I'll just leave this here....

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Awww, and no one commented on all of those nice scientific references I found... I are sad.

[East Coast Hustle]

I (and I suspect several others) have already read them, and of course they tell us nothing we don't already know or suspect. And of course, there's no way RWHN bothered to click any of those links let alone read the information contained therein with anything even remotely resembling an open mind.

but I applaud you for your patient efforts.

[AFK]

More comments on the Doctor's concerns about medical Marijuana:

As I said before, if the feds treated pot like any other drug, we'd have a lot of answers to his questions... however, here are some studies that address his concerns:

Driving under the influence:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/  (Upshot, pot smokers drive more slowly and that appears to compensate for effects)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360 (Upshot, alcohol made people drive faster, pot made them drive slower)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm (Compared to other medical drugs like Valium and alcohol, pot smoking effects appear to be minimal)

I'm not arguing that pot smoking and driving is a good idea... only that even with the current federal bans on marijuana studies, there are answers to the Doctors question on the subject.

But there is more to it than slow driving.  It can also impair driving by causing distorted perception, problems with memory and learning, loss of coordination, trouble with problem-solving and increased reaction time.  These are all critical when you are driving, especially if you are driving in an area with other people like pedestrians and other motorists.  It gets even dicier when alcohol is mixed into the situation. 

Additionally, results of nine studies have found that the greater amount of marijuana compounds in a person's urine, the greater the risk of a car crash.  Eight of those nine found drivers who use marijuana are more likely to be involved in a crash compared to those who don't use marijuana. (Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes.  Mu-Chen Li, Joanne E. Brady, Charles J. DiMaggio, Arielle R. Lusardi, Keane Y. Tzong and Guohu.)

On pregnancy:

http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/use-of-marijuana-during-pregnancy (Summary of several studies, studies listed at the end of the article... Upshot, no major effects)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/1/79.abstract (Studies of infant mortality rates, Upshot, pot babies mortality rates were lower than cocaine babies, opiate babies and ironically lower than the control babies... probably a fluke)

I'm not arguing that mothers should smoke pot, only that the Doctor's concern has been studied, even in the current political situation.

The point the Dr. was making was that normally a prescription medication goes through a very rigorous scientific process which helps us to understand the risks and benefits of a drug.  We all hear the ads on TV about the different medications that pregnant women shouldn't take or, in some cases, even handle.  Instead, voters have side-stepped that empirical process and so there are questions that remain that aren't going to be satisfied without that same kind of scientific rigor. 

On physical effects:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/314/2/780.abstract (An odd study that indicates THC may actually reduce the brain damage associated with alcohol)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html (No evidence of cancer linked to pot smoking)

There are other studies... ones that show marijuana may actually work as an 'exit' drug rather than a gateway drug:
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/6/1/35

Pot may actually not have the deleterious effect on work that is often assumed:
http://csp.org/chrestomathy/ganja_in.html

Etc etc etc...

Do I believe all of these studies are objective fact? No. They're studies... they're some data that may or may not be accurate. However, if our Doctor friend had bothered to do some research, perhaps some of his concerns could have been mollified.

No, because again his overarching objection is the process by which medical marijuana came to be.  It has completely side-stepped the rigors of science that every other prescription medication must go through.  The studies you've produced, as you fully admit, do not offer a clear-cut consensus on the complete harmlessness of marijuana as a medicine, namely, in the crude delivery system of smoking it. 

In fact, I recently attended a forum where Dr. Publicker spoke.  He does acknowledge that there clearly are chemicals in marijuana that have medical benefit, and that with further scientific research, can be developed into an effective medicine with limited side effects.  But the voters in these states have sidestepped that process.  And the real shame is that, I believe, there is a larger scheme that is really at play here. 

Medical marijuana, in my personal opinion, is a cynical ploy to get marijuana legalized.  That is, to make it more accepted in society.  By using sick people as a way to win sympathies.   Make no mistake, there is an organized, national marijuana industry with a powerful, organized national lobby.  A lobby that is helping to craft these initiatives that come up in these states.  And once they get it in, they start chipping away at it.

Like they've done here in Maine.  The original act required medical marijuana users to be on a registry and carry a card and have one of a list of very specific ailments.  The lobby has been successful in weakening the act.  The registry is gone, the list of ailments has broadened and the criteria are less rigorous, and they want more.  They want it to be allowable for any and all ailments.  They want to completely lift the restrictions to specific diseases or sicknesses.  But that isn't what was sold to Mainers when they approved it.  Mainers were told they needed to pass this so cancer patients could feel better.  They were never told the ultimate goal was to allow anyone to get a prescription for medical marijuana for anything.  I think if they knew that the results might have been different. 

But, of course, I fully recognize that most of you have no problems with any of that and would likely applaud those developments.  I suppose shady politics are okay when they support a shared ideal. 

[East Coast Hustle]

A national marijuana industry with a powerful lobby?

I mean, I wish that were true as it would likely result in many of my good friends having high-paying jobs, but it simply is not.

[East Coast Hustle]

Seriously, where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm reading a DARE pamphlet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm still stuck on the idea that adults should be able to be told which substances they can use on their own bodies.

And I don't buy the "for the children" argument.  Raising my kids isn't the fucking DEA's job.

[AFK]

Seriously, where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm reading a DARE pamphlet.

http://thecannabisindustry.org/

[AFK]

"Bringing the Cannabis Industry's Issues to Capitol Hill"

I suppose they are just going to go there to have a bake sale and hand out a couple of brochures, right? 

[AFK]

I mean really, you might want to try the Google before you say things like that. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Bringing the Cannabis Industry's Issues to Capitol Hill"

Beats the fuck out of Wackenhutt or Raytheon.

But just how big are they?  Let's look.

[AFK]

http://thecannabisindustry.org/members/

Be sure to click on "Show All" 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean really, you might want to try the Google before you say things like that. 

Um.

Here's a member of their board.

David Bronner

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps

Wow.  That's right up there with the private prison lobby and shit.

[AFK]

I'm still stuck on the idea that adults should be able to be told which substances they can use on their own bodies.

And I don't buy the "for the children" argument.  Raising my kids isn't the fucking DEA's job.

No, but general welfare is the Government's job.  At least that's what it says on that 200 odd year old piece of paper people get all worked up about.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://thecannabisindustry.org/members/

Be sure to click on "Show All" 

"Aunt Sandy's Edibles"?

Yeah, this is a monolith that probably owns half of congress.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm still stuck on the idea that adults should be able to be told which substances they can use on their own bodies.

And I don't buy the "for the children" argument.  Raising my kids isn't the fucking DEA's job.

No, but general welfare is the Government's job.  At least that's what it says on that 200 odd year old piece of paper people get all worked up about.  

No, the constitution allows the government to fund things in the general welfare of the nation (article I, sec 8, clause 1), not throw people in jail and ruin their lives for doing pot.  I think you should probably take a look at amendments IX and X.

Don't try to bullshit me on the constitution, RWHN.