Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because not EVERYONE smokes weed. Even if it's legal, there's still going to be people who are ignorant of its potential. Maybe a doctor might see the symptoms and say "before we stick you on pharmaceuticals with potentially serious side effects, try smoking a joint, and let me know how you feel".My point exactly. Thank you.
Just legalize it. Don't put medical science in the middle of it.
So if weed was completely legalized, you would prefer that a doctor still not be allowed to recommend weed to a patient on the record?
If weed were legalized, then why would a Doctor even need to be involved? People have been using alcohol for centuries for "stage freight" or "social anxiety". You get it at a bar, no the doctors office.
But to answer your question: yes.
I'm pretty sure depakote is prescribed for bi-polar. I've known it to be stacked with lexapro for that indication in a friend of mine, but maybe it was an anti-seizure for another of her medications.
And therein lies another problem. You get the drug for the initial symptom, and then you get a host of other drugs to combat all the side effects of all the drugs.
At a certain point it just becomes ridiculous, face palm style.
Because not EVERYONE smokes weed. Even if it's legal, there's still going to be people who are ignorant of its potential. Maybe a doctor might see the symptoms and say "before we stick you on pharmaceuticals with potentially serious side effects, try smoking a joint, and let me know how you feel".So if weed was completely legalized, you would prefer that a doctor still not be allowed to recommend weed to a patient on the record?
If weed were legalized, then why would a Doctor even need to be involved? People have been using alcohol for centuries for "stage freight" or "social anxiety". You get it at a bar, no the doctors office.
But to answer your question: yes.
It doesn't have to be an official prescription, just a recommendation.
I'm pretty sure depakote is prescribed for bi-polar. I've known it to be stacked with lexapro for that indication in a friend of mine, but maybe it was an anti-seizure for another of her medications.
And therein lies another problem. You get the drug for the initial symptom, and then you get a host of other drugs to combat all the side effects of all the drugs.
At a certain point it just becomes ridiculous, face palm style.
You are right. It is a mood stabilizer, like Lithium or Carbamazipine (another anticonvulsant).
That's not what it's best use is, but it is used for that.
I totally agree with your second point. I am not saying MJ is useless. I am just saying either do the bench research on it and prove the claims or just legalize it and let people use it as they see fit.
It's not any worse than tobacco and alcohol.
I'm pretty sure depakote is prescribed for bi-polar. I've known it to be stacked with lexapro for that indication in a friend of mine, but maybe it was an anti-seizure for another of her medications.
And therein lies another problem. You get the drug for the initial symptom, and then you get a host of other drugs to combat all the side effects of all the drugs.
At a certain point it just becomes ridiculous, face palm style.
You are right. It is a mood stabilizer, like Lithium or Carbamazipine (another anticonvulsant).
That's not what it's best use is, but it is used for that.
I totally agree with your second point. I am not saying MJ is useless. I am just saying either do the bench research on it and prove the claims or just legalize it and let people use it as they see fit.
It's not any worse than tobacco and alcohol.
Well, we're close enough in opinion on it that continuing the debate is probably pointless. You're a legalization advocate, which is good enough for me.
It's funny, the turn my life took. I used to sit around on a Friday night USING these drugs, now I sit around on the internet and debate about them instead
Because not EVERYONE smokes weed. Even if it's legal, there's still going to be people who are ignorant of its potential. Maybe a doctor might see the symptoms and say "before we stick you on pharmaceuticals with potentially serious side effects, try smoking a joint, and let me know how you feel".If weed were legalized, then why would a Doctor even need to be involved? People have been using alcohol for centuries for "stage freight" or "social anxiety". You get it at a bar, no the doctors office.
But to answer your question: yes.
It doesn't have to be an official prescription, just a recommendation.
If it's legal, then there is no problem with that.
It's akin to something I often hear:
"I could write you a script for "prescription strength 800 mg Ibuproffin", or you could go to Wal Mart and buy the 200 mg capsules and take four of them at a time and save yourself about $50."
You are right. It is a mood stabilizer, like Lithium or Carbamazipine (another anticonvulsant).
That's not what it's best use is, but it is used for that.
I totally agree with your second point. I am not saying MJ is useless. I am just saying either do the bench research on it and prove the claims or just legalize it and let people use it as they see fit.
It's not any worse than tobacco and alcohol.
Well, we're close enough in opinion on it that continuing the debate is probably pointless. You're a legalization advocate, which is good enough for me.
It's funny, the turn my life took. I used to sit around on a Friday night USING these drugs, now I sit around on the internet and debate about them instead
Yeah and then you're going to start ARRESTING people for using them on a Friday night.
Because not EVERYONE smokes weed. Even if it's legal, there's still going to be people who are ignorant of its potential. Maybe a doctor might see the symptoms and say "before we stick you on pharmaceuticals with potentially serious side effects, try smoking a joint, and let me know how you feel".
It doesn't have to be an official prescription, just a recommendation.
If it's legal, then there is no problem with that.
It's akin to something I often hear:
"I could write you a script for "prescription strength 800 mg Ibuproffin", or you could go to Wal Mart and buy the 200 mg capsules and take four of them at a time and save yourself about $50."
The difference though, is that I think the 200mg's have other crap in them that the 800mg doesn't, or at least doesn't have as much of.
It's kind of like APAP in percocets. You can pop four 5mg percs and get your 20mg fix, but then you're popping 4x as much APAP with it and torturing your liver.
But you can pop a 20mg perc, and get the reduced APAP in proportion.
If it's legal, then there is no problem with that.
It's akin to something I often hear:
"I could write you a script for "prescription strength 800 mg Ibuproffin", or you could go to Wal Mart and buy the 200 mg capsules and take four of them at a time and save yourself about $50."
The difference though, is that I think the 200mg's have other crap in them that the 800mg doesn't, or at least doesn't have as much of.
It's kind of like APAP in percocets. You can pop four 5mg percs and get your 20mg fix, but then you're popping 4x as much APAP with it and torturing your liver.
But you can pop a 20mg perc, and get the reduced APAP in proportion.
No, ibuproffen is ibuproffen. The difference is one is four pills and the other is one. It does the same thing to your liver in the end.
Percocet is different as it is cut with acetaminophen. You are right, to get 20 mg of narcotic from percocet, you have to ingest a shit-ton of tyelnol. Ibuproffin is just ibuproffen.
Source? Anecdotal evidence from someone's grandma is not "proven" anything.Cannabis has been proven to help slow down the onset of Alzheimer's disease.
It's also been proven pretty effective for those with PTSD.
Check Harvard Medical and the Royal British Medical Society for that.
Except they're not. They may be FOR YOU, but they have individual side effect profiles and physiologic effects. The theme of all of your posts in this thread is anecdotal evidence. You appear to take the very limited world knowledge you have acquired and generalize it as applying to everything. It doesn't. Your knowledge is insignificantly minuscule. Show me a study with some statistical power behind it and THEN come tell me about your conclusions.Having used both crystal meth, and Ritalin...as well as Adderall...I can tell you first hand that they most certainly ARE the same thing.
That much is clear. Generalizable evidence doesn't seem to matter so much as anecdotal instances.But I don't personally care about peer reviews, and educational text books, and whatever the AMA thinks about something.
And how long have you smoked pot? How much have you paid over your lifetime? And if you LEGALIZE it, which shareholders do you think will be getting your money? This point is absurd. You're paying for it either way. Don't complain just because regulated companies make money instead of your local dealer.If I self medicate with marijuana to combat depression, I might be masking the problem, but at least I'm not establishing a serious physical dependence on some complex chemical compound.
The people I know that take depakote, or lexapro, or what have you...are basically expected to be taking them for their entire lives. That's not "fixing" anything.
That's lining the pockets of the shareholders of Abbots and Forest.
Yes, that anecdotal scenario is ridiculous, which brings us back to the theme of your posts.And therein lies another problem. You get the drug for the initial symptom, and then you get a host of other drugs to combat all the side effects of all the drugs.
At a certain point it just becomes ridiculous, face palm style.
Yeah, I've heard that a lot too, but here they have a decent reason for it, though I realize it doesn't translate to other areas. By me, 800 gets prescribed because some people's insurance cover it and the insurance companies haven't caught on yet."I could write you a script for "prescription strength 800 mg Ibuproffin", or you could go to Wal Mart and buy the 200 mg capsules and take four of them at a time and save yourself about $50."
Prior to passage of the Harrison Act in 1937, which criminalized marijuana, an over-the-counter preparation called Lydia Pinkum's Women's Tonic was sold in drug stores and was used by virtually every post-adolescent woman in America because it was the most effective relief for menstrual discomfort available with or without a prescription. It was made from cannabis (marijuana) extract, licorice oil and honey.Every pro-legalization argument has been beaten into horse mush for years. The logic and stats are in its favor. But not much is going to happen at the Fed level as long as the incarceration industry has as much influence as it does now. A lot of jobs and funding would be lost if all weights of weed became completely legal.
This is actually a pretty good theory for its continued illegality, but doesn't really even scratch the surface in reality.
This ignores the pharmaceutical industry's potential for losses, not to mention all the industries that would suffer from hemp industrialization.
I doubt the pharmaceuticals would suffer much. There isn't a lot of good evidenced based medicine for MJ as a medical remedy for much else than an appetite stimulant for HIV or Chemo patients.
It does a phenomenal job for that indication, the rest of the things it is being used for (i.e. anxiety and fibromyalgia) are just bullshit excuses for people to get weed.
No wonder there wasn't a sense of urgency in California. If you are Doctor, you can also be someone's pot dealer if you just lose your sense of medical ethics.
And you have a poor understanding of the issue if you can't see the impact legal marijuana will have on the Economy, beginning with the fact that the majority of inmates in American prisons are there for marijuana offenses. Consider not only the cost of this wrongful and unnecessary confinement but the cost of police and court processing to get these people, who represent absolutely no threat to society, into prison.You have a poor understanding of economics if you think that a single new product legally on the market is going to help, and you have a poor understanding of medicine if you think marijuana would be used for ANYTHING past HIV and maybe cancer.
