Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy Options

[beavers]

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries - businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Soon after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

[Addai's Adidas]

This will only lead to more terrorist attacks. And children getting run over at restaurant drive thru's.

This post has been edited by Addai's Adidas: Oct 19 2009, 04:50 AM

[Shakespeare]

This will only lead to more terrorist attacks. And children getting run over at restaurant drive thru's.

And balloon boys.

[Harry Manback]

I for one welcome our new stoner overlords.

[KnowledgeReignsS...]

Finally some change for the better.

[Ministry of Pain]

Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

That's really all you need to read.

Awesome, we've legalized marijauna in California and other medicinal states. Seriously, if you have a Dr's prescription you are 100% good to go. California can now fully legalize it and start taxing the crap out of it. I wonder if the price will go down or up compared to good street herb?

[P Boy]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

That's really all you need to read.

Awesome, we've legalized marijauna in California and other medicinal states. Seriously, if you have a Dr's prescription you are 100% good to go. California can now fully legalize it and start taxing the crap out of it. I wonder if the price will go down or up compared to good street herb?

It will go down. Pot is really easy to grow (I hear). The current price level is entirely due to risk factor.

[Leroy Hoard]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

[fsword]

I wonder what kind of States Rights precedence this will set for the future?

[glumpy]

At least it's a step in the right direction.

What I find most interesting--we had the Republican Bush Administration with their holy crusade against these hardened criminal potheads trampling over any State Rights to allow even prescribed medical use. Now we have the Democratic Obama Administration pretty much calling it a State's right to decide. Something backwards here...

[P Boy]

At least it's a step in the right direction.

What I find most interesting--we had the Republican Bush Administration with their holy crusade against these hardened criminal potheads trampling over any State Rights to allow even prescribed medical use. Now we have the Democratic Obama Administration pretty much calling it a State's right to decide. Something backwards here...

The hard right is against any drug use at all. They consider any drug a gateway to harder substances - but if you look at drug use, cigarrettes and chewing gum could probably considered gateway materials also. It's kind of like the abortion issue to the hard left. They get so involved in allowing even the most minor concession that they get lassoed into supporting the ridiculous in supporting their position, and in the process undermine their cause.

[Limp Ditka]

At least it's a step in the right direction.

What I find most interesting--we had the Republican Bush Administration with their holy crusade against these hardened criminal potheads trampling over any State Rights to allow even prescribed medical use. Now we have the Democratic Obama Administration pretty much calling it a State's right to decide. Something backwards here...

Illinois better get it's #### straight and quick. I feel a case of glaucoma coming on.

[snitwitch]

Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

That's really all you need to read.

Awesome, we've legalized marijauna in California and other medicinal states. Seriously, if you have a Dr's prescription you are 100% good to go. California can now fully legalize it and start taxing the crap out of it. I wonder if the price will go down or up compared to good street herb?

It will go down. Pot is really easy to grow (I hear). The current price level is entirely due to risk factor.

I dunno about that -- pot prices have remained the same for many many years. An eighth of the dank was ~50 bucks 20 years ago, it's ~50 bucks now.

And it's ~50 bucks at dispensaries in CA, under a quasi-legal regime.

[pantagrapher]

This will only lead to more terrorist attacks. And children getting run over at restaurant drive thru's.

And kids shooting each other with the gun they found in their dad's desk.

[Leroy Hoard]

This will only lead to more terrorist attacks. And children getting run over at restaurant drive thru's.

And kids shooting each other with the gun they found in their dad's desk.

Why son?

"I learned it FROM YOU"

[Jobber]

Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

That's really all you need to read.

Awesome, we've legalized marijauna in California and other medicinal states. Seriously, if you have a Dr's prescription you are 100% good to go. California can now fully legalize it and start taxing the crap out of it. I wonder if the price will go down or up compared to good street herb?

It will go down. Pot is really easy to grow (I hear). The current price level is entirely due to risk factor.

I dunno about that -- pot prices have remained the same for many many years. An eighth of the dank was ~50 bucks 20 years ago, it's ~50 bucks now.

And it's ~50 bucks at dispensaries in CA, under a quasi-legal regime.

Jeez - prices here (MN) have hovered around $20-25 an eigth for well over a decade. Is Dank some sort of super-weed or just another slang term?

[Sarnoff]

Nice. Now if we can get the crazy prosecutor here in Los Angeles to stop going after the dispensaries.

[QUEZILLA]

This will only lead to more terrorist attacks. And children getting run over at restaurant drive thru's.

[jonessed]

I wonder what kind of States Rights precedence this will set for the future?

None. He isn't changing any laws. He simply isn't going to enforce a law on the books. The next administration could easily start enforcing it again.

[Spiderman]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

[the moops]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Right on cue.

[tommyGunZ]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Is this shtick?

[Steady Mooobin]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

All I want to add is that how in the hell cigarettes are legal is beyond me.

I'm fully aware of how powerful and ingrained the tobacco companies are, and what they bring to the economy, but if there is one drug that is the most addictive, worse of them all, it's cigarettes.

[snitwitch]

Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

That's really all you need to read.

Awesome, we've legalized marijauna in California and other medicinal states. Seriously, if you have a Dr's prescription you are 100% good to go. California can now fully legalize it and start taxing the crap out of it. I wonder if the price will go down or up compared to good street herb?

It will go down. Pot is really easy to grow (I hear). The current price level is entirely due to risk factor.

I dunno about that -- pot prices have remained the same for many many years. An eighth of the dank was ~50 bucks 20 years ago, it's ~50 bucks now.

And it's ~50 bucks at dispensaries in CA, under a quasi-legal regime.

Jeez - prices here (MN) have hovered around $20-25 an eigth for well over a decade. Is Dank some sort of super-weed or just another slang term?

I think "dank" just refers to high quality buds without seeds (sinsemilla), though it's probably been appropriated for strain names here and there.

Lesser quality weed has cost 20-25 an 1/8 for 20+ years as well, at least since I started smoking.

I think it's because it's a black market product, it's not subject to normal laws of inflation.

[Steady Mooobin]

The price of weed has gone up a little for me, but I think that is more a reflection of my sources drying up, rather then the norm.

I used sell bud in and right after high school. I used to joke that selling to older people was great cuz you could charge them "old guy" prices.

Now I'm in that camp.


If it ever gets to the point of full legalization, I imagine the prices will drastically drop, as I and everybody else will just grow the stuff ourselves.

[snitwitch]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Is this shtick?

To be fair, the ailments weed is used for can in fact be treated with other drugs, and sometimes more effectively. But you can't discount the side effects some of these medicines have, nor the individual's sometimes adverse reaction to them, etc.. The THC in pill form thing is also somewhat misleading, as many chemo patients can't keep pills down that well, and vaporizing or smoking works out better for them.

I've also found that there are many many people that abuse the system here in CA -- it's really a total joke how easy it is to get a card. I've been thinking of getting one myself, but feel sorta bad about it (while I suffer from anxiety and sleeplessness sometimes, I would no doubt be using my medicine for recreational purposes)

Bottom line though, if someone is going through chemo, or is stuck in a wheelchair feeling phantom pain all day, and they find that weed helps alleviate their pain or symptoms better than other drugs, shouldn't it be available to them? It can be quite effective.

[Moe.]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Right on cue.

Not that I agree with marijuana prohibition but the whole medical marijuana thing is kind of a joke.. I'm not saying it doesn't help people with certain ailments or whatever but those dispensaries in CA are just drug dealers.

[the moops]

Nausea
One of THC's medical uses best supported by research is the treatment of nausea. It can improve mild to moderate nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy and help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS.

Glaucoma
This disease — the third-leading cause of blindness in the United States — is marked by increased pressure in the eyeball, which can lead to vision loss.

In the early 1970s, scientists discovered that smoking marijuana reduced pressure in the eyes. Exactly how the cannabinoids in marijuana produce this effect isn't known. Scientists have discovered CB1 receptors in the eyes, which may provide clues for future research on how marijuana affects glaucoma.

Your doctor can prescribe other medications to treat glaucoma, but these can lose their effectiveness over time.

