[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Wandatime

My sister had terminal lung cancer. Pot helped her with the almost unbearable pain and boosted her appetite a little. If you have ever watched someone suffer the way I saw her suffer, and you knew pot would help them, it would be inhumane to deny it to them. Here she is with her kids long before cancer entered their lives. Clearly not a doper.

Thank you for sharing. Too bad others don't have your compassion and common sense.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by blueash

Ok, I will try to give some light and not much heat.

The designation of marijuana as a schedule one drug makes the possession illegal even by doctors or researchers. With rare exceptions it has been and continues to be illegal to conduct studies using weed especially if any federal dollars are involved in the research facility.
University of Florida says it won't risk federal funding to participate in marijuana research - SaintPetersBlog
The politics of how marijuana became a schedule one drug are another topic for another day.

THC is the prime active ingredient in pot, but it is not the only active ingredient. Cannabinoid comes in different chemical forms, think of it like saying Ford which can be a Mustang, Fiesta.... Some forms of THC differ in their profile from others. Some seem to be less likely to produce euphoria than others. The relative amounts in a plant of THC and the other active ingredients in pot differ from plant to plant. There are cannabinoids which produce extremely little euphoria.

There are NO drugs which mimic marijuana because the natural product has many different chemicals.
"Pharmacologically, the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC); it is one of 483 known compounds in the plant including at least 84 other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), and cannabigerol (CBG)."

It would be like saying taking a nicotine pill is the same as smoking tobacco, or taking a caffeine pill is the same as drinking coffee. So while there are some approved product which contain cannabinoids none of them provide the wide (alleged) benefits of the real thing.
105 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org
has the most complete list of studies I can find. Some involve smoking, many involve extracts and commercial products. The studies are of variable quality and look at different issues. No broad conclusions can be drawn.

There are many anecdotal reports, including some posted here, where patients and families have reported that smoked pot was the best drug for the symptoms needing treatment, most effective with fewest side effects.

Benefits reported include control of nausea, increased appetite, improved sleep, pain control, improved mood, and in patients with spasticity improvement in spasms. And as everyone knows, an anticonvulsive benefit in children with Dravet syndrome from the non-euphoria compounds in pot.

So to summarize.. There are no approved products that are the same as pot. There is extremely limited research which the government would require to reclassify pot off of schedule one because you can't do research on schedule one drugs (see reference above). The answers to :

Why is this not being explored within the medical community and going through the same thing that any new drug needs to go through ? Why is all political and on a ballot ? Why does no one who supports it even admit that there are alternatives that will do the same thing ?

is because none of those things are possible at this time, so it is politics that have marijuana a schedule one drug, and it will be politics that will undo that situation if it is to be undone.

Thank you for an adult response. Now I need to do more reading.

Thanks again for your maturity ! There are websites that dispute the options available and they need to be vetted.

One more question I have been asking.....how many who favor medical marijuana also would like legalization of recreational marijuana and more importantly for what reason ?

The reasons for medical have been expounded and are clear.

Thanks again

[Sandtrap328]

Just medical marijuana - not recreational.

I heard on NPR that in Colorado that around 40% of the recreational marijuana sold is sold in food products from the pot shops. They had a discussion of "dosage" being labled on the food packages since eating an entire marijuana cookie or brownie could send some people into such a high that they have hurt themselves seriously.

So, for Sandtrap328, I will pass up the recreational MJ and just hope the medical marijuana makes it legally to Florida.

[dplars]

I have a hard time believing Amendment 2 was really about providing for the physically sick. Mentally maybe, but because of the way it was written made me believe it was for the wide spread sale of dope. It would have made it available for anyone who could get a MD to write a prescription. Follow the money! Wish one could find out how many dispensaries were being planned in south Florida and by whom.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Rags123

Thank you for an adult response. Now I need to do more reading.

Thanks again for your maturity ! There are websites that dispute the options available and they need to be vetted.

One more question I have been asking.....how many who favor medical marijuana also would like legalization of recreational marijuana and more importantly for what reason ?

The reasons for medical have been expounded and are clear.

Thanks again

Thanks for your compliment. I will pause to suggest that these are very different issues. A decision whether to allow the state to regulate the availability of medical marijuana seems like it should be decided on medical evidence. That means both evidence in favor and against. And balance the risk vs benefit. While it is legitimate to ask the "what if" questions they should not dominate the discussion, as they did too often IMO. If there is a product which according to a licensed physician would benefit a patient more than present risk to that patient, and in fact there are hundreds or thousands of similar cases, that would make me question the classification of that product as having no known benefit. Keep in mind we allow medications which have a huge amount of potential for abuse to be prescribed and just do our best to control that abuse. Oxycontin has an enormous abuse potential, but sometimes is the only pain medication that provides some relief to patients with severe pain. Could there be doctors who abuse the right to prescribe and patients who fake symptoms and divert their pills to the street, of course. But we don't make oxycontin a schedule one drug because it is a needed weapon in the battle against pain.

