Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This doesn't make very much sense, let's break this down:

 

scenario one - prohibition: illegality ensures the only people in society with the resources and wherewithal to create and market cannabis-based medicines are large pharmaceutical corporations, government protects this storied industry's monopoly by throwing people that want to create or use their own cannabis medicines in jail.

 

scenario two - legalization: anyone that wants to create or use cannabis-based medicines is free to do so, one does not require the resources of an MNC on their side to engage in the practice of doing so, many more people are able to medicate without having to rely on pharma corporations.

 

which scenario does the industry prefer? hmmmmm ... tough one!

 

Scenario 1: Safe.

Scenario 2: Unsafe.

Self medicating therapies are notoriously bad. People tout the benefits of Coenzyme Q, but there is no substantiated evidence that it does ANYTHING whatsoever. St. John's Wort interacts with just about every drug out there. People taking herbals and not disclosing it to their primary care physician and pharmacist is one of the biggest reasons for side effects to drugs including overdoses, toxicities, serious adverse events, and death.

 

So yes, pharmaceutical grade preparations are VASTLY superior because a predictable quantity of THC can be delivered with a high degree of accuracy based on your own individual metabolism. Botanical marijuana does NOT allow you to do this. So you are WRONG AGAIN.

 

Its really funny you say that big bad pharma does nothing to keep people safe but when I tout the importance of safety, you ignore it.

 

 

 

also it's funny that ankur supports eating a bowl full of vioxx for breakfast but thinks relaxing with a blunt afterwards is OMGZ BAD BAD NEWS!

 

Its kinda funny you mention that. The risk ratio that pulled Vioxx off the market was less than 2. There is a 79% increased risk of cardiac event after taking Vioxx. This is in at-risk patients because of the natural process relating inflammatory arthritis with cardiac risk.

 

There is a 480% increased risk of cardiac event after smoking pot. This is in the general population. Risk in at-risk patients would be astronomically higher because of the undue stress placed on the heart as a product of ischemia, autonomic cycling and thrombogenesis.

 

So yes, lets recap this: you blast Merck for lax safety standards for putting a drug out that causes 79% more heart attacks, but support marijuana which causes 480% more heart attacks.

 

And for the last time, I DO NOT WORK FOR MERCK AND HAVE NEVER HELD ITS STOCK. I work for Merck's competitors. I have every interest in seeing Merck go down, but I will defend scientifically accurate information. And in this case, Merck is correct. Until late in the game there was NO statistically significant information which indicated a higher risk of myocardial infarction. I stand by that because ALL of the studies you posted AND ALL of the studies I posted all state that same thing: Merck could not have known of a higher risk of myocardial infarction early on.

 

I am not a Merck lackey or a pharmaceutical lackey. I work in the industry and I am a scientist. I support ethically sound research (see Cargo Cult Science, the basis of my most famous debate argument, by Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winning physicist-philosopher and my hero), and accurate representation of scientific information. Stop trying to portray me as anything but a responsible scientist.

 

As usual, you lose. Just give up already.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, the following is why physicians are experts in diagnosis and surgery - they are NOT experts in drug therapy - that is the pharmacist's expertise. If you have questions about your medications, ask a pharmacist. Its time physicians give pharmacists their due; pharmacists have been covering doctor's butts for decades. And in case you didn't know, pharmacists today are also doctors - they are doctors of pharmacy and are no less 'doctors' than doctors of medicine, dentistry or ophthalmology.

 

my arguments are solid and based on pharmacological data. there are countless compounds that you could substitute for the word "marijuana" in the quote above, and it would still mean the same thing. it doesn't mean those substances should never be used.

 

like i mentioned in my first post, there are cases where i think it's obvious mm is a bad idea. such as antidepressants. such as anything that disrupts the intake of more important medication.

 

like i mentioned in my last post, the two enzymes you mentioned that mm interacts with were terrible examples of drug interaction. the other medications more than likely can be substrates in other enzymes. or, if not, the metabolism rate would just be slowed down. other painkilling medications more than likely cause even more of a negative effect. not to mention if mm is the only thing the patient is on there is no risk for dangerous interactions.

 

You are mixing things up horribly. I am sorry, but it is painfully obvious to me that you have forgotten the bulk of your pharmacology. Its not merely that there are interactions, but there is no way to know the magnitude of interaction with smokable marijuana - ONLY with pharmaceutical preparations can one have this knowledge. This is very important because known magnitude of interaction can have doses titrated to improve patient safety. Unknown magnitude means that you open yourself to unknown levels of risk which can be large or small. This is why we pharmacists take class on pharmacokinetics so we can learn how to dose drugs precisely and accurately to manage these interactions! Doctors don't take these classes!

 

Yes, there are many antidepressants that would interact with disease therapy - but there are other antidepressants that do NOT interact. Lorazepam, a benzodiazepine antidepressant, for example, is glucoronidated not metabolized by p450 enzymes. As such, plasma concentrations of THC and lorazepam are independently regulated. There is no significant interaction between the two.

 

Marijuana on the other hand, going through 3A4 and 2C9 will interact with greater than half of all drugs in existence. Those two enzymes are responsible for about ~40% and ~20% of all drug metabolic pathways, respectively. So no, they are not poor examples.

 

The problem is not that marijuana is unique in that it is metabolized by 3A4 and 2C9 (obvious because the two account for ~ 60% of all drug metabolism); its that the overwhelming majority of common drugs used to treat the diseases for which one could prescribe marijuana also use those same enzymes AND that the interaction cannot be managed with botanical marijuana whether you smoke it or vaporize it (see later section on vaporizers in this post). See the list I provided on this post. The overwhelming majority of patients 'needing' marijuana are cancer and HIV patients - the two populations (other than transplant) most at risk of opportunistic fungal infections and marijuana interacts with the best antifungals we have and some of the macrolide antibiotics which are among the best antibiotics we have as well. We don't even know the precise metabolic routes of so many drugs on the market other than that they are metabolized by the liver.

 

As you are admit, one should not prescribe marijuana if it interferes with the therapy drugs - and thats the ENTIRE point I am making. It interferes with almost all of the drugs used to treat HIV, cancer, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis - the four main diseases for which doctors 'prescribe' marijuana.

 

Why you continue to argue against me on this point is beyond me. Marijuana use in patients is inherently dangerous because of potentially lethal drug interactions. If anything, pharmaceutical marijuana is "acceptable" because if the interaction is known and the patient's metabolic panel is known, we can titrate the therapy drug and marijuana so that the therapy for the disease is successful AND treatment of disease symptoms and therapy side effects by marijuana can be experienced by the patient.

 

I still have reservations with Marinol because it still interacts and I don;t think it should be dispensed outside a clinical setting (currently, with prescription, you can pick it up in community pharmacies). But its VASTLY superior to botanical marijuana because the drug interaction can sometimes be managed AND it avoids the perils of smoking. There is no more debate to be had on it. Its scientific fact - botanical marijuana is inherently dangerous because we can never know its concentration of THC which will interact with drug therapies whereas pharmaceutical THC is a known quantity and the doses of therapy and Marinol can be titrated to appropriate levels to ensure that both disease and side effects are properly treated.

 

 

Crohn's Disease/IBD & Diverticulitis

There is no evidence that marijuana is a treatment of Crohn's or IBD. It does, however, produce some benefits for treatment of side effects. Some of the common side effects include pain, nausea, frequent defecation, and the indirect benefit, weight gain. Pain and nausea can be successfully treated without the use of marijuana. Marijuana slows gastric emptying; but so do a lot of other drugs designed to slow gastric emptying. Zofran (ondansetron), for example, is a serotonin receptor antagonist which will slow gastric emptying, and it is one of the best antiemetics and cures for nausea on the market. Pain can be managed PRN by any one of the hundreds or thousands of drugs in the analgesic category. In a side by side comparison, oral pharmaceutical THC was equiefficacious in promoting feeding and weight gain, equiefficacious in treating pain and produced a 'high' only 10% of the time. So with Crohn's disease, there is still no reason to smoke marijuana. (btw, ondansetron is metabolized by 3A4, but with a known dose of the drug and therapy drugs and knowledge of the patient's metabolic panel, we can titrate ondansetron and therapy drugs accordingly - this cannot be done with botanical marijuana).

 

I havent studied diverticulitis yet, so I have no idea what drugs are prescribed for it beyond the general class of antibiotics, antiinflammatories etc. Typically, surgery is required to reconstruct the large colon and rectum anyways, so I am not sure what the purpose of marijuana would be other than pain - and as I said before, pain can be managed by any one of a hundred or thousand analgesics.

 

 

Vaporizers

Again, in theory, a vaporizer is better. But there is no evidence that the rates of respiratory diseases are less when smokers use vaporizers. So the current 'evidence' for vaporizer use is anecdotal. Granted, there is no evidence against it, but there is also no evidence for it.

