General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe "F*CK YOU" Finale of "Weed Wars"...
The Weed Wars season finale made me sad…..and mad…and upset…and disappointed.
When I realized that Steve Deangelo’s final words to America would be “I do not support the legalization of cannabis for recreational uses” I almost threw a bubbler through my flat screen in disgust. This is the message we are leaving with America? This is your big “risk it all for public education” message? That all people without a doctor’s approval are criminals? Go fuck yourself.
I almost feel sorry for Stevie-D. He has backed himself into such a corner that now he is trumpeting the words of drug warriors in some weak attempt to justify his running the world’s largest weed store on the planet. Nothing is more sad than a man who is so broken down by fear and anxiety that he will sell out his principles in an effort to appease his opposition. It is disgusting and the bottom line is NO ONE IS FALLING FOR IT
Read More: http://cannabiswarrior.com/2011/12/23/the-fuck-you-finale-of-weed-wars/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Xicano
(2,812 posts)For someone to talk about "rights" in the same sentence with marijuana, but then turn around and basically say the natural right of autonomy over one's own body should be illegal. I too thought to myself "F*CK YOU" and F*uck all your talk about how you have dedicated your life to this plant.
Damn hypocrite.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)My doctor gives me perscriptions for which books I'm allowed to read, tells me for whom to vote... picked a nice wife for me.
Thank god for the doctor. He has a much better idea of how I feel than I do.
He told me my pain was tolerable... which it was... to him.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)I knew I couldn't wait for it to become legalized and it was my right as a human being living on this earth to use, and enjoy it.
Kennah
(14,465 posts)
MindMover
(5,016 posts)half the people that buy cannabis in his shop use for the purpose of getting high and yet he eulogizes about the fact that he does not want to see pot legalized......FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.....OMG.......what was I witnessing his usage was about....?
I have been in the Substance Abuse field for over 10 years and know a lot of users/abusers.....
Mr. Hypocrite Stevie is definitely a user and possibly an abuser.....because as everyone knows in my field of expertise, the longer you smoke weed, the more you need of the same quality or the better quality you need to get that good ole feeling....and brownies taste like magic mushrooms....or something like that.....
roody
(10,849 posts)My experience is that a little bit is all that is ever needed to get one high. I have not experienced that I need more or better to 'adjust my attitude." I believe that that is a myth.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)MindMover
(5,016 posts)I am not negating or trying to tell you anything about your experience....Everyone will have different experiences with whatever substance they use.....
My knowledge comes from scientific evidence or fact based knowledge and some 50 years of my own experience and knowledge about many substances to include marijuana.....
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/addiction.htm
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)I had a hard time finding the links to the scientific evidence there. But I did get the pop up for help with my addiction. I guess it's so scientifically obvious they don't need to publish it, eh? I wonder how much the weed detox program they have will cost?
After all step one is convincing someone they have a problem, right?
Why is it that there is no funding for actual research at NIH? Even when there are studies that fly in the face of the NIH guidelines. Why is it a schedule 3 drug? Why is a far more harmful drug both to society at large and to individual health perfectly legal instead of being listed on schedule 3?
Produce real evidence if you really want to move minds.
boppers
(16,588 posts)MindMover
(5,016 posts)boppers
(16,588 posts)Take, for example, the testing of cannabinoids on cancer cells.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoids+cancer
Lots of interesting work being done, but by the time it makes it through social, and media, filters, we wind up with folks proclaiming equally unfounded things like "Smoking pot cures cancer" and "Smoking pot causes cancer".
WRT NIH funding, there has been funding for years, but I believe this is the basis for the popular claim:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/no-mmj-research.php
Because access to legal, federal, marijuana was stop-gapped via NIH, a distortion evolved... specifically: "Why is it that there is no funding for actual research at NIH?".
MindMover
(5,016 posts)"The goal of NIH research is to acquire new knowledge to help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability, from the rarest genetic disorder to the common cold. The NIH mission is to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone. NIH works toward that mission by conducting research in its own laboratories, supporting the research of non-federal scientists (in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad), helping in the training of research investigators, and fostering communication of medical and health sciences information."
if these are the goals of this federal entity, the treatment of disease and disability would be the only area in which marijuana would be researched.....
