Another Reason to Legalize Marijuana

BPSCG said:
Wait a minute. Pot helps treat Alzheimer's?

Hell, when I used to get stoned, I felt like I had Alzheimer's.

Seriously, this sounds like a good reason to do more research into the effectiveness of THC in treating Alzheimer's. It's a ridiculous excuse for legalizing marijuana. There may be good reasons to legalize it, but this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
I think that it adds to a larger body of evidence in support of legalizing at least the medicinal use of marijuana.
 
This is so cool. :) Just the fact you're willing to re-examine the concept is cool.

I agree you can't use Dutch stats to project what Americans would do. I do think it's useful to look at those stats to see that legalizing marijuana would probably not be the crisis some think it would be, but that's about where the usefulness of the data ends. Probably.

Yes, teens lie, but I wonder--I think they would lie in the other direction, and claim drug use they don't engage in, to look cool and to freak out the grown-ups, especially in anonymous surveys. I know when I was a kid in school, that's what we did with those surveys. YMMV.

I wonder could we find studies/surveys done with adults? They used to be teens, after all, :p. Would they be more or less likely to lie about using/having used drugs?
 
Katana said:
I think that it adds to a larger body of evidence in support of legalizing at least the medicinal use of marijuana.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. THC is easily isolated, even synthesized, and a consistent, measured dose is a simple matter for a pharmaceutical company to create. It's been shown to be useful in treating nausea in cancer patients (wish it had been available 20 years ago when I could have used it...).

Marijuana varies in potency, and there is no control over the size of the dosage the patient is getting. Why does marijuana have to be legalized when the active ingredient is available in a controlled prescription?
 
BPSCG said:
Marijuana varies in potency, and there is no control over the size of the dosage the patient is getting. Why does marijuana have to be legalized when the active ingredient is available in a controlled prescription?
Click to expand...

Yes, wild marijuana varies in potency. But horticulturally, there are ways to grow crops with a certain level of potency. That's why marijuana has...what would one call them...type names or "brand" names? Indica, sinsemilla, Panama Red, Gold, and Green, and so forth.

It was a joke among kids at school that the government grows the best pot.

I think you could engineer crops to have a certain level of THC. Then, if some agency is regulating it, the dosage could be measured per unit.

Is this not true, or accurate? I'm not a horticulturist. You can lead me to culture but you can't make me think. :p
 
BPSCG said:
No it doesn't. THC is easily isolated, even synthesized, and a consistent, measured dose is a simple matter for a pharmaceutical company to create. It's been shown to be useful in treating nausea in cancer patients (wish it had been available 20 years ago when I could have used it...).

Marijuana varies in potency, and there is no control over the size of the dosage the patient is getting. Why does marijuana have to be legalized when the active ingredient is available in a controlled prescription?
Click to expand...

All true. In fact, THC is available as the prescribed drug Marinol. But that's not what the "medicinal marijuana" issue is all about.

People want to smoke it, and the label of "medicine" is a tool to try to BS voters.
 
slingblade said:
I think you could engineer crops to have a certain level of THC.
Click to expand...

You most certainly can, and the most "professional" growing operations (if I can use that term in this context) are very careful and controlled about the conditions in which they raise their plants. Also, plants have been cross-pollinated to produce hybrids with strong concentrations of THC, compared to nature's weed.

There's not much guesswork involved with the best growers.

This has resulted in end product in the US which is much stronger than the weed available when I was in high school in the 70s.

AS
 
BPSCG said:
No it doesn't. THC is easily isolated, even synthesized, and a consistent, measured dose is a simple matter for a pharmaceutical company to create. It's been shown to be useful in treating nausea in cancer patients (wish it had been available 20 years ago when I could have used it...).

Marijuana varies in potency, and there is no control over the size of the dosage the patient is getting. Why does marijuana have to be legalized when the active ingredient is available in a controlled prescription?
Click to expand...

First of all, there's the cost. Monthly Marinol prescriptions can run upwards of $1000.

Secondly, the oral administration of an anti-nausea medication can be problematic when the patient is unable to hold it down.
 
Katana said:
First of all, there's the cost. Monthly Marinol prescriptions can run upwards of $1000......
Click to expand...

A quarter ounce bag of average quality weed around here can fetch $120.

I guess how long it lasts depends on how much you smoke. I've never heard of dosage recommendations printed on the baggies.
 
BPSCG said:
It's been shown to be useful in treating nausea in cancer patients (wish it had been available 20 years ago when I could have used it...)
Click to expand...

I am sorry you had this battle, and am glad you are still around to kick our asses with your wise words.

:)
 
Huntster said:
A quarter ounce bag of average quality weed around here can fetch $120.
Click to expand...

WTF? You'd think in Alaska it would be cheaper. Here your expensive stuff can be bought for less than $100/quarter.

I guess how long it lasts depends on how much you smoke. I've never heard of dosage recommendations printed on the baggies.
Click to expand...
You must never have smoked. A quarter-ounce is a lot, and even your really heavy smoker (like me, back in my teenage years) who lights up a joint a day won't go through more than a half-ounce a month.
 
BPSCG said:
No it doesn't. THC is easily isolated, even synthesized, and a consistent, measured dose is a simple matter for a pharmaceutical company to create.
Click to expand...


While it could be synthesized isolation makes a lot more sence unless there is a simular and cheap precusor avialible.
 
Being somewhat affected by legal drugs (cheap Burgundy wine), I think we should not only arrest people who possess pot, but also put the boots to them. As for those alzheimer patients, tough luck, you're sick, deal with it .....

Charlie (looking for a fight) Monoxide
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
Being somewhat affected by legal drugs (cheap Burgundy wine), I think we should not only arrest people who possess pot, but also put the boots to them....
Click to expand...

Legal is good.

Nobody is advocating that you, Charlie, should be arrested or booted.
 
Darth Rotor said:
If my next door neighbor wants to sit on his back porch with his wife and get stoned out of his mind, I don't mind so long as they keep the noise down, and pick up the Twinkie wrappers so that they don't blow into my lawn. :cool:

DR
Click to expand...

So you're our backdoor neighbor. Come over sometimes.

bring twinkies!
 
slingblade said:
The term is functionally useless, and a scare tactic.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%, slingblade. In the early 60s the "gateway" idea was passed on quite frequently and was accepted as gospel. The rationale for this was the notion that, "a majority of heroin users first tried marijuana," but that doesn't prove a thing since the majority of heroin addicts probably also drank milk as children.

If marijuana were indeed a "gateway" to stronger drugs why aren't there more heroin addicts or crackheads, or meth addicts? If marijuana is a "gateway" drug couldn't we assume that the marijuana users of today are the dangerous addicts of tomorrow?

It's as preposterous a claim as, "all beer drinkers will eventually turn to harder liquor (whiskey, scotch, gin, etc.)."
 
Mephisto said:
I agree with you 100%, slingblade. In the early 60s the "gateway" idea was passed on quite frequently and was accepted as gospel. The rationale for this was the notion that, "a majority of heroin users first tried marijuana," but that doesn't prove a thing since the majority of heroin addicts probably also drank milk as children.

If marijuana were indeed a "gateway" to stronger drugs why aren't there more heroin addicts or crackheads, or meth addicts? If marijuana is a "gateway" drug couldn't we assume that the marijuana users of today are the dangerous addicts of tomorrow?

It's as preposterous a claim as, "all beer drinkers will eventually turn to harder liquor (whiskey, scotch, gin, etc.)."
Click to expand...

Another analogy (that my ex-wife believed in) is that viewing porn leads to child-molesting and rape, because many bad guys caught for these crimes also possess porn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom