A Marijuana Breakthrough?

The Scotsman ^ | Nov. 5, 2004 | David Kohn

[Ahriman]

A decade ago, when Daniele Piomelli went to scientific conferences, he was often the only researcher studying cannabinoids, the class of chemicals that give marijuana users a high. His work often drew sniggers and jokes; but not any more. At the recent annual Society for Neuroscience conference in San Diego last week, scientists delivered almost 200 papers on the subject.

Why all the attention? Many scientists believe marijuana-like drugs might be able to treat a wide range of diseases, far beyond the nausea and chronic pain typically treated with medical marijuana.

Researchers presented tantalising evidence that cannabinoid drugs can help treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - known as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease - Parkinson’s disease and obesity. Other researchers are studying whether the compounds can help victims of stroke and multiple sclerosis.

Although the chemicals work on the same area of the nervous system, the new drugs are much more refined and targeted than marijuana, with few of its side effects.

"Cannabinoids have a lot of pharmaceutical potential," says Piomelli, a neuroscientist at the University of California. "A lot of people are very excited."

[William Terrell]

De minimis non curat lex.

. . and neither should you!

[avenir]

"It impairs learning, motivation, and productivity. / Our culture doesn't need another mechanism to convey to our youth that drugs are an acceptable form of recreation. / There is no upside. / And don't whine to me about law enforcement and prisons. / Rather, look at Holland, Norway, & Sweeden and tell me how many of their social problems you would like to import."

Larry, common sense observations such as yours have no place in discussions such as these :)

[avenir]

Excellent post. I imagine the "WE LOVE LIBERTY AND WOULD NEVER THINK OF SMOKING POT BUT FEEL A FANATICAL NEED TO DECRIMINALIZE IT SO WE CAN ALL BE FREEEEEE" crowd will remain unfazed.

[robertpaulsen]

"Gov't research ... didn't like that very much, so they buried it."

Yeah, it's buried right next to the research on that carburetor that delivered 200 miles/gal.

[robertpaulsen]

This article is not about patients on chemo. They're discussing Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and obesity.

Certainly Marinol can be used by these people?

[robertpaulsen]

"So instead of sacrificing unborn embryos, all Michael J. Fox needs to do is toke up?"

Give the man a see-gar! He figured it out.

"Pot is a Miracle Drug" research papers are abounding because these people see their government research money slipping away to the "Embryonic Stem Cells are the New Miracle Drugs" researchers.

This funding would consist of whatever government money is left over after previously funding the "Cold Fusion is the New Energy Source" researchers.

[robertpaulsen]

A) "... it's up to the individual to decide what goes in their body."

B) "Legalizing and controlling marijuana is a no brainer.

Since you brought up the subject of no brains, can you tell me how it is you find statements "A" and "B" to be compatible with each other?

[robertpaulsen]

"We've simply learned from our experience with alcohol that banning a recreational chemical causes more problems than it solves."

No. We've simply learned from our experience with alcohol that banning alcohol caused more problems than it solved. Alcohol prohibition lasted what, 13 short years?

Marijuana has been illegal for almost 70 years now with no end in sight. Marijuana use dropped over 60% from its high point in 1979.

[robertpaulsen]

"The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution were written on hemp paper."

The rough drafts were written on hemp paper, historians believe. The final documents were written on parchment, which is an excellent material.

[finnigan2]

"Marijuana use dropped over 60% from its high point in 1979."

- Legalize it, and it will be back up that 60% and then some in no time at all.
Decriminalization (for use, not trafficking) is one thing, but legalization is quite another.
If I was an employer for an airline, bus company or subway line, I'd want to know if the prospective driver or pilot sitting in front of me at the interview had been fined for cannabis usage.
As a potential passenger on an airplane, bus or subway, I'm sure you'd want me to know before you used my company's services.

[robertpaulsen]

"Legalize it, and it will be back up that 60% and then some in no time at all."

At least. It was at that level when it was illegal.

In today's society, legalization carries with it an implied societal acceptance. People have the attitude of, "Hey, it's legal, I can do it, and don't you impose your morals on me."

How many times have we heard or read, "Yes, I did that. But it's not illegal!" Like that's the only standard.

[D2]

Your neighbor is wrong. There is a visual test of the pupil that acts as an acuurate starting point. As reliably as alchohol roadside sobriety tests. It can open the door for justifying a blood test or saliva smear or a piss test.

[Lurking2Long]

Why don't conservatives want to open this market to our economy?

