Smoke and Transplants
ironjustice
In Seattle, a fifty-six-year old man died last Thursday after being
refused a liver transplant because he had followed his doctor’s
recommendation to use marijuana to ease the symptoms of hepatitis C.
From the Associated Press story:
His death came a week after a doctor told him a University of
Washington Medical Center committee had again denied him a spot on the
liver transplant list.
The team had previously told him it would not consider placing him on
the list until he completed a 60-day drug-treatment class…
The Virginia-based United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees
the nation’s transplant system, leaves it to individual hospitals to
develop criteria for transplant candidates.
At some, people who use “illicit substances”-including medical
marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically
rejected.
At others, patients are given a chance to reapply if they stay clean
for six months.
The cruelty and stupidity of this beggars belief. This patient did not
need “drug treatment.”
He was already undergoing drug treatment.
Nor did he need to get “clean.”
He was already clean.
It’s the drug war that’s dirty. (H/t: John Leone.)
--------------------
Murphy's law ?
--------------------
Liver transplant patient set alight during surgery sues doctors and
hospital
VANCOUVER — A Vernon, B.C., man is suing his doctors, Vancouver
General
Hospital and the local health authority after a heart-stopping liver
transplant during which he was set aflame.
During the transplant surgery in February 2006, Robbin Reeves's heart
stopped and doctors performed an open cardiac massage.
Reeves's lawsuit claims doctors tore one of the chambers of his heart
and, in the rush to prepare for the emergency surgery, alcohol on his
neck and shoulder caught fire, leaving him with serious burns.
Six months after the surgery doctors removed a broken sternal wire
from
his chest and then, in July 2006, he found out the first liver
transplant failed and he had another transplant surgery last year.
Reeves's B.C. Supreme Court lawsuit claims the defendants failed to
meet
a reasonable standard of care and he's claiming unspecified damages
for
negligence and costs.
No statement of defence has yet been filed.
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
Kurt Ullman
<15a9fcb8-be01-41a2...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
ironjustice <teamt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical
> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically
> rejected.
There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known
as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole
authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA
(from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the
evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton
policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep
looking.
I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA
and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on
substantially flimsier medical documentation.
Juba
kurtullman-4FCE9...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net,
And you think you're getting an unbiased opinion from the FDA? The FDA
is a joke.
The FDA's policy on medical marijuana is based soley on drug war
politics and not science.
National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine: The Medical Value
of Marijuana
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/ch4.html
"In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies
indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect."
"Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes
available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people
suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking
marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."
According to a 2001 national survey of US physicians conducted for the
American Society of Addiction Medicine, nearly half of all doctors with
an opinion on the subject support legalizing marijuana as a medicine.
Moreover, no less than 80 state and national health care organizations -
including the American Public Health Association, The American Nurses
Association, and The New England Journal of Medicine - support
immediate, legal patient access to medical marijuana.
The FDA Contradicts The National Academy of Sciences
In the ongoing battle over the legalization of marijuana for medicinal
purposes, the Food and Drug Administration has now shown that ideology
can bend almost anything to its will. Recently, the FDA claimed that "no
sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana -
flatly contradicting the above review by the National Academy of
Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Could FDA scientists be so far off as
to come up with a completely incorrect reading of the medicinal value of
marijuana? Of course not. Right-wing politics have trumped science once
again.
--
Juba
www.masterjuba.com
ironj...@aol.com
instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA and Pharm
companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on
substantially flimsier medical documentation. <<
Not to argue whether marijuana is good or bad but in order to
understand that statement one just has to remember 'they' tell us
phytate the chaff of our grain is "bad for you binds up minerals and
can illicit horrible body disfigurement".
When in fact it is very good for you and cures cancer.
Just to keep things in .. perspective.
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
> In article
> <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
OldGoat
The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous
substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and
dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA.
Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too?
Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana
studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course
if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to
destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess
smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in
Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the
idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise,
to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are
talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no
room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.
Moron--og
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-4FCE9...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
ironjustice
wrote:They let murderers out of jail because there's no room, yet you
applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you. Kurt, <<
One story I heard is that this law targets young decently educated
children so they can use them in the jails for telemarketing ..
I kinda go with the old school of Hearst and his cronies destroying it
for the cash.
Hearst had all his money tied up in pulp and paper mills.
When the developement of hemp paper threatened to cost him alot of
money he lobbied and got marijuana outlawed for use for **anything**.
That included the ropes the sailors were using to tie themselves to
the boat to keep from dying .. and PLENTY of different medicines /
prescribed at that time.
Sooo now his paper empire was safe.
Kinda makes sense from a distance seeing 900 legal hashshops in New
York at the time?
I may be wrong about that part but they were still legal at the turn
of the century.
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
>
> The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous
> substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and
> dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA.
> Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too?
> Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana
> studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course
> if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to
> destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess
> smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in
> Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the
> idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise,
> to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are
> talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no
> room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.
>
> Moron--og
>
> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:kurtullman-4FCE9...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical
> >> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically
> >> rejected.
>
> > There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known
> > as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole
> > authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA
> > (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the
> > evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton
> > policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep
> > looking.
> > I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA
> > and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on
> > substantially flimsier medical documentation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alan
"One story I heard is that this law targets young decently educated
children so they can use them in the jails for telemarketing .."
I guess that makes you safe then...............
ironjustice
safe then <<
Contrary to what in this context .. the word .. safe .. has a few
meanings ..
Educated children are not safe in jail .. in more ways than one.
Me .. safe .. ?
Yes .. Al .. but for different .. reasons ..
Who loves ya.
Tom
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Paul T. Holland
Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> In article
> <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> ironjustice <teamt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical
> > marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically
> > rejected.
>
> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known
> as medical marijuana.
factually incorrect - there have been several sanctioned uses of the
word.
one of the first federally 'recognized', and authorized usage's of the
term was for marijuana [inhaled] usage to relieve symptoms and effects
of severe glaucoma.
an acquaintance of mine from off-broadway theatre was among the first 20
individuals to receive it thru a government run program back in the
early 70's - not thru a lab, but directly from a federally run and
operated agricultural farm. and it was/is called medical mj -
compassionate clinical use
you might not know that there is still an extremely small remnant of
that program in existence today:
<http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-F-Subs-3.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=5&rnd=556.0115317119844>
"Smoked marijuana has been shown to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in
subjects with normal
IOP and patients with glaucoma. The duration of the pressure-lowering
effect is 3 to 4 hours.
Single-administration studies have reported blood pressure falls
concurrently with the IOP
lowering, raising concern that blood flow to the optic nerve could be
compromised. Mitigating
this concern are data suggesting that tolerance may develop to
cardiovascular effects. Efforts to
avoid or reduce side effects led to the development of a topical dosage
form of THC. Topically
applied THC did not lower IOP." [1977]
and the studies continue, albeit curtailed to a great degree -
"In summary, the testing of smoked marijuana to evaluate its therapeutic
effects is a difficult, but
not impossible, task. Until studies are done using scientifically
acceptable clinical trial design
and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, the questions
concerning the therapeutic utility
of marijuana will likely remain much as they have to date–largely
unanswered. To the extent
that the NIH can facilitate the development of a scientifically rigorous
and relevant database, the
NIH should do so."
here is one source of information:
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/faq.htm
it is also important to remember that this isn't just an issue for the
u.s.a., rather it's worldwide, and the rest of the world certainly uses
the term
below is the summery of the 1999 institute of medicine review on this
issue - it clearly shows the medical benefits, as well as the concerns
about oral [smoked] delivery systems that contain harmful [pulmonary]
substances along with the beneficial elements - as you will read - the
sceintists understand the medical aspects, and you can infer that the
conservative political arm simply doesn't want to hear it.
but!!! the science is there, and regardless of your political bent, this
is a government paid for review, it shows/confirms the benefits.
>Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole
> authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA
> (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the
> evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM.
yet the government paid for studies call for further tests to be done.
and the political powers sideline those efforts.
>The Clinton
> policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep
> looking.
> I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA
> and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on
> substantially flimsier medical documentation.
the true effort is to insist that the remaining and necessary studies be
done - as such, there are several lwasuits and hearings pending - here
is just one:
MAPS LAWSUITS
Professor Lyle Craker, PhD, director of the medicinal plant program in
the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences, at the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst, has been attempting for six years to obtain a
Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule I license to manufacture
marijuana exclusively for privately funded, federally approved research.
The federal government has a monopoly over the supply of marijuana — but
no other Schedule I drug — and uses that monopoly to obstruct privately
funded research. Craker’s case is the focal point of the struggle to
bring medical marijuana before the FDA to determine whether it meets the
FDA’s standards for safety and efficacy.
Craker’s applications for regulatory approval, legal struggles, and
proposed facility are sponsored by MAPS, which plans to design, fund,
and obtain government approval for the clinical research necessary to
develop marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine. If
successful, MAPS would bring smoked and/or vaporized marijuana to market
under a nonprofit pharmaceutical model similar to the Population
Council’s development and distribution of RU-486.
On Feb. 12, 2007, following a comprehensive review of the available
evidence from the 2005 DEA law hearing, DEA Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen Bittner issued a decisive — but nonbinding — "Opinion and
Recommended Ruling" that Craker’s application be approved. It is now up
to the DEA to decide whether to accept or reject Bittner’s
recommendation.
US Representatives John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) are
co-sponsoring a Congressional Sign-On Letter urging the DEA to accept
DEA Administrative Law Judge Bittner's Recommended Ruling to license
Prof. Lyle Craker's proposed MAPS-sponsored medical marijuana production
facility. We need you to help by contacting your Congressional
Representative -- here's how. For background on the case, see MAPS' DEA
Lawsuit page.
Cactus Jammies
What's the status of medical marijuana in Canada?
In Canada, possession of medical marijuana is controlled under the Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations, which came into effect in the summer of 2001.
The regulations allow individuals with severe diseases to use marijuana to
relieve their symptoms when the usual treatments for these conditions have
failed.
and here is information from the Government website:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/how-comment/applicant-demandeur/info_patient-eng.php
and this:
http://mercycenters.org/links/Hawaii.html
Just because it's not legal in the good old USA doesn't mean that the rest
of the civilized world is just as immoral as the Republicans, shills for the
fat cat pharmaceutical limpets.
- cactus jammies --------------
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote >>
Kyle J.
news:qvg5k.1744$L03.1163@edtnps92...
>I suspect you are a troll Herr Ullman, but puff on this
>
> What's the status of medical marijuana in Canada?
> In Canada, possession of medical marijuana is controlled under the
> Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, which came into effect in the summer
> of 2001. The regulations allow individuals with severe diseases to use
> marijuana to relieve their symptoms when the usual treatments for these
> conditions have failed.
>
> and here is information from the Government website:
>
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/how-comment/applicant-demandeur/info_patient-eng.php
>
> and this:
>
> http://mercycenters.org/links/Hawaii.html
>
> Just because it's not legal in the good old USA doesn't mean that the rest
> of the civilized world is just as immoral as the Republicans, shills for
> the fat cat pharmaceutical limpets.
And I'll just add that in my own state of California "Medicinal Marijuana"
is a fact of voter decision. Yeah, they say that just because the state
made it legal doesn't override the fedral status. I say screw the feds -
the states were provided with the right to determine local policy when this
country was set up and the feds don't have a right to override the voter
decisions.
Just for the record, I don't smoke the stuff. Been there done that and it
doesn't hold anything for me personally but I sure as hell know that it's at
least better than booze for your health.
ironj...@aol.com
screw the feds - the states were provided with the right to determine
local policy when this
country was set up and the feds don't have a right to override the
voter decisions. <<
They do though.
