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.

(UPI)   76% of doctors would approve medical marijuana. Other 24% can't remember the question   (upi.com) divider line 29
    More: Cool, marijuana, New England Journal of Medicine  
•       •       •

791 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jun 2013 at 9:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
ecl
2013-06-03 09:19:30 AM
Approves.
i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-03 09:22:14 AM
It is a liifesaving medicine that immediately cures my horrifyingly condition of being out of weed.
 
2013-06-03 09:41:18 AM
It'd be nice, but I don't think it'll ever happen in these dreadful flyover states where people are just expected to suffer, and pain patients are treated like strung-out junkies.


 
2013-06-03 09:43:21 AM
Doctors were given the hypothetical case of Marilyn, a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer which had spread to her lungs, chest and spine. When asked whether she should be prescribed marijuana to help ease her symptoms, a majority of respondents said yes.

Old lady is gonna die, already has lung cancer.  A doctor would prescribe tobacco under that situation if tobacco were under the same legal complications.  I think the question is loaded.

Don't get me wrong, I am for legalized pot.  I just think the medical use part is BS.  If it was medically applicable then the THC would be extracted, put into a pill form that is measured properly and controlled dosages that would give consistent help.  Unless you use a vaporizer, smoking pot causes the inhalation of tar (partially combusted particulate matter from smoking plants) which causes respiratory complications.
 
2013-06-03 09:51:47 AM

XanthPrime: Doctors were given the hypothetical case of Marilyn, a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer which had spread to her lungs, chest and spine. When asked whether she should be prescribed marijuana to help ease her symptoms, a majority of respondents said yes.

Old lady is gonna die, already has lung cancer.  A doctor would prescribe tobacco under that situation if tobacco were under the same legal complications.  I think the question is loaded.

Don't get me wrong, I am for legalized pot.  I just think the medical use part is BS.  If it was medically applicable then the THC would be extracted, put into a pill form that is measured properly and controlled dosages that would give consistent help.  Unless you use a vaporizer, smoking pot causes the inhalation of tar (partially combusted particulate matter from smoking plants) which causes respiratory complications.


I agree, I mean what kind of shiatty doctor prevents you from medicine that helps you deal with a fatal and painful disease like that? Whether its pot or a pile of pain meds you'd never otherwise prescribe, you'd be an awful doctor to keep it from someone who was suffering from a terminal disease. If I ever get a terminal disease there's a good chance the world may have it's first recorded death from cannabis overdose.

The better question is what percentage of doctors approve of the use of medical pot for treatment of "back pain", "restless leg syndrome", "sore muscles" and the other BS people make up to get the medical pot cards. I'd bet significantly less.

/as much in favor of legalization as anyone, but trying to back door recreational use through medical marijuana is/was the wrong way to do it
//though it should be available for any acceptable medical use of course, too
 
2013-06-03 10:01:43 AM

XanthPrime: Doctors were given the hypothetical case of Marilyn, a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer which had spread to her lungs, chest and spine. When asked whether she should be prescribed marijuana to help ease her symptoms, a majority of respondents said yes.

Old lady is gonna die, already has lung cancer.  A doctor would prescribe tobacco under that situation if tobacco were under the same legal complications.  I think the question is loaded.

Don't get me wrong, I am for legalized pot.  I just think the medical use part is BS.  If it was medically applicable then the THC would be extracted, put into a pill form that is measured properly and controlled dosages that would give consistent help.  Unless you use a vaporizer, smoking pot causes the inhalation of tar (partially combusted particulate matter from smoking plants) which causes respiratory complications.


Hopefully the actual study gave actual symptoms--nausea, poor appetite, whatever--and not just "being all cancery." I'm site there was also a line about "if other medications failed to control her symptoms." And I'm not against medical marijuana at all, but I think its strong advocates are really overplaying their hand when they suggest that it should be first line treatment for so many conditions.  At a certain point, you just sound like a pothead.
 
