Marydoyouwanna Debate

[Townhallsavoy]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/

(CNN) -- Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.

I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.

Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot."

Well, I am here to apologize.

I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.

Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."

They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. Take the case of Charlotte Figi, who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after birth. By age 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different medications. Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures to 2 or 3 per month.

I have seen more patients like Charlotte first hand, spent time with them and come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide the best care we can as a medical community, care that could involve marijuana.

We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.

I hope this article and upcoming documentary will help set the record straight.

On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O. Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as a schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years. My research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What I found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:

"Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."

Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25 years earlier.

High risk of abuse

In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.

We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence in around 9 to 10% of its adult users. By comparison, cocaine, a schedule 2 substance "with less abuse potential than schedule 2 drugs" hooks 20% of those who use it. Around 25% of heroin users become addicted.
The worst is tobacco, where the number is closer to 30% of smokers, many of whom go on to die because of their addiction.

There is clear evidence that in some people marijuana use can lead to withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea. Even considering this, it is hard to make a case that it has a high potential for abuse. The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like those of the other drugs I've mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from alcohol, and it can be life threatening.

I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young, developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible heightened risk of developing psychosis.

Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed.

Medical benefit

While investigating, I realized something else quite important. Medical marijuana is not new, and the medical community has been writing about it for a long time. There were in fact hundreds of journal articles, mostly documenting the benefits. Most of those papers, however, were written between the years 1840 and 1930. The papers described the use of medical marijuana to treat "neuralgia, convulsive disorders, emaciation," among other things.

A search through the U.S. National Library of Medicine this past year pulled up nearly 20,000 more recent papers. But the majority were research into the harm of marijuana, such as "Bad trip due to anticholinergic effect of cannabis," or "Cannabis induced pancreatitits" and "Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer."

In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture.

The challenges of marijuana research

To do studies on marijuana in the United States today, you need two important things.
First of all, you need marijuana. And marijuana is illegal. You see the problem. Scientists can get research marijuana from a special farm in Mississippi, which is astonishingly located in the middle of the Ole Miss campus, but it is challenging. When I visited this year, there was no marijuana being grown.

The second thing you need is approval, and the scientists I interviewed kept reminding me how tedious that can be. While a cancer study may first be evaluated by the National Cancer Institute, or a pain study may go through the National Institute for Neurological Disorders, there is one more approval required for marijuana: NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It is an organization that has a core mission of studying drug abuse, as opposed to benefit.

Stuck in the middle are the legitimate patients who depend on marijuana as a medicine, oftentimes as their only good option.

Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United States drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed was neuropathic pain. It is a miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have described it as "lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles." While marijuana has long been documented to be effective for this awful pain, the most common medications prescribed today come from the poppy plant, including morphine, oxycodone and dilaudid.

Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well for this kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem.

Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United States every 19 minutes from a prescription drug overdose, mostly accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana overdose.

It is perhaps no surprise then that 76% of physicians recently surveyed said they would approve the use of marijuana to help ease a woman's pain from breast cancer.

When marijuana became a schedule 1 substance, there was a request to fill a "void in our knowledge." In the United States, that has been challenging because of the infrastructure surrounding the study of an illegal substance, with a drug abuse organization at the heart of the approval process. And yet, despite the hurdles, we have made considerable progress that continues today.

Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana and its components. I'm intrigued by the neuro-protective study by Lev Meschoulam in Israel, and research in Israel and the United States on whether the drug might help alleviate symptoms of PTSD. I promise to do my part to help, genuinely and honestly, fill the remaining void in our knowledge.

Citizens in 20 states and the District of Columbia have now voted to approve marijuana for medical applications, and more states will be making that choice soon. As for Dr. Roger Egeberg, who wrote that letter in 1970, he passed away 16 years ago.

I wonder what he would think if he were alive today.

[AUChizad]

Duh.

[GH2001]

Legalization has been stifled by the efforts of the tobacco industry and big pharma. Who both lobby DC to keep it illegal.

[Townhallsavoy]

Legalization has been stifled by the efforts of the tobacco industry and big pharma. Who both lobby DC to keep it illegal.

But that seems strange.  Wouldn't the tobacco companies be prime for dominating the marijuana market if it became legal? 

They already have the fields and the marketing strategies and the ability to profit off smoking. 

