Medical Marijuana receiving VERY mainstream support

[DinoDoc]

You don't really need to legalize it if your interested in its medical properties. You can just give out THC pills.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You don't really need to legalize it if your interested in its medical properties. You can just give out THC pills.

Unless you are giving it to control the nausea experienced by chemo patients. They'll just throw the pills back up.

[Odin]

I think Marijuana would be a good garden plant because of the neat shape of the leaves.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Hmm...and Strangelove says we should ask doctors. I wonder what he'll say to this...

I've seen the poll done by Medscape. It's not scientific at all. It was a "come-as-you-are" type poll similar as the ones we do here on Apolyton. People who access the website would simply answer ther questions if they saw fit to do so. That's not a very scientific way to do a survey. It would be more believeable if they had taken some source list of physicians, randomly selected a large number of participants and sent out questionnaires, checking before and after receiving the responses to make sure that their population matched the characteristics of the general poplulation. The reason for comparing population characteristics of the respondants to the general population is to attempt to detect systematic biases in the sample. I might also point out that people accessing Medscape don't even need to be physicians or healthcare workers. Indeed, I might even call into question the description of Medscape" as "mainstream medical opinion".

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
In 1937, the AMA opposed banning pot for even recreational use. From 1937-1939, ~3,000 doctors were convicted by the federal bureau of narcotics headed by Harry Anslinger of illegally prescribing narcotics. In 1939, the AMA reversed it's position to support the ban that went into effect in 1937 anyway. From 1939-1952, only 3 doctors were convicted by the bureau of illegally prescribing narcotics. Interesting numbers, 3,000 doctors in 2 years, then 3 doctors in 13 years.

In 1937, Harry Anslinger told a Congress bent on banning pot that it turned users into homicidal maniacs who kill without remorse, i.e., soulless creatures. In 1953, Anslinger told Congress that pot was a communist plot to pacify Americans.

I asked for a source on this before, and I have to ask again, because after all, Federal bureaus can't convict anyone of anything. Then again, I've never heard of a Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
"Illegally prescribing narcotics" isn't a crime for physicians either, so I've got to ask what you mean. Was it that they were prescribing narcotics that were illegal, like heroine? I don't know how that would happen, since a doctor can't prescribe something that isn't available in a pharmacy. Were they prescribing narcotics for themselves? If that's so then I'd have to say "good for you Harry Anslinger", because I don't want to be treated by a doctor who is stoned. Did they fail to comply with the Controlled Substances Act or fail to obtain a federal license to prescribe narcotics? Oooopppppsss, those things weren't enacted for another 30+ years.
The only Federal law pertaining to narcotics that was on the books in 1937 was the Harrison Act, which forbade the prescription and consumption of many of what are now the "Class 1" drugs. In 1937 I'd guess that would be heroine, opium, laudanum, cocaine, and amphetamines. Other less abusable, but medically useful narcotics like codeine, tincture of opium, and morphine were to be distributed only by prescription, and only for medical purposes. In order to convict a doctor of violating the Harrison Act you'd either have to catch him distributing the outright illegal drugs, like heroine, or prescribing the legal ones without a legitimate reason. Since proving that someone isn't in pain is virtually impossible, and since jury trials are available to anyone, I really doubt that Harry Anslinger could have had the resources to railroad that many physicians.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by JCG
...that may be so, but most of the people in this thread (for example...perhaps also most of the legalization movement) seem to be interested mostly in the "recreational" aspects of Marijuana anyways, and not the "medical" ones...

Unlike some of you eager people, it seems, I wouldn't want to be in the position to "need" a marijuana prescription...

Anyways, carry on.

Except for physical treatment, weed can also be used to clear up your mind; to fight stress and other psychological malfunctioning

[Dr Strangelove]

You don't see any support from NORML for the wider use of Marinol even though it actually has been proven to relieve nausea better than THC because Marinol isn't straight THC, It's an isomer that has much less recreational potential.

[Dis]

all I know is I really want to smoke weed

but my job won't allow it.

Even if pot was legal I still couldn't do it I'm sure.

The problem lies how long it stays in your system. Because my job does involve some driving. While I would never smoke pot before work, it would still be in my system if I got in an accident and had a drug test.

All I know, is I want a joint really bad right now

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Trajanus


Except for physical treatment, weed can also be used to clear up your mind; to fight stress and other psychological malfunctioning

Clinical studies show that smoking marijuana worsens depression, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia.

[monolith94]

My studies show that marijuana is frikken cool.

[Berzerker]

JCG -

...that may be so, but most of the people in this thread (for example...perhaps also most of the legalization movement) seem to be interested mostly in the "recreational" aspects of Marijuana anyways, and not the "medical" ones...