2013-06-03 10:03:14 AM

XanthPrime: Doctors were given the hypothetical case of Marilyn, a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer which had spread to her lungs, chest and spine. When asked whether she should be prescribed marijuana to help ease her symptoms, a majority of respondents said yes.

Old lady is gonna die, already has lung cancer.  A doctor would prescribe tobacco under that situation if tobacco were under the same legal complications.  I think the question is loaded.

Don't get me wrong, I am for legalized pot.  I just think the medical use part is BS.  If it was medically applicable then the THC would be extracted, put into a pill form that is measured properly and controlled dosages that would give consistent help.  Unless you use a vaporizer, smoking pot causes the inhalation of tar (partially combusted particulate matter from smoking plants) which causes respiratory complications.


They already do create "THC" pills called Marinol. They reportedly don't work as well, because marijuana has more than just THC in it.

What amazes me is how many people say they are for legalization, and yet refuse to recognize it's medicinal benefits. There is plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt marijuana can be an effective medicine for treating various ailments.
 
2013-06-03 10:06:18 AM

XanthPrime: Doctors were given the hypothetical case of Marilyn, a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer which had spread to her lungs, chest and spine. When asked whether she should be prescribed marijuana to help ease her symptoms, a majority of respondents said yes.

Old lady is gonna die, already has lung cancer.  A doctor would prescribe tobacco under that situation if tobacco were under the same legal complications.  I think the question is loaded.

Don't get me wrong, I am for legalized pot.  I just think the medical use part is BS.  If it was medically applicable then the THC would be extracted, put into a pill form that is measured properly and controlled dosages that would give consistent help.  Unless you use a vaporizer, smoking pot causes the inhalation of tar (partially combusted particulate matter from smoking plants) which causes respiratory complications.


you do know they already do that right ?

Eye drops for glaucoma have THC as an active ingredient.
 
2013-06-03 10:14:51 AM

XanthPrime: Don't get me wrong, I am for legalized pot. I just think the medical use part is BS. If it was medically applicable then the THC would be extracted, put into a pill form that is measured properly and controlled dosages that would give consistent help. Unless you use a vaporizer, smoking pot causes the inhalation of tar (partially combusted particulate matter from smoking plants) which causes respiratory complications.


Do docs prescribe a smoked medication for someone with decreased lung function, or is it more likely advised to be delivered in pill form (either Marinol or activated THC ground up into a capsule) or via a vaporizer or foodstuff? Does TFA say?

// though if she's at death's door already, some minor irritation and extra coughing probably won't be the fatal straw on her camel's back - like a shot of lidocaine, trading one discomfort for another isn't always bad
// assuming all those tumor/cancer-antagonist properties of THC aren't a real thing
 
2013-06-03 10:27:17 AM

jjwars1: There is plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt marijuana can be an effective medicine for treating various ailments.


None of which meets the burden for FDA aapproval.  Just as an example, if aspirin was put up for approval as a pain reliever today, there is zero chance it would pass.  And that's not because aspirin doesn't have anyutility as a pain reliever.  It's because it's inferior to others available.  However, it would get approved as an anticoagulant for certain situations because it has fewer detrimental effects that Coumadin, heparin, or other anticoagulants.  And once it has gone through all the necessary testing and Ben approved, there's no reason doctors couldn't use it off label for other indications.  That's the tack medical marijuana advocates should take.  Find one condition it treats better than other drugs, go though the necessary trials and get it approved.  Now doctors can prescribe it for other conditions as an off label therapy, once they've appropriately evaluated and counseled the patient.
 
2013-06-03 10:27:54 AM
 
2013-06-03 10:33:58 AM

Bandito King: http://drugwar-420.blogspot.com/2011/02/reasons-marinol-doesnt-work.h t ml

I have no idea whether that link will work.


TLDR: There are more cannabinoids in pot than THC and THC does not provide every benefit found in smoking pot. The Marinol pill is pure THC and sesame oil, which makes it far less effective for providing some benefits and flat-out incapable of providing others.

There are also serious pricing and side-effect problems.
 
2013-06-03 10:34:10 AM

jjwars1: and anecdotal evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt


THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Know what I'd like?  I'd like to see large scale, long-term, double-blind tests with the same rigor and safety precautions as they use when testing any other potential drug.
 
2013-06-03 10:59:22 AM

meanmutton: jjwars1: and anecdotal evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Know what I'd like?  I'd like to see large scale, long-term, double-blind tests with the same rigor and safety precautions as they use when testing any other potential drug.


Way to cherry pick the quote there...kinda ignores the part about scientific research. It's out there already, so all you have to do is study it out if you really want to know more about the validity of marijuana as medicine.
 
2013-06-03 11:05:58 AM

Yes please: jjwars1: There is plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt marijuana can be an effective medicine for treating various ailments.

None of which meets the burden for FDA aapproval.  Just as an example, if aspirin was put up for approval as a pain reliever today, there is zero chance it would pass.  And that's not because aspirin doesn't have anyutility as a pain reliever.  It's because it's inferior to others available.  However, it would get approved as an anticoagulant for certain situations because it has fewer detrimental effects that Coumadin, heparin, or other anticoagulants.  And once it has gone through all the necessary testing and Ben approved, there's no reason doctors couldn't use it off label for other indications.  That's the tack medical marijuana advocates should take.  Find one condition it treats better than other drugs, go though the necessary trials and get it approved.  Now doctors can prescribe it for other conditions as an off label therapy, once they've appropriately evaluated and counseled the patient.


So what? You won't recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana until it goes through bureaucratic red tape only to be prescribed for off label use? The FDA says it's not medicine so it's not medicine?
 
2013-06-03 11:10:57 AM

jjwars1: So what? You won't recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana until it goes through bureaucratic red tape only to be prescribed for off label use? The FDA says it's not medicine so it's not medicine?


No, if you want it to be a medicine, treat it like a medicine.  That's exactly what I said.
 
2013-06-03 11:38:22 AM

jjwars1: So what? You won't recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana until it goes through bureaucratic red tape only to be prescribed for off label use? The FDA says it's not medicine so it's not medicine?


No. He/She 's saying, "The federal government does not recognize it because it does not meet these standards.  My opinion on the subject has not been discussed but I have provided a positive scenario to consider."

I mean, I could be reading too much into it, but you two seem to be on the same side but fighting over semantics.
 
2013-06-03 11:49:59 AM

WhoGAS: jjwars1: So what? You won't recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana until it goes through bureaucratic red tape only to be prescribed for off label use? The FDA says it's not medicine so it's not medicine?

No. He/She 's saying, "The federal government does not recognize it because it does not meet these standards.  My opinion on the subject has not been discussed but I have provided a positive scenario to consider."

I mean, I could be reading too much into it, but you two seem to be on the same side but fighting over semantics.


That would be unheard of on FARK.  There's a first time for everything I suppose.
 
2013-06-03 11:58:15 AM

WhoGAS: jjwars1: So what? You won't recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana until it goes through bureaucratic red tape only to be prescribed for off label use? The FDA says it's not medicine so it's not medicine?

No. He/She 's saying, "The federal government does not recognize it because it does not meet these standards.  My opinion on the subject has not been discussed but I have provided a positive scenario to consider."

I mean, I could be reading too much into it, but you two seem to be on the same side but fighting over semantics.


If only it were that simple.  His argument seems to be "This is such a great drug; what kind of bullshiat is it that they want to treat it like a drug?"
 
2013-06-03 12:16:13 PM
I had my real doctor write a prescription once... but its pretty much worthless...  Its not a 'real' prescription, because its not like you're picking up at CVC. You have to pay those schill doctors at shop.
 
2013-06-03 12:27:46 PM
I hope these figures are correct. I'm going to be going to various doctors trying to get a medicinal license over the next few months. The doctor i've been going to since i was a child is extremely biased against it, which puts me in this position. And i'm not trying to scam the system or something. I have a neck injury from a car accident which makes me a class one applicant due to spinal injury. Just a matter of finding a doc who does their research.
 
2013-06-03 12:57:32 PM

Vodka Zombie: It'd be nice, but I don't think it'll ever happen in these dreadful flyover states where people are just expected to suffer, and pain patients are treated like strung-out junkies.


I think you're right, but I hope you're wrong.
 
2013-06-03 01:27:57 PM

Yes please: WhoGAS: jjwars1: So what? You won't recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana until it goes through bureaucratic red tape only to be prescribed for off label use? The FDA says it's not medicine so it's not medicine?

No. He/She 's saying, "The federal government does not recognize it because it does not meet these standards.  My opinion on the subject has not been discussed but I have provided a positive scenario to consider."

I mean, I could be reading too much into it, but you two seem to be on the same side but fighting over semantics.

If only it were that simple.  His argument seems to be "This is such a great drug; what kind of bullshiat is it that they want to treat it like a drug?"


Err, insert jackiechan.jpg
 
2013-06-03 01:52:39 PM
*shrug* As far as I know, there's no known mainstream drug treatment for RISP. As long as weed keeps that boogey man away, I'll keep smoking.
 
2013-06-03 03:26:08 PM
Come on, just friggin' legalize it already.

Grow it, pack it, tax it, toke it.

I don't even use the stuff and I can see the obvious.

Next thing you know, you'll be surprised the world is round.

/kill it with fire...
 
2013-06-03 06:21:07 PM
I get it, subby. because pot dramatically alters ones memory!

/gag me with a spoon
 
2013-06-03 06:33:36 PM
It is really frustrating to know for a fact that cannabis is useful for many treatments, non physically addictive, mostly harmless yet there is so very little hope of the federal government to recognize these facts.

Momentum is a hell of a drug.
 
2013-06-03 10:24:43 PM

jjwars1: XanthPrime: They already do create "THC" pills called Marinol. They reportedly don't work as well, because marijuana has more than just THC in it.


As a former cancer patient who was prescribed the pill form of THC (don't remember the brand, it was 8 years ago) I can readily attest to this. I had been getting very nauseous just walking into the hospital as my chemo progressed and so they were giving me like 4 or 5 drugs to combat that before I even got a drop of actual cancer-killers. For my last treatment they decided to try something new and gave me the THC pills as a replacement for the combination of others they had been using, with the warning that "I may feel kind of stoned." (My nurses were awesome.) To keep a long story from being longer, the THC pill did pretty much nothing to help my nausea, neither did it knock me out like my previous drug cocktail had done. As someone who later on in life began smoking pot, I can say the pill does not feel like being high from smoking either.

/Cancer free since 2005
//Have since stopped smoking pot for 90% of the year
///Had Lymphoma, not a lung cancer.
 
2013-06-04 10:24:16 AM

SaberTooth08: jjwars1: XanthPrime: They already do create "THC" pills called Marinol. They reportedly don't work as well, because marijuana has more than just THC in it.

As a former cancer patient who was prescribed the pill form of THC (don't remember the brand, it was 8 years ago) I can readily attest to this. I had been getting very nauseous just walking into the hospital as my chemo progressed and so they were giving me like 4 or 5 drugs to combat that before I even got a drop of actual cancer-killers. For my last treatment they decided to try something new and gave me the THC pills as a replacement for the combination of others they had been using, with the warning that "I may feel kind of stoned." (My nurses were awesome.) To keep a long story from being longer, the THC pill did pretty much nothing to help my nausea, neither did it knock me out like my previous drug cocktail had done. As someone who later on in life began smoking pot, I can say the pill does not feel like being high from smoking either.

/Cancer free since 2005
//Have since stopped smoking pot for 90% of the year
///Had Lymphoma, not a lung cancer.


Congratulations!
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report