"Congress has attempted to cancel grants for research currently in progress. They question the value of particular studies (e.g. in mental health and human sexuality) and argue that NIH’s limited funding would be better applied in other “specific” fields. These activities establish a dangerous precedent. It is certain advocates for other diseases and interests will pressure their congressional representatives for similar treatment. Instead of research being directed by an objective peer review process, growing political interference would jeopardize scientific integrity and manipulate funding for selfish, political gains."
"A major issue that persists, despite reforms to the peer review process, is the imbalance of Congressional funding in light of the number of worthy research proposals. Since 2003, Congress has consistently increased NIH appropriations below the rate of inflation. These insufficient increases have strained NIH’s ability to not only fund existing budget commitments but new research as well. This has resulted in intense competition amongst scientists who, instead of doing research, spend the majority of their time writing and rewriting grant applications in hopes of being awarded NIH’s diminishing funds. Less research (because of insufficient funding and time devoted elsewhere) does not bode well for reducing the burden of diseases on the American public."
Very obvious to me that our health research decisions should not be made by politicians......actually there are many more decisions that should not be made by politicians.......
MindMover
(5,016 posts)If you just want to scream at an old drug counselor then go do it on another site......
this site which could be more to your liking has many days worth of reading.. http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.shtml ........and if you want to argue with me, get your doctorate and put on say maybe 30 years of experience in the substance abuse field.....
If you are trying to say it is a right wing religiously connected conspiracy to schedule drugs the way they do in the USA, I would potentially agree with you......and your apparent denial of facts is something I am quite familiar with.....
RainDog
(28,784 posts)The US Dept. of Health and Human Services stats indicate that the majority of people who are in a drug treatment program for cannabis are there to avoid jail time for a criminal offense.
They are in treatment because cannabis is illegal, not because it is a dangerous drug.
The majority who entered into treatment for marijuana had not smoked for more than a month prior to their admission. This is not the pattern of a substance abuser and, if you really work in that field, you know this.
70% of the people who enter into addiction treatment in Texas, according to BMC Public Health do so because of a judge. Again, it is the criminal justice system that creates the numbers for "cannabis addiction," not the users themselves.
The figures for "cannabis addiction," iow, are skewed because so many people are counted as abusers and go into rehab to avoid jail time - however, their behavior does not indicate abuse.
http://norml.org/library/item/your-government-is-lying-to-you-again-about-marijuana
US Institute of Medicine’s 1999 Report: “Millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users, … [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it.”
In fact, less than 10 percent of marijuana users ever exhibit symptoms of dependence (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV criteria.) By comparison 15 percent of alcohol users, 17 percent of cocaine users, and a whopping 32 percent of cigarette smokers statistically exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)which is, btw, a legal substance in our society (tho, yes, back in the 1600s people were put in jail for coffee, just as they are for cannabis now.)
no one considers a caffeine addiction something worthy of a treatment program. why? because, if someone finds he or she is drinking too much coffee, she or he can simply stop without the need for medical supervision. your link indicates the same thing about cannabis use - some people experience mild discomfort that goes away in 2 days.
no one tries to equate caffeine use with huffing gasoline, either, because to do so would indicate someone who has no sense of proportion about the dangers of one substance vs. another.
that person would look like a propagandist using lies to scare people.
however, the drug courts and treatment programs are making a shitload of money by pretending that cannabis is something dangerous, rather than a substance that most people use with no adverse effects at all.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)I think my highest annual wage was $38,000.....I do not know which website or book you are getting your info from but it is really pretending to say drug courts and treatment programs are making a shitload of money......
I have said it in another reply how I felt about marijuana.....if you really care to know I would suggest reading some more.....
RainDog
(28,784 posts)however, the courts and the criminal justice system and the whole medical/pharma system DO make a shitload of money off of prohibition.
Cannabis arrests are easy. Cannabis users do not tend to be violent. Many arrests occur because of "stop and frisk" policies that target minorities, in larger cities.
Confiscation laws are like a lottery for law enforcement.
You compared cannabis to huffing gasoline. That's an irresponsible statement from someone who deals with addiction, imo.
I have other things I've posted here too, if you want to know my opinion.
I think the illegality is the issue. No doubt people can become habituated to any activity. That's not the same as someone who deals with alcohol or cocaine or heroin addiction - no where near the same. Someone who is trying to stop using those substances needs medical supervision because withdrawal can kill.
That's not the case with cannabis or coffee or the many other things people may use. We as a society have adopted an "addiction" meme to refer to things we do habitually. They are not the same.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)that is drug cartels and the persons that supply that human desire to change there reality......it certainly is not the courts or drug counselors which you stated......
you are correct about all of the legal illegal activities surrounding substance use.....
I compared marijuana to huffing because they are both substances that alter reality in human beings.......and I made it clear that marijuana is a soft drug that is much less harmful than huffing paint or gasoline.....if I did not then there it is.....
by the way withdrawal cannot kill in cocaine addiction........that is an urban legend.....
I have never stated nor inferred in any of my replies that everyone that uses substances is an addict......quite the contrary, I believe the number of people addicted to marijuana is below 10%.......
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you said:
your quantification of marijuana as being less dangerous or somehow stands in marked contrast to other substances is somewhat correct.....in that huffing gasoline or paint is definitely more destructive than marijuana use, however, if you are using marijuana daily, 3-10 x, then huffing once a day could be less destructive......
I have not read any study that indicates that using marijuana daily is more destructive than huffing any amount of anything.
Inhalants are chemical solvents not intended for human use. This is not the case with cannabis. One dose of an inhalant may kill someone. This is not the case with cannabis. Inhalants can cause vomiting or cardiac arrest. This is not the case with cannabis.
I just find the comparison totally beyond any realistic view of the dangers of one vs. the other.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)but will do so once again.....
I made the statement to make a point about marijuana being less destructive than huffing......and because marijuana is a psychoactive drug which is used amongst other uses for recreational purposes (to get high with my friends) and huffing can also be used to get high with your friends, just generally a lot cheaper.....
granted, this was not a comparative study of marijuana related to huffing.......you are correct that huffing is much more destructive to the human body than marijuana use......
In those regretable days between "dry" and delivery, when pipes get scraped down to the metal and baggies are turned inside-out for the tiniest speck, a single hit goes a long way.
We're no different than the alcholic who gets drunk on one beer.
However, I want the right to smoke pot, whenever I want....BECAUSE it keeps me healthy and productive.
.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Speaking as someone who had his first taste in 1968, the same amount has the same effect these days.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)The stuff on the today's market and if you are growing yourself has a THC content of double that of 68.....
could be that the same amount has the same effect because the THC or psychoactive part is higher than in 68......
and of course, your experience with this substance is yours and yours alone.......
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Yes, today's weed is stronger. But I remember smoking a lot more at one sitting back in the day.
I've never seen a chronic user with a problem that could be directly ascribed to the pot rather than to their underlying psychology. In that regard MJ stands in marked contrast to other commonly used drugs like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, cocaine, methamphetamine or narcotic painkillers.
Humans have a very long history of using psychoactive drugs. Since that tendency seems to be inherent to the organism, I'd much rather we satisfied it with pot than virtually any other drug out there.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)and I also know as well as everyone else that substance use is here to stay.....in one way or another.....at this point in our evolution you are also correct that the tendency to get high or to change our reality is with us for at least the foreseeable future....
I do not agree with your statement that a chronic user of pot with a problem cannot be ascribed to pot use......any substance can have disastrous effects both psychologically and or physically.....and yes psychology, environment, and genetics, etc play a significant role in a person's ability to be present in their reality.....
your quantification of marijuana as being less dangerous or somehow stands in marked contrast to other substances is somewhat correct.....in that huffing gasoline or paint is definitely more destructive than marijuana use, however, if you are using marijuana daily, 3-10 x, then huffing once a day could be less destructive......
and finally I totally agree that marijuana out of all present substances being used to alter reality is a soft drug or one that has the least tendencies for destructive action in the human body....if used in moderation......