And this is a reason to punish sick people who use pot for it's medicinal properties? Btw, I don't own a gun but I support the right of others to own them, does that mean my support for gun rights is dis-ingenuous?

Unlike some of you eager people, it seems, I wouldn't want to be in the position to "need" a marijuana prescription...

Me neither, I guess I'm not as "eager" as you presume.

Anyways, carry on.

I'd like to if y'all can learn the meaning of "keep your hands to yourself and mind your own business".

Strangelove -

I've seen the poll done by Medscape. It's not scientific at all. It was a "come-as-you-are" type poll similar as the ones we do here on Apolyton. People who access the website would simply answer ther questions if they saw fit to do so.

And that means most of those people who disagree just forgot to answer the question? You've said we should ask the medical community for it's opinion but you never offered any poll.

It would be more believeable if they had taken some source list of physicians, randomly selected a large number of participants and sent out questionnaires, checking before and after receiving the responses to make sure that their population matched the characteristics of the general poplulation.

And you've done such a poll to support your position?

I might also point out that people accessing Medscape don't even need to be physicians or healthcare workers. Indeed, I might even call into question the description of Medscape" as "mainstream medical opinion".

If you're going to "question" the description, support your charge.

I asked for a source on this before, and I have to ask again, because after all, Federal bureaus can't convict anyone of anything. Then again, I've never heard of a Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

You didn't ask for a source before, and you complaining about not answering questions is , and I would have answered if you had. The source is a book called "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" by the now deceased Peter McWilliams (he died from AIDS complications after a court threatened to jail him for using medicinal pot). As for not hearing of the bureau of narcotics, type it or Harry Anslinger into Google and I'm sure you'll find information. Last, you don't think federal bureaus convict people? Who do you think charges people with federal crimes? How do you explain 3,000 doctors convicted in the 2 years following the AMA's opposition to the ban on pot and only 3 doctors convicted in the 13 years following the AMA's reversal?Sure, juries may be involved, but they're told to judge solely on whether or not a law was violated, not the constitutionality or morality of the law. So juries are largely robotic institutions, not judges of the law and the accused as was intended by the Founders. Btw, people faced with charges often plea bargain to avoid worse charges or legal expenses, so juries aren't always involved.

"Illegally prescribing narcotics" isn't a crime for physicians either, so I've got to ask what you mean.

Tell that to all the doctors who've been convicted of this non-crime.

Was it that they were prescribing narcotics that were illegal, like heroine? I don't know how that would happen, since a doctor can't prescribe something that isn't available in a pharmacy. Were they prescribing narcotics for themselves? If that's so then I'd have to say "good for you Harry Anslinger", because I don't want to be treated by a doctor who is stoned. Did they fail to comply with the Controlled Substances Act or fail to obtain a federal license to prescribe narcotics? Oooopppppsss, those things weren't enacted for another 30+ years.

If we're talking about 1937-1953, then legislation passed "30+" years after the fact wouldn't be an issue now would it...oops... I'm sure these convictions ran the gamut of offenses, the point is the numbers - 3,000 in 2 years after the AMA angered the feds as opposed to 3 doctors in 13 years after the AMA "supported" the feds. Bringing charges is at the discretion of those empowered to bring charges, so why the disparity in numbers? Why are you still oblivious to the obvious?

The only Federal law pertaining to narcotics that was on the books in 1937 was the Harrison Act, which forbade the prescription and consumption of many of what are now the "Class 1" drugs.

Pot was banned in 1937 and became the perview of the bureau of narcotics. But you've merely cited a set of laws under which doctors were convicted. What's your point?

Other less abusable, but medically useful narcotics like codeine, tincture of opium, and morphine were to be distributed only by prescription, and only for medical purposes. In order to convict a doctor of violating the Harrison Act you'd either have to catch him distributing the outright illegal drugs, like heroine, or prescribing the legal ones without a legitimate reason.

And this "legitimate" reason is the key, it's rather subjective and at the discretion of those bringing the charges.

Since proving that someone isn't in pain is virtually impossible, and since jury trials are available to anyone, I really doubt that Harry Anslinger could have had the resources to railroad that many physicians.

Since you didn't even know the bureau of narcotics existed, how would you know anything about him or his bureau or the tactics they employed? Doc, you're funny, you insinuate the info I provided is false while admitting you didn't even know this bureau existed. I've given you this info before, if you were sincerely inquisitive, you'd do some research instead of dismissing anything you don't like.