That is true -- at this time.despite what the Medical Marijuana crowd tells you, smoking MJ isn't a health activity. I'll buy the fact that you can use it in brownies or vaporizers, but that doesn't seem to be as popular.
Because, as you know, a primary side-effect of most cancer chemo is the nauseous inability to keep anything swallowed down, including a pill and some water. But inhalation of potent marijuana smoke instantly eliminates that problem and enables the chemo recipient to eat. So the bottom-line is Marinol probably would work fine if it could be smoked.[...]
Why did marinol never catch on for chemo patients? I've seen Marinol used once on an AIDS (not HIV but AIDS) patient as an appetite stimulant.
Luckily for us, we have advanced our pharmaceuticals and medicine since 1937, which provide superior pain relief, many of which do not have sedating effects.Prior to passage of the Harrison Act in 1937, which criminalized marijuana, an over-the-counter preparation called Lydia Pinkum's Women's Tonic was sold in drug stores and was used by virtually every post-adolescent woman in America because it was the most effective relief for menstrual discomfort available with or without a prescription. It was made from cannabis (marijuana) extract, licorice oil and honey.
The fact still remains that sedation is not medically indicated in either of those examples. This returns us to the fact that marijuana really is rarely indicated EVER, and yet people like you with absolutely no medical knowledge continue to come up with these unfounded reasons to use it.The effect of marijuana on the human organism is best described as a euphoric tranquilizer. In fact there is no more effective tranquilizer available anywhere and it is not addictive nor can one overdose on it. The same cannot be said for Valium or any of its knock-off prescription tranquilizers -- which collectively represents one of the most commonly used and profitable products peddled by the pharmaceutical industry.
If you need evidence of the effectiveness just obtain some good marijuana brownies or tea and when you need a tranquilizer, or when your wife or girl-friend is suffering from the monthly blues, you'll have all the proof you need within a few minutes.
all complete unsupported speculationThe reason pot brownies (or any number of other edible forms of ingestion) and vaporizers are not popular is the suppressive effect of prohibition. If marijuana were legally available there would emerge a competitive abundance of delightful pot-laced foods (and teas) which soon would establish preference over smoking as the presently expedient form of ingestion. (And vaporizers would be sold on QVC and HSN.)
I'm not saying it won't shunt some money to the government. I'm saying it's foolish to believe that legalizing ONE substance is somehow going to act as a cure-all for an economy in crisis, just as it's foolish to believe legalized marijuana will be a cure-all for medical conditions. It's not.And you have a poor understanding of the issue if you can't see the impact legal marijuana will have on the Economy, beginning with the fact that the majority of inmates in American prisons are there for marijuana offenses. Consider not only the cost of this wrongful and unnecessary confinement but the cost of police and court processing to get these people, who represent absolutely no threat to society, into prison.
You mean to tell me that there are almost as many marijuana smokers in this country as tobacco smokers? Alright, let's ignore that point to do the math, as you suggest: $500,000,000 per month, or $6B per year. Let's say all instead of half of your completely fabricated numbers purchased marijuana, making it $12B/year. Your "economy saver" just increased the GDP by 0.08%. Even with completely fabricated numbers biased towards your point, it neither addresses the underlying issues with the economy, NOR actually puts significant money into it. Yes, it may be a big number compared to your yearly salary, but it's insignificant to the American economy.Consider that an estimated forty million Americans each use approximately one ounce of marijuana per month. If only half that number each purchased an ounce of legal marijuana every month with an average federal tax attachment of $25, that's twenty million times $25 every month.
Do the math
So let's just drop the pretense already. You just want to legalize pot for your own personal gratification. It has nothing to do with medicine or the economy, so please drop the ridiculous excuses, conjecture, and unsupported anecdotal garbage
Back in the 30s, William Randolph Hearst was a newspaper tycoon who had invested very heavily in timber fields and a huge plant where raw timber was turned into newsprint. Then someone invented a process whereby a superior grade of newsprint could be made at far less cost and with none of the polluting effects of the harsh chemicals used to reduce timber. The material used in this process is hemp, which is the first cousin of cannabis -- marijuana.My understanding was it was deemed illegal because Dow Corning didn't like hemp as a competitor.
The estimate of how many Americans use marijuana is not mine but is NORML's and is based on DEA estimates of how much marijuana is grown in and imported into the U.S. per annum.You mean to tell me that there are almost as many marijuana smokers in this country as tobacco smokers? Alright, let's ignore that point to do the math, as you suggest: $500,000,000 per month, or $6B per year. Let's say all instead of half of your completely fabricated numbers purchased marijuana, making it $12B/year. Your "economy saver" just increased the GDP by 0.08%. Even with completely fabricated numbers biased towards your point, it neither addresses the underlying issues with the economy, NOR actually puts significant money into it. Yes, it may be a big number compared to your yearly salary, but it's insignificant to the American economy.
