REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.  Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding.  The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E

[El Sjaako]

These side effects are of criminalization, really. I live in the Netherlands, and most young people here don't use weed. One of the reasons is the kind of drug users we see: there are few artist glamorizing weed, and most of the people you see in coffeeshops are old. Housewives in their fifties. Working class men in paint speckled uniforms. Most of them are  friendly and interesting people, but they're not the kind of thing young people aspire to.

I'm not following.  How can you ascribe the side effects I mentioned to criminalization as opposed to the introduction of medical marijuana?  It isn't the criminalization that makes kids think marijuana is now more acceptable.  It is the fact that doctors are now prescribing it that kids think this.  This has nothing to do with the criminalization of the substance. 

You talked about social problems, mainly about minors getting weed. I responded why you don't see these problems as much in the Netherlands.

Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors. 

Coffeeshops check exactly who gets entry, and the low profits people get from selling these days means that minors getting weed is about the same level of being a problem as minors getting alcohol is. When I was seventeen I couldn't get weed, because I couldn't get into the coffeeshops. Remember: the Netherlands has a lower rate of use.

Even where there is medical marijuana in the states there is still a large amount of illegal selling, because there are still adults that buy there weed from there. High school kids don't have enough money to support someones drug-dealer lifestyle, especially if weed gets cheaper (because it's available legally).

AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed.  (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.) 

And the message in the Netherlands sends is that weed isn't good (we get a lot of anti-drug propaganda at the schools), and that smoking weed isn't cool (which is almost impossible to send about something that you only really hear about celebrities and rebel kids using).

I guess I didn't really make my point clear earlier.

[East Coast Hustle]

I understand that, but you seem to be taking the narrow scope of your work (limited and isolated geographical area combined with the fact that the very nature of your work means that you tend to see a MUCH higher percentage of "worst-case scenarios")

Well, actually, that is not true.  I deal with the full spectrum of kids.  From the kids who don't use, to the kids who experiment, to the kids who use moderately, to the kids who are heavy users.  That's because I don't work in treatment, I work in prevention.  In prevention, we look at the broad picture and we tackle the issue through environmental strategies.  Treatment focuses in on the "narrow" picture that are the worst-case scenarios.  I, deal with the big picture. 

as the be-all and end-all of what directions the entirety of american drug policy should be. I say "seem" because I have no idea if that's what's going on in your head, just how it comes across when you write about it. As though the ONLY thing that should matter in drug policy is how it might affect some fucked-up kids in Maine, most of whom would just get fucked up on ACB if there were no drugs available.

There is nothing special about kids in Maine vs. kids in the rest of the country.  What IS different is how the state deals with the issue.  Until Lepage came into office, Maine has been a very progressive state when it comes to addressing substance abuse, and particularly substance abuse amongst adolescents.  Again, this is because of the environmental approach.  I mean, my specific job tasks me with preventing substance abuse in my community.  (Which, to stroke my ego, I've done a pretty good job as the grant isn't over and I've already exceeded my goals).  Though, I do serve on a few state-wide organizations that look at the big picture.  But, as a professional in the field, I certainly have an interest in the national scene with this issue as certainly the federal regulations effect the work I do here and they effect the people in my community, whom I serve. 

I think where our views on the matter diverge the hardest is that I think any policy decisions on the federal level about scheduling and medicinal usefulness should be made STRICTLY based on the actual potential of the substance in question to alleviate suffering and treat/manage the conditions it is useful for. That some medical pot might get diverted to kids is unfortunate, but it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be used as a factor when deciding whether to legalize it medicinally at the federal level.

I think it is foolish to not consider the social impacts especially when the science is still uncertain with regards to the usefulness of pot. 

And I know you won't believe me, but FYI kids don't give a shit about whether or not pot is viewed as acceptable or not.In fact, in alot of cases it IS the criminalization of it that makes it seem rebellious and glamorous. Just like with so many other things, telling a young teenaged kid not to do something is a sure way to get them to try it.

I don't believe it because my experience in this work tells me that opinion is flat out wrong.  I've had kids flat out tell me that they use because their parents use and say it is okay.  There are parents in this community who will light up right along with their kids.  I work very closely with a couple of seasoned and well experienced substance abuse counselors who tell me that many of the clients they see have parents who have a very permissive attitude when it comes to alcohol and marijuana.  So I know that it is indeed a factor, despite what you may have experienced.

