The journey from there to here
(The following is a press release from the Libertarian Party at www.lp.org):
 
Libertarian Party Condemns the Supreme Court Decision Against the use of Medical Marijuana


 

(Washington, D.C.) In a 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the federal government will continue to arrest and prosecute sick and terminally ill Americans who use marijuana for medical purposes.   The decision supersedes state laws and the votes of citizens that allow the medical use of marijuana.

While the people of California and other states voted for the right of sick and dying patients to use marijuana as a medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s ruling permits the federal government to ignore the recorded decisions of an electorate.  

Currently, ten states allow residents to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes.  The court ruling, which was pushed forward by the Bush administration, not only lacks compassion for the sick but is also a clear encroachment upon states’ rights.

Libertarian Party Executive Director Joe Seehusen stated, “This ruling is not only a blow to the elderly, sick and terminally ill, but also represents the further decline of states’ rights.”  Mr. Seehusen continued, “It is important that the American public does not minimize this issue by believing that it only affects ‘pot smokers’ as it is a much deeper debate involving the intrusion of the federal government upon the states, the power of the prescription drug lobby, and the growing limits on individual freedom.” 

The Libertarian Party is a long-standing advocate for individual liberty and believes that Americans should be responsible for their own actions and, in this case, be able to use alternative forms of medication outside of the realm of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

Working with like-minded groups, the Libertarian Party will help craft federal legislation that will assist individuals needing medical marijuana to pursue treatment methods without fear of arrest and prosecution by the federal government.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 11, 2005
The "carcinogen" in tobacco smoke is nicotine which is NOT present in pot.


Sorry, wrong. There are more than 50 carcinogens present in tobacco smoke, as well as marijuana smoke. Nicotine is the actively addictive component in tobacco, not the primary carcinogen.

Tobacco and marijuana smoke contain approximately the same levels of carcinogens.
on Jun 11, 2005
There are more than 50 carcinogens present in tobacco smoke, as well as marijuana smoke. Nicotine is the actively addictive component in tobacco, not the primary carcinogen.


Correct. As is THC for Marijuana.

As far as I know in a medical standpoint, THC's molecular structure can be modified to a nonaddictive form. I believe this was called Marinol at one time, but was either A) banned, or just too expensive to make and use.

I don't know about you but I'd rather use something that is a proven non-addictive drug over one that's almost guaranteed addictive.


Wrong. While I'm not denying that Marijuana is addictive, heavy pain-killers are highly addictive as well (Percocet, Oxycoten, Morphine, and Tylenol 3 with Codeine are all perscription drugs with high abuse rates)

Just as a side note, most medical marijuana is used for terminally ill patients and/or fatal cancer patients. Another use for medical marijuana ( I think) is use as a stomach settler for people on chemotherapy. According to some of my research, some patients are unable to stomach anything after chemo, and thus become even weaker than normal. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

As for medical my position on medical marijuana... I don't have one. As a soon-to-be student of pharmacology, I am interested in the effects of THC, and whether or not it could be modified cheaply and efficiently to produce nonaddictive medicines.

Another sidenote: It is well known that the FDA has a priority line where tests products with a lot of financial backing and lobbying. It's a little easier getting things done when there is money on the line (in one form or the other).

Peace,

Beebes
on Jun 11, 2005
"Baker, your wrong. The reason there are no medications is because the feds have outlawed the same."


Really? There's some awfully misleading information on the DEA's website, then:

- Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol.

- A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

- Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market.


Here's the link. What people haven't really been able to tell me is what pot is so effective at that other drugs aren't. I've been treated for pain, I have been given appetite stimulating hormones.

There have been studies that stated that they were unable to prove real benefits from medicinal pot. Can anyone point out where the benefits are shown to be a proven fact?
on Jun 12, 2005
From the first link I provided

People undergoing cancer chemotherapy have found smoked marijuana to be an effective anti-nauseant - often more effective than available pharmaceutical medications. Indeed, 44 % of oncologists responding to a questionnaire said they had recommended marijuana to their cancer patients; others said they would recommend it if it were legal.
Marijuana is also smoked by thousands of AIDS patients to treat the nausea and vomiting associated with both the disease and AZT drug therapy. Because it stimulates appetite, marijuana also counters HIV-related "wasting," allowing AIDS patients to gain weight and prolong their lives.

In 1986, a synthetic delta-9-THC capsule (Marinol) was marketed in the United States and labeled for use as an anti-emetic. Despite some utility, this product has serious drawbacks' including its cost. For example, a patient taking three five-milligram capsules a day would spend over $5,000 to use Marinol for one year. In comparison to the natural, smokeable product Marinol also has some pharmacological shortcomings.
on Jun 12, 2005
"Indeed, 44 % of oncologists responding to a questionnaire said they had recommended marijuana to their cancer patients"


44% sounds big until you look at the sample:

" The survey was mailed to about one-third (N = 2430) of all U.S.-based ASCO members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1035). More than 44% of the respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient.-Link"


That would make it 44%, of the 43% that responded, of the 33% percent they asked. My math comes out to 455. Studies often use "who responded" to make their figures look big...
on Jun 12, 2005

Here's the link. What people haven't really been able to tell me is what pot is so effective at that other drugs aren't. I've been treated for pain, I have been given appetite stimulating hormones.


Go read the end of reply #15. I'm already on baclofin for spasms and it isn't working. There is nothing else except for narcotics that will work. I cadged a joint from my brother and what do ya know it stopped the spasms dead in their tracks.
on Jun 12, 2005
Did your doctor give you the impression that Marinol was illegal? Maybe you ought to talk to him about it?

