Legalize it NOW!

[Doomsday]

Unfortunately for people who actually have glaucoma, people think it doesn't actually exists  -_-

I mean, I'm a huge marijuana legalization advocate and I've used marijuana exactly 3 times in my life. I don't want it to get high.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Marijuana actually isn't any more effective than the medications already listed for glaucoma.  People that want marijuana legalized simply list the effects on the intraocular pressure as a reason without understanding that medications are already on the market to treat those symptoms.  Marijuana's effect is also barely understood in regard to how it reduces the IOP, so the treatment is not known to be safe.  One of the theories about how the IOP is decreased is a reduction in blood pressure to the optic nerve, which could further deprive an already starving body system of nutrients.

"Based on reviews by the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the Institute of Medicine and on available scientific evidence, the Task Force on Complementary Therapies believes that no scientific evidence has been found that demonstrates increased benefits and/or diminished risks of marijuana use to treat glaucoma compared with the wide variety of pharmaceutical agents now available." - http://www.aao.org/eyecare/treatment/alternative-therapies/marijuana-glaucoma.cfm

"Marijuana — There are 400 different chemicals in marijuana, some of which may be damaging. Moderately long-term studies have shown that cannabis has no proven effect on glaucoma. When ingested, marijuana does produce a 20 percent decrease in intraocular pressure; however, the decrease in pressure is only for a short period of time. In order to be effective as a medication, it would need to be taken many times a day. Side effects of this would be loss of concentration and coordination, and risk of emphysema and lung cancer. Topical use has shown no effect in studies to date, but cannabis derivatives are currently being studied in laboratory tests to determine if they may be effective. Much more work is needed to determine if cannabis derivatives will have a proven effect in glaucoma treatment." - http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/update_on_alter.php

http://www.agingeye.net/glaucoma/Marijuana.pdf

[Doomsday]

"Based on reviews by the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the Institute of Medicine and on available scientific evidence, the Task Force on Complementary Therapies believes that no scientific evidence has been found that demonstrates increased benefits and/or diminished risks of marijuana use to treat glaucoma compared with the wide variety of pharmaceutical agents now available." - http://www.aao.org/eyecare/treatment/alternative-therapies/marijuana-glaucoma.cfm

So basically they're saying that marijuana is about as effective as all legal treatments (which they do not list, nor do I see any in the study). Intriguing.

Putting any medicinal effects aside, do you believe marijuana should continue to be criminalized and why?

[Trieste]

* Trieste finds herself wondering who funds the National Eye Institute and if they are linked back to oh, say, a pharmaceutical company.

[Oniya]

* Trieste finds herself wondering who funds the National Eye Institute and if they are linked back to oh, say, a pharmaceutical company.

http://www.nei.nih.gov/ 

Apparently a branch of the National Institute of Health.

[Trieste]

Yes, but that doesn't mean they don't get their grants from somewhere in pharma. It really depends on who would pay for studies on weed.

I'm not saying they are, but it seemed like a good question to ask.

* Trieste will have to research it later if she has the time.

[auroraChloe]

. It really depends on who would pay for studies on weed.

* Trieste will have to research it later if she has the time.

this guy did his own study....     

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That would be why I also included articles from two other sources Trieste.  A person could argue repeatedly that the claims are skewed one way or another, but then what is the point of providing any sources or evidence.  Far as I remember the staff of Elliquiy supports the use of evidence in the politics and religion debates.  So much as I am aware the National Eye Institute, the Institute of Medicine, the Glaucoma Foundation for Research and the American Academy of Ophthalmology are reputable organizations.

The conclusion states that marijuana is not any more effective than what is being used for glaucoma and the side effects are not less than what is already given.  This does not mean it is as effective.  Twisting the words around does not make them equal one another.  Looking at the articles a person can see that marijuana gives 3-4 hours of relief, but the amounts required to achieve any lasting relief or therapeutic regiment would incur unhealthy side effects.

In general I do not agree with how the prison system is managed.  So I would say that drug offenses should not be done with such heavy prison time.  Though in a time when we, as a society, are demonizing alcohol and cigarettes there is some absurdity in trying to introduce marijuana as well.  At a time when we are fighting obesity, there is a sadness to fighting for a drug whose praised side effect is laziness and eating massive quantities of junk food.

[Nadir]

So, weed as a few health benefits - a relaxant, I'm assuming - but the side effects can be life-altering if too much is taken.

Okay, I get that.

But, take something that is legal right now - tobacco, alcohol, those fiddly little E numbers America is so fond of - they have life altering side effects... do they have any health benefits? I'm genuinely curious.   

[Trieste]

those fiddly little E numbers America is so fond of

Hunh?

[Kotah]

I am all for the legalization, especially considering the medical uses of pot. Those seriously cannot be under written. MS is the biggest one that I have personally seen. I, once, had a patient move locations from a place where he could use pot, to a facility I worked at. His usage at his last facility had not only allowed him to sit in a wheel chair (which is a big deal when you have to lay on your back unable to move, period.) I made it a whole three months, where his health deteriorated at an alarming rate, before we were able to get him sent back to where he had been so he could continue his past therapy.  I've also had patients that I would love to give it to them. Help them with the pain. Help them with their disease and/or disorder.

At the same time, I am fearful of mass legalization of pot. I am somewhat fearful of what may happen if one of the people I work with go out and smoke a joint, legally of course, and then returns and we have to call a code on someone. O.O! However, my only problem with the legalization is simply having it in workplaces.

[Oniya]

There have been some studies (citation:  http://www.healthcastle.com/redwine-heart.shtml)  showing that red wine in particular and in moderation is beneficial to the heart - the key word being moderation.  This has, of course, led to the idea of red wine and dark chocolate (also touted for anti-oxidants) as the 'perfect' Valentines gift.

I'm unaware of anything showing any benefits to smoking tobacco.

Slight correction.  For amusement, I Googled 'benefits of tobacco', and the first page that popped up had this quote:

The benefits of tobacco can be seen in its natural production of a neurotoxin named: alkaloid nicotine. Which this neurotoxin is combined with the other ingredients used in pesticides, it is quite effective for the eradication and control of pests.

[Nadir]

Hunh?

Food additives - the stuff used to colour, preserve, flavour, thicken - complex chemicals that have no right being consumed.

[Kane Gunlock]

one of my fear is the drug cartels are the ones keeping it illegal think about it if it becomes legal they lose a lot of business

[