Posted on 11/05/2004 1:38:10 PM PST by 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."
I guess one sentence about how someone got interested in research over-rides 10 paragraphs about synthetic cannibinoid research.
From the article:
----------------------------------------
They believe marijuana has too many negatives to be a truly effective drug, with side effects that include memory problems, decreased immunity and possible addiction.
Marijuana has another drawback. From a scientific standpoint, Giuffrida says, it’s "a very dirty drug".
Yeah, and we know your definition of "failure". To you, we haven't succeeded until those 14 million marijuana users have shrunk to 25,000.
While at the same time decriminalizing. While at the same time making marijuana the lowest arrest priority. Blah, blah, blah.
Can't have it both ways, MrLeRoy. Then again, you don't really mean to have it both ways, now do you?
Excellent observation.
LOL. You power of observation is excellent!
MARINOL. I guess you didn't know.
The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients
The use of Marijuana for pleasure or "recreational" use is a sin. Pain relief is ok as long as you don't enjoy it. I watched my Dad dying from Lung cancer and he didn't want to take the Morphine that could have relieved his pain because he didn't want to get "hooked" on it. People have been brainwashed into believing that dying in agony is preferable to using drugs. Pathetic.
And I'm a 3 times a day sinner. Well, that's not counting...oh, nevermind.
Someone might giggle.
Yeah, and why the crews wear hemp all-weather gear. And the maps are drawn on hemp paper.
What a joke.
We should get the government out of it. That's why.
If it was found to cure cancer, would you still be opposed?
The reason you don't see it is because there is no difference.
Addressed in the article.
----------------------------
They believe marijuana has too many negatives to be a truly effective drug, with side effects that include memory problems, decreased immunity and possible addiction.
Marijuana has another drawback. From a scientific standpoint, Giuffrida says, it’s "a very dirty drug".
I think these guys have been smoking something to take an article that is critical of smoking marijuana and portray it (the article) as supporting legalized marijuana.
So we should keep it illegal because it makes it easier to arrest people...
What police state were you raised in?
No. Marinol is the brand name of synthetic THC.
It is legalized. It's called Marinol.
and it sucks, ask any cancer patient.
Baloney! You brought up Prohibition -- when Prohibition ended it ended on all forms of alcohol, thereby putting organized crime out of business.
You're proposing ending the prohibition on just marijuana, leaving the gangs in place to sell all the remaining illegal drugs. Would the result of this action be relevant to the results obtained from ending Prohibition?
"Not different", he says.
"Alcohol use dropped substantially during the same period ..."
Wrong again, buffalo breath. In the period 1979-1994, marijuana use decreased 63%. Alcohol? Down 15%. That is not what a reasonable person would call "substantial" when comparing that figure to marijuana.
Oh, by the way. In the period 1970-2001, milk consumption fell by 30% with no preceding significant change in its legal status either. I suppose this is also significant to your argument? Maybe you can work it into a future post.
Plus the court's definition of liability has been expanded in civil suits to include anyone and everyone who had any contact whatsoever with the drinker. Plus the penalties have increased.
Legal status aside, there are many other reasons (price, taxes, social stigma, etc.). Don't let Know your rights (aka MrLeRoy) define and limit the scope of the argument -- a favorite tactic of his.
?
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.