Medicinal Marijuana - a Good Thing or not?

[amykhar]

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court thinks it's a bad thing.

Canada thinks it's a good thing and has released a marijuana-based pain-killer.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

What say ye?

Personally, I think the plant is a plant and like any other medicines, it will have side affects. We allow peope to take morphine as needed, but forbid it's recreational use. Why is marijuana any different?

Amy

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I'd just as soon un-forbid marijuana's recreational use too, but that's just me. For medical use - if it helps, prescribe it. If the side effects also help, let them smoke it. For terminally ill folks, does it really matter if they get addicted? (Same goes for morphine - when prescribed as an end-of-life comfort medication, addiction shouldn't be an issue, let them get a dose every time they hit the little IV button already.)

[theworm[$]]

My opinion:

Medical marajuana should be legal if used as prescribed, and should be prescribed as needed.

Recreational use should remain illegal.

[poseidon]

Colorado thought it a good idea, too, since we're one of the ten states where it is "legal."

From what I understand, smoked marijuana is more dangerous than smoked tobacco, simply chemically speaking.

[mtomm[$]]

If it is effective and other medicines aren't as effective then we should be using as medicine. It should be treated like we treat any drug.

Keep it illegal for recreational use, however.

[hadassahchana[$]]

I can't figure out how to say this- I don't mean to sound grumpy. We all have the right to whatever opinion we want, even if it is disporven with fact, but in a decision like this, why aren't we allowing doctors to make that decision? The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on Ventolin, Viagra, or on vitamin supplements for pregnant ladies. Why should medical marijuana be any different? I'll be more interested to hear what MNM has to say on this one.


Cindy

[theworm[$]]

Cindy - you hardly sound grumpy. If you wanted to, you'll have to try harder.

I agree with you. The medical experts should be making this call. It seems to me like the benefits of medical marajuana are clear, and I can't imagine not allowing it.

When it comes to legalizing pot for recreational usage is where we get into a quandry. I don't want to get into that arguement because it sends me over the edge. I am dead against legalizing pot, and, PLEASE lets not get into that, but even I think it should be allowed for medical reasons if doctors think it will help patients. Yes, I know that it can be abused, but the benefits outweigh the risk IMO

[Prepoia[$]]

theworm said

Cindy - you hardly sound grumpy. If you wanted to, you'll have to try harder.

I agree with you. The medical experts should be making this call. It seems to me like the benefits of medical marajuana are clear, and I can't imagine not allowing it.

When it comes to legalizing pot for recreational usage is where we get into a quandry. I don't want to get into that arguement because it sends me over the edge. I am dead against legalizing pot, and, PLEASE lets not get into that, but even I think it should be allowed for medical reasons if doctors think it will help patients. Yes, I know that it can be abused, but the benefits outweigh the risk IMO

Yep! What Wormie said. And, while the chemicals are as or more serious to healthy bodies as cigarettes, pot smokers smoke less joints *usually than cigarette smokers do cigarettes and that's why we consider them worse for the lungs.

[drmomentum[$]]

I don't think I've ever heard a coherent medicine-based defense against legal medicinal use of marijuana.

Is there any reason a terminally ill person shouldn't be able to take pretty much whatever they want?

Whatever.

-JP

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Playing devil's advocate here, there was an article in the NYTimes about California's medical marijuana program. It's been archived and I doubt anyone's gonna want to buy it, so here's the gist: Migraine sufferer gets Rx from doc for pot. Takes Rx and two friends to city hall, all three get passes allowing them to buy medicinal pot (the two friends are allowed in case the person with the Rx is incapacitated and cannot buy her own). They go to a pot shop, show their passes, sample a pot brownie, and get a couple bags of herbage to take home with them, some of which they then have the patient smoke in case the excitement of buying pot triggers a migraine.

It would seem in some ways, the CA medicinal marijuana laws are set up in a way to make sure patients who need it can have access to pot, but also make it very easy for anyone to get pot who want it ("migraine" is one of a list of conditions for which CA allows docs to write pot prescriptions). Reminds me of the dance I've done to get my birth control pills covered - some insurance won't cover BC without a medical reason, doc writes "possible pcos" on my chart, voila, BC is covered. The article described a pretty simple procedure to get the coveted Pot Patient card.

