Medical Cannabis (Marijuana) - Texas HB658
DW07
I know some of you may or may not have a life threatening disease or a
chronic condition. You may or may not know of someone who has been
afflicted with one of these conditions but I'd like you all to take a
moment to consider the rights of those who do and could benefit by
access to legalized Cannabis under a doctors advice. While there are
many medications medications legalized and on the market (including
Opiate based medications), Cannabis (or Marijuana) has been removed from
the Doctor/Patient medicine chest as a viable alternative to other
medications that don't work or are ladened with more serious side
effects than Cannabis poses to a patient seeking relief from thier
condition.
Please write your local and state representatives asking them to
support Texas House Bill HB658 in the name of those folks who have
trouble getting through the day and don't have access to Medical
Cannabis.
You can find out who your state legislators are and their contact
information by going to this link and entering your address.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm
For a sample USPS letter see :
http://www.texansformedicalmarijuana.org/docs/SampleLetter.pdf
To see what the bill will and won't do see:
http://texansformedicalmarijuana.org/docs/AffirmativeActionDefense.pdf
Become informed and make someone's life easier to live. Be supportive.
May good health always be with you.
boattug
"DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RzrVd.7696$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Hi Everyone,
<snip>
> May good health always be with you.
CHECK YOUR FACTS ! and vote this down.
The state will not supply anything.
It simply creates a legal market for illegal drug dealers.
your Texas Legislature at work!
Cannabis raises risk of psychosis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4052963.stm
Cannabis mental health risk probe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
Case prompts cannabis stroke fear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4276457.stm
Drug 'doubles mental health risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm
Marijuana linked to lung cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm
Marijuana 'helps tumours grow'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/798721.stm
Cannabis use 'dulls the brain'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm
Marijuana smoking damages sperm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3186686.stm
Marijuana affects blood vessels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4244489.stm
Rail death teen 'took cannabis'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3580136.stm
Boy hit by car after smoking drug
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3576958.stm
My London: 'Cannabis change angers me'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3492029.stm
DW07
support your negative viewpoint on this issue there is one for the
positive viewpoints on Medical Cannabis (including those supported by
American Nurses Association, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Medicine and many other highly regarded Medical and Scientific
institutions).
You are not looking at this issue in a balanced light. You have pointed
only to the negative things in your response and that is irresponsible.
You failed to point out any of the thousands of positive articles. How
is that informing oneself? I say you are seriously biased and
uncompassionate.
This does not open a legal market for illegal drug dealers... It is a
first step in removing them from the supply chain and allowing the first
legal growing and distribution of Medical Cannabis by trusted and
regulated organizations. This bill does not support Illegal Drug traffic.
You have a very short sighted viewpoint my friend and it's clear you
DON'T have all the facts on this issue. It's also clear you don't have
an association with anyone who could benefit from such a medication.
While I hope your life stays that way, others don't have that luxury.
DW07
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/xgr/appotluck03-03-05.htm
toxie
> I have checked the facts my friend... for every article you find to
> support your negative viewpoint on this issue there is one for the
> positive viewpoints on Medical Cannabis (including those supported by
> American Nurses Association, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of
> Medicine and many other highly regarded Medical and Scientific
> institutions).
You Show the URL's that say Pot smoking does not cause or increase;
1. increased stroke risk
2 damages sperm
3 Brain blood vessels too thin
4 dulls the brain
5 mental health problems double
6 linked to lung cancer
7 helps tumours grow'
8. Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior
9. THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases
and cancer.
10. user's risk of heart attack more than quadruples
The articals I posted are from the BBC in England where they have done
research recently on Pot.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html
> You are not looking at this issue in a balanced light. You have pointed
> only to the negative things in your response and that is irresponsible.
You only presented some vague postive feeling, IGNORING the serious health
problems Pot use has shown to create.
> You failed to point out any of the thousands of positive articles. How
> is that informing oneself? I say you are seriously biased and
> uncompassionate.
You only attack me personally, and continue to fail to address the health
issue, the serious medical concerns with POT use. That is because you have
no answers for the medical and mental problems Pot use causes.
> This does not open a legal market for illegal drug dealers... It is a
> first step in removing them from the supply chain and allowing the first
> legal growing and distribution of Medical Cannabis by trusted and
> regulated organizations.
Sure you gonna put the drug dealers out of business, by putting the Gov in
the pot business.
>This bill does not support Illegal Drug traffic.
YES, IT DOES.
Representative Elliott Naishtat's "Pot Legalization Bill" ONLY addresses
1.the cops not arresting someone if they have a percription from a
"practitioner licensed to practice medicine " and
2. keeps the cops from arresting the "practitioner licensed to practice
medicine" .
THERE IS NO LEGAL SOUCE FOR THE POT, NOR DOES THE BILL ADDRESS THIS.
It comes from illegal drug dealers.
> You have a very short sighted viewpoint my friend and it's clear you
> DON'T have all the facts on this issue.
Again, you are "mind reading" go look it up online
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00658&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
>It's also clear you don't have
> an association with anyone who could benefit from such a medication.
> While I hope your life stays that way, others don't have that luxury.
You only want to Legalize POT, and you fail to address the serious medical,
mental and social issues
Why do you Fail to address the medical problems proven with Pot use?
toxie
IT DOES NOT ADDRESS SERIOUS HEALTH ISSUES CAUSED BY POT
THE POT COMES FROM ILLEGAL DRUG DEALERS
Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study
Papers pp 1199, 1212
George C Patton, professor of adolescent health a, Carolyn Coffey,
epidemiologist a, John B Carlin, director of unit b, Louisa Degenhardt,
research fellow c, Michael Lynskey, visiting research fellow d, Wayne Hall,
professor of bioethics e.
a Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute,
Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia, b Clinical Epidemiology and
Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, c National Drug
and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052,
Australia, d Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of
Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA, e Office of Public Policy and Ethics,
Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072,
Australia
Correspondence to: G Patton gpa...@cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au
Objective: To determine whether cannabis use in adolescence predisposes to
higher rates of depression and anxiety in young adulthood.
Design: Seven wave cohort study over six years.
Setting: 44 schools in the Australian state of Victoria.
Participants: A statewide secondary school sample of 1601 students aged
14-15 followed for seven years.
Main outcome measure: Interview measure of depression and anxiety (revised
clinical interview schedule) at wave 7.
Results: Some 60% of participants had used cannabis by the age of 20; 7%
were daily users at that point. Daily use in young women was associated with
an over fivefold increase in the odds of reporting a state of depression and
anxiety after adjustment for intercurrent use of other substances (odds
ratio 5.6, 95% confidence interval 2.6 to 12). Weekly or more frequent
cannabis use in teenagers predicted an approximately twofold increase in
risk for later depression and anxiety (1.9, 1.1 to 3.3) after adjustment for
potential baseline confounders. In contrast, depression and anxiety in
teenagers predicted neither later weekly nor daily cannabis use.
Conclusions: Frequent cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later
depression and anxiety, with daily users carrying the highest risk. Given
recent increasing levels of cannabis use, measures to reduce frequent and
heavy recreational use seem warranted.
What is already known on this topic
Frequent recreational use of cannabis has been linked to high rates of
depression and anxiety in cross sectional surveys and studies of long term
users
Why cannabis users have higher rates of depression and anxiety is uncertain
Previous longitudinal studies of cannabis use in youth have not analysed
associations with frequent cannabis use
What this study adds
A strong association between daily use of cannabis and depression and
anxiety in young women persists after adjustment for intercurrent use of
other substances
Frequent cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later higher rates of
depression and anxiety
Depression and anxiety in teenagers do not predict later cannabis use; self
medication is therefore unlikely to be the reason for the association
After increases in cannabis use during the early 1990s, a majority of young
people in the United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, and Australia now
use cannabis recreationally. 1 2 Despite the high prevalence of cannabis
use, uncertainty persists about its physical and psychological
consequences.3
Among the most prominent concerns have been putative links between use of
cannabis and mental disorders. A large intake of cannabis seems able to
trigger acute psychotic episodes and may worsen outcomes in established
psychosis. 4 5 Associations with non-psychotic disorders have received less
attention. Yet evidence for an association between cannabis use and
depression and anxiety has grown.6 Chronic daily users report high levels of
anxiety, depression, fatigue, and their motivation is low.7 In one recent
survey of young adults, over a third reported symptoms of anxiety that were
associated with cannabis use; young women reported these more commonly.8
Cross sectional associations between cannabis use and depression and anxiety
have now been reported in surveys in both adolescents and adults, 9 10
although not all studies have found an association in male participants.11
Questions remain about the level of association between cannabis use and
depression and anxiety and about the mechanism underpinning the link.
Pre-existing symptoms might raise the likelihood of cannabis use through a
mechanism of self medication.12 Alternatively, cannabis use may be more
likely in people with a background of social adversity or particular
characteristicsfactors that might also raise risks for mental disorders.
Cannabis may also carry a direct risk for depression and anxiety.
We examined the risks for later depression and anxiety associated with
cannabis use in teenagers. Specifically, the study addressed three
questions. Firstly, does cannabis use in adolescents predict the development
of symptoms of depression and anxiety in young adults? Secondly, do symptoms
of depression and anxiety in adolescence predict cannabis use in young
adults? Thirdly, is any relation explained by factors such as family
background or intercurrent use of other substances?
Between August 1992 and December 1998 we conducted a seven wave cohort study
of adolescent health in the Australian state of Victoria. The cohort was
defined in a two stage cluster sample, in which we selected two classes at
random from each of 44 schools drawn from a stratified frame of government
run, Catholic, and independent schools (total number of students 60 905).
