If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Step 1: Prevent doctors from studying medical benefits of marijuana. Step 2: Tell the country there isn't enough evidence from doctors saying marijuana has medical benefits. Step 3: Profit?   (latimes.com) divider line 56
    More: Asinine, DEA, basic science, studying, marijuana, National Cancer Institute, physicians  
•       •       •

1794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2013 at 10:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-31 10:00:32 AM
The court deferred to the judgment of federal authorities, quoting the DEA's statement that "the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies.... To date, such studies have not been performed."

but if they don't have any studies proving that cannabis is safe...then they also don't have any studies proving cannabis is dangerous either, do they?
 
2013-01-31 10:05:21 AM
... last year voters in Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana to a limited extent. As a result, the president has expressed willingness to consider decriminalizing possession of small quantities under federal law.

Wha?
 
2013-01-31 10:06:29 AM
2A. Ignore any studies done in other countries.

"then they also don't have any studies proving cannabis is dangerous either, do they? "

A government agency does not need any evidence to ban something. If someone has a bad dream about it, that's all it takes.
 
2013-01-31 10:08:13 AM
It's counter intuitive for the DEA to legalize drugs. If they do they lose their relevance.

The research should be done by a department other than the DEA, however it probably will end up being one big circle jerk in Washington.
 
2013-01-31 10:08:30 AM

Weaver95: The court deferred to the judgment of federal authorities, quoting the DEA's statement that "the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies.... To date, such studies have not been performed."

but if they don't have any studies proving that cannabis is safe...then they also don't have any studies proving cannabis is dangerous either, do they?


haven't you seen the documentory "Reefer Madness"? or is it that you approve of white women getting raped?
 
2013-01-31 10:09:57 AM
I wish I could understand the ongoing dug-in resistance to legalizing marijuana.  Is it because the whole anti-marijuana thing was originally rooted in racism?  Is it because beer barons fear it will cut into their profits?  Or is it simply that inertia is the primary force in politics?

Whatever it is, I can't fathom how people who want smaller gubbmint can't make the connection between two million people in the legal system, most of them non-violent drug offenders, and the sky-high cost of the legal system.  Or how they can believe that making marijuana illegal stops anyone, anywhere, from smoking it.

(Coming from someone who has no interest in smoking it, legal or free or whatever.)
 
2013-01-31 10:12:36 AM

Kibbler: ...Or is it simply that inertia is the primary force in politics?


This.
 
2013-01-31 10:12:38 AM
The laws were created because it was believed that the drug caused blacks and Mexicans to rape white women, the lack of understanding around  the effects and risks of the drug remain at about the same level 100 years later.
 
2013-01-31 10:13:31 AM
Once the profits from privatized marijuana productions overcomes the profits of privatized jails and the war on drugs, then we'll see the legalization of pot
 
2013-01-31 10:14:01 AM
Step 3.  PROFIT

Love,
Pfizer, Roche, Merck et. al.
 
2013-01-31 10:15:03 AM

Kibbler: I wish I could understand the ongoing dug-in resistance to legalizing marijuana. Is it because the whole anti-marijuana thing was originally rooted in racism? Is it because beer barons fear it will cut into their profits? Or is it simply that inertia is the primary force in politics?


If marijuana is legal, who would go out to spend too much money drinking alcohol, getting fat, running risk of doing some rather dumb shiat later, and feeling horrible the next day?

If marijuana is legal, who would throw money at pharmaceutical companies for bullshiat candy advertised as drugs to help overcome "social anxiety?"

How much lobbying clout do the alcohol and pharmaceutical industries have? As the dug-in resistance to marijuana legalization has proven, quite a bit.
 
2013-01-31 10:19:56 AM
Their fighting for their survival. That is the sum total of the reasons for this idiocy.
 
2013-01-31 10:20:11 AM
Hey, it worked for the NRA.
 
