Drugs, the Govenment and Illness.

[Never]

Washington, May 14 - The Supreme Court ruled today that federal law does not allow a "medical necessity" exception to the prohibition on the distribution of marijuana. The 8- to-0 decision dealt a setback, but not a definitive blow, to a movement that has passed medical marijuana ballot initiatives in eight states.

The ruling did not overturn the state initiatives or address any question of state law. Rather, the court ruled that marijuana's listing by Congress as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act meant that it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

More --> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/national/15DRUG.html
___________________________________________________________________________________


There are times when I cannot stand the obtuse nature of the American government. Has no one told these people that marijuana is widely available? The Supreme Court does not have to worry that allowing "medical necessity" exceptions would increase the accessibility of marijuana - I doubt there is a person reading this that could not get some weed in fifteen minutes if they knew where to go. The injunction they voted against would have only 'permit those with a serious medical condition that could be alleviated only by marijuana to have continued access to the drug'. In truth, I doubt such an injunction could damage federal drug laws.

In addition, what about the multitude of prescription drugs that are habit forming and have serious, sometimes lethal, side effect? Phenobarbital, for instance, is a sleep aid which can cause 'Abnormal thinking, aggravation of existing emotional disturbances and phobias, agitation, anemia, angioedema (swelling of face around lips, tongue, and throat, swollen arms and legs, difficulty breathing), allergic reactions (localized swelling, especially of the eyelids, cheeks, or lips, skin redness and inflammation), anxiety, confusion, constipation, decreased breathing, delirium, difficulty sleeping, dizziness, drowsiness, excitement, fainting, fever, hallucinations, headache, increased physical activity and muscle movement, irritability and hyperactivity in children, lack of muscle coordination, low blood pressure, muscle, nerve, or joint pain, especially in people with insomnia, nausea, nervousness, nightmares, psychiatric disturbances, rash, residual drowsiness, restlessness, excitement, and delirium when taken for pain, shallow breathing, sleepiness, slow heartbeat, slowdown of the nervous system, sluggishness, softening of bones, temporary cessation of breathing, vertigo, vomiting' (http://www.healthsquare.com/drugmain.htm).

Or how about Viracept? A drug used to fight the HIV virus - its side effects include 'Allergic reaction, arthritis, anxiety, back pain, blood disorders, dehydration, depression, difficulty breathing, dizziness, drowsiness, emotional problems, eye problems, fever, flu-like symptoms, headache, hepatitis, hives, increased or decreased blood sugar, indigestion, itching, joint pain, kidney problems, loss of appetite, migraine, mouth ulcers, muscle pain or cramps, muscle weakness or disorders, nasal and sinus congestion, over activity, pain, seizures, sexual dysfunction, skin rash, skin tingling or numbness, sleep problems, sore throat, stomach and intestinal bleeding, stomach pain, suicidal thoughts, sweating, and vomiting'

This decision was clearly made by an administration that places appearing 'tough on drugs' above the good of society or the good of individuals with life threatening illnesses. I cannot believe the members of the Supreme Court would care more about following the party line than lessening the suffering of fellow human beings. I, for one, again understand the cynical and disgusted view too many citizens have of our government.

 

[Laurel]

I L'dMAO when I read that Justice Clarence Thomas said "It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception." Because we all rely on Congress to determine medical worth, don't we?

Another quote I thought humorous was this:

Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) described the ruling as a victory for U.S. drug enforcement laws and said it clearly ''reaffirms the federal government's preeminent role in regulating controlled substances.''

What happened to "smaller government, more power to the states"? Why would a Supreme Court that claims to be pro-states rights strike down California's ability to legislate itself? "We hate Big Government and want to give power to the states. Except when it comes to education. And abortion. And drugs. And obscenity. And faith-based tax cuts. But everything else should be decided by the states. Unless we decide it shouldn't."

Yes kids, alcohol & tobacco are your friends. Want uppers & downers? Your doctor can legally write you a prescription for any number of addictive narcotics. But don't touch that devil weed!

