Medicinal Marijuanna ~ Educate me....

[Philothei]

I am not up to read the whole other thread we have on the subject plus I want to see pros and cons about it. All convo welcome about the subject

Just please let's keep it civil and nice we are all have opinions there is NO Canon to forbit this and that... All medicine is dangerous as some herbs are too...Some can cause spontanious abortion etc. Let's be courteous while discussing this.

Thanks

Please offer links for discussion one at a time so i can read them slowly ...

 

[Protoevangel]

Well, after the clean-up, I skimmed the other thread. It's looking much more friendly now than before. But yea, it's pretty long at this point.

The article at Wikipedia is pretty good, for a brief introduction: Medical cannabis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ProScribe]

Pot,Cannabis,Marijuana,Hash can come from a grower's field or green rooms and greenhouses. (And I think it gets translated to coffeeshop or legal dispensary with government regulations). Some liberal, secular countries might be green ~ Not exactly sure - I guess if you go and meet your hook up then those are some of your sources.

 

[Philothei]

Mental disorders

A study of 50,000 Swedish soldiers who had smoked at least once were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had not smoked. The study concluded that either smoking caused a higher rate of schizophrenia, or that those with schizophrenia were more likely to be drawn to cannabis.[117]
A study by Keele University commissioned by the British government found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychoses.
The authors say this data is "not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards".[118]
A 10 year study on 1923 individuals from the general population in Germany, aged 14–24, concluded that cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic symptoms. Continued cannabis use might increase the risk for psychotic disorder.[119]

From the link in Proto's post ^

It seems also to be causing lung cancer in some cases based on research done. But I would say that IMHO there is need for more research on this. I think that since the FDA does not spent enough time to research other meds it would be kind of common sense that they are ok with the research they have right now for this one...

The system is soo "forgiving" that it will take years before they do complete studies. Also the use is so restricted that they cannot find data that would prove or disprove the medicinal use of the herb. My 0.2 cents thus far

 

[Protoevangel]

From the link in Proto's post ^

It seems also to be causing lung cancer in some cases based on research done. But I would say that IMHO there is need for more research on this. I think that since the FDA does not spent enough time to research other meds it would be kind of common sense that they are ok with the research they have right now for this one...

The system is soo "forgiving" that it will take years before they do complete studies.

Hi Philothei,

The lung cancer issue is a real issue. Some marijuana proponents like to say that marijuana smokers don't smoke nearly as much marijuana as tobacco smokers smoke tobacco, so it's "safer". While it's true to a large extent that most marijuana smokers don't use nearly the amount of product that a typical tobacco smoker would, it ignores the fact that marijuana smokers typically hold the smoke in their lungs a lot longer than tobacco smokers do... Some studies suggest a 20:1 ratio. That is something that simply can't be ignored.

The answer to this problem is to promote non-smoking methods of administering the medicine. Vaporization is the most effective way to do this currently, but alternatives to smoking are literally thousands of years old. Some medical marijuana stores do offer such items as cookies, candies, butters, and drinks. I have heard word-of-mouth, that these are very effective.

Also the use is so restricted that they cannot find data that would prove or disprove the medicinal use of the herb. My 0.2 cents thus far

Actually, marijuana's effectiveness in treating nausea, vomiting, glaucoma and certian GI problems are well documented. It is also well-known to be useful to stimulate the appetite of patients on chemo and AIDS drugs. Many other tests have shown other benefits as well, including slowing the spread of certain kinds of cancer. The Federal Government even has a patent* on using marijuana as a neuroprotectant after stroke (which is what prompted my current interest in re-opening the subject for discussion, with my wife being a survivor of multiple strokes). The same patent also lists marijuana as helpful with other brain-function problems, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

* This patent flies in the face of having marijuana on Schedule 1. It clearly proves that regardless of any dangers that may or may not exist with marijuana, that it does indeed have medicinal properties recognized by the Government.

 

[Philothei]

Good information and all Proto I think that like any other herb the FDA will take its sweet time to act on.... I am afraid that the issue that it is a drug that gives a "high" is one of concern for them as well as the WAY they will produce it in a non smokable (new word hehe) form... The "high" is a problem when it comes to workers productivity and also the effect it can have in the brain i.e. schizophrenia....

 

[ProScribe]

If you're allowed to have marijuana - it comes in a dried & manicured product that makes a transfer to the user at home or apartment. There are several ways to consume it, rolling tray + rolling papers + pipe + bong on nice coffee table etc. The POV of a personal user are much more informative than scientifc reviews

 

[Protoevangel]

Good information and all Proto I think that like any other herb the FDA will take its sweet time to act on....