Pain
People widely used marijuana for pain relief in the 1800s, and several studies have found that cannabinoids have analgesic effects. In fact, THC may work as well in treating cancer pain as codeine, a mild pain reliever. Cannabinoids also appear to enhance the effects of opiate pain medications to provide pain relief at lower dosages.

Multiple sclerosis
A 2003 study
found that cannabinoids significantly reduced pain in people with multiple sclerosis.

Mayo Clinic

[snitwitch]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Right on cue.

Not that I agree with marijuana prohibition but the whole medical marijuana thing is kind of a joke.. I'm not saying it doesn't help people with certain ailments or whatever but those dispensaries in CA are just drug dealers.

Well, they're not just drug dealers, they're also helping some patients.

I do agree that in the final analysis however, medicinal marijuana as it's been implemented in this state is basically the first foray into full-on legalization.

[Sarnoff]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

All I want to add is that how in the hell cigarettes are legal is beyond me.

I'm fully aware of how powerful and ingrained the tobacco companies are, and what they bring to the economy, but if there is one drug that is the most addictive, worse of them all, it's cigarettes.

There's a spectrum of drugs. On one end, we've got stuff like aspirin and coffee. At the other, black tar heroin. We should have a drug policy in this country that makes sense, we draw a reasonable line on the spectrum and say "stuff on this side is OK, stuff on that side isn't", and my gut tells me if we're going to keep vodka and cigarettes legal, weed probably falls closer to the aspirin side than they do. And the government probably hasn't studied where to put it on the spectrum since Coca-Cola had cocaine in it.

This post has been edited by Sarnoff: Oct 19 2009, 10:03 PM

[Guster]

I dunno... if the government gets involved, I don't see anyway the price stays stagnant for long. They'll decide to tax it and before you know it, the price will double.

The really interesting thing would be to figure out what gangs/cartels will do. Some reports say up to 60% of the profits of the cartels come from weed sales in the US. You can't just take this away and not expect some sort of retaliation.

This post has been edited by Guster: Oct 19 2009, 09:58 PM

[Addai's Adidas]

I dunno... if the government gets involved, I don't see anyway the price stays stagnant for long. They'll decide to tax it and before you know it, the price will double.

The really interesting thing would be to figure out what gangs/cartels will do. Some reports say up to 60% of the profits of the cartels come from weed sales in the US. You can't just take this away and not expect some sort of retaliation.

If that happens, expect the black market to continue. It's cheap enough to produce. The dollars added to the price for the risk of growing and distributing won't be there either, so that should make it a little cheaper there too.

[acapella]

Not that I agree with marijuana prohibition but the whole medical marijuana thing is kind of a joke.. I'm not saying it doesn't help people with certain ailments or whatever but those dispensaries in CA are just drug dealers.

Non-smoker here. But those particular drug dealers probably do a heck of a lot less damage than the drug dealers that sell dispense soda and sell fast food.

[Jefferson the Ca...]

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

It's not an excuse for those people who are really sick. You have no clue on this.

[Jefferson the Ca...]

Nausea
One of THC's medical uses best supported by research is the treatment of nausea. It can improve mild to moderate nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy and help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS.

Glaucoma
This disease — the third-leading cause of blindness in the United States — is marked by increased pressure in the eyeball, which can lead to vision loss.

In the early 1970s, scientists discovered that smoking marijuana reduced pressure in the eyes. Exactly how the cannabinoids in marijuana produce this effect isn't known. Scientists have discovered CB1 receptors in the eyes, which may provide clues for future research on how marijuana affects glaucoma.

Your doctor can prescribe other medications to treat glaucoma, but these can lose their effectiveness over time.

Pain
People widely used marijuana for pain relief in the 1800s, and several studies have found that cannabinoids have analgesic effects. In fact, THC may work as well in treating cancer pain as codeine, a mild pain reliever. Cannabinoids also appear to enhance the effects of opiate pain medications to provide pain relief at lower dosages.

Multiple sclerosis
A 2003 study
found that cannabinoids significantly reduced pain in people with multiple sclerosis.

Mayo Clinic

[Jefferson the Ca...]

A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug.

On this point, they are of course correct that Marijuana is not going to beat cancer. There isn't one person that is going to argue that with you.