They make the policy.
They are the ones who say whether or not your 'right to use' overrides
THEIR 'right to refuse'.
They have decided it seems.
Sooo .. the rational mind might say .. do what the riggers do ..
for .. cash.
They quit smoking dope to make big money in the oil patch and if your
**life** IE:"no transplant for you buddie" .. isn't 'worth' quitting
smoking dope .. then the feds say .. "you are dead" ..
And they let you die to .. prove .. that .. fact.
At least we know they can count .. one .. dead body.
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
> "Cactus Jammies" <cactusjamm...@retinal.circus.orb> wrote in message
>
> news:qvg5k.1744$L03.1163@edtnps92...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I suspect you are a troll Herr Ullman, but puff on this
>
> > What's the status of medical marijuana in Canada?
> > In Canada, possession of medical marijuana is controlled under the
> > Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, which came into effect in the summer
> > of 2001. The regulations allow individuals with severe diseases to use
> > marijuana to relieve their symptoms when the usual treatments for these
> > conditions have failed.
>
> > and here is information from the Government website:
>
> >http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/how-comment/applicant-demand...
>
> > and this:
>
> >http://mercycenters.org/links/Hawaii.html
>
> > Just because it's not legal in the good old USA doesn't mean that the rest
> > of the civilized world is just as immoral as the Republicans, shills for
> > the fat cat pharmaceutical limpets.
>
> And I'll just add that in my own state of California "Medicinal Marijuana"
> is a fact of voter decision. Yeah, they say that just because the state
> made it legal doesn't override the fedral status. I say screw the feds -
> the states were provided with the right to determine local policy when this
> country was set up and the feds don't have a right to override the voter
> decisions.
>
> Just for the record, I don't smoke the stuff. Been there done that and it
> doesn't hold anything for me personally but I sure as hell know that it's at
> least better than booze for your health.- Hide quoted text -
Kyle J.
here...
Kyle J.
<ironj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:52bb9beb-f0f3-43b4...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
ironj...@aol.com
Hmm, can you explain all that a little better? I don't think I'm
tracking
here... <<
A person HAS to quit .. UNLESS .. you get the hospital where you are
having the transplant done .. to BE one of the hospitals which doesn't
adhere to the no cannabis policy?
I don't think I am fully sure either.
It seems to say the specific hospital decides.
Are you allowed on all waiting lists then .. ?
Only your hospitals waiting list?
The ONLY way one can be positive is by .. quitting .. completely .. ?
It is a pretty big problem if one finds out a little late that someone
somewhere didn't know how things work?
What happens to your spot in line when you are deferred because you
ARE smoking dope .. ?
Do you go to the back of the line ..?
Will someone somewhere just LIE and say you tested positive because
they want to give your liver to a Japanese gangster .. ?
Will they say they gave you a new liver .. and never did .. and sell
it to a Japanese gangster .. ?
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
>
> Kyle J.
>
> <ironjust...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52bb9beb-f0f3-43b4...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 6:02 am, "Kyle J." <greyangel...@comcast.net> wrote:I say
> screw the feds - the states were provided with the right to determine
> local policy when this
> country was set up and the feds don't have a right to override the
> voter decisions. <<
>
> They do though.
> They make the policy.
> They are the ones who say whether or not your 'right to use' overrides
> THEIR 'right to refuse'.
>
> They have decided it seems.
>
> Sooo .. the rational mind might say .. do what the riggers do ..
> for .. cash.
>
> They quit smoking dope to make big money in the oil patch and if your
> **life** IE:"no transplant for you buddie" .. isn't 'worth' quitting
> smoking dope .. then the feds say .. "you are dead" ..
>
> And they let you die to .. prove .. that .. fact.
>
> At least we know they can count .. one .. dead body.
>
> Who loves ya.
> Tom
>
> Jesus Was A Vegetarian!http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh
>
> Man Is A Herbivore!http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
>
> DEAD PEOPLE WALKINGhttp://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -