Posted on 02/16/2007 3:23:59 PM PST by cryptical
The cannabis plant has been used as a medicine for thousands of years. In the United States, doctors could prescribe marijuana cigarettes to patients for a variety of conditions until the 1940s, when it was banned. Marijuana's status as an illegal drug has removed it from the official medical arsenal, but its therapeutic power is still attracting attention, especially its pain-killing properties.
About 30 percent of HIV patients develop painful nerves during the course of their illness, and this neuropathy is extremely difficult to treat with standard pain medications. Dr. Donald Abrams, of the University of California at San Francisco, studied the use of marijuana for relief of their discomfort. "We've known for along time that cannabinoids, the active ingredients in marijuana, can be involved in modulation of pain and the response to pain," he explains, adding that the body has its own cannabinoid system. "We make natural substances called endo-cannabinoids and it's felt that one of the main roles of these endo-cannabinoids is in our processing of painful stimuli." Abrams studied 50 patients who had suffered nerve pain for an average of 7 years. He gave half actual marijuana cigarettes to smoke three times a day, the other half smoked placebo cigarettes. He found the patients smoking the marijuana had significantly greater pain relief, and it was almost immediate. "After smoking the first cigarette on the first day," he recalls, "we asked patients what had happened to their pain. Those smoking the actual marijuana cigarette, their pain reduced 75 percent; where those smoking the placebo, their pain reduced less than 20 percent." These results were consistent throughout the study.
Abrams says there is a pill on the market containing the most active ingredient of marijuana, called tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. But he says smoking the actual plant works better than taking the pill, because THC is only one of the components present in the plant. "The plant has over 400 chemical compounds, many of which also have medicinal value. Many of those compounds in the plant also offer a balance to the side effects of the THC alone. So when you take a pill that's just THC, some people have more adverse effects than actually smoking THC as part of marijuana."
The research appears in the February 13th issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
Dude, I don't smoke anymore; haven't for years.
Your supercilious tone belies your insults. Why not debate like a man and keep the snark to yourself--oh yeah, cuz you obvously can't.
Dr. Donald Abrams is a homosexual who pushes pot as a treatment for "subjects with immune systems ALREADY SUPPRESSED BY HIV OR AIDS."
I've even seen 'em promote smoking dope as a treatment for asthma.
And it is still screwin' with your head...
I'm just waiting for the ingrown toenail studies myself...
Dr. Abrams see MJ as an analgesic for the pain of AIDS and HIV. His argument, as I see it, is that MJ eases the suffering of these people, not that it will eliminate the HIV virus.
That the best you can do, or does RP have to hand hold all of you snarks?
These people are in pain. MJ helps them to relieve their pain.
What's with the ellipsis after every comment? Do you think that it helps your argument?
Because they are immune deficient...
Quack nostrums usually aren't. And you can tell your imaginary friend I said so.
You can't manage to discuss this without calling names, which is a pity. I'll put in my last word - no one knows if it's a "quack nostrum" or not - because it hasn't been sufficiently tested. But the article that started this discussion off sounds like it holds some promise. You may be willing to cut off any chance that that promise will be realized and alleviate suffering; I'm not. I challenge you to go talk to several people with MS, and see if they feel the existing drugs do just fine.
The elderly pervert is a dope pusher for the homosexual "community".
Dope advocates test and test, but no amount of time or effort on their part proves sufficient to make their case.
One arrested planter told sheriff's deputies he was suffering from an ingrown toenail, an excuse that did not impress them. Lucy Mae Tuck, a volunteer who edits the newsletter at the Humboldt Cannabis Center, a co-op that grows the drug for medicinal use, has a physician's certificate to treat her hot flashes with the weed. Since Prop. 215 passed more than two years ago, says Police Chief Brown, "everyone we try to arrest has a recommendation from Dr. Feelgood."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990873,00.html
Yes it is. Do you have a point?
"Impure you say?"
Yep. It may contain bacteria or fungi. Yet you think it should be inhaled by patients with compromised immune systems?
"What exactly is your definition of 'pure'?"
In the case of marijuana, limiting the drug to those chemicals which have a positive effect on the symptom and omitting those which have a negative effect on the patient.
"Would you be saying that inhaled medicines are not approved by the FDA itself today?"
I would not be saying that. I even posted that an inhaled medicine containing cannabinoids has been approved by Health Canada. What's not approved by the FDA is a medicine that is smoked.
"And now many of these 600 chemicals are you exposed to otherwise in a daytime RP?"
I have no idea. But I'm not the one proposing to legalize smog as medicine.
"You are the one saying not to study something"
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Studying it is pointless and a waste of money that could be better spent doing real research rather than promoting a social agenda.
"The positives, however, are just starting to be recognized. They have not been put on the scale RP, and you yourself, thru your own statements, are trying to keep them from being put on that scale even now today."
Why should they be put on a scale? Isolate the positives and make them available as medicine. That was done with Marinol and Sativex and thousands of other drugs. What's the problem?
Well, the problem is that this solution is not the solution you want. You don't really care about addressing a patient's needs. You want the research to show that smoking marijuana is medicine.
This will give you the back door you're looking for to legalize smoked marijuana for medical use, thereby effectively negating all laws against marijuana. You're being dishonest. You're using the sick and dying as pawns. And you'll never admit it.
"I am against refining something that doesn't need to be refined, thus raising the price and availability in undue ways."
It does need to be refined. First, there's those 598 questionable chemicals hitching a ride. Second, how is a doctor supposed to prescribe a medicine with an unknown quantity of useful cannabinoids -- what's the dosage and frequency? Third, what about drug interactions -- what if the patient is taking buproprion? Is it safe? Fourth, what about those impurities I mentioned earlier? The bacteria. The fungi?
"Under 21 use would have to be a decision made by the parent. Just as if the situation was with codine cough medicine."
Codeine may be prescribed and used by those under 21. Marijuana may not. Is there anything wrong, in your mind, with a seven-year-old smoking pot to relieve pain?
You were offended by my use of the term "monster" in that context? Trust me. It could have been much worse.
I didn't think it necessary. The studies speak for themselves, no matter who lists them.
If you think shooting the messenger benefits your argument that marijuana is not immunosuppressive, go for it. But I would think a listing of studies with contrary conclusions to be more effective. Got any?
"Essentially, the argument that MJ is immunosuppressive comes from studies based on subjects with immune systems ALREADY SUPPRESSED BY HIV OR AIDS."
Some studies involved subjects with HIV/AIDS. Some without. Some were on animals. Some were in vitro experiments.
But the above article is about patients with HIV smoking marijuana to relieve pain. Good idea, given the studies I listed?
Just damn! How do you get away with this?
I simply called him an activist and got jumped on about my source, and "where's your proof" and "you call that proof" and grief galore.
I guess "snarks" get cut more slack or something.
(Oh, good find on that §11362.5c)
He's the President od the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, he promotes pot use and he claims that, "Between the ages of 25 and 39, I lived with four different men, and theyre all dead."
Gosh, hard to believe a man like that can be objective, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.