Gov. Romney on medical marijuana

[kasalt]

Clayton Holton, who suffers from a rare form of muscular dystrophy, asks Gov. Mitt Romney if he will have seriously ill patients like himself arrested for using medical marijuana with their doctor's approval. Gov. Romney doesn't answer the question and turns his back on Clayton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

[adimon]

He's the Governor of a state - he's not going to go on record recommending a harmful drug under any conditions, presidential candidate or not.

[eternal_spirit]

He's the Governor of a state - he's not going to go on record recommending a harmful drug under any conditions, presidential candidate or not.
..................

Anally retentive assanites. It's for medication bring it on.

[kasalt]

He's the Governor of a state - he's not going to go on record recommending a harmful drug under any conditions, presidential candidate or not.

He's the governor of a state who is in the running for president of the country. He can make a difference if he wanted to. Marijuana is NOT a harmful drug to someone who needs it. Marijuana is less toxic than other drugs that are prescribed by doctors every day as medicines, and YES it can be very helpfull to people with certain ailments. It is an outrage that dying people cannot have access to this cheap substance when it CAN help them.

_____

HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES?

The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports:

TOBACCO: 340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL: 150,000+
ASPIRIN: 180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE: 1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE: 14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE: 3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA: 0

http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html

[tinmenace]

Romney is a dickwad. A real loomie puppet. A weakling. I bet he'd talk about all the good things the pharmaceutical companies are doing to improve people's lives (despite some medications actually containing PESTICIDES - Link (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27310&postcount=18) and others have VMAT (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8892) inhibitors).

There is nothing more dangerous about Marijuana than there is with the most prescribed drug in America - Anti-Depressants! (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5917)

To suggest anything different is being full of shit, imho.

[auron]

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

Put that in ya pipe and smoke it!! :D

[auron]

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml

[adimon]

In fairness, drug-culture websites aren't ever going to be impartial, IMHO

[auron]

In fairness, drug-culture websites aren't ever going to be impartial, IMHO
Maybe. But the truth about cannabis can be found in "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" :D

[adimon]

So are you guys saying that you don't think smoking weed is harmful to your body?

[kasalt]

So are you guys saying that you don't think smoking weed is harmful to your body?

I'm saying that medicinal marijuana is less toxic to the human body than many, if not most, drugs prescribed by doctors on a daily basis.

[adimon]

I'm saying that medicinal marijuana is less toxic to the human body than many, if not most, drugs prescribed by doctors on a daily basis.

So do you think that smoking marijuana causes smoking-related disesases?

If so, why would a Governor of a state support this as a cause?

I'm not particularly fussed on the legality of dope, but I wouldn't promote it as a practise because it's physically harmful and, IMHO, psychoactively quite dulling as well.

[kasalt]

So do you think that smoking marijuana causes smoking-related disesases?

If so, why would a Governor of a state support this as a cause?

I'm not particularly fussed on the legality of dope, but I wouldn't promote it as a practise because it's physically harmful and, IMHO, psychoactively quite dulling as well.

Do you think Tylenol is toxic to the human liver? If so, why would a Governor of a state support this as a cause?

"Many drugs have the ability to cause any form of liver disease, including acute and chronic hepatitis as well as a fatty liver and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). And, many drugs can cause cirrhosis, liver failure, or even liver tumors...This applies to drugs, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol), which are by nature, potentially toxic to the liver."

http://www.liverdisease.com/medications_hepatitis.html

[adimon]

I don't know whether Tylenol is harmful or not.

I take it that you believe it is harmful. Have you confronted the Governor on this?

All I know is smoking weed is bad for your body and mind.

[kasalt]

I don't know whether Tylenol is harmful or not.

If you don't know, then why not bother to find out? Here, I'll make it easy for you:

"Many drugs have the ability to cause any form of liver disease, including acute and chronic hepatitis as well as a fatty liver and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). And, many drugs can cause cirrhosis, liver failure, or even liver tumors...This applies to drugs, such as acetaminophen (Tylenol), which are by nature, potentially toxic to the liver."
- http://www.liverdisease.com/medications_hepatitis.html

...aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
- http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html

So do you think that smoking marijuana causes smoking-related disesases?

On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled:
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known....[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance." The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "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." --Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22] (September 6, 1988), p. 57.

- http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm

All I know is smoking weed is bad for your body...

Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74:

In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and leukemia. A quarter century later, scientists in Spain repeated this experiment and got the same incredible results.
- http://americanmarijuana.org/

Since 1996, twelve states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, CA, CO, HI, ME, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA. Eight of the twelve did so through the initiative process. Hawaii's law was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2000, Vermont's was enacted by the legislature and passed into law without the governor's signature in May 2004, Rhode Island's was passed into law over the governor's veto in January 2006, and New Mexico's legislation was signed into law by Governor Bill Richardson on April 2, 2007.

Between 1978 and 1997, 35 states and the District of Columbia passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value. States include: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IA, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, and WI.

In the Institute of Medicine's report on medical marijuana, the researchers examined the physiological risks of using marijuana and cautioned, "Marijuana is not a completely benign substance. It is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. However, except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana examined the question of whether marijuana could diminish patients' immune system - an important question when considering marijuana use by AIDS and cancer patients. The report concluded that, "the short-term immunosuppressive effects are not well established but, if they exist, are not likely great enough to preclude a legitimate medical use."

"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those that met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."

In spite of the established medical value of marijuana, doctors are presently permitted to prescribe cocaine and morphine - but not marijuana.

Organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include: the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians; American Bar Association; American Public Health Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association; California Academy of Family Physicians; California Legislative Council for Older Americans; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California Pharmacists Association; California Society of Addiction Medicine; California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church; Colorado Nurses Association; Consumer Reports Magazine; Kaiser Permanente; Lymphoma Foundation of America; Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network; National Association of Attorneys General; National Association of People with AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions; New Mexico Nurses Association; New York State Nurses Association; New England Journal of Medicine; and Virginia Nurses Association.

A few of the editorial boards that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include: Boston Globe; Chicago Tribune; Miami Herald; New York Times; Orange County Register; and USA Today.

Many organizations have favorable positions (e.g., unimpeded research) on medical marijuana. These groups include: The Institute of Medicine, The American Cancer Society; American Medical Association; Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health; California Medical Association; Federation of American Scientists; Florida Medical Association; and the National Academy of Sciences.

- http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm

Here is a short list of the diseases for which medical marijuana has been clinically proven to be helpful:

Multiple Sclerosis
Cancer, Nausia & Vomiting
Pain
Hiv/AIDS
Glaucoma
Asthma
Parkinson's Disease
Alzheimer's Disease
Tourettes Syndrome
Huntington's Disease
Anorexia Nervosa
Crohn's disease
Rheumatic disorders
Dystonia

Dozens of medical organizations have endorsed allowing patients access to medical marijuana with their physicians' approval. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - America's second largest cancer charity.
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Public Health Association
American Nurses Association
British Medical Association
AIDS Action
American Academy of HIV Medicine
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Health Canada

According to a survey on the recommendation of cannabis in California, cannabis is indicated for over 250 conditions. Cannabis is most importantly indicated as an antiemetic for the treatment of nausea and anorexia associated with treatments for cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis. Cannabis also acts as an antispasmodic and anticonvulsant and is indicated for neurological conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and spasms. As an analgesic and an immunomodulator it is indicated for conditions such as migraine, arthritis, spinal and skeletal disorders. As a bronchodilator it is beneficial for asthma. It also reduces the intraocular pressure and is indicated for glaucoma. Cannabis is also used to treat some mood disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder, clinical depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and bipolar disorder. It is also indicated for premenstrual syndrome, hypertension, and insomnia.

Early studies on efficacy

New Mexico
Approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the study included 250 patients and compared smoked cannabis to oral THC. All participants were referred by a medical doctor and had failed to control vomiting using at least three alternative antiemetics. Patients chose smoking cannabis or taking the THC pill. Multiple objective and subjective standards were used to determine the effectiveness.

Conclusion: cannabis is far superior to the best available drug at the time of testing, Compazine, and smoked cannabis is clearly superior to oral THC. "More than ninety percent of the patients who received cannabis ... reported significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting." No major side effects were reported, though three patients reported adverse reactions that did not involve cannabis alone. The report can be read here: http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/pierson.bhtml

Tennessee
27 patients had failed on other antiemetics therapies, including oral THC.

Conclusion: 90.4% success for smoked cannabis; 66.7% for oral THC. "We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective antiemetics. We found an approximate 23% higher success rate among those patients administered smoked marijuana. We found no significant differences in success rates by age group. The major reason for THC capsule failure was nausea and vomiting so severe that the patient could not retain the capsule."

All I know is smoking weed is bad for your...mind.

Here is a short list of great scientists whose minds were inspired by their use of marijuana:

Carl Sagan - American astronomer and astrochemist, co-author of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage and author of Contact. In 1969 he wrote an essay titled Mr. X about cannabis in which he said, "the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."

The late astronomer and author, Carl Sagan was a secret but avid marijuana smoker, crediting it with inspiring essays and scientific insight, according to Sagan's biographer...Davidson, a writer for the San Francisco Examiner, revealed the marijuana use in an article published in the newspaper's magazine Sunday...Sagan said marijuana inspired some of his intellectual work. - http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm

Ann Druyan - wife of Carl Sagan, one of the writers of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, producer of Contact. She serves on the NORML board of directors and is president of the NORML Foundation board of directors.
Dr. Donald Abrams - Donald Abrams, MD, is Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, Chief of Hematology/Oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and Director of Clinical Programs at the Osher Center.
Stephen Jay Gould - American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana

Dana Rohrabacher is a United States Congressman who proposed a bill to stop Department of Justice from arresting medical cannabis patients.

[adimon]

Many drugs have the ability to cause any form of liver disease

Yes, if used incorrectly virtually any medication can kill. But smoking weed kills you.

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.

Smoking weed will kill you. But it's too cool so most users do it rather than sprinkle it on their pizza.

Here is a short list of the diseases for which medical marijuana has been clinically proven to be helpful:

Multiple Sclerosis
Cancer, Nausia & Vomiting
Pain
Hiv/AIDS et al

As for this and other references you make - I am not saying marijuana is entirely a bad thing or that I care whether people use it or not. I am simply saying that smoking it is bad for you.

Here is a short list of great scientists whose minds were inspired by their use of marijuana:


The same as before - different substances affect different people in different ways, but it's been proven that cannabis can cause mental complaints.

My favourite writer at the moment is Philip K. Dick, who smoked weed his whole life, and I'm sure that his writings might not have been quite so good if he didn't, but Dick, as many other people, was a sufferer of mental illness later in life.



Anyway, I don't wanna get into an argument about the pros and cons of different policy on drugs. I believe in free choice. I was simply making the unequivocable statement about smoking weed being bad for people as a reason that Romney would not want to endorse it.

[eternal_spirit]

Anyway, I don't wanna get into an argument about the pros and cons of different policy on drugs. I believe in free choice. I was simply making the unequivocable statement about smoking weed being bad for people as a reason that Romney would not want to endorse it.
.............

If this is the case the man is doing great disservice to people who need a cure. It's demonized by certain media, for the benefit of certain drug companies, for profit of selling other drugs.

[auron]

So are you guys saying that you don't think smoking weed is harmful to your body?

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/27792/2003896724479613822_rs.jpg

[tinmenace]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/avatars/marijuanahippies.jpg

[kasalt]

Yes, if used incorrectly virtually any medication can kill. But smoking weed kills you.

