Drew Carey on medicinal cannabis

[jfiling]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJr8V-jU7b4[/youtube]

I don't know if this will embed properly, so if if doesn't I'll put up an alternate link. It is only a few minutes long, but definitely worth watching.

EDIT: I used a YouTube version. I'd love to know what people think.

By the way, I haven't smoked weed in over 5 years, and have no interest in doing it again. I'm more interested to see what people think about the federal government overriding both state and local laws to deprive someone from getting the one treatment that has worked for them.

[jfiling]

If anyone is interested, I found an article detailing the raid.

http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/651/why-worry-/

[Mr. MacPhisto]

It's an interesting piece, though obviously slanted to one side. I didn't go through the whole thing, stopped watching at around 7 minutes or so. Do they discuss the damage that marijuana does to the heart, lungs, and brain? It impedes proper function of the immune system. That and it is a gateway drug that has been shown to affect the brain like heroin does in an area associated with drug addiction.

I understand that not everyone that uses it is a pothead. Much depends on how much and how often someone uses.

My problem is how the medical marijuana lobby tries to treat it as such a benign substance. They don't want it to have to fall under the same scientific review process of other medications. They don't want it to be easily controlled, allowing doctors to give out any kind of dosage. To me, it just seems like they want to be able to buy as much as they want as long as a doctor gives them a reason to.

There also are products derived from cannabis that can help many of these conditions without some of the side affects AND with a specific dosage from a doctor. They are legal and available with prescription, but you rarely here about it because the medical marijuana lobby just isn't interested.

I know not everyone that wants the stuff is a stoner and a pothead (though I did find it funny when Carey took in the aroma - the stuff smells like my gym clothes used to at the end of the semester). There are some conditions that can be helped by it. I'm not against it if the dosages are regulated like a normal medication and it is subject to the same kind of scrutiny from the FDA. They don't want that because of the warning labels and negative press that it would get. I know that the withdrawal symptoms from heavy users are pretty bad because I know people that stopped using. It wasn't as bad as what I've seen in heroin addicts, but it was still pretty bad.

If the medical marijuana lobby cave in and try to go the FDA route like a normal prescribed drug then I'd be fine with it. They don't want to do that because they don't want it to be regulated like a prescription drug. They want to be able to buy as much as they want and not be arrested for it if their doctor gives them a note. That's awfully suspicious to me.

[jfiling]

You bring up some good points, Mac. Marijuana can be harmful when smoked. The FDA brought up the same point in an advisory bulletin.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2006/new01362.html

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which administers the CSA, continues to support that placement and FDA concurred because marijuana met the three criteria for placement in Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1) (e.g., marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision). Furthermore, there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful. A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use. There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana.

I'm going to argue against the FDA's position from two points.

1) It's harmful.

So is Depakote, which can cause damage to the liver, and requires testing to make sure that one's liver is still functioning properly. However, it is FDA approved. I'm sure others here can come up with similar drugs which can harm the body yet are approved for use.

2) There are alternative drugs available.

Many people, particularly cancer patients, are unable to keep food down. Taking cannabis via smoking helps them with their nausea. Taking the pill form (Marinol) does no good as it is vomited back up.

Addressing your objections, yes, the medical marijuana lobby hasn't done a very good job in the press of demonstrating there claims. The federal government, however, has pretty much put the clamps on any further research into the medicinal benefits, so we are left to rely on anecdotal evidence.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I'm going to argue against the FDA's position from two points.

1) It's harmful.

So is Depakote, which can cause damage to the liver, and requires testing to make sure that one's liver is still functioning properly. However, it is FDA approved. I'm sure others here can come up with similar drugs which can harm the body yet are approved for use.

True, but there are proper advisories posted on the possible ill effects. There is no required testing for medical marijuana to check the damage being caused to the brain, lungs, etc when it is "prescribed". I've yet to talk to advocates or read literature where they advocate treating marijuana like prescribed drugs are now. I don't know if the problem exists on both sides or not, but I'd say that the medical marijuana lobby could get much more sympathy if they decided to allow it to be treated like other prescribed meds. I'd certainly be more sympathetic. They way they want to handle it makes me suspicious and I'm not the only one.

2) There are alternative drugs available.

Many people, particularly cancer patients, are unable to keep food down. Taking cannabis via smoking helps them with their nausea. Taking the pill form (Marinol) does no good as it is vomited back up.

Addressing your objections, yes, the medical marijuana lobby hasn't done a very good job in the press of demonstrating there claims. The federal government, however, has pretty much put the clamps on any further research into the medicinal benefits, so we are left to rely on anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure that the medical marijuana people want too much research done because the general public's perception is still closer to the "marijuana is pretty harmless" stance. If further research drives up the perception of danger then there may be the fear that regular users are in more danger of getting busted and sympathy would wane.

I can see the cancer patient's argument, though I've known several who have gone through chemo over the years and found ways of dealing with the nausea without using marijuana. I've only spoken to a couple of them about the issue and they think that its a bunk excuse from their own experience. I don't think that it is complete bunk and that's something that I'd be willing to loosen up on with scientific testing and strict controls.