2013-01-31 10:24:51 AM

whatsupchuck: Step 3.  PROFIT

Love,
Pfizer, Roche, Merck et. al.


Cops, Courts
 
2013-01-31 10:27:26 AM

Weaver95: The court deferred to the judgment of federal authorities, quoting the DEA's statement that "the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies.... To date, such studies have not been performed."

but if they don't have any studies proving that cannabis is safe...then they also don't have any studies proving cannabis is dangerous either, do they?


Yes they do just ask any person who does not use pot and they will tell you first hand accounts of the dangers of pot. That is much better than scientific studies.
 
2013-01-31 10:32:41 AM
The government has well documented the benefits  they just don't want people to know.  Alcohol lobbyists have been around since the creation of this country.
 
2013-01-31 10:38:32 AM

Citrate1007: The government has well documented the benefits  they just don't want people to know.  Alcohol lobbyists have been around since the creation of this country.


well that's just it - there's enough studies done to suggest cannabis doesn't fit the requirements of Schedule I.  the DEA simply flat out refuses to confirm it tho and nobody can force them to prove their case.  my point is that if the DEA can't prove cannabis is safe...then they can't prove it's dangerous either.  If I'm reading that article correctly, the DEA hasn't done ANY studies on cannabis either way.  they just assumed cannabis was dangerous (without any scientific basis) and won't even consider proving their point in a lab.

which implies (at least to me anyways) that DEA drug policies aren't based on scientific fact, but politics and public perception.  which we kinda knew already.  still, it's nice to see that confirmed in a court of law.
 
2013-01-31 10:44:07 AM

Kibbler: I wish I could understand the ongoing dug-in resistance to legalizing marijuana.  Is it because the whole anti-marijuana thing was originally rooted in racism?  Is it because beer barons fear it will cut into their profits?  Or is it simply that inertia is the primary force in politics?

Whatever it is, I can't fathom how people who want smaller gubbmint can't make the connection between two million people in the legal system, most of them non-violent drug offenders, and the sky-high cost of the legal system.  Or how they can believe that making marijuana illegal stops anyone, anywhere, from smoking it.

(Coming from someone who has no interest in smoking it, legal or free or whatever.)


Why won't you think of the children?!
 
2013-01-31 10:46:35 AM
I wish someone important would get angry about this.
 
2013-01-31 10:47:51 AM

Kibbler: I wish I could understand the ongoing dug-in resistance to legalizing marijuana.  Is it because the whole anti-marijuana thing was originally rooted in racism?  Is it because beer barons fear it will cut into their profits?  Or is it simply that inertia is the primary force in politics?

Whatever it is, I can't fathom how people who want smaller gubbmint can't make the connection between two million people in the legal system, most of them non-violent drug offenders, and the sky-high cost of the legal system.  Or how they can believe that making marijuana illegal stops anyone, anywhere, from smoking it.

(Coming from someone who has no interest in smoking it, legal or free or whatever.)


Don't forget the big chemical companies like Dow, who would stand to lose a ton of revenue due to hemp oil's superiority over some of their lucrative products...
 
2013-01-31 10:49:19 AM
Sounds familiar:

Step 1) Prevent government from researching new ways of addressing gun violence.
Step 2) Tell the country there isn't any evidence new ways of addressing gun violence will work.
Step 3) Profit.  Glorious gun manufacturer profit.
 
2013-01-31 10:51:22 AM

RulerOfNone: I wish someone important would get angry about this.


Quite a few politicians and IIRC at least one President have said that they always thought it should be legal. They normally go public with these opinions everal months after they retire from politics...
 
2013-01-31 10:51:38 AM
PawisBetlog:

Don't forget the big chemical companies like Dow, who would stand to lose a ton of revenue due to hemp oil's superiority over some of their lucrative products...

And big pharma, of course.  they don't want to see medical cannabis being used in competition with their more expensive products.  Another important lobbying group is the corporate run prison system - if your business model depends on having a LOT of people in jail then the last thing you want is less restrictive cannabis laws, or (gods forbid!) legalization.
 