[dallaswareagle]

But that seems strange.  Wouldn't the tobacco companies be prime for dominating the marijuana market if it became legal? 

They already have the fields and the marketing strategies and the ability to profit off smoking.

I am just guessing at this but I feel that todays Govt would be the one trying to run the show and collect the revenues. 

[WiregrassTiger]

So, you wanna buy some weed?

[Token]

But that seems strange.  Wouldn't the tobacco companies be prime for dominating the marijuana market if it became legal? 

They already have the fields and the marketing strategies and the ability to profit off smoking. 

How hard is it to grow tobacco?  Serious question. It's easy as hell to grow weed, why buy it at the store when I can grow it for free?

[WiregrassTiger]

How hard is it to grow tobacco?  Serious question. It's easy as hell to grow weed, why buy it at the store when I can grow it for free?

You grow it for free? I have an elaborate system of hydroponics, lighting, electronics, etc. that runs up quite a hefty monthly tab. Especially the degree that I have to go to for my attic to remain undetectable.

[Token]

You grow it for free? I have an elaborate system of hydroponics, lighting, electronics, etc. that runs up quite a hefty monthly tab. Especially the degree that I have to go to for my attic to remain undetectable.

And that's the difference between personal use and distribution.

[AUChizad]

It doesn't sound like many people disagree with me on this particular subject anymore, which may be more of a function of GarMan & Tarheel not posting on here anymore.

But did anyone catch Gupta's CNN special last night?

Good stuff. Highly recommend, especially if you doubt the safety or legitimacy of its medical usage.



Recommend watching it sooner rather than later, because I wouldn't be surprised if CNN takes it down before too long, since it's the whole thing on YouTube.

[Saniflush]

I'm just tired of debating you on it. 
I have never had a problem with any of it as a personal choice. 
I have a problem with people justifying it's use by comparing it to the sale of alcohol or some other item that is already legal.   Let it stand or fall on it's own.  Better yet get the fucking feds out of it and let the individual states decide what they want to do, but that won't happen.  There are too many people in the country that want the government to take care of them.

[AUChizad]

I'm just tired of debating you on it. 
I have never had a problem with any of it as a personal choice. 
I have a problem with people justifying it's use by comparing it to the sale of alcohol or some other item that is already legal.   Let it stand or fall on it's own.  Better yet get the fucking feds out of it and let the individual states decide what they want to do, but that won't happen.  There are too many people in the country that want the government to take care of them.

Watch the video.

And it does stand on its own. It's safe. Zero recorded overdoses. If you want to make it illegal, you'd have to convince me that it's more dangerous than hamburgers, let alone alcohol. That burden's on those that demand prohibition. I don't understand the disdain for comparing it to the billion legal things that are inherently more dangerous and less beneficial. If someone wanted to outlaw french fries, you'd make the same arguments because they point out how glaringly insanely retarded and hypocritical a ban on them are.

And just so we're clear, you're saying that the argument that a harmless substance should be banned by the government because of a belief devoid of fact that it's "dangerous" and you need the government to protect you from this evil substance, is one of liberty. All those who oppose are socialists who "want the government to take care of them", by NOT playing nanny and taking away this faux "dangerous" substance or sending you to jail.

Got it.

[Saniflush]

Watch the video.

And it does stand on its own. It's safe. Zero recorded overdoses. If you want to make it illegal, you'd have to convince me that it's more dangerous than hamburgers, let alone alcohol. That burden's on those that demand prohibition. I don't understand the disdain for comparing it to the billion legal things that are inherently more dangerous and less beneficial. If someone wanted to outlaw french fries, you'd make the same arguments because they point out how glaringly insanely retarded and hypocritical a ban on them are.

And just so we're clear, you're saying that the argument that a harmless substance should be banned by the government because of a belief devoid of fact that it's "dangerous" and you need the government to protect you from this evil substance, is one of liberty. All those who oppose are socialists who "want the government to take care of them", by NOT playing nanny and taking away this faux "dangerous" substance or sending you to jail.

Got it.

What I believe is that a GROUP of people decides what's best for themselves and their own situation.  It has been proven time and again that the smaller the group, the closer to the actual wants of the people get conveyed. In the current form of government the smallest group that would really be able to decide this is by state.

