Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Medical marijuana now legal in Washington D.C.

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭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?


  • #33
    Abrasax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 977 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭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:


  • #35
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Abrasax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 977 ✭✭✭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)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    WOOHOOO!!! :)


  • #38
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #41
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Fallen Buckshot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭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


  • #43
    thetonynator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Abrasax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 977 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Carl Sagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 856 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    Fallen Buckshot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭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.


  • #49
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    Abrasax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 977 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    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.

    Do they? Are you a doctor? Medical grade marijuana is not the same stuff you get in coffee shops in Holland.
    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.

    Who is recommending smoking the substance? The "against" side use this to fight the debate, but there are other ways to use the drug, such as sprays and vaporisers.


  • #53
    Kepti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Kepti


    Carl Sagan wrote: »
    I don't think you know what a fact is. Sorry.

    Stay out of this Sagan, you underachieving pothead!


  • #54
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Asa Creamy Shoreline wrote: »
    Who is recommending smoking the substance? The "against" side use this to fight the debate, but there are other ways to use the drug, such as sprays and vaporisers.

    To be fair, many people recommend smoking it. It's probably the most widespread route used for medical cannabis and it definitely is for recreational use. I'm well aware there are plenty of other routes available and by using one of these, it effectively removes the greatest drawback of how medical cannabis is currently used.


  • #55
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    penguin88 wrote: »
    To be fair, many people recommend smoking it. It's probably the most widespread route used for medical cannabis and it definitely is for recreational use. I'm well aware there are plenty of other routes available and by using one of these, it effectively removes the greatest drawback of how medical cannabis is currently used.

    Many people are idiots, same many people are not doctors. The doctors I witnessed, recommended vaporisers. Popcorn man, he rocks.

    What do you mean by it definately is for recreational use? Can you expand on that?


  • #56
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Asa Creamy Shoreline wrote: »
    What do you mean by it definately is for recreational use? Can you expand on that?

    Well I don't have any statistics and I am really basing it off pure anecdotal evidence, but I'd imagine that the majority of recreational use of cannabis is by smoking.


  • #57
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    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.

    Lots of perscription (and even some OTC) drugs can have a detrimental effect on ones driving abilities so surely your proposal should apply to these too ?

    In most instances where cannabis is used for bone fide medicinal purposes however the dosage required is fairly minimal so it would be akin to one having to hand over their driving licence for a 24 hour period when buying a single alcoholic drink.


  • #58
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    penguin88 wrote: »
    Well I don't have any statistics and I am really basing it off pure anecdotal evidence, but I'd imagine that the majority of recreational use of cannabis is by smoking.

    Ah yes, ok. The thing is, the against side are harping on about how it's bad to smoke like smoking it is the only way of ingesting it. It's not, and there are ways that are extremely safe to ingest it. A little education and promotion can improve this. I am talking about medicinal mary j by the way. Recreational is different.


  • #59
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Asa Creamy Shoreline wrote: »
    Ah yes, ok. The thing is, the against side are harping on about how it's bad to smoke like smoking it is the only way of ingesting it. It's not, and there are ways that are extremely safe to ingest it. A little education and promotion can improve this. I am talking about medicinal mary j by the way. Recreational is different.

    Oh definitely, there's a huge ignorance demonstrated by some of the opponents to medical use with regards to the route of admin. THC and other cannabinoids being relatively small molecules are perfect for effective delivery by a variety of routes and there are many ways to deliver it via the lung without needing a cigarette.


  • #60
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    penguin88 wrote: »
    Oh definitely, there's a huge ignorance demonstrated by some of the opponents to medical use with regards to the route of admin. THC and other cannabinoids being relatively small molecules are perfect for effective delivery by a variety of routes and there are many ways to deliver it via the lung without needing a cigarette.

    True, and they will keep going on and on and on and on about how medicinal marijuana will increas your risks of cancer four fold. They don't tell people why, or that there are other routes. It's their little soldier ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    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

    Interestingly, the main MJ centers like Humbolt County are planning to vote against it. As MJ became more accepted, the price for the weed has collapsed. They fear that if it becomes accepted so State-wide without restrictions that their economy is going to go to pot, as it were.

    The current status has generally worked fairly well in CA, with the Feds generally leaving the law-abiding dispensaries alone. However, they are more than willing to raid dispensaries which they think are going beyond the State's medicinal mandate, usually with local agencies also involved in the raid. (Though, curiously, the participation of local agencies always seems to be left out in the following day's headline). However, without any such well-defined mandate, I don't see how the policy is going to work out: The issue of State vs Fed law on the matter has already been to the Supreme Court and the Feds won: If an industrial-sized MJ facility were to spring up in CA, with the free movement of goods between States, it would suddenly become an issue of national concern, the Feds would get busy.

    NTM


Advertisement
Advertisement