 

Furthermore, as I keep repeating, there is no way to know the precise amount of THC one inhales by smoking OR vaporizing. As a result, the drug interactions CANNOT be managed. ONLY by pharmaceutical preparations can we make a real effort at controlling the drug interactions by titrating doses.

 

So while vaporizing may or may not prevent ischemic events, it still doesnt get over the hurdle of drug interactions that oral pharmaceutical preparations does. Thus, pharmaceutical THC is still better than smokeable/vaporizable botanical marijuana.

 

 

Palliative Care

I did NOT change my mind. I have said from the beginning that in my opinion the ONLY medically justified use of marijuana is for palliative care. The reason I think palliative care is an excellent use for marijuana is because marijuana is a good analgesic and negligible amount of tolerance is built to both side effects and THC. In contrast, patients taking opiates in palliative care, which is the current standard, have a tendency to develop extraordinarily high tolerance to opiates (some have taken as high as 35000 mg of morphine/day - enough to kill 350 normal healthy people!). Furthermore, palliative care is end-of-life care: we aren't worried about damaging lungs or causing ischemic events. We are only trying to make death less painful while prolonging life.

 

One of the biggest fears I have, and pharmaceutical companies in general tend to have, is that if marijuana is legalized for palliative care, doctors will prescribe it for these other conditions as 'off label' use - but the off label use is inherently dangerous. I would totally support medical marijuana for palliative care use only, if I was somehow assured that it would be used for no other purpose. But you and I know that even if it had strict prescribing rules, doctors would flount those laws anyways.

 

 

Patient Choice

I am all for patient choice. I would never ignore the patient's desires. As I said before, it doesnt do me any good to give a patient some drugs that they simply refuse to take. But in order to be a responsible clinician, I must put the patient's well-being and safety first and balance the risk against the benefits. As things stand now with current scientific evidence, the risk of prescribing marijuana for the diseases mentioned is high and there is no reason for me to ever agree to endangering the patient's life or health by advocating its use when there are other alternatives which are just as good as marijuana and do not carry the same dangers.

 

You keep saying that other drugs have the same dangers and as I keep repeating, those dangers can be managed because there are some drugs that DONT have those dangers and the ones that do can be titrated because they are of known concentration.

 

This is why I am comfortable saying no to filling prescriptions for marijuana (if the day comes) but if some other pharmacist wants to fill it and some physician wants to prescribe it, that's fine. But this is not comparable to a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill. Its not my personal belief set which is preventing me from advocating its use - its a scientific, evidence-based concern for safety of my patients.

 

On a personal note - You're a doctor (okay a surgeon). But its a doctor's job to identify the patient's complaint and identify a course of action based on the patient's needs. Its pharmacist's job to evaluate drug therapies and ensure they are correct. This is why I am a pharmacist and you are a doctor. Its also the very reason why doctors don't like people self-diagnosing things left and right - that is your job and its why you underwent lengthy, intensive training. In the world of prescription medicine, a pharmacist is your best friend because they are your supplemental insurance policy keeping your malpractice insurance lower. You'd be shocked to know how often pharmacists catch dangerous errors doctors make. You should be thanking the medical profession gods that pharmacists aren't automatons who simply open a bottle and count out pills. When I need my head checked out and cut open, I'll come to you and defer to your expertise. When my foot hurts, I'll see a podiatrist and when my ticker is going nuts, I'll see my cardiologist brother-in-law. But when it comes to drugs, you come to me and there is a reason why the world comes to me and its based on the fact that pharmacists go to grad school for four years to study drugs and become doctors of pharmacy.

 

As I keep saying, based on the scientific information we have today, the dangers to the general population is low and as such, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of legalizing botanical marijuana. The non-medical benefits of smaller prison populations, killing a large profitable and violent black market, etc are all good things. I would be comfortable with proper labeling on the package that it is dangerous to smoke it (just like on cigarettes) and another statement that it interacts with many medications and to speak with a healthcare professional first. I just disagree with the idea that its a great option for most patients.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, even though vioxx is only 79%, it gets you 0% high

 

the problem is the difference between medicinal and recreational use

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, which is why I say that if you want to universally legalize it, thats fine because as a whole, in the general population, marijuana is not a high risk drug assuming a healthy individual.

 

But individuals suffering from HIV, cancer, etc are at a much higher risk of potentially lethal side effects from complications due to marijuana use - which is the exact reason why I say medical marijuana is nonsensical. The people who would see a benefit from marijuana are the same people who are most likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of its use!