2013-01-31 10:53:49 AM
IMO, jury nullification is another appropriate way to tackle marijuana laws.  If given an opportunity to serve on a jury, seize it.  If you have the opportunity to hear a marijuana trial, enjoy your time.  Once in deliberations, the solution is not guilty.  No matter the facts or the case or what not, who cares, the law is unjust.  As a juror, you don't need to give any reason whatsoever.  Just a firm not guilty.  Your deliberations are secret and no reason for the verdict need be provided.  Worse case scenario you have someone insistent on guilty and the jury ends up a hung jury.  Big deal, you're being paid for your time and your employer is required to provide you the time to be there.  It's the ultimate check and balance in our judicial system.  The people actually get the final say.
 
2013-01-31 10:56:48 AM

r0Be: IMO, jury nullification is another appropriate way to tackle marijuana laws.  If given an opportunity to serve on a jury, seize it.  If you have the opportunity to hear a marijuana trial, enjoy your time.  Once in deliberations, the solution is not guilty.  No matter the facts or the case or what not, who cares, the law is unjust.  As a juror, you don't need to give any reason whatsoever.  Just a firm not guilty.  Your deliberations are secret and no reason for the verdict need be provided.  Worse case scenario you have someone insistent on guilty and the jury ends up a hung jury.  Big deal, you're being paid for your time and your employer is required to provide you the time to be there.  It's the ultimate check and balance in our judicial system.  The people actually get the final say.


just don't mention the words 'jury nullification' tho.  the only thing you should say is 'I believe the defendant is not guilty'.
 
2013-01-31 11:04:25 AM

Weaver95: r0Be: IMO, jury nullification is another appropriate way to tackle marijuana laws.  If given an opportunity to serve on a jury, seize it.  If you have the opportunity to hear a marijuana trial, enjoy your time.  Once in deliberations, the solution is not guilty.  No matter the facts or the case or what not, who cares, the law is unjust.  As a juror, you don't need to give any reason whatsoever.  Just a firm not guilty.  Your deliberations are secret and no reason for the verdict need be provided.  Worse case scenario you have someone insistent on guilty and the jury ends up a hung jury.  Big deal, you're being paid for your time and your employer is required to provide you the time to be there.  It's the ultimate check and balance in our judicial system.  The people actually get the final say.

just don't mention the words 'jury nullification' tho.  the only thing you should say is 'I believe the defendant is not guilty'.


Would it matter?  The deliberations are secret no?

/not a lawyer or legal expert.  just a topic I've seen on fark before....which is less qualification than sleeping at a holiday inn.
 
2013-01-31 11:09:06 AM

monoski: The laws were created because it was believed that the drug caused blacks and Mexicans to rape white women, the lack of understanding around  the effects and risks of the drug remain at about the same level 100 years later.


The laws were actually created because cotton makers didn't want to compete with hemp products. The propaganda about the effects of marijuana were used after the fact as a means to get the public on the side of the cotton lobbyists. Unfortunately, that misinformation has persisted, which is why marijuana remains illegal.
 
2013-01-31 11:10:29 AM
Step 1: Create a multi-billion dollar prison and drug enforcement industry
Step 2: Prevent doctors from studying medical benefits of marijuana.
Step 3: Tell the country there isn't enough evidence from doctors saying marijuana has medical benefits.
Step 4: Ignore any studies done in other countries.
Step 5: Profit!!
 
2013-01-31 11:17:01 AM

wantedbadass: monoski: The laws were created because it was believed that the drug caused blacks and Mexicans to rape white women, the lack of understanding around  the effects and risks of the drug remain at about the same level 100 years later.

The laws were actually created because cotton makers didn't want to compete with hemp products. The propaganda about the effects of marijuana were used after the fact as a means to get the public on the side of the cotton lobbyists. Unfortunately, that misinformation has persisted, which is why marijuana remains illegal.


Despite the government's attempt to promote hemp.
http://archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942
 
2013-01-31 11:22:35 AM
This is exactly like guns: Republicans know that actual research would undermine their position, so they forbid the research.
 
2013-01-31 11:22:43 AM

bulok: It's counter intuitive for the DEA to legalize drugs. If they do they lose their relevance.

The research should be done by a department other than the DEA, however it probably will end up being one big circle jerk in Washington.


And they hand over jurisdiction to the ATF, which is even MOAR counter intuitive...
 
2013-01-31 11:26:03 AM
The police force needs an excuse to continue militarizing and inflating their budgets with SWAT teams, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, assault rifles, patrol boats, etc to fight the evil drug gangs and users. And think about all the people prisons employ. Surely, you don't want them to be out of a job.
 
2013-01-31 11:31:13 AM
Oh, and how is marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug, a gateway drug to cocaine...another Schedule 1 drug?
 
2013-01-31 11:34:52 AM
Step 1: Prevent doctors from studying medical benefits of marijuana.
Step 2: Tell the country there isn't enough evidence from doctors saying marijuana has medical benefits.
Step 3: Profit?
Prison.
 
2013-01-31 11:35:58 AM
Marijuana effects include: Sleepiness, mild euphoria, hunger, mild paranoia, short-term memory loss.

Ambien effects include: sleep paralysis, hallucinations, longterm drowsiness, compulsive gambling (yeah, it's a real thing), and sleep walking.

Objectively speaking: which of these should be legal and which should be illegal?
 
2013-01-31 11:36:00 AM

DoomPaul: Oh, and how is marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug, a gateway drug to cocaine...another Schedule 1 a schedule 2 drug?


FTFY.
 
2013-01-31 12:42:45 PM
The biggest mistake of states that are legalizing rec/med pot is to make it too easy for the federal government to interfere.  First of all, regulations shouldn't leave any sort of record that feds could grab for a list of addresses to raid.  They should limit the size of pot businesses to below the threshold that would trigger a federal investigation.  At the very least, it would force them to investigate hundreds of tiny businesses instead of one large business.  The only role the federal government should have is to go after people shipping it across state lines.  You know, that whole "interstate commerce" thing that's the only part of the drug war they actually have the authority to regulate.
 
2013-01-31 01:21:38 PM

GanjSmokr: DoomPaul: Oh, and how is marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug, a gateway drug to cocaine...another Schedule 1 a schedule 2 drug?

FTFY.


I blame Nixon.
 
2013-01-31 01:48:29 PM
There's a lot of talk in this thread about the possible various reasons pot is still illegal - and the stubborn insistence of our government to bend to reason - but no one has mentioned the biggest force keeping legalization at bay in my opinion: religion.

Opposition to legalization has a correlation with religious belief and the politicians and bureaucrats who most vehemently oppose it tend to be very devout Christians and catholics. My parents are actually personal friends to Bush's drug czar, and I can tell you he DEFINITELY fits that mold. I've discussed the issue with him and he's a true believer - facts, evidence and logic will not dissuade him because it's partly a matter of faith to him and folks like him.

Their deep religious beliefs have conditioned them over the years to think in terms of what they WANT to believe, damn the facts, because that is quite literally what faith is. They also believe their religion instructs them not to do drugs, so they will do anything to force the narrative to lean their way no matter how dishonest - such as blocking the scientific study which they are aware might contradict their narrative. It is a matter of faith to them, so whatever they decide to do is good and right in their minds because they believe they have a mandate to do so from a "higher" power. Pun unintended.

That's not to say ALL religious people are like that, just the ones who believe they are the most "devout". In general, the less devout the less of a willfully ignorant a-hole a person's beliefs encourage them to be IMHO.
 
2013-01-31 01:57:33 PM
So the solution to Think Progress is to institute an income tax, making those poor people pay more?
 
