Posting in Architecture
Cannabis use in medicine remains controversial. Why?
Cannabis consumption, in many areas of the world, used to be an every day and socially acceptable part of life.
Governmental, medical, ethical and personal views clashed in the 19th and early-20th centuries as much as they do today concerning the Cannabis satvia plant. Cannabis markets existed before British colonialism appeared, and even then, taxation was introduced as a means to 'discourage' intake (in the same manner as tobacco today) rather than attempting to stamp out the trade -- before a global campaign banned the use and exportation of cannabis in many countries.
There are, however, fairly recent signs of cannabis use re-entering the medical sphere. Scientific American reports that Savitex, a drug that uses cannabinoids, is taken orally and is being put through its paces before consideration as a future treatment for cancer patients.
Savitex is a pump which is designed to be sprayed under the mouth or in the inside of the cheek. The drug in development contains THC -- the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis -- and CBD (cannabidiol). GW Pharmaceuticals controls the drug testing, and plans to gain the support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration once trials are completed; possibly by 2014. The drug is already used to give relief to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis and its subsequent neuropathic pain, and is already approved in the UK, Spain, Canada and New Zealand. The producers of Savitex hope to launch in additional countries such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden in 2012.
Do users experience a 'high' in the same way as recreational use? The clinical trials suggest not:
One of the cannabinoids in Sativex is THC whereas the other principal cannabinoid is CBD, a non-psychoactive molecule. Evidence suggests that CBD may modulate many of the unwanted effects of THC.
The spray can be adjusted to stop THC from entering the bloodstream too rapidly -- removing the 'high' and allowing pain relief. However, this may indicate that in fact yes, if one were to 'abuse' the spray, a high could be achieved. According to the Scientific American, it has "little potential for abuse", the reasoning being that the drug is delivered orally (and smoking is not?), it would take too long, and the 'ritual' element is removed from intake.
Sure it does, but that may not actually matter. The media uprising every time hemp is mentioned is simply down to the attached stigma of a 'stoner' rather than its beneficial, medical properties.
Most substances we come in to contact with contain the possibility of abuse. In the West, drinking coffee and tea, eating chocolate or smoking tobacco -- which translate to the consumption of their respective plant alkaloids caffeine, theine, theobromine and nicotine -- is completely acceptable, and even more than this, is an ingrained element of our culture. Alcohol is also on the list of acceptable, social drugs, which can be open to insensible intake.
Yet, we 'abuse' these widely. Caffeine overdoses, sugary foods that cause obesity, and alcohol which can lead to physical and mental problems, or cause irrational or violent behavior. All of these are legal and have become part of our economic structure -- and yet, each 'legal drug' contains properties that prompt psychological changes and may be addictive.
Not only this, but the abuse of such legal substances causes pressure on our medical system: from obesity operations, accidents or poisoning through alcohol, and even irregular heartbeats by overdosing on caffeine-laden drinks.
Psychoactive substances are part of cultural ritual -- and the West is no different. Where you may associate hemp intake with shamans or religious rites, people in the West instead smoke it in coffee shops, in parks, or in their parent's basement. When we consider substances that contain plant extracts, however, we drink our coffee in the morning, snack on chocolate at lunch, and have our late-night cigarettes without a twinge of guilt.
The only reason cannabis isn't on the 'everyday' list for most is the illegal and social stigma. If we consume so many substances a day that -- by the classification of 'drug' -- change chemical properties in the brain, why such a furor when hemp is mentioned? Why the outcry against use of cannabis in medicine, mainly because of the fact it could be abused recreationally?
Should we also ban the use of alcohol in operating theaters because your local shop is offering cider at discount rates which teenagers could abuse?
Anti-psychotic drugs are released for medical use even though there are concerns for its side effects, and in some cases, patients are even forced to accept such medication. Yet, a battle must be fought for the same patient to have access to a pain-relieving extract which has far less serious side effects, and whose antique nature is well known to the international medical community in both benefits and consequences.
Why such stigma?
Forget concerns of recreational abuse -- cannabis has pain relieving properties that are useful to the medical community. Why is it that we have to fight against the stigma of taking cannabis, but allow so many people to be over-medicated, much to the delight of many a pharmaceutical company?