School retention rates to year nine in the year of sampling were 98%. One
class from each school entered the cohort in the latter part of the ninth
school year (wave 1) and the second class six months later, early in the
10th school year (wave 2). Participants were subsequently reviewed at six
month intervals for the next two years (waves 3 to 6), with a final follow
up (wave 7) at the age of 20-21, three years after the final school year in
Victoria. In waves 1 to 6, participants self administered the questionnaire
on laptop computers,13 and those absent from school were followed up by
telephone. The seventh wave of data collection used computer assisted
telephone interviews. All stages of the study were approved by the ethics
committee of the Royal Children's Hospital.
From a total sample of 2032 students, 1947 (95.8%) participated at least
once during the first six (adolescent) waves. In wave 7, 1601 young adults
(79% of the initial sample or 82% of teenage participants) were interviewed
between April and December 1998. Response rates are shown in figure 1.
Reasons for non-completion at follow up were refusal (n=152), loss of
contact (n=192), and death (n=2). We examined characteristics of
non-completers in a logistic regression model. Male participants were
over-represented (odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.4), as
were parental divorce or separation (1.8, 1.4 to 2.5), and daily tobacco
smoking at study inception (2.1, 1.5 to 2.9). Neither teenage depression and
anxiety nor cannabis use were independently associated with loss to follow
up. The mean age at wave 1 was 14.5 (SD 0.5) years; at wave 7 it was 20.7
(0.5) years. Of the 1601 participants in wave 7, 1130 (71%) still lived at
home, 429 (27%) lived with others, and 42 (3%) lived alone. A total of 1345
(82%) had completed the final year of school; 1355 (85%) had started
post-school study.
Measures
We used the computerised revised clinical interview schedule (CIS-R) to
assess depression and anxiety at each wave.14 The schedule provides data on
the frequency, severity, persistence, and intrusiveness of 14 common
psychiatric symptoms and has been widely used in population based surveys.15
A total score of 12 or greater was taken to define a mixed state of
depression and anxiety at a lower threshold than syndromes of major
depression and anxiety disorder but one where clinical intervention would
still be appropriate.16
We assessed cannabis use on the basis of self reported frequency of use in
the previous six months in waves 1 to 6 and in the previous 12 months in
wave 7. This allowed classification as never used, less than weekly use, at
least weekly use, and daily use (defined as using on five or more days per
week), and initiation after wave 6. We assessed use of alcohol, tobacco, and
other illicit drugs (including ecstasy, heroin, amphetamines, LSD, and
steroids) on the basis of self reported frequency of use and with
retrospective diaries over seven days for participants reporting recent
drinking or smoking. Participants drinking on three or more days in the
previous week were classified as frequent drinkers. We assessed antisocial
behaviour in waves 1 to 6 by using items from the self reported early
delinquency scale that covered property damage, interpersonal violence, and
theft.17
Analysis
We collected data at a developmental point when young people are difficult
to trace because of high mobility. Although the response rate was high and
attrition low, 70% of respondents missed at least one wave of data
collection, which led to potential bias in summary measures of exposure to
cannabis and mental health problems calculated from the six waves of data
collection among adolescents. To circumvent this, we used multiple
imputation with five complete datasets created by imputation under the
multivariate mixed effects model of Schafer and Yucel, incorporating the
covariates sex, age, rural or urban residence, and parental education
(available for all participants). 18 19 These covariates were strongly
associated with missingness, and the model incorporated a random effects
structure to accommodate correlation within participants over time. We
constructed principal measures by classifying participants according to
whether they fell into categories of interest at least once during wave 1 to
6 (adolescence) and, separately, in wave 7 (young adulthood). Data analysis
was performed with Stata 7. We modelled associations by univariate and
multivariate logistic regression analyses and used Wald tests and related
confidence intervals to assess statistical significance and precision.
Altogether 71 male participants (9.7%, 95% confidence interval 7.5% to 12%)
and 188 (22%, 19% to 25%) of female participants reported depression and
anxiety as young adults (odds ratio 2.6, 1.9 to 3.5). Sixty six per cent
(484/731) of male participants and 52% (448/859) of female participants
reported using cannabis at some time (11 participants did not respond to
this question), with three quarters starting use when they were teenagers.
Twenty per cent (146; 17% to 22%) of male participants and 8% (69; 6% to
10%) of female participants were using cannabis at least weekly, with 10%
(73; 8% to 12%) of young men and 4% (37; 3% to 6%) of young women using it
daily.
The prevalence of depression and anxiety increased with higher extents of
cannabis use, but this pattern was clearest in female participants (table
1). We used logistic regression to analyse the level of association between
depression and anxiety and cannabis use in young adults (table 2) after
adjustment for concurrent substance use. We found a significant interaction
between sex and daily cannabis use. In the adjusted model, young women who
used cannabis daily had an over fivefold increase in the odds of depression
and anxiety found in non-users.
Cannabis in adolescence and depression in young adults
We used logistic regression to examine the prediction of depression and
anxiety in young adults by cannabis use in adolescence. In the univariate
analysis a dose response was evident: daily use in female teenagers
predicted fourfold higher odds of later depression and anxiety (odds ratio
4.2, 1.6 to 11), weekly use a twofold elevation (2.3, 1.3 to 4.2). In the
multivariate model we collapsed the top categories of cannabis use (table
3). The interaction between sex and weekly or more frequent use was
significant. An almost twofold increase in risk for weekly or more frequent
users who were female persisted after adjustment for potential confounders.
We considered whether depression and anxiety in adolescence predicted later
cannabis use in young adulthood in two further logistic regression models,
examining the predictions of weekly and daily use (table 4). After
adjustment for adolescent cannabis use and other potential confounders,
adolescent depression and anxiety predicted neither weekly nor daily use.
Around 60% of the statewide secondary school sample had used cannabis
recreationally by young adulthood; most participants first experimented
while at secondary school. By young adulthood 7% were daily users and in
young women this level of use was associated with over five times the odds
of depression and anxiety found in non-users. In young women, weekly use as
teenagers predicted a twofold increase in later depression and anxiety and
daily use a fourfold increase. In contrast, depression in teenagers did not
predict higher cannabis use.
Strengths
Earlier cohort studies had a limited capacity to address the key questions
of this study. One study reported a prospective relation between cannabis
use and later depression but started well after the risk period of onset for
both.20 Two important studies in adolescence examined either monthly
cannabis use or use in the preceding yeardoses that in the light of this
study are unlikely to be associated with mental health problems. 21 22
Our close to representative sample, high rates of participation, and
frequent measures during participants' teenage years are strengths of this
study. A telephone interview strategy was used in data collection in the
last wave, and, although prevalence estimates may vary slightly as a result,
it is unlikely to have caused a systematic bias in patterns of association.
The use of multiple imputation minimised measurement biases arising from
missing data during the teenage years, but we did not attempt to adjust for
differential participation of young adults. Even though depression and
anxiety in teenagers and cannabis use did not predict dropout from the
study, the difference in non-responders on other factors (for example, sex
or family structure) may have had some bearing on the specification of
associations.
What the results might mean
Possible explanations for the high degree of depression and anxiety found in
young women who used cannabis often include underlying characteristics that
predispose to both anxiety and depression, self medication of pre-existing
depressive symptoms, and an adverse effect of cannabis on mental health.21
The association with cannabis use persisted after adjustment for concurrent
use of alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit substances as well as indices of
family disadvantagefindings consistent with a more direct relation. We
considered self medication with cannabis but found no prospective relation
between depression and anxiety in adolescence and later frequent cannabis
use, consistent with an earlier report.22
The persistence of associations in the multivariate models and the evidence
for a prospective dose-response relation are consistent with a view that
frequent use of cannabis in young people increases the risks of later
depression and anxiety. Psychosocial mechanismsfor example, the adoption of
a countercultural lifestylepossibly underlie the association. Social
consequences of frequent use include educational failure, dropout,
unemployment, and crimeall factors that may lead to higher rates of mental
disorders. Because risks seem confined largely to daily users, however, the
question about a direct pharmacological effect remains. Cannabinoid
receptors (CB1) are found widely in the central nervous system, with a
distribution that is consistent with effects on a wide range of brain
functions including memory, emotion, cognition, and movement.23
Cannabis use in young people remains a controversial area, and absence of
good data has handicapped the development of rational public health
policies.3 These findings contribute to evidence that frequent cannabis use
may have a deleterious effect on mental health beyond a risk for psychotic
symptoms. Strategies to reduce frequent use of cannabis might reduce the
level of mental disorders in young people.
Acknowledgments
Contributors: GCP was the principal investigator and prepared the
manuscript. CC was the study coordinator and contributed to data analysis
and manuscript preparation. JBC contributed to the data analysis and
manuscript preparation. LD, ML, and WH contributed to the preparation of the
manuscript. GCP is the guarantor.
Footnotes
Editorial by Rey and Tennant
Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council and Victorian Health
Promotion Foundation.
Competing interests: None declared.
1. Smart RG, Ogborne AC. Drug use and drinking among students in 36
countries. Addict Behav 2000; 25: 455-460[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
2. Ramsay M, Spiller J. Drug use declared in 1996: latest results from the
British crime survey. In: London: Home Office, 1977.
3. Strang J, Witton J, Hall W. Improving the quality of the cannabis debate:
defining the different domains. BMJ 2000; 320: 108-110[Free Full Text].
4. Linszen DH, Dingemans PM, Lenior ME. Cannabis abuse and the course of
recent-onset schizophrenic disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994; 51:
273-279[Abstract].
5. Hall W. Cannabis use and psychosis. Alcohol Rev 1998; 17: 433-444.
6. Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey MT. Alcohol, cannabis and tobacco use among
Australians: a comparison of their associations with other drug use and use
disorders, affective and anxiety disorders, and psychosis. Addiction 2001;
96: 1603-1614[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
7. Reilly D, Didcott R, Swift W. Long-term cannabis use: characteristics of
users in Australian rural areas. Addiction 1998; 93:
837-846[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
8. Thomas H. A community survey of adverse effects of cannabis use. Drug
Alcohol Depend 1996; 42: 201-207[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
9. Rey JM, Sawyer MG, Raphael B, Patton GC, Lynskey MT. The mental health of
teenagers who use marijuana. Br J Psychiatry 2001; 180:
216-221[Abstract/Free Full Text].