Yea, this isn't going to be over tomorrow, that's for sure. Removing marijuana from Schedule 1 could be completed with a signature from the President. But that's just the beginning, if we want to allow people to use this medicine, while not making it appear that we are approving it for party-time.

I am afraid that the issue that it is a drug that gives a "high" is one of concern for them

The "high" is a problem when it comes to workers productivity

Indeed. Public intoxication is something that needs to be addressed. Driving under the influence can be a problem, similarly to alcohol. Expanding the existing public intoxication laws and drunk driving laws may be useful... One big hurdle that we have to get over is that there are no tests that can conclusively show if someone is currently under the influence. THC is detectable for weeks, and with heavy use, even months. There are no tests that can say whether it's been used within the past few hours. Even for medical use, this is a hurdle that we will have to find a solution to. The alternative is that people will continue to be charged, who are innocent of driving under the influence (which is how most states handle it now).

as well as the WAY they will produce it in a non smokable (new word hehe) form...

Already being done... There is absolutely no form of this medicine that must be smoked. The natural form, as well as hash can be vaporized or mixed into food/drink/pills. Unless I misunderstand your point?

and also the effect it can have in the brain i.e. schizophrenia....

The tests that link marijuana and schizophrenia leave some huge gaps in their reports. If there were an actual cause and effect relationship between marijuana and schizophrenia, how to explain that as marijuana use has dramatically increased, schizophrenia rates have stayed the same? How do we explain that the rate of schizophrenia is the same in Japan and Sweden, where marijuana use is very low? Why haven't we seen increases in the overall schizophrenia rate or decreases in the average age of onset during the decades of exponential growth in marijuana use?

I'll suggest an answer. A couple of years ago, a study was conducted at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, of people with schizophrenia who all smoked marijuana. They definatly found a link; Seventy-five percent of the test subjects began smoking before developing symptoms of schizophrenia. Anti-marijuana propagandists jumped all over this, and stories ran in most major media publications. What these "news" media outlets did not report, or minimized, was that when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, (gender, education and socioeconomic status, etc) the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared completely. Many other studies suggest much the same thing; correlation without causation (in other words, people who develop schizophrenia may be more attracted to marijuana - possibly for it's calming effects). Interestingly enough, it has been shown that the chemical CBD (Cannabidiol), which is present in marijuana, actually reduces symptoms in schizophrenics, by stabilizing disrupted NMDA receptor pathways (I know that is a big claim, contrary to what is so commonly assumed so to support this assertion, I will direct you to: here and here). If marijuana really a cause of schizophrenia, then they are doing a very poor job of showing conclusive evidence.

I was about to post, but I do want to soften my above position a little bit. I tried to present quite a bit of information in a small paragraph, and almost made it look like I was ranting. Some researchers have speculated that THC may be the chemical that leads to an increased risk of schizophrenia. We have evidence to suggest that CBD is an effective treatment for schizophrenic symptoms. I would like to see some testing the two chemicals separate, and together in differing ratios. Different strains of marijuana can be custom grown to have different effects. If a link can ever be confirmed, it would be a minor issue to begin strains rich in CBD and other cannabinoids, while reducing the THC itself... Or to synthetically produce the compounds that are most effective and least dangerous.

By all means, testing needs to continue! I am not suggesting that we make marijuana available to juviniles, partiers, those with mental issues or at increased risk of developing mental issues. I'm also not suggesting that marijuana should be a first choice for much of anything. What I so suggest though, is that if the known risks and speculations are weighed against the proven benefits, then marijuana clearly has a legitimate medicinal application for some patients, and should be removed from Schedule 1.

Whew! That was a mouthfull!

 

[Philothei]

Sorry to be naive but what is schedule 1 Proto?

 

[Philothei]

If you're allowed to have marijuana - it comes in a dried & manicured product that makes a transfer to the user at home or apartment. There are several ways to consume it, rolling tray + rolling papers + pipe + bong on nice coffee table etc. The POV of a personal user are much more informative than scientifc reviews

You are talking about medicinal right? The idea of smoking is not that safe as it was proved above.... I think that might harm the patients so I am for (with lots of hesitance) for the pill or vapor form of the drug.