As the New York Times reported last year, 71 percent of Medicaid residents in Florida nursing homes received psychoactive drugs, such as antidepressants or anti-psychotic, even though most residents were not on such medications before they entered the home, and did not even have psychiatric diagnoses.
"It seems the use of psychoactive medication is trumping the use of nondrug treatments," Dr. Victor Molinari said, a professor of aging at the University of South Florida.
It's not only Florida. This is a problem which is part of many communities across country borders, where families have to fight to get them off harmful drugs. A problem with this, however, is that those same patients are then left without pain relief.
It's fine to over-medicate our elderly, but it is not okay for younger people, still active in the labor force, to use plant extracts which are useful for pain relief or stress reduction? No, I apologize. It's evidently better for them to go and get drunk instead. There's a fine line between recreational use and abuse, but I would argue that in the same way alcohol seems tantalizing to teenagers because they are not allowed to have it, cannabis smoking, although less harmful, is also used in part due to this mentality.
It is simply that cannabis, in the U.S. and some of Europe, is not necessarily seen in the same commercial light as it once was. What affect would it have on pharmaceutical companies if cannabis was once again made legal? Supporting medical and academic researchers have to fight to the death in order to develop its beneficial properties; and sometimes in the U.S. and UK, earn themselves jail time for doing so.
We frown upon cannabis for medical use, and even throw people in jail who purchase the plant for this very reason. Yet, if pharmaceutical companies wish it, then we pump people full of drugs that produce far stronger and more dangerous psychotic affects.
The argument between whether cannabis is therapeutic or narcotic is likely to continue for some time.
Is it social stigma, due to health side effects, or is it business?
Image credit: Flickr
Related on SmartPlanet:
- High design for a medical cannabis collective
- Doctors use ecstasy to treat PTSD
- DNA sequencing hits new highs with marijuana genomes
- Washington rules: Employers can fire you if you smoke medical marijuana
Feb 1, 2012
I smoked pot everyday from age 15 to 25. I used it mostly at night and had no trouble sleeping. Now I'm 58 years and have cancer. The other night I smoked a few puffs of medical marijuana and had the same affect I had 30 years ago. I'd rather use the marijuana than 12 mg of diladid. The diladid made me feel all doped up, but the marijuana has little hang over affect the nest day. Marijuana is an excellent product and should be legalized. I still don't understand how alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. Alcohol has a much greater adverse affect and makes many people violent. Pot calms people down. I think it would be an excellent way to calm prisoners in jail, especially people charged with assault. I used pot to lower my alcohol consumption. I believe that helped me not become an alcoholic which is much more harmful than pot addiction. I believe there are special interests who would lose money if pot were legalized and they are the ones preventing legalization.
Yeah Just Google it. The US Govt. has held this patent since 2003 for the medicinal properties of Cannabis all the while they denounce it has any medicinal value, and continue to jail, (mainly minorities) for it. Not to mention all the other ways the prohibition laws have ruined lives. Until the Govt. and Big Pharma (huge political contributors, lobbyist, etc..) can figure out how to monopolize and capitalize on it, it will most likely be illegal. Unless people finally get smart and demand an end to this travesty. Also so many Christian (& I am one, who is also a humanist, and no they are not incompatible) who want to control what they feel is the "morality" of everyone else, ignoring the Bible when it suits them.... see Mark 7:15-19. A Harvard study(not some fly by night Pro-Pot org) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm shows pot definitely cures some forms of cancer (makes the tumors disappear!) but the stupid laws are preventing open clinical trials.Also see the national Cancer Institute, and search cannabis. There is countless evidence that Cannabis has many medical assets and few very mild side effects, which dissipate for most people with regular use. On the other hand, Big Pharma's current alternatives such as the widely prescribed and advertised anti-psychotic meds such as Risperadol DOUBLES your risk of contracting Parkinson"s disease and sometimes cause death Says so right in their warnings. The Govt. has recently recommended that nursing homes curtail use because it causes death or Alzheimer's in the elderly and they can't cover that up anymore. It takes a long time for Parkinson's to develop however. They have time before they have to face those repercussions... and then they will just pull it from the shelves and say "oops" like they so often do and pay out whatever lawsuits they have to. Most folks don't even bother to read the labels anymore. These drugs are highly addictive. They cause your brain to all but stop working for itself and they are hell to come off of, hence they will insist, you must stay on them for the rest of your life. BULLSHIT. I warn you, it is total hell coming off them (took me two years), but very worth it. I got my life back thanks to cannabis. It infuriates me to see them advertising these dangerous drugs and even suggesting them for children on tv like they are magic pills! Depressed, anxious? take a magic pill! don't worry it may kill you twelve years from now. BIG PHARMA does not have the public's interest at heart. They are ruled by Profit, and they have huge power in the government. Add in all the other agencies that Profit off prohibition, such as Prison's for Profit (yes they are privately owned and for profit now, and they also contribute heavily to politicians who make policy) Police, and Prison guard unions, the DEA, FDA, even the Alcohol industry, etc... being able to grow such a helpful substance for yourself will cut out too many PROFITS for too many people. need I go on?
