Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Medical Marijuana

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 16171819>
Author
oreomann33 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Can you say ... ZAZZy?

Joined: 11 March 2004
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 8102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oreomann33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 April 2009 at 9:54pm
Just for good measure: LOL MARY JANE
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 2:04pm
Choop (and others) - I have no intention of spending 90 minutes watching a movie about pot.  The effort required would far exceed my care quota for this subject matter.
 
But I will go out on a limb and guess at the contents of the movie (feel free to correct/complete):
 
- Hemp is a totally awesome plant with many uses
- MJ was banned for economic reasons relating to hemp, not for any drug concerns
- MJ/THC is an awesome drug
- Synthetic THC just doesn't work as well
- The pharmaceutical companies are conspiring to keep MJ illegal
 
Pretty close?  If so, then I have heard it all before, and am not impressed.
 
Originally posted by obnoxious obnoxious wrote:


I appreciate your latter comments on recreational use, and though I do see your hesitation in calling medicinal marijuana legitimate, I have to keep insisting that there is a use for the substance.

I do not dispute that there is use for the substance.  To the contrary, there appears to be a good amount of evidence supporting beneficial use.

Quote Marinol is indeed a direct, non smoked source of THC that does work for many people. The problem lies in the fact that marijuana itself contains around sixty or seventy additional cannabinoids, many of which provide additional therapuetic benefit.

And this is the key.  This is exactly why the FDA will NEVER approve MJ in its natural form.  It is far too unpredictable.  Each of those individual compounds needs to be isolated and studied separately.  If one or more drugs can be developed that combine some or all the useful elements of MJ (Like Marinol), then those drugs could be approved by the FDA.  But an application based on "there are a bunch of things and stuff in the smoke" - not even close.  The FDA requires rigorous testing of all active ingredients.
 
Medical MJ proponents happily point to THC studies to show the usefulness of MJ, but then turn around and say that THC alone isn't enough - they now also need those "other 60-70 cannabinoids."  Very convenient, and completely unscientific.
 
FDA approval of marijuana on this basis would be a massive exception to the entire history of the exception.  Medical MJ proponents claim that they are being held back by whatever evil forces and conspiracies, when the truth is that they simply haven't come anywhere near the level of study required for ALL drugs before getting FDA approval.  The work was done on THC - and approval was granted.  One down, 60-70 to go.
 
This is not an argument for medical marijuana - it is an argument AGAINST medical marijuana.
 
Quote I have uncles and aunts that are doctors, and though I think they would not prescribe marijuana as a primary means of medication, I know that they are not opposed to the idea of cannabis being used as a therapeutic agent.
 
And "therapeutic agents" are entirely different from medicine.  Physicians might also suggest taking more Vitamin C, getting more exercise and cutting the red meat.  If we are to think of marijuana as MEDICINE (as opposed to a "nutritional supplement," for instance, then physicians will (and should) apply their full level scrutiny, and marijuana will come up short every time.  It has known negative effects, and the full effects simply have not been studied.
 
Quote Who should delineate between legal and illegal medicine? Shouldn't the patient be able to medicate himself as he wishes, provided he does no harm to others? It is completely tyrannical when those who are not afflicted make decisions for those who are and claim to know what kind of personal impact it has on them.
 
Different question.  General legalization is different from suggesting that physicians prescribe something for medical purposes.  Even if marijuana were available at 7-11, it would still be inappropriate for physicians to prescribe it.
 
Can we agree that it would generally be inappropriate for a physician to prescribe cigarettes for stress?
 
Quote Regardless, it should not even be an issue of it's effectiveness in treating illness as compared to other drugs. As long as you concede there is some benefit to marijuana usage, then it is considered medicine. It's comparison to other drugs is completely moot when you are talking about legalization.
 
Not moot at all.  Irrelevant for general legalization, yes, but very much the center of the issue when specifically discussing medical marijuana.
 
There are many things that have some medical benefits, but either are otherwise too harmful, or generally have not been sufficiently studied, to be properly used as medicine.
 
Medicine is regulated (in the US) by the FDA.  If you want to pass something off as medicine, then you need to meet the requirements of the FDA, and marijuana falls way short.  Way.