 

[Philothei]

So you admit that more testing needs to be done regarding schizophrenia. I am with you on this I do not think we are ready to fully use this medicine /herb and call it safe as it is right now. I believe that more research has to be done for the existing 'good" that does to all different diseases as well. I would not suggest it or recommend it to anyone personally despite its "good effects".

Also the "liability" issue about driving "under the influence" can also extend to workers who take it for other 'crimes' like sexual and verbal abuse as well even rape and murder. I can see pharma been sued for the patients used it and did all kind of crimes... The liability is a big probably consideration for them too... That would remain a huge problem.

 

[Protoevangel]

So you admit that more testing needs to be done regarding schizophrenia.

Yes, I am absolutely in favor of continuing the research. I have been up-front about this from when the subject was brought up.

• http://www.christianforums.com/t7651849-2/#post60407992
• http://www.christianforums.com/t7651849-2/#post60408503
• http://www.christianforums.com/t7651849-5/#post60462597

I am with you on this I do not think we are ready to fully use this medicine /herb and call it safe as it is right now. I believe that more research has to be done for the existing 'good" that does to all different diseases as well. I would not suggest it or recommend it to anyone personally despite its "good effects".

Okay, that's fine. Have you considered the implications of simply moving marijuana off of Schedule 1, to... Schedule 2 (where methamphetamine, PCP, and many other "hard"drugs are)? That's my primary goal, as this will encourage further testing without making it legal for use.

Also the "liability" issue about driving "under the influence" can also extend to workers who take it for other 'crimes' like sexual and verbal abuse as well even rape and murder. I can see pharma been sued for the patients used it and did all kind of crimes... The liability is a big probably consideration for them too... That would remain a huge problem.

Well, like I said, it shouldn't necessarily be available for just anything, nor should it be a first option. It could even be restricted to people who can't drive or work because of their condition (stroke victims, bedridden, etc). But you already don't want to allow suffering people to use it for relief, because of a doubtful "maybe".

Do you really want them to be criminals, though? Do you really think that this the best way to handle this?

 

[Protoevangel]

Sorry to be naive but what is schedule 1 Proto?

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

EDITED:

Schedule I.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Examples: Heroin, LSD, Ecstasy (MDMA), GBH, Mescaline, Psilocybin.​

Schedule II.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
Examples: Cocaine, Methamphetamine (Crank), PCP.​

Schedule III.

(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
Examples: Ketamine, Anabolic steroids.​

Schedule IV.

(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
Examples: Rohypnol (Date-rape drug), Dextropropoxyphene.​

Schedule V.

(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
Examples: Codeine (<=200mg per 100ml - ex. Robitussin AC)​

Alcohol and Tobacco are not on any schedule at all.

In my opinion, it would make most sense for marijuana to be a Schedule 3 or 4 drug. But keeping it on Schedule 1 is simply ridiculous... I would (and do) support moving it to Schedule 2, to simply recognize that yes, there are dangers, but there are also medical uses for ir.

 

[Protoevangel]

If you're allowed to have marijuana - it comes in a dried & manicured product that makes a transfer to the user at home or apartment. There are several ways to consume it, rolling tray + rolling papers + pipe + bong on nice coffee table etc. The POV of a personal user are much more informative than scientifc reviews

Hi ProScribe,

I can't agree with you about the personal user being able to provide more (or better) information than scientific study. Personal users can talk about the effects, benefits, and side effects that that they have experienced, but not everyone experiences the same effects. The science helps pull all of the existing information together.

And Philothei is right. Smoking really is the most dangerous way to use marijuana. Vaporizing it is the most effective, and does not introduce any carcinogens. Eating it, while somewhat less effective, is also safe.

You have admitted here in TAW that you use. I'm not going to chastise you for that, you are an adult, and can weigh the consequences. But I really hope you are not using without your doctor's knowledge. I know you have a condition that one of the compounds in marijuana is effective at treating... it likely has a calming effect for you, but the interactions with your other drugs could be a concern. IF you do continue to use (something I do not recommend, at least in this legal climate, and definitely not without your doctor's consent), it would be healthier for you to chose a healthier way to administer it.

