "establishment" then are you really going to even consider the alternatives? I would love to see some non-biased research done on this topic, and I actually believe that there are beneficial properties to be found in the plant. However, and this is where I believe we differ, I contend that smoking it as opposed to taking it in the form of a pill poses larger risks than most people take into consideration.

We all know (hopefully) what tobacco contains and its effects but...marijuana smoke contains nearly 70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke does, and in a study of 450 people (Polen MR, Sidney S, and Tekawa IS, "Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco." West J. Med pgs:596–601, 1993.) it was found that people who smoke marijuana have more health problems than people who smoke tobacco. Smoking Marijuana can also increase the likelihood of a Hepatitis A or Hepatitis B infection...yes, you can get Hepatitis from smoking both tobacco and marijuana if you are sharing it. Should I even go into the Toxicology reports that list all the carcinogens found in Marijuana that is smoked? All this and I haven't even started talking about the immunological deficiencies that Marijuana can cause.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Jazzerman]

Ok I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions I guess.

Have you tried the stuff before or are you just basing your claims on 100% scientific data?

Think about the motivation behind the studies...to prove the smoke is harmful. My personal experience has lead me to believe otherwise.

Let's just agree to disagree. My opinion on the subject won't change and neither will yours.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Ok I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions I guess.

Have you tried the stuff before or are you just basing your claims on 100% scientific data?

Think about the motivation behind the studies...to prove the smoke is harmful. My personal experience has lead me to believe otherwise.

Let's just agree to disagree. My opinion on the subject won't change and neither will yours.

That's cool, and I can respect that. Just to quickly answer your questions...

1. No I have never used it, nor have I ever used any drugs...heck, I've never even drank alcohol or soda pop to mention that. However, having said that, I work with drug addicts, HIV patients, prison inmates, and prostitutes...all of which have extensively been through the drug battle. Also, my family is a little more "liberal" (for lack of better words) than me on this if you know what I mean.

2. I do base most any claim I make on scientific data and current medical research, and until anyone can prove an idea, it remains only speculation to me.

Contrary to what you may believe I do actually see the benefits of certain parts of the plant, but I am not willing to believe more than that until I see the evidence.

There are plenty of other studies that prove cannabis is safer than tobacco by far. The scientist that worked for Nixon, Nahaus I believe, skewed his data on cannabis by creating experiments that were weighted to "prove" it's bad.

I smoked cigs for about 15 years, and I've been using medical cannabis for a shorter period of time, about 13 years. Cigs always made me feel ill, and I'd have frequent sinus and bronchial infections. I don't get those on cannabis.

So I'm going to have to go with Biggie Smalls on this one, my personal experience with medical cannabis AND marinol tells me that the actual real herb is far superior.

Just my own opinion, naturally.

My question for those who think it should be illegal, why?

What are your reasons that you think a plant that grows wild in all 50 states, that has many, many proven industrial and medical uses, in addition to being one of the healtiest food sources on the planet, why DO YOU think it should be illegal?

I have my own opinions as to why it was made illegal, and none of them are because 'it' is bad for you. In fact the many benefits to mankind possessed in one plant are probably why it is illegal, in addition to the fact that smoking it often makes one think for themself and question authority....

Feral Hemp growing along the road in Iowa:

from:www.hempreport.com...

98 Percent Of All Domestically Eradicated Marijuana Is "Ditchweed," DEA Admits
www.norml.org...

DocMoreau
(edited grammar)

[edit on 5/7/2007 by DocMoreau]

I'll tell you the bigger picture (sorry no techno talk here): the Drug Companies are probably second only to Big Oil in monopolizing a substances. I have asthma. I take Albuterol (an inhaler, as often seen) as needed. I have taken it for YEARS. I have chronic Sinusitis and take Rhinocort nasal spray. There are also some peripheral meds that I take for these as well. Yet every month I have to dutifully go to the pharmacist for dispensing of these meds. And every few months I must go to a doctor to obtain new scripts. What's the point? I'll be doing this for the rest of my life! IT'S A BUSINESS.
….sorry, I digress a bit.