10. Troisi A, Pasini A, Saracco M. Psychiatric symptoms in male cannabis
users not using other illicit drugs. Addiction 1998; 93:
487-492[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
11. Green BE, Ritter C. Marijuana use and depression. J Health Soc Behav
2000; 41: 40-49[ISI][Medline].
12. Paton S, Kessler R, Kandel D. Depressive mood and adolescent illicit
drug use: a longitudinal analysis. J Gen Psychol 1977; 92: 267-287.
13. Paperny DM, Aono JY, Lehman RM. Computer assisted detection and
intervention in adolescent high-risk health behaviour. J Pediatr 1990; 116:
456-462[ISI][Medline].
14. Lewis G, Pelosi AJ. The manual of CIS-R. London: Institute of
Psychiatry, 1992.
15. Bebbington PE, Dunn G, Jenkins R, Lewis G, Brugha TS, Farrell M, et al.
The influence of age and sex on the prevalence of depressive conditions:
report from the national survey of psychiatric morbidity. Psychol Med 1998;
28: 9-19[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
16. Lewis G, Pelosi AJ, Araya R, Dunn G. Measuring psychiatric disorder in
the community: a standardized assessment for use by lay interviewers.
Psychol Med 1992; 22: 465-486[ISI][Medline].
17. Moffitt TE, Silva PA. Self-reported delinquency: results from an
instrument for New Zealand. Aust N Z J Criminol 1988; 21: 227-240[ISI].
18. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. New York:
Wiley, 1987.
19. Schafer JL, Yucel RM. Computational strategies for multivariate linear
mixed-effects models with missing values. J Comput Graph Stat 2002; 11:
437-457[CrossRef][ISI].
20. Bovasso GB. Cannabis abuse as a risk factor for depressive symptoms. Am
J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 2033-2037[Abstract/Free Full Text].
21. Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Early onset cannabis use and psychosocial
adjustment in young adults. Addiction 1997; 92:
279-296[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
22. McGee R, Williams S, Poulton RG, Moffitt TE. A longitudinal study of
cannabis use and mental health from adolescence to early adulthood.
Addiction 2000; 95: 491-503[ISI][Medline].
23. Ameri A. The effects of cannabinoids on the brain. Prog Neurobiol 1999;
58: 315-348[CrossRef][ISI][Medline].
(Accepted 15 August 2002)
© BMJ 2002
Related editorials in BMJ:
Cannabis and mental health .
Joseph M Rey and Christopher C Tennant
BMJ 2002 325: 1183-1184. [Full text]
Other related articles in BMJ:
Papers
Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish
conscripts of 1969: historical cohort study.
Stanley Zammit, Peter Allebeck, Sven Andreasson, Ingvar Lundberg, and Glyn
Lewis
BMJ 2002 325: 1199. [Abstract] [Abridged text] [Full text]
Papers
Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal
prospective study.
Louise Arseneault, Mary Cannon, Richie Poulton, Robin Murray, Avshalom
Caspi, and Terrie E Moffitt
BMJ 2002 325: 1212-1213. [Full text]
WEBSITE OF THE WEEK
Website of the week: Teenagers and cannabis.
Jocalyn Clark
BMJ 2002 325: 1248. [Full text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
Cannabis and Mental Disorders
Journal Watch Psychiatry, February 5, 2003; 2003(205): 11 - 11.
[Full Text]
Cannabis and Mental Disorders
Journal Watch (General), December 31, 2002; 2002(1231): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]
J. M Rey and C. C Tennant
Cannabis and mental health
BMJ, November 23, 2002; 325(7374): 1183 - 1184.
[Full Text] [PDF]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
Biological plausibility of sex difference?
Adam Jacobs
bmj.com, 24 Nov 2002 [Full text]
Gender differences may be biologically plausible
Nadia Solowij
bmj.com, 3 Dec 2002 [Full text]
Cannabis abuse and suicidality in a longitidinal study
Wen-Hung Kuo
bmj.com, 6 Dec 2002 [Full text]
A novel idea idea to help young people refuse cannabis
Oliver J Rooke, et al.
bmj.com, 11 Dec 2002 [Full text]
Cannabis reduces risk of depression in men?
Judith E. Meuwly Correll, et al.
bmj.com, 5 Jan 2003 [Full text]
Confidentiality and Perceived Image of Cannabis Use as Potential Biases
Kathryn M Drysdale, et al.
bmj.com, 27 Jan 2003 [Full text]
Cartlon Shew
>
>"DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:XzJVd.34388$Qz1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> I have checked the facts my friend... for every article you find to
>> support your negative viewpoint on this issue there is one for the
>> positive viewpoints on Medical Cannabis (including those supported by
>> American Nurses Association, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of
>> Medicine and many other highly regarded Medical and Scientific
>> institutions).
>
>You Show the URL's that say Pot smoking does not cause or increase;
>1. increased stroke risk
>2 damages sperm
>3 Brain blood vessels too thin
>4 dulls the brain
>5 mental health problems double
>6 linked to lung cancer
>7 helps tumours grow'
>8. Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior
>9. THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases
>and cancer.
>10. user's risk of heart attack more than quadruples
>
Just looking at #10, I'd say that's pretty friggin' obviously wrong or
you'd see a lot more heart attacks from cannabis users.
But that is neither here nor there. Virtually every single medicine
in use today has potential side-effects.
>The articals I posted are from the BBC in England where they have done
>research recently on Pot.
>
You've collected a bunch of links to the typical scare-tactic
propaganda that we've heard for so long and has so often been proven
to be baseless that it hardly has any credibility at all.
>http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html
>
NIDA? Please - you may as well just cite the DEA or PDFA as a source.
>
>> You are not looking at this issue in a balanced light. You have pointed
>> only to the negative things in your response and that is irresponsible.
>
>You only presented some vague postive feeling, IGNORING the serious health
>problems Pot use has shown to create.
If a doctor thinks it will help a patient, who are you to say it
shouldn't be an option?
>
>> You failed to point out any of the thousands of positive articles. How
>> is that informing oneself? I say you are seriously biased and
>> uncompassionate.
>
>You only attack me personally,
You're certainly biased. Witholding medicine that will help the ill
is certainly uncompassionate.
>and continue to fail to address the health
>issue,
Shouldn't that be an issue for doctors and their patients rather than
the gov't and the press?
>the serious medical concerns with POT use. That is because you have
>no answers for the medical and mental problems Pot use causes.
People have been trying to demonize pot for decades and yet there is
no concrete evidence that pot is the great evil you and so many people
try to make it sound like.
>
>
>
>> This does not open a legal market for illegal drug dealers... It is a
>> first step in removing them from the supply chain and allowing the first
>> legal growing and distribution of Medical Cannabis by trusted and
>> regulated organizations.
>
>Sure you gonna put the drug dealers out of business, by putting the Gov in
>the pot business.
This bill doesn't do that though. I think it would be a great idea
for the state to license marijuana distributors and tax sales much the
same way they do with alcohol and tobacco.
Is there something wrong with that?
>
>
>>This bill does not support Illegal Drug traffic.
>
>YES, IT DOES.
>Representative Elliott Naishtat's "Pot Legalization Bill" ONLY addresses
>1.the cops not arresting someone if they have a percription from a
>"practitioner licensed to practice medicine " and
It does not authorize marijuana prescriptions
>2. keeps the cops from arresting the "practitioner licensed to practice
>medicine" .
It doesn't even do that.
>
>THERE IS NO LEGAL SOUCE FOR THE POT, NOR DOES THE BILL ADDRESS THIS.
>It comes from illegal drug dealers.
It could come from the users backyard. If you really want to address
illegal drug dealers, the only way to do that is full-scale
legalization.
>
>> You have a very short sighted viewpoint my friend and it's clear you
>> DON'T have all the facts on this issue.
>
>Again, you are "mind reading" go look it up online
>http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00658&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
If you have all the facts, why are you misrepresenting them?
>
>>It's also clear you don't have
>> an association with anyone who could benefit from such a medication.
>> While I hope your life stays that way, others don't have that luxury.
>
>You only want to Legalize POT,
What's wrong with that?
> and you fail to address the serious medical,
>mental and social issues
You fail to address the serious medical issues which this bill would
partially address.
You also fail to address the serious social issues of keeping
marijuana illegal even for people with a medical need.
>
>Why do you Fail to address the medical problems proven with Pot use?
>
They are extremely minor in comparison to the benefits.
>
>> boattug wrote:
>> > "DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:RzrVd.7696$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> >
>> >>Hi Everyone,
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >>May good health always be with you.
>> >
>> >
>> > CHECK YOUR FACTS ! and vote this down.
>> > The state will not supply anything.
>> > It simply creates a legal market for illegal drug dealers.
>> > your Texas Legislature at work!
>> >
>> >
>> > Cannabis raises risk of psychosis
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4052963.stm
>> >
the study "suggests" that it "moderately increased" the risk of
"psychotic symptoms".
They don't tell you that the increase is a mere 6%.
What the article does NOT tell you is that "psychotic symptoms" are
defined so loosely that 15% of the non-using study sample had
"psychotic symptoms" in the short 4 years of the study even though
they were not predisposed to psychosis to begin with.
They even state that something as simple as emigrating might be a
greater risk factor for "psychotic symptoms".
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-7_pf.html
>> > Cannabis mental health risk probe
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
They're going to study marijuana to see if they can find a link to
mental health problems.
Clearly, they aren't interested in doing an objective look at this,
but at least they're looking.
>> >
>> > Case prompts cannabis stroke fear
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4276457.stm
"But a UK stroke expert urged caution, saying more cases would have
been seen if there was a significant link."
