Marijuana legalization on the ballot in three states.

Post Reply New Topic

This.

Oh, and this.

[img][800:479]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg/1000px-Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg.png[/img]

Source: Gable, R. S. (2006). Acute toxicity of drugs versus regulatory status. In J. M. Fish (Ed.),Drugs and Society: U.S. Public Policy, pp.149-162, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

In other words, coffee is more dangerous than marijuana...

The current drug policy in the US is as fact-based as the scholarship of Jacques Lacan...

All I know is that had I continued to smoke pot, drop acid and ingest peyote I would have developed serious mental health problems . Legalizing these substances or everybody else doing it does not make these drugs any less dangerous. And me having previous mental health issues such as autism or depression is no reason to say that I am a basket case anyways so drugs can't make things worse. It can get worse because if I lose my drivers license, wreckmy car or a can't pass a drug test to get a job then I would really be up the creek. As it stands now I can beat a lot of neurotypicals out of a job because I am reliable and I don't have endless DUI's, absentee problems etc.

You are committing a logical fallacy here.

You are looking at two measures (dependency potential and LD50) and projecting them as a complete measure of danger. But drugs (including caffeine) have potential for other deleterious effects beyond their immediate lethality.

Not least of these in the case of cannabis is its immunosuppressive qualities. It's not clear how clinically significant this immunosuppressive effect is in an otherwise healthy person, but the presence of cannabinoid receptors in T-cells should give any responsible physican pause before relying on marijuana therapy for any patient who is already immune compromised (e.g. patients with advanced HIV disease, patients undergoing chemotherapy or patients who are subject to therapeutic immune suppression, such as transplant recipients). Yet these are the very patients for whom medical marijuana is most often lauded, for its appetite stimulant effects.

While my medical opinion is certainly that marijuana presents acceptable risks of harm to a healthy individual (and merits legalization on a similar basis to alcohol and tobacco), I am very much of the view that the promotion of medicinal use of marijuana is not supported by clinical study. If a patient presents respiratory disorders, I would immediately counsel cessation of smoking, and suggest that continued marijuana use be limited to ingestion. If a patient presents immune disorders, I would immediately suggest cessation of all marijuana use. Outside of those two broad categories, though, I am not particularly bothered by patients' marijuana use.

That being said, I believe that promotion of therapeutic use of marijuana by physicians or pharmacists is professionally irresponsible. Promotion by lay persons should be identified as such.

I don't think people should do any drug before driving,work or doing something like running a chain saw but alcohol has done way more damage than weed ever did,I've yet to see a stoner whip out a knife and get belligerent and want to fight,that's whiskey.
Yes,some people have addiction problems,gambling,cigarettes,illegally bought prescription drugs,sex,stealing.But the benefits far outway the few problems it has,all drugs have risks.
One in six are in prison for marijuana possession,now that's ridiculous.And I think it would maybe put a dent in the cartel's wallet and maybe saves some lives on the border.

Marijuana helps with Anxiety.

I voted yes on the Washington initiative.

If you have to resort to a very narrow category of patients with severe illnesses just to argue against the use of marijuana, then I think you just proved my point.

I also find it interesting that you consider marijuana "similar" to alcohol and tobacco... Is that your medical opinion?

Regardless, I was not referring to the therapeutic use of marijuana (it is extremely easy to find otherwise harmless substances which would be extremely harmful to certain patients - anaphylaxis is a prime example).

I was pointing out the meaninglessness of having any restrictions against it *at all*.

The clonozepam I have been given for my anxiety can increase seizure risk.

I don't know that ones a little iffy. I mean usually I am much more functional and get things done after I smoke marijuana....not enough to get 'stoned' as if I do that I have to kinda just chill till I come down some and then get things done. So I guess my point being if marijuana makes someone function better maybe they should use it before work. I am trying to give it a break though since my tolerance has gotten rather high and I decided to give non SSRI psych meds a try but still working on trying to get the proper dose so I don't end up having to compliment it with weed and alcohol just to have some level of functioning. But yeah I want to give regular cannabis use a break, just need a proper dose of clonozepam to keep the anxiety under control to do that. Not sure how to tell the doctor straight up I kinda tend to need somewhat high doses of CNS depressants to keep the anxiety under control without seeming like some high seeker, when I just want to function well enough to do something about my life.

I mean for instance if I had a job I could take my klonopin if I started getting on edge and it was effecting my performance no problem, but going out and having a joint is somehow taboo. So that is where it gets complicated.

Believing everything the government and media says can cause schizophrenia, but since they're the one's at the forefront of defining consensus reality and sanity, you won't get locked up for slipping into the insanity they promote.

Damn that's like the best quote ever, would make a great signature...but it's your's so I don't want people thinking I came up with it.

Can you not read? I have not argued against the use of marijuana, generally. I have argued against its promotion as a therapeutic medication. I have provided an example of patients for whom it is promoted as a therapeutic medication--yet these are precisely the patients who are most at risk to its immunocompromising effects. Now as for its impacts on patients with anxiety disorders, glaucoma, fibromyalgia or any number of other conditions, the medical question must still be: is this the best choice? If it is, I have no medical objection. But I strongly object to uncritical promotion--particularly uncritical promotion by laypeople.

My opinion about the similarity between marijuana and alcohol and tobacco is that they present similar risk profiles, and there is no medical basis upon which to restrict the recreational use of marijuana any more than we restrict alcohol and tobacco.

And while I do not disagree with you in substance, I very firmly beleive that marijuana must be subject to certain minimal restrictions regarding its cultivation, processing and sale, as well as restrictions upon the activities (such as driving) of people who are under its influence.

Legal? Yes. A free for all? No.

You were the one reading a therapeutic component into *my* post by cherry-picking a single sentence. And now you are accusing me of being unable to read? Bad form.

Besides, the medical question "Is it the best choice?" is a far cry away from the political question "Should it be legal?" I cannot even begin to comprehend the scope of activities and substances that would be banned if subjected to the medical question of whether it is healthy or not.


But what about "any less"? The annual alcohol and tobacco related deaths worldwide are probably equivalent to the number of Jews dying in the Holocaust.

But that sounds more like its action taken against you for using drugs causing those problems not the drugs themselves. If it were legal you wouldn't lose your drivers license unless driving under the influences, worry about passing a drug test and such like. Having something legal does not mean one should drive on it.

I'm not the one who came out with the statement, "In other words, coffee is more dangerous than marijuana..." That is what I was responding to in my post.

My comments on the therapeutic value of marijuana were directed at those whose justification for decriminalization is focussed on its therapeutic use. (See, for example, Misslizard's post above yours). I apologize for not making the transition clearer.



Of course it is. Which is why my medical opinion leads to the conclusion that there is no medical basis upon which to prohibit its recreational use.

Why are you wasting so much bandwidth trying to pick a fight with me, where no fight ought to exist? We both agree in decriminalization.



I don't think that "any less," is relevant when the risk profile leads me to the view that recreational use of marijuana ought not to be criminalized.

Your fault. Misslizard's post had a scope much wider than therapeutic use of marijuana, so your apology is not accepted.


Childish rebuke: You started it.