WOW What a awesome step forward along with a great thread that is thankfully still clean and open.

First and for most I don't think the gov should be growing exclusively. Nursery's and willing caregivers should be able to apply for some sort of permit or license. The thought of state grown bud though makes one think, better resources and greener thumbs should equal better cannabis.

I don't agree that the feds will fold there cards just because half or even 3/4 of the states have med. marijuana laws. They will have at least one more, heavy filled propaganda campaign.

To me there are a couple issues holding marijuana back:

First there are the timber and pharmaceutical industries, hopefully that speaks for itself.

Then there are 70 years of propaganda and only a bunch of hippies lobbing for its legalization. I always think of a playground argument when I hear the alcohol and tobacco being legal and marijuana not. It gets better when some say we should ban those while legalizing MJ. To me that contradicts the reason MJ should be legal. Prohibition does not work. People died from alcohol poisoning when it was illegal. Marijuana and alcohol would simply switch places if there respective legalities flipped. Except then people would be dying from consumption instead of for the drug war. Whenever I 'm around this subject the alcohol/tobacco vs. marijuana along with the non-victim, non violent crime mantras always arise. To get past the feds i feel we will need more than a few mantras and medical condition.

Medical Marijuana legalization is a baby step, a rather easy and unnecessary one compared to legalization. We have a god given right to Cannabis. It was stated above by Biggie I believe. There is also a mistranslation in exodus where "cane" was rather loosely translated from "qhaneh bosm" (Hebrew) which takes use to canna, cympopogan and hemp.

As for the debate about Marinol.. Why do we need a pill for something that was given by nature. 2nd even if we did need it, patients should have the right to choose what method to take.

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Do you want me to list every toxin found in cannabis? The list is pretty extensive
However, and this is where I believe we differ, I contend that smoking it as opposed to taking it in the form of a pill poses larger risks than most people take into consideration.
Should I even go into the Toxicology reports that list all the carcinogens found in Marijuana that is smoked?

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Jazzerman]

do you take this much concern with other aspects of your or other peoples health?

govt adding flouride to your water even if you dont want it, pollution inhaled especially in city traffic or using a car, artificial stuff that goes into your food, the list goes on.

to narrow out one aspect of possible illness (smoking) is hardly logical.

people will heckle a smoker with "dont you know that stuffs bad for you and is gunna give you lung cancer?" but when do smokers ever reply with "dont you know that burger + fries is what made you fat? your gunna kill yourself and your kids with obesity".

Hepatitis from dope smoking is pretty rare, and sharing a bottle of beer or scotch with a mate can transfer it as can coughing.

Most pot smokers are not disease ridden junkies who blatantly risk infecting others just so they can pull cones with someone on a friday night, they come from all walks of life.

as Biggie + Major Malfunction stated, inhalation provides almost immediate benefits and the user can self medicate as required. When they've had enough they know when to put down the pipe, bong or vaporiser but you cant just put a pill or cookie aside once swallowed.

there are many ways to reduce or eliminate pollutants from the smoke too.
- vaporiser: heats the weed up to just below burning point. The fumes are contained and inhaled and because it isnt burnt there is no pollutants in your lungs. (totally clean way to smoke)
- bongs: they filter + cool but water particles in the lungs could be an unwanted side effect.. only other bad thing is when people continue to smoke through unchanged stinky old bong water
- even a J can have cardboard filter or ciggy filter added to remove some of the unwanted pollutants.

down sides to oral consumption are:
- "guess work" required for the patient to constantly get the correct dose for them and their current needs.
- tolerance is built up and more is required for the same effect. Orally this means your always guessing the dose since your needs can change over time
- can take up to 1 hour before onset of effects, and up to 12 hours for the effects to dissipate. This makes getting a constant required dose impossible since it can be a while before effects are felt and therefore may actually come on stronger and last longer than required.

medical reasons include:
helping people feel less sick (nauseous) especially when treated with chemotherapy for cancer.
glaucoma, an eye condition, relieving some types of pain (eg arthritis) can help people with AIDS by making them hungry enough to eat, by making their mood better and by helping them to feel less sick (see Major Malfunctions post on page 2 i think it was)

edit again to tidy things up.