 

If there was no better alternative to marijuana, I could see the argument for its medical legalization. But we have dozens of alternatives to marijuana to accomplish everything marijuana can. When there are better alternatives, why legalize something less efficacious and more dangerous?

 

This is why I don't mind its general legalization with the appropriate safety messages on the packaging. If people want to take the risks, they will be made aware of the risks and any adverse event as a result is on them. But in medical care it is incumbent on healthcare professionals to do everything in our power to improve one's health - not subject it to avoidable risks just because a patient asks for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/cmaj.091414v1?ijkey=2e6f38ca42a587e8672347d73f21f683a4cde498&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

Background: Chronic neuropathic pain affects 1%–2% of the adult population and is often refractory to standard pharmacologic treatment. Patients with chronic pain have reported using smoked cannabis to relieve pain, improve sleep and improve mood.

 

Methods: Adults with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to receive cannabis at four potencies (0%, 2.5%, 6% and 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol) over four 14-day periods in a crossover trial. Participants inhaled a single 25-mg dose through a pipe three times daily for the first five days in each cycle, followed by a nine-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale. We recorded effects on mood, sleep and quality of life, as well as adverse events.

 

Results: We recruited 23 participants (mean age 45.4 [standard deviation 12.3] years, 12 women [52%]), of whom 21 completed the trial. The average daily pain intensity, measured on the 11-point numeric rating scale, was lower on the prespecified primary contrast of 9.4% v. 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (5.4 v. 6.1, respectively; difference = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–1.4). Preparations with intermediate potency yielded intermediate but nonsignificant degrees of relief. Participants receiving 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol reported improved ability to fall asleep (easier, p = 0.001; faster, p < 0.001; more drowsy, p = 0.003) and improved quality of sleep (less wakefulness, p = 0.01) relative to 0% tetrahydrocannabinol. We found no differences in mood or quality of life. The most common drug-related adverse events during the period when participants received 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol were headache, dry eyes, burning sensation in areas of neuropathic pain, dizziness, numbness and cough.

 

Conclusion:: A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol herbal cannabis three times daily for five days reduced the intensity of pain, improved sleep and was well tolerated. Further long-term safety and efficacy studies are indicated. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register no. ISRCTN68314063)

 

Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial

 

Mark A. Ware 1, Tongtong Wang 2, Stan Shapiro 2, Ann Robinson 3, Thierry Ducruet 3, Thao Huynh 4, Ann Gamsa 5, Gary J. Bennett 5, Jean-Paul Collet 6

1 The Department of Anesthesia, the Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

2 The Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

3 Boreal Primum, Montréal, Que.

4 The Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

5 The Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

6 The Centre for Applied Health Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-health-us-smoking-potre7166bi-20110207,0,2938752.story?track=rss

 

There are a lot of things that pot might do that are positive. There are a lot reasons why smoking pot is more responsible than say drinking and driving.

 

Pot has one big downside though: it causes mental illness. Science has really been hammering this point home over the last couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Marijuana feels good

2. Marijuana would give South Americans a better economy

 

Marijuana is pretty darn awesome.

They're so used to being poor by now that who cares, amirite?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-health-us-smoking-potre7166bi-20110207,0,2938752.story?track=rss

 

There are a lot of things that pot might do that are positive. There are a lot reasons why smoking pot is more responsible than say drinking and driving.

 

Pot has one big downside though: it causes mental illness. Science has really been hammering this point home over the last couple of years.

Yeah, because every single person who has ever smoked weed is certifiable, amirite?

 

JK... but srsly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marijuana may be correlated, but completely causally unrelated to schizophrenia (a misfolding of a cerebral protein)

It just makes your pineal gland more active - it doesn't make your any more prone to develop schizophrenia than trying to lucid dream. (ex: shamanic visions)

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-health-us-smoking-potre7166bi-20110207,0,2938752.story?track=rss

 

There are a lot of things that pot might do that are positive. There are a lot reasons why smoking pot is more responsible than say drinking and driving.

 

Pot has one big downside though: it causes mental illness. Science has really been hammering this point home over the last couple of years.

I call bs. I know a fuckload of people that have been smoking for 30+ years and they're some of the most intelligent people I've ever had the pleasure to talk with. I guarantee those studies are conducted with small amounts of the population that were already at a disposition for being FUCKING CRAZY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scenario 1: Safe.

Scenario 2: Unsafe.