Edited by Rambino - 02 April 2009 at 2:04pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 2:09pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

Choop (and others) - I have no intention of spending 90 minutes watching a movie about pot.  The effort required would far exceed my care quota for this subject matter.
 
But I will go out on a limb and guess at the contents of the movie (feel free to correct/complete):
 
- Hemp is a totally awesome plant with many uses Yes
- MJ was banned for economic reasons relating to hemp, not for any drug concerns Yes/no
- MJ/THC is an awesome drug no
- Synthetic THC just doesn't work as well don't remember
- The pharmaceutical companies are conspiring to keep MJ illegal no
 
Pretty close?  If so, then I have heard it all before, and am not impressed.
 



It also talks about how much money is wasted fighting it, and other stuff that I can't even remember right now.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 3:22pm
It doesn't really take any effort to watch, it's history that affects us today, and it's a well made film. Rambs choosing ignorance because of laziness, come on
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 3:26pm
It's all about the time.  90 minutes... 
 
Besides, I am sure somebody here can give me a full summary that I can read in five minutes or less.
 
:)
 
 
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 3:30pm
Watch it at work noob
Back to Top
obnoxious View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote obnoxious Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

And this is the key.  This is exactly why the FDA will NEVER approve MJ in its natural form.  It is far too unpredictable.  Each of those individual compounds needs to be isolated and studied separately.  If one or more drugs can be developed that combine some or all the useful elements of MJ (Like Marinol), then those drugs could be approved by the FDA.  But an application based on "there are a bunch of things and stuff in the smoke" - not even close.  The FDA requires rigorous testing of all active ingredients.


You bring up very good points regarding FDA regulation. However, there is absolutely no synthetic procedure done to marijuana to develop it as a drug. It is simply plucked from plants, cured, and then smoked, vaporized, or eaten. I am not saying that the FDA should now approve of marijuana as a pharmaceutical drug, and I don't see them ever doing it, however the sole reason the FDA exists is to safeguard the public from harmful and potentially fatal drugs that are manufactured by drug companies.

This is a natural product that has been in use for thousands of years, and not a single reported death. There have been numerous studies on it's effects, many of them good, and some of them bad. I am willing to concede that marijuana is in no way a panacea for illnesses that could benefit from its use. I will say, contrarily, that even if the FDA has no business regulating marijuana, that doctors should be able to suggest it's use. The only reason it is currently prescribed is to bypass a bogus federal ban on the substance. If it were legal, a doctor could simply recommend its use. The proponents of "medicinal marijuana" are only in favor of legal prescription because there would be no other way for a patient to obtain and use marijuana in a federally compliant manner.
 
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:


Medical MJ proponents happily point to THC studies to show the usefulness of MJ, but then turn around and say that THC alone isn't enough - they now also need those "other 60-70 cannabinoids."  Very convenient, and completely unscientific.


I can see your trepidations on this matter as well. The only explanation I can offer is that the major cannabinoid is THC, and it has by far the largest effect on the human body. It is logical then that a vast majority of the studies isolate THC primarily to serve as the subject. This is not to say that there has been no research on the other cannabinoids, because there has, but THC is undoubtedly marijuana's greatest asset in terms of medical benefit.

Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:


FDA approval of marijuana on this basis would be a massive exception to the entire history of the exception.  Medical MJ proponents claim that they are being held back by whatever evil forces and conspiracies, when the truth is that they simply haven't come anywhere near the level of study required for ALL drugs before getting FDA approval.  The work was done on THC - and approval was granted.  One down, 60-70 to go.
 
This is not an argument for medical marijuana - it is an argument AGAINST medical marijuana.


Once again, I'd like to point out a major difference. FDA approval of artificially synthesized drugs differs from a legal distinction that would classify a completely natural substance as okay to use with a doctor's recommendation. I don't think you can classify it as any regular drug.

Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:


And "therapeutic agents" are entirely different from medicine.  Physicians might also suggest taking more Vitamin C, getting more exercise and cutting the red meat.  If we are to think of marijuana as MEDICINE (as opposed to a "nutritional supplement," for instance, then physicians will (and should) apply their full level scrutiny, and marijuana will come up short every time.  It has known negative effects, and the full effects simply have not been studied.