Btw, if this poll was open to anyone and not just medical professionals, then I'd agree it isn't valid.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
JCG -



Strangelove -

And that means most of those people who disagree just forgot to answer the question? You've said we should ask the medical community for it's opinion but you never offered any poll.

Like I said, since Medscape is open to the public there is no assurance that the respondants even are members of the medical community. Anyway my criticism of the poll's validity stands uncontested.

If you're going to "question" the description, support your charge.

Is Medscape a peer-reviewed journal? Does it have the support of a medical society or an institution of higher learning?

You didn't ask for a source before, and you complaining about not answering questions is , and I would have answered if you had. The source is a book called "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" by the now deceased Peter McWilliams (he died from AIDS complications after a court threatened to jail him for using medicinal pot).

Yes, I did ask for them on another thread in which you mentioned this so called information. Surely then Mr. McWilliams had some official sources to back up his claim?

As for not hearing of the bureau of narcotics, type it or Harry Anslinger into Google and I'm sure you'll find information. Last, you don't think federal bureaus convict people? Who do you think charges people with federal crimes?

No, they don't, they make indictments as you just point out.

How do you explain 3,000 doctors convicted in the 2 years following the AMA's opposition to the ban on pot and only 3 doctors convicted in the 13 years following the AMA's reversal?

I don't. I think it's a fabrication, or perhaps a misinterpretation of the data. It is such an outlandish claim that it begs for some real proof.

Sure, juries may be involved, but they're told to judge solely on whether or not a law was violated, not the constitutionality or morality of the law.

Since we don't even know what laws were violated, other than that they haad something to do with drugs, why the rancor over constitutionality and morality?

So juries are largely robotic institutions, not judges of the law and the accused as was intended by the Founders.

I don't see how you have proved this?

Btw, people faced with charges often plea bargain to avoid worse charges or legal expenses, so juries aren't always involved.

A doctor plea bargaining felony drug charges would be ending his professional career, so he probably wouldn't plea bargain.



Tell that to all the doctors who've been convicted of this non-crime.



If we're talking about 1937-1953, then legislation passed "30+" years after the fact wouldn't be an issue now would it...oops... I'm sure these convictions ran the gamut of offenses, the point is the numbers - 3,000 in 2 years after the AMA angered the feds as opposed to 3 doctors in 13 years after the AMA "supported" the feds. Bringing charges is at the discretion of those empowered to bring charges, so why the disparity in numbers? Why are you still oblivious to the obvious?
[/QUOTE] What's the big deal? Are you trying to make the claim that after this supposed epidemic of convictions some official of the Federal government met with officials of the AMA and extorted them into changing their public stance on marijuana? You've simply got no proof!

Pot was banned in 1937 and became the perview of the bureau of narcotics. But you've merely cited a set of laws under which doctors were convicted. What's your point?

Very few doctors were ever convicted of prescribing heroine, cocaine, or marijuana because these items weren't available after they were banned. I doubt that until the past decade or so marijuana was even considered as a prescribeable drug.

And this "legitimate" reason is the key, it's rather subjective and at the discretion of those bringing the charges.

Right, and you've got to convince a jury!

Since you didn't even know the bureau of narcotics existed, how would you know anything about him or his bureau or the tactics they employed?

Well, unless these doctors did in fact break the law you've got to fabricate the entire case. This is particularily difficult when the charge involves the sort of activity in which there is no victim to report the crime. Basically you'd have to enlist the co-operation of pharmacists, patients, and probably the rest of the local medical community. All of this would have to be done by a Federal agency which has no local jurisdiction from which to operate. It would take considerable time and manpower to concoct each case. Since this activity occured over a two year period they would have to manufacture 1500 cases/ year, or about 30/ week, or 6/day. How many employees do you think this bureau had?

Doc, you're funny, you insinuate the info I provided is false while admitting you didn't even know this bureau existed.

You got me on that one, but you still haven't proven conspiracy.

I've given you this info before, if you were sincerely inquisitive, you'd do some research instead of dismissing anything you don't like.

Ahhh, but I think you need to do some research. You're the one insinuating some big secret government conspiracy to subvert the AMA. Try using official sources instead of the stuff approved of by NORML.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Clinical studies show that smoking marijuana worsens depression, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia.

Yup

That's why I always so "bull****" when people say how harmless pot it.

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't think pot is harmless... it's why I quit.

But at the same time, I DO think it should be legal as should every other drug that is currently illegal.

My reason being that I don't think the government should be our moral guardian nor should it waste its time protecting us from ourselves... drug laws make no more sense to me than suicide laws. If a person feels like throwing their life away, I feel they should be allowed to do so.

[monolith94]

The only harm I ever encountered was the time wasted finding my misplaced shoes.