I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, please don't take offense. I just think that when you see newsclips of people lined up around the block to buy pot at these medicinal pot places, I have to wonder how many terminally ill people there are. Honestly, I have no problem if they made pot, even smoked pot, available by prescription.

The way it has been done by these "outlets" that open as test cases, though, can't be taken seriously.

on Jun 12, 2005

#17 by Death_By_Beebles
Saturday, June 11, 2005





There are more than 50 carcinogens present in tobacco smoke, as well as marijuana smoke. Nicotine is the actively addictive component in tobacco, not the primary carcinogen.


Correct. As is THC for Marijuana.

As far as I know in a medical standpoint, THC's molecular structure can be modified to a nonaddictive form. I believe this was called Marinol at one time, but was either A) banned, or just too expensive to make and use.

I don't know about you but I'd rather use something that is a proven non-addictive drug over one that's almost guaranteed addictive.


Wrong. While I'm not denying that Marijuana is addictive,


There is no emperical evidence of this. At best there is a "tentative" link to a possible psychological addiction.
on Jun 12, 2005

Did your doctor give you the impression that Marinol was illegal? Maybe you ought to talk to him about it?
I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, please don't take offense. I just think that when you see newsclips of people lined up around the block to buy pot at these medicinal pot places, I have to wonder how many terminally ill people there are. Honestly, I have no problem if they made pot, even smoked pot, available by prescription.

The way it has been done by these "outlets" that open as test cases, though, can't be taken seriously.


Yes as a matter of fact he did. Now do not get me wrong here. I do NOT want it legalized across the board (which is something my brother and I fight about alot!). "Just" for medicinal purposes ONLY! Here's a point to ponder....If there is NO medicinal value to pot then why did they come up with marinol?
on Jun 12, 2005
Bakerstreet is a pimp.... a blog pimp.
on Jun 12, 2005
The idea that these people's only choice is to roll a fatty is silly, imho.


Of course it's not their only choice, B Street, but it should be one of their options. There is no perfect solution to the problem of drug use and abuse, but a system that creates a vacuum filled by Crips & Bloods and facilitates the social destruction of whole communities seems to me like a poor solution at best.

Our collective (hypocritical) schizophrenia about pot is what is silly - we hardly bat an eye as thousands of people die (along with thousands of innocent victims) every year as a direct consequence of the use of (legal) alcohol, and get all righteous when someone wants to chill out with a joint, whether for their glaucoma or simple enjoyment. And tobacco does far more harm to individuals than pot (ever see anyone smoke "2 packs" of weed a day?). Pot should be legal, taxed like cigarettes & alcohol, and be done with it. It should be considered by the legal system as an intoxicant like alcohol and be subject to the same consequences (such as driving under the influence), though I'll grant that judging "impairment" is not as clean as with alcohol, for which reliable pharmacologic data exist to enable determination of "degrees" of impairment. That, by itself, however, is an insufficient reason to keep its use illegal. And, no, I don't use pot - I could barely stomach the Crooks cigars they made me suck on during the "smokeout" part of Hell Week.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Jun 12, 2005
I am leaving the reservation and joining the Libertarians.  This just sucks!
on Jun 12, 2005
"Of course it's not their only choice, B Street, but it should be one of their options. "


If by option you mean going to a pharmacist with a prescription, then sure, I can live with that. If you mean going to a skanky building, standing in line with a bunch of stoners pretending to be sick, and then giving TV crew the finger as you leave, then no, I think not.

People like Dr. Miller deserve the best treatment they can get, but the fact is this is being used as a stepping stone by activist organizations interested in legalization for everyone. I'm not going to play into it. If the FDA approves smoked MJ as a treatment, then by all means, I'm all for it.

The store-front 'clubs' they offered in certain test cases around the country were idiotic, though. If you want to have the perspective that the FDA is a bunch of fuddy-duddies that are just biased against pot, fine, but they are given the power to pick and choose, and they have decided not to approve smoking a doob at this point.
on Jun 12, 2005

#28 by BakerStreet
Sunday, June 12, 2005





"Of course it's not their only choice, B Street, but it should be one of their options. "


If by option you mean going to a pharmacist with a prescription, then sure, I can live with that. If you mean going to a skanky building, standing in line with a bunch of stoners pretending to be sick, and then giving TV crew the finger as you leave, then no, I think not.

People like Dr. Miller deserve the best treatment they can get, but the fact is this is being used as a stepping stone by activist organizations interested in legalization for everyone. I'm not going to play into it. If the FDA approves smoked MJ as a treatment, then by all means, I'm all for it.

The store-front 'clubs' they offered in certain test cases around the country were idiotic, though. If you want to have the perspective that the FDA is a bunch of fuddy-duddies that are just biased against pot, fine, but they are given the power to pick and choose, and they have decided not to approve smoking a doob at this point.


Problem is Baker that the FDA lumps ALL pot use in the same catagory! They make no difference between medicinal or recreational use. Their take is there is NO medicinal value to pot. And like I said before....If this is true then why approve marinol?
on Jun 12, 2005
Marinol is the proof against your assertion, isn't it? Obviously they haven't written off pot, since they are using a synthetic form of the active ingredient. Do you really, really think they will ever approve smoking in any form? I doubt it.

They have the right to approve or deny medicines. Perhaps the problem is at the 'study' level. Instead of fighting at the congressional and judicial level, maybe it would be wiser to push for more definitive testing that no one could refute.
3 Pages1 2 3