Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by jfiling » Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:53 pm
by jfiling » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:32 pm
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:36 pm
by jfiling » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:06 pm
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.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:47 pm
jfiling wrote: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.
by skatingtripods » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:56 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote: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.
by jfiling » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:55 pm
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.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:24 pm
jfiling wrote: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.
by jfiling » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:51 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote: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?
by Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:48 am
jfiling wrote: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.
by jfiling » Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:57 am
by Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:53 am
jfiling wrote:Good points, Mac. I decided to investigate further, and found an interesting article at Salon regarding this.http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... legal.htmlLong 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.
by Audie » Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:50 pm
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: gbot and 2 guests