And of course, his cannabis use went along with his alcohol use.
Ah, there's your #10 mentioned in that link.
Nice how you left out "within an hour of consumption."
Could you tell us what effect smoking a cigarette or drinking or
exercising has on the risk of heart attack "within an hour of
consumption"???
>> >
>> > Drug 'doubles mental health risk'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm
But earlier, we found that it only increased it by a mere 6%.
Clearly these studies are flawed - or perhaps Kiwis are just naturally
more prone to psychosis.
>> >
>> > Marijuana linked to lung cancer
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm
"MAY have a link to lung cancer"
I'll worry about this possible link after I quit smoking cigarettes.
"Dr Ammenheuser admitted that proviing marijuana causes cancer is
difficult because most smokers also use cigarettes, or use tobacco as
an ingredient in a joint."
Hint: Objective scientists don't try to "prove" something - they try
to learn things.
>> >
>> > Marijuana 'helps tumours grow'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/798721.stm
"MAY reduce the body's ability to fight tumours."
>> >
>> > Cannabis use 'dulls the brain'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm
Reading your news on BBC seems to have that effect too.
"LONG TERM marijuana users MAY have worse memories and poorer
attention spans "
This article doesn't quantify any of its claims, nor does it say that
any such "dulling" is permanent.
>> >
>> > Marijuana smoking damages sperm
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3186686.stm
"Dr Burkman conceded that many men who smoke marijuana have fathered
children."
"Dr Burkman said it was unclear whether fertility would recover after
men stopped smoking marijuana."
"However, she said many other factors, such as diet, alcohol
consumption, cigarette smoking and exercise also had an impact on
fertility"
This isn't really a concern unless you have fertility problems to
begin with.
>> >
>> > Marijuana affects blood vessels
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4244489.stm
I thought this one might actually be serious. Until I read that they
define heavy users as those who smoke "350 joints a week".
That's 50 joints a friggin' day! Get real.
>> >
>> > Rail death teen 'took cannabis'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3580136.stm
Oh my - I bet he had jam and toast for breakfast too. Give that boy a
Darwin Award.
>> >
>> > Boy hit by car after smoking drug
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3576958.stm
Another Darwin Award - Of course if you don't use crosswalks or
footbridges, you're going to run the risk of getting hit by a car.
>> >
>> > My London: 'Cannabis change angers me'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3492029.stm
What the hell does that have to do with marijuana?
Doug Tallen
"Cartlon Shew" <cas...@lapaz.com> wrote in message
news:qute21dtt6190hjb9...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:18:38 -0600, "toxie" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:XzJVd.34388$Qz1....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >> I have checked the facts my friend... for every article you find to
> >> support your negative viewpoint on this issue there is one for the
> >> positive viewpoints on Medical Cannabis (including those supported by
> >> American Nurses Association, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of
> >> Medicine and many other highly regarded Medical and Scientific
> >> institutions).
> >
> >You Show the URL's that say Pot smoking does not cause or increase;
> >1. increased stroke risk
> >2 damages sperm
> >3 Brain blood vessels too thin
> >4 dulls the brain
> >5 mental health problems double
> >6 linked to lung cancer
> >7 helps tumours grow'
> >8. Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior
> >9. THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious
diseases
> >and cancer.
> >10. user's risk of heart attack more than quadruples
> >
>
> Just looking at #10, I'd say that's pretty friggin' obviously wrong or
> you'd see a lot more heart attacks from cannabis users.
There are, http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html
>
> But that is neither here nor there. Virtually every single medicine
> in use today has potential side-effects.
Pot is far worse than Vioxx, Pot never went through any trials.
>
> >The articals I posted are from the BBC in England where they have done
> >research recently on Pot.
> >
>
> You've collected a bunch of links to the typical scare-tactic
> propaganda that we've heard for so long and has so often been proven
> to be baseless that it hardly has any credibility at all.
Just dismiss it because you can't handle the truth.
> If a doctor thinks it will help a patient, who are you to say it
> shouldn't be an option?
The don't rescribe Vioxx anymore do they? Or quaaludes?
http://www.johnharris.me.uk/arch/interview/quaaludes.htm
> >> You failed to point out any of the thousands of positive articles. How
> >> is that informing oneself? I say you are seriously biased and
> >> uncompassionate.
> >
> >You only attack me personally,
>
> You're certainly biased. Witholding medicine that will help the ill
> is certainly uncompassionate.
You biased, you do not address the bad health effects.
It is not "medicine", it is Dope.
> >and continue to fail to address the health
> >issue,
>
> Shouldn't that be an issue for doctors and their patients rather than
> the gov't and the press?
No, All Legal Drugs are researched and qualified by the FDA.
POT has not, and it is because it has many health risks.
>
> >the serious medical concerns with POT use. That is because you have
> >no answers for the medical and mental problems Pot use causes.
>
> People have been trying to demonize pot for decades and yet there is
> no concrete evidence that pot is the great evil you and so many people
> try to make it sound like.
Keep smoking it, you will find out personally.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> This does not open a legal market for illegal drug dealers... It is a
> >> first step in removing them from the supply chain and allowing the
first
> >> legal growing and distribution of Medical Cannabis by trusted and
> >> regulated organizations.
> >
> >Sure you gonna put the drug dealers out of business, by putting the Gov
in
> >the pot business.
>
> This bill doesn't do that though. I think it would be a great idea
> for the state to license marijuana distributors and tax sales much the
> same way they do with alcohol and tobacco.
>
> Is there something wrong with that?
Yes, last thing we need is another substance that causes medical;, mental
and social problems legalized.
>
> >
> >
> >>This bill does not support Illegal Drug traffic.
> >
> >YES, IT DOES.
> >Representative Elliott Naishtat's "Pot Legalization Bill" ONLY addresses
> >1.the cops not arresting someone if they have a percription from a
> >"practitioner licensed to practice medicine " and
>
> It does not authorize marijuana prescriptions
WRONG. Go read it on line, monkey-boy.
>
> >2. keeps the cops from arresting the "practitioner licensed to practice
> >medicine" .
>
> It doesn't even do that.
WRONG. Go read it on line, monkey-boy.
> >THERE IS NO LEGAL SOUCE FOR THE POT, NOR DOES THE BILL ADDRESS THIS.
> >It comes from illegal drug dealers.
>
> It could come from the users backyard. If you really want to address
> illegal drug dealers, the only way to do that is full-scale
> legalization.
So, you agree that this bill creates a legal market for Illegal Drug
Dealers.
>
> >
> >> You have a very short sighted viewpoint my friend and it's clear you
> >> DON'T have all the facts on this issue.
> >
> >Again, you are "mind reading" go look it up online
>
>http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAM
BER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00658&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
>
> If you have all the facts, why are you misrepresenting them?
WRONG. Go read it on line, monkey-boy.
>
> >
> >>It's also clear you don't have
> >> an association with anyone who could benefit from such a medication.
> >> While I hope your life stays that way, others don't have that luxury.
> >
> >You only want to Legalize POT,
>
> What's wrong with that?
"fail to address the serious medical,
> >mental and social issues"
>
> > and you fail to address the serious medical,
> >mental and social issues
>
> You fail to address the serious medical issues which this bill would
> partially address.
POT dosen't cure anything.
>
> You also fail to address the serious social issues of keeping
> marijuana illegal even for people with a medical need.
There really is no medical justification for it.
>
> >
> >Why do you Fail to address the medical problems proven with Pot use?
> >
>
> They are extremely minor in comparison to the benefits.
No, you just want to get high.
>
> >
> >> boattug wrote:
> >> > "DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:RzrVd.7696$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >> >
> >> >>Hi Everyone,
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >>May good health always be with you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > CHECK YOUR FACTS ! and vote this down.
> >> > The state will not supply anything.
> >> > It simply creates a legal market for illegal drug dealers.
> >> > your Texas Legislature at work!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cannabis raises risk of psychosis
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4052963.stm
> >> >
>
> the study "suggests" that it "moderately increased" the risk of
> "psychotic symptoms".
>
> They don't tell you that the increase is a mere 6%.
You made that up.
>
> What the article does NOT tell you is that "psychotic symptoms" are
> defined so loosely that 15% of the non-using study sample had
> "psychotic symptoms" in the short 4 years of the study even though
> they were not predisposed to psychosis to begin with.
Got a URL? You made that up
>
> They even state that something as simple as emigrating might be a
> greater risk factor for "psychotic symptoms".
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-7_pf.html
>
>
> >> > Cannabis mental health risk probe
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
>
> They're going to study marijuana to see if they can find a link to
> mental health problems.
>
> Clearly, they aren't interested in doing an objective look at this,
> but at least they're looking.
>
> >> >
> >> > Case prompts cannabis stroke fear
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4276457.stm
>
> "But a UK stroke expert urged caution, saying more cases would have
> been seen if there was a significant link."
>
> And of course, his cannabis use went along with his alcohol use.
Got a URL? You made that up.
>
>
> Ah, there's your #10 mentioned in that link.
>
> Nice how you left out "within an hour of consumption."
>
> Could you tell us what effect smoking a cigarette or drinking or
> exercising has on the risk of heart attack "within an hour of
> consumption"???
That dosent justify legalization of yet another drug
>
> >> >
> >> > Drug 'doubles mental health risk'
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm
>
> But earlier, we found that it only increased it by a mere 6%.
Got a URL? You made that up.
>
> Clearly these studies are flawed - or perhaps Kiwis are just naturally
> more prone to psychosis.
Got a URL? You made that up.
> >> >
> >> > Marijuana linked to lung cancer
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm
>
> "MAY have a link to lung cancer"
>
> I'll worry about this possible link after I quit smoking cigarettes.
Got a URL? You made that up.
> "Dr Ammenheuser admitted that proviing marijuana causes cancer is
> difficult because most smokers also use cigarettes, or use tobacco as
> an ingredient in a joint."
>
> Hint: Objective scientists don't try to "prove" something - they try
> to learn things.
>
> >> >
> >> > Marijuana 'helps tumours grow'
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/798721.stm
>
>
> "MAY reduce the body's ability to fight tumours."
Got a URL? You made that up.
>
> >> >
> >> > Cannabis use 'dulls the brain'
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm
>
> Reading your news on BBC seems to have that effect too.
Can't take the truth, you just want to get high.
>
> "LONG TERM marijuana users MAY have worse memories and poorer
> attention spans "
Got a URL? You made that up.
> This article doesn't quantify any of its claims, nor does it say that
> any such "dulling" is permanent.
It is in your case.
> >> >
> >> > Marijuana smoking damages sperm
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3186686.stm
>
> "Dr Burkman conceded that many men who smoke marijuana have fathered
> children."
>
> "Dr Burkman said it was unclear whether fertility would recover after
> men stopped smoking marijuana."
>
> "However, she said many other factors, such as diet, alcohol
> consumption, cigarette smoking and exercise also had an impact on
> fertility"
>
> This isn't really a concern unless you have fertility problems to
> begin with.
Got a URL? You made that up.
>
> >> >
> >> > Marijuana affects blood vessels
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4244489.stm
>
> I thought this one might actually be serious. Until I read that they
> define heavy users as those who smoke "350 joints a week".
>
> That's 50 joints a friggin' day! Get real.
That was where Medical Marajuana has been legalized.
>
> >> >
> >> > Rail death teen 'took cannabis'
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3580136.stm
>
> Oh my - I bet he had jam and toast for breakfast too. Give that boy a
> Darwin Award.
You don't give a shit when it is against your cause, sociopath, you already
show the effects of too much Dope, and it is lucky for you, that change is
permanant.
"Witholding medicine that will help the ill is certainly uncompassionate."
Like you reall y giv a shit....... you rather smoke it.
>
> >> >
> >> > Boy hit by car after smoking drug
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3576958.stm
>
> Another Darwin Award - Of course if you don't use crosswalks or
> footbridges, you're going to run the risk of getting hit by a car.
Cold hearted Moron. You don't give a shit when it is against your cause,
sociopath, you already show the effects of too much Dope, and it is lucky
for you, that change is permanant.
"Witholding medicine that will help the ill is certainly uncompassionate."
Like you reall y giv a shit....... you rather smoke it.
>
> >> >
> >> > My London: 'Cannabis change angers me'
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3492029.stm
>
> What the hell does that have to do with marijuana?
What do you think Cannabis is? Google it.
Man, you memory is shit. Too much weed killer in that Dope you have been
smoking.
DW07
DW07
> Pot is far worse than Vioxx, Pot never went through any trials.
Yeah I see and you have conducted trials and concluded these findings
have you?
We can't even legally conduct trials for this useful and effective drug.
Doug Tallen
> Toxie wrote:
> > Pot is far worse than Vioxx, Pot never went through any trials.
>
> Yeah I see and you have conducted trials and concluded these findings
> have you?
Vioxx has ben through the FDA research and regulation process.
POT has not.
>
> We can't even legally conduct trials for this useful and effective drug.
So, you agree that there have been No useful test or trials of POT.
Therefore, POT has NOT shown to be "safe or effective" drug.
DW07
How did you come to this conclusion?
All you need do is ask the thousands who are using it (legally or
illegally) today if it's effective for them (remember many of them are
terminally ill). Some people it works well, others it doesn't but again
your missing the point. For many the benefits outweigh any of the side
effects.
toxie
> I still don't see where you can say Vioxx is far worse than Cannabis?
> How did you come to this conclusion?
read the post again.
You reversed the words, must be stoned again, confused thinking?
Can't quite get a grip on reality?
Is it a side effect of smoking Medical Marijuana?
or is it just getting high on Dope?
>
> All you need do is ask the thousands who are using it (legally or
> illegally) today if it's effective for them (remember many of them are
> terminally ill).
........ stoner logic .........
>Some people it works well, others it doesn't but again
> your missing the point. For many the benefits outweigh any of the side
> effects.
Sure, Heroin is good too, ask the thousands who use it if it is effective
for them.
Cartlon Shew
wrote:
non sequitur
>
>>
>> >The articals I posted are from the BBC in England where they have done
>> >research recently on Pot.
>> >
>>
>> You've collected a bunch of links to the typical scare-tactic
>> propaganda that we've heard for so long and has so often been proven
>> to be baseless that it hardly has any credibility at all.
>
>Just dismiss it because you can't handle the truth.
>
The truth is that it's not as bad as they say it is.
>
>
>> If a doctor thinks it will help a patient, who are you to say it
>> shouldn't be an option?
>
>The don't rescribe Vioxx anymore do they? Or quaaludes?
So? They don't prescribe draining the blood of puppies to cure acne
anymore either.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20050303/od_nm/odd_medicine_dc
What's your point?
>http://www.johnharris.me.uk/arch/interview/quaaludes.htm
>
>> >> You failed to point out any of the thousands of positive articles. How
>> >> is that informing oneself? I say you are seriously biased and
>> >> uncompassionate.
>> >
>> >You only attack me personally,
>>
>> You're certainly biased. Witholding medicine that will help the ill
>> is certainly uncompassionate.
>
>You biased,
Yes, I am, but I do try to evaluate things as objectively as possible.
> you do not address the bad health effects.
Actually, I did - see below.
>It is not "medicine", it is Dope.
It is a drug. There are certain health risks, as with any drug.
Personally, I find these risks acceptable. You are free to find them
unacceptable and abstain all you like.
>
>
>> >and continue to fail to address the health
>> >issue,
>>
>> Shouldn't that be an issue for doctors and their patients rather than
>> the gov't and the press?
>
>No,
Why?
>All Legal Drugs are researched and qualified by the FDA.
>POT has not, and it is because it has many health risks.
>
No, it is because of archaic laws which were passed based on racist
fears. (It makes jazz musicians (blacks) want to sleep with white
women)
>
>>
>> >the serious medical concerns with POT use. That is because you have
>> >no answers for the medical and mental problems Pot use causes.
>>
>> People have been trying to demonize pot for decades and yet there is
>> no concrete evidence that pot is the great evil you and so many people
>> try to make it sound like.
>
>Keep smoking it, you will find out personally.
>
How long do I have to smoke it?
We're all gonna die of something - personally, I've found the negative
effects of alcohol and tobacco to be much greater than those of pot.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> This does not open a legal market for illegal drug dealers... It is a
>> >> first step in removing them from the supply chain and allowing the
>first
>> >> legal growing and distribution of Medical Cannabis by trusted and
>> >> regulated organizations.
>> >
>> >Sure you gonna put the drug dealers out of business, by putting the Gov
>in
>> >the pot business.
>>
>> This bill doesn't do that though. I think it would be a great idea
>> for the state to license marijuana distributors and tax sales much the
>> same way they do with alcohol and tobacco.
>>
>> Is there something wrong with that?
>
>Yes, last thing we need is another substance that causes medical;, mental
>and social problems legalized.
Why? People are using it anyway. Why should the legal consequences
of marijuana use be worse than the medical, mental and social problems
caused by legalization?
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>This bill does not support Illegal Drug traffic.
>> >
>> >YES, IT DOES.
>> >Representative Elliott Naishtat's "Pot Legalization Bill" ONLY addresses
>> >1.the cops not arresting someone if they have a percription from a
>> >"practitioner licensed to practice medicine " and
>>
>> It does not authorize marijuana prescriptions
>
>WRONG. Go read it on line, monkey-boy.
I have read the actual text of the bill AND I've read the news
regarding it.
"it would not allow physicians to write a prescription for marijuana"
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3045870
>
>>
>> >2. keeps the cops from arresting the "practitioner licensed to practice
>> >medicine" .
>>
>> It doesn't even do that.
>
>
>WRONG. Go read it on line, monkey-boy.
Why the hell don't YOU read it?
>
>
>
>> >THERE IS NO LEGAL SOUCE FOR THE POT, NOR DOES THE BILL ADDRESS THIS.
>> >It comes from illegal drug dealers.
>>
>> It could come from the users backyard. If you really want to address
>> illegal drug dealers, the only way to do that is full-scale
>> legalization.
>
>So, you agree that this bill creates a legal market for Illegal Drug
>Dealers.
>
No, the sale would still be illegal. All it does is provide an
affirmative defense for the accused in a court of law.
>>
>> >
>> >> You have a very short sighted viewpoint my friend and it's clear you
>> >> DON'T have all the facts on this issue.
>> >
>> >Again, you are "mind reading" go look it up online
>>
>>http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAM
>BER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00658&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
>>
>> If you have all the facts, why are you misrepresenting them?
>
>WRONG. Go read it on line, monkey-boy.
It's right there for all to read.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>It's also clear you don't have
>> >> an association with anyone who could benefit from such a medication.
>> >> While I hope your life stays that way, others don't have that luxury.
>> >
>> >You only want to Legalize POT,
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>
>"fail to address the serious medical,
>> >mental and social issues"
>
I have addressed them. Why don't you address the serious medical,
mental and social issues caused by the status quo?
>
>>
>> > and you fail to address the serious medical,
>> >mental and social issues
>>
>> You fail to address the serious medical issues which this bill would
>> partially address.
>
>POT dosen't cure anything.
Lots of drugs don't "cure" anything. Lots of drugs DO alleviate
symptoms and help patients recover.
>
>>
>> You also fail to address the serious social issues of keeping
>> marijuana illegal even for people with a medical need.
>
>There really is no medical justification for it.
Sorry, but I'd rather a doctor decide that than the gov't.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Why do you Fail to address the medical problems proven with Pot use?
>> >
>>
>> They are extremely minor in comparison to the benefits.