Legalization of recreational marijuana is not one which should be based mostly on the medical considerations. The one medical/psychological concern might be the theory of gateway drug use. IMO this is not settled in the literature but most data suggests pot does not lead to other drugs, it more is a stop over point for people who are going that way anyhow. Example, most people get to having intercourse. But at some point they behaviorally pause at second or third base. Petting didn't gateway going all the way, it was just easier to get there first.

Legalization should be decided on whether the societal costs of criminalization, prosecution, incarceration, creating a high profit drug underground, loss of potential tax revenue, and those kinds of considerations are worth keeping. What is the downside of legalization vs continued criminalization? Reasonable people will see the data differently, and we all come pre-loaded with our cultural constraints. In a few short months we will have 4 states with wide availability of recreational pot. Those who oppose de-criminalization should be prepared to produce real data showing that the consequences they predicted actually happen. That means something more than just a case report here and there of an individual who did poorly. In the absence of adverse outcomes, I would hope that those who oppose decriminalization would reconsider.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

Thanks for your compliment. I will pause to suggest that these are very different issues. A decision whether to allow the state to regulate the availability of medical marijuana seems like it should be decided on medical evidence. That means both evidence in favor and against. And balance the risk vs benefit. While it is legitimate to ask the "what if" questions they should not dominate the discussion, as they did too often IMO. If there is a product which according to a licensed physician would benefit a patient more than present risk to that patient, and in fact there are hundreds or thousands of similar cases, that would make me question the classification of that product as having no known benefit. Keep in mind we allow medications which have a huge amount of potential for abuse to be prescribed and just do our best to control that abuse. Oxycontin has an enormous abuse potential, but sometimes is the only pain medication that provides some relief to patients with severe pain. Could there be doctors who abuse the right to prescribe and patients who fake symptoms and divert their pills to the street, of course. But we don't make oxycontin a schedule one drug because it is a needed weapon in the battle against pain.

Legalization of recreational marijuana is not one which should be based mostly on the medical considerations. The one medical/psychological concern might be the theory of gateway drug use. IMO this is not settled in the literature but most data suggests pot does not lead to other drugs, it more is a stop over point for people who are going that way anyhow. Example, most people get to having intercourse. But at some point they behaviorally pause at second or third base. Petting didn't gateway going all the way, it was just easier to get there first.

Legalization should be decided on whether the societal costs of criminalization, prosecution, incarceration, creating a high profit drug underground, loss of potential tax revenue, and those kinds of considerations are worth keeping. What is the downside of legalization vs continued criminalization? Reasonable people will see the data differently, and we all come pre-loaded with our cultural constraints. In a few short months we will have 4 states with wide availability of recreational pot. Those who oppose de-criminalization should be prepared to produce real data showing that the consequences they predicted actually happen. That means something more than just a case report here and there of an individual who did poorly. In the absence of adverse outcomes, I would hope that those who oppose decriminalization would reconsider.

Great post!

[Quietman]

I still don't understand why it has been proposed as an Amendment to the state constitution instead of a state passed law. Am I missing something? If we amend our constitution it would be extremely difficult to backtrack if it didn't work out as expected. Or is that the end game?

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Quietman

I still don't understand why it has been proposed as an Amendment to the state constitution instead of a state passed law. Am I missing something? If we amend our constitution it would be extremely difficult to backtrack if it didn't work out as expected. Or is that the end game?

I believe John Morgan thought it would be easier to have it passed by popular vote than legislatively. I may be wrong but I know of no reason that it HAD to be a constitutional amendment.

[collie1228]

Morgan and Morgan - For the People (well, on second thought, for some of the people).

[Wandatime]

Originally Posted by Rags123

We always seem to end up in the same place on this.

I can only speak for myself on this. I really get upset being painted as unsympathetic and non feelings. That is so far from the truth and it really upsets me to have that implied.

I have asked....are there other medications that will achieve the same thing. I have been told on this thread and have read it THAT THERE ARE. Actually, drugs that more assimilate marijuana than those on ballots. I will ask again, and I ask again in the most sympathatic way......are there not alternatives to pot now ?????? Drugs that obtain the very same results ? If I am being informed correctly ON THIS THREAD the medical marijuana is without the strongest component of the drug.


Why is this not being explored within the medical community and going through the same thing that any new drug needs to go through ? Why is all political and on a ballot ? Why does noone who supports it even admit that there are alternatives that will do the same thing ?

If there are no other alternatives that offer the same results you seek, then I am with you on making MEDICAL MARIJUANA legal but still asking WHY the medical community is not pursuing it and why it is made political ?

I note on this thread that there are those who ignore the medical part of this and talk about the recreational part of it.....that bothers me A LOT. And if you listen to the supporters of MEDICAL marijuana, they are almost giddy about getting it legal for recreational use.

If someone can address these questions, I am open. Trying to make me feel guilty...and I can only speak for myself, is terribly unfair. I have sympathy for all of you and anyone who suffered.....I also know suffering but choose not to discuss it.....I am NOT a cold person as you seem to want to make me.