[edit on 6/7/07 by Obliv_au]

[edit on 6/7/07 by Obliv_au]

There's a wonderful book out. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts by Lynn Zimmer Ph.D. and John P. Morgan MD that reviews all the medical literature and studies up to the date of publication in 1997.

A synopsis of the book is here.

The book contains the truth, not disinfo. It debunks a lot of the claims of the ONDCP and other government anti-drug organizations.

what about the drug driving laws?

sure, drink driving or drug driving is a bad thing i 100% agree, but it appears to be harsher on pot smokers.

over here in South Oz, they have one drug bus recently released by the cops. A swab from the mouth and saliva is checked for various drugs.

- you can be half cut on a bottle of scotch, but as long as you blow under .05 your free to drive.
-MJ can be detected by mouth swabs up to 6 hours after consumption, and all it takes is minute trace amounts to bust you even 6hr later when your not high.
- meth amphetamines and other drugs can last for many hours but be untraceable by mouth swab in much less time than MJ, allowing high drivers to slip through undetected.

what about truckies? they have to undergo random independant drug tests at their depot's by urine sample.

a single hit of MJ can easily be detected up to 30 days after, but meth amphetamines can be clear of your urine within 24 hours..
kinda encourages them to take speed and stay up driving all night since the risk of being busted is much lower.

whats the worst thing about MJ?
it actually makes "the late show with david letterman" funny and Jimmy Buffett sound good. (edit: yes that last bit was supposed to be a joke)

[edit on 6/7/07 by Obliv_au]

Originally posted by Obliv_au
do you take this much concern with other aspects of your or other peoples health?

govt adding flouride to your water even if you dont want it, pollution inhaled especially in city traffic or using a car, artificial stuff that goes into your food, the list goes on.

to narrow out one aspect of possible illness (smoking) is hardly logical.

Yes, I do take precautions with drinking water, pollution, and added chemicals in food (usually preservatives), and I do concern myself with reduction of these things. I simply mentioned smoking as an alternative counterpoint to show the amount of carcinogens found in a stick of tobacco as compared to Marijuana. Although there have been no reported cases of cancer or major illness being caused by marijuana, the data produced from research in this area is next to nothing in terms of results. Results from research are often skewed because many of the participants admit to having past tobacco and alcohol use, which makes it difficult to diagnose where the cancers originated from. In fact, most research currently being done in this field is being investigated by pro-marijuana researchers so there opinions are already biased, and their results can rarely be duplicated by outside independant researchers. Some research shows that Marijuana has a safer aspect than tobacco, and another bit of research shows that in some respects it can be worse because of the high levels of toxins found in Marijuana.

Some recent clinical trials show a link between Marijuana toxins and decreased amount of immunological response when common bacterial infections were subjected to macrophages from various kinds of smokers. The study, called "Marijuana and Cocaine Impair Alveolar Macrophage Function and Cytokine Production" tested macrophages from Marijuana smokers, Cocaine smokers, and Tobacco smokers and found that the phagocytic response levels were drastically lowered only in the Marijuana smokers. Due to some of the observed immunological responses that Marijuana carcinogens cause it should be noted that the potential benefits of it such as helping with nausea, pain, etc. may become voided in people with advanced immune deficiency conditions. This is why the actual smoke (that contains those toxins) has not been reccommeded to people with HIV/AIDS. Due to the fact that the immune systems lymphatic cells have already been compromised in individuals with HIV/AIDS, the smoke from Marijuana may present a greater risk to those cells and negate the positive aspects of the drug. CB2 receptors are specifically found in the spleen and lymph nodes, which are part of the immune system and serve the purpose of halting immune system response. Cannabinoids can bind to these receptors and prevent the suppression of important immunological responses carried out by the body when bacteria or viral strains compromise an otherwise healthy body. Studies conducted on both humans and animal show the immune system can become so compromised that there is evidence of decreased leukocyte blastogenesis (involved in reproduction) in direct response to mitogen cell division, decreased cytokine production, and a significant decrease in lymphocyte CD4+ cells (natural killers).