Once again, I think the biggest problem with the medical marijuana lobby is that they want to self medicate and basically use as much as they want if they have a doctor's note. Imagine if you could get as much Oxycontin as you want with just a doctor's note. Marijuana is not as addictive or devastating as an opiate, but I think the illustration serves the point. Allowing the patient to determine how much they should take without a dosage is a bad, bad idea.

I think a lot of people just view the medical marijuana lobby as a group of people that want to legitimize their habit for whatever a doctor says can be solved by it. No guidelines for what it can and should be prescribed for. No dosages. They don't want the doctors to be held as liable for the prescriptions as they would be for other drugs.

I know that there are people that have been helped by marijuana. I don't know if the positives outweigh the negatives and I'm certainly not convinced that as many people need to use it as claim to.

If the FDA is unwilling to look into the medical benefits then they should do a 180, but I have a feeling that the medical marijuana lobby has not interest in the regular FDA approval process. I think the real problem is that few in that lobby want it to be regulated by the FDA like a regular drug.

Then there's perception. There's a guy that drives around Pinellas County in a white van painted with a marijuana leaf and "make medical marijuana legal" painted on the signs in large, colorful letters. For one, it's suspicious that someone would do that to a van for something like that. Secondly, I've met the guy who drives it. He always reeks of pot and comes off like Tommy Chong or Cheech Marin from Up In Smoke. The dude is clearly a big time pothead who claims to have glaucoma. Forgive me if I don't believe him for a second. I've spoken with him a couple of times and he has no desire for medical marijuana to be given out in doses or to have to go through the same refill requirements as other drugs. He wants to be able to get as much as he wants from one doctor's note. I'm sure he could find a doctor to give him one.

Therein lies the problem for me. I'll vote for legalizing it for medicinal purposes if it goes through FDA trials and is given the same rigorous requirements of other drugs. I think the way that most medical marijuana people want for it to be available just opens the door for further abuse without recrimination.

[skatingtripods]

Therein lies the problem for me. I'll vote for legalizing it for medicinal purposes if it goes through FDA trials and is given the same rigorous requirements of other drugs. I think the way that most medical marijuana people want for it to be available just opens the door for further abuse without recrimination.

While this is a subject I'm not exteremly familiar with, this is the approach I would take.

That being said, when I was in high school, a kid on my hockey team broke his tibia and fibula. While in Toledo for a tournament, the captains on the team were crushing it up and snorting it in the hotel room two hours before a game. While I'm not sure what effect it had exactly, or if it was even harmful, it's just a small event that I'd be wary of if medical marijuana were to be passed out.

[jfiling]

Therein lies the problem for me. I'll vote for legalizing it for medicinal purposes if it goes through FDA trials and is given the same rigorous requirements of other drugs. I think the way that most medical marijuana people want for it to be available just opens the door for further abuse without recrimination.

You may be right. I wonder, for the sake of discussion, what would happen if the FDA took the same approach to alcohol. I am not making any kind of equivalency, just noting that alcohol is a drug that the FDA has no control over. IIRC, the ATF controls alcohol production. Maybe we could expand the ATF to create the ATFM.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

You may be right. I wonder, for the sake of discussion, what would happen if the FDA took the same approach to alcohol. I am not making any kind of equivalency, just noting that alcohol is a drug that the FDA has no control over. IIRC, the ATF controls alcohol production. Maybe we could expand the ATF to create the ATFM.

Thing is that alcohol has been legal for a long time. There was prohibition and, despite what some want to say, that actually was successful outside of the bootleggers like Capone, but people grew weary of it. I'm not for re-establishing it because alcohol has been legal again for over 70 years. I just don't see any sense of adding to the pile of legalized substances. Where does it stop? If marijuana is legal then what is stopping heroin or cocaine or meth or whatever from being legal? It won't stop the substance abuse problems and it could make them worse by eliminating a barrier that actually does stop some people from becoming active users.

I'd feel differently about alcohol if it were a banned substance already. I'm not a fan of alcohol or tobacco - I don't use either of them, but they've been legal and accepted for a long, long time. Those other drugs don't have much history of acceptance behind them nor do we have any evidence to allow us to know the consequences that we'd face by legalizing them. I think it best to stick with the status quo and continue in the attempt to educate the general public in such a way that they try to stay away from illegal drugs. I know it won't always work but I think it's more effective than walking down the slippery slope of legalizing more dangerous substances that can negatively affect the health and lives of more than just the user. Right now we're having to deal with the problems of prescription drugs. We've had numerous pharmacies held up at gunpoint down here for the Oxycontin. Regs need to be tightened up on that stuff or they need to ban time release opiates.

[jfiling]

I'm not for re-establishing it because alcohol has been legal again for over 70 years. I just don't see any sense of adding to the pile of legalized substances. Where does it stop? If marijuana is legal then what is stopping heroin or cocaine or meth or whatever from being legal?

I like that we're having a polite discussion here.