[hadassahchana[$]]

Wow- if it cures migraines, then bring it on! Seriously, though, although I haven't had a migraine in years, that seems a very reasonable response- to prescribe pot- if it relaly does do anything at all for migraines. What really bugs me is that if there is something available which would alleviate horrible suffering, then we oughtn't even be debating. We should all be out buying Gro-Lights!


Ok, kidding on that last, but still.


Cindy

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Playing devil's advocate here, there was an article in the NYTimes about California's medical marijuana program ...

There's definitely a cheezy aspect to it. Marijuana-prescribing mills have popped up, and they have the most ridiculous radio commercials where they say "Do you have any of the following ailments?" and then they list every possible physical or mental problem that you could possibly think of, which would pretty much cover everybody, and then they promise they'll write you a medical-marijuana prescription.

There's also a problem with the pot clubs themselves. They were springing up like mushrooms (no pun intended) and now there are problems with there being too many of them, their being too close together, some being run by ex-cons. The city now has some sort of pot club moratorium.

One just opened in my neighborhood, but it wasn't there for long before there were hand-scrawled signs in the window that said they were shutting down for now due to neighborhood complaints about parking. I don't know what the full story is behind that.

I do think medical marijuana is a good thing. I even think that people smoking their medical marijuana in a group in a party-like setting is a good thing. Sure, they could smoke it alone in an antiseptic hospital-clinic like room, but why NOT have a good time with it?

It's just that the implementation has gotten out of hand, at least in my neck of the woods.

[drmomentum[$]]

An implementation problem is not a medical argument against.

THe issue of implementation issue then becomes "can this help people more than it hurts because a few are going to abuse."

I think we're far too concerned there might be some abuse. Erring on the side of preventing a possible treatment for some people who need it.

-JP

[amykhar]

I'm sure viagra is over-prescribed too, but they don't take it off the market because some people are using it recreationally

[AuntieEmma[$]]

An implementation problem is not a medical argument against.

I don't think so either.

I think we're far too concerned there might be some abuse.

I think it's been more than just "some" abuse here. It's gotten pretty bad. But I actually don't think the problem has ever been state-wide, at least as far as I know. I think it's mostly been in San Francisco, because the whole medical-marijuana industry here seemed to be almost totally unregulated. Now they're starting to regulate it, so that you can't have three pot clubs on the same block, you can't open up a pot club if you just got out of jail for a drug offense, that kind of thing. Stuff that seems obvious, but nobody every got around to putting it into place before.

[theworm[$]]

You can have "Pot Clubs" at all?????!!!

[realtraveller]

MJ's post was accurate.

When the vote was held here in California allowing marijuana for medical use, I voted for it. No ones wants to deny cancer sufferers relief from pain and if it works why not.

But unscrupulous doctors have set up 'clinics' where anyone can obtain marijuana for anything, bunions, headaches, whatever.

I don't really care. If you want to get stoned in the privacy of your own home, go right ahead. Just don't drive on dope and don't attempt to supervise your children on dope. And if the boss does a drug test and finds out you're a doper and fires you, don't be going on the public dole.

And to be accurate about the Supreme Court ruling, they didn't rule on whether medical marijuana was a good thing or a bad thing. They ruled that federal law trumps state law and if the Congress wanted to pass a law permitting medical marijuana they can do so. But the state of California can't allow medical marijuana in the face of a federal law prohibiting it.

In fact, I thought I heard something about such a bill being in the House.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

You can have "Pot Clubs" at all?????!!!

We've had them for a long time. It's just recently that they've become a problem.

SF Chronicle, June 10 said

To the frustration of residents and city officials, San Francisco's 2-month-old moratorium on pot clubs is apparently having little effect -- with as many as six new clubs opening in recent weeks.

This week, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, joined by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, introduced a resolution urging City Attorney Dennis Herrera to take action against the illegal clubs, which could now bring the total number of cannabis dispensaries in the city to 44, more than any city in America.

"I do have some concerns that people are flouting the law, making a mockery of it,'' Elsbernd said. "I appreciate it's a complex issue. But disagreement is not an excuse for inaction. We need to get going.'' ...

Asked this week about the violation of the moratorium, Mayor Gavin Newsom said, "It's wrong, it's illegal, it's inappropriate, and we're going to stop it. The intent is to close down anybody that's broken the intent of the board and the law."

Since 2003, the number of marijuana clubs dispensing pot supposedly for medical use has more than doubled, according to Wayne Justmann, a marijuana rights activist who has been working with supervisors to draft a new set of laws regulating the establishments.