>
>No, you just want to get high.
I already do get high - just another sign of the complete and utter
failure of the War on (Some) Drugs.
You just want to put people in prison for doing something which
affects no one but themselves.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> boattug wrote:
>> >> > "DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:RzrVd.7696$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >>Hi Everyone,
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>May good health always be with you.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > CHECK YOUR FACTS ! and vote this down.
>> >> > The state will not supply anything.
>> >> > It simply creates a legal market for illegal drug dealers.
>> >> > your Texas Legislature at work!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Cannabis raises risk of psychosis
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4052963.stm
>> >> >
>>
>> the study "suggests" that it "moderately increased" the risk of
>> "psychotic symptoms".
>>
>> They don't tell you that the increase is a mere 6%.
>
>You made that up.
Nope - I provided a link (below).
Feel free to "Go read it on line, monkey-boy."
>
>>
>> What the article does NOT tell you is that "psychotic symptoms" are
>> defined so loosely that 15% of the non-using study sample had
>> "psychotic symptoms" in the short 4 years of the study even though
>> they were not predisposed to psychosis to begin with.
>
>Got a URL? You made that up
Yep - and I provided it.
"Go read it on line, monkey-boy."
>>
>> They even state that something as simple as emigrating might be a
>> greater risk factor for "psychotic symptoms".
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-7_pf.html
There's your URL, boy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You would have already read the same thing yourself if you didn't rely
on soundbytes from the BBC.
>>
>>
>> >> > Cannabis mental health risk probe
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
>>
>> They're going to study marijuana to see if they can find a link to
>> mental health problems.
>>
>> Clearly, they aren't interested in doing an objective look at this,
>> but at least they're looking.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Case prompts cannabis stroke fear
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4276457.stm
>>
>> "But a UK stroke expert urged caution, saying more cases would have
>> been seen if there was a significant link."
>>
>> And of course, his cannabis use went along with his alcohol use.
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
The URL was provided by "boattug" and I left it in my reply.
Here it is again. "Go read it on line, monkey-boy."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4276457.stm
>
>>
>>
>> Ah, there's your #10 mentioned in that link.
>>
>> Nice how you left out "within an hour of consumption."
>>
>> Could you tell us what effect smoking a cigarette or drinking or
>> exercising has on the risk of heart attack "within an hour of
>> consumption"???
>
>That dosent justify legalization of yet another drug
It doesn't have to.
The justification is that there is no justification for another law
which restricts our freedom.
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Drug 'doubles mental health risk'
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm
>>
>> But earlier, we found that it only increased it by a mere 6%.
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
Yup - how many times do I have to provide the SAME URLs?
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-7_pf.html
>
>
>>
>> Clearly these studies are flawed - or perhaps Kiwis are just naturally
>> more prone to psychosis.
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
This is getting old....the URLs were provided by "boattug".
If you can't be bothered to read them, then you shouldn't bother
discussing them.
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Marijuana linked to lung cancer
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm
>>
>> "MAY have a link to lung cancer"
>>
>> I'll worry about this possible link after I quit smoking cigarettes.
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm
Or did you want a URL to prove that I will worry about the possible
links of lung cancer to marijuana use after I quit smoking cigarettes?
Sorry, you'll just have to trust me on that one.
>
>
>> "Dr Ammenheuser admitted that proviing marijuana causes cancer is
>> difficult because most smokers also use cigarettes, or use tobacco as
>> an ingredient in a joint."
>>
>> Hint: Objective scientists don't try to "prove" something - they try
>> to learn things.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Marijuana 'helps tumours grow'
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/798721.stm
>>
>>
>> "MAY reduce the body's ability to fight tumours."
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/798721.stm
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Cannabis use 'dulls the brain'
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm
>>
>> Reading your news on BBC seems to have that effect too.
>
>Can't take the truth, you just want to get high.
I already do get high and as such, I am genuinely interested in the
health effects of marijuana. So far, I haven't found anything to
scare me straight.
>
>>
>> "LONG TERM marijuana users MAY have worse memories and poorer
>> attention spans "
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm
>
>> This article doesn't quantify any of its claims, nor does it say that
>> any such "dulling" is permanent.
>
>It is in your case.
"Got a URL? You made that up."
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Marijuana smoking damages sperm
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3186686.stm
>>
>> "Dr Burkman conceded that many men who smoke marijuana have fathered
>> children."
>>
>> "Dr Burkman said it was unclear whether fertility would recover after
>> men stopped smoking marijuana."
>>
>> "However, she said many other factors, such as diet, alcohol
>> consumption, cigarette smoking and exercise also had an impact on
>> fertility"
>>
>> This isn't really a concern unless you have fertility problems to
>> begin with.
>
>Got a URL? You made that up.
You enter your sperm in races or something?
If not, I see no relevance to whether your sperm are sprinters or
marathon runners.
>
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Marijuana affects blood vessels
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4244489.stm
>>
>> I thought this one might actually be serious. Until I read that they
>> define heavy users as those who smoke "350 joints a week".
>>
>> That's 50 joints a friggin' day! Get real.
>
>That was where Medical Marajuana has been legalized.
>
Recreational Marijuana has been effectively legalized in my house and
we don't smoke anywhere near 50 joints a day.
Even if your joints are only a half a gram, that's nearly an ounce a
day. Sorry, but I think "heavy use" is closer to a couple grams a
day than an entire ounce.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rail death teen 'took cannabis'
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3580136.stm
>>
>> Oh my - I bet he had jam and toast for breakfast too. Give that boy a
>> Darwin Award.
>
>You don't give a shit when it is against your cause, sociopath, you already
>show the effects of too much Dope, and it is lucky for you, that change is
>permanant.
The marijuana did not make him do that. If you have evidence to the
contrary, please post it.
>"Witholding medicine that will help the ill is certainly uncompassionate."
>Like you reall y giv a shit....... you rather smoke it.
I certainly would rather smoke it than withhold it from those who
might benefit. But I'm more than willing to share whether you have a
legitimate medical need or if you just want to enjoy a toke.
There's nothing wrong with getting high, just as there's nothing wrong
with having a few drinks.
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Boy hit by car after smoking drug
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3576958.stm
>>
>> Another Darwin Award - Of course if you don't use crosswalks or
>> footbridges, you're going to run the risk of getting hit by a car.
>
>Cold hearted Moron. You don't give a shit when it is against your cause,
>sociopath,
The marijuana did not make him do that. If you have evidence to the
contrary, please post it.
>you already show the effects of too much Dope, and it is lucky
>for you, that change is permanant.
Cite, please.
>"Witholding medicine that will help the ill is certainly uncompassionate."
>Like you reall y giv a shit....... you rather smoke it.
>
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > My London: 'Cannabis change angers me'
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3492029.stm
>>
>> What the hell does that have to do with marijuana?
>
>What do you think Cannabis is? Google it.
Answer the question. This is 1 guy's opinion. His problems stemmed
from his abuse of all sorts of drugs and his unwillingness to earn an
honest living. He has no one to blame but himself.
>Man, you memory is shit. Too much weed killer in that Dope you have been
>smoking.
"I was earning good money working as a builder and dealing in drugs,
but it got to the point where I was taking 10 to 15 tabs a night and
my head was mashed all the time. "
WTF does that have to do with marijuana?
>
>
>
Cartlon Shew
wrote:
>>Some people it works well, others it doesn't but again
>> your missing the point. For many the benefits outweigh any of the side
>> effects.
>
>Sure, Heroin is good too, ask the thousands who use it if it is effective
>for them.
>
Hop on over to alt.drugs.hard and ask a few experienced heroin users
how good heroin is.
Ask them what they think of pot-heads in rehab while you're at it too.
DW07
drug on the market today there can and will always be abuses... this is
getting off topic.
DW07
Please don't attack me.
You have been reading and referring to propaganda designed to impede
drug abuse... you are confusing the issues here. Read: Terminally Ill,
Waisting Syndrom, Chronic Pain, Alzheimer, AIDS/HIV patients. Medical
Uses NOT Abuses. Are you high?
Adam Weiss
> "DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3yMVd.25955$SQ4....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
>>Toxie wrote:
>> > Pot is far worse than Vioxx, Pot never went through any trials.
>>
>>Yeah I see and you have conducted trials and concluded these findings
>>have you?
>
>
> Vioxx has ben through the FDA research and regulation process.
>
> POT has not.
So, if I understand you correctly, the FDA research and regulation
process should be done first, before marijuana can be made legal for
medical purposes. Unfortunately, fair and unbiased research can't be
done on it until it's made legal. It's a catch 22 that's very
convenient to the anti-pot crowd.
>
>
>> We can't even legally conduct trials for this useful and effective drug.
>
>
> So, you agree that there have been No useful test or trials of POT.
>
> Therefore, POT has NOT shown to be "safe or effective" drug.
>
>
>
The only reason it hasn't been shown to be a safe or effective drug is
because the FDA can't do the necessary research on it. The DEA, which
is not a medical organization, has to approve legal purchases of
marijuana to be used for medical research in the US. IOW, the people
who have already decided that pot has no redeeming qualities are in a
position to squelch any studies that might prove them wrong.
Mike Z. Helm
>I think you are confusing Medical uses vs. Drug abuses... Like any other
>drug on the market today there can and will always be abuses... this is
>getting off topic.
What part are you replying to?
It's hard to tell when you top-post.
It seems to me the one who can't distinguish use from abuse is Doug "No,
you just want to get high." Tallen
DW07
responses correctly.
Anyway, I agree with you regarding Doug but it seems to me that Toxie
is leaning on Abuse issues in support of opposition also.
Chu mly
> I stand corrected... and no I'm not high.
> Please don't attack me.
>
> You have been reading and referring to propaganda designed to impede
> drug abuse... you are confusing the issues here. Read: Terminally Ill,
> Waisting Syndrom, Chronic Pain, Alzheimer, AIDS/HIV patients. Medical
> Uses NOT Abuses. Are you high?