Please address my questions.....I have been accused of dealing in only generalities, yet those who support this measure talk in generalities only and I have asked and asked SPECIFIC questions and only receive stories about how it helped family and I am glad that you were able to get that....honestly, but that is NOT speaking to the subject or the national debate.

I would also ask that you give your opinion on recreational use, just to keep your comments in context.

Thank you and sorry if you feel I am cold and unfeeling but it is not the case.

Rags123: I can't answer your questions because I don't know the answers. When my sister was ill and smoked pot, it was illegal and medical marijuana was only beginning to peek over the horizon. I certainly did not mean to imply you are unfeeling and unsympathetic -- I was merely trying to show that for some people marijuana works. Again, I don't know why, and I don't know if any other drugs work as well. I know what I've read on this thread, but that doesn't mean it is the truth. Doesn't mean it is not the truth either, just saying I personally have not done the research. If you are really that interested, perhaps you could do some research, add the links, and get back to us. Please don't think I am being a smart aleck by saying that. I just know for me if I am interested in a subject I do my own research.

From what I hear the proposition put forth was not worded very well. I am not a Florida resident yet but if the proposition was worded strongly in favor of medical marijuana in controlled circumstances, I would vote yes.

If it had hints of recreational marijuana I am not sure how I would vote. I do not smoke pot, but there is a great deal of pot being smoked out there (.05% of the population of Florida smoke pot for whatever reason, see link below), and it is unregulated. Perhaps regulating and taxing it would provide the smokers with untampered pot and the state with much needed revenue. I saw a program on CNN regarding the regulation of pot in Colorado, and the whole operation from growth to sales is tightly run. Apparently there are different strains for different needs -- some strains are very helpful for insomnia, some strains are good for depression, and others help with pain.

Again, I sure didn't mean to make you feel guilty or like you weren't being heard; I did read your posts and never thought you were old, uncaring, stupid or anything else. I was just putting my two cents into the pot (no pun intended).


Marijuana legalization sweeps the 2014 midterm elections - Vox

[Wandatime]

///

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by JoMar

I find it interesting that marijuana is considered a mind altering drug. Those that have medical conditions that can be helped aren't the younger generation...it is our generation. Cigarettes have carcinogens which are present in the tobacco plant, marijuana doesn't. Comparing the two is apples and oranges but I guess that is what we do when we reach old age and generalizations are easier. I would ask the poster what what he do if the prescribed drugs don't ease the pain and suffering of either himself for a loved one. Do we then let the Dr prescribe codeine or other habit forming drugs to dull the pain and suffering? Do we believe that is ok because it is prescribed by a Dr.even though those drugs are extremely addictive. And, I don't think the younger generation, our kids and grand kids are interested in Medical Marijuana. If they want recreational marijuana I'm sure they know where they can get it in their neighborhood.

jomar: Marijuana according to the experts has 4 times more carcinogens than cigarettes. Cigarettes are regulated and yet they find there way to very young people

[Walter123]

Originally Posted by rubicon

jomar: Marijuana according to the experts has 4 times more carcinogens than cigarettes. Cigarettes are regulated and yet they find there way to very young people

It should be according to "Some" experts.

[Sandtrap328]

...and I am sure our kids and grandkids can find recreational marijuana cheaper than what medical marijuana would cost - and with no sales tax!

[PennBF]

Lets get real. The ones who should provide the assessments of marijuna are the professionals who deal with addicts. When someone comes in the door and has OD'd saving them is the major concern. When someone comes in the door because of a court order the goal is getting them back to being sober and drug free, when someone comes in the door and saying they really don't need this Rehab, getting them to understand they would not be there if they weren't addicted and effecting their family or society and abusing them. When someone comes in the door and is hung up on coke, meth, etc. it is critical to determine (a) how they started and (b) what triggers them. The cemical build up is not relevant as none of what they are doing will help them recover and be aware as why they are addicted. They usually don't care. For some facts are Alcohol has the some chemicals as embaling fluid and is the only drug that effects every organ of the body, 15-20% of marijuna users will end up using coke, meth, heroin and some dying. The ones really harmed by the use of mind altering drugs are the families and unfortunately the children within the family. Most addicts "don't care". Whether it be marijuna, alcohol, meth, coke, or heroin all will have a bad impact on the family and society as the very purpose of using is to avoid reality which is key to a sound society and family. Those that try to compare one to the other are only comparing the "bad effects" as other than using some marijuna for pain for the sick that is the only purpose of the comparison. Those that overlook the usage and make excuses or enable should understand serious users may/will die and by enabling you are just helping them t die quicker. By not enabling them you are at least giving them a chance to live. Yes, marijuna is a "gate way" drug and you can scream from the highest building that it is not and that only proves you have no idea of what you are talking about and why the Professionals should be the source of decisions on mind altering drugs. Get real and stop enabling if you are, and rely on Professional addiction experts as opposed to politicians. Go to Al Non, NA or AA meetings to truly understand addictions and the terrible impact on our society.