What it does do is lessen the side effects of chemo, by reducing nausea and also relieving some pain. It's not a cure but it can make a sick person more comfortable.

[KnowledgeReignsS...]

A lot of drug abusers in here looking to get high cheap.

[P Boy]

A lot of drug abusers in here looking to get high cheap.

I'd guess that the black market price is cheaper than what it would cost were pot to be legalized (with packaging and and the government stepping on the cost). I can't speak with authority because I don't and never have smoked dope.

This post has been edited by P Boy: Oct 20 2009, 08:56 AM

[Addai's Adidas]

A lot of drug abusers in here looking to get high cheap.

Because if there's one thing government does it run something efficiently? Please. Pot is cheaper than it's ever been in real dollars.

[zoonation]

This is just the first step in the full blown legalization of marijiuana. The time has come. Free access to information (and the corresponding death of propaganda) combined with a more liberal and tolerant younger generation will help put the prohibition on weed to bed.

Liberalism (in the individual rights sense) requires it.

[Spiderman]

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

It's not an excuse for those people who are really sick. You have no clue on this.

Yes, it is. Who is sick with "phantom pain" and who isn't is a bit of a "best guess" scenario for a doctor, isn't it? I have pain. No you don't. Yes I do. Fine, you do. What? Come on.

[Spiderman]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Is this shtick?

To be fair, the ailments weed is used for can in fact be treated with other drugs, and sometimes more effectively. But you can't discount the side effects some of these medicines have, nor the individual's sometimes adverse reaction to them, etc.. The THC in pill form thing is also somewhat misleading, as many chemo patients can't keep pills down that well, and vaporizing or smoking works out better for them.

I've also found that there are many many people that abuse the system here in CA -- it's really a total joke how easy it is to get a card. I've been thinking of getting one myself, but feel sorta bad about it (while I suffer from anxiety and sleeplessness sometimes, I would no doubt be using my medicine for recreational purposes)

Bottom line though, if someone is going through chemo, or is stuck in a wheelchair feeling phantom pain all day, and they find that weed helps alleviate their pain or symptoms better than other drugs, shouldn't it be available to them? It can be quite effective.

Are you leading me to believe that most people who are smoking this have been prescribed, have used, and have seen adverse side effects from other drug treatments? Is that what you think makes up the majority of the people using this on the west coast? Are we being a little naive? And perhaps some cannot keep THC down in pill form, but is that a problem for the glaucoma patients or a large majority of the chemo patients that can keep it down? What's their excuse? As for phantom pain, what phantom pain symptom is treated with THC? Fibromyalgia and other known phantom pain diseases or potential diseases are treated with a host of medications, none of which is THC. So I think you are referring to someone who is having a bad day and has a little stress and that's not medically necessary to me.

[Spiderman]

I dunno... if the government gets involved, I don't see anyway the price stays stagnant for long. They'll decide to tax it and before you know it, the price will double.

The really interesting thing would be to figure out what gangs/cartels will do. Some reports say up to 60% of the profits of the cartels come from weed sales in the US. You can't just take this away and not expect some sort of retaliation.

This is highly unlikely to become legal in the mainstream population, so a study on cartels is unnecessary.

[Spiderman]

Nausea
One of THC's medical uses best supported by research is the treatment of nausea. It can improve mild to moderate nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy and help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS.

Glaucoma
This disease — the third-leading cause of blindness in the United States — is marked by increased pressure in the eyeball, which can lead to vision loss.

In the early 1970s, scientists discovered that smoking marijuana reduced pressure in the eyes. Exactly how the cannabinoids in marijuana produce this effect isn't known. Scientists have discovered CB1 receptors in the eyes, which may provide clues for future research on how marijuana affects glaucoma.

Your doctor can prescribe other medications to treat glaucoma, but these can lose their effectiveness over time.

Pain
People widely used marijuana for pain relief in the 1800s, and several studies have found that cannabinoids have analgesic effects. In fact, THC may work as well in treating cancer pain as codeine, a mild pain reliever. Cannabinoids also appear to enhance the effects of opiate pain medications to provide pain relief at lower dosages.

