Replies

A postscript:

This is from people trying to explain where $50 billion of taxpayer dollars which somehow achieves zero net result has gone. Never mind the testimony of actual patients, right?

Patient testimony is called anecdotal evidence by academic researchers. It is given extremely low to no credence since patient testimony alone is very tainted by patient bias and predispositions.

It is clinical trials, managed by professional researchers (not attorneys or politicians), that discover the science of a given preparation, and such trials have revealed that MJ is not helpful in pain management to any worthwhile degree. Amazingly, even MJ's active compounds when isolated do not show significant effectiveness, especially when compared to true pain management compounds.

Additionally, the risk/benefit ratio of MJ use is unacceptable when the MJ is smoked. Its very high temperature is more damaging to the mouth, trachea, and lungs of users than that of tobacco. Adherents of MJ use for pain (again, this is anecdotal evidence) have reported that ingestion of MJ is far less effective for pain management than smoking it.

In other words, a drug having little scientific evidence of benefit must be delivered in its most harmful form to the patient if what little benefit it may have may be obtained. That gives one the impression that this whole medical marijuana business is bogus. The preponderance of science indicates that it is bogus and that the California experiment is political and not scientific.

I've always wondered: is this far-left adventure in the Land of the Whispering Bushes an ironic states-rights revolution? I mean, will druggies lead the nation back to a time when the states regulate civil rights and the FDA is abolished?

It's pretty disingenuous to use the worst pot that can be cultivated as a basis for evaluation. Come now, you can't be naive enough to believe that those trials were conducted with indifference to the outcome. They're no more valid than any other politically-motivated "research". Even if they were, there is no Constitutional basis for the federal government to assert this power. How free is a man who cannot even choose his own medicine?

Patient testimony is called anecdotal evidence by academic researchers. It is given extremely low to no credence since patient testimony alone is very tainted by patient bias and predispositions. It is clinical trials, managed by professional researchers (not attorneys or politicians), that discover the science of a given preparation, and such trials have revealed that MJ is not helpful in pain management to any worthwhile degree.

According to the Institute of Medicine:

The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.

Additionally, the risk/benefit ratio of MJ use is unacceptable when the MJ is smoked. Its very high temperature is more damaging to the mouth, trachea, and lungs of users than that of tobacco. Adherents of MJ use for pain (again, this is anecdotal evidence) have reported that ingestion of MJ is far less effective for pain management than smoking it.

Vaporizers can be used for marijuana. These combust the active ingredients but filter out nearly all of the toxins.

I think the debate is not that a plant is arbitrarily outlawed, but whether use of MJ constitutes a threat to the general welfare. There is substantial evidence that it is such a threat, so I support the regulation of MJ.

Several studies have been done which conclude that drug prohibition increases both violent crime and property crime. I can give you references if you like.

I wanted to read the rest of the article, but the link failed.

This link is current.