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."

[robertpaulsen]

"IQ has to do with the intellect, not intelligence."

IQ is a number. IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient, not Intellect Quotient. I'm just asking where the cut-off for character lies on the Bell Curve.

Let me ask it another way. If we were to measure the IQ of all the people with character, what would be the lowest IQ we would find? 60? 80? 110? Certainly one who makes the statement, "Character requires intelligence." has some level of intelligence in mind.

A person with character does not always make the logical choice, granted. But that has nothing to do with their intelligence.

Logic says that if a man is dying, what difference does it make if he takes an addicting drug. Logic is devoid of ethics and morals.

Just because a person with character doesn't always make the logical choice doesn't mean he's stupid -- excuse me, "not intelligent".

[robertpaulsen]

"The more the government controls people's behaviour,"

It didn't start with control. The government, starting with LBJ's Great Society, became the nanny state, taking care of people from cradle to grave.

It started with Welfare. Food stamps. Housing. Health care. AFDC. WIC. Alphabet agencies up the ying yang to pick up after people.

Then came the lawyers. Suddenly, it's not your fault anymore. It's the fault of the guy with the deepest pockets.

Personal responsibility went out the window. Social stigmas (against out-of-wedlock pregnancies, homosexuality, obesity, immorality) are passe -- I'm surprised they're not considered hate crimes. Political correctness is in. Zero tolerance is in, taking away basic judgment.

There's nothing left to control people's behavior -- except more laws.

[William Terrell]

I know people in Mensa whose lives are greatly screwed up by their unintelligent choices, yet they have high IQs. A person with a high IQ can be snookered into truly asine beliefs whereas an intelligent person can compare notions to reality and find them wanting commonsense.

This is why we have people with high IQs supporting the war on drugs.

[robertpaulsen]

Man, you're an equal opportunity insulter.

First, people with low intelligence don't have character. Then, people with high intelligence don't have common sense.

You'd better quit while you're behind.

[headsonpikes]

You know, rp, I agree with virtually every item in your post, but find bizarre the conclusion that you draw - that people nowadays are crap, and the only way to make life bearable is to have an active and powerful state.

It is the state intrusions themselves which have engendered the very real social disorders you enumerate.

This would be the public policy analogue of iatrogenic diseases, defined as those caused by medical intervention itself.

The modern state is at war with its people - and only one side will be victorious.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is the state intrusions themselves which have engendered the very real social disorders you enumerate."

You need to define "state intrusions". If you mean social programs, then I agree. If you mean today's current laws, then I disagree.

You don't have to go that far back to see that we were a country with a strong work ethic. Where people had pride and self esteem. People took personal responsibility for their actions. A man's word was his bond. People had character, and women knew how to deal with a "cad".

What happened?

You say it's the government's fault because they started writing laws? C'mon. That came much later.

The federal government started buying votes with their social programs. A pregnant woman didn't need a husband, not when she had Uncle Sam. Welfare grew by leaps and bounds and became a way of life for many people.

These programs robbed people of their self esteem (unlike the CCC during the Great Depression where people refused a government handout and insisted on working for the money) and took away personal responsibility.

People used to be helped by their church and their community. Now they get a check from some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.

Vast amounts of money were forcibly taken from one class of citizen and given to another, breeding resentment and class warfare.

The laws came later. If character and self esteem will not keep you from doing drugs, then laws need to be written. If men have no shame and harrass women, then laws need to be written. If people are going to receive free health care, then laws controlling their behavior will be written.

You need to ask yourself the real reason for some law. It's not government control. It's more than likely taking the place of something that was voluntary before.

[headsonpikes]

I agree with you absolutely that welfare programs are anti-human and destructive of society.

You argue that since these socialist depredations are irreversible, we must abandon our liberal, capitalist and open society in favor of a more closely-regulated one.

I argue that we should cancel the war on community and individual responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may.

The WOD is a misbegotten policy in its entirety. Founded in racism and personal ambition, it has had the inevitable result of enriching murderous criminals and corrupt officials around the world.

An entirely new strategy should not be dismissed simply because it would reflect poorly on the existing bureaucracy and their thuggish disregard for American freedoms.