Self medicating therapies are notoriously bad...... I just disagree with the idea that its a great option for most patients.

[bulk omitted for the sake of not making this page uber long]

 

pwned-facekick.jpg

P.S. Ankur is the Asian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/cmaj.091414v1?ijkey=2e6f38ca42a587e8672347d73f21f683a4cde498&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

Background: Chronic neuropathic pain affects 1%–2% of the adult population and is often refractory to standard pharmacologic treatment. Patients with chronic pain have reported using smoked cannabis to relieve pain, improve sleep and improve mood.

 

Methods: Adults with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to receive cannabis at four potencies (0%, 2.5%, 6% and 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol) over four 14-day periods in a crossover trial. Participants inhaled a single 25-mg dose through a pipe three times daily for the first five days in each cycle, followed by a nine-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale. We recorded effects on mood, sleep and quality of life, as well as adverse events.

 

Results: We recruited 23 participants (mean age 45.4 [standard deviation 12.3] years, 12 women [52%]), of whom 21 completed the trial. The average daily pain intensity, measured on the 11-point numeric rating scale, was lower on the prespecified primary contrast of 9.4% v. 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (5.4 v. 6.1, respectively; difference = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–1.4). Preparations with intermediate potency yielded intermediate but nonsignificant degrees of relief. Participants receiving 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol reported improved ability to fall asleep (easier, p = 0.001; faster, p < 0.001; more drowsy, p = 0.003) and improved quality of sleep (less wakefulness, p = 0.01) relative to 0% tetrahydrocannabinol. We found no differences in mood or quality of life. The most common drug-related adverse events during the period when participants received 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol were headache, dry eyes, burning sensation in areas of neuropathic pain, dizziness, numbness and cough.

 

Conclusion:: A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol herbal cannabis three times daily for five days reduced the intensity of pain, improved sleep and was well tolerated. Further long-term safety and efficacy studies are indicated. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register no. ISRCTN68314063)

 

Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial

 

Mark A. Ware 1, Tongtong Wang 2, Stan Shapiro 2, Ann Robinson 3, Thierry Ducruet 3, Thao Huynh 4, Ann Gamsa 5, Gary J. Bennett 5, Jean-Paul Collet 6

1 The Department of Anesthesia, the Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

2 The Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

3 Boreal Primum, Montréal, Que.

4 The Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

5 The Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montréal, Que.

6 The Centre for Applied Health Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

 

qfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I call bs. I know a fuckload of people that have been smoking for 30+ years and they're some of the most intelligent people I've ever had the pleasure to talk with. I guarantee those studies are conducted with small amounts of the population that were already at a disposition for being FUCKING CRAZY.

 

Yeah, I know a lot of people that have smoked pot for that long too, and a lot of them are very successful. I would be willing to bet that they would be successful whether they smoked it or not.

 

I don't doubt that there are a lot of extra causal considerations in studies of these kind, but I do disagree with disregarding the studies carte blanche. These studies aren't small, they aren't run by some religious group, etc. I feel that people that smoke pot should consider the difference between having a few joints a couple of times a week versus waking up every morning with bong hits. There is a difference. One good question to ask yourself is this: Am I high more than half my waking hours? If the answer is yes, you should probably cut down.

 

A friend of mine smokes it every day, and his take on it is that he wishes that he could quit, but he can't. He's a smart, successful guy, and his pot smoking only accounts for a small fraction of who he is as a person. I do feel sorry for him, though. Not being able to have a good time without being high. He has told me that he spend a good $100+ a month on it. At his stage, this is all so he can feel normal, not high.

 

By the way - Jared Loughner? Daily pot smoker.

Edited by Hephaestus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that people that smoke pot should consider the difference between having a few joints a couple of times a week versus waking up every morning with bong hits. There is a difference. One good question to ask yourself is this: Am I high more than half my waking hours? If the answer is yes, you should probably cut down.

 

A friend of mine smokes it every day, and his take on it is that he wishes that he could quit, but he can't. He's a smart, successful guy, and his pot smoking only accounts for a small fraction of who he is as a person. I do feel sorry for him, though. Not being able to have a good time without being high. He has told me that he spend a good $100+ a month on it. At his stage, this is all so he can feel normal, not high.

 

By the way - Jared Loughner? Daily pot smoker.

 

Thanks for telling me, doc, how much medication i should take, as per your recommendations. Obviously, if you have to smoke before/after almost every meal, you are going to be high most of your life.