Let's seeeeee......

We like reality, we like our loved ones alive rather than killed by drunk and stoned drivers, we don't like living in single-wide trailers with other trash, we believe that every brain cell is precious, we are still "high" from the election, and we believe in handling our problems head on rather than hallucinating them away...

Got it now, POTHEAD!

[A CA Guy]

Jail the illegal recreational users and allow use only to the sick and dying who need it.

[Ueriah]

"Jail the illegal recreational users and allow use only to the sick and dying who need it."

*Cough cough, sneeze sneeze*

C'mon Doc, I'm like sick and stuff...

Heh. Seriously, though. As a conservative and a pothead, I've given a good amount of thought to both sides of this issue and I'm still up in the air about it. While I think that legalizing pot would generate a lot of tax revenue there are a few problems that I can see with it. One of them is the fact that there is currently no "scientific" method that I'm aware of to do things like roadside testing, unlike a DWI, where it is pretty easy to scientificially ascertain what someone's blood alcohol content is. Another one is the fact that pot makes you put on weight, not take it off, and we are not exactly known as a nation of thin people. The biggest problem with pot is that to a segment of the population, it is indeed addictive. The last time that I quit smoking for a few weeks I went through an extemely unpleasent physicial sensation. It wasn't like detoxing from "hard drugs" but it was a pretty tense, sweaty palmed experiance and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't pretty much on edge for the whole 10 days. Another down side is it sets a precedance for the legalization of "harder drugs".

On the positive side, I honestly don't think that smoking pot has any long term detriment, at least any worse then smoking cigarettes. I can retain gainful employment and be a professional and productive member of society. I think that legalizing weed would be a powerful political manuever by a politicial party in the next 20 years, and whichever party does this will be the party to finally crack the youth vote. Trust me on this. I also think there could be a steady stream of revenue generated from this.

Smoking pot might not be best thing for you, or even the smartest thing to do. But God help us if we turn into a nation of people that demands that everyone wakes up at 5am for prayer and excercise. I believe the governments role should be one of general governance, not intrusion into people's lives and insistance upon conformity under penalty of punishment.

Oh, by the way, earlier in the thread, there was something of a disagreement over the effects of driving stoned. I'm certainly not advocating it but it is honestly not much differant then driving with a sinus infection.

[A CA Guy]

Just say no and be happy.

[Military family member]

I had a student who wrote a paper several years ago on legalizing hemp as a paper source. According to the research performed by this student, hemp as a renewable source of paper products, has several advantages over wood based papers.

One is that hemp paper does not yellow as does wood paper. Second, hemp grows considerably faster than trees and is thus more renewable. The THC levels in hemp paper are so low, you would have to smoke several hundred pounds of hemp paper to get high.

During World War II, farmers here in Indiana and in other states were encouraged to grow hemp for making rope and parachutes. I've used rope from this era before and, if properly cared for, is just as strong as it ever was and has none of the problems of the nylon or other polymer-based products, the biggest being its ability to work in the cold.

I've often wondered why all uses for this plant were stopped, other than the obvious fear of misuse.

[robertpaulsen]

I don't understand the sudden renewed interest in making paper from hemp. I mean, what about paper from cereal straws, cotton linters, banana peels, or coconut shells?

Why hemp?

Back when hemp was grown nationwide, it was for a variety of uses. Rope, as you mentioned. Clothing is another. Certainly paper.

But there are better materials now for all of these applications. Bringing back hemp just for making paper seems rather silly. Plus, it would mean massive manufacturing retooling, altering production cycles to harvesting cycles, and really screwing up the recycling program (38% of the paper market).

You want my opinion? The only reason for the hullabaloo in "hemp as paper" is like the push for "medical" marijuana -- to immunize the public against their objection to the cannabis plant. It's a "camel's nose" approach to marijuana legalization.

Nothing else explains this sudden interest in hemp (and the sudden interest in the medical uses of marijuana).

A little test. Find for me one pro-marijuana (a different product, I'm sure you agree) web site that is against hemp.

[Know your rights]

We've simply learned from our experience with alcohol that banning a recreational chemical causes more problems than it solves.

- An unproven hypothesis.

No, one well proven by history; heard of Prohibition?

Alcohol at least has thousands of years of western experience with it's use so we, as a society, have built a set of rules around it - and even then it's a major damaging factor in many peoples lives.

Prohibition was more damaging still, which is why we ended it ... as we should end the current marijuana ban.