2013-01-31 02:24:53 PM

mongbiohazard: There's a lot of talk in this thread about the possible various reasons pot is still illegal - and the stubborn insistence of our government to bend to reason - but no one has mentioned the biggest force keeping legalization at bay in my opinion: religion.

Opposition to legalization has a correlation with religious belief and the politicians and bureaucrats who most vehemently oppose it tend to be very devout Christians and catholics. My parents are actually personal friends to Bush's drug czar, and I can tell you he DEFINITELY fits that mold. I've discussed the issue with him and he's a true believer - facts, evidence and logic will not dissuade him because it's partly a matter of faith to him and folks like him.

Their deep religious beliefs have conditioned them over the years to think in terms of what they WANT to believe, damn the facts, because that is quite literally what faith is. They also believe their religion instructs them not to do drugs, so they will do anything to force the narrative to lean their way no matter how dishonest - such as blocking the scientific study which they are aware might contradict their narrative. It is a matter of faith to them, so whatever they decide to do is good and right in their minds because they believe they have a mandate to do so from a "higher" power. Pun unintended.

That's not to say ALL religious people are like that, just the ones who believe they are the most "devout". In general, the less devout the less of a willfully ignorant a-hole a person's beliefs encourage them to be IMHO.




Link
 
2013-01-31 02:46:54 PM

Weaver95: The court deferred to the judgment of federal authorities, quoting the DEA's statement that "the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies.... To date, such studies have not been performed."

but if they don't have any studies proving that cannabis is safe...then they also don't have any studies proving cannabis is dangerous either, do they?


No no, it doesn't work that way. If you have no studies proving X is safe, then it is de facto dangerous UNTIL you have studies proving it is safe. See?

Just like: There are no studies proving kids do just as well in same-sex families, THEREFORE, same-sex families are harmful to kids. There are no studies proving video games don't cause mad killers, THEREFORE video games cause mad killer. Do you begin to see the logic here?

Ergo: No studies proving pot is safe = pot is dangerous. In fact, it's so deadly it probably kills on contact.
 
2013-01-31 04:34:20 PM
I really wish mr. president barack "total absorption" fartbongo would get the testicular fortitude so tell industries such dea and big beer to shut up and put up, shiat cant be outlawed forever.
 
2013-01-31 05:51:05 PM
Not so CSS:

I have PTSD, sleep paralysis, and insomnia resulting from the first two conditions. I smoked pot daily for two and a half years. Before I started smoking, I was having SP episodes at a rate of about 3 per month. Started smoking, rate of SP episodes dropped to once or twice a year (where they were before I developed PTSD). I took a 9-day trip to Europe during which I didn't smoke, and sure enough, three days in, I had an episode. Pretty much a foregone conclusion that the pot was keeping the boogey man away. Also during the 2 1/2 years, I learned which strains aggravated the anxiety (OGs), and which ones treated it and made me able to sleep and quieted the PTSD (Purps). I was actually able to hold down a job for six months because of the smoking, otherwise I would have been too sleep deprived to do anything.

Fast forward a year, and I had to quit my job as a result of the PTSD--flashbacks in the middle of the office are not as entertaining to your boss as you might think. I go to the doc's the day I quit, and she tells me, "Quit the pot or I won't give you anti-anxieties." Fun. Four days later, I haven't slept a wink and am nearly hysterical. Doc then puts me on Seroquel and Prazosin, neither of which are stopping the SP episodes, which are now daily, and sometimes twice in one night. Neither is successfully treating the anxiety either. The farked up part about SP for me is that if I have one episode at night, I'm almost guaranteed to have another one if I go back to sleep. I'm now almost 2 months into treatment and I still have yet to get an anti-anxiety med or therapy to deal with the PTSD. The docs at the mental health clinic have essentially written me off as having a drug problem.

The only reason the doc is doing this is (her words) because "there are no studies about drug interactions and cannabis." Farking hell, let me self-med with the weed and give me an anti-anxiety so I can at least get out of the house without a panic attack and sleep through the night without getting woken up by some traumatic event my brain decided to play with. Or do some research on studies from other countries that have legalized it so we can actually put together a damn treatment plan that works, instead of playing guinea pig with anti-psychotics.

And people wonder why people with mental health issues are violent.

/and this new commenting interface is some BS. I can't click anywhere without it selecting the whole damn piece of text.
 
2013-01-31 07:04:57 PM

Weaver95: The court deferred to the judgment of federal authorities, quoting the DEA's statement that "the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies.... To date, such studies have not been performed."

but if they don't have any studies proving that cannabis is safe...then they also don't have any studies proving cannabis is dangerous either, do they?


in fact, pot is safer than 99.99% of all drugs out there including tobacco and alcohol.
There is currently no LD50 for THC.

This would have been a very interesting tact for the people to have taken.
Toss in that there is zero evidence of "potential for abuse", whatever the fark that means.
People get stoned when they smoke? People like getting stoned?
LOL

How are tobacco and alcohol not both schedule one drugs???

/god I hate the dea more than I hate the GOP
 
2013-01-31 07:12:04 PM

Peki: Not so CSS:

I have PTSD, sleep paralysis, and insomnia resulting from the first two conditions. I smoked pot daily for two and a half years. Before I started smoking, I was having SP episodes at a rate of about 3 per month. Started smoking, rate of SP episodes dropped to once or twice a year (where they were before I developed PTSD). I took a 9-day trip to Europe during which I didn't smoke, and sure enough, three days in, I had an episode. Pretty much a foregone conclusion that the pot was keeping the boogey man away. Also during the 2 1/2 years, I learned which strains aggravated the anxiety (OGs), and which ones treated it and made me able to sleep and quieted the PTSD (Purps). I was actually able to hold down a job for six months because of the smoking, otherwise I would have been too sleep deprived to do anything.

Fast forward a year, and I had to quit my job as a result of the PTSD--flashbacks in the middle of the office are not as entertaining to your boss as you might think. I go to the doc's the day I quit, and she tells me, "Quit the pot or I won't give you anti-anxieties." Fun. Four days later, I haven't slept a wink and am nearly hysterical. Doc then puts me on Seroquel and Prazosin, neither of which are stopping the SP episodes, which are now daily, and sometimes twice in one night. Neither is successfully treating the anxiety either. The farked up part about SP for me is that if I have one episode at night, I'm almost guaranteed to have another one if I go back to sleep. I'm now almost 2 months into treatment and I still have yet to get an anti-anxiety med or therapy to deal with the PTSD. The docs at the mental health clinic have essentially written me off as having a drug problem.

The only reason the doc is doing this is (her words) because "there are no studies about drug interactions and cannabis." Farking hell, let me self-med with the weed and give me an anti-anxiety so I can at least get out of the house without a panic attack and sleep throu ...


CSS!

My ex-roommate had similar set of problems: massive PTSD, sleep problems, stage 4 endo, etc.
No one would give her pain meds when she was honest about what she was doing to treat the pain without access to pain meds. (pot and vodka) catch-22 from hell. Find another doc who will give you the anti-anxiety meds you need and get the hell off of Seroquel!!

sad that you had a regiment which was working and allowed you to be functional.
THIS is what you get for being honest with your doctors. sigh
/GL
 
2013-01-31 08:55:25 PM

Peki: Not so CSS:

I have PTSD, sleep paralysis, and insomnia resulting from the first two conditions. I smoked pot daily for two and a half years. Before I started smoking, I was having SP episodes at a rate of about 3 per month. Started smoking, rate of SP episodes dropped to once or twice a year (where they were before I developed PTSD). I took a 9-day trip to Europe during which I didn't smoke, and sure enough, three days in, I had an episode. Pretty much a foregone conclusion that the pot was keeping the boogey man away. Also during the 2 1/2 years, I learned which strains aggravated the anxiety (OGs), and which ones treated it and made me able to sleep and quieted the PTSD (Purps). I was actually able to hold down a job for six months because of the smoking, otherwise I would have been too sleep deprived to do anything.

