Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against Medical Marijuana

[TeamJordan23]

Why I Would Vote No On Pot
By Sanjay Gupta

Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today, but I'm constantly amazed that after all these years--and all the wars on drugs and all the public-service announcements--nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month. California and 10 other states have already decriminalized marijuana for medical use. Now two of those states--Colorado and Nevada--are considering ballot initiatives that would legalize up to an ounce of pot for personal use by people 21 and older, whether or not there is a medical need.

What do voters need to know before going to the polls?

The first is that marijuana isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people--cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example--for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients.

But I suspect that most of the people eager to vote yes on the new ballot measures aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally. That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition.

But I'm here to tell you, as a doctor, that despite all the talk about the medical benefits of marijuana, smoking the stuff is not going to do your health any good.

A little condescending in that last statement, don't you think?

Full Article at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1552034,00.html

[phleshdef]

1. Actually that piece implies he is for it being used for valid medical conditions.

But he doesn't support legislations that allow it to go beyond that.

I disagree with him totally. I am for complete decriminalization at the federal level. But nothing in that suggests he is against valid, short term medical use.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Dr. Gupta, the people eager to vote to decriminalize are suffinging from big brotherites.

That's the condition whereby our government attempts to outlaw pot for no other reason than to control people. Nixon aide Halderman said it quite plainly;

"We knew that marijuana represented no significant public health threat. But we couldn't outlaw rock and roll, being young or being black. So we outlawed the common denominator."

If the good Dr. doesn't even consider this aspect, then he's not that good of a doctor. Or a public policy wonk.

i doubt Dr. Gupta would say that drinking coffee is beneficial for ones health. So why doesn't he advocate making it illegal (except for medical use?)

[independentpiney]

3. It's done my health a hell of a lot of good

I have MS and because of another health issue am very limited in the drugs I can take for it. Cannabis gives me more relief than anything else I tried or was offered and refused to try even because of the side effects.

Here's a few more choice lines from the Time article:

"As Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, puts it, "Numerous deleterious health consequences are associated with short- and long-term use, including the possibility of becoming addicted."

"It can impair your cognitive ability (why do you think people call it dope?) and lead to long-lasting depression or anxiety."

Whatever good might be said for Gupta, he's ignorantly bought into numerous myths about marijuana.

[WhiteTara]

4. so is the AG Eric Holder

we still have a long uphill battle. It must make the police/prison industrial complex way too much money.

[slay]

104. Yep

Not very encouraging when we get someone who is supposedly one of the most liberal people ever to be elected president making these kinds of choices is it... sigh...

[WhiteTara]

124. only the publicans called him a

liberal. True liberals knew he is center of the road, leaning to the right.

[polichick]

5. Oh for crying out loud! I'm so sick of people who have a problem with weed...

...unless they give up every drop of alcohol and every cig, I just want them to STFU!

[jberryhill]

25. I may be misinformed....

But I have this odd sense that the Surgeon General has had quite a few things to say about alcohol and tobacco.

Dunno where I get that silly notion.

[polichick]

28. Sure, but I doubt any SG has called for them to be criminalized...

Intolerance toward weed is just another hold over from the culture wars.

[jberryhill]

39. Then you are mistaken

The SG has called for tobacco to be criminalized in quite a few situations, and supports its continued criminalization in public places, etc.

The quote from Gupta above is supportive of medical marijuana, and opposed to general legalization.

No doctor is going to say "inhaling smoke is good for you", and there's no surprise here.

[polichick]

46. Well, imo it's simply hypocritical to oppose the "general legalization"...

...of marijuana while supporting it for alcohol and cigs ~ it has everything to do with the culture wars.

[jberryhill]

54. Get back to me with his position on alcohol and tobacco

But I know how you feel.

It's legal to spank your kids, but not your wife. Therefore it is hypocritical not to support legalization of wife spanking.

...or whatever.

[polichick]

60. Just be consistent - one way or the other for all...

Congress couldn't survive without its scotch and smokes, but has no problem criminalizing someone else's (especially the left's) vice.

[jberryhill]

62. Oddly enough

This is one of the few areas in which DU and FreeRepublic users are pretty much in consensus.

[polichick]

64. I wouldn't know - have never visited...

But I do know hypocrisy when I see it.

(And personally I don't care what any SG says about anything ~ I'd rather do my own research.)

[JuniperLea]

117. You don't have to smoke it...

Bake it into anything... make tea... flavor your favorite pasta sauce... works just as well.

[JuniperLea]

116. $$ ching ching... eom

[northernlights]

6. Dear Mr. Gupta,

"Many of them just want to get stoned legally. That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition."

Decriminalization of a private stash is not under your jurisdiction. Your appointment is as SURGEON General, not ATTORNEY General. Your role is to advocate health care, not the prison system.

Sincerely,
me.

[jberryhill]

7. Holy cow!

A doctor doesn't think inhaling vegetable combustion products is good for you.

Whodathunkit?

I'm all for decriminalization, but do not believe that inhaling smoke is a good idea.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. And that's why God made brownies

Who says you have to smoke it?

But somehow I get the feeling that if Monsanto came out with some super GMO pot seed, and all other marijuana was eliminated from the planet somehow, and the Monsanto Frankenweed was converted into a "harmless" pharmaceutical pill which was patented and cost $200 for a prescription, Dr. Sanjaya would be all for it.

Hell, Monsanto would probably start selling brownies with "high fructose pot syrup" or some mutated shit like that.

[jberryhill]

21. Nobody says you have to smoke it...

I figured the followup would be "informing" me of vaporizers.

Brownies aren't going to do diddly for chemo nausea, and going for "brownies" is just the sort of confirmation to people like Gupta that this thing isn't being driven by concern for vomiting chemo patients.

Having spent plenty of time in Amsterdam coffee shops, I would not agree that brownies represent a tremendously large percentage of consumption modes, and I don't have to tell you that either.

And, as you know, THC extract is available in capsule form, is not patented, and is also not preferred for chemo nausea for the primary reason that they can't keep anything down - that's what nausea is.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Vaporizers would be another great alternative

Haven't tried them myself, but in theory, they're supposed to be a more efficient "delivery system" than smoking the herb. And obviously healthier because as you say, sticking burning anything in your face is ultimately not the best thing for you.

And while some of these vaporizers look like some odd mechanical thing, there are some that look pretty much like a typical pipe, and you use it with a lighter, not batteries.......