Even when they are used in their correct dosages, some commonly prescribed drugs available to the general public have caused organ failure and even death. How often do we hear of drugs suddenly being pulled off the market because they have caused deaths? How often do we hear of drug companies being sued by the loved ones of those who have experienced heart attacks, stroke, other organ failure, or died as a direct result of these medications? It happens all too often. But no one has ever been killed as a direct result of smoking marijuana.

Smoking weed will kill you.

It has already established from the medical literature that "smoking weed" has never killed anyone:

"Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality." - http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html

I am simply saying that smoking it is bad for you.

Fine, then there are other ways to injest it:

"Many medical cannabis opponents note that smoked cannabis is harmful to the respiratory system. However, this harm can be minimalized or eliminated by the use of a vaporizer or ingesting the drug in an edible form or other non-smoking modes of delivery like tinctures. Vaporizers are devices that vaporize the active constituents (cannabinoids) and the fragrant aromatic substances in the preparation without combusting the plant material and thus preventing the formation of toxic substances. Studies have shown that vaporizers can dramatically reduce or even eliminate the release of irritants and toxic compounds." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana

My favourite writer at the moment is Philip K. Dick, who smoked weed his whole life, and I'm sure that his writings might not have been quite so good if he didn't, but Dick, as many other people, was a sufferer of mental illness later in life.

Philip K. Dick showed signs of mental disturbance from age 13, well before marijuana ever came into his life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#Visions_and_psychological_problems

So the fact that he had problems later in life doesn't at all mean that they were caused by smoking marijuana. Furthermore, he died of a stroke, which also had nothing to do with smoking marijuana.

I was simply making the unequivocable statement about smoking weed being bad for people as a reason that Romney would not want to endorse it.

No, the real reason Romney won't endorse it because 1) his mind is imprisoned by his rigid religious beliefs on the subject (Romney is a Mormon), and 2) he's shilling for big pharma in exchange for campaign donations. I believe that his popularity would acutally increase if he took a reasonable possition on medical canabis because the public is demanding it:

"Since 1996, twelve states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, CA, CO, HI, ME, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA. Eight of the twelve did so through the initiative process. Hawaii's law was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2000, Vermont's was enacted by the legislature and passed into law without the governor's signature in May 2004, Rhode Island's was passed into law over the governor's veto in January 2006, and New Mexico's legislation was signed into law by Governor Bill Richardson on April 2, 2007." - http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm

[adimon]

Even when they are used in their correct dosages, some commonly prescribed drugs available to the general public have caused organ failure and even death. How often do we hear of drugs suddenly being pulled off the market because they have caused deaths?

As I said above, I don't totally trust the pharmaceutical companies, but just because legal drugs might be bad, it doesn't stop smoking weed from being harmful.

But no one has ever been killed as a direct result of smoking marijuana.

If by direct result, you rule out respiratorial diseases and cancers, then the statement is true, but why would you rule out what may be for you the 'indirect' effects, when those effects are likely (over 50% probability) for moderate users of weed.

I knew people who have died from such diseases due to weed smoking.

It has already established from the medical literature that "smoking weed" has never killed anyone.

I would disagree, even if only semantically.

Fine, then there are other ways to injest it.

But most users don't.

Philip K. Dick showed signs of mental disturbance from age 13, well before marijuana ever came into his life:

Yes, I was only making the point that weed isn't all bad, as it seemed to help his writing. Neither you or I could know for certain the full details of Phil's mania or his physical illnesses, even if I was making a point on this. Which I'm not. I had mentioned him to create a fairer, more-rounded post in actual fact.

So the fact that he had problems later in life doesn't at all mean that they were caused by smoking marijuana.

Of course not, but it doesn't mean they werent either. Fair enough, mental illness is a difficult subject to gain understanding of, but from my own experience, and from what I've read, I personally believe smoking weed does not do any favours for people's minds.

Furthermore, he died of a stroke, which also had nothing to do with smoking marijuana.

Probably not.

No, the real reason Romney won't endorse it because 1) his mind is imprisoned by his rigid religious beliefs on the subject (Romney is a Mormon), and 2) he's shilling for big pharma in exchange for campaign donations. I believe that his popularity would acutally increase if he took a reasonable possition on medical canabis because the public is demanding it:

I'm not going to pretend I know Romney's exact motives for every one of his actions, but he is entitled to his beliefs. If you don't want religion intruding into your politics, then boycott all candidates that aren't atheist. I am an atheist and would love to see total separation of church and state, but I'm also a realist, and believe you can't have everything you want, so as economics is of primary interest to me, I support those who I think will make the most difference in a positive way, even if they happen to be Catholic or Mormon or whatever. I don't like religion, but it won't go away overnight (Damn it!)



I'll say it again to be clear. The only point I am making in relation to the Romney weed thing is that if Romney believes as I do that smoking weed is harmful to the body and mind, then it is his right to ignore lobbyists who believe the opposite.

And I'll say this again - I'm not about wanting to stop people smoking weed. I wouldn't object to people having the choice. But I'm not going to devote my time to campaigning for it's legalisation because I believe it to be harmful.

Thanks.

[tinmenace]

But he wasn't being asked to campaign. He was just asked a question about it, and couldn't even be courteous enough to give an answer.

If he doesn't believe in it, he should just be a man about it and say "NO". Why avoid answering the question completely? That was a bit rude.

His deliberate silence speaks volumes.

[kasalt]

But no one has ever been killed as a direct result of smoking marijuana.

If by direct result, you rule out respiratorial diseases and cancers, then the statement is true, but why would you rule out what may be for you the 'indirect' effects, when those effects are likely (over 50% probability) for moderate users of weed.

I knew people who have died from such diseases due to weed smoking.

You are just simply incorrect on all points! It's amazing to me:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html


It has already established from the medical literature that "smoking weed" has never killed anyone.

I would disagree, even if only semantically.

See above.


Fine, then there are other ways to injest it.

But most users don't.