Contrary to this, many lung function problems have never been observed in Marijuana users as they have in users of other smoked drugs, although marijuana smokers did exhibit higher levels of chronic bronchitis than other test subjects. One interesting aspect of this particular study of individuals is that although Marijuana has never directly been seen as a cause of respiratory problems, it can cause indirect problems to occur. There is a particular enzyme called "P4501A1 (CYP1A1)": P4501A1 Enzyme (it should be noted that research into this is still ongoing) in it that has been known to cause Marijuana Hydrocarbons to actually convert into a carcinogenic form which may ultimately lead to the production of malignant cells.

The effects of Marijuana on the ocular nerve endings has been studied as well; specifically in the treatment of Glaucoma as someone mentioned earlier. There is evidence to suggest that it lowers the internal pressure on the eye, but any medication used as such treatment must be used continuously to prevent further damage to the optic nerve. Some other alternatives that do the same thing without the side effects mention previously are Vitamin C, Thiamine, Bilberry, and Chromium but to name a few. The reason that Marijuana has an affect on eye pressure is because the eye actually has CB1 receptors which can bind with some cannabinoids and promote the production of dopamine to trigger its effects on pain and pressure. CB1 receptors are also found in the Hippocampus (which explains the short term memory loss associated with prolonged Marijuana consumption), the Cerebellum, the basal ganglia, and the Amygdala.

So yes, there are benefits that can be found in Marijuana, but there are also a plethora of negetive side affects as well. This is why people involved in the production of effective medicines will not put trust in smoked marijuana. In fact, here is a small list of the toxins found in the smoked form of the drug that I can think of off the top of my head (there are more, but I would have to look through some of my medical journals to find them...the one's listed are non-cannabinoid toxins):

Benzopyrene
Carbon monoxide
Nitrosamine
Terpenes
Flavinoids
Alkaloids
Vinylcholoride

Each of the beneficial extracts from the plant can be segregated into the form of a pill that does not contain other harmful chemicals, thereby reducing the contaminants and increasing the affect of the chemicals proven to have a positive effect. Marijuana in its pure form cannot meet the requirements of the Food and Drug Act because of all the chemicals it contains and because of varying amounts of those chemicals depending on varying situations. In other words, the Food and Drug Act requires that any and all medication and food be labeled with all ingredients and/or chemicals. Because some species of Marijuana contain different amounts of these substances depending on the production methods of the plant, it is nearly impossible to place a label on such a thing effectively. This is why pharmaceutical companies cannot distribute a pure form of the drug...too many variants in its chemical properties to comply with the FDA guidelines.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Jazzerman]

“[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use,” concluded the Commission, which included several conservative appointees of then-President Richard Nixon. “It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance.

“… Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [that the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration, no longer be an offense.”

Nixon, true to his ‘law-and-order’ roots, shelved the report – announcing instead that when it came to weed, “We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts.” For the last 35 years, that’s what we’ve had.

“ ... Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [that the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration, no longer be an offense.”
- Shafer Commission, 1972

www.norml.org...

Approximately 16.5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana violations – more than eighty percent of them on minor possession charges.
US taxpayers have spent well over $20 billion dollars enforcing criminal marijuana laws, yet marijuana availability and use among the public remains virtually unchanged.
Nearly one-quarter of a million Americans have been denied federal financial aid for secondary education because of anti-drug provisions to the Higher Education Act. Most of these applicants were convicted of minor marijuana possession offenses.
Total US marijuana arrests increased 165% during the 1990s, from 287,850 in 1991 to well over 700,000 in 2000, before reaching an all-time high of nearly 800,000 in 2005. However, according to the government’s own data, this dramatic increase in the number of person’s arrested for pot was not associated with any reduction in the number of new users, any reduction in marijuana potency, or any increases in the black market price of marijuana.
Currently, one in eight inmates incarcerated for drug crimes is behind bars for pot, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion per year.