.... apparently the top part (which unscrews to put the weed under it) contains a ceramic stone, which you hit with the lighter, and the heat transfers to the ganja. So call it a "smokeless pipe" I guess?

http://www.ekmpowershop1.com/ekmps/shops/6641koala55/vapor-genie-vaporizer-pipe-22-p.asp

[jberryhill]

55. They sure would be

And if my son had tits, he'd be my daughter.

I was in Amsterdam the last weekend before the indoor tobacco ban.

Lots of vaporizers, brownies, and all sorts of stuff around. Didn't see anyone doing much other than mixing pot or hash with Drum tobacco, rolling it, and smoking it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

56. Traditionalists, I guess.

Or addicts maybe, since they were mixing with tobacco? Of course you could probably vaporize that too if you really wanted to. Couldn't see the point in it myself (other than a means of weaning oneself off of tobacco addiction, and not trusting the patches, gum, or other methods.)

[jberryhill]

61. Funny you should mention that

I just purchased a nicotine vaporizer and I'm waiting for it to be delivered.

I gather you hadn't been to Amsterdam. Mixing in hash with tobacco is by far the preferred method there.

It is, in fact, how I became addicted to tobacco after spending time there many years ago.

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. Nope haven't made it to Europe yet

If I could afford to go right now, I probably wouldn't come back.

[JuniperLea]

118. Mary Jane tea...

Anyone can sip tea, and it absolutely does check the nausea.

[jberryhill]

141. Not if they have throat cancer, esophageal cancer, etc.

...and chemo nausea is truly in its own league.

[JuniperLea]

145. Especially if they have those types of cancer...

It's anti-inflammatory and the THC and other agents themselves are not carcinogenic... it's the smoke when you smoke it that is the risk. Tea and eating the herb itself is not. Chemo nausea, and HIV drug related nausea is one of the benefits even Gupta is admitting to in the article. Did you read it?

[jberryhill]

162. Yes I read it

Which is why I've pointed out the subject line of the OP is misleading.

[Cha]

8. Of course, he is. That doesn't

mean it's not gonna happen. The benefits are stronger than one person.

[moriah]

9. I do not believe marijuana does any more health damage than cigarettes or alcohol.

... and there are other conditions that marijuana does help with.

For me, it helps with my fibromyalgia. I don't smoke much at all -- my friends are amazed that an 1/8th can last me a month. I periodically quit completely for a month or two to make sure I don't develop a tolerance. During that time, however, I have to take pharmaceutical remedies that don't work as well, cost four or five times as much, and have much worse side effects. But it helps me sleep, and it helps relax my muscles when I am hurting.

However, it's not good for my lungs. I did have a complication from smoking out of a water pipe -- I smoked with a friend out of his water pipe and shortly thereafter developed a fungal pneumonia that seemed to be related to him not keeping it hygienic. I wish there was a way to use it without having to smoke it that was as efficient as smoking -- brownies aren't exactly easy to make conservatively, it takes a lot more of the product to do the job and it lasts a lot longer -- not exactly good when I want to make sure I'm not still stoned when I go to work in the morning.

[independentpiney]

17. you could look into a vaporizor

they're a little pricey but well worth the investment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

153. Depends on the rate of consumption.

Health damage from alcohol depends on how much you drink in a short span of time - drinking 21 units of alcohol in a day will do you a lot more damage than drinking 3 a day for a week.

The damage cigarettes and marijuana do your health is basically proportional to the amount you smoke, though, however you do it.

I suspect that at any rate of intake, cigarettes may be more dangerous than marijuana (I haven't checked that, though).

It's possible to drink small amounts without any health risk at all, though, whereas any level of consumption of either cigarettes of marijuana increases your chance of various health problems (although in large quantities, alcohol is the most dangerous of the three).

[spanone]

10. we will not be living under sanja gupta's policies, it will be President Obama's policies

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Stunningly ignorant stance from Gupta

Much like the reactionary Holder. Will Obama be a man of his word? Here's his word, from Willamette Weekley interview during the Primary:


Q: Would you stop the DEA's raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers?

Obama : I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science..."

[Occam Bandage]

20. What's ignorant? He's in favor of medical marijuana,

but thinks a bill decriminalizing it regardless of medical necessity isn't a good idea from a public-health perspective.

[killbotfactory]

51. Why should anything be banned for not being a medical necessity?

It's ridiculous.

[glitch]

99. Very true. I would want our Surgeon General to be up on the latest research.

From a CNN pundit you expect this level of ignorance. Hopefully he'll do some serious reading if he accept this appointment.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Your headline is misleading. It seems he is in favor of medical marijuana,

but against this proposed legislation, since it would legalize marijuana regardless of medical condition. As for his final statement? He's talking to the general public. It is true that for the average person not suffering from glaucoma or undergoing chemotherapy, marijuana would not do their health any good.

[bobd0]

16. MJ benefits chronic pain sufferers, migraine headache sufferers, and more.

Limiting its use to glaucoma and chemotherapy is ignoring benefits for myriad other conditions.

[Occam Bandage]

19. And there's no evidence he's opposed to that, either.

He's talking about bills that would decriminalize marijuana regardless of medical condition. To say that means he is opposed to medical marijuana is entirely misleading.

[bobd0]

68. But you specified only two conditions when there are many more. nt

[Occam Bandage]

87. Only as an example to serve a broader point.

While it is useful for many conditions, for healthy persons marijuana is not a healthful supplement.

[grantcart]

155. And nothing I can see that he doesn't beilieve that it should be left to Doctors

[ddeclue]

18. While I'm FOR decriminalizing pot, I don't think there is any real validity to MM.

Inhaling smoke of any kind is NOT good for your lungs or heart.

If THC is indeed an effective anti-nausea and/or anti-pain medication, then it should be separated from the plant by an FDA licensed pharmaceutical company and delivered in controlled measureable dosages as a pill of some sort, not inhaled with a bunch of smoke that is bad for you in an uncontrolled dosage provided by someone outside of FDA control.

It is my impression that MM is just about creating a political cover for decriminalizing pot.

If you want to decriminalize pot, just do it - stop creating junk science to justify it.

The best argument is the simplest - prohibition hasn't worked - just like with alcohol.

Make it an offense to operate machinery or vehicles of any kind and make it legal for employers to discriminate against pot smoking (and cigarette smoking too) for insurance reasons and otherwise get rid of the criminal laws on it and tax it like cigarettes.

Doug D.

[independentpiney]

23. There is alot of validity for medical use of marijuana

And a whole host of cannibinoids other than thc involved in therapeutic use. Which is why marinol isn't an effective alternative. Please educate yourself a bit more about it, you're impression is very wrong.