Meanwhile, Canada's cultivating marijuana for medical purposes - while the U.S. is stuck in this Reefer Madness morality. It's a sad, sad thing.

 

[Purple Haze]

Can you imagine if pot was legal, the tobacco companies would have something else to roll, something that doesn't kill you.

And farmers would prosper, because Hemp is a very useful product that we could take out of the hands of the mob, and grow for ourselves and others if they need it. Sounds too damn good to be true.

The mob would have a tough time staying in business with their crank and their crack and rest of that stuff that travels in a breifcase. It would mean a shift in power, and everybody's afraid of that.





[Edited by Purple Haze on 05-15-2001 at 12:05 AM]

 

[Mensa]

We'd be enlightened if we could only find the switch

While I give our Canadian authorities kudos for heading in the right direction, they couldn't resist proving they're still a bunch of boneheads.

While they approved the use and cultivation of marijuana for medically-approved purposes, there was a caveat. The seed for medical marijuana couldn't come from black-market sources. The reasoning being that until approved by the Government, all marijuana was illegal. To use seeds bought from these sources would be benefitting criminal activity.

Their solution was incredible!! They'd already approved the cultivation of non-hallucinogenic hemp for commercial reasons. This is a close cousin to the illegal marijuana ( the one with the THC kick). So they determined to collect as much hemp as they could that contained high doses of the banned chemical, believing they could develop a strain with a high enough component to serve their purpose.

It never seemed to occur to these pinheads that they had a ready supply of the necessary marijuana in the stuff they'd confiscated in their numerous raids on the illegal growers. Why not simply use this? But no!! That would be too logical. Bureaucrats never take a sensible route when they can travel to never-never land instead!!

They say you get the government you deserve. We must be very, very bad!!

 

[DevilMayCare]

Never - I noticed someone welcoming you back to the board on some thread or another over the last couple of days. I've only been around for a short while so I didn't know you in your last incarnation. From what little I've seen of your posting I'm delighted you're back as well. I appreciate your straight forward posts. I look forward to speaking with you on the board in the future.

DMC

 

[Andra_Jenny]

tee hee

the high court...

SHUDDUP BEAVUS
PROMPTUS RECTUM

 

[Never]

Hello Devil May Care, thanks for the warm welcome. I, like everyone else, like to believe that I bring something to the communities I visit. I look forward to reading your posts as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last night while walking up some stairs I met a gal that was never there.

 

[Purple Haze]

Exposing Marijuana Myths:
A Review of the Scientific Evidence

Lynn Zimmer
Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College

John P. Morgan
Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School


October 1995
© Open Society Institute/The Lindesmith Center

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1920s, supporters of marijuana prohibition have exaggerated the drug's dangers. In different eras, different claims have gained prominence, but few have ever been abandoned. Indeed, many of the "reefer madness" tales that were used to generate support for early anti-marijuana laws continue to appear in government and media reports today.

For a while in the 1970s, it seemed as if scientific inquiries were beginning to influence the government's marijuana policies. Following thorough reviews of the existing evidence by scholars 1 and official commissions, 2 criminal penalties for marijuana offenses were lessened and a number of states moved in the direction of decriminalization. 3 However, in response to lingering concerns about marijuana's potential toxicity, the government expanded its funding of scientific research, mostly through the newly-created National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Probably the most important studies of the 1970s were three large "field studies" in Greece, Costa Rica and Jamaica. These studies, which evaluated the impact of marijuana on users in their natural environments, were supplemented by clinical examinations and laboratory experiments oriented toward answering the questions about marijuana that continued to be debated in the scientific literature. The data from these studies, published in numerous books and scholarly journals, covered such matters as marijuana's effects on the brain, lungs, immune and reproductive systems, its impact on personality, development, and motivational states, and its addictive potential. 4

Although these studies did not answer all remaining questions about marijuana toxicity, they generally supported the idea that marijuana was a relatively safe drug -- not totally free from potential harm, but unlikely to create serious harm for most individual users or society. In the years since, thousands of additional studies have been conducted, many of them funded by NIDA, and together they reaffirm marijuana's substantial margin of safety. Our review of that body of work reveals an occasional study indicating greater toxicity than previously thought. But in nearly all such cases, the methodologies were seriously flawed and the findings could not be replicated by other researchers.