I feel like I'm rambling, but I like to be thorough, so forgive me if it seems like I'm repeating my points out of sheer pomposity. If marijuana was in a societal classification similar to Vitamin C, then of course, prescription wouldn't be necessary. Physicians already apply their full level of scrutiny, or so I should think, in such matters. It has known negative effects, you're right. These are also sometimes called SIDE EFFECTS. Every drug has them, and I'd say marijuana's are more forgiving by a great deal than many already out there.

Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

Different question.  General legalization is different from suggesting that physicians prescribe something for medical purposes.  Even if marijuana were available at 7-11, it would still be inappropriate for physicians to prescribe it.


The point still stands that a physician would have no need to prescribe it if it were available freely. I am absolutely certain that physicians would recommend its use, however.

 
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:


Can we agree that it would generally be inappropriate for a physician to prescribe cigarettes for stress?


Yes.

Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:


Not moot at all.  Irrelevant for general legalization, yes, but very much the center of the issue when specifically discussing medical marijuana.


I think you misunderstood my point. I'll clarify: if we can establish that marijuana is okay to use for medicinal purposes, then shouldn't a patient have the right to choose by which means they treat themselves? The way you make it sound, the FDA has the absolute say in which medicines we use. If I find a natural substance (that isn't illegal) that would alleviate my pain in a way prescription medication would, does the FDA have the right to tell me I have to buy their endorsed medicine? The answer is no, and I would classify cannabis in this regard. The FDA establishes which drugs are safe to use and regulates which artifical drugs are out on the market. It should have zero jurisdiction in what kind of plant I can grow and use in my backyard.
 
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

There are many things that have some medical benefits, but either are otherwise too harmful, or generally have not been sufficiently studied, to be properly used as medicine.


Which of these are completely illegal?
 
I know that a lot of this debate deals with the legitimacy of marijuana as a medical supplement. I think the issue stems more off of tolerance, personally. The government should have no right to try to justify a ban on a nationally used substance by saying they're trying to protect us from ourselves, especially when alcohol and tobacco is legal. The country has an obesity epidemic that is willing to linger and yet we allow fast foods restaurants and generally unhealthy foods to be sold. Why? Because we have the right to choose what we do and do not put in our body. So, the next time you hear about a terminal [cancer] patient or someone with multiple sclerosis lighting up a joint, try to think about their suffering and their rights. But more importantly--think about the fact that you have no right to tell that you want to forbid their use for their own good.

Edited by obnoxious - 02 April 2009 at 3:50pm
Back to Top
Lawless View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Forum Hitman

Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lawless Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 3:48pm

Hey!

Yes, I too suffer from migraines...although not insomnia...but I've smoked to relieve my headaches for quite some time...not legally however...but anywho...I support the legalization of marijuana(obviouslyLOL), hopefully widespread decriminalization will occur over the next 3-5 years.
 
I've never fully understood the logic behind why pot's illegal...other than the fact that the government banks big off of it...there's no physical dependance, no chance of overdose, and 100% natural and organic...you can't say any of that about alcohol.
 
Think about what happened during the time of prohibition, all the crime and violence that manifested because of it...it did NOT work!
 
That's why the government gave up and let the drunks have there booze back...if pot were legal...why would people go to great lengths to smuggle it...why would anyone continue to buy from these huge cartels...they wouldn't...there wouldn't be a need to.
 
Although I do believe the feds should still regulate it...much like they do with alcohol...plus by taxing it...they'd still be makin' the big bucks off it.Thumbs Up
 
Just think of what the world would be like if everyone smoked......................................hmmm........Confused
 
Bye, bye now.
 
 
Name: Paul R. Warman II
Location: The Boonies, MI
Phone Number: (989)666-XXXX
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 3:50pm
Lawles, the government DOESN'T bank big. I spends its ass off trying to prevent the drug trade.
Back to Top
Lawless View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Forum Hitman

Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lawless Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 4:36pm

Choop...come on man...you don't think the government makes a dime off the drug trade!

Open your eyes my friend...and they don't "spend" on the "War on Drugs", they carefully waste.
 
 
Name: Paul R. Warman II
Location: The Boonies, MI
Phone Number: (989)666-XXXX
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 4:40pm
Originally posted by Lawless Lawless wrote:

Choop...come on man...you don't think the government makes a dime off the drug trade!