[robertpaulsen]

"You argue that since these socialist depredations are irreversible"

I do not. I simply am telling you what is.

"I argue that we should cancel the war on community and individual responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may."

Nope. You want to take away the laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., then "let the chips fall where they may"?

Hell, those "chips" will fall right into one or more of the existing federal government programs. Let's double the number of people on welfare, then we'll try to get rid of the program, huh?

How about this? Let's get rid of the social programs first, thereby forcing people to assume personal responsibility. Once these programs are gone, I would venture to guess that the citizenry would be much more receptive to ending the "war on community and individual responsibility", since the results of ending that war will have little impact on their lives.

[headsonpikes]

Let's get rid of the social programs first...

Naah...let's do it all at once - like ripping off a bandaid it will hurt less!

;^)

[tacticalogic]

The federal government started buying votes with their social programs. A pregnant woman didn't need a husband, not when she had Uncle Sam. Welfare grew by leaps and bounds and became a way of life for many people.

These programs robbed people of their self esteem (unlike the CCC during the Great Depression where people refused a government handout and insisted on working for the money) and took away personal responsibility.

Like FDR didn't buy votes promising people the federal government could make it all better.

[robertpaulsen]

"Like FDR didn't buy votes promising people the federal government could make it all better."

Oh goody. tacticalogic is here to help change the subject to an analysis of FDR.

Hey, everyone knows he "packed the court" and singlehandedly "expanded the commerce clause" -- what more do we need to know?

[tacticalogic]

Hey, everyone knows he "packed the court" and singlehandedly "expanded the commerce clause" -- what more do we need to know?

We need to know that your only interest in pot is making sure your children never smoke it, and most of all we need to know you don't have any particular scruples about what you'll do to make that happen.

[William Terrell]

First, people with low intelligence don't have character.

You're confusing intellect with intelligence again. Intelligent people have character regardless of their IQ. Matter of fact, you might say that the presence of one is synomous with the other.

Then, people with high intelligence don't have common sense.

People with a high intellect do not necessarilly have common sense.

Any other straw men you'd like to beat?

[robertpaulsen]

"Intelligent people have character regardless of their IQ."

So an intelligent person with an IQ of 40 has character. Got it.

Now who, besides you, defines a person with an IQ of 40 as "an intelligent person"?

[William Terrell]

So an intelligent person with an IQ of 40 has character. Got it.

Good.

Now who, besides you, defines a person with an IQ of 40 as "an intelligent person"?

Now, you say you got it, then you say something that indicates you didn't got it.

[TKDietz]

"Go read the article. It is not about smoking marijuana. It is about Marinol research. You said legalize "it" referring back to the article (Marinol) and marinol is already legal.!"

I read the article as posted at the beginning of this thread and saw no mention of Marinol. It looks to me like the article was about cannabinoids and "marijuana like drugs." Marinol is synthetic THC, with no other "cannabinoids." Aside from THC, marijuana is chock full of other "cannabinoids" that may have medicinal properties. A lot of the studies going on today are attempts to use the medicinal properties of these other cannabinoids without including THC in the final product or at least not using so much of it in relation to the other cannabinoids being used. That's how they could come up with "marijuana like drugs" that cause little or no intoxication.

[WildTurkey]

I read the article as posted at the beginning of this thread and saw no mention of Marinol.

Try a word search on "Marinol".

[TKDietz]

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

Rp, I see you are back to making dishonest claims again. Are 60% less people smoking pot today than in 1979? Of course not, yet you still keep making this false claim knowing full well that it isn't true.

Liar.

[Know your rights]

I didn't say "no change," I said "no significant change." The 18-to-21 bracket wasn't drinking nearly as much as all the over-21s; and lower BAC limits deterred somwe drunk driving, but not obviously much drinking.

[Know your rights]

Legal status aside, there are many other reasons (price, taxes, social stigma, etc.)

Insofar as nonlegal factors affect recreational substance use, your claim that a drop in drug use must be due to the legal war on drugs falls flat. Thanks for exposing the weakness of your own argument.