And most users don't use marijuana strictly for medical purposes, do they? You seem to be stuck on the assumption that I am advocating free-for-all recreational use. I'm not. This thread is about medical marijuana, not about recreational marijuana. You also seem to be stuck on the idea that I am only advocating smoking it as a method of delivery. Incorrect assumption again! I have made reference to other methods in this thread which do not involve directly inhaling the smoke from burning it, including eating it.


Philip K. Dick showed signs of mental disturbance from age 13, well before marijuana ever came into his life:

Yes, I was only making the point that weed isn't all bad, as it seemed to help his writing. Neither you or I could know for certain the full details of Phil's mania or his physical illnesses, even if I was making a point on this. Which I'm not. I had mentioned him to create a fairer, more-rounded post in actual fact.

Whether you intended to or not, you were "misleading the jury" by bringing his case up in the manner in which you did. I simply clarified the case.


So the fact that he had problems later in life doesn't at all mean that they were caused by smoking marijuana.

Of course not, but it doesn't mean they werent either. Fair enough, mental illness is a difficult subject to gain understanding of, but from my own experience, and from what I've read, I personally believe smoking weed does not do any favours for people's minds.

"Doesn't mean they were", "doesn't mean they weren't..." So what is your point then? As I've said, I'm not advocating recreational use, but Carl Sagan was an avid marijuana smoker, and it didn't cause him any mental problems. Bring me some documented, scientific, medical facts to prove what you "personally believe" about "smoking weed", because what you--and I--"personally believe" is irrelevent to the facts.


Furthermore, he died of a stroke, which also had nothing to do with smoking marijuana.

Probably not.

Definitely not.

I'm not going to pretend I know Romney's exact motives for every one of his actions...

I'm not going to "pretend" either, Adimon. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and here is Mormon teaching on the subject from a Mormon run website:

"The Church commands Mormons not to drink caffeine or alcohol, and not to smoke or take drugs." - http://members.aol.com/browne/mormon2.html

Did you get that, Adimon? These people are "commanded". don't even drink tea. And this is partly where he gets his belief against medical marijuana!

...but he is entitled to his beliefs.

I never said he wasn't entitled to his beliefs, but the trouble is that he wants to impose his beliefs on this subject onto everyone else. I have a big problem with that. Apparently, you don't?[/quote]

If you don't want religion intruding into your politics, then boycott all candidates that aren't atheist.

Sheer nonsense! Boycott only those candidates who wish to impose their "beliefs", including their false "beliefs" about medical marijuana. If you don't "believe" in using medical marijuana, then by all means don't, but DON'T force your "beliefs" on everyone else, OK???


I'll say it again to be clear. The only point I am making in relation to the Romney weed thing is that if Romney believes as I do that smoking weed is harmful to the body and mind, then it is his right to ignore lobbyists who believe the opposite.

As a political candidate, he is dead wrong not to answer the question of whether he would support the policy of arresting and imposing fines and prison terms against patients/doctors who use/prescribe medical marijuana. This is actually happening! IT IS AN ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE, and you are voicing support for Romney's silence on that? That's stinking outrageous, I tell you!

And I'll say this again - I'm not about wanting to stop people smoking weed. [Again Adimon, why are you so fixated with the smoking bit???] I wouldn't object to people having the choice. But I'm not going to devote my time to campaigning for it's legalisation because I believe it to be harmful.

Yes, well you are quite free to be wrong after all.


Thanks.

You're welcome.

[auron]

You seem to be stuck on the assumption that I am advocating free-for-all recreational use. I'm not.
I am.

And I couldn't care less what people's reaction is to that! :D

Debate is meaningless.

[kasalt]

I am.

And I couldn't care less what people's reaction is to that! :D

Auron, you are good company, and you are in good company. Re:

"I hope that time isn't too distant; the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world." -- Carl Sagan

Perhaps I should change my views on this subject as well. I'll give it due consideration.

Debate is meaningless.

Yes, I'm starting to realize that. I could probably ride this merry-go-round with Adimon forever, and he'd never change his mind on the subject, regardess of the facts. I'd like to get off of it. I'm getting dizzy and it's making me nauseous. Perhaps I should go to a doctor and get a prescription for medical marijuana to treat it... :D

Adimon, you say that you're an athiest, but you are much like a religious person in the sense that you have your "beliefs" to guide you on this subject, rather than the known and established medical facts.

I have just one final question for you Adimon. Does your objection to medical marijuana come only from your objection to smoking it? Because, as you know, there are other methods of delivery that do not involve the inhalation of smoke.

[adimon]

Kasalt

I've tried to answer all your questions here. If you feel I've left anything out, please let me know.

You are just simply incorrect on all points! It's amazing to me:

Listen, I totally take your points about the nature of debate, and nature of democracy and what we expect from our representatives etc, but I'm not against you. Legalisation is obviously a huge issue for you, and I would encourage you to try out every path open to you to lobby and campaign on the issue.

You seem keen to debate this subject in detail, but so far I have been fairly careful to try and keep my points relevant to my defence of Romney's actions (apart from my bringing up of Dick, which was in hindsight a bad idea. I understand your point on misleading a jury, so scrap that reference.). However, it's your thread, and I guess since you have opened the door to the wider debate, please allow me to step through.

One brief word on Romney before I concentrate on weed itself. You say that Romney is rude for ignoring someone. This maybe true, but then there is no law that says a politician has to be courteous, or to answer every question. Whilst these two things are desirable, granted, it is impractical to legislate on them to make them compulsory. Most serious lobbyists realise they can have the most impact by using the established, serious means of correspondence. I understand also that it is far easier to get a decent answer out of someone in person, and on the record, but not always possible, since the person might be busy, late for another appointment, personally upset etc..