I could agree with you If it is processed/ by the FDA into a real medicine,
controlled as a schedule II drug, and only administered in an office by a
real medical doctor, under only certain cases.
But all the cases you listed above Terminally Ill, Waisting Syndrom, Chronic
Pain, Alzheimer, AIDS/HIV patients, have better drugs to relieve pain than
POT, POT works for a few, and POT is dirty stuff, lots of uncontrolled
things in it. The FDA will get it cleaned up, into a pill that will work in
a range of concentrations, no smoking necessary.
Chu mly
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
news:4227B1CB...@blockspam.org...
> Doug Tallen wrote:
> > "DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3yMVd.25955$SQ4....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >
> >>Toxie wrote:
> >> > Pot is far worse than Vioxx, Pot never went through any trials.
> >>
> >>Yeah I see and you have conducted trials and concluded these findings
> >>have you?
> >
> >
> > Vioxx has ben through the FDA research and regulation process.
> >
> > POT has not.
>
> So, if I understand you correctly, the FDA research and regulation
> process should be done first, before marijuana can be made legal for
> medical purposes. Unfortunately, fair and unbiased research can't be
> done on it until it's made legal. It's a catch 22 that's very
> convenient to the anti-pot crowd.
It is the same with all new drugs, they should not be on the market until
approved by the FDA.
>
> >
> >
> >> We can't even legally conduct trials for this useful and effective
drug.
> >
> >
> > So, you agree that there have been No useful test or trials of POT.
> >
> > Therefore, POT has NOT shown to be "safe or effective" drug.
> >
> >
> >
>
> The only reason it hasn't been shown to be a safe or effective drug is
> because the FDA can't do the necessary research on it. The DEA, which
> is not a medical organization, has to approve legal purchases of
> marijuana to be used for medical research in the US. IOW, the people
> who have already decided that pot has no redeeming qualities are in a
> position to squelch any studies that might prove them wrong.
It is the same with all new drugs, they should not be on the market until
approved by the FDA
Chu mly
Already been there, H is nice and clean, Pot is dirty/messy stuff. POT is
the only drug that lowers your alpha waves, reduces brain activity. Smack
does not. Try some, you will later, and you will like it. Everybody does.
DW07
of ailments. Until 1937, marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) was legal in the
United States for all purposes. Presently, federal law allows only seven
Americans to use marijuana as a medicine.
On March 17, 1999, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of
Medicine (IOM) concluded that “there are some limited circumstances in
which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses.” The IOM report,
the result of two years of research that was funded by the White House
drug policy office, analyzed all existing data on marijuana’s
therapeutic uses. Please see http://www.mpp.org/science.html
Some Facts on Medical Cannabis:
http://www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/MedicalMarijuana.htm#MOVEMENT
Marijuana as Medicine Video:
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/MAMvideo.htm
Medical Cannabis myths:
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/marijuana_myths.htm
Cannabis Prohibition facts:
http://www.mpp.org/prohfact.html
Organizations Supporting Access to Therapeutic Cannabis
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/Grouplist.htm
Rebuttal to DEA's "Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana"
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/rebuttal.htm
Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug
Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal
Clinical Cannabis
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/PDF/Chronic_Cannabis.pdf
American Journal of Nursing on Therapeutic Cannabis
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/PDF/Th-C.pdf
A Government sponsored Cannabis program success Story:
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/press/Irvin_Rosenfeld.htm
More references:
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/reference.htm
http://www.ohiopatient.net/pdf/medlinks.pdf
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/press/positionpaper.htm
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/smokestudy.html
DW07
Adam Weiss
> It is the same with all new drugs, they should not be on the market until
> approved by the FDA
>
>
I wasn't saying that new drugs should be on the market before they are
approved by the FDA. I was saying that most new medicines don't have
branches of government and laws actively preventing them from getting
FDA approval. Marijuana does, in the form of the DEA and the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, and the numerous laws which include ones that
can potentially cause a person to face life in prison for posessing a
single joint.
Chu mly
> Presently, federal law allows only seven Americans to use marijuana as a
medicine.
Only 7 people out of 250 million? Send their asses to Canada
Why do a bill? it is not needed at all! 7 people................
You Show the URL's that say Pot smoking does not cause or increase;
1. increased stroke risk
2 damages sperm
3 Brain blood vessels too thin
4 dulls the brain
5 mental health problems double
6 linked to lung cancer
7 helps tumours grow'
8. Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior
9. THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases
and cancer.
10. user's risk of heart attack more than quadruples
The articals I posted are from the BBC in England where they have done
research recently on Pot.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html
> You are not looking at this issue in a balanced light. You have pointed
> only to the negative things in your response and that is irresponsible.
You only presented some vague postive feeling, IGNORING the serious health
problems Pot use has shown to create.
> You failed to point out any of the thousands of positive articles. How
> is that informing oneself? I say you are seriously biased and
> uncompassionate.
You only attack me personally, and continue to fail to address the health
issue, the serious medical concerns with POT use. That is because you have
no answers for the medical and mental problems Pot use causes.
> This does not open a legal market for illegal drug dealers... It is a
> first step in removing them from the supply chain and allowing the first
> legal growing and distribution of Medical Cannabis by trusted and
> regulated organizations.
Sure you gonna put the drug dealers out of business, by putting the Gov in
the pot business.
>This bill does not support Illegal Drug traffic.
YES, IT DOES.
Representative Elliott Naishtat's "Pot Legalization Bill" ONLY addresses
1.the cops not arresting someone if they have a percription from a
"practitioner licensed to practice medicine " and
2. keeps the cops from arresting the "practitioner licensed to practice
medicine" .
THERE IS NO LEGAL SOUCE FOR THE POT, NOR DOES THE BILL ADDRESS THIS.
It comes from illegal drug dealers.
> You have a very short sighted viewpoint my friend and it's clear you
> DON'T have all the facts on this issue.
Again, you are "mind reading" go look it up online
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00658&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
>It's also clear you don't have
> an association with anyone who could benefit from such a medication.
> While I hope your life stays that way, others don't have that luxury.
You only want to Legalize POT, and you fail to address the serious medical,
mental and social issues
Why do you Fail to address the medical problems proven with Pot use?
> boattug wrote:
> > "DW07" <Eclips...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:RzrVd.7696$SE2....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >
> >>Hi Everyone,
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>May good health always be with you.
> >
> >
> > CHECK YOUR FACTS ! and vote this down.
> > The state will not supply anything.
> > It simply creates a legal market for illegal drug dealers.
> > your Texas Legislature at work!
> >
> >
> > Cannabis raises risk of psychosis
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4052963.stm
> >
> > Cannabis mental health risk probe
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
> >
> > Case prompts cannabis stroke fear
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4276457.stm
> >
> > Drug 'doubles mental health risk'
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm
> >
> > Marijuana linked to lung cancer
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm
> >
> > Marijuana 'helps tumours grow'
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/798721.stm
> >
> > Cannabis use 'dulls the brain'
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm
> >
> > Marijuana smoking damages sperm
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3186686.stm
> >
> > Marijuana affects blood vessels
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4244489.stm
> >
> > Rail death teen 'took cannabis'
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3580136.stm
> >
> > Boy hit by car after smoking drug
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3576958.stm
> >
Chu mly
"> > I could agree with you If it is processed/ by the FDA into a real
medicine,
> > controlled as a schedule II drug, and only administered in an office by
a
> > real medical doctor, under only certain cases.
> > But all the cases you listed above Terminally Ill, Waisting Syndrom,
Chronic
> > Pain, Alzheimer, AIDS/HIV patients, have better drugs to relieve pain
than
> > POT, POT works for a few, and POT is dirty stuff, lots of uncontrolled
> > things in it. The FDA will get it cleaned up, into a pill that will work
in
> > a range of concentrations, no smoking necessary.
Still the social and mental degeneration caused by Pot smoking will stop the
bill.
Loth...@hotmail.com
You reversed the words, must be stoned again, confused thinking?
Can't quite get a grip on reality?
Is it a side effect of smoking Medical Marijuana?
or is it just getting high on Dope? "
Ad hominem: a direct attack against the person, the persons
circumstances, or the belief that the person doesn't practice what
she/he preaches, rather than dealing with the opposing argument
And I have seen you use this attack many times so far.
All of you who oppose marijuana use for those that are sick are going
to be hearing from me in the later threads. You are using logical
fallacies to attack the proponents of this bill, and it is really
sickening considering some people depend on marijuana to keep their
food down and risk jail everyday to stay alive.
Adam Weiss
They already have, in a sense, cleaned up marijuana into a pill. The
active ingredient in pot smoke, THC, has been re-constituted
synthetically. It is available in pill form under the name "Marinol",
and it's been available since 1986.
The uses of Marinol do not typically extend to pain relief. There are
better drugs for that. Marinol is used primarily to treat apetite loss
and nausea in AIDS and cancer patients facing chemo treatment.
Mike Z. Helm
It only causes social and mental degeneration in prohibitionists.
HTH
JamesArnotCooper
"Mike Z. Helm" <mh...@not.known> wrote in message
news:t7tg21tq2s6sd9537...@4ax.com...
Doper, go join Bevis and Butthead.
JamesArnotCooper
<Loth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109920411....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "read the post again.
> You reversed the words, must be stoned again, confused thinking?
> Can't quite get a grip on reality?
> Is it a side effect of smoking Medical Marijuana?
> or is it just getting high on Dope? "
>
> Ad hominem: a direct attack against the person, the persons
> circumstances, or the belief that the person doesn't practice what
> she/he preaches, rather than dealing with the opposing argument
>
> And I have seen you use this attack many times so far.
Then Address the long term health risks, mental risks and social risks and
quit talking about "people talking".