According to federal statistics, about 94 million Americans – that's 40 percent of the U.S. population age 12 or older – self-identify as having used cannabis at some point in their lives, and relatively few acknowledge having suffered significant deleterious health effects due to their use. America's public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

As a medicinal marijuana user, I find the comment about "hearsay" a little annoying. I suffer from generalised CRPS. They are thinking of renaming it "House" syndrome. Basically, because of nerve injury my sympathetic nervous system and central nervous system have malfunctioned, causing physical changes to the spinal cord and brain that mean not only constant pain, but more pain than a "normal" person is capable of feeling (processing). Every sensation is also translated into pain messages. Ev en now some medical people still believe that pain is "hearsay"

There is no cure, only opiates, anti-depressants and epilespy medicine to provide a small amount of relief. There are no specific treatments mainly because pain is such a subjective experience.

I have been smoking cannabis for relief not only of the pain, which it does help with, but also because of the "side-effects" such as mild euphoria and the ease of distraction. It makes the difference between carrying on and giving up. Quantify that, moussieur le scientist!

It also helps with sleep. GA pharmaceuticals recent research in the UK has show with CBD (cannabinidiol) which is present in marijuana as well as the other "active" compounds delta-3 and delta-9THC has been shown to provide more recuperation for the same amount of sleep. Include the fact that we still do not know the mechanism by which cannabinoids influence pain message reception, and I don't believe anyone has the necessary knowledge to say what we should or shouldn't take.

I asked Alexander Shulgin about this a few years ago and he was adamant that there were compounds of various cannabinoids synthesised by the body from exogenously sourced chemicals whose function was still a mystery. I'll take his word before any of yours, I'm afraid.

Also, in the 2003 Neuropathic Pain Research Seminar, it was concluded that the study of cannabinoids of all types held some of the most promising areas of research in pain medication.

Still, I expect you know best, Jazzerman, despite not having a chronic illness, a doctorate or any experience of marijuana's effects.

As an aside, many of the medical users I know don't actually smoke it at all. They decarboxylate it and then eat it. You only get about 15% of the THC in a spliff, but 100% of the THC when it is ingested, with none of the nasty smoking associated toxins. So where do you stand on this?

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Karilla]

Originally posted by Karilla
Still, I expect you know best, Jazzerman, despite not having a chronic illness, a doctorate or any experience of marijuana's effects.

See my last post for a detailed description of everything I have said, and the specific results from studies.

First, how exactly to you know I do not have a chronic illness, and how do you know I do not hold a Doctorate? Scientific rationale is not based on the documentation of it's subjects claimants, it's based on observed and verifiable results that produce and fulfill the requirements of the most basic forms of the scientific method. If you want to see the results for youself I suggest you conduct you own unbiased study, and I'm sure our individual results will concur with one another.

Also, why would my never having tried Marijuana have anything to do with my qualifications for speaking on the issue. Do you tell a Psychologist/Psychiatrist he/she shouldn't speak about suicide just because they have never attempted it themselves? Do you tell a Virologist they shouldn't speak about HIV or Hepatitis because they have never had HIV or Hepatitis? Do you tell someone bound to a wheelchair that they cannot speak about walking and running just because they can do neither? Comparisons can be drawn, and experts are not always the people who engage in the behaviors that they are researching or talking about.