Fast forward a year, and I had to quit my job as a result of the PTSD--flashbacks in the middle of the office are not as entertaining to your boss as you might think. I go to the doc's the day I quit, and she tells me, "Quit the pot or I won't give you anti-anxieties." Fun. Four days later, I haven't slept a wink and am nearly hysterical. Doc then puts me on Seroquel and Prazosin, neither of which are stopping the SP episodes, which are now daily, and sometimes twice in one night. Neither is successfully treating the anxiety either. The farked up part about SP for me is that if I have one episode at night, I'm almost guaranteed to have another one if I go back to sleep. I'm now almost 2 months into treatment and I still have yet to get an anti-anxiety med or therapy to deal with the PTSD. The docs at the mental health clinic have essentially written me off as having a drug problem.

The only reason the doc is doing this is (her words) because "there are no studies about drug interactions and cannabis." Farking hell, let me self-med with the weed and give me an anti-anxiety so I can at least get out of the house without a panic attack and sleep throu ...


I know this will sound like a crazy solution, but have you considered moving? Perhaps to the west coast, where medical marijuana is widely available? I would stop going to that doctor yesterday - what she's doing is making the problem worse. If cannabis is the best medicine for you, then you should probably go someplace where there are doctors and caretakers who have experience with it, and where it is widely available.

As for the DEA, well, they make their living by this, so legal marijuana has the potential to destroy some of their jobs at least. Not only that but all of the arms of government "drug control" policy are bound up in legal straightjackets and obliged to defend their current positions - for example, the government is party to international treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and offices like the DEA, ONDCP, and NIDA are explicitly tilted towards supporting prohibition of drugs at all costs. ONDCP, for example, is legally required to defend prohibition of currently illegal drugs. NIDA's mandate is to study "drug abuse", so research on potential beneficial uses of said drugs is off the table, yet they maintain a monopoly on research. The DEA is an enforcement arm of prohibition, so naturally it has a conflict of interest in any scheduling debate - it is literally impossible for it not to.

It's been very, very slow, and these groups will be very, very loud for a while, but because of these straightjackets, when legalizations comes it will come all of a sudden and all at once. Basically, there is no true legal process for cannabis to be rescheduled, so it will require congress to pass a law taking it out of the scheduling system in order for it to become legal. At that point, it will be in the same space as alcohol and tobacco. Most likely regulation will be overseen by the FDA. I think this is likely to happen sooner than we think, because the pressure of legal cannabis from Colorado and Washington will force either a massive crackdown or a change in law. Considering weed is more popular than the president... well, I am pretty confident it will change.

The sad part is that there is no leeway for change towards a more liberal regime in drug laws; once something is scheduled restrictively, it becomes nearly impossible to unschedule or revise. So khat, LSD, MDMA, etc., are all stuck forever. Luckily cannabis is popular.
 
2013-01-31 08:58:34 PM

adamatari: I know this will sound like a crazy solution, but have you considered moving? Perhaps to the west coast, where medical marijuana is widely available?


Hehe. I live in Los Angeles. :)

Yeah, I'm starting to experience symptoms of depression (mom's diagnosed with clinical depression, and I'm pretty sure I've got that one too). I'm considering going back to the mental health clinic and going "Dah fuq? This crap ain't working."
 
2013-02-01 12:52:36 AM
Can't believe I am the first one to post this in this thread...

U.S. Patent #6630507

Original Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting...

Why the fark did the lawyers not bring this up? How can you hold the goddamn patent on the medical benefits of cannabis and claim that cannabis has no medical benefits?!?!
 
2013-02-01 01:00:25 AM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus:  
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.


Huh. That explains why my psoriasis was getting better too.

/the more you know
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report