Marijuana Shown to Relieve HIV Nerve Pain

Voice of America ^ | Feb 16th, 2007 | Rose Hoban

[youngjim]

I didn't think it necessary. The studies speak for themselves, no matter who lists them.

Would that they did, sir. I haven't, yet, reviewed each study, as the citations you've given are to studies not available on the Internet. The website you've taken them from lists articles with some shrieked quotes that support your position. I'd be happy to respond to each of these studies once I could actually read them, but until then here is from information you will enjoy from the first article cited above.

"British Medical Association, Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. 1997. The entire report is available for 12 quid in . . . Britain. The website quotes from this report as follows: "cannabinoids have been shown to have immuno suppressive effect . . . potentially damaging in individuals whose immune system is already compromised by HIV or chemotherapy."

An abstract to this article is available here “the report underpins the policy of the BMA that certain additional cannabinoids should be legalised for wider medicinal use. It sets the research agenda and identifies the legal steps that need to be taken before new treatments can be developed . . . .

“The plant Cannabis sativa, from which cannabis is obtained, has a long history as a medicine. Over the centuries, its uses have included the treatment of pain, asthma and dysentery, the promotion of sleep, the suppression of nausea and vomiting and the abolition of convulsions and spasms (Mechoulam, 1986). [emphasis mine natch, take that Mojave] In this country, the medicinal use of cannabis was particularly prominent in the nineteenth century. However, it remained permissible for British doctors to prescribe cannabis (as a tincture for oral administration) until 1971. . . .”

RP asks rhetorically "I would think a listing of studies with contrary conclusios to be more effective. Got any?" Yet as I've shown here, the first study he quotes actually supports the anti-woddie position! Furthermore the study notes the legal issues surrounding the study of medicinal cannabis “Cannabis and certain psychoactive cannabinoids and derivatives . . . are classified under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as having no therapeutic benefit. They therefore cannot be prescribed by doctors or dispensed by pharmacists and can only be possessed for research purposes with a Home Office licence. If the research involves clinical trials, further permission is required from the Medicines Control Agency. “”

The lack of studies against your position can be easily explained by the fact that cannabis remains illegal even for medical study. Thus, the pro-woddie has it both ways: Illegal cannabis is not medicine. Any testing to determine medicinal value is prohibited because it is illegal--a classic case of petitio principii or begging the question.

Other highlights gleaned from the abstract “The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain also believes that action is needed. The Society has called for further clinical research into the potential therapeutic uses of cannabinoids, and while this is underway, that doctors should be able to prescribe cannabinoids for specific serious disorders . . . In 1996 in the United States, Arizona passed a law permitting doctors to prescribe any drug in Schedule I (which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration) including cannabis, but this was effectively repealed by the FDA the following year. [note post #41, RP: Nope. The people. And until your side gets enough people who want to legalize it, that's where it stays]. In the same year Californian voters approved a state law eliminating criminal penalties for those who grew or used small amounts of cannabis for medical purposes if they could show that they were acting on the recommendation of a doctor. However, under federal law, cannabis remains an illegal narcotic, and doctors who recommend its use to patients have been threatened with prosecution and loss of their prescription privileges under Drug Enforcement Administration regulations. ”

To sum up, we have here the spectacle of pro-woddie RP dispensing misinformation with spurious citations of medical literature unavailable for free review. RP superciliously condemns any attempts to check his facts; yet after review of the FIRST CITATION one thing is completely clear. Many, if not all, of his medical references are pulled fully from his fundament—he's never read them, and he has no access to them, except from his fanatically mendacious pro-woddie allies.

[robertpaulsen]

Quite frankly, if I thought you'd even slightly be influenced by the results of documented and internet-available studies I'd look them up. Why should I waste any more time on you than I already have?

Based on the posts from you in this thread, you've been given the effort from me you deserve. Minimal.

[Mojave]

Over the centuries, its uses have included the treatment of pain, asthma and dysentery, the promotion of sleep, the suppression of nausea and vomiting and the abolition of convulsions and spasms (Mechoulam, 1986). [emphasis mine natch, take that Mojave]

By that "reasoning", smoking opium should be legalized as well.

[youngjim]

Let's not kid ourselves, sunshine. You don't come to the woddie threads to 'influence' anyone. Your only purpose is to deceive the undecided in the WOD and antagonize your opponents with epithets. One can see from your prolix homepage ("morality police"?--Pfffft) that you collect quotations from other Freepers in a narcissistic display of pretension. It's a pleasure being your fact-checker; a task I shall continue to revel in from now on.

Now that you've met your match (which took some time only because of your intellectually dishonest citation scheme) you're supine declaration that you won't waste any more time trying to "influence" me will be taken as an admission of defeat.

See you later, alligator!

[Mojave]

Now that you've met your match

In you? LOL!

[youngjim]

Your not very bright are you?

[Just sayin]

Yes it is.

Kinda tough to use that as a negative isn't it?

It may contain bacteria or fungi.

An Asteroid named Apophis may hit the planet Earth in the future. Let me know when you can come with something that doesn't rely on can, may, might or possibly. The fact you present so much of that shows that more studies are needed, but you cannot bring yourself to admit that as of yet.

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.

Is this to say that drugs, even foods, approved by the FDA fit such a description?

On the inhaled situation, you said clearly that inhaled medicines were a harmful delivery system. Glad to see you backtrack from your original statement and narrow it down to being strictly about smoke.

I have no idea.

Pretty stark admission for someone who claims more studies should not be conducted. I am not advocating total legalization RP. You apply someone else's position as if it were my own. I favor decriminalization of something that has a positive impact on someone's life. I point to the responsible use and accountability for actions taken after ingestion. Not unlike warnings on pill bottles saying 'do not drive or operate heavy machinery when taking this drug'.

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.

Oh where oh where to start on this bit. First, you make a declaration stemming from a personal ideology perspective. Then you say studying it is pointless.

If you were so sure in your position, then you would indeed say 'Study it all you want to because the results will turn out in your position's favor.' But you don't do that do you? No you don't. This shows a wavering in how sure you really are about the information you propagate.

Finally, you speak to me about promoting a social agenda. This made me laugh. I am not forcing anything upon you or society RP. I make no attempt to see to it that you would be forced to do as I do. You sure are doing that to me though aren't you. Indeed you are. This is the most blatant bit of projection, it doesn't get any more clear than that RP.

Why should they be put on a scale?

That is easy to answer. Reasonable people, who want to make an objective informed decision, want as much information as possible to put on the scales of decision making. Ideologs, on the otherhand, want to stack the deck on one side and obstruct anything they don't like in order to reach the desired preconceived decision.

What's the problem?

Charging me out the ying yang for processing when it isn't needed. Need is based on perspective RP and you try to hold me and others to your definition of need. That is where you go so wrong and you don't even see it.

I will offer an additional example so you understand what I mean by that. Let's say I have a cancer. You would define my need as radiation and/or chemo therepy. Guess what RP, you don't get to make THAT CHOICE for me because it is not your choice to make. It's mine.

If I don't want a pill, why is it you think you can make that choice for me? If an alternative exists, which is effective for me, who are you to deny it to me based on your own ideology and desire to see all medicines in a pill form?

I want honest and open research RP, not reasearch that fits my personal perspective. As noted earlier, I am not the one saying not to study anything, but you are. Who is really against research of certain kinds again RP? More projection on your part.

If a legit study shows that smoking MJ has medicinal values, then that is what the research shows RP. It should be accepted as the truth it is....with ideology left at the door. But then, that is exactly why you are so against that type of study isn't it RP.

First, there's those 598 questionable chemicals hitching a ride

You may question chemicals RP, but that fact does not translate into a fact that I must question them as well. This is where you make the most common mistake. You are so aloof that you think everyone shall question what you yourself question. You worry about your risk and I will worry about mine. This goes back to your ideology being of a mindset that you somehow get to make everyone else's decsions for them based on your perceptions.

Second, how is a doctor supposed to prescribe a medicine with an unknown quantity of useful cannabinoids -- what's the dosage and frequency?

You ask questions that will be answered by studies you say shouldn't be done. Classic.

Oh, and I missed a little dig you threw earlier in your post. Please do explain to me how I 'use the sick and dying as pawns' when I offered you my own personal experience. Are you then claiming that I am using myself as a pawn? Seriously?

Drug interactions you say? That would be something to study further huh? Oh wait, you deny such studies are warranted. More asking of questions that shall be answered thru further study. If you know of interactions today, please state them. Good luck with that RP.

A good steward of their own garden would recognize things like fungus. You obviously have never been around a gardener of this type to see how attentive and knowledgable they really are about the flower they grow.

As for bacteria, would you mean like bacteria transfered to your pill bottle by the pharmacist handling it? Maybe the bacteria on the doorknob or handle of the store you entered to get it? Maybe the inhalation of bacteria from the person in front of you in line at the pharmacist's counter, as they stand there coughing. You are really reaching with this angle, realllllly reaching.

Codeine may be prescribed and used by those under 21.

Prescribed by someone under 21? Really? (Sorry I couldn't resist that Just sayin was Just playin there). Sure, it can be scripted to someone under 21.... with the consent of a parent or gaurdian. Their own consent is not enough though is it? Why is that?

