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.
I believe the 9th Circuit was wrong (that's a first, huh?). Certainly the doctor may discuss the pros and cons of smoked marijuana as medicine with his patient. He does have that first amendment right. He may even document that conversation into the patient file.
But if he allows the patient to make a copy of that recommendation knowing it will be used to acquire marijuana, or if it was found later that it was used to acquire marijuana, the doctor is indeed guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of federal law. Without a copy of that written recommendation the patient would not have been able to acquire the marijuana.
For a doctor to plead ignorance, saying he had no idea why the patient wanted a copy of the recommendation or saying that he had no idea that it would actually be used to acquire marijuana is ludicrous.
Yet the court ruled, "Holding doctors responsible for whatever conduct the doctor could anticipate a patient might engage in after leaving the doctor's office is simply beyond the scope of either conspiracy or aiding and abetting."
Yeah, right. But we'll hold bartenders responsible for their customers, won't we? Sell a gun to a felon that he later uses to kill someone and see if your actions are "beyond the scope of either conspiracy or aiding and abetting."
But doctors get a pass because they can't anticipate that the patient will use that recommendation to acquire marijuana? That's bull$hit. That's nothing more than a wink-wink, nudge-nudge mockery of the law.
So because he used the wrong word, for a drug he hasn't recommended or prescribed, that means he's medically incompetent, an "ignorant or dishonest quack." Nice try.
Frankly, I think the whole story smells.
But a doctor who doesn't know what "prescription" means would be a quack.
So comparing pot to medicine would be illogical. By your "logic".
What about the secondhand smoke?
Mencken; where parity, parody and purity collide.
Did you ever to try to smoke aspirin?
For the "recommend" vs. "prescribe" distinction that you seem to find so important, here's what St Louis University and the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics"Pain and the Law" has to say about California's medical marijuana statute: "The statute protects physician prescribers from prosecution for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes (§ 11362.5(c)). See generally our discussion of Medical Marijuana."
Assuming that your story isn't just an invention, this so-called doctor was so astoundingly ignorant that he didn't know what "prescription" means. That would make him a quack.
Prescription: A physician's order for the preparation and administration of a drug or device for a patient. A prescription has several parts. They include the superscription or heading with the symbol "R" or "Rx", which stands for the word recipe (meaning, in Latin, to take); the inscription, which contains the names and quantities of the ingredients; the subscription or directions for compounding the drug; and the signature which is often preceded by the sign "s" standing for signa (Latin for mark), giving the directions to be marked on the container.
Since you're determined to ignore my post #89, which shows a university and a law organization assuming the same equality between prescription and recommendation, how about addressing some of the other issues? Like the fact that there isn't sufficient research because the federal government makes it very difficult to do the studies, that they control the supply and several researchers say they can't get the quality or quantity they need for studies? That the MS society supports the research? The bottom line is that marijuana isn't treated like other drugs, including those which are far more addictive.
That's very interesting. I'm not doubting you, and I'm not even really skeptical, I just find it interesting how different people have different reactions to the same thing. I have smoked lots and lots of pot (that's not bragging, nor am I proud; just the way it is) and the single only time I've had anything adverse happen - aside from the occasional bout of paranoia - is once when I made the mistake of smoking while on antibiotics - amoxicillin, I think. Made me very, very sick.
On the whole, I think it should be legalized across the board and sold as alcohol is.
It does not, question beggar.
And here's the actual text of §11362.5(c):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
The bottom line is that marijuana isn't treated like other drugs, including those which are far more addictive.
Quack nostrums usually aren't. And you can tell your imaginary friend I said so.
The natural kind with chunks of birch bark in the tablets?
Willow?
And wintergreen?
And Poplars?
And Aspens?
We better quit, I smell a forest fire starting.
youngjim: I call bullshiite. Citation please?
"British Medical Association, Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. 1997. P.48 . . . etc." LINK TO ALL THESE HERE
Sir Francis Dashwood: "There's a sucker born every minute." (P.T. Barnum)
If you look at this link one can see where RP has found this "information." I commented before that the intellectual dishonesty of RP is breathtaking. Note that in providing these citations RP and SFD did not provide the above link to verify their provenance. Of course if they had, this would diminish his argument significantly.
The homepage of this site is here: Lambton Families in Action for Drug Education. If you click on the link you'll be treated to comments (in red 18 point type over a puke green background) like "Is the Canadian Medical Association for real???????? Recently the CMA recommended to a senate committee that marijuana be decriminalized. They allege that addiction to marijuana should be treated as a disease. What these so called medical practitioners overlook is that the addiction is self inflicted. It's not like catching a cold. If the addiction is treated as a disease then the addict is no longer responsible for his/her conduct as that responsibility is passed on to society. Society did not create the addict, marijuana did as a result of the addicts conduct. Based on this theory of the CMA, doctors should be recommending smoking tobacco for weight loss. It's time the CMA got in touch with reality and learned just exactly what marijuana is all about and how silly the notion is of removing the criminality. . . .
Smoked Marijuana: is Mutogenic, Fetotoxic and Carcinogenic - can Impair the Immune System, break down the Male Genetic Code and Injure or Destroy the Eggs in the Ovaries - can cause Bipolar Psychosis, can trigger Schizophrenia, can Slowdown the Brain's Energy and can be a co-factor in producing full blown AIDS in HIV patients. . . MEDICAL EXCUSE MARIJUANA is all about GETTING STONED not treating an illness. . . HARM REDUCTION - Part of the PROBLEM NOT part of the SOLUTION."
But back to the originally cited links. I googled a number and found that these links are studies from patients with HIV and AIDS. Essentially, the argument that MJ is immunosuppressive comes from studies based on subjects with immune systems ALREADY SUPPRESSED BY HIV OR AIDS. The conclusion that MJ is immunosuppressive in all instances is a specious extrapolation of the results of these tests.
On this thread the pro-woddies are exposed for all to see--playing fast and loose with the "facts", slippery slope extrapolations, snarky ad hominems, specious appeals to authority and the masses, and citations from dubious fanatical websites. Rather thin gruel for the serious debater.
The 'sucker born every minute' comment from SFD only adds to the delicious irony of triumph.
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.