Open your eyes my friend...and they don't "spend" on the "War on Drugs", they carefully waste.
 
 
 
Oh, please do elaborate.
 
Back to Top
MeanMan View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MeanMan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 4:45pm
The CIA is keeping the citizen down!!!!!

Haha

hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives."
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 4:55pm
Originally posted by Lawless Lawless wrote:

Choop...come on man...you don't think the government makes a dime off the drug trade!



Open your eyes my friend...and they don't "spend" on the "War on Drugs", they carefully waste.




You're kidding right? You have any idea how much of a financial drain the war on drugs is?

I'd like to know how they're making money off of this, so yeah, please do elaborate.
Back to Top
little devil View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
one language strike, 2/23/10

Joined: 29 June 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote little devil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by Lawless Lawless wrote:

why would anyone continue to buy from these huge cartels...they wouldn't...
Depending on prices, it doesnt matter where it comes from as long as its of the same quality.  I'd much rather give my money to the cheapest person with the best quality.
 
Alot of organized crime probably depends on the money from pot.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 5:02pm
IMO the government is not making money off it, but plenty of private groups are.
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 5:13pm
Originally posted by obnoxious obnoxious wrote:

 ... there is absolutely no synthetic procedure done to marijuana to develop it as a drug. It is simply plucked from plants, cured, and then smoked, vaporized, or eaten. I am not saying that the FDA should now approve of marijuana as a pharmaceutical drug, and I don't see them ever doing it, however the sole reason the FDA exists is to safeguard the public from harmful and potentially fatal drugs that are manufactured by drug companies.
 
That isn't an entirely accurate statement of the FDA's jurisdiction, but close enough.  If marijuana were otherwise legal, then it might arguably fall in the same category as St. John's Wort and other "herbal remedies,"in which case it would not fall under FDA jurisdiction.  Since marijuana IS illegal, however, FDA approval is one of only a few ways to get by the general ban.  Opiates, for instance, are generally illegal but can be used in FDA-permitted contexts.
 
BUT - once the MJ folks started selling marijuana for its medical benefits, then marijuana fell under the jurisdiction of the FDA.  Any substance that is marketed or sold with claims of medical benefits is a "drug" for purposes of the FDA.  Read the St. John's Wort labels carefully, and see how they avoid making medical claims - but even so, there has been a push for the FDA to regulate these quasi-drugs.
 
You can't have it both ways.  Either MJ is a medicine or it is not.
 
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:


Medical MJ proponents happily point to THC studies to show the usefulness of MJ, but then turn around and say that THC alone isn't enough - they now also need those "other 60-70 cannabinoids."  Very convenient, and completely unscientific.


I can see your trepidations on this matter as well. The only explanation I can offer is that the major cannabinoid is THC, and it has by far the largest effect on the human body. It is logical then that a vast majority of the studies isolate THC primarily to serve as the subject. This is not to say that there has been no research on the other cannabinoids, because there has, but THC is undoubtedly marijuana's greatest asset in terms of medical benefit.

Agreed.  And as soon as people get around to properly studying the other active ingredients of marijuana, those other ingredients might also get FDA approval, just like THC.  But you have to follow the process.  MJ does not (and should not) get a free pass.  You want to be a medicine?  Then you have to pass through the same tests and procedures as every other medicine.

Quote Once again, I'd like to point out a major difference. FDA approval of artificially synthesized drugs differs from a legal distinction that would classify a completely natural substance as okay to use with a doctor's recommendation. I don't think you can classify it as any regular drug.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.  It was the marijuana proponents who chose the medicinal route.  As I said earlier, the FDA has never approved a plant for prescription.  The plant people generally try to avoid the FDA, because they know that they will fail.  Plants are inexact and complicated, and generally cannot pass the rigorous tests of the FDA.  Individual compounds must be isolated.
 
Should (in a vacuum) marijuana be regulated by the FDA?  Maybe, maybe not.  I have no particular opinion on the subject.  Yet here we are, and people are specifically pushing MJ as medicine.  Medicine means FDA.

Quote
I feel like I'm rambling, but I like to be thorough, so forgive me if it seems like I'm repeating my points out of sheer pomposity.
 