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I still think if someone is smoking enough pot to stay perpetually high, the problem that needs to be urgently addressed is not the pot. As I said, I've never seen a life problem that was caused by the pot itself. If someone needs to get out of their reality, either their psychology or their reality is the true problem - drug choice usually comes down to whatever is available. Compare smoking up 5x/day to huffing 5x/day or smoking crack 5x/day or drinking 5x/day - in terms of the additional damage caused by the substance itself, the choice would seem to be fairly clear.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)life issues and start to use substance/s and sooner rather than later there life issues are not minor any longer.......
now we can discuss to infinitum which came first, the chicken or the egg........my main concern is helping to bring back balance in patients lives....
drug choice usually comes down to cost......my experience with users leads me to believe that the user does not factor in damage caused by substances,,,,,,I have treated many adolescents who huffed because it was cheap and available and other friends did it too,,,,,
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and, since we do have medical users, such as Irv Rosenfeld, who have demonstrated no incompetency while using cannabis every day of his life for the last 22 years, I would have to take issue with your statement.
Irv smokes 300 joints a month and has for 22 years. Sometimes he smokes 12 joints a day. He is a stockbroker who has not had averse effects from his cannabis use.
Instead, he has not developed any more tumors since his cannabis use.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/363/irv.shtml
Four of the seven official patients participated in the "Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program Study" conducted by Dr. Ethan Russo in Missoula, Montana, that year. That study showed "very few adverse effects in the patients," said Russo in an interview last year. None showed signs of brain damage, immune system problems or hormone problems, Russo said. "The truth is cannabis is very effective for a wide variety of medical conditions including pain, spasms, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma," said Russo, who has been practicing for 20 years. "Irv's functioning has gotten better over time, not worse, as what you might expect in someone with his condition."
"Although Irv has had to smoke this stuff all these years, his lungs are just fine, or at least they were through 2001, when we studied him in Missoula" said Al Byrne of Patients Out of Time (http://www.medicalcannabis.org), a group with which Rosenfeld has worked for years and on whose board of directors he currently sits. "And the government propaganda mill says that if you smoke too much too long your brain shrivels up. All you have to do is look at Irv and the work he does and you can see that's bullshit," he told DRCNet. "These supposed adverse impacts of marijuana use are a longstanding claim of the government," said Byrne. "One of the reasons we formed Patients Out of Time in 1995 was to refute that government propaganda, one point at a time. That's why we entered into the Missoula study as well."
There is a link to a video in the Drug Policy Forum to a talk about cannabis studies by Ethan Russo and a link to Irv Rosenfeld's testimony in Michigan during hearings on mmj in the post "How Marijuana Became Legal," also in the Drug Policy Forum.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)knowledgeable with my patients......how does someone talk intelligently about substances if you do not know what there effects are......
and if you read my statement and understood that I said marijuana is a soft drug and is the least damaging to our physical bodies than any substance used today.......
and comparing Irv the stockbroker to anyone else is really disingenuous......you are using one out of seven official persons to make your claim....
this study, the size of the participants studied alone, is a huge question to me.......
RainDog
(28,784 posts)that are in this program. It wasn't just Irv who showed no problems. All of the people Russo examined who were still in the program (for at least 4 different illnesses) showed no harm.
In one case, the person with glaucoma had improved while using mmj. Untreated, such people will go blind.
The problem, as I noted, is that the federal govt does not want to know that marijuana is no more dangerous than coffee. They don't.
However, there are mmj in CA who have used cannabis for more than a decade. I would welcome research into the effects on those patients.
There would be more people in the federal program but the U.S. stopped it during the Bush Sr. years.
You may also refer the study I noted with 167 users over more than a year who showed no tolerance and there are also studies on long-term users that show no long-term harm in other cases.
You can also read up on Portugal's experience with drug decriminalization over a ten-year period.
Here are some more studies on long-term effects that find no permanent harmful effects - even from long-term usage.
Biegon A, Kerman IA. Autoradiographic study of pre- and postnatal distribution of cannabinoid receptors in human brain. Neuroimage 2001;14(6):1463-8.
Fried P, Watkinson B, James D, Gray R. Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. CMAJ 2002;166(7):887-91.
Gunderson EW, Vosburg SK, Hart CL. Does marijuana use cause long-term cognitive deficits? JAMA 2002;287(20):2652.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Cannabis. The scientific and medical evidence. London: The Stationery Office, 1998.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. 2nd Report, Session 2000-2001, London 2001.