Secondly, everyone keeps pointing to "pro-marijuana" websites, who would naturally have an obligation to their respected conclusions. However, serious scientific inquiry requires the opposite, in that you look further into current independant research. You can show me all the information you want from these websites, but if the results cannot be duplicated elsewhere, then the point becomes mute.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Jazzerman]

I have conducted extensive studies over the past three years. Whenever I run out or cannot afford the ludicrously inflated prices that the continued proscription of cannabis creates. When I don't have it, I hurt more and don't sleep. At all. When I do I can function better, I can sleep for six hours at a time and people are more willing to spend time in my company (less crying, grimacing and screaming). Yes, these effects could very well be figments of my imagination, but what difference does it make? Why should I have to be a criminal, just because "scientific method" has ruled it completely safe.

What are the substantive differences between alcohol and cannabis, apart from one having zero medicinal use and the other being illegal? Could it be that hundreds of thousands of deaths each year are attributable to one and not the other?

Let scientists explain how I got my condition, and why 1% of ALL surgical procedures will result in some form of chronic pain, and I will let them tell me what I can use to treat it.

And with regards the lack of official sources:
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.gwpharm.com...

The second is a link to GW Pharmaceuticals (Not GA as I mistakenly said earlier) the company conducting all cannabis related research in the UK.

Note that Sativex has been approved for use with MS sufferers. Not chronic pain. And yet GW Pharma did 6 clinical trials of Sativex, 2 only with MS, the rest were all with chronic pain sufferers. The results were not the reason for the limited approval, it has been shown to help, but with the numbers of sufferers. There simply aren't enough people to create the requisite pressure. What has that got to do with the scientific method? Not much in my opinion.

Sorry if I seem a little miffed, but I have also been refused ketamine infusions because of a cost versus outcome debate when other patients in other PCT's have had such treatment approved. The scientific argument is always offered up before they'll admit they don't have the cash, while my prescriptions pay for £600 (approx. $1,100) a month purely on Lyrica. Where does this money go? To drug companies on the grounds that scientific study costs alot of money. I don't have a lot of time for medical science.

Originally posted by Karilla
I asked Alexander Shulgin about this a few years ago and he was adamant that there were compounds of various cannabinoids synthesised by the body from exogenously sourced chemicals whose function was still a mystery. I'll take his word before any of yours, I'm afraid...

Also, in the 2003 Neuropathic Pain Research Seminar, it was concluded that the study of cannabinoids of all types held some of the most promising areas of research in pain medication...

As an aside, many of the medical users I know don't actually smoke it at all. They decarboxylate it and then eat it. You only get about 15% of the THC in a spliff, but 100% of the THC when it is ingested, with none of the nasty smoking associated toxins. So where do you stand on this?

Just to hit on each of these points...

1. Alexander Shulgin is quite an interesting researcher, and I can say that his research is still being studied to this day. After the DEA raided his labs and found his supposed "cookbooks" he thereafter hasn't done much that I am aware of. He does present very good information from his previous research, that is when his results are not blurred because he is high on Mescaline and '___'. You can also thank him for the popularization of Estacy in the United States during the 1970's and 1980's.

2. I cannot comment on the "2003 Neuropathic Pain Research Seminar" as I was not there and cannot find the results in any medical journal. However, I do agree with you that cannabinoids do offer a glimmer of hope in the pain industry. I'm only debating the smoked vs. non-smoked (ie. the carcinogens, toxins, and immunological conditions that come with smoked Marijuana).

3. Quote from above: "They decarboxylate it and then eat it. You only get about 15% of the THC in a spliff, but 100% of the THC when it is ingested, with none of the nasty smoking associated toxins. So where do you stand on this?" - Where do I stand on this? I agree. Eating and ingesting it or using a vaporizer is a much better way to negate the toxic side effects that come from inhaling it. I was never debating this point, so I don't see why it should be of any concern.


On a side note; throughout this conversation I have repeated that I am only debating the medical role of smoking it as compared to other means. I am not here to debate the justification for legalizing it or not; I'm only offering a counterpoint on it's use in the medical profession and whether the "good" qualities of the plant outweigh the "negatives" when smoked, rather than in the form of a pill.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Jazzerman]