>
> All of you who oppose marijuana use for those that are sick are going
> to be hearing from me in the later threads. You are using logical
> fallacies to attack the proponents of this bill,
Bullshit. The Bill establishes a legal market for illegal Drug
Traffickers. The Bill allowes an uncontrolled drug with poor history of
long term side effects onto the streets. It is the Flag to Legalize POT.
Next will be Heroin, just like in England. Go see what a mess they made of
it, and how their society is ravaged by drug use.
>and it is really
> sickening considering some people depend on marijuana to keep their
> food down and risk jail everyday to stay alive.
Give them a pill that is legal, there are lots of them.
.
>
Cartlon Shew
wrote:
>Representative Elliott Naishtat's "Pot Legalization Bill" ONLY addresses
>1.the cops not arresting someone if they have a percription from a
>"practitioner licensed to practice medicine " and
How many ways can you misspell "prescription"?
Why not read the bill and spell it the same way it appears there?
Oh, you can't, can you?
The bill doesn't say ANYTHING about prescriptions.
Cartlon Shew
<inv...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
><Loth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1109920411....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> "read the post again.
>> You reversed the words, must be stoned again, confused thinking?
>> Can't quite get a grip on reality?
>> Is it a side effect of smoking Medical Marijuana?
>> or is it just getting high on Dope? "
>>
>> Ad hominem: a direct attack against the person, the persons
>> circumstances, or the belief that the person doesn't practice what
>> she/he preaches, rather than dealing with the opposing argument
>>
>> And I have seen you use this attack many times so far.
>
>Then Address the long term health risks, mental risks and social risks and
>quit talking about "people talking".
>
They are not nearly as serious as the risks (health, mental, social,
economic, et al.) of maintaining the status quo.
How many people have to die before we stop the war on drugs?
>>
>> All of you who oppose marijuana use for those that are sick are going
>> to be hearing from me in the later threads. You are using logical
>> fallacies to attack the proponents of this bill,
>
>Bullshit. The Bill establishes a legal market for illegal Drug
>Traffickers. The Bill allowes an uncontrolled drug with poor history of
>long term side effects onto the streets. It is the Flag to Legalize POT.
>Next will be Heroin, just like in England. Go see what a mess they made of
>it, and how their society is ravaged by drug use.
>
Do tell.
>
>>and it is really
>> sickening considering some people depend on marijuana to keep their
>> food down and risk jail everyday to stay alive.
>
>Give them a pill that is legal, there are lots of them.
>
Oddly enough, they want one that will work.
>.
>>
>
M. Picotto
and the poor kid (usually) says..."Hi I am Jo Schmoe and I am a
Marijuana Addict". The whole group just starts to loose their attention
realy quick...everyone gets restless...the guy next to me with scars in
his jugular looks like he wants to vaporize the kid.
Pot-Heads in reahab...what a waste of a bes and money!
Cartlon Shew
<inv...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >Still the social and mental degeneration caused by Pot smoking will stop
>the
>> >bill.
>> >
>>
>> It only causes social and mental degeneration in prohibitionists.
>>
>
>Doper, go join Bevis and Butthead.
>
You ain't got no argument, so you resort to crap like that.
Please tell us what "social and mental degeneration" marijuana causes.
I've heard it makes jazz musicians want to sleep with white women.
pookie
Like Michael Jackson?
Cartlon Shew
In his case, it made him want to become a white woman ;-)
Loth...@hotmail.com
threads. I'm sure you will just pass right over them anyway judging by
your attitude.
"Bullshit. The Bill establishes a legal market for illegal Drug
Traffickers. The Bill allowes an uncontrolled drug with poor history
of
long term side effects onto the streets. It is the Flag to Legalize
POT.
Next will be Heroin, just like in England. Go see what a mess they made
of
it, and how their society is ravaged by drug use. "
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some
event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the
inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a
series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question
and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations
will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to
believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an
argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which
there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event
and another.
"Give them a pill that is legal, there are lots of them. "
Because:
"[T]here will likely always be a subpopulation of patients who do not
respond well to other medications. The combination of cannabinoid drug
effects (anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and
pain relief) suggests that cannabinoids would be moderately well suited
for certain conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting and AIDS wasting."
"The critical issue is not whether marijuana or cannabinoid drugs might
be superior to the new drugs, but whether some group of patients might
obtain added or better relief from marijuana or cannabinoid drugs."
--Institute of Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
Dave Wagner
Marinol is not a fast acting drug and only provides a limited relief of
symptoms. I know, I've been there, done that.
In my experience, under and over dosages were common with Marinol in an
effort to obtain only a limited relief of symptoms without too much
euphoria (remember it is a synthesized form of THC only, comes in a pill
which must be digested for it to work, and it does not contain any other
components of Medical Cannabis) . While Marinol was a step in the right
direction (acknowledgement of the benefits obtained from Medical
Cannabis) , it is not a complete solution.
Jumby
<Loth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109976275.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> First I addressed some of the health concerns you had on more recent
> threads. I'm sure you will just pass right over them anyway judging by
> your attitude.
>
> "Bullshit. The Bill establishes a legal market for illegal Drug
> Traffickers. The Bill allowes an uncontrolled drug with poor history
> of
> long term side effects onto the streets. It is the Flag to Legalize
> POT.
> Next will be Heroin, just like in England. Go see what a mess they made
> of
> it, and how their society is ravaged by drug use. "
>
> Fallacy: Slippery Slope
>
> Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
>
> Description of Slippery Slope
more hand waving BS, face the facts man. Pot is illegal and will stay that
way.
Loth...@hotmail.com
that
way. "
Hand waving BS? It's only the truth. Jumby, do you have a frontal lobe,
I have to ask at this point since you have insulted me so many times
when nothing you have said is true.
Pot is illegal and will stay that way? Marijuana is legal for medical
purposes in 10 states, New Mexico is fixing to join them.
In 1986, only 20% of the U.S. supported marijuana legalization.
In 2002, the Time/CNN scientific poll was commissioned again and found
40% favor all out legalization.
80% of Americans favor medical marijuana under a doctor's supervision.
In 2004, Alaska voted 44% in favor of legalizing the sale of marijuana
to adults in licensed, regulated establishments.
It is currently LEGAL RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT to possess 4 ounces of
marijuana in the home for adults via the Alaskan Supreme Court.
12 states currently have decriminalized marijuana in one form or
another.
Time for you to face the facts. Insulting people that you do not know
is not going to help your prohibitionist cause. Consider the fact that
outside objective observers to these newsgroups are viewing these
threads and seeing you simply dismissing anything someone against you
has to say but calling them a "doper" or saying the studies were done
by "dopers". It is simply ridiculous.
Mike Z. Helm
Indeed - and we are winning slowly but surely. Jumby's probably too
young to remember when a Vietnam veteran with 2 purple hearts and other
medals was sentenced to 50 years for selling less than an ounce to an
undercover cop.
Compared to that kind of sentence, pot's practically decriminalized now.
Jumby
<Loth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109988359.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> "more hand waving BS, face the facts man. Pot is illegal and will stay
> that
> way. "
>
> Hand waving BS? It's only the truth. Jumby, do you have a frontal lobe,
> I have to ask at this point since you have insulted me so many times
> when nothing you have said is true.
>
> Pot is illegal and will stay that way? Marijuana is legal for medical
> purposes in 10 states, New Mexico is fixing to join them.
They have not "joined". Also 2 of your 10 states have prepaired
legleslation to remove medical POT because of organized Crime moving into
their state.
>
> In 1986, only 20% of the U.S. supported marijuana legalization.
> In 2002, the Time/CNN scientific poll was commissioned again and found
> 40% favor all out legalization.
> 80% of Americans favor medical marijuana under a doctor's supervision.
Yea, and John Kerry is favored by 98% of all Dopers in the USA to win the
election.
>
> In 2004, Alaska voted 44% in favor of legalizing the sale of marijuana
> to adults in licensed, regulated establishments.
Well, move up there and smoke yourself out, Doper.
Jumby
"Mike Z. Helm" <mh...@not.known> wrote in message
LIES - Got URL?
Loth...@hotmail.com
They have not "joined". Also 2 of your 10 states have prepaired
legleslation to remove medical POT because of organized Crime moving
into
their state. "
Give the bills #s and the 2 states and how many cosponsors the bill has.
Mike Z. Helm
Ever get your information anywhere besides the internet?
I can't find that specific guy, but in 1969 Virginia had a mandatory
minimum of 40 years for selling pot, while the minimum for murder was
only 15.
http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/marijuana.html
This was at a time when 2 joints could get you 10 years (Google "John
Sinclair")
In 1965, Timothy Leary was sentenced to 30 years for possession. (The
law he was charged under was later declared unconstitutional)
Jumby
"Mike Z. Helm" <mh...@not.known> wrote in message
69? drugs were everwhere, but some parts of the South the cops were real
motherfuckers.
>
> http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/marijuana.html
>
>
> This was at a time when 2 joints could get you 10 years (Google "John
> Sinclair")
>
> In 1965, Timothy Leary was sentenced to 30 years for possession. (The
> law he was charged under was later declared unconstitutional)
I met Leary in 67, he still could talk complete sentences then, later he
was a case of too-much-acid man, brain as smooth as a bowling ball,
completely burned out, a babbling shell.
Mike Z. Helm
>> In 1965, Timothy Leary was sentenced to 30 years for possession. (The
>> law he was charged under was later declared unconstitutional)
>
>I met Leary in 67, he still could talk complete sentences then, later he
>was a case of too-much-acid man, brain as smooth as a bowling ball,
>completely burned out, a babbling shell.
At least I don't lie to support my arguments.
Loth...@hotmail.com
proposed legislation to get rid of medical marijuana. You want to prove
it to us or are you once again lying and distorting the facts?
I'm calling you on this, give me the bill being introduced and what
states they are in.