mysticcat: So true.  I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients.  Huh?


Like...it will make them disrespect authority, man.

Boy, do I have to laugh when people on the eastern seaboard get in a fight over what amounts to good marijuana.

/southern Oregonian

MacWizard: ProfessorOhki: js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Uh, you mean OxyContin/oxycodone? Because Oxytocin is a hormone and doesn't really seem that hard to generate.

/"it is released in large amounts after ... stimulation of the nipples..."

While you make a good point, Professor, I have never seen a chemistry set that included nipples. At least not the kind you could stimulate.

I find that most chemists have a set though. Well, at least those who haven't been careless with corrosives.

I'm worried about the same thing happening to "Performance Enhancing Drugs".   Sports journalists are generally borderline retarded and scientifically illiterate, and are going to keep stigmatizing  PEDs and demonizing high paid athletes that use them is an easy story that fill column space.    I wonder at what point critical mass is going to be reached where they become so negatively stigmatized that you can't even perform real science on the potential positive effects they could have on the general populace because no one will fund/grant you on it.

untaken_name: At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

But I think that literalist interpretation would tend to die with its adherents as they throw handfuls of nightshade berries down their throats.

Tremolo: machodonkeywrestler: Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.

Shut up about shiat you don't know? What are you, Canadian?

Worse, a scientist.

Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Who shiat in your cheerios this morning?

Have you ever tried to further evolution - ON WEED?

Mr. Eugenides: Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

He said he "could," not that he did.

/Lighten up, Francis.

mysticcat: They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Well, you know, it could lead them to ruin their lives. Can't be too careful.