Especially since the 1980s, when the federal government's renewed war on cannabis began, both the funding of marijuana research and the dissemination of its findings have been highly politicized. Indeed, NIDA's role seems to have become one of service to the War on Drugs. Dozens of claims of toxicity appear in its documents, despite the existence of scores of scientific studies refuting their validity. At the same time, studies that fail to find serious toxicity are ignored.

In the following pages, we review the scientific evidence surrounding the most prominent of the anti-marijuana claims.

CLAIM No. 1: MARIJUANA USE IS INCREASING AT AN ALARMING RATE

CLAIM No. 2: MARIJUANA POTENCY HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY

CLAIM No. 3: MARIJUANA IS A DRUG WITHOUT THERAPEUTIC VALUE

CLAIM No. 4: MARIJUANA CAUSES LUNG DISEASE

CLAIM No. 5: MARIJUANA IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTIONING

CLAIM No. 6: MARIJUANA HARMS SEXUAL MATURATION AND REPRODUCTION

CLAIM No. 7: MARIJUANA USE DURING PREGNANCY HARMS THE FETUS

CLAIM No. 8: MARIJUANA CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE

CLAIM No. 9: MARIJUANA IS AN ADDICTIVE DRUG

CLAIM No.10: MARIJUANA-RELATED MEDICAL EMERGENCIES ARE INCREASING

CLAIM No.11: MARIJUANA PRODUCES AN AMOTIVATIONAL SYNDROME

CLAIM No.12: MARIJUANA IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS

CLAIM No.13: MARIJUANA IS A "GATEWAY" TO THE USE OF OTHER DRUGS

CLAIM No.14: DUTCH MARIJUANA POLICY HAS BEEN A FAILURE

__________________________________________

And the rest of the story:

http://my.marijuana.com/myths.php3

 

[ranajja]

I L'dMAO when I read that Justice Clarence Thomas said "It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception." Because we all rely on Congress to determine medical worth, don't we?

Oh, Laurel, my thoughts exactly!

 

[Expertise]

Legalize and regulate.

Normally I take a view that drugs and drug dealers should be dealt with in a way that would make Genghis Khan look like a bleeding heart liberal but not in this case. The benefits far outweigh the downside.

 

[Todd]

A truthful Parody

Exposing Tobacco Myths:
A Review of the Scientific Evidence

Ronald Zimmerman
Associate Professor of Sociology, Kings College

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1920s, supporters of tobacco prohibition have exaggerated the drug's dangers. In different eras, different claims have gained prominence, but few have ever been abandoned. Indeed, many of the "reefer madness" tales that were used to generate support for early anti-tobacco laws continue to appear in government and media reports today.

For a while in the 1970s, it seemed as if scientific inquiries were beginning to influence the government's tobacco policies. Following thorough reviews of the existing evidence by scholars 1 and official commissions, 2 criminal penalties for tobacco offenses were lessened and a number of states moved in the direction of decriminalization. 3 However, in response to lingering concerns about tobaccos's potential toxicity, the government expanded its funding of scientific research, mostly through the newly-created National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Probably the most important studies of the 1970s were three large "field studies" in Greece, Costa Rica and Jamaica. These studies, which evaluated the impact of marijuana on users in their natural environments, were supplemented by clinical examinations and laboratory experiments oriented toward answering the questions about tobacco that continued to be debated in the scientific literature. The data from these studies, published in numerous books and scholarly journals, covered such matters as tobacco's effects on the brain, lungs, immune and reproductive systems, its impact on personality, development, and motivational states, and its addictive potential. 4

Although these studies did not answer all remaining questions about tobacco toxicity, they generally supported the idea that tobacco was a relatively safe drug -- not totally free from potential harm, but unlikely to create serious harm for most individual users or society. In the years since, thousands of additional studies have been conducted, many of them funded by NIDA, and together they reaffirm tobacco's substantial margin of safety. Our review of that body of work reveals an occasional study indicating greater toxicity than previously thought. But in nearly all such cases, the methodologies were seriously flawed and the findings could not be replicated by other researchers.

