Medical marijuana now legal in Washington D.C.

Abrasax

Lawmakers in the U.S. capital have passed amendments to a 1998 law to make it legal to smoke marijuana for medical purposes...

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/05/washington_dc_legalizes_medical_marijuana.php

They now join 13 other states in America where it is legal to do so.
Another victory for commonsense and another milestone on the road to full legalisation.

thetonynator

Just great. Another massive thread where everyone repeats the debate for and against ( mostly for) the legislation of marajuana, and lots of people get very hot under the coller and go off reporting posts and getting thick etc.

Wazdakka

thetonynator wrote: »

Just great. Another massive thread where everyone repeats the debate for and against ( mostly for) the legislation of marajuana, and lots of people get very hot under the coller and go off reporting posts and getting thick etc.

Ummmm... Yea...

It's boards

Abrasax

I'm new here. Give me one thread, at least.
Clearly the balance is titling in favour. If the Yanks can pass laws like this, there's hope for common-sense all over the world.

thetonynator

Wazdakka wrote: »

Ummmm... Yea...

It's boards

yeah but its the same topic that has come up several times before . . .

bazmaiden

If it relieves some of the symptoms that the patient/client is experiencing then it should be legal.

thetonynator

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=11942747

Here they are.

TPD

thetonynator wrote: »

yeah but its the same topic that has come up several times before . . .

Exactly... It's Boards.

The_Minister

A welcome move, but tbh, only legalising medical usage does more harm than full legalisation.

Slugs

It's only a matter of time...

Wazdakka

It almost p1sses me off that if this keeps going the next generation will be able to smoke weed without worrying about being arrested..

It;s almost too easy for the little bastards :mad:

orourkeda

If it's legal in washington it may explain why it's so easy to plant car bombs and hijack jumbos in America

The Volt

I'm just getting a little bit of cancer Sharon

Auvers

Voltwad wrote: »

I'm just getting a little bit of cancer Sharon

who says you have to smoke it?

hmmm what ya think of Karen O'Keefe director of state policies

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/assets_c/2010/02/KarenBlogPicture2-thumb-150x191.jpg

Sanjuro

May as well post this before someone else does...

Abrasax

Auvers wrote: »

hmmm what ya think of Karen O'Keefe director of state policies

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/assets_c/2010/02/KarenBlogPicture2-thumb-150x191.jpg

I'd let her toke on my blunt, alright.

Sanjuro

Sanjuro wrote: »

May as well post this before someone else does...

Was just about to

TPD

orourkeda wrote: »

If it's legal in washington it may explain why it's so easy to plant car bombs and hijack jumbos in America

This will be interesting....

Care to explain?

Cool Mo D

I would point out that medical marijuana is still illegal in Washington D.C. There are federal laws in place that outright ban medical marijuana in every part of the USA, and states (or federal districts) do not have the power to change them.

This is more of a protest action directed against the Federal Governments laws on marijuana usage than a practical legalisation of it. Although, whether the FBI actually start arresting medical marijuana users is another thing.

jd007

Sanjuro wrote: »

May as well post this before someone else does...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXnUZBD_qV4

Pace2008

thetonynator wrote: »

yeah but its the same topic that has come up several times before . . .

And will continue to do so until cannabis is rightly legalised.

TPD wrote: »

This will be interesting....

Care to explain?

Don't you know? Anyone who smokes weed does so all the time, and is completely incapable of performing basic day-to-day activities as a result.

lcrcboy

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I would point out that medical marijuana is still illegal in Washington D.C. There are federal laws in place that outright ban medical marijuana in every part of the USA, and states (or federal districts) do not have the power to change them.

This is more of a protest action directed against the Federal Governments laws on marijuana usage than a practical legalisation of it. Although, whether the FBI actually start arresting medical marijuana users is another thing.

dont know if that is fully right California are going to the polls in November to legalize it

link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/25/local/la-me-marijuana-initiative25-2010mar25

bluto63

Pace2008 wrote: »

And will continue to do so until cannabis is rightly legalised.

Don't you know? Anyone who smokes weed does so all the time, and is completely incapable of performing basic day-to-day activities as a result.

And there is also obviously a direct link between homosexuality and immigration. :rolleyes:

Rented Mule

You do realise that the Marion Barry, the mayor of DC was arrested in a hotel smoking crack. He went to prison. When he got out, he ran for Mayor again and won.

DC is a CESSPOOL without even bringing up the politicians that pass in and out of it's borders everyday.

stevoslice

lcrcboy wrote: »

dont know if that is fully right California are going to the polls in November to legalize it

link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/25/local/la-me-marijuana-initiative25-2010mar25

Yeah its true, massive wranglings in California at the moment, cops can't touch the places, but the FBI can come out and shut down the shop and tear the place apart.

If people are looking for more info, BBC Horizons did a good show a while back on the pros & cons of marijuana, and managed to be pretty fair to both arguments. Worth a watch, if ya can find it.

rgt320q

lcrcboy wrote: »

dont know if that is fully right California are going to the polls in November to legalize it

link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/25/local/la-me-marijuana-initiative25-2010mar25

The problem here is it will only be legal on a state level. While local police officers can't arrest someone for it, federal agents still can. The DEA has shut down legitimately run medical marijuana dispensaries before.

Kurtosis

Abrasax wrote: »

Another victory for commonsense and another milestone on the road to full legalisation.

Please, please, please do not try to link the argument for medical use of cannabis and legalisation of recreational use. The two are distinct and very different debates.

By trying to associate the two, it only damages the campaign for legalising medical use and, to be honest, it's not really fair on people suffering from some very debilitating conditions to lessen their chances of an effective treatment just so other people can have a toke.

plein de force

*books flight to washington*:pac:

Abrasax

penguin88 wrote: »

Please, please, please do not try to link the argument for medical use of cannabis and legalisation of recreational use. The two are distinct and very different debates.

By trying to associate the two, it only damages the campaign for legalising medical use and, to be honest, it's not really fair on people suffering from some very debilitating conditions to lessen their chances of an effective treatment just so other people can have a toke.

I believe in marijuanas effectiveness as a medical substance and as a recreational user myself, would like to see it fully legalised.
Why can I not celebrate one thing, while hoping for the other?
It's the same substance in both instances.
Why should I refrain from expressing my beliefs in either case?

Kurtosis

Abrasax wrote: »

I believe in marijuanas effectiveness as a medical substance and as a recreational user myself, would like to see it fully legalised.
Why can I not celebrate one thing, while hoping for the other?
It's the same substance in both instances.
Why should I refrain from expressing my beliefs in either case?

By all means express your beliefs, but you didn't celebrate one thing while hoping for another, you suggested medicalising cannabis was a step on the way to full legalisation. This kind of attitude is hugely detrimental for the campaign for medical use.

Abrasax

penguin88 wrote: »

By all means express your beliefs, but you didn't celebrate one thing while hoping for another, you suggested medicalising cannabis was a step on the way to full legalisation. This kind of attitude is hugely detrimental for the campaign for medical use.

Well, because in my mind it is.
Some of the same untruths propogated against it's medical use pertain to it's recreational use.
The acceptance of one, I feel, will eventually lead to the acceptance of the other.
In terms of overall societal impact, I don't see how one cause is more worthy of the other. Thus, in expressing thoughts, campaigning or debating on the subject, the two will remain interlinked for me.

Kurtosis

Abrasax wrote: »

Some of the same untruths propogated against it's medical use pertain to it's recreational use.

Like what?

In terms of overall societal impact, I don't see how one cause is more worthy of the other. Thus, in expressing thoughts, campaigning or debating on the subject, the two will remain interlinked for me.

Ah now here, so would you say relief of pain and severe nausea associated with cancer and its treatment is as worthy a cause as someone getting a good buzz from a joint?

Abrasax

penguin88 wrote: »

Like what?

You sound like someone who knows a bit about cannabis and your'e going to ask me to go into the history of how marijuana prohibition came about in the first place???

Ah now here, so would you say relief of pain and severe nausea associated with cancer and its treatment is as worthy a cause as someone getting a good buzz from a joint?

Yes. The shift from an alcohol based society to a cannabis based society, in terms of recreational use, that is currently underway in the west and the effect this will have on society as a whole, I would equate with the medical use of cannabis, for those individuals whose conditions it alleviates. Possibly more so, in terms of humanity as a whole.