 

$100/month. Sheeit, you shit is scampy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros: YAY I'M HIGH!, helps econ (possibly), possible medical uses (if that)

Cons: illegal right now, may be correlated/causally related to mental illness, some bad effects from smoking, possible bad effects if you drive (which I think you're stupid if you drive high but whatever)

 

I think I've summed up this past 19 pages. Also, bump. I think legalizing marijuana would be nice, but I don't really care that much. It'd help if there were some real studies done that were as close to unbiased as possible, and finding some way to get THC without smoking/bad effects from smoking (brownies anyone?)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

possible bad effects if you drive (which I think you're stupid if you drive high but whatever)

I drive high everyday (for several years now) and I'm the one having to dodge the inbred downies around me. There's obviously a line when you know you shouldn't be driving, just like after drinking too much. However, the difference is that alcohol effects your balance, vision and pretty much every sense that you have to stay safe when driving. You can be high as a kite and you wont be stumbling around, seeing double etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros: YAY I'M HIGH!, helps econ (possibly), possible medical uses (if that)

Cons: illegal right now, may be correlated/causally related to mental illness, some bad effects from smoking, possible bad effects if you drive (which I think you're stupid if you drive high but whatever)

 

I think I've summed up this past 19 pages. Also, bump. I think legalizing marijuana would be nice, but I don't really care that much. It'd help if there were some real studies done that were as close to unbiased as possible, and finding some way to get THC without smoking/bad effects from smoking (brownies anyone?)

 

The one thing I know for sure can come from marijuana is the paranoid psychosis. While that isn't unique to weed, it is something that needs to be looked at (link) If you're seriously considering it. That's the best negative argument of which I know.

Frankly, there's only a couple good pro arguments.

1. I wanna get high whenever I want to without consequences

2. There are medical benefits (which is only delivered well by someone who doesbenefit from it).

For more information on bad arguments of it, read here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I know for sure can come from marijuana is the paranoid psychosis. While that isn't unique to weed, it is something that needs to be looked at (link) If you're seriously considering it. That's the best negative argument of which I know.

Frankly, there's only a couple good pro arguments.

1. I wanna get high whenever I want to without consequences

2. There are medical benefits (which is only delivered well by someone who doesbenefit from it).

For more information on bad arguments of it, read here.

 

 

You should read my previous posts on this thread about medical benefits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I know for sure can come from marijuana is the paranoid psychosis. While that isn't unique to weed, it is something that needs to be looked at (link) If you're seriously considering it. That's the best negative argument of which I know.

Frankly, there's only a couple good pro arguments.

1. I wanna get high whenever I want to without consequences

2. There are medical benefits (which is only delivered well by someone who doesbenefit from it).

For more information on bad arguments of it, read here.

 

Hahaha, I love quoting Cracked, it's a humor website but it's so true. Anyways, the psychosis thing as quoted in the article is temporary, and while it may increase the paranoia of schizophrenics, perhaps taking drugs while you already have proven medical problems is a bad idea. Also, since it's only temporary, and I think it's already been brought up in this thread although I haven't read all the way through, I believe the paranoia is associated with people that you don't want to know finding out that you're high. They don't really specify in this article, but this is what in my experience the paranoia is, and it goes away if you regularly do marijuana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read my previous posts on this thread about medical benefits....

Right, I get that. My only point is that there are some, if very few, that can benefit from it. While some drugs can do the same thing, e.g. marinol, the possibility of gains is one of the few legitimate arguments that exist. Frankly, I feel like the best argument is the one I listed first. People just wanna get high. No hate.

But I wouldn't say there are not beneficiaries, because there are. The real issue with that is the guy in dreads with a legalize it t-shirt claiming to speak for the cancer patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I get that. My only point is that there are some, if very few, that can benefit from it. While some drugs can do the same thing, e.g. marinol, the possibility of gains is one of the few legitimate arguments that exist. Frankly, I feel like the best argument is the one I listed first. People just wanna get high. No hate.

But I wouldn't say there are not beneficiaries, because there are. The real issue with that is the guy in dreads with a legalize it t-shirt claiming to speak for the cancer patients.

 

I don't just wanna get high James, I wanna get high LEGALLY. I believe that, as an earlier poster said, because America is supposed to be a free country, the onus is upon the American government to justify why we are not free to do anything, not upon us to prove why we should be free to do something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarian views kicking in-

I think it would totally stimulate the economy. I also think if it doesn't effect anyone else, hell it isn't their problem. Also, it decreases usage among children. And, lastly, Biopower...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...