[ddeclue]

26. baloney.... smoking is obviously bad for you.

you can't refute that fact - whether it's tobacco or marijuana - smoke is horrible for your heart and lungs and contains many different carcinogens.

Whatever the active ingredients are, they need to be CONTROLLED and delivered to the patient in an FDA licensed SAFE process that does not involve inhaling SMOKE.

If you want to smoke pot that's fine, just dont' try to tell me that it's good for you.

:eyes:

[phleshdef]

30. The minute amount that is inhaled by the avg user is fairly trivial.

You have more of a chance of dying in a car crash on your way home from work today.

[ddeclue]

32. Not really since I don't plan to leave the house...

and it's really hard for you to make such a broad generalization since you have no idea how much anyone is smoking.

[phleshdef]

42. I know a good deal about average marijuana users, I use to be one.

I also have a good idea about how much it takes to get the desired effect and how much the average person can even handle. I can cite some actual research if you are really that adamant about it.

[ddeclue]

48. Smoke is smoke... it's NOT supposed to be in your body..

you can jump up and down and cite a bunch of studies but common sense tells me NO smoke is better than any amount of smoke. (tobacco or marijuana)

If there are medical benefits to the active ingredients in marijuana those active ingredients should be separated by an FDA licensed pharmaceutical company and sold in regulated doses, not through smoking a joint.

If you want to decriminalize marijuana, do it on the basis of prohibition being a failure - not on making up a bunch of hocus pocus studies and junk science.

:eyes:

[bobd0]

70. You are not being rational.

The few studies that have been done on MM are clear about its benefits. Just because you refuse to accept conclusive findings and would rather cling to your cynical attitude about marijuana doesn't make them junk science or hocus pocus.

You sound like a Republican talking about global warming.

[ddeclue]

72. No I really AM being rational - not trying to use junk science to back my political agenda.

actually YOU sound like a Republican DENYING global warming using cherry picked junk science.

Doug D.

[bobd0]

77. Thanks for proving my point. nt

[ddeclue]

80. No...Thanks for proving mine...

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Effects on the Heart
One study found that an abuser’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana.7 The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

7 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Muller JE. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001.

8 Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 63(2):92–100, 2005.

9 Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, et al. Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: Results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(10):1829–1834, 2006.

[bobd0]

92. For every link you find on the dangers of MM I can find one on its efficacy.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4596355_positive-effects-marijuana.html

Benefits
While some may consider the euphoria associated with marijuana to be benefit enough, there are a wide variety of medical uses for THC and the compounds included in the marijuana plant. One of the greatest benefits is the increased appetite that comes along with the consumption of the drug. This has been used with cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to enable them to eat again and maintain their strength through the difficult process. Marijuana has been shown to alleviate nausea, and has been shown to be successful in the treatment of neurogenic pain, as well as having a host of benefits for those suffering from glaucoma, asthma and spasticity.

Misconceptions
#1. Marijuana is addictive. The vast bulk of medical research that exists today shows that marijuana is not physically addictive in any way, and the cessation of marijuana use does not lead to withdrawal symptoms as one would find in a tobacco smoker or an alcoholic.

#2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. This can be argued, but the facts are not quite in favor of this theory. In fact, recent studies have shown that tobacco use is a much more solid indicator of hard drug usage down the line.

#3. Marijuana can lead to lung cancer. This has not been proven and studies have been done. While the same carcinogens are present in marijuana smoke as in tobacco smoke, the lung cancer link is not there. Theories about this lack of causation include the possibility that THC itself acts as a protectant against cancerous cells.

[bobd0]

79. BTW, you sound like the kind of person for whom lighting up would do you a lot of good. nt

[ddeclue]

81. Don't need drugs to expand my mind friend...

I'd rather live my life in the real world and have real highs not drug induced ones as a substitute for real satisfaction and real accomplishment.

Thanks but no thanks...

Doug D.

[bobd0]

90. Oh, so you're one of those "drugs are for people who can't handle reality" types.

Well, as they used to say, reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

I've had more satisfaction and accomplishment in my life than most people I know, medicine notwithstanding.

[crimsonblue]

150. Who's being the republican?

You stated you don't care about medical studies, but instead trust your 'common sense'. What bullshit. Numerous, thousand person studies have shown that marijuana only smoking actually DECREASES the risk of lung and throat cancer. Stop spouting off on that which you obviously do not understand.

[bobd0]

163. Here's more "junk science" for you to ignore like a Republican zealot

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100230518&page=1

Marijuana's Memory Paradox

Are pot smokers less likely to get Alzheimer's? A compound similar to the active ingredient in cannabis shows promise as a potential memory protector.

By Maia Szalavitz for MSN Health & Fitness

Marijuana isn't known for being a friend to memory; its short-term effects notoriously impair recall. And although the data is conflicting, some studies link cannabis with memory deficits in those who use excessive doses for long periods of time

But new research suggests that one of the active ingredients in marijuana—THC—and similar compounds could possibly prevent or even reverse one of the most devastating memory disorders of all: Alzheimer's disease.

In a paper published in the December 2008 issue of the journal Neurobiology of Aging, researchers found that a compound that affects the same brain receptors as THC reduced brain inflammation and improved memory in older rats. (The rodents were the human equivalent of age 65 to 70.) Although there's debate over the role played by inflammation in Alzheimer's, many researchers believe it's an important part of the process that causes dementia.

"We were shocked and surprised that it worked," says Gary Wenk, Ph.D., one of the study's authors and a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Ohio State University.

Wenk and his colleagues traced the anti-inflammatory effect of the compound (which has the awkward name "WIN-55,212-2") to its activation of cannabinoid receptors on brain cells—the same receptors activated by THC.

Other anti-inflammatory compounds studied in rats and humans like NSAID drugs (ibuprofen, etc.) showed effects on young brains, but unlike WIN-55,212-2 did not improve aged brains.

Wenk has also found in these older rats that the WIN-55,212-2 compound promotes the growth of new brain cells—a process that declines and may even stop in older animals. "The most amazing thing we saw was that it re-initiates neurogenesis—usually, the only drugs that do that are the SSRI antidepressants ."

So when I see you in the nursing home you'll be the one with Alzheimers. :)

PS You'll learn the hard way, just like George W. Bush, that you ignore science at your own peril. :D

Have a nice life, Doug.

[JuniperLea]

119. Tea isn't smoking...

And you can sprinkle a little on whatever you are eating.

Junk science my ass... it's been well documented for years that there are medicinal benefits.

Big Pharma doesn't want anything to do with Mary Jane because she would lay waste to so many synthetic chemical compounds it would make their heads spin.

[independentpiney]

37. It doesn't need to be smoked

I personally use a vaporizor, no smoke inhalation involved.A friend of mine used it for chemo for throat cancer. You think he smoked it?Cannabis butter can be used to make anything.There are also tinctures and other liquid products.

[ddeclue]

41. That is better than smoking but it is still not controlled as it should be by the FDA

to insure quality and safety. How can dosage be consistently controlled if we are dealing with raw plant materials rather than refined drugs?

Ultimately this still comes down to as Gupta has pointed out a back door method of trying to legalize a recreational drug on the basis of a medical benefit for a small portion of society while bypassing all the normal safety regulations.

If you want to decriminalize it, just decriminalize it - my problem, as an engineer, is with people creating junk science to support political agendas.

Doug D.

[independentpiney]

57. You can shove you're 'backdoor method to legalize' crap up your backdoor

There's a lot of sick people and loved ones of sick people who want safe, legal access to a beneficial product now for medical use. Whether or not they also support full decriminalization or legalization is immaterial.

And why should I have to pay $400+/month for an FDA approved pill prescription when I can get the same or better relief from raw plant material I can grow and prepare myself? There's been very little real research done, because it's an illegal substance. Much of what is out there both in support of and opposed to medical use is ancedotal and could be considered junk science.

[ddeclue]

74. Because we REGULATE medicine in this country and don't let people sell snake oil...

It used to be that you could sell cocaine, heroin, or anything you wanted in a bottle and call it medicine in the 19th century. Lots of people died.

There's GOOD reason for you to have to get an FDA APPROVED prescription rather than just using raw plant materials because it is NOT a measureable controlled dosage and there is no quality or safety control.

What you are advocating is abolition of food and safety regulations just to suit yourself and to hell with the rest of us.

What I REALLY hear when people make this sort of excuse is I want to smoke marijuana to get high - not I want to use a particular active ingredient of marijuana to treat some symptom of disease.

Science is quantifiable and measureable - medicine deals in what can be measured and observed. You can't claim magical benefits from an illicit unregulated product that you refuse to allow to be regulated or controlled.

If you want to smoke marijuana and get high in your own home - I frankly don't care - have fun. All I ask is you don't do it around me or operate machinery that puts other people's lives at risk while you are high.

If you want to ACTUALLY use the active ingredients in a marijuana plant as "medicine" however, it needs to be regulated and it needs to be done in a controlled fashion with known dosages. We don't allow any other medication to be prescribed in such a ridiculously inprecise manner as "here's three joints for today"....

:eyes:

[moriah]

140. "How can dosage be consistently controlled if we are dealing with raw plant materials?"

Easily enough.

You selectively breed a strain with the chemical constituents you want. When you get a plant with the profile you want, you make clones of the plant to keep the genotype pure. You grow under controlled conditions. You harvest, dry, and prepare them the same way. You can also blend the harvest from several plants to add to consistency -- although a plant with the same genotype grown in the same conditions and harvested in the same way should be very consistent anyway.

You then test the product randomly to make sure that consistency is maintained.

Germany has done it with their herbal industry. 80% of doctors in Germany prescribe herbal supplements, and they are regulated as medicines there. The Commission E Monographs were created after controlled testing of over 300 different herbal preparations for safety and efficacy. The book is like the PDR for herbal medicine -- including indications, dosage, and contraindications. Their preparations are regulated and tested, and are considered medicines and obtained through pharmacists (although they are not prescription-only) who are also familiar with the Monographs so they can recognize if there is a possible interaction between prescribed substances, be them standard medicines or herbal remedies.

This is not about cannabis when I say that I think the German model should be the US model as well. I would much rather see American herbal supplements regulated in the German fashion. Since they are not, I prefer to work with the raw plant instead of capsules -- there may be variances, but potency can be judged to some degree by smell and color of the plants. Ideally I prefer to wildcraft or grow herbs myself, or to obtain herbs from people who I know that grow them -- but if I knew I could purchase a product that was consistent and potent, I would buy them more.

A similar type of regulation would ensure quality and consistency for medical cannabis -- although some additional safeguards would need to be in place for distribution/sales.

[moriah]

65. As I said in my post, I wish there was a way to deliver the active ingredients without smoking.

But one thing that people have missed when marketing drugs like Marinol is that it's not just Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol that is responsible for all of the effects of cannabis.

I've known several people who grow, and one has developed a specific strain that has extremely strong anti-nausea properties without as much of a "high" -- she uses it because she had gastric bypass surgery and has period episodes of gastroparesis that involve vomiting food she ate days before. Her special cannabis works better than anything she can get on the street or from a pharmacy to let her keep water down in those instances -- she has even tried Zofran, and it does not do as well for her.

It's not that her strain has a higher amount of THC, as THC is very psychoactive. It's the other cannabinols and cannabinoids that are present, and the balance of each (including THC) that cause her particular strain to have the properties it does. At one point she was very low on money and sold a bit of her product. The buyers were very unhappy because they did not get "high" in the way they were accustomed to. I also helped her out with some money in exchange for a small amount, but instead of smoking it I put it away in my medicine cabinet, as I knew it was truly medical cannabis. One of the people who had been incredibly disappointed with their purchase came down with the stomach flu, and I brought a small amount with me to visit her. She was shocked at how well it worked at doing what it was bred to do.

One major difference between allopathic medicine and herbal medicine is that most practitioners of herbal medicine (not homeopathy) rely on the synergistic effect -- chamomile alone may not relax your nerves, but a decoction of valerian root with chamomile, lemon verbena, and linden steeped in after the root decoction is made will almost assuredly put you to sleep. Pharmaceutical companies want to find just one chemical that will do it all, but often the dose required to get the desired effect will also cause numerous side effects that could be avoided by mixing a low dose of two or three chemicals that work synergistically.

I personally believe recreational use of cannabis is no more damaging than recreational use of alcohol, perhaps less.

But as far as medicine, remember that just because the FDA approves something does not mean it is safe. And safe is sometimes relative -- it is not safe for a person's mind to be fogged by opiate pain relievers when they get behind the wheel of a car, but it is proven that chronic pain can harm a person more than responsible use of opiates. There are many other medicines that have poor safety profiles but are used because the alternative -- letting the person suffer or die -- is not acceptable. (Opiates, by the way, have a very high safety profile when used responsibly -- if a person is titrated with medical supervision there is not a "max dosage" for opiates, but what a 20-year chronic pain sufferer may take and not feel could kill an opiate-naive individual.)

[ddeclue]

75. That's ridiculous.. whatever the active ingredients are CAN and SHOULD be isolated

and applied appropriately in CONTROLLED dosages.

Anything else is just excuse making to justify smoking dope.

If you want to smoke dope, I don't care as long as you don't do it around me and you don't operate any machinery afterwards that puts my life at risk.

Just don't try to justify it with a bunch of nonsense junk science.

Isolate the particular active ingredients and give those to appropriate patients in CONTROLLED measurable dosages. Otherwise it is simply NOT medicine.

We don't allow snake oil sales in this country anymore for good reasons.

Doug D.

[moriah]

125. "Junk science"? Pray tell, what in my post was "junk science"?

That FDA approval does not make a drug safe?

That even drugs with poor safety profiles are used because the results justify the risks?

That THC is not the only active ingredient in cannabis and that the balance of cannabinoids makes a difference in the effects? That some may not have psychoactive effects? That research is still in progress and while doctors recognize that there are other active ingredients than THC in cannabis, they are not available yet -- except in the form that God/Mother Nature gave us?

That bio-equivalent dosages of two different chemicals taken together may have more effect than double dosages of each chemical? That's what synergistic means, if the word was too big for you.

And insofar as saying a plant material is "simply NOT medicine", tell that to the German government. Are they selling snake oil?

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass, I assure you.

ETA: I agree 200% with you about taking any kind of medication/chemical that impairs your mind only when you aren't going to have to get behind the wheel or operate heavy machinery.

[moriah]

126. dupe n/t

[phleshdef]

27. Most of the patients that use it aren't very concerned about inhaling a little smoke...

And its not like they are smoking a pack of cigarrettes worth a day.

[ddeclue]

31. Yet they should be.

and the fact remains that the active ingredients could be delivered in a smokeless controlled dosage.

The real impetus behind MM is as a contrived excuse to decriminalize it.

The fact is no excuse is really needed. It should be simply about ending a counter productive prohibition just as was done for alcohol.

[phleshdef]

44. Can you cite me one case of cancer being caused by marijuana alone?

There are probably a few out there, but I bet I could count all of them on one hand.

Other than that, I agree with you on no excuse being needed.

[ddeclue]

50. A ridiculous demand on your part.

Smoke from either tobacco OR marijuana contains numerous known carcinogens. Demanding that I prove that a specific cancer case was directly caused by a specific event or combination of events of smoking marijuana is ridiculous just as it would be were you to substitute the word tobacco for marijuana.

:eyes:

[moriah]

66. As far as known carcinogens....

.... most fried foods have tons of carcinogens. Barbecued meat is loaded with them. Even a baked potato -- a baked potato! -- contains acrylamide.

Smoke from a wood-burning stove has carcinogens, too. But I've seen a lot of people here post that they were very proud of their wood-burning furnaces because they were relying on renewable energy to heat their homes.

I am not saying that smoking a cigarette, of any kind, is safer than eating a baked potato, although potatoes, tomatoes, and other food plants in the Solanaceae family can be dangerous for other reasons -- namely the glycoalkaloid solanine. (That's why you should never eat a potato that has been exposed to light enough to develop a green tinge under the peel, and why green tomatoes can be dangerous as well.) The gastric tract is considered to be much more tolerant of carcinogens than the respiratory tract.

But if we run from every single thing that could cause cancer, we would likely not eat and not breathe. As in everything in life, a person must weigh the risks and benefits before deciding on a course of action. In my case, I would rather smoke a small amount of cannabis than take some of the medicines my doctors give me for fibromyalgia -- the risk of cancer is outweighed by the benefits and the avoidance of the side effects the prescription medicines cause.

[ddeclue]

76. What you are doing is called equivocation - it does NOT negate my point.

and it is misleading in the extreme to compare the level of exposure from these other sources (outside of tobacco smoke) to marijuana smoke and you know it.

Doug D.

[moriah]

136. No, that is not the definition of equivocation, and not misleading.

Carcinogens are carcinogens. There is not a second meaning for the word.

Your argument was that asking for a specific instance where marijuana smoking alone caused lung cancer was ridiculous because there are known carcinogens in smoke -- that it did not matter whether or not they had caused cancer by themselves before, they were still capable of causing cancer and therefore were bad.

What I said, and I thought I said it very clearly, was that there is risk in everything and a person must weigh the risks vs. benefits. Eating large amounts of red meat is associated with increased colon cancer risk. My man likes his steak, and he has chosen to accept the increased risk because he would rather enjoy a steak.

The comparison between a baked potato and cannabis is more telling than you might believe -- specifically, because studies have failed to demonstrate a correlation for either and increased cancer risk despite the fact that both contain known carcinogens. Don't believe me?

On the other hand, wood smoke has been linked to increased cancer risk. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_/ai_n17156086">Don't believe me here either? Be sure to look at the "discussion" portion of the article, as it discusses other studies done on the cancer-causing potential of wood smoke exposure.

I believe my comparisons were quite apt.

Again, this goes back to risk versus benefit. Obviously people who burn wood for heat believe that the risk of air pollution and lung cancer is less than the benefit gained by reducing dependence on foreign oil. Even if studies have not demonstrated an increased risk of lung cancer in marijuana smokers, the fact the smoke contains carcinogens means that there is a possible risk, and people must weigh the risk versus the benefit in their cases. Just as we must do in all of life.

(Edited to fix link.)

[cbc5g]

71. It's not ridiculous at all...You can't find any because there aren't any studies that show a link

between smoking cannabis and cancer development. There has not been a study done that shows a link between cannabis usage and cancer, while there has been irrefutable evidence showing tobacco usage and cancer development.

Smoking cannabis too much can lead to bronchial issues but moderate usage has no detrimental effect on the body.

[ddeclue]

78. NOT what you asked for....now you are changing your story.

You asked me to link a SPECIFIC case of smoking marijuana to a SPECIFIC case of cancer.

Now you are changing your tune.

It is easy enough to refute this by a simple google and a NIH weblink....

There are plenty of studies that say that smoking (tobacco OR marijuana) is linked to cancer and heart and lung disease risks and that marijuana is in fact worse than tobacco on a cigarette for cigarette basis:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Effects on the Heart
One study found that an abuser’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana.7 The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

Effects on the Lungs

Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

7 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Muller JE. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001.

8 Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 63(2):92–100, 2005.

9 Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, et al. Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: Results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(10):1829–1834, 2006.

[cbc5g]

94. ROFL "The link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated"

Still waiting for these numerous studies that show a link between cannabis and cancer. And find some independent research next time, government studies are often done with a conclusion already set in place before they start out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Are you denying, cbc5g...

that cannabis smoke contains a large number of well established carcinogens?

[phleshdef]

107. Are you denying that its also been proven that cannabanoids help prevent cancer?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071226004546.htm

Try again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Let's start with the basics.

Do you admit that cannabis smoke contains well established carcinogens?

[phleshdef]

123. Lets end with the facts. Marijuana is not actually giving people cancer.

[Hanse]

129. Are you suggesting that marijuana is a cancer chemopreventative?

You're saying that the good compounds in marijuana smoke somehow cancel out the carcinogens? Like some sort of acid/base reaction?

[phleshdef]

108. And there is a lot of reason to believe that tobacco usage didn't lead to a lot of cancer until...

...they started adding a lot of preservative chemicals to it.

[phleshdef]

106. No its completely fair. I can cite plenty of accounts related to modern cigarettes.Put up or shut up

[Forkboy]

47. "The real impetus behind MM is as a contrived excuse to decriminalize it."

No, it's really not. See my post above about the "piggybackers". :)

[ddeclue]

52. That's your opinion. The vast majority of society agrees with me.

It's just a ploy.

I'd have more respect for those who wish to decriminalize if they would just be straight forward about it.

Doug D.

[Forkboy]

58. The vast majority thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11

Popularity doesn't equate to correctness.

I'd have more respect for people if they knew what they were talking about.

[ddeclue]

82. Put down the bong... it's making you paranoid...

:crazy:

[Forkboy]

88. Put down the crack...it's making you stupid.

:crazy:

[cbc5g]

73. Don't call my medicine a ploy

or the medicine that millions use a ploy. Talk to MS patients and tell them that MMJ is a ploy and it really has no medical benefit.

[ddeclue]

84. Sorry but YOU don't get to decide what is "medicine" in this country.

DOCTORS do.

Your DRUG is not a medicine until and unless it can be properly regulated in controlled measurable dosages. Your DRUG is not a MEDICINE.

If you want to legalize pot, then DO it. Don't create junk science to justify it. You don't need to - the REAL reason to legalize is that prohibition simply doesn't work.

Doug D.

[cbc5g]

93. MMJ isn't junk science and you're a fool if you believe that

Oh and by the way, I DO get to decide what is medicine and I have made that decision and the medicine is working for me. I don't need a fucking doctor thats a stooge of the pharma industry to tell me what is good or not good for my body. I can do the research myself.

[phleshdef]

109. Right on. I have a close friend with MS and she sais that is all that helps her, and she doesn't...

...even do very much. Maybe she does a cigarettes worth of it a day, usually even less than that. It doesn't prevent her numbness episodes, where her body can just stop functioning correctly, but it helps out tremendously with the pains caused by the condition and also her hunger suppression caused by the medication she takes.

[Forkboy]

45. There are many therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists that believe it can help in mental health.

It is my impression that MM is just about creating a political cover for decriminalizing pot.

That impression is mostly wrong. Where there's truth to it is that many pot smokers have attached themselves to the issue to ride piggyback. But that doesn't make the actual positive effects, either physically or mentally, any less real. Don't hold one against the other.

The "junk science" has been coming from those against it for decades.

Make it an offense to operate machinery or vehicles of any kind

You just shut down at least half the factories in the country. :)

[bobd0]

69. MM isn't junk science.

I have no problem with MM being researched, controlled, and delivered like any other prescription drug but then MM would have to have medicinal properties that would, by definition, disavow your claim of junk science.

Refusing to research MM is taking an entire class of drugs off the radar. It's like refusing to allow the use of poppies for medicinal purposes. Poppy derivatives, and their synthetic forms, are lethal at high doses, are very addictive, and they have other side effects far worse than MM. But poppies are OK for use as a prescription drug but MM isn't? That's ridiculous.

The pharmaceutical industry, criminal justice industry, and long held ridiculous assumptions about marijuana are what stand in the way of MM, not junk science.

[glitch]

96. You might want to do some research on it before forming an opinion.

And pray to God you don't have any reason to understand its benefits from personal experience.

[Yukari Yakumo]

152. A problem for the first part of your last sentence...

While there are a variety of BAC tests for alcohol, are there any for pot? (That is at least readily available for roadside use.)

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Too bad he can't apply that reasoning to most drugs.

Edited to add the last 2

"The first is that Prozac isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients."

"The first is that Viagra isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients."

"The first is that Oxycontin isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients."

"The first is that Xanax isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients."

"The first is that Alcohol isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients."

"The first is that Nicotine isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients."

[FrenchieCat]

24. Well Obama has a different idea on Medical Marijuana than that.....

So I'm not worried....because this SG will not be pushing
the policies that are not those of the President.

Barack Obama and Medical Marijuana (interview Q&A)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUziSfMwAw&feature=related

[jberryhill]

29. What's different?

Gupta is talking about legislation "which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition", after reciting a number of therapeutic uses of marijuana in connection with a variety of conditions.

The piece is in favor of medical marijuana, and not in favor of healthy people inhaling smoke.

The subject line of the OP is misleading.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Well, I was responding to the headline and the body of the text......

I didn't go to the link provided....but read the responses.

Again, I am urging for folks to stop pretending that the SG is a position
that "all of the sudden" is so important, as it is not....and acting like it is disingenuous.
The SG will not be speaking counter to the President's beliefs in this case....
and will be placed in charge of selling to the American people whatever Obama wants to be sold.

I'm tired of all of the other things happening being trumped by this distraction of the SG spot.
In concentrating on this one "not so important" position, and ignoring much else of what is going on,
we are no better than the hours on MSNBC when KO or Maddow are not on. I literally had to turn the channel off of MSNBC this morning in attempting to listen to the President-Elect's speech on the economy, because Chris Matthews was going on and on about Burris. I tuned in after the speech, and then they had Mark Whitaker talking about how the speech was not a real wonder of Oratory, but rather a University of Chicago Speech.....as opposed to discussing what the speech was about; the economy. DU doesn't need to be a so light weight.....not to this extent anyways. I've counted about 30 threads on the SG position since it was rumored. That is way over what it is worth....truly.

[jberryhill]

43. Oh I know

This one was a plain distortion of what Gupta actually said.

[cbc5g]

33. Can he cite independent studies showing marijuana's harmful effects?

By the way, you can be medicated without "smoking" it. I use a vaporizer. Thanks Gupta for continuing the ignorance about a plant that keeps my Crohn's disease under control.

[AngryAmish]

34. They should legalize it just to shut the potheads up

I'm so sick of "Oh, man, like this natural herb comes from the earth, and, man, duPont just wants to....man....man."

Just legalize it and leave those poor dopes alone.

[glitch]

97. I don't smoke dope, but I saw it bring enormous benefit to my mom when she was dying from cancer.

I have lost all patience with assholes spewing their callous ignorance.

[otohara]

38. But Eating It is Very Effective

ever think of that Dr. Genius?

Very condecending remarks from a young know-it-all surgeon, who thinks the best way to go is by having an operation, and if that doesn't work, have another operation.

This guy sounds like John Stossel vs a doctor.

[jberryhill]

40. Not for chemotherapy induced nausea

Chemo nausea is like nothing else.

"Dr. Otara, I have a patient who has been reflexively wretching for a half hour, what should I do?"

"Simple, Nurse Moran, give the patient something to eat."

Duh.

It looks like Gupta says marijuana is effective for a number of specific medical conditions, but doesn't think that healthy people should inhale smoke. What a strange doctor.

[glitch]

101. Worked well for chemo-induced nausea in tea for at least one person. nt

[marlakay]

49. where do they get the figure 15 million americans?

I have never been asked and we smoke it occasionally maybe once a month. didn't for many years and just started on a vacation.

who here has ever been asked if you smoke pot? how the hell do they know how many people?

[ddeclue]

53. That would be 5% of the total population - seems a little high

but not ridiculously so.

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. a little high?

Well yeah, isn't that the idea?

[ddeclue]

85. I hereby nominate thee for a DUZY award!

Very clever...

:)

[moriah]

67. Judging by my workplace, that figure is relatively low.

Then again, our job is relatively stressful. Most of the people at my workplace take some kind of stres-relieving chemical on a regular basis, be it sleeping pills, benzodiazepines, high alcohol consumption, or marijuana.

[ddeclue]

86. What kind of job is THAT?

Drug use is almost unheard of in my kind of work place (engineering).

[asdjrocky]

83. Just another reason to dislike this grandstanding POS.

Who knows? Maybe one day this will all sort out and we'll actually have a liberal party in America.

[soulcore]

89. Fuck Sanjay Gupta.

*lights spliff

:smoke:

[lame54]

91. And Eric Holder...

[slay]

103. Indeed - Holder wanted to make marijuana penalties even harsher under Clinton!

Obama.. not very inspiring with his choices so far. Sigh...

[JFKfanforever]

122. Sadly, I have to agree...

I am sure Obama indulged in his student days... Why would he
pick SG and EH and surround himself with retro advisors who
would criminalize marijuana and, even worse, deny it to those
in pain.  Medical marijuana is a God-given blessing to cancer
patients and to those in agony from RA and fibromyalgia.

[Kaleva]

95. Where does he stand on masturbation?

[mtnsnake]

100. Then he's as bad as the big US drug companies who are the real culprits when it comes to pot laws

Pot probably would have been legalized long ago if it weren't for the greedy pharmaceutical industry. They're the ones doing everything in their power to keep marijuana illegal because they know marijuana helps an incredible number of serious ailments that none of their feeble chemicals can touch. If pot became legal, the medical benefits of it would make a large number of expensive prescription drugs in this country obsolete. Thus, the drug companies will do everything in their power to keep pot illegal, forcing people to use THEIR chemicals instead of a much more beneficial marijuana.

Fuck Gupta and fuck his pals in the drug industry. Assholes.

[scarletwoman]

111. Don't forget the alcoholic beverage industry.

Human beings are ALWAYS going to seek out ways to alter their consciousness, we've been doing it for as long as we've been human. Right now, the alcohol producers have a legal monopoly on consciousness altering substances -- a really sweet deal for them. So, of course they're going to fight against the legalization of marijuana.

It's just plain wrong for the State to intervene in peoples' choices about what they want to ingest; the only behaviors about which the State has a legitimate interest are criminal behaviors -- those behaviors that cause to harm to others.

sw

[mtnsnake]

130. You are so right

Good post.

[slay]

102. Guess this guy has never heard of a VAPORIZER or BROWNIES

Sheesh what an idiot this Gupta is. Anyone who is for this terrible prohibition on marijuana while alcohol and tobacco remain legal has NO business as SG!!! :mad: :grr:

http://www.marijuanavaporizer.com/

*edited to provide vaporizer link. Prolly should send it to that idiot Gupta as well...

[WinkyDink]

105. But booze, potato chips, beef jerky, and Big Macs are okay?

[ZombieHorde]

110. That's funny, because I am against Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

[ismnotwasm]

113. What an asshole thing to say

Kind of like a backhand compliment.

Smoking anything isn't good generally. so what? Neither is high fructose corn syrup or aspartame. Ban those motherfucker. Try.

And the options are?

Take narcotic analgesics for example; any of them for any condition, which leads to constipation which leads to bowel obstructions which leads to surgery which leads to resistant infections which leads to further surgery and colostomies and more surgery and finally death. I've seen it happen more than once.

So what do we do? Ban narcotics after surgery or for chronic pain because of the potential complication? Won't see that happen.

And so the fuck what if someone wants to get stoned? I haven't noticed that it's any of my business.

I get stoned on a good workout, a great book or sex. I'm one of those lucky natural high people, so I don't use substances, but my brain sure makes them. Maybe my brain is illegal, and not good for me.

All those cannaboid receptors and all.

[Kaylee]

114. So he's for medical use, but against decriminalizing it

across the board....I have no issues with that. Then again, I've never used the stuff, so I might not know what I'm missing. :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

115. In bed with Big Pharma

Is what this tells me.

Big Pharma wants to sell pills for your ills, and their greed hates the weed!

I've known too many people with AIDS and cancer who sorely needed the relief from nausea and high blood pressure, and the appetite assistance. But when there are pills to sell for high blood pressure, for nausea, for glaucoma, etc., you can damn betcha the selling will continue regardless of what is better for the patient.

Notice the lack of a list of benefits...

Google Marijuana Benefits, or Medical Marijuana and enjoy the edification!

It's anti-inflammatory, so it helps open asthmatic lung airways and helps with arthritis pain... it is a mood brightener, and who isn't a little depressed these days? Lowers eye pressure in glaucoma sufferers, lowers blood pressure. If you are concerned about breathing smoke, make a batch of brownies! Or make some tea!

There is a long list, and with every link you hit you'll find another point to add!

[Occam Bandage]

120. He's in favor of medical marijuana. Did you read the article? nt

[Kaylee]

127. I don't think anyone here has....

I imagine us as a bunch of crazed villagers with pitchforks chasing people down the street.

[Occam Bandage]

128. I think most people stopped at the blatantly false headline. nt

[ZombieHorde]

131. I wish.

[ZombieHorde]

132. The first thing he says it that he would vote against it.

"Why I Would Vote No On Pot"

[Occam Bandage]

146. But not on medical marijuana. These bills decrimalize all marijuana, not just medical.

[ZombieHorde]

156. He would rather people go with out medicine, than let some people smoke some pot.

I consider that to be fucked up in a major way.

[JuniperLea]

144. Yes, did you?

He's spreading falsehoods, and saying he'd vote against general legalization because of the falsehoods. The Fed vs State government legislation keeps many people from getting what they need even with prescriptions and living in a state where it is legal. These sort of muddy comments only further cloud the issue.

[TexasObserver]

121. Gupta is a Big Pharm and Corporate Medicine toadie.

I'd no sooner listen to him than Dr. Phil or Judge Judy. They're all TV personalities who couldn't find their ass with both hands.

[cbc5g]

133. People say we have to listen to what the FDA says as if they have our best interests at heart

They approve drugs that kill thousands every year. Aspirin kills thousands every year and that's just one drug. They stifle research into marijuana and blatantly lie about its medicinal properties. They claim there are no medicinal qualities of marijuana yet they approve a drug called marinol that has synthetic THC. They say one thing and allow another. Where I live we call that hypocrisy. By the way, that drug compares in no way to the real marijuana and does not have all the medicinal compounds that make marijuana medicinal itself. They are liars and they suck the balls of the pharma companies. They want you sick and on THEIR drugs. And you see honorable scientists within the FDA coming out telling how corrupted it is. Obama needs to seriously reform the FDA and get the corporate stooges out. You are nothing to them unless you can give them a profit. Why should you be able to grow your own medicine when you can drool in a corner all fucked up on their drugs while they rape your bank account?

[AZBlue]

134. Your post is ridiculous. Your OP and the text included are polar opposites.

Your post says he IS in favor of medical marijuana.

[cbc5g]

135. I'm here to tell you, Gupta, that you're full of shit

Fucking prohibitionist. Yeah, let's vote no on those ballot measures so the black market can thrive and mexican drug cartels have more power. Does he not see that it's a drug that needs to be regulated and brought into the light?

[Kaleva]

137. The title of the OP is misleading

Here are two excerpts from the article:

"Now two of those states--Colorado and Nevada--are considering ballot initiatives that would legalize up to an ounce of pot for personal use by people 21 and older, whether or not there is a medical need."

""That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition."

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against the proposed legislation as written. He is not against the use of marijuana for medical reasons where there is strong evidence that it provides benefits.

[Oldenuff]

138. I'm getting pretty tired of

these politicians who somehow think it's their right to legislate what adults choose to do for enjoyment,relaxation,or for medical purposes.Just who the hell gave them that right,and who the hell do they think they are?

[SwampG8r]

139. good!

more for me!

[Uncle Joe]

142. Coffee isn't very good for you, tobacco isn't very good for you, alcohol isn't very good for you,

chocolate isn't very good for you, fried food isn't very good for you, sugar isn't very good for you, fructose isn't very good for you, red meat isn't very good for you, peanut butter can be deadly, standing out in the sun too long isn't very good for you, tanning beds aren't very good for you, the vast majority of legal drugs have serious side effects and many of them can be addictive, should everything be illegal?

Marijuana and hemp should be legal period, medical value or not, the fact that Marijuana has medical value only enhances the argument to legalize it, the fact that hemp has many valuable commercial uses makes keeping it illegal totally illogical.

[marshall]

143. How does he feel about prostitution?

Does he feel that is bad for the health too?

[gauguin57]

147. OK Sanjay ... so decriminalize pot brownies. Ya don't have to smoke those.

I think Sanjay needs a pot brownie right about now.

[zulchzulu]

148. He's against what? I forgot what you were talking about...

Actually he seemed to be referring to the smoking of the weed, which actually ISN'T (cough, cough) very good for you. Have you smoked a joint of Humboldt skag recently? That shit (cough, cough) like totally screws up your lungs, man.

THC pills, man. The future, baby.

[crimsonblue]

149. Is pot any more harmful than tobacco, Gupta?

No. Therefore, the argument that "pot is bad for your health" is irrelevent. Also, pot smokers are much less prone to violence than, say, alcohol users.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

154. Is Gupta prescribing medical tobacco?

[crimsonblue]

157. No, but the "harmful" argument is irrelevent precisely because of tobacco

Tobacco is legal. Tobacco is harmful. Pot is less harmful, and much more beneficial than tobacco. Wouldn't logic follow that pot should be legal?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

158. Harmful is very relevant because the context is medicine.

Hippocratic oath and all that business.

If we were talking just about recreational use, sure. Harm is irrelevant.

But the discussion is limited to medical marijuana.

[crimsonblue]

159. ok.....

even considering that, MM has proven to be the most effective drug for terminal cancer patients. It increases appetite, decreases joint and nerve pain, and has a calming effect on patients. Plus, it does not have the same negative side effects as opioids or other narcotics. Plus, studies have shown MM to be an effective treatment for a myriad of other maladies, namely cataracts, ADHD, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. The "harm" of MM is very negligible, especially when ingested orally or used with a vaporizer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. I agree.

So does Gupta.

Reread the article. I think everybody's talking past each other.

[crimsonblue]

165. don't fucking patronize me.

you're avoiding the argument. nice try, though. You were implicitly trying to include the "harm" issue into the context of medical marijuana. Arguing that marijuana harms the body is an idiotic argument, because the chemo drugs do much more damage to the body than smoking marijuana. No large, repeatable study has ever proven that marijuana use only causes anything than superficial lung damage.

[opihimoimoi]

151. GUPTA should chill///and in the meantime...go back to wherever...Obama...reconsider this joke

And...I know of people who smoked pot for 50 years without neg effects...they became more innovative/creative...able to solve in a single joint...

[Alexander]

160. Yet both Obama and Biden are for it.

Forgive me if I'm not concerned.

[ZombieHorde]

164. Obama has been going back and forth on the subject often.