It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
"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
* Alzheimer's disease
* Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
* Diabetes mellitus
* Gastrointestinal disorders
* Hepatitis C
* Multiple sclerosis
* Rheumatoid arthritis
* Sleep apnea
* Tourette's syndrome
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
“[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
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.
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.
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?