Fair enough! I can't really find fault with much in that, and I do appreciate the clarification of your position on the matter (and the scope of your work; I should have remembered that you were in the prevention side of things and not the treatment side of things since some of my opinions were erroneously based on that).

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as far as the certainty of the science regarding the medical usefulness of pot.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.  Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding.  The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E

What fascinates me the most about these threads is how you, RWHN, ignore the evidence that undermines the government's credibility and argument—you don't even dismiss it because first you'd need to acknowledge it. Like it or not, the government impedes and ignores science, hobbles and destroys families more than the drug itself, and wastes vast amounts of public funds in the process.

I don't think you just missed my posts repeatedly, but if for some reason you did, here's a reiteration so you don't have to go digging for it:

  1. We need to keep marijuana illegal for any use with severe penalties because "we don't know" if it has significant medical value according to the FDA.
  2. In order to prove it has medical value to the FDA, scientists must have access to it.
  3. Obstructionism by the NIDA and the DEA prevent and pervert the accumulation of scientific evidence in the US.
  4. Evidence that slips by the obstruction or is conducted in other countries is completely ignored.
  5. So, "the science is uncertain" is declared and we're back to step one.

You have offered no rebuttal and appear to toe the line of ignoring inconvenient facts.

Instead of engaging the strongest empirical arguments against your position, you revert back to trumpeting tautology about harm to kids while the elephant in the room tramples their parents and poops on the evidence.

Déformation professionnelle, much?

[El Sjaako]

The problem with these threads is that people tend to forget what they are arguing. RWHN seems to be arguing that marijuana can cause real harm to families and especially to children, and NET seems to be arguing that the laws forbidding marijuana are ridiculous and not based on scientific evidence. Both of which I agree with.

(I'm just arguing that everything is better where I'm from  )

[AFK]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.  Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding.  The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E

What fascinates me the most about these threads is how you, RWHN, ignore the evidence that undermines the government's credibility and argument—you don't even dismiss it because first you'd need to acknowledge it. Like it or not, the government impedes and ignores science, hobbles and destroys families more than the drug itself, and wastes vast amounts of public funds in the process.

I don't think you just missed my posts repeatedly, but if for some reason you did, here's a reiteration so you don't have to go digging for it:

  1. We need to keep marijuana illegal for any use with severe penalties because "we don't know" if it has significant medical value according to the FDA.
  2. In order to prove it has medical value to the FDA, scientists must have access to it.
  3. Obstructionism by the NIDA and the DEA prevent and pervert the accumulation of scientific evidence in the US.
  4. Evidence that slips by the obstruction or is conducted in other countries is completely ignored.
  5. So, "the science is uncertain" is declared and we're back to step one.

You have offered no rebuttal and appear to toe the line of ignoring inconvenient facts.

Instead of engaging the strongest empirical arguments against your position, you revert back to trumpeting tautology about harm to kids while the elephant in the room tramples their parents and poops on the evidence.

Déformation professionnelle, much?

MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences.  Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming.  They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California.  So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest. 

I'm also curious about their funding.  They make it seem it is all coming from people who visit their website but it costs a lot of money to do any kind of clinical research.  Do you happen to know where their funding comes from? 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The problem with these threads is that people tend to forget what they are arguing. RWHN seems to be arguing that marijuana can cause real harm to families and especially to children, and NET seems to be arguing that the laws forbidding marijuana are ridiculous and not based on scientific evidence. Both of which I agree with.

(I'm just arguing that everything is better where I'm from  )

I'm not denying or ignoring the harm marijuana can cause in children though.

RWHN doesn't even acknowledge the damage marijuana laws do to parents that in turn harms their children. It's hard to be a mom or dad when you're ill AND locked up, or ill and the only effective relief is denied to you, or ill and now out of a house you used to own because you grew a small amount for your own consumption.

[Vaud]

The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.

So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest. 

RWHN, don't take me too seriously here, but you have to admit this is pretty funny.

Also, I didn't just dismiss your government link as biased because it was from the government.  I dismissed it because it was written with obvious bias, and next to no scientific argument.  I say next to none, because some of the citations seem credible, though I haven't honestly fully digested them yet.

[AFK]

The following is from the evil DEA's position paper on medical marijuana.  Located here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position_july10.pdf  Please note the citations.  



The DEA and the federal government are not alone in viewing smoked marijuana as having no documented medical value. Voices in the medical community likewise do not accept smoked marijuana as medicine:
The American Medical Association (AMA) has always endorsed ―well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients with 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.‖ In November 2009, the AMA amended its policy, urging that marijuana's status as a 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.‖ The AMA also stated that ―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 prescription drug product.‖6

The American Society of Addiction Medicine's (ASAM) public policy statement on ―Medical Marijuana,‖ clearly rejects smoking as a means of drug delivery. ASAM further recommends that ―all cannabis, cannabis-based products and cannabis delivery devices should be subject to the same standards applicable to all other prescription medication and medical devices, and should not be distributed or otherwise provided to patients ...‖ without FDA approval. ASAM also ―discourages state interference in the federal medication approval process.‖7

The American Cancer Society (ACS) ―does not advocate inhaling smoke, nor the legalization of marijuana,‖ although the organization does support carefully controlled clinical studies for alternative delivery methods, specifically a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) skin patch.8

The American Glaucoma Society (AGS) has stated that ―although marijuana can lower the intraocular pressure, the side effects and short duration of action, coupled with the lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma, preclude recommending this drug in any form for the treatment of glaucoma at the present time.‖9
July 2010 5

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that ―[a]ny change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents.‖ While it supports scientific research on the possible medical use of cannabinoids as opposed to smoked marijuana, it opposes the legalization of marijuana.10

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) has stated that it could not recommend medical marijuana be made widely available for people with multiple sclerosis for symptom management, explaining: ―This decision was not only based on existing legal barriers to its use but, even more importantly, because studies to date do not demonstrate a clear benefit compared to existing symptomatic therapies and because side effects, systemic effects, and long-term effects are not yet clear.‖11

The British Medical Association (BMA) voiced extreme concern that downgrading the criminal status of marijuana would ―mislead‖ the public into believing that the drug is safe. The BMA maintains that marijuana ―has been linked to greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema.‖12 The 2004 Deputy Chairman of the BMA's Board of Science said that ―[t]he public must be made aware of the harmful effects we know result from smoking this drug.‖13

In 1999, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a landmark study reviewing the supposed medical properties of marijuana. The study is frequently cited by ―medical‖ marijuana advocates, but in fact severely undermines their arguments.

-After release of the IOM study, the principal investigators cautioned that the active compounds in marijuana may have medicinal potential and therefore should be researched further. However, the study concluded that ―there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.‖14

-For some ailments, the IOM found ―...potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.‖15 However, it pointed out that ―[t]he effects of cannabinoids on the symptoms studied are generally modest, and in most cases there are more effective medications [than smoked marijuana].‖16

-The study concluded that, at best, there is only anecdotal information on the medical benefits of smoked marijuana for some ailments, such as muscle spasticity. For other ailments, such as epilepsy and glaucoma, the study found no evidence of medical value and did not endorse further research.17

-The IOM study explained that ―smoked marijuana . . . is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.‖ In addition, ―plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect.‖ Therefore, the study concluded that ―there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.‖18
July 2010 6

-The principal investigators explicitly stated that using smoked marijuana in clinical trials ―should not be designed to develop it as a licensed drug, but should be a stepping stone to the development of new, safe delivery systems of cannabinoids.‖19

Thus, even scientists and researchers who believe that certain active ingredients in marijuana may have potential medicinal value openly discount the notion that smoked marijuana is or can become "medicine."

The Drug Enforcement Administration supports ongoing research into potential medicinal uses of marijuana's active ingredients. As of May 2010:

-There are 119 researchers registered with DEA to perform studies with marijuana, marijuana extracts, and non-tetrahydrocannabinol marijuana derivatives that exist in the plant, such as cannabidiol and cannabinol.
-Studies include evaluation of abuse potential, physical/psychological effects, adverse effects, therapeutic potential, and detection.
-Eighteen of the researchers are approved to conduct research with smoked marijuana on human subjects.20

[AFK]

The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.

So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest.  

RWHN, don't take me too seriously here, but you have to admit this is pretty funny.

Also, I didn't just dismiss your government link as biased because it was from the government.  I dismissed it because it was written with obvious bias, and next to no scientific argument.  I say next to none, because some of the citations seem credible, though I haven't honestly fully digested them yet.

Umm, see, what I did is look at their website, did some of my own research, and actually demonstrated how they are being dishonest.  Like purporting to be the only organization in the US doing clinical research on medical marijuana when they aren't.  Also, it seems pretty clear they are being less than forthwright when it comes to talking about where their funding comes from.  You can't fund clinical research solely from donations from website viewers.  Clinical research costs big bank.  

But you've yet to demonstrate the "obvious bias" because you haven't "fully digested" the evidence.  So my assertion comes from actual details and information while yours is coming from....    

[Vaud]

RWHN doesn't even acknowledge the damage marijuana laws do to parents that in turn harms their children. It's hard to be a mom or dad when you're ill AND locked up, or ill and the only effective relief is denied to you, or ill and now out of a house you used to own because you grew a small amount for your own consumption.

I agree wholeheartedly that keeping it illegal does more harm than good, but legalization should have shitall to do with medicinal use.  If we're talking about full grown adults, it's a matter of personal liberty.

[AFK]

The problem with these threads is that people tend to forget what they are arguing. RWHN seems to be arguing that marijuana can cause real harm to families and especially to children, and NET seems to be arguing that the laws forbidding marijuana are ridiculous and not based on scientific evidence. Both of which I agree with.

(I'm just arguing that everything is better where I'm from  )

I'm not denying or ignoring the harm marijuana can cause in children though.

RWHN doesn't even acknowledge the damage marijuana laws do to parents that in turn harms their children. It's hard to be a mom or dad when you're ill AND locked up, or ill and the only effective relief is denied to you, or ill and now out of a house you used to own because you grew a small amount for your own consumption.

This only happens in states with draconian sentencing guidelines.  In my state, adults and kids alike have the option of drug courts, with the obvious caveat being that they are non-violent offenders and not trafficking.  They will not go to jail, unless they decide to turn that option down.  But then, the outcomes are on them because they made that choice.  

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.  Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding.  The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E

What fascinates me the most about these threads is how you, RWHN, ignore the evidence that undermines the government's credibility and argument—you don't even dismiss it because first you'd need to acknowledge it. Like it or not, the government impedes and ignores science, hobbles and destroys families more than the drug itself, and wastes vast amounts of public funds in the process.

I don't think you just missed my posts repeatedly, but if for some reason you did, here's a reiteration so you don't have to go digging for it:

  1. We need to keep marijuana illegal for any use with severe penalties because "we don't know" if it has significant medical value according to the FDA.
  2. In order to prove it has medical value to the FDA, scientists must have access to it.
  3. Obstructionism by the NIDA and the DEA prevent and pervert the accumulation of scientific evidence in the US.
  4. Evidence that slips by the obstruction or is conducted in other countries is completely ignored.
  5. So, "the science is uncertain" is declared and we're back to step one.

You have offered no rebuttal and appear to toe the line of ignoring inconvenient facts.

Instead of engaging the strongest empirical arguments against your position, you revert back to trumpeting tautology about harm to kids while the elephant in the room tramples their parents and poops on the evidence.

Déformation professionnelle, much?

MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences.  Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming.  They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California.  So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest. 

I'm also curious about their funding.  They make it seem it is all coming from people who visit their website but it costs a lot of money to do any kind of clinical research.  Do you happen to know where their funding comes from? 

They don't claim to have a monopoly on clinical research. The MAPS claim is in regards to FDA criteria:

MAPS is currently the only organization working to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of botanical marijuana as a prescription medicine for specific medical uses to the satisfaction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

I don't know the source of their funding, however the claims I referenced from MAPS can all be substantiated.

Here's what is claimed in the PDF from the justice.gov site you just copied and pasted from:

"There is no sound scientific evidence that smoked marijuana can be used safely and effectively as medicine." It's on the first page and it's bolded.

That's simply not true:

http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/

[Vaud]

In my state, adults and kids alike have the option of drug courts, with the obvious caveat being that they are non-violent offenders and not trafficking.  They will not go to jail, unless they decide to turn that option down.  But then, the outcomes are on them because they made that choice.  

Are you saying you think it is acceptable/justifiable that an adult has to go to drug courts, take classes, pay fines, and get assraped by the state because they smoke herb? 

[AFK]

There are thousands additional articles, some with opposing results

You will also note that the DEA is talking about smoked marijuana.  And if you read what I posted, you will see that the DEA has approved many research projects concerning medical marijuana.  I've made pretty clear in this thread, and in other threads, that I believe marijuana has a place as a medicine, in a non-smoked form.  And the pill-based delivery systems can be very effective.  My mother-in-law was rooming with someone who had terminal cancer this past week in the hospital.  She was given one of the marijuana pills, it might've been marinol, not sure.  Anyway, it was very effective in getting her appetite back and fighting the pain she was experiencing.  I'm definitely all for the research that can lead to these kinds of medications.