High Times for the CA State Legislature

Gatyr wrote: They exist and help, however lame the purposes or excuses may be. I'll concede that the way most stoners present the argument would lead one to believe that there is no other pain reliever on MJ's level, but strength and non addictive qualities could be a major selling point.

I have no doubt that pot has legitimate medicinal benefits.  That is not my point.  I am simply suggesting that, almost by definition, there exist BETTER medicines for the same purpose in the pharmacy.

Folk remedies are nifty and often work, but they are fundamentally unrefined and unquantified.  Why resort to an illegal folk remedy when there are more effective legal remedies available?

oreomann33 wrote: Marijuana is used for many, many other things besides a painkiller. Glaucoma, cerebral palsy, anorexia, arthritis, post traumatic stress disorder, depression, OCD, multiple sclerosis, not to mention the wasting syndrome involved with AIDS and cancer patients. The list goes on and on.

And my point stands.  Legal and more effective drugs are available for each of those.

High Voltage wrote: I wonder if it costs less...

Not if you have good health insurance...    :)

Your HMO won't pay for marijuana, medicinal or otherwise.

Gatyr wrote: Agreed on both points, but I would guess that pharmaceutical companies, given the new legality of the plant, would be able to refine or enhance the THC and make it more than a folk remedy, and would be as effective as the potentially addictive pain medications.

My point exactly.  If THC (or some other element(s) of marijuana) were such a wonder drug, you would already be able to get it at Walgreens.

Pfizer would love to sell you any drug they can, including marijuana.  And they certainly could do so.  Many of the illegal street drugs have legal pharmacy analogues.  Buying morphine on the street is illegal - but it is stocked in every hospital. 

I would argue that the simple absence of any THC-related drugs on the market (anywhere in the world!) is powerful evidence that it ain't all it's cracked up to be.  My guess is that Pfizer et al have done lots of studies on marijuana, and have probably discovered that it has unacceptable side effects, or maybe that it is about as effective as the "vitamin supplements" you can buy in the health food aisle.

Simul-post.

The proof is in the pudding.  If it worked, it would be on the shelf.

chewp wrote: As I've said before, you seem to be working with very out of date information of the topic at hand.

Actually, I have virtually no information on the topic at hand.  I have done no personal research, and have no relevant personal knowledge - EXCEPT for an understanding of how markets work.

choopie911 wrote: Wow, bad form.... you call me out for using claims as fact then go do the same. Either way, yes, many pharmaceutical companies would love to be able to sell you marijuana or ANYTHING they can make a buck off of if it helps a patient in the least, and if you were even remotely up to date on your facts you would know that they already do. Synthetic THC exists and is being sold by pharmaceutical companies even in the US. The substance is dronabinol, but it is sold as Marinol. It has been approved by the FDA in the treatment of anorexia in AIDS patients, as well as for refractory nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Au contraire, mon frere - first, I wasn't calling you out, but merely identifying in your post a claim I hear repeated often.  And nor was I using any claim as fact.

Instead, the simple things I can point to are this:  The FDA (in the US) approves drugs for public use.  Anything can potentially be approved for prescription, regardless of it's street legal status.

In order to get FDA approval, however, a drug must be tested extensively, and must (a) have some proven benefit, and (b) not have unacceptable side effects.

Apparently there is a THC capsule so approved.  I haven't looked.  But the sheer fact that there is no FDA-approved "marijuana" on the market, despite the HUGE demand, is proof positive that the drug companies have been unable to pass either hurdle (a) or (b).  I don't know which, but I am sure that the drug companies would love nothing more than to make legal prescription MJ.

The only reason I can think of why they have not is because they have been unable to, which means they failed at one of those two tests.