Once again you miss my point, that I truly don't fucking care but it should be left up to individuals or as close to individuals that you can get.  There are fucktards on all sides of the political forum that want more government when it suits their needs or interests.  All I'm saying is take fucking government out of it as much as you can to begin with.

[AUChizad]

What I believe is that a GROUP of people decides what's best for themselves and their own situation.  It has been proven time and again that the smaller the group, the closer to the actual wants of the people get conveyed. In the current form of government the smallest group that would really be able to decide this is by state.

Once again you miss my point, that I truly don't fucking care but it should be left up to individuals or as close to individuals that you can get.  There are fucktards on all sides of the political forum that want more government when it suits their needs or interests.  All I'm saying is take fucking government out of it as much as you can to begin with.

Which is exactly the argument for legalization.

You're trying to fit your political ideology of limited government, into a place where it doesn't fit, which is by advocating prohibition of a harmless substance which is the height of "nanny state", "big government", "big brother", and everything you don't believe in.

Our country has been systematically lied to for 70+ years about what a dangerous and "immoral" substance marijuana is, thus the fundamentalist Republicans have to oppose, no matter how hypocritical and devoid of logic it may be. I can read you struggling with that as you type, as evidenced by trying to shoehorn an argument that removing laws (federal or state-level) that incarcerate people for using or possessing marijuana is somehow less freedom, and less government overreach than having laws on the books prohibiting it.

[AUChizad]

What I believe is that a GROUP of people decides what's best for themselves and their own situation.  It has been proven time and again that the smaller the group, the closer to the actual wants of the people get conveyed. In the current form of government the smallest group that would really be able to decide this is by state.

Oh, and the "smallest group" are those that want to see marijuana remain illegal.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/04/17603170-survey-52-percent-of-americans-in-favor-of-legalizing-marijuana?lite

Fifty-two percent of Americans say the use of marijuana should be made legal, while 45 percent say it should not, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March among 1,501 adults. People aged 18 to 32 are the most supportive group, but half of baby boomers now favor legalizing marijuana, too.

And that's WITH the propaganda and lies being fed to them.

[AUTiger1]

Meh, I still think if we took Portugal's drug policy and tweaked it, we could still legalize more than just weed, but I can live with legalizing weed alone. 

[Saniflush]

You're trying to fit your political ideology of limited government, into a place where it doesn't fit, which is by advocating prohibition of a harmless substance which is the height of "nanny state", "big government", "big brother", and everything you don't believe in.

My ideology of government fits fine here.  Let the closest thing to individuals (states) decided for themselves.  When I said smallest group I was referring to a state.ie the smallest group of voting public that might actually have a leg to stand on if they vote to make it legal.

 

[AUChizad]

Meh, I still think if we took Portugal's drug policy and tweaked it, we could still legalize more than just weed, but I can live with legalizing weed alone.

Agree. But I can see and understand both sides of the debate outside of weed. There is only one side of the marijuana debate that is not completely illogical, ignorant, and ill-informed. That's why it riles me up. That's why it's insane to me that we keep overpopulating our prisons for what is essentially a miracle drug with plenty of vital benefits (watch the video), can be bred for medicinal use to have essentially no intoxicating effect, unlike morphine and tons of other pharmaceuticals that can kill people, and there is evidence now leaning toward likelihood that it can literally cure cancer. Yet, the current laws make it nearly impossible to even do the necessary research to prove this because it's "devil's weed". So sayeth William Randolph Hearst, so it shall be until the end of time.

[AUChizad]

My ideology of government fits fine here.  Let the closest thing to individuals (states) decided for themselves.  When I said smallest group I was referring to a state.ie the smallest group of voting public that might actually have a leg to stand on if they vote to make it legal.

The closest thing to individuals are individuals.

[Saniflush]

The closest thing to individuals are individuals.

The closest thing to individuals currently that would be able to make this fly and possibly have a chance of standing up to the federal government on the issue are individual states and their voters. 

I agree that an individual would be better but I live in the reality that in order for it to be legalized a state is going to have to do it themselves.  The only time the federal government is going to get on this bandwagon is when enough states have passed it and they then realize all the tax revenue they are missing out on. 

So once again, you want it passed overall? 

Get the states to decide they want it and the gubment gonna want dey money and pass it.