"What we had probably from the start of 2004 are opportunistic individuals who saw San Francisco as a fertile area to come over and open up a cannabis dispensary,'' he said. "Their principal motivation is greed. I applaud and support what the city attorney and the supervisors are attempting to do. We were doing very well in 2003 with 18 or 22 clubs. We didn't have problems with our neighbors.''

In the 1900 block of Ocean Avenue, there are now two pot clubs operating virtually across the street from each other. The newest, at 1939 Ocean Ave., opened in early May and has upset area merchants.

"We don't think this is right,'' said one, who asked not to be named or his shop identified for fear of reprisals from marijuana club operators. "There's a moratorium, but it doesn't seem to be working. I'm not against marijuana, but it's got to be controlled better.'' ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

SF Chron, back in April when the question of regulation came to a head said

Nearly a decade after forward-thinking officials in several Bay Area cities approved laws allowing medical marijuana clinics, they must figure out how to regulate them -- because few people on either side of the debate deny that the clubs are running amok.

More than 60 of the dispensaries operate in the region -- from Livermore to Belmont -- as a result of Proposition 215, which California voters approved in 1996 to make marijuana legal for medicinal purposes....

San Francisco pot club co-owner Jeff Hunter was arrested in Emeryville after chasing business partner Jennifer Prasetya into the parking lot of the city's police department. He and his wife were arrested on the spot for making threats and annoying calls to Prasetya.

The trouble began when Prasetya announced she was pulling her investment out of the cannabis dispensary. She complained that Hunter, an ex-con with a conviction for cocaine trafficking, was selling pot to people without medical cards and allowing the kind of on-site loitering often seen outside liquor stores.

San Francisco, where at least 37 of the clubs operate, has put a moratorium on new pot clubs while it comes up with regulations.

Oakland also passed a moratorium after pot clubs quickly sprouted last year along Telegraph Avenue just north of City Hall -- in an area nicknamed "Oaksterdam.''

And Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, who championed the medical marijuana initiative as a member of the Oakland City Council, called for a moratorium on new pot clubs in the unincorporated areas he now represents.

Less than a year after he lobbied for Oakland to allow eight to 10 pot clubs in the city, he came to the realization that seven might be too many for his own constituency, and Miley isn't the only politician who is backpedaling.

It now seems like the bold steps taken to embrace the 1996 state law may have been premature. Many clubs were up and running before most local governments had come up with a way to control operations and lay down rock- solid rules for them to follow.

The ensuing chaos can be seen outside most of the clubs, and that is something that not even the most ardent supporters would attempt to deny....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=002&sc=914

[AuntieEmma[$]]

realtraveller said

And to be accurate about the Supreme Court ruling, they didn't rule on whether medical marijuana was a good thing or a bad thing. They ruled that federal law trumps state law and if the Congress wanted to pass a law permitting medical marijuana they can do so. But the state of California can't allow medical marijuana in the face of a federal law prohibiting it.

That's actually always been the case, and the feds have already raided California pot clubs more than a few times. I haven't read the Supreme Court decision, but I'm not sure what, if anything, there is in it that makes things different than they already were. I guess maybe the important thing is whether as a practical matter it inspires the FDA to start doing raids again, which they haven't done for a while.

[rmthunter]

There are a couple of issues that we're not discussing here, both of which are in the article.

First, pot, as any raw herb, varies in strength from batch to batch -- it's almost impossible to get consistent dosages. This is an argument used in favor of processed "dietary supplements" from herbal remedy companies, a lot of which are rip-offs anyway. I'm not sure that the argument is even valid, because herbal medicine does not work on the massive amounts of active ingredient that pharmaceuticals do -- herbal remedies are generally much milder and taken over a longer time. It's another case of differing philosophies colliding.

However, one thing that immediately struck me about the article: the announcement is not that marijuana itself is allowed for medical use (although that seems to be the case), but that a drug derived from marijuana has been approved. That's the sort of thing that I can see happening here: if a pharmaceutical company can make a profit, you can bet it will be approved. (NOt that the FDA is a rubber stamp for the drug industry or anything like that.)

There is not only resistance to legalizing marijuana (at the federal level, at least, where so many self-appointed moralists have so long resided) for "moral" reasons, but it is something that is easily available on the street and is not putting money in any corporate pockets. I think that's a major stumbling block to legalization (although I understand names like "Panama Gold" are already trademarked by entities such as RJR Nabisco).