Have a drink on me...
Posted on 02/26/2006 7:55:05 AM PST by Wolfie
Physician Advocates for Medical Marijuana
Vermont -- As he opened his remarks about medical marijuana, Dr. Joseph McSherry said he couldn't be as informative as he would like to be.
"I asked a very good friend, who happens to be a medical marijuana patient, what I should tell you today," McSherry said. "He said to tell you not to ask a doctor. Doctors don't know (expletive) about medical marijuana."
McSherry, a neurophysiologist and PhD associated with Fletcher Allen Medical Center and the University of Vermont, said his friend is largely correct: There have been few scientific studies on the effects of marijuana as a medicine, and even less research has been conducted on its medical effects in humans.
"You'll probably be more educated than your doctor by the time we get through," McSherry told his audience at the Godnick Center in Rutland on Friday.
He walked the audience through the limited medical data on cannabis and the properties of the chemicals in marijuana other than THC that can have beneficial effects.
Canabanoids, McSherry said, can boost the effectiveness of other painkillers, inhibit the growth of tumors and alleviate wet macular degeneration, which causes blindness in some cases.
"We're just beginning to scratch the surface of this iceberg," he said.
McSherry said that inhaled marijuana can be very effective at treating sudden swift pains, while many other painkillers, including marinol — a legal prescription drug that is a capsule of THC in sesame oil — can take too long to take effect.
"I don't approve of smoking for anybody," he said. "There's got to be a better way of doing it, but the U.S. government hasn't been interested in doing any research.
"If you eat it, the chemicals peak in two to four hours. Eating it is probably the worst way of intaking THC," he said. "If you inhale it, THC levels peak in a few minutes and it actually goes away in the first hour."
He noted that researchers in other countries are trying to develop different types of medical cannabis for patients.
Two members of the audience who said they use the drug for medicinal purposes offered compelling testimony about its benefits. Neither identified themselves.
The first patient said that at one point he had been on 17 different medications to treat his multiple sclerosis — some to counteract the side effects of other medications.
"Now I think I'm on four medications now," he said. "I'm not on medications for the side effects of medication. I'm not drugged out or high. From 17 meds, down to four."
A second patient said he had lost more than 50 pounds while undergoing chemotherapy before using marijuana to counteract the nausea.
"I went from 236 pounds down to 176," he said. "Part of the problem was the sickness of chemo. I couldn't hold down food, and marinol did not work for me. Cannabis did work."
Members of the audience had many questions about medical marijuana, from its chemical properties to the intricacies of growing plants to use for medicine.
"If you have a seed that has a known history of consistent product, you will get a consistent product medically," McSherry said. "That's why I think patients ought to be able to grow their own."
One audience member wondered how patients who don't grow it can access medical marijuana.
"Where does the pot come from if you're not a green thumb person?" she asked.
McSherry said "compassionate clubs" have formed in California that allow medical marijuana patients to bring in prescriptions to be filled with marijuana of a known quality rather than forcing patients to rely on what they can find on the black market, he said.
"In Vermont, if you have a friend or a grandson … you can make a provision to register with the state that you're a registered patient and they're a registered grower," he said, adding that Vermont's medical marijuana law does not shield users or growers from federal prosecution.
McSherry sees access to the drug as an uphill battle. He said many doctors are resistant to the notion of medical marijuana.
"There are very definitely a lot of doctors who are very adamant it's not a medicine," he said. "There are doctors that believe if it were a medicine, the FDA would approve it and pharmaceutical companies would make cannabis that you can take as a product.
"But patients' definition of a medicine is a different thing," he added.
The government doesn't want a war on cigarettes. They rake in billions of dollars a year in taxes on cigarettes.
The lie is that marijuana has been rightfully banned by the government. You have been supporting that ban and you can't deny that. Your posts of full of (s*)it.
primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie
even the most stupid will understand it.
Looks like you meet the criteria for understanding the lie.
Ping!
No. The truth is that marijuana has been constitutionally banned by the government.
Whether or not that's "right" is a matter of opinion, not law.
"The truth is that marijuana has been constitutionally banned by the government".
No, the truth is that marijuana has been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY banned by the government.
The lie is that marijuana has been rightfully banned by the government. You have been supporting that ban and you can't deny that. Your posts of full of (s*)it.
primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie
even the most stupid will understand it.
Looks like you meet the criteria for understanding the lie.
Not according to every federal court that ruled on it. Who told you it was unconstitutional? Who lied to you?
The Constitution contains no provision for banning anything. A special amendment had to be added to ban alcohol. When the ban on alcohol was lifted the amendment had to be repealed.
Where is the Constitutional Amendment for the ban on marijuana?
If you have proof to the contrary, post it! Cite the Constitutional clause that gives the power to ban only, please.
And forget the commerce clause, the government didn't use that to ban alcohol. Remember, a special amendment was needed.
I have no idea. Not that an amendment is required -- it wasn't for alcohol.
The power to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause includes the power to prohibit:
''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''
-- BROOKS v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)
Interesting. I'll have to check with my mother, she's from them thar' parts.
" Not that an amendment is required -- it wasn't for alcohol".
The fact that a constitutional amendment was used to ban alcohol proves that it was necessary. The fact that the amendment had to be repealed to make alcohol legal again proves that the amendment had force and that the only way that alcohol could have been banned was with a constitutional amendment.
The Brooks arguement is a "straw man". It says no such thing in the Constitution.
I told you to leave the commerce clause out of this. It wasn't used in the prohibition of alcohol. It therefore set a precedent and should have no bearing on the prohibition of marijuana.
You just can't stand the FACT that you are wrong.
The powers not specifically delegated to the feds are state rights and rights "of the people". That's why the feds have no right to interfer with the 11 states in which medical marijuana is now legal. That vote for the legalization of medical marijuana is a right of the people in each state, whether you like it or not and whether you will admit it or not. The feds have grossly overstepped their authority. Again.
Ping!
Here's the real reason:
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
"The Brooks arguement is a "straw man". It says no such thing in the Constitution."
Under the same Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations -- and Congress certainly can prohibit trade with foreign nations (recall Jefferson's Embargo of 1807).
Under the same Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes -- and Congress certainly can prohibit trade with the Indians (recall Jefferson's prohibition of the sale of liquor to Indians in 1802).
To regulate includes to prohibit.
''the power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.''
-- BROWN v. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622 (1885)
If you wish to respond, fine. But if you do, I ask that you support your statements with either a cite or a quote or a link. I've given you a pass up to now, and you've been spouting off about how this or that isn't true, or how it's not constitutional, or that I have my facts wrong.
From now on, do as I do and back it up.
Here is what the federal government is allowed to do, straight out of the Constitution of the U.S. Other than rules for elections, running the Senate, etc.
You are welcome to post anything out of the Constitution that you feel backs up you claim that the feds have the authority to ban anything. I cannot find any such language that exists. Perhaps your eyes are sharper than mine.
Here is a link to the Constitution of the United States of America: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Oh, and here's part of the Bill of Rights too.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Exactly what I told you. Now back up exactly what you told me.
It's clear that Congress has the power to regulate drugs. It's right there in the U.S. Constitution.
My job is done.
Where? To regulate commerce? If I grow my own, there is no commerce.
Another bogus arguement. You keep the "straw man" alive, don't you?
You are insane. You belong in a commie country that gives their citizens no rights. You certainly go a long way to reject the rights this country has given you. To what purpose I can't understand, unless you enjoy wearing a yoke of burden that the government places around your neck. I don't.
Correct. Congress has no power under the Commerce Clause to regulate what you grow.
See? I knew by posting the Constitution you'd understand.
Um, WHO posted the Constitution? Me!
I guess you realize that the whole purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and to leave most of the power to the states.
But you act like the feds have all the power.
What on earth is wrong with you?
You act exactly like a left-wing commie.
You are a disgrace to every American soldier who has fought and died FOR YOUR FREEDOM.
You belong at DU, without a doubt. Go there and stay there.
But of course. And whatever powers weren't delegated to the federal government were retained by the states (or the people).
But, as you so clearly pointed out by posting the U.S. Constitution, the power to regulate drugs WAS delegated to the federal government.
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.