Romney didn't have a valid reason not to answer in your opinion (mine too) but if it the question had been on an issue not important to you, would you see his behaviour as equally frustrating to you? In summary, I am not a defender of 'ambushes' on anyone, whereby a questioner expects an immediate answer of a person on their terms, and won't quit until they are satisfied with the answer - which in most cases isn't going to happen. I mean, if I was Romney and you were asking me about weed, I'd give you an answer (a condensed version of all my arguments against weed) but you wouldn't be happy with it, I'd guess. You'd probably use the same references as you've posted in this thread, and if I was doing a public visit like Romney, then I'd need time to look into the references you'd made before answering. So wouldn't it have been better to write to me? Or would you not be happy that someone read your letter and responded on my behalf? Or would you not be happy because then the 'Mitt Romney is rude' video wouldn't have given the wasting disease sufferer his opportunity to ask the question on camera?

And most users don't use marijuana strictly for medical purposes, do they? You seem to be stuck on the assumption that I am advocating free-for-all recreational use. I'm not. This thread is about medical marijuana, not about recreational marijuana. You also seem to be stuck on the idea that I am only advocating smoking it as a method of delivery. Incorrect assumption again! I have made reference to other methods in this thread which do not involve directly inhaling the smoke from burning it, including eating it.


Sorry if we've misunderstood one another, but I hadn't made either of these assumptions, I had just limited my argument to the smoking issue, since that's what makes ingesting THC harmful.

If medical marijuana was in fact THC in crystal form, which users dissolved in liquid or whatever, I'd have no objection. Unfortunately, every medical marijuana user I know smokes it.

As for recreational users, they have their own lobby groups. A good friend of mine is friends with Howard Marks, who I have to say is one of the biggest arseholes I've ever met. If the tokers are reliant on people like him to help their cause then they're in trouble. I can understand weed users' frustration at the fact that the government rejects their findings that weed isn't harmful etc.. They will sadly have to find another way of furthering their cause.

So what is your point then?

MY MAIN POINT THUS FAR HAS BEEN THAT SMOKING WEED IS HARMFUL. Just to clarify yet again.

Bring me some documented, scientific, medical facts to prove what you "personally believe" about "smoking weed", because what you--and I--"personally believe" is irrelevent to the facts.


My view is that our personal beliefs are formed from the entirety of our experience, AND the studies/scientific exponents that we encounter. I've read a lot of reports on both sides of the weed debate. It looks like we may never agree on whether or not smoking weed is harmful, which is where the comments about 'going round in circles' comes from. Fair enough, if you think that smoking weed is harmless, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm not going to "pretend" either, Adimon. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and here is Mormon teaching on the subject from a Mormon run website:

"The Church commands Mormons not to drink caffeine or alcohol, and not to smoke or take drugs." - http://members.aol.com/browne/mormon2.html

Did you get that, Adimon? These people are "commanded". don't even drink tea. And this is partly where he gets his belief against medical marijuana!

I despise religion and the way in which individual thought is damaged, but at the same time, I'm in favour of having real political representation, and sadly (sad to me), many men and women who become politically involved (at all levels) are religious, and to a certain extent this influences policy. To what degree it influences policy is dictated by the sphere they operate in, and the checks and balances put in place in the US. I'm in favour, as I said before, of separation of church and state in a constitutional sense, but is there any fair way of ensuring that politicians form policy without their religion intruding? It's a difficult issue. As an aside, if you have some decent thoughts on this, in terms of operational structures and processes, I'd be really grateful for your input, as this is a key interest of mine. I'd love to be able to say "This is how we keep religion out of politics" but it ain't simple, so your input is appreciated.

I never said he wasn't entitled to his beliefs, but the trouble is that he wants to impose his beliefs on this subject onto everyone else. I have a big problem with that. Apparently, you don't?

Imposition of beliefs is one way of looking at policy, I suppose, but not everyone is always going to be happy with every policy. If medical marijuana was legalised in the crystal form I mention above, and no-one was smoking it, then I'd say it would be hard to find the unhappy party. If recreational use was allowed, then Auron for example would be happier, and I'd be unhappy, since it's something I don't like to see people doing, but I wouldn't campaign to get it banned again! I'm fairly libertarian on the issue of choice, I'd say.

Sheer nonsense! Boycott only those candidates who wish to impose their "beliefs", including their false "beliefs" about medical marijuana. If you don't "believe" in using medical marijuana, then by all means don't, but DON'T force your "beliefs" on everyone else, OK???

You seem now to be saying that anyone with a different belief to yours on weed possesses a 'false belief'. You have decided your views based on what you've experienced and the research you have cited, and others have done the same. Medicine is not an exact science, so maybe you are right. I just don't think so, ok? :)

As a political andidate, he is dead wrong not to answer the question of whether he would support the policy of arresting and imposing fines and prison terms against patients/doctors who use/prescribe medical marijuana.

I'm pretty sure if the chap with the wasting disease had written a letter, he would have got an answer, just maybe not the answer he wanted. If you have any reason to believe that Romney ignores letters, then it's a more serious issue to me.

This is actually happening! IT IS AN ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE, and you are voicing support for Romney's silence on that? That's stinking outrageous, I tell you!

I've said above that I agree it's not very polite, but I'm not fussed about the silence because I'm not in favour of medical marijuana. It's up to those who care about the subject to action it - which I suppose is exactly what you're doing by posting it here. Please understand, kasalt, that my reason for posting on your thread is to say only that smoking is harmful.

Yes, well you are quite free to be wrong after all.

Thanks. I'm happy to extend you the same offer. :)

"I hope that time isn't too distant; the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world." -- Carl Sagan

Just from my personal experience, I don't consider it to produce serenity, insight, sensitivity or fellowship.

Yes, I'm starting to realize that. I could probably ride this merry-go-round with Adimon forever, and he'd never change his mind on the subject, regardess of the facts.

I'm not going to change my mind at present because I don't agree with you on the 'facts', I'm sorry. Since you are keen on the subject, please send me everything you have that constitutes established fact for you, and I'll happily explore it. Maybe you've got sources I haven't seen.


Adimon, you say that you're an athiest, but you are much like a religious person in the sense that you have your "beliefs" to guide you on this subject, rather than the known and established medical facts.