Marijuana faces a number of blockades to legalization. Some of these are: 1) Drug cartels. It is not in their interests to cut their profits dramatically. They would still have cocaine and the opiates, but there is a lot of money made from the illegality of marijuana. 2) Anti-drug enforcement officials. It's their job (do you want to legislate yourself out of a job?) and for some it's a holy quest. 3) Conservatives, particularly religious conservatives. They couldn't manage to keep alcohol banned, so, less than ten years after the repeal they made a number of drugs illegal, including marijuana. If you look at many religions, there seems to have a belief that one must suffer in this life in order to have a better life afterward. No dancing. No card playing. No alcohol. And effectively they want to impose their rules on you. All Old Testament and no New, although they call themselves Christians. They need to believe that they are accomplishing something. 4) I tell you three times. It is a quirk of humanity that when they hear something three or more times from figures of authority, they accept it as truth. Children certainly hear that marijuana is bad, and it tales a lot of effort to break the programming. It's been a long time since I smoked, because I have too much to lose with the random drug testing at work. As it is they have a problem with the narcotics I take by prescription for pain. They know that they would have a hard time enforcing the policy against my physician's professional opinion, so they let it slip by. But the whole zero tolerance thing is moving further and further into silly season. I personallly believe that marijuana will be legalized at the federal level within the next 20 years. The opinion is slowly shifting, and influential people are starting to advocate the change. The biggest problem I foresee is figuring out what they will ban instead.
Studies done by different schools over several years in different countries all came back with similar results. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46343686/ns/today-today_health/t/dont-smoke-pot-drive----youre-twice-likely-crash/ http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2003/11/02/marijuana-causes-many-deaths-reported-as-accidents.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111006173453.htm
There has never been an unfettered analysis of the failure of prohibition (esp in respect of cannabis). It is no longer appropriate to determine if cannabis is harmful or not. Prohibition does not prevent harm, it it not precautionary to render harms where there would otherwise be none. Drinking 500ml of fizzy Soft Drink daily is evidently more dangerous than smoking an occasional or even regular joint. Prohibitors are self serving when they conflate the harms and risks with the harms created by the rules. Such overstatement has been the character of 40 years of delusional propaganda - we should instead invest the money currently allocated to prohibition of cannabis into enabling health promotion and harm reduction instead of generating hypocrisy and alienation from rule of law and perpetuation of a law in disrepute. We have a social (and collective) obligation to the Ottawa Charter principles; where there are identified impediments to health promotion, remove them. Cannabis prohibition is an identified impediment to teen sexual health and other social risk taking. We are driving them to drink.... and pay a VERY dear price for so doing.
In the list of people that make money off Illegalization are those who built and run the prisons for profit . No drug war, no need for more prisons. Headache ? THC is better and safer than aspirin. THC is less addictive then coffee .
Legalization will likely lead to increased pot use, stronger varieties of pot, and less focus on personal achievement. Australia has had the longest continuous research on cannabis that I have found. That research shows mental ill effects from long term pot use. This statement will attract instant disparagement from pot pushers, and that suggests only one of the mental ill effects of pot consumption.
