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.
Nope. I don't know where you get that.
You don't seem to to like libertarian philosophical theory - what about any other theory?
I note your stated preference for a representative republic, and that laws can change through the process, but what about the merit of the laws themselves?
If enough people succeed in pressuring their representatives to amend the Constitution to legalize all drugs, would you feel that they had limited your right to choose how to live? Can some laws fall short of your ideal, or does that end with "the will of the republic" ?
Stick around. You'll find "We the People" and "we the people" used interchangeably, and transparently transitioned from one to the other, carried along by heaping globs of righteous indignation.
--- "heaping gobs" bump.
What difference?
The Constitution of limited enumerated powers to secure the blessings of liberty vs...
any damn 'right' de jour ?
I confess that until your post I had never heard of cannabinoid receptors. I don't suppose that's why they're called 'CB1' and 'CB2'?
From the above link "Cannabinoid receptors are activated by cannabinoids, generated naturally inside the body (endocannabinoids) or introduced into the body as cannabis or a related synthetic compound."
Ah, irony.
Its only illicit because they say so. If marijuana was legal we wouldnt even be in this stupid argument.
I agree 100%. Then you would see the uberleftists trying to ban pot smoking from bars.....
"We the People" is an abstraction of the populace. Our representative in Washington act on behalf of and with the authority of "We the People". The other instance, "we the people" is the citizenry. You'll see an interesting exercise in sophistry where anything Congress and the beltway bureaucracy does becomes what a majority of the people actually wanted, and any criticism of it nothing more than loser whining.
You don't? Feigning ignorance?
By definition. Limited government means limited laws.
"You don't seem to to like libertarian philosophical theory - what about any other theory?"
Such as?
"I note your stated preference for a representative republic, and that laws can change through the process, but what about the merit of the laws themselves?"
The merits of the laws as judged by who? You?
As I said twice before, if the people don't like the laws they will make their voices heard. In addition, every two years the people elect those who write the laws.
"If enough people succeed in pressuring their representatives to amend the Constitution to legalize all drugs, would you feel that they had limited your right to choose how to live?"
If we were to pass a federal constitutional amendment regarding drugs, I would expect it to be similar in wording to Section 2 of the 21 amendment, turning the decision over to each state (as we did with alcohol) and removing the federal government from the process.
Would that limit my right? In theory, no. I could always move to a state where drugs remained illegal. But the reality is that it wouldn't work -- it didn't with alcohol.
Prior to Prohibition, half the states prohibited alcohol. But the "wet" states were smuggling alcohol to the "dry" states. The "dry" states requested federal help, and Congress pass the Webb-Kenyon Act prohibiting this practice. Of course it didn't work, and it wouldn't work with drugs.
So yes, it would limit my right to choose how to live. So did the 18th. The 18th was repealed.
"Can some laws fall short of your ideal, or does that end with "the will of the republic" ?"
Of course they do. And your solution guarantees that everyone will find all laws ideal?
Fringe on the flag time!
Limited to what? In what areas of life should government have no say?
Hey. You're the one who brought up limited government. You're the one who brought up restraining legislators. You're the one who wants our laws limited to behavior which harms others.
So why are you asking me about "what areas of life should government have no say"? You've already staked that out.
I said the government is limited by the constitution and the will of the people acting through their legislators. You would restrict the will of the people by limiting the laws to behavior which harms others. If the people want fewer laws they can tell their representatives. You do realize we are a self-governing nation?
You've named and endorsed our process of governance, and apparently endorse any resulting legislation. Right?
Back to my prior point - "legislative might makes right" seems to sum up your
position.
If by "legislative might" you mean the power of the legislature to implement the will of their constituents within constitutional limits, then yes.
Why would you limit the legislature to those laws governing behavior which harms others? Don't trust the people? Oh, and have you defined harm?
Not sure. I usually take it as axiomatic.
What about you? Would you limit the legislature to those laws governing behavior which harms others?
Then you'd be wrong, wouldn't you? What makes you believe that legislatures, by definition, are to limit their law making to behavior which harms others?
"Would you limit the legislature to those laws governing behavior which harms others?"
Nope. There's no need to do that. Why do you wish to limit the will of the people?
You seem to endorse no limits on "the will of the people". Is that right?
Jefferson believed in majority rule as an obstruction to military despots. But what should limit the reach of even a "majority rule" republic?
One principle he offered: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others."
Aside from constitutional limits, no. Yet you do. Why?
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.