Multiple sclerosis
A 2003 study
found that cannabinoids significantly reduced pain in people with multiple sclerosis.

Mayo Clinic

Note that none of your Mayo studies cited recommend THC as the primary treatment option for any of the items you listed. They refer to the 1800's and the 1970's, etc. They refer to having some effect or even a greater effect over some mild medications, but none refer to it as a better option over the primary treatments available for these ailments.

[the moops]

Note that none of your Mayo studies cited recommend THC as the primary treatment option for any of the items you listed. They refer to the 1800's and the 1970's, etc. They refer to having some effect or even a greater effect over some mild medications, but none refer to it as a better option over the primary treatments available for these ailments.

So if something is not recommended as a primary treatment, it should be illegal?

And just because marijuana may not be the most effective treatment does not mean that it should be illegal. Different drugs work differently for different folks. If a doctor and patient determine that the best cause of action is medical marijuana, should that not be allowed because there may be other effective treatments?

[Moe.]

Not that I agree with marijuana prohibition but the whole medical marijuana thing is kind of a joke.. I'm not saying it doesn't help people with certain ailments or whatever but those dispensaries in CA are just drug dealers.

Non-smoker here. But those particular drug dealers probably do a heck of a lot less damage than the drug dealers that sell dispense soda and sell fast food.

Maybe, but what does that have to do with anything? Like I said, I fully support total legalization (hell I'm high right now) I just think the medical marijuana debate is kinda funny. Let's just call it what it is.

[snitwitch]

Thank goodness. Geez, if someone needs to smoke dope to help them overcome a serious medical condition - like cancer treatment or glaucoma - then they should be encouraged to light up a spliff, not criminalized.

The prohibition against pot is looking the same as the prohibiton against alcohol - it's a completely unwinnable battle. So make pot legal, put a nice sin tax on it, and enforce laws involving things like impaired driving or distributing to minors the same way as is done with alcohol. Everyone wins.

Disagree. A close friend of mine worked at the Mayo Clinic and not one of those doctors believes there is a single cancer that is best treated with this drug. They also said that they have THC in pill form in the rare case it is prescribed, so smoking it is unnecessary. The same applies to glaucoma. There are a dozen treatments that are superior to this drug. This is more or less an excuse.

Comparing this to prohibition is amusing.

Is this shtick?

To be fair, the ailments weed is used for can in fact be treated with other drugs, and sometimes more effectively. But you can't discount the side effects some of these medicines have, nor the individual's sometimes adverse reaction to them, etc.. The THC in pill form thing is also somewhat misleading, as many chemo patients can't keep pills down that well, and vaporizing or smoking works out better for them.

I've also found that there are many many people that abuse the system here in CA -- it's really a total joke how easy it is to get a card. I've been thinking of getting one myself, but feel sorta bad about it (while I suffer from anxiety and sleeplessness sometimes, I would no doubt be using my medicine for recreational purposes)

Bottom line though, if someone is going through chemo, or is stuck in a wheelchair feeling phantom pain all day, and they find that weed helps alleviate their pain or symptoms better than other drugs, shouldn't it be available to them? It can be quite effective.

Are you leading me to believe that most people who are smoking this have been prescribed, have used, and have seen adverse side effects from other drug treatments? Is that what you think makes up the majority of the people using this on the west coast? Are we being a little naive? And perhaps some cannot keep THC down in pill form, but is that a problem for the glaucoma patients or a large majority of the chemo patients that can keep it down? What's their excuse? As for phantom pain, what phantom pain symptom is treated with THC? Fibromyalgia and other known phantom pain diseases or potential diseases are treated with a host of medications, none of which is THC. So I think you are referring to someone who is having a bad day and has a little stress and that's not medically necessary to me.

I've said twice in this thread that I think the system is abused in CA by people that don't really need it.

But that doesn't mean that some people actually need and/or benefit from it -- it doesn't mean it has no medical value.

[Choke]

Different drugs work differently for different folks.

[ceo3west]

It amazes me that the Reefer Madness days have lasted as long as they have. It's a joke that it's still illegal, it's the largest cash crop in America. You would think that the gov't would want to capitalize on this.