You forget who you are talking to...   :)
 
Quote If marijuana was in a societal classification similar to Vitamin C, then of course, prescription wouldn't be necessary. Physicians already apply their full level of scrutiny, or so I should think, in such matters.
 
Some more than others...
 
Quote  It has known negative effects, you're right. These are also sometimes called SIDE EFFECTS. Every drug has them, and I'd say marijuana's are more forgiving by a great deal than many already out there.

And for every FDA-approved drug out there, the side effects have been carefully studied and evaluated, and careful disclosure is made with every prescription, by the prescribing physician, the pharmacist, and the drug company.  Careful records are kept of drug interactions, and so forth.

None of these are the case for marijuana - at least not at this time.
 
Frankly, I don't think you want marijuana to be "medicine."  Prescription drugs are a PITA.  They are heavily regulated and controlled, and require extensive ongoing research.
 


Quote I'll clarify: if we can establish that marijuana is okay to use for medicinal purposes, then shouldn't a patient have the right to choose by which means they treat themselves? The way you make it sound, the FDA has the absolute say in which medicines we use. If I find a natural substance (that isn't illegal) that would alleviate my pain in a way prescription medication would, does the FDA have the right to tell me I have to buy their endorsed medicine? The answer is no, and I would classify cannabis in this regard. The FDA establishes which drugs are safe to use and regulates which artifical drugs are out on the market. It should have zero jurisdiction in what kind of plant I can grow and use in my backyard.
 
I think I addressed this above.  If MJ were not generally illegal, then FDA approval would not necessarily be required.  The FDA approval here is sought essentially as a loophole to the general federal prohibition.  Of course, by now MJ has basically submitted itself to FDA jurisdiction, so it is possible that even if federal criminal laws were lifted MJ would still be subject to FDA jurisdiction.  That would be funny in an ironic kind of way.

Quote The government should have no right to try to justify a ban on a nationally used substance by saying they're trying to protect us from ourselves, especially when alcohol and tobacco is legal. The country has an obesity epidemic that is willing to linger and yet we allow fast foods restaurants and generally unhealthy foods to be sold. Why? Because we have the right to choose what we do and do not put in our body. So, the next time you hear about a terminal [cancer] patient or someone with multiple sclerosis lighting up a joint, try to think about their suffering and their rights. But more importantly--think about the fact that you have no right to tell that you want to forbid their use for their own good.
 
Kind of.  The whole prescription drug system is build around the idea that we do need to be protected from ourselves in some circumstances.  Taking this logic to the final conclusion, no prescriptions should ever be required and Valium and Strychnine should be freely available at the grocery store.  That is certainly a defensible position, but it would be a fundamental change in the way we regulate substances.
Back to Top
obnoxious View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote obnoxious Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 5:43pm
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

Kind of.  The whole prescription drug system is build around the idea that we do need to be protected from ourselves in some circumstances.  Taking this logic to the final conclusion, no prescriptions should ever be required and Valium and Strychnine should be freely available at the grocery store.  That is certainly a defensible position, but it would be a fundamental change in the way we regulate substances.


I have to go to work in a couple of minutes, so I'll just address this point for now if that's fine with you.

There is a fundamental difference between Diazepam and Strychnine, and marijuana. With both of the former, there is a very real possibility of an overdose. This is impossible for marijuana. Also, Diazepam (or Valium) can lead to physiological dependence, whereas marijuana cannot. If you take a step back and look at the effects of marijuana, and then these two drugs, you'll see just how mild marijuana actually is. It's strain on the body is not so much a strain at all. Both of your drugs are also synthesized, leading to liabilities that cannot even begin to be covered by a grocery chain. The reason they need to be prescribed is because they have an inherent possibility to be dangerous, whether it is through overuse, overdependence, of just plain old bad manufacturing. This is not a problem with marijuana.

Coincidentally, I'm off to work at a grocery store (high school students need money, too). I will try to continue this later!

And you are right, it is certainly a defensible position. Even though no grocery store would sell such products because they would not sell in a manner that would be beneficial.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 5:45pm
obnoxious you missed the point of his post entirely.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 6:56pm
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL



Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 April 2009 at 7:21pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 16171819>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.