Marijuana may not.

True enough, but I can point to deaths a result of codine overdoses, can you point to the same for MJ? Again, good luck with that.

Is there anything wrong, in your mind, with a seven-year-old smoking pot to relieve pain?

If that 7 year old has run the gambit of medical 'treatment', found nothing that worked effectively, and had a condition warranting relief of something akin to what I live with, you damn right I would approve.

Why do I say that you ask? Simple, I know from daily experience, spanning the better partof a decade, what it is like to live with nerve pain and I would not be so grandiose as you to tell others that they must live with pain of that nature so that my own personal ideology is stroked and submitted to.

You were offended by my use of the term "monster" in that context?

I was not offended RP, I was simply pointing out how petty you act. There once was a time I would have been offended by such a comment, but that was before I understood what actually draws an comment such as that.

Trust me. It could have been much worse

That would only mean you are losing the debate by that much more RP. Taking namecalling a step further to threats of augmentation shows you are going in the wrong direction. Let's try a more positive path shall we? I asked you a couple of questions and you have so far been able to duck them so I will ask it again.

If something benefits me positively, and my responsible use of said something has no direct or indirect negative affect on you(other than your disagreement), why would you attempt to deny me that something? What reasons would you use to justify doing so? Assessing my own risk factor for me? When did you become everyone's keeper?

[Just sayin]

So comparing pot to medicine would be illogical. By your "logic".

Sorry I missed this one Mojave. I will first offer to you a definition of medicine.

any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy.

Under this definition, it is quite logical to say that pot is being employed as a medicine. While there are many definitions for that word, any you seek to apply would show you just the same thing this one does. Could you offer me another definition to show why it would be illogical to say such a thing?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Marijuana, especially if it smoked is an immune suppressant...

Not a way to treat someone with a autoimmune deficiency syndrome.

[youngjim]

Marijuana, especially if it smoked is an immune suppressant... Not a way to treat someone with a autoimmune deficiency syndrome.

Hey brainiac--here's a clue for you: google "vaporizer" and "bong." You keep that little closed mind of yours all locked up tight, cupcake.

[Just sayin]

Not to butt in your discussion there KoRn but I have taken Neurontin and I thought maybe I could provide just a tiny bit of personal experience towards answering a valid question you put forth.

I am left today with shakes that showed up upon the first increased dosage of that drug. They remain with me today years later. I had belly aches and was more confused and cloudy headed than any time in my life prior to taking that little pill. Amotriptoline (SP?) confused me also but not quite like Neurontin.

After going thru that, my own doctor declined Lyrica because it was from the same family of drugs as Neurontin and is likely to induce the same or similar side effects in me.

To be fair, I know someone close to me who does take Neurontin to this day and she has great luck with it. The more power to her, I am glad it works for her. I wish had worked for me the same way.

[AmishDude]

I've read these stories for years and they all say the same thing: Pot dulls pain for (whatever) but that it doesn't work unless you smoke it. Color me cynical if I find this a bit convenient.

[Just sayin]

By that "reasoning", smoking opium should be legalized as well.

On one level that is like saying guns should be banned because there is a mall shooting. It isn't the gun or the opium that is the problem. The problem is people and what they do with those two examples.

[Just sayin]

That would depend on whether you were treating the immune system or the pain now wouldn't it. This is where your presentation is one of spin. You present that it is the immune system being targetted, when that isn't the intent at all.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

That would depend on whether you were treating the immune system or the pain now wouldn't it.

Autoimmune deficiency syndrome would suggest that the immune system needs treatment and not further aggravation.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Guns and opium have nothing in common. Guns do not contribute to behavioral anomalies, opium does...

[KoRn]

"To be fair, I know someone close to me who does take Neurontin to this day and she has great luck with it."

I was given both drugs at different times for what has been going on 4 years of chronic pain. At the beginning Neurontin was tried. I didn't get the negative effects that you have, but it didn't work at all for relief. Two years later Lyrica was tried by a different doctor, and like the Neurontin, was totally ineffective. It sure does costs more though!

Personally, I don't see how marijuana is an effective pain reliever, but I suppose it must be helpful for some folks. I've heard it's good for giving people an appetite who are on real pain meds.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Here's a clue for you... google dee doo da all you want... I ain't buyin' what you're shovelin'...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Color me cynical if I find this a bit convenient.

You look a little cynical... nice to meet you...

[Just sayin]

Asd if immune system treatment leaves intolerable pain? Then what? Pretend that it doesn't exist and say "tough luck"?

Have you ever lived with vhronic pain? Maybe a walk in those shoes would help you understand something it seems you dismiss with ease.