Inserm. Cannabis - quels effects sur le comportement et la santé ? Paris: Les éditions Inserm, 2001.
Jacobson SW, Chiodo LM, Sokol RJ, Jacobson JL. Validity of maternal report of prenatal alcohol, cocaine, and smoking in relation to neurobehavioral outcome. Pediatrics 2002;109(5):815-25.
Joy JE, Watson SJ, Benson JA, eds. Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base. Institute of Medicine. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
Lyketsos CG, Garrett E, Liang KY, Anthony JC. Cannabis use and cognitive decline in persons under 65 years of age. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149(9)
94-800.
Miller P, Plant M. Heavy cannabis use among UK teenagers: an exploration. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;65(3):235-42.
Morris MC, Evans DA, Hebert LE, Bienias JL. Methodological issues in the study of cognitive decline. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149(9) 89-93.
Nyquist JR. Does marijuana use cause long-term cognitive deficits? JAMA 2002;287(20):2652.
Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001;58(10)
09-15.
Pope HG Jr. Cannabis, cognition, and residual confounding. JAMA 2002;287(9):1172-4.
Richardson GA, Ryan C, Willford J, Day NL, Goldschmidt L. Prenatal alcohol and marijuana exposure. Effects on neuropsychological outcomes at 10 years. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2002;24(3):309-20.
Russo E, Mathre ML, Byrne A, Velin R, Bach PJ, Sanchez-Ramos J, Kirlin KA. Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis. J Cannabis Ther 2002;2(1):3-58.
Solowij N, Stephens R, Roffman RA, Babor T. Does marijuana use cause long-term cognitive deficits? JAMA 2002;287(20):2653-4.
Watson M. Does marijuana use cause long-term cognitive deficits? JAMA 2002;287(20):2652.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)I am familiar with some of them, but not all and am looking forward to reading the statistics on all of them.......
I believe a definitive truthful study should be published on marijuana because the current political apparatus needs it......
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and something like 20k published studies noted in PubMed.
In the 1990s, the World Health Organization asked a team of experts to study the medical/health and social consequences of cannabis in relation to alcohol, nicotine, and opiates. These experts found “Overall, most of these risks (associated with marijuana) are small to moderate in size. In aggregate they are unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco. On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies.”
An interesting book about the comparison between legal alcohol and illegal cannabis is Marijuana Is Safer.
In terms of harm reduction, cannabis seems far more benign than legal substances - you note it is a soft drug but I think it's a plant. Marinol is a drug.
iow, I don't think cannabis is a drug at all. I think it should be removed entirely from the drug schedule. I realize that's not going to happen any time soon and I support an incremental approach as more feasible - to move cannabis to schedule II rather than I.
That rescheduling would be to bring the schedules in line with current medical knowledge and to acknowledge that cannabis, at the least, is no more dangerous than heroin or cocaine.
I don't know if coca leaves are designated as a drug or not. Poppies are definitely legal in the U.S., and not designated as a drug and not scheduled, even tho they are processed to make heroin. they are "illegal" in the U.S. if you grow them with the intent to turn them into a drug - which is craziness - how is law enforcement supposed to read people's minds?
This quote always amazes me - amazes me because it illustrates that the law has nothing to do with reality. That makes it bad law.
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.
Drug Enforcement Administration's [DEA] Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, 1988.
This followed, of course, Nixon's Commission that recommended decriminalization and found no rational reason for current (continuing) law either.
I find our current approach to cannabis is more akin to a mental illness than any use of the substance.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)"iow, I don't think cannabis is a drug at all."
if THC which has been studied and restudied over and over again and which produces the psychoactive and other physical effects it does..... then my question to you is when is any drug ever a drug.....
are you trying to get to the point that all illegal drugs should be legal?? or that chemical pharmaceuticals are drugs and that anything that is grown is not a drug.....?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)aspirin is a drug.
willow tree bark, which is the basis for chemicals synthesized as aspirin, is not a drug - tho it was used for the same reasons that we now use aspirin. it's also not illegal.
don't all plants that we consume have effects on the mind?
psychoactive is defined, simply, as: affecting the mind or mood or other mental processes.
nutmeg is also a drug - except it's not. same with willow, St. John's Wort, chamomile, bananas... and on and on.
my view of what constitutes a "drug," is a substance that is processed to isolate certain chemical components of a natural substance or to create a synthetic version of those components.
that's why I say Marinol is a drug while cannabis is not. this is just my view of how things are divided - but since cannabis is the only plant (oops, sorry, that's wrong... other natural plants are included... but their effects are far more substantial in terms of altering perception. I do wonder why other plants that also have psychoactive effects do not fall under the arbitrary scheduling designations. Nutmeg is a hallucinogen too.
but overall, I think a harm reduction approach is better than a law enforcement approach. I see addiction as a medical problem. In terms of cost/benefit to an individual and a society, I think legalization and regulation of all illegal substances commonly referred to as drugs in our society makes more sense.
I think education and respect for things like peyote or p. mushrooms makes more sense than making them illegal. I think all of these substances should be regulated and limited to adults.
This view comes about after looking at the ways that Portugal has been able to reduce the number of hard drug users and reduce the associated health problems from their use - like HIV and Hep C, etc.
In addition, such approaches are more cost effective.
And, most of all, I think such an approach is more humane.
I think that we use substance abuse as a way to ignore larger problems - the problems of people from horrible conditions due to economic need or abusive family systems or systemic prejudices. By singling out a few that are caught doing something illegal, we let ourselves, as a society, off the hook from looking at the bigger problems.
Even so, I recognize that some people have physiological issues with abuse, no matter what.
But I would rather try to minimize the harm they can do to themselves and others - and put taxpayer dollars toward that end, rather than a system of incarceration and the problems that "answer" creates.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2011, 03:32 AM - Edit history (1)
although, yes, everyone is different.
however, in a study that included 167 patients with MS, they reported less pain, less muscle spasms, and less bladder incontinence with use of cannabis.
These patients reported that they were able to control symptoms with the same dose of cannabis for a mean duration of 434 days without having to increase their dose. (Wade, Multiple Sclerosis 10:425-33, 2004)
Researchers suggest that this study demonstrates that marijuana does not lead to increased tolerance requiring increased doses of medication, unlike the conventional medications used to treat MS.
so, over more than a year, patients with MS reported no tolerance regarding cannabis for relief of their symptoms.
This is different than the recreational use of cannabis, of course, but other substances, like opioids, indicate that tolerance is an issue whether they are used for symptoms of an illness or for recreational use.
We really need to do more studies on cannabis, and ones that are not given funding only when trying to prove a negative about cannabis - which is the standard for the U.S. - iow, if you want to study cannabis, you have to present a study that attempts to show cannabis is bad, harmful, addictive, etc. etc.
People who claim you can find a study to back up anything ought to also recognize that there is an institutional and financial bias toward negative findings... which would tend to make the negative findings less valuable since there is an incentive other than inquiry for setting up a study that will report what the govt. wants to hear.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)Seriously. You can't get any higher once every single receptor in the brain has already been engaged.
Anyone who smokes that much is either using it for legitimate medical purposes, or just throwing away their money.
I'd rather that money be thrown away in a regulated, taxed and legal economy.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)imvho that All Cannabis use is medical use. People who try Cannabis for their Personal reasons (relaxation IE: a glass of wine) return to use it again because it makes them feel better. Cannabis (a non addictive PBM) is Much safer than either alcohol (deadly, highly addictive and widely abused) Or pharma drugs (deadly, highly addictive and widely abused)
I disagree with Steve.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)don't have cable tv anymore and don't miss it.
but I wish that Steve's detractors wouldn't use girls as an insult to go after him - both the blog post and a reply do that.
I realize sexism is rife across all demographics.
But it would be nice if people who claim to support "kind bud" wouldn't attack one another by making "female" a negative - especially since it's the female cannabis plant that is supplying them with the bud they grow or sell.
boppers
(16,588 posts)He loses out unless he's a high-priced middleman between growers and purchasers. It's like asking Al Capone if he supported prohibition.
slay
(7,670 posts)no true change will ever happen until we figure out how to deal with the horrible consequences of capitalism. ugh.
LEGALIZE IT - for the people!