Marijuana was legal in this country until 1937, when FDR signed a tax act which made it illegal. Note that his prohibition came long after the alcohol prohibition. I have only a libertarian argument to make against full legalization of marijuana, but I don't think I need to resort to that to make a case for medical marijuana being allowed. I realize that the FDA has a monopoly on drugs for therapeutic purposes, but the FDA's hands are tied by the DEA, enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. It's sort of an endless circle, and I'd like to see an admitted drug user, like our current president, or our previous president, or Obama, who wants to be president, decide to end the insanity.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I like that we're having a polite discussion here.

Marijuana was legal in this country until 1937, when FDR signed a tax act which made it illegal. Note that his prohibition came long after the alcohol prohibition. I have only a libertarian argument to make against full legalization of marijuana, but I don't think I need to resort to that to make a case for medical marijuana being allowed. I realize that the FDA has a monopoly on drugs for therapeutic purposes, but the FDA's hands are tied by the DEA, enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. It's sort of an endless circle, and I'd like to see an admitted drug user, like our current president, or our previous president, or Obama, who wants to be president, decide to end the insanity.

Same here. Polite discussions are worthwhile. I hate it when they fall into namecalling, etc.

Marijuana was technically legal until 1937, though that's a Federal outlook. State laws have been more complex through the years.

Heroin was legal until 1914 and it really wasn't made fully illegal until 1924. Cocaine wasn't listed as a controlled substance until 1970 and they didn't go after people for it until that point, though it really began to be frowned upon early in the 20th century.

There's a reason why marijuana, heroin, and cocaine were all eventually banned - the public saw what they were capable of. The same could be said about alcohol, but alcohol has been such a large part of human civilization for centuries and most drinkers are not abusive.

The prohibition of marijuana came around the time other drugs also became prohibited. Most of those drugs have been greatly frowned upon over the past century and I would argue that one reason is the development of medicines that are able to address the medical problems that all of those drugs once were thought to help with. We have ibuprofen, aspirin, acetaminophen, and other drugs for pain and inflammation. We still do use the opiates for more extreme pain, though tougher painkillers like naproxen have eliminated some of the need for them.

One hundred years ago you could have used cocaine, heroin, marijuana or just about whatever you wanted. Society recognized the problems they caused, especially for the impoverished. One could seek to tie the massive growth in technology, etc that the west has enjoyed to it prohibiting these substances. I don't think that's the only argument, but there is a correlative one to be made. I'd argue that the market played a much greater role, though that prohibition of many drugs may have played a role in the growth of the middle class. Poverty was on the decrease for a while there until the government sought to eliminate it via the Great Society and ended up making the problem worse. Not all of it is related to the drug bans, but the argument can be made that it played a part.

[jfiling]

Good points, Mac. I decided to investigate further, and found an interesting article at Salon regarding this.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... legal.html

Long story short: the prohibition of marijuana has a racist background. It's always easier to outlaw something when it can be viewed as something the minorities are involved with. Just food for thought, and interesting considering how easily the prohibition of alcohol was repealed.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Good points, Mac. I decided to investigate further, and found an interesting article at Salon regarding this.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... legal.html

Long story short: the prohibition of marijuana has a racist background. It's always easier to outlaw something when it can be viewed as something the minorities are involved with. Just food for thought, and interesting considering how easily the prohibition of alcohol was repealed.

Actually the banning of all those major drugs have racist backgrounds to them. It does go a bit beyond that and the salon piece is clearly biased and written by someone who is very slanted to one side of the argument.

All of the bans also occurred because of observation. He denigrates the ban because there was no science behind it. Scientific testing methods were not as well advanced in the 1930s. They didn't do aggressive scientific testing on many things that were banned.

I've seen what marijuana can do to people and not all of them have abused it. Some aren't as mentally sharp as they were and these are all people in their 20s or early 30s. One already has severe lung problems. These are things that accounts from the early part of the 20th century all witnessed. It was seen as something that particularly ravaged the black community. Part of the reason that some in the government wanted to ban it was in an effort to help the black community. There was a feeling back then that blacks were incapable of helping themselves, an attitude I think that still exists inside many government circles. Same goes for hispanics and that feeling was largely held a hundred years ago.

The propaganda was out of control for it in the early part of the century but it's hardly needed anymore. Many advocates like to look at past studies like the Schafer Report to substantiate the harmlessness of it, though they fail to mention how limited in scope that study was. We've had a trickle of scientific evidence come in over the years and what has come out has shown that it is not a benign substance. Light usage is not going to do tons of damage, though there are instances where it causes damage very quickly. It doesn't generally cause people to go on murderous rampages, though there have been some documented cases of that in the past among very heavy users. Studies do show that it leads to people trying other drugs that are worse than it.

There are industrious members of society that smoke pot. There are also idiots who do it around children, impeding brain development for the kids. There are plenty of people that I've met that stopped caring about working towards goals, etc and now just like to stay at home and smoke, working only to pay the rent and get their fix.

[Audie]

The prosecution of marijuana laws is the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars and police funding in America

Beer and booze are far worse of a problem and there is no logical reason why anyone shouldn't be able to grow it in their garden