I'll just leave this here....

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So would it be appropriate for all prescription medicines to go through this new voter-approved process?  Or is it just medical marijuana?  If so, why? 

RWHN,
Asking the questions for a little change of pace. 

Only the ones that the Feds have blocked legal research on.

[AFK]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

Not really.  I mean, there is Marinol.  Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit.  And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke.  I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

Not really.  I mean, there is Marinol.  Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit.  And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke.  I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.  

Marinol, the drug that costs a lot and according to the cancer patients I've talked to doesn't work nearly as well as the crude delivery system. Though most of them have gone to vaporizers and food... so there's not hot tar laden smoke, and better effects than the far more expensive Marinol.

Am I the only one that thinks its weird that a less effective legal drug costs more than a more effective black market one?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

Not really.  I mean, there is Marinol.  Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit.  And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke.  I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.  

What negative health impacts?

That seems like a bit of specious argument. Many people eat it or use vaporizers, so smoke isn't necessarily an issue. People who smoke it generally take no more than one puff every few hours. It may indeed be crude, but it's also very very inexpensive and has an incredibly wide safety margin, unlike most prescription drugs. I wonder whether a synthetic form would have that safety margin narrowed significantly by adding other drugs with higher toxicity to "discourage abuse".

[East Coast Hustle]

So would it be appropriate for all prescription medicines to go through this new voter-approved process?  Or is it just medical marijuana?  If so, why? 

RWHN,
Asking the questions for a little change of pace. 

My personal opinion is that it would be fine for any substance that has absolutely zero possibility of a fatal overdose and thousands of years of history of being used to relieve pain and discomfort. I'm not aware of any others that fit that criteria, but that's probably due more to a lack of exposure on my part than to something similar not existing.

[East Coast Hustle]

And as stated already, Marinol doesn't work for many patients. And I've known people who were prescribed it and stopped taking it because it made them MORE nauseous.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

Not really.  I mean, there is Marinol.  Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit.  And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke.  I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.  

Actually you've been pretty clear that you'd rather keep it illegal, which means not developing anything.  After all, if we're looking at better delivery systems that might send the wrong message to kids.

[Telarus]

I've looked into this. Marinol won approval because it is a tightly controlled ratio of THC to CBD, which is dispensed at a specific amount each time you push the hypo-spray.

Federal studies have not been allowed, historically, because "we cannot guarantee the ratio of therapeutic chemicals in a grown plant, as it is very sensitive to environmental conditions".

The UK firm which won Marinol approval, did so because they could achieve this strict ratio consistently in their 'dosage mechanism'.

The process? Chemically vaporize the Cannabis, spectroscopically measure the THC/CBS ratio until you have what you want, then cool it all down and bind it all to some food grade Oil (include some Food-Grade Anti-Freeze as we're dispensing this with a pressurized spray canister which provides "Controlled dosages"...this is most probably the source of ECH's friend's nausea). I provided links to this in one of these other threads.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND GROWING YOUR OWN AND RENDERING IT INTO BUTTER/GHEE/OLIVE-OIL
except that a corporation is in control of the Dosage/use, not YOU.


NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE

When the LD50 level makes overdosing impossible, this should not be a factor. With Vicodin or Celexa (time-released methamphetamine), OH HELL YES IT'S A FACTOR.

I think the unspoken point that lurks around when it comes to Cannabis Porohibition discussions is that because "no Cannabis usage is currently authorized", then "any&all usage = abuse". Now, I'm not saying that RWHN is one of the people who holds this position, but some of the arguments in this thread seem to rely on it because it's a common sentiment in the pro-Prohibition community.

We don't think this way about alcohol, coffee, tea, or cigarettes (!!!!!! even though with cigarettes it's close to the damn truth) because they're legal/accepted.

[AFK]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

Not really.  I mean, there is Marinol.  Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit.  And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke.  I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.  

Actually you've been pretty clear that you'd rather keep it illegal, which means not developing anything.  After all, if we're looking at better delivery systems that might send the wrong message to kids.

That's kind of a nutty assumption.  I mean, have you seen me go on any screeds to have prescription opiates taken off the market?  C'mon!  I have no issues at all with developing a medicine that incorporates the medically beneficial chemicals in medical marijuana.  Every other prescription drug went through a scientifically rigorous development process and I see no reason why medical marijuana can't go through the same process.  But I think the voters fucked up by short circuiting science. 

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.

That can easily be "cured" with the right precedent. Hell, if the Supreme's had been with the program from day one like the good little mouthpieces they were intended to be, they'd have the whole damn Constitution carved up one word at a time on one of those refrigerator magnet poetry sets. Be a hell of a lot easier to get the decision they wanted, that way. Wouldn't even need to refer back to the original text at all next time they had to voodoo a couple of plants in someone's living room into "interstate commerce" (under DoJ authority, of course).

[AFK]

I've looked into this. Marinol won approval because it is a tightly controlled ratio of THC to CBD, which is dispensed at a specific amount each time you push the hypo-spray.

Federal studies have not been allowed, historically, because "we cannot guarantee the ratio of therapeutic chemicals in a grown plant, as it is very sensitive to environmental conditions".

The UK firm which won Marinol approval, did so because they could achieve this strict ratio consistently in their 'dosage mechanism'.

The process? Chemically vaporize the Cannabis, spectroscopically measure the THC/CBS ratio until you have what you want, then cool it all down and bind it all to some food grade Oil (include some Food-Grade Anti-Freeze as we're dispensing this with a pressurized spray canister which provides "Controlled dosages"...this is most probably the source of ECH's friend's nausea). I provided links to this in one of these other threads.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND GROWING YOUR OWN AND RENDERING IT INTO BUTTER/GHEE/OLIVE-OIL
except that a corporation is in control of the Dosage/use, not YOU.


NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE

When the LD50 level makes overdosing impossible, this should not be a factor. With Vicodin or Celexa (time-released methamphetamine), OH HELL YES IT'S A FACTOR.

I think the unspoken point that lurks around when it comes to Cannabis Porohibition discussions is that because "no Cannabis usage is currently authorized", then "any&all usage = abuse". Now, I'm not saying that RWHN is one of the people who holds this position, but some of the arguments in this thread seem to rely on it because it's a common sentiment in the pro-Prohibition community.

We don't think this way about alcohol, coffee, tea, or cigarettes (!!!!!! even though with cigarettes it's close to the damn truth) because they're legal/accepted.

Well, if it helps, I do believe that it should be easier for U.S. scientists to study medical marijuana so they can isolate the beneficial components and develop a drug that offers a better delivery system and would be less likely to be abused and diverted.  It's not something I can advocate for in my current federally funded position. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.

It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.

Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.

The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.

[East Coast Hustle]

Yeah, I was always under the impression that the entire POINT of democracy was so that people could have the ability to use their votes to enact/repeal/change things about the system that they didn't like.

[East Coast Hustle]

RWHN, why do you hate the democratic process?

[AFK]

I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.

It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.

Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.

The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.

When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment?  I missed that memo.