 

[Protoevangel]

(1) Our AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease. (2) Our AMA urges that marijuana’s status as a federal schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product. (3) Our AMA urges the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop a special schedule and implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research involving cannabis and its potential medical utility. This effort should include: a) disseminating specific information for researchers on the development of safeguards for cannabis clinical research protocols and the development of a model informed consent form for institutional review board evaluation; b) sufficient funding to support such clinical research and access for qualified investigators to adequate supplies of cannabis for clinical research purposes; c) confirming that cannabis of various and consistent strengths and/or placebo will be supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to investigators registered with the DEA who are conducting bona fide clinical research studies that receive FDA approval, regardless of whether or not the NIH is the primary source of grant support. (4) Our AMA believes that effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives and that discussion of these alternatives between physicians and patients should not subject either party to criminal sanctions. (CSA Rep. 10, I-97; Modified: CSA Rep. 6, A-01; Modified: CSAPH Rep. 3, I-09; Modified in lieu of Res. 902, I-10; Reaffirmed in lieu of Res. 523, A-11)

Hiighlight mine.

Source: https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecom...doc/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-95.952.HTM

This is all I'm really pushing for.

 

[ProScribe]

Hi ProScribe,

I can't agree with you about the personal user being able to provide more (or better) information than scientific study. Personal users can talk about the effects, benefits, and side effects that that they have experienced, but not everyone experiences the same effects. The science helps pull all of the existing information together.

And Philothei is right. Smoking really is the most dangerous way to use marijuana. Vaporizing it is the most effective, and does not introduce any carcinogens. Eating it, while somewhat less effective, is also safe.

You have admitted here in TAW that you use. I'm not going to chastise you for that, you are an adult, and can weigh the consequences. But I really hope you are not using without your doctor's knowledge. I know you have a condition that one of the compounds in marijuana is effective at treating... it likely has a calming effect for you, but the interactions with your other drugs could be a concern. IF you do continue to use (something I do not recommend, at least in this legal climate, and definitely not without your doctor's consent), it would be healthier for you to chose a healthier way to administer it.

Hi Protoevangel - I think you would need access to -government-grown pot- in order to do "scientific reviews."

 

[Protoevangel]

Also the "liability" issue about driving "under the influence" can also extend to workers who take it for other 'crimes' like sexual and verbal abuse as well even rape and murder. I can see pharma been sued for the patients used it and did all kind of crimes... The liability is a big probably consideration for them too... That would remain a huge problem.

Well, like I said, it shouldn't necessarily be available for just anything, nor should it be a first option. It could even be restricted to people who can't drive or work because of their condition (stroke victims, bedridden, etc). But you already don't want to allow suffering people to use it for relief, because of a doubtful "maybe".

Do you really want them to be criminals, though? Do you really think that this the best way to handle this?

I am really sorry if I've offended you here. I just want to understand where you are coming from. I'm positive this isn't how you frame the issue when you consider it... Bit it really is the effect of keeping the status quo.

I've struggled with it for a while too, but I just can't see the benefit or wisdom of continuing to ignore those whose suffering can be relieved by this. The schizophrenia argument is just an excuse. If it were true, the way the alarmists describe, there would be a clear definable spike in schizophrenia. The data t simply doesn't support the "Reefer Madness" theory. The correlation is notable, though, and we can't just throw the doors wide open. Medicine is serious, and needs to be treated that way.

 

[Philothei]

I have seen how some mentally ill folk have used addictive drugs to "ease off " their symptoms and I think like also Alcochol and even cigarrete smoking they use it to that end. I think that there is a good chance that this can make a "crutch" for such fellows...I would not bee too fast to say that the schizophrenia argument is not valid; as there is not enough data to support the opposite but some more data to support that sch. is still a problem as it is with other addictive drugs... legal or illegal.

 

[Protoevangel]

I have seen how some mentally ill folk have used addictive drugs to "ease off " their symptoms and I think like also Alcochol and even cigarrete smoking they use it to that end. I think that there is a good chance that this can make a "crutch" for such fellows...I would not bee too fast to say that the schizophrenia argument is not valid; as there is not enough data to support the opposite but some more data to support that sch. is still a problem as it is with other addictive drugs... legal or illegal.

Yes, much like aspirin or tylenol is a "crutch" for people with a headache.

It's fine, you don't have to answer the questions I asked you. It's better to just keep putting people in prison based on uncertainty and fear.

 

[Protoevangel]

I happen to believe that the existing marijuana laws transgress the commandment to love our neighbor, when it comes to suffering people who do not respond well to other therapies.

But NOT when it comes to recreational use. There is no transgressing of God's laws in restricting that. If someone wants to see those laws changed, they can join that fight, but I will fight instead, for those who actually need it. If someone chooses to violate those laws, then they have no room to complain if they are arrested, fined, and/or jailed.