Corkfeen

Why is it I find its funny that this topic is right next to "US Senator caught looking at Porn during debate!"....... But honestly I think this is ultimately step in the right direction and who knows where we'll be in 20, 30 years..... :eek:

Kurtosis

Abrasax wrote: »

You sound like someone who knows a bit about cannabis and your'e going to ask me to go into the history of how marijuana prohibition came about in the first place???

No not really, I was just wondering did you have any examples of the untruths that surround medical use, I thought the benefits were pretty well acknowledged.

Abrasax

penguin88 wrote: »

No not really, I was just wondering did you have any examples of the untruths that surround medical use, I thought the benefits were pretty well acknowledged.

I didn't express myself too well earlier. I should have said it's medical use and recreational use where banned for the same reasons.

Here's some links against it's medical use, anyhow...

http://www.alexarends.com/Marijuana%20as%20Medicine.pdf


http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html
(scroll down on this one)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

WOOHOOO!!!

Kurtosis

Abrasax wrote: »

http://www.alexarends.com/Marijuana%20as%20Medicine.pdf


http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html
(scroll down on this one)

Thanks for the links. Can I ask what parts you believe are particularly untrue? I see some good points in there.

MagicSean

If it were to be introduced here I would hope that anyone being perscribed medication would be obliged to hand over their drivers licence for the duration of the perscription plus an extended period to allow the effects to wear off.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Abrasax wrote: »

I didn't express myself too well earlier. I should have said it's medical use and recreational use where banned for the same reasons.

Here's some links against it's medical use, anyhow...

http://www.alexarends.com/Marijuana%20as%20Medicine.pdf


http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html
(scroll down on this one)

Both of your reports are conducted by braindead fools.

They target one way of administration and harp on about it. Of course smoking is bad, what gobshíte is disbuting that?

I can go through most of them points and debate against the crap they are talking about. Most of it is speculation, scaremongering and utter crap.

Marijuana is a gateway drug, lol those fcuking idiots...

What you have is the pharma companies having a shít fit because their profits will be effected. Creating false stories and trying to make a balls of everything for everyone.

It can help cure cancer... CURE...

Believe it or not, a Harvard study released on April 17, 2007 shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread!

Linky

Another linky

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

k_mac wrote: »

If it were to be introduced here I would hope that anyone being perscribed medication would be obliged to hand over their drivers licence for the duration of the perscription plus an extended period to allow the effects to wear off.

You mean the same way they do when they get normal perscription medicine, or alcohol? :rolleyes:

Fallen Buckshot

k_mac wrote: »

If it were to be introduced here I would hope that anyone being perscribed medication would be obliged to hand over their drivers licence for the duration of the perscription plus an extended period to allow the effects to wear off.

yeah i dont see folks handin over license when entering a pub/offie ? so why should a lesser drug have more rules/inforcements

thetonynator

fact is that all the people on this thread fighting for legalisation of cannibis couldn't give a shít about its effect as a medicine and are just using it as an excuse for its legalisation.

Abrasax

penguin88 wrote: »

Thanks for the links. Can I ask what parts you believe are particularly untrue? I see some good points in there.

You started off your discussion with me as seemingly pro-medical use. Now suddenly your being converted to the other side.

-The first point in the first link states smoking of marijuana will cause lung cancer. Latest studies show marijuan contains anticarcinogenic properties.
-The second point ends 'though the evidence is by no means conclusive.....may be a factor' smacks of scaremongering to me.
-The third point states..'smoking marijuana can cause tachycardia' though thankfully in medical history nobody is known to have died from a cannabis induced heart attack.
-the 4th points says 'long term use alters the reproductive system'. In terms of medical use, it would be up to the individual patient to assess this risk versus the relief to their illness brought about by long term use.

Then follows an argument that synthetic cannaboids have more efficacy than natural cannabis when study after study has proved the opposite. The author here cites no actual studies.
Then comes the usual argument about cannabis being a gateway drug.
He concludes by saying that it is 'unconscionable' that marijuana should be used for medical use????

The second link, first point re: medical use states...

The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition.

This will suffice as a catch all.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

thetonynator wrote: »

fact is that all the people on this thread fighting for legalisation of cannibis couldn't give a shít about its effect as a medicine and are just using it as an excuse for its legalisation.

That can be true, but it's still benificial.

Like any debate, a person will pick up points that will help him win, doesn't mean he gives a shít about them.

There is no reason why it should not be legalised and regulated. I would much rather ingest a natural plant to help me sleep, kill pain or get my apetite than the fake crap the pharma companies produce.

As for the side effects. The side effects of marijuana are pathetic to some of the medicines created by man.

Carl Sagan

thetonynator wrote: »

fact is that all the people on this thread fighting for legalisation of cannibis couldn't give a shít about its effect as a medicine and are just using it as an excuse for its legalisation.

I don't think you know what a fact is. Sorry.

MagicSean

Fallen Buckshot wrote: »

yeah i dont see folks handin over license when entering a pub/offie ? so why should a lesser drug have more rules/inforcements

Because if someone is prescribed marijuana they have to take it regularly over a period of time. This is not the same with alcohol.

Fallen Buckshot

k_mac wrote: »

Because if someone is prescribed marijuana they have to take it regularly over a period of time. This is not the same with alcohol.

hah you are right alcohol is self prescribed... meaning you could drink all day if you wish with no limits

and i dont think they HAVE to take it .. if tommorow they are feeling less pain .. or able to eat then they would not need to take it ... if you have heartburn or asthma for example you dont necessarily take meds everday.

Kurtosis

Abrasax wrote: »

You started off your discussion with me as seemingly pro-medical use. Now suddenly your being converted to the other side.

-The first point in the first link states smoking of marijuana will cause lung cancer. Latest studies show marijuan contains anticarcinogenic properties.

No, I'm not being converted to the other side. To be honest it's pretty much common sense. Smoking anything is going to cause respiratory problems, whether it's cannabis, tobacco or any other vegetation, inhaling by-products of burning plants isn't how to get healthy. So yes, compounds in cannabis may be anti-cancer, smoking cannabis is not.

-the 4th points says 'long term use alters the reproductive system'. In terms of medical use, it would be up to the individual patient to assess this risk versus the relief to their illness brought about by long term use.

Ok...but does that make that claim false? No, the endogenous cannabinoids are involved in the reproductive system, so cannabis will also effect it.

Then follows an argument that synthetic cannaboids have more efficacy than natural cannabis when study after study has proved the opposite. The author here cites no actual studies.

That's a bit of a nonsense statement. Efficacy in what conditions or is it all of them? There's plenty of synthetic cannabinoids which are far more potent that THC out there.

Then comes the usual argument about cannabis being a gateway drug.

Not getting into this one, it's very difficult to separate a gateway effect brought about through actual changes in brain chemicals as opposed to that relating to the opportunity theory.

He concludes by saying that it is 'unconscionable' that marijuana should be used for medical use????

No, you're misquoting him. He refers to "smokable marijuana" in the above context. It's the same way that people do not get prescribed opium to smoke for pain relief, they get morphine. The use of cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in treatment will need to remove the joint from the equation.

mikom

k_mac wrote: »

If it were to be introduced here I would hope that anyone being perscribed medication would be obliged to hand over their drivers licence for the duration of the perscription plus an extended period to allow the effects to wear off.

Ha, ha..... Good God.

Hand over your After-hours posting licence now please.

Abrasax

penguin88 wrote: »

No, I'm not being converted to the other side. To be honest it's pretty much common sense. Smoking anything is going to cause respiratory problems, whether it's cannabis, tobacco or any other vegetation, inhaling by-products of burning plants isn't how to get healthy. So yes, compounds in cannabis may be anti-cancer, smoking cannabis is not.

Thankfully there's more than one way to ingest it.

Ok...but does that make that claim false? No, the endogenous cannabinoids are involved in the reproductive system, so cannabis will also effect it.

I didn't state it to be false.

That's a bit of a nonsense statement. Efficacy in what conditions or is it all of them? There's plenty of synthetic cannabinoids which are far more potent that THC out there.

Fair enough. I didn't exaclty research my own point and it's hard to rebut the author's as, like I said, he doesn't cite any studies.
Notwithstanding the fact, that the long term effects of cannabis are far better known that the long term effects of the synthetic cannabinoids advocated by the author.

Not getting into this one, it's very difficult to separate a gateway effect brought about through actual changes in brain chemicals as opposed to that relating to the opportunity theory.

No, you're misquoting him. He refers to "smokable marijuana" in the above context. It's the same way that people do not get prescribed opium to smoke for pain relief, they get morphine. The use of cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in treatment will need to remove the joint from the equation.

My bad.