I don't see how you can say they are 'known and established facts' when they are disputed. As I've already said, my beliefs are based on the entirety of my experience, and what I think is fairly wide reading*. It's not a clear-cut issue, there is evidence on both sides, no conclusive 'proof', and I happen to believe that smoking weed is harmful because that is where my research has led me.

*=again, maybe I'm wrong. Send me your stuff if you like.

I have just one final question for you Adimon. Does your objection to medical marijuana come only from your objection to smoking it? Because, as you know, there are other methods of delivery that do not involve the inhalation of smoke.

I have no objection to the use of medical marijuana full stop. Even if patients are chugging on tulips I won't take any action to stop it. It's their lungs and their choice. I'm not going to promote it, or help its cause, however, because of my belief, and my main point in this thread which is that smoking anything is harmful to your respiratory and cardiovascular systems.



Hope this clears things up.

[kasalt]

It's all good, Adimon. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. My goal in furthering debate on this and other subjects is actually to spur my own further research into the subject, and to listen to the objections of others, such as yourself, so I can evaluate my own position and modify/correct it as necessary. How will I ever know if I am wrong about something if I don't hear the other side of the argument? So I appreciate your help in that regard. I do notice a tendency on my part to get too animated with regard to issues about which I am passionate, such as this issue. I'll try to tone it down. Cheers!

[adimon]

It's all good, Adimon. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. My goal in furthering debate on this and other subjects is actually to spur my own further research into the subject, and to listen to the objections of others, such as yourself, so I can evaluate my own position and modify/correct it as necessary. How will I ever know if I am wrong about something if I don't hear the other side of the argument? So I appreciate your help in that regard. I do notice a tendency on my part to get too animated with regard to issues about which I am passionate, such as this issue. I'll try to tone it down. Cheers!

Never 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'! That's one lesson that life (and the best comedy series ever) has taught me! You weren't too animated - look at the Holocaust denial threads if you want to see animation! LOL

Will you be sending me your research?

[kasalt]

Will you be sending me your research?

Sure thing, thanks for the reassurance!

Have a look at this list I found on Wikipedia. Compare the character and distinction of those who are in favor of allowing medical marijuana with those who are against it:

Notable pro- and anti-medical cannabis individuals

Proponents

Mary Lynn Mathre - RN, MSN, CARN. President, Patients Out of Time; Cannabis spokesperson for the Virginia Nurses Association. Editor, "Cannabis in Medical Practice: A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana."
Carl Sagan - American astronomer and astrochemist, co-author of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage and author of Contact. In 1969 he wrote an essay titled Mr. X about cannabis in which he said, "the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
Ann Druyan - wife of Carl Sagan, one of the writers of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, producer of Contact. She serves on the NORML board of directors and is president of the NORML Foundation board of directors.
Willie Nelson - Singer and songwriter.
William F. Buckley - conservative Republican talking head, publisher of the National Review. Author of Free Weeds 29 Jun 2004, and The Court on High 7 Jun 2005.
Dennis Peron - co-author of 215, along with Anna Boyce and Scott Imler. Founder of the first Cannabis Club, and in 1995 the 5-story Cannabis Buyers Club at 1444 Market Street (the main street of town) San Francisco.
Valerie Corral and WAMM
Scott Imler - along with Dennis, there at the beginning and founder of the West Hollywood Club, which he ran successfully for five years.
Lanny Swerdlow - founder of the Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project in Palm Springs
Gatewood Galbraith - Kentucky attorney; life-long crusader for liberty and human dignity; one of America's leading hemp advocates.
Angel Raich - U.S. activist, respondent in Gonzales v. Raich.
Sister Jane Weirick - among other things Sister Jane was a buyer for Dennis at the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club. She worked tirelessly until her death, opening the Hayward Patient's Resource Center.
Ed Rosenthal - A horitcultarist that fights for the right to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Dr. Jay Cavanaugh - founder of the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis. Gubernatorial Appointment to California State Board of Pharmacy 1980-82, reappointed 1982-86, reappointed to final Constitutional term 1986-90. Assisted in developing and coordinating drug enforcement against pharmacies, wholesalers, and manufacturers, diverting narcotics. Developed and implemented Recovering Pharmacist Program. Assisted in insuring pharmacist consultation with patients.
Dr. Lester Grinspoon - Author of Marijuana the Forbidden Medicine
Dr. Tod Mikuriya - Author of The Medical Marijuana Papers, advisor for the Cannabis Buyers Club in San Francisco (and most of the other clubs in the first years) and author of www.mikuriya.com
Dr. Donald Abrams - Donald Abrams, MD, is Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, Chief of Hematology/Oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and Director of Clinical Programs at the Osher Center.
Fred Gardner - "the chronicler of the movement", published in CounterPunch and other prominent publications and author of O'Shaunessey's, the Journal of the California Cannabis Research Medical Group.
Steve Kubby - Key Organizer of California's Proposition 215 [14], Founder and National Director American Medical Marijuana Association.
Peter McWilliams - Author who used cannabis to relieve pain.
Rick Steves - PBS Travel Show Host and on NORML's advisory board.
Rob Kampia - Founder of Marijuana Policy Project.
Dana Rohrabacher - United States Congressman who proposed a bill to stop Department of Justice from arresting medical cannabis patients.
Vanessa Nelson - Journalist specializing in covering medical marijuana cases.
Al Byrne - Co-founder and COO, Patients Out of Time. Co editor, Marijuana as Medicine." (video)
Bill Maher - Comedian and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO.
Ethan Nadelmann - President of Drug Policy Alliance.
Bill Mescher - A South Carolina state senator who proposed legalization of medical cannabis.
Keith Stroup - Founder of NORML.
Penn Jillette - Of Penn and Teller. Strong advocate. Has never taken recreational drugs.
Woody Harrelson - American actor.
Stephen Jay Gould - American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist.
Tonya Davis - medical cannabis activist and patient. State Director for Ohio AAMC and medical cannabis director for North Ohio Norml. Writer of the Ohio Compassionate Act
Montel Williams - Television Talk Show Host. Specifically stated as suffering from MS, and medical marijuana being the one thing found to provide relief after trying several prescribed painkillers. Affirmed and advocacy information avaiable from his taking action web page at http://www.montelms.org/TakingAction
Loretta Nall - Founder of the United States Marijuana party
Marc Emery - Cannabis Culture Magazine, former seed merchant facing extradition to the US.