The head of hair most [url=http://www.ghdnzstraightener.net/]ghd[/url] primary composition could be the necessary protein textile fiber, in between the textile dietary fiber as nicely as the fibrous bundle, has some crevices, has covered completely the adequate materials which throughout these gaps will carry up water, namely dynamics moisturizer factor. Moisturizer aspect N. M. though F only accounts for 1% which the head of hair composes, but truly will absorb the substantial humidity contents, will lead to the humidity articles to account for 15% which the head of hair will compose, consequently in hair's moisturizer aspect N. M. F are more, the head of hair humidity articles is extra sufficient, the head of hair is then softer, extra has the gloss..Nutrition food key: helps make up the drinking water moisturizer.The selection helps make up the drinking water moisturizer head of hair treatment article: Present's science and technology, can surely make utilization of the refinement the moisturizer material, permeates the head of hair necessary protein textile dietary fiber the gap assist head of hair to action besides absorption extra humidity contents, restores the gloss and soft..The self-made olive essential oil honey safeguards sends the therapeutic preparation: one little bucket [url=http://www.ghdnzstraightener.net/]ghd nz[/url] olive essential oil and one cup of honey combine agitation, the work sways. following the mix, puts for 1-2 days, utilizes for to therapeutic massage the scalp again, utilizes the comb to comb once more passes, but do not allow the comb reduce your skin the scalp. could possibly also make utilization of the plastic material bag to include the initial 30 minutes, lets the forehead the steam urge the self-restraint to shield sends the therapeutic preparation to infiltrate towards scalp. utilizes this type to shield sends the therapeutic preparation, can allow the head of hair to possess the gloss soft.Excessive modelling hair.Will make utilization of the Moroccan silk, to deliver the rubber, modelling products and services etc grain, the head of hair to trace will often have a single type to mount the flour gruel not neat feeling. for the reason that the modelling sol ingredient, will adhere to stick cohere gradually while in the head of hair surface, will deposit unceasingly, produces chemistry residuum which [url=http://www.ghdnzstraightener.net/]ghd hair straightener[/url] stubborn will not be simple to clean, will lead to the head of hair to deliver mounts air-tight..Nutrition food key
As an older veteran I can tell you that some of us Veterans know the benefits of cannabis over anti-deppresants and such, this is the same old damn slap yo momma crap I have been arguing with va Doctors they are well intentioned but their hands are tied. Who wants thorazine! T
Have used cannibus in tea for decades it is fantastic,better than hot toddy,you can eat taffy,better than coffee,less app to kill your liver,and you,so why tax it,just sell it,all roads are good ,let it grow.
Lots of people point to the pharmaceutical industry as the main reason that drugs such as cannabis are the target of prohibition. They are only partially correct, and are only seeing a small part of the real money being made. First, those that are involved in distributing drugs illegally do not want to legalize the distribution as it would create competition that they cannot control or eliminate by force or violence. They want to maintain the status quo, which is how they make their money. Restriction of availability adds value. The greater the value, the more willing nefarious individuals or organizations will be to take risk in distributing. Very much like the cold war, the methods and extremes that will be employed by each side will escalate till one side or the other is unable to continue. For example, the drug cartels have even been building submarines to assist in their drug smuggling operations. But in the war on drugs the US is on a path to oblivion. The ever increasing cost to combat the influx of drugs becomes just one more cost burden on an over taxed population here in the US. At the same time, the drug suppliers outnumber our enforcement forces and they are earning substantial revenue that makes the continued illegal operations profitable. As one of the drug suppliers is eliminated, there are many more that are willing to take the risk. If the cold war can be used as an example, then we are playing the part of the Soviet Union. It is just a matter of time till we are unable to continue the cost of the war on drugs without sacrificing parts of our society that are much more important. Secondly, the amount of money and power that is available to those that enforce the drug prohibition is staggering. By some estimates 51 billion dollars per year are spent in the USA to enforce drug laws. This includes the federal, state and local officers, departments and programs as well as judicial, incarceration and probation supervision. This money is distributed not only to personnel, but also goes to support industries such as the firearms companies that supply weapons to the police, equipment manufacturers such as surveillance cameras and computer systems and vehicles that the officers use including helicopters and airplanes used for aerial surveillance and locating cannabis fields. The same enforcement agencies are able to seize personal property such as houses, cars or boats that were used in the illegal activities, cash assets that were directly involved in the purchase of the illegal drugs or bank assets or investments that are presumed to be the fruit of illegal activities. This can result in hundreds of millions of dollars more per year that is essentially income to feed the enforcement effort. With numbers this large there are sure to be lobbyist and others with a vested interest to continue the status quo, which is how they make their money. If prohibition were to be repealed and the drug distribution were to be regulated similar to alcohol and taxed heavily, call it a sin tax if you prefer, the proceeds could be used to offset the medical insurance cost associated with the Obama Care law. This would give a greater ability for treatment of addiction and would in my opinion improve the ability to fund improvements in many additional areas of health care for the population as a whole. It is likely that there would be a reduction in the size of the police force that would be required, but that reduction would be less than one might expect. The police that are specifically and entirely dedicated to monitoring drug activities would have opportunities to change their focus to support areas of enforcement that are currently under emphasized or could use additional staff, such as immigration/border patrol, customs agent or homeland security in addition to the additional detectives that would benefit most any cities police departments. Perhaps one of the biggest economic impacts from legalization would be from the commercialization of cannabis. California is an excellent example of this phenomenon when you consider the number of "Medical" cannabis dispensaries that have appeared seemingly overnight and the number of jobs created. This is not just sales staff, but includes accounting professionals, office staff and a host of manufactured products as well as the construction industry that renovated or built the new dispensary buildings. In addition, the growers that are now farming the cannabis crops as well as the other ancillary commercial effect to industries such as banking or advertisement firms, not to mention lawyers...these places need lots of lawyers these days, has had a substantial economic impact to California. Extrapolating this effect nationally and adding the tax benefit to the federal government that legalization would provide and it could be concluded that the savings of a large portion of the 51 billion that would normally have been a taxpayer burden can quickly become an income stream that could create jobs, reduce crime and resulting in improvements in several important areas of our society. The downside, there always will be a downside, by comparison seems minor if one has the opinion that the health effects to a chronic user will be nearly the same whether the drug is illegal or not. The health effects would be less damaging in the case of injected drugs as the commercialization would also provide sterile injection supplies and studies have shown would reduce the instance HIV and Hepatitis as well as other infections that are communicated through the sharing of injection apparatus. Suggested reading: http://www.thefix.com/content/leap-faith?page=all
I have thought for a long time that the reason cannabis use was made illegal is because the commercial pharmaceutical industry has not been able to find a way to make a profit from it. If you wish to consider harm think of all the deaths from prescribed drugs and alcohol.
I use cannabis regularly...as a matter of fact, I have just finished two joints. Im gladd thet I kan uze the stuf end it wont hert me inanny weigh. wen i finush tiping thiz peece i gongto smuke an udr jernt. Tank yew fere pain atenshun (lightern up this is an unpained perlikital kemurshal)
I've noticed the difference between independent and government funded studies of cannabis. The independent studies show it's safe and non addictive, or no more addictive than caffeine. The government sponsored studies screams of the evils of cannabis. The government has a good reason to keeping it outlawed, one being the pharma industry don't want it legalized for obvious reasons, the other is from the textile industry that can't compete with the strength and durability of hemp products. If you really want to see just how the government is damning cannabis, just watch the movie "Reefer Madness", which was paid for by the government. Basically it depicts cannabis in a "meth" kind of way. It's so ridiculous that it's totally silly.
[i]"Already reports on surprise celebrity deaths often cite multiple illegal drug ingestion as a factor."[/i] I'd be surprised if you could document one instance of an overdose death from smoking marijuana. Or even as an add on to another drug (like combining barbiturates and alcohol).
the reason docs have a problem with legalized cannabis is that some groups (e.g. the Open Society) are using the issue as a wedge to legalize all drugs. And anecdotal reports of California's marijuana clinics giving it out for minor problems doesn't help. No, I don't have a problem with marijuana as medicine. Maybe some one without an agenda might want to use it.
The writer asks "Why is it that we fight so hard against the stigma of taking cannabis?" The premise is inaccurate: We do not "fight so hard." Rather, we have a permissive attitude that allows nearly anyone with the urge to buy pot. Marjuana used for ostensibly valid medical reasons is legal in several states, with indications that the list will grow. But, there is opposition. Some is based on the potential of pot. It is susceptible to genetic development to create ever more potent forms. Pot may not be as safe as many claim. Australian researchers have done perhaps the longest and best documented research into pot use. They find adverse mental effects. It is true that we allow other harmful drugs: alcohol, tobacco, and arguably others. These have, indeed, brought much misery to be weighed against their supposed virtues. Pot advocates should ask how long a list of mind-altering drugs do we wish humanity to consume? Already reports on surprise celebrity deaths often cite multiple illegal drug ingestion as a factor. I believe that cannibis-based prescription medicines will someday be well-researched, better understood, closely regulated, and have abuse thereof prosecuted, whether for over-prescription as with Michael Jackson's doctor for his professional abuse of prescriptions, or self-administered abuse. But for now, I suspect that the cries to legalize pot use have more to do with seeking a personal high than with vast regard for the health of the human race.
I have used marijuana for recreational and medical use for most of my life (now 63 years). In my opinion, it is a harmless plant that provides pleasure and relief from anxiety and pain. Many other benefits have been studied that indicate it fights cancer, does no harm to lungs, and others. Someone powerful is preventing it from being legalized.
"Marijuana," the maligned psychoactive member of the Hemp family...the paradox: it has so much to offer.....Mellow moods, altered consciousness & being (without hangover), relief from the nausea and distress associated with chemotherapy, appetite stimulant (for those who need it...not many in THIS [U.S.] country), deflation of anger and animosity, a glimpse into another reality (if one dares to look).....So, if the US would simply legalize the little plant that could, even supervise the cultivation, growth, and sales (i.e., taxes on the sold product) the following would surely follow: 1. a quick fix to the US indebtedness to China, and to many economic woes in general 2. the funds to develop an extensive hydrogen re-fueling infrastructure (I really want a Honda Clarity) and potentially decrease the use of fossil fuels...and in turn, any need for anything the Middle East has to offer (unless genies in a bottle are still available) 3. the countless numbers of those who are ill would find relief, when this unadulterated gift of the earth is the right choice for the problem 4. members of Congress would get along with one another (after a quick "after lunch, or whenever, toke") and actually accomplish something (anything, I don't care, just agree on something useful to and desired by the american people) 4. the desire to go to war would diminish.....at least stupid, quick decisions to do so wouldn't be "Bush'd" into reality 5. and the road would be paved for the second coming of Ken Kesey (or a reasonable facsimile, lol). Wake up Americans and make sure the corrupt American Politicians (i.e., all of 'em) know that: the natives are restless about this, and all of the other [m]uck-ups that are created daily....and don't get me started on the government's illicit, unholy relationship with the financial institutions, big business, whatever the moniker of the day might be.
Because there has been no scientific study of the medical uses of cannabis that involved more than 20 people for longer than a few months at a time. There is no conclusive large scale, long term study proving benefits. There are long term studies that have documented the ill effects of long term use. Ranging from brain damage to an odd green fatty buildup on male sex organs.
that it should be illegal to protect me from myself. Much like tobacco or alcohol, it is good that the government makes us aware of the health risks, such as the surgeon general???s warning on the side of cigarette packages. It is questionable, but ok that the government restricts the purchase and use of these products till the age of consent and adulthood. It is ok that the items are taxed more heavily to help offset the costs to society for the regulation and consumption of the products. It is ok that the cost and availability for health and life and auto insurance is affected for users of the products. But, it is not ok that the government would prohibit the possession or use by the public for any reason other than a substantial or grave risk to society as a whole or to individuals that would be affected by users of the product in a substantially negative way. For the sake of argument, let???s look at some legal examples of things the government allows for sale that substantially affects society or individuals. Guns and bullets are legal to possess, though they can be used to kill people. Cars, motorcycles and airplanes are legal to purchase and use, but are responsible for many deaths per year. Acetaminophen, an over the counter drug, is the leading cause of acute liver failure, which often results in death. Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of liver disease in the US. Tobacco is the leading cause of lung cancer, guess how this one usually turns out. Explosives are sold throughout the US and can be used in many states, not just fireworks and gunpowder, but also industrial use of dynamite, det cord and other high explosives, and we all can agree that these can be quite devastating if used improperly. Though there are regulations governing the purchase of explosives it is easier to purchase a stick of dynamite legally than it is to purchase a cannabis cigarette in most states. On would then assume that the use of cannabis is a greater risk to society as a whole than any of these legal items, but the evidence does not support that conclusion. So, put in perspective, arguments that cannabis should be illegal due to the long term mental health effects seem a bit counter intuitive. When there has never been a single death that was directly attributed cannabis, pot, marijuana or however you choose to say it, yet there are a slew of products that are in daily use that are known to collectively kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people per year. It would also be interesting to compare the mental health of someone that goes to prison for 5 years for cannabis possession to someone who has used cannabis recreationally for the same 5 year period. Just my opinion, but I would bet the prisoner has the bigger mental scars. But, all of these observations are not really relevant to the point, which is, that making cannabis illegal has not substantially diminished the demand for the product. Illegalization has, however made the distributers and users of the products criminals and has developed an entire criminal enterprise in the US that has negatively affected our society substantially in numerous ways. When it comes down to a yes or no decision about the legality of cannabis it will never be a matter of right or wrong, it will be a matter of which decision does the least harm to us all. As the law stands it is little more than one group imposing their morality choice on another and, as a consequence, has had unintended yet seriously detrimental effect. Not the least of which is the infringement upon individual rights. The best deterrent is to legalize, but condemn the consumption through social stigmatism and education. Those that continue to use would have continued anyway.
The "War on Drugs" is simply too big/profitable to let it fail. This was well enough documented during the years of the alcohol prohibition. If someone can still remember that period.
The law needs to apply to cannabis users as well as alcohol and any other legal means of being "under the influence". The law has to say that any crimes committed while under the influence are punishable. With the exception of a proven case of being drugged by some one else, being impared by your own acts of consumption should not be an excuse for getting away with a crime. I have been saying this for decades about alcohol. The legalization of cannabis would be a great opportunity to create such an over due law. No more bleeding heart defense claiming they were addicted to a dangerous substance. You cannot have it both ways by claiming it is not harmful, but hiding behind it's addictive nature when things go bad. It kills me when drunks do it and it needs to stop.
One simple reason is roughly*half* of the folks spending YEARS and DECADES in prison are in for small amounts of pot. Pot itself has *never* killed anybody. You cannot OD on pot, There are 0, zero, nada, zilch cases of cancer from smoking pot. Emphysema yes, for heavy smokers (Rasta, mon), which goes away when you stop. The cries for legalization are very easy to understand: the law does *not* work, it wastes *huge* amounts of citizen's taxes, destroys lives (including the "offender's" families), no real rational reason for the damage, and is *impossible* to defend against a corrupt cop planting "drugs" on you. Not to mention busting honestly sick people and throwing them in jail. Besides, we are supposed to be a "free" country, as long as we do not hurt others. The damage mainly comes from the prohibition, not the drugs, esp pot.
There has not been an honest study of the medical uses of cannabis. The anti-pot folks set the laws that state that there is no medical value. The pro side says there are medical advantages and no side effects. I have not heard of a true study that establishes the helpful vs harmful effects. The wildly positive or the wildly negative reports don't seem to use proper study techniques.
No doubt overuse of anything, be it drug or food, is bad for you. However I'd prefer the government not be allowed to tell me I can't have that hamburger, beer, or joint.
your an idiot. They have done plenty of tests on the benefits of THC and Marijuana for medical use,and for recreational use its far better then a bottle of vodka a day-or any other vice you may be taking.I believe the only reason its not legal is because they haven't figured out to make more money making it legal,Mark my words once the pharmaceutical companies get their grubby hands into the pot it will become legal,and taxed.
In lab tests isolated THC injections seem to work better than THC taken via smoking, but the several small user studies conducted on the matter always conclude that smoking is more effective. Hmm.. Getting stoned is more effective than taking the cure alone. Is that called a desireable side effect?
- increased enjoyment of your food is both part of the high and a beneficial medicinal effect for some people.