Especially since the 1980s, when the federal government's renewed war on cannabis began, both the funding of marijuana research and the dissemination of its findings have been highly politicized. Indeed, NIDA's role seems to have become one of service to the War on Drugs. Dozens of claims of toxicity appear in its documents, despite the existence of scores of scientific studies refuting their validity. At the same time, studies that fail to find serious toxicity are ignored.

In the following pages, we review the scientific evidence surrounding the most prominent of the anti-tobacco claims.

CLAIM No. 1: TOBACCO USE IS INCREASING AT AN ALARMING RATE

CLAIM No. 2: TOBACCO POTENCY HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY

CLAIM No. 3: TOBACCO IS A DRUG WITHOUT THERAPEUTIC VALUE

CLAIM No. 4: TOBACCO CAUSES LUNG DISEASE

CLAIM No. 5: TOBACCO IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTIONING

CLAIM No. 6: TOBACCO HARMS SEXUAL MATURATION AND REPRODUCTION

CLAIM No. 7: TOBACCO USE DURING PREGNANCY HARMS THE FETUS

CLAIM No. 8: TOBACCO CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE

CLAIM No. 9: TOBACCO IS AN ADDICTIVE DRUG

CLAIM No.10: TOBACCO-RELATED MEDICAL EMERGENCIES ARE INCREASING

CLAIM No.11: TOBACCO PRODUCES AN AMOTIVATIONAL SYNDROME

CLAIM No.12: TOBACCO IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS

CLAIM No.13: TOBACCO IS A "GATEWAY" TO THE USE OF OTHER DRUGS

CLAIM No.14: DUTCH TOBACCO POLICY HAS BEEN A FAILURE

 

[Purple Haze]

HEMP FACTS

1) Hemp is among the oldest industries on the planet, going back more than 10,000 years to the beginnings of pottery. The Columbia History of the World states that the oldest relic of human industry is a bit of hemp fabric dating back to approximately 8,000 BC.

2) Presidents Washington and Jefferson both grew hemp. Americans were legally bound to grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic. The federal government subsidized hemp during the Second World War and US farmers grew about a million acres of hemp as part of that program.

3) Hemp Seed is far more nutritious than even soybean, contains more essential fatty acids than any other source, is second only to soybeans in complete protein (but is more digestible by humans), is high in B-vitamins, and is 35% dietary fiber. Hemp Seed does not contain THC.

4) The bark of the hemp stalk contains bast fibers which are among the Earth's longest natural soft fibers and are also rich in cellulose; the cellulose and hemi-cellulose in its inner woody core are called hurds. Hemp stalk contains no THC. Hemp fiber is longer, stronger, more absorbent and more insulative than cotton fiber.

5) According to the Department of Energy and Dr. Brooks Kelly, Hemp as a biomass fuel producer requires the least specialized growing and processing procedures of all hemp products. The hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas. Development of biofuels could significantly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

6) Hemp grows well without herbicides, fungicides, or pesticides. Almost half of the agricultural chemicals used on U.S. crops are applied to cotton.

7) Hemp produces more pulp per acre than timber on a sustainable basis, and can be used for every quality of paper. Hemp paper manufacturing can reduce waste-water contamination. Hemp's low lignin content reduces the need for acids used in pulping, and it's creamy color lends itself to environmentally friendly bleaching instead of harsh chlorine compounds. Less bleaching results in less dioxin and fewer chemical by-products.

8) Hemp fiber paper resists decomposition, and does not yellow with age when an acid-free process is used. Hemp paper more than 1,500 years old has been found. It can also be recycled more times.

9) Hemp fiberboard produced by Washington State University was found to be twice as strong as wood-based fiberboard.

10) Eco-friendly hemp can replace most toxic petro-chemical products. Research is being done to use hemp in manufacturing biodegradable plastic products: plant-based cellophane, recycled plastic mixed with hemp for injection-molded products, and resins made from the oil, to name just a very few examples.