Dozens of medical organizations have endorsed allowing patients access to medical marijuana with their physicians' approval. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - America's second largest cancer charity.
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Public Health Association
American Nurses Association
British Medical Association
AIDS Action
American Academy of HIV Medicine
Lymphoma Foundation of America
Health Canada

Opponents

Hamid Ghodse - International Narcotics Control Board president.
John P. Walters - Current Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy of United States.
Mark Souder - U.S. Congressman who filed an amicus brief in support of the U.S. government in Gonzales v. Raich. The federal government may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
Andrea Barthwell - Former deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under George W. Bush.
Paul Clement - Current Solicitor General who argued on behalf of the federal government in Gonzales v. Raich.
Dan Lungren - Former Attorney General of California who presided over crackdown of medical marijuana dispensaries.
Mitt Romney - Republican candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election.
George W. Bush - President of the United States, 2000-200?.

[adimon]

Sure thing, thanks for the reassurance!

Have a look at this list I found on Wikipedia. Compare the character and distinction of those who are in favor of allowing medical marijuana with those who are against it:

Thanks, but I'm actually interested in any evidence which supports your claim that smoking weed isn't harmful.

[kasalt]

Just found this on David Icke's "Latest Headlines" page:


Special report: Prescription medicines - Published: 21 October 2007

Each year, Britons are dying in their thousands because of the side effects of prescription and over-the-counter medicines. Reported deaths are up 155 per cent in a decade – and experts are seeking new safeguards.

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3081840.ece

Medical use of marijuana has never resulted in a single death. There is no rational basis for opposition to medical marijuana.

[adimon]

Just found this on David Icke's "Latest Headlines" page:


Special report: Prescription medicines - Published: 21 October 2007

Each year, Britons are dying in their thousands because of the side effects of prescription and over-the-counter medicines. Reported deaths are up 155 per cent in a decade – and experts are seeking new safeguards.

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3081840.ece

Medical use of marijuana has never resulted in a single death. There is no rational basis for opposition to medical marijuana.

In the UK, many medical marijuana users smoke it...and therefore risk contracting respiratory and vascular diseases.

[kasalt]

In the UK, many medical marijuana users smoke it...and therefore risk contracting respiratory and vascular diseases.

In the UK, many take prescription and over-the-counter medications...and therefore risk contracting DEATH.

[kasalt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj72e5q61Fs

[adimon]

In the UK, many take prescription and over-the-counter medications...and therefore risk contracting DEATH.

This doesn't make smoking weed any safer. Still got tar and other toxins in it.

[kasalt]

This doesn't make smoking weed any safer. Still got tar and other toxins in it.

Don't take any medications that are known to have any adverse side-effects, if that is what you wish. But others who still wish to take them should be allowed to do so. Freedom of choice, plain and simple.

[adimon]

Don't take any medications that are known to have any adverse side-effects, if that is what you wish. But others who still wish to take them should be allowed to do so. Freedom of choice, plain and simple.

I agree with freedom of choice. We're just going round in circles because you won't admit that SMOKING weed causes respiratorial disease.

[kasalt]

I agree with freedom of choice. We're just going round in circles because you won't admit that SMOKING weed causes respiratorial disease.

Common sense tells us that inhaling smoke isn't the best thing for the respiratory system. However, for some people (such as those afflicted with extreme nausea), inhaling it is the only way the active ingredients can be delivered. And even then, smokeless vaporizers can be utilized which eliminate the problems of inhaling smoke. So what's the problem?

[auron]

God!! This debate is so old now.......... :D:D:D:D :rolleyes:

[adimon]

Common sense tells us that inhaling smoke isn't the best thing for the respiratory system. However, for some people (such as those afflicted with extreme nausea), inhaling it is the only way the active ingredients can be delivered. And even then, smokeless vaporizers can be utilized which eliminate the problems of inhaling smoke. So what's the problem?

Vaporisers do indeed eliminate smoking problems. But I was talking about smoking joints, bongs, buckets, pipes, hotknives, etc...

Smoke is bad for your lungs. Doesn't matter if it's tobacco, marijuana or a housefire.

[kasalt]

I agree with freedom of choice. We're just going round in circles because you won't admit that SMOKING weed causes respiratorial disease.

Vaporisers do indeed eliminate smoking problems. But I was talking about smoking joints, bongs, buckets, pipes, hotknives, etc...

Smoke is bad for your lungs. Doesn't matter if it's tobacco, marijuana or a housefire.

I would be inclined to agree with that. However, Lancet disagrees, and I would tend to think that they may be in a position to know better:
"The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health." --The Lancet, Volume 346, Number 8985, November 11, 1995, p. 1241

[motleyhoo]

Vaporisers do indeed eliminate smoking problems. But I was talking about smoking joints, bongs, buckets, pipes, hotknives, etc...

Smoke is bad for your lungs. Doesn't matter if it's tobacco, marijuana or a housefire.

Anything healthy can become deadly or harmful if overconsumed. You cannot live without water, but you can certainly die from consuming too much of it. Weed is the same way. You won't find any industry studies on its medical efficacy for obvious reasons. That right there should tell you all you ought to know. But anyone who has MS, Parkinsons, cancer, chemo therapy, etc. and who has used marijuana can atest to its positive affects. I have a friend whose daughter suffered from acute anorexia. He spent his entire life savings paying for every AMA dictated treatment to no avail. When she was to the point of being nothing but skin and bones and close to death, his doctor told him "off the record" to try marijuana. It literally saved her life and turned her completely around psychologically. Personally, I suffer from severe RLS and I know for a fact that marijuana works to abate my symptoms so that I can sleep and function normally. I resent the fact the govt can dictate that I not be allowed to get this treatment and yet they have no problems with me being prescribed a number of addictive and harmful drugs. The entire system is bass ackwards and it got that way because of greed.

Assholes like Romney are so steeped in the brainwashing and greed for power and money that they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them between the eyes. The reason the majority of the public will not get behind legalization is because they have been bombarded by a multi-billion dollar propoganda campaign that has been going on for over 50 years.

The amount of money that law enforcement agencies get just to enforce marijuana laws is way up in the tens of billions of $$$. The DEA alone gets over $10 billion per year just to fight marijuana. That kind of money corrupts and these agencies have indeed been corrupted by it.

[supertzar]

Adimon, don't you know there is research showing smoking Cannabis causes no lung disease? No cancer, no emphysema, nothing. This opinion is totally unscientific and incorrect:

Smoke is bad for your lungs. Doesn't matter if it's tobacco, marijuana or a housefire.

I've argued about this enough that I don't really want to again. Maybe even with you! I'm not sure. The research is there if you want to look it up.

[kasalt]

The reason the majority of the public will not get behind legalization is because they have been bombarded by a multi-billion dollar propoganda campaign that has been going on for over 50 years.

You're absolutely right that this is how cannabis was made illegal in the first place, but the good news is that public perception has changed for the better, especially with regard to medical uses. Do you live in the USA? If so, you'll be glad to know that according to nationwide public opinion polls, well over 70% of the population support legalization of cannabis for medicinal use. See the link here for details:

http://www.mpp.org/library/widespread-support-for-medical-marijuana-throughout-the-country.html

[motleyhoo]

You're absolutely right that this is how cannabis was made illegal in the first place, but the good news is that public perception has changed for the better, especially with regard to medical uses. Do you live in the USA? If so, you'll be glad to know that according to nationwide public opinion polls, well over 70% of the population support legalization of cannabis for medicinal use. See the link here for details:

http://www.mpp.org/library/widespread-support-for-medical-marijuana-throughout-the-country.html

Yes, I live in the states, but I don't quite agree with the results of that poll. It might look like 70% on the surface but that 70% doesn't translate to the actual voting polls. What we need is more media coverage of the vast number of people that have been helped by marijuana, and we need someone, somewhere to take up a serious research effort to validate what we have been saying. Until those 2 things happen I don't see a lot of progress being made. More money is still being spent on the disinformation side.

The "legal" meds that I got from the Doctors were almost as bad as RLS. I was on Klonopin for 2 years. It made me sleepy and stupid, it killed my memory, and it took me over a month to get off of it. Then I was on Percoset, which gave me daytime anxiety that got worse and worse and almost drove me insane. Then I was on Mirapex that made me puke in my sleep and pass out when I tried to get out of bed and made me obsessive compulsive. Then I was on Gabapentin that made my left foot go numb and drag when I walked for 3 months. But no, the law says I could not try marijuana, a plant that grows wild and that's 1,000 times less harmful than the shit the Doctors prescribed.

I took matters into my own hands and grew my own (Dutch Passion White Widow). That way I knew what I was getting and I could control how it was grown. It was a long, paranoid 4 months waiting for it to mature, and wondering if I'd get home from work to find a line of Fed cars outside my home. Long story short the experiment was a complete success, but in this post 9/11 age of big brother spying I am fearful to do it again, and so I am back on meds, Tramadol this time. :mad:

[kasalt]

Yes, I live in the states, but I don't quite agree with the results of that poll. It might look like 70% on the surface but that 70% doesn't translate to the actual voting polls. What we need is more media coverage of the vast number of people that have been helped by marijuana, and we need someone, somewhere to take up a serious research effort to validate what we have been saying. Until those 2 things happen I don't see a lot of progress being made. More money is still being spent on the disinformation side.

You might find this information encouraging:"In the US, fourteen states have recognized medical marijuana: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reaffirmed on Feb. 25 that the Obama administration intends to pursue a policy of non-interference with these state laws. A number of other states are considering medical marijuana legislation this year, including New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire."
Source: http://www.mpp.org/news/press-releases/mn/medical-marijuana-passes.html
Thank you for sharing the details of your story. Experiences like yours are the sort that really have an impact on this debate.

I think it can be said that sobriety is the optimal state of mind, so I can more or less understand why some people are opposed to legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. But I don't know what to say about people who are opposed to medical marijuana. It's just inhumane.

[supertzar]

It might look like 70% on the surface but that 70% doesn't translate to the actual voting polls.

Medical Cannabis passed in Michigan with 63%, a landslide in political terms.

[kasalt]

Medical Cannabis passed in Michigan with 63%, a landslide in political terms.

Additionally, just a couple of weeks ago, the Minnesota and New Hampshire Senates passed medical marijuana bills, and the Rhode Island Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would establish “compassion centers” to provide medical marijuana to qualified patients.

This is in addition to the election results of last November 8th, in which nine out of 10 marijuana-related ballot initiatives around the country were passed, and one initiative against marijuana was defeated. See the details here:

http://www.mpp.org/library/2008-ballot-initiatives.html

Pro-marijuana legislation is on a roll lately!

[leviathanstaar]

He's the Governor of a state - he's not going to go on record recommending a harmful drug under any conditions, presidential candidate or not.

lol.

[kasalt]

Romney wasn't asked if he would "go on record recommending a harmful drug", he was asked if he would continue to support a policy of arresting patients who use marijuana for medical reasons. Romney refused to answer that question, but that is the policy he supported. He refused to answer the question because he was too ashamed of himself to admit that he supported it.

[motleyhoo]

I hope you are right. We are such a backwards coutry wrt hemp and marijuana. We could create a whole new economy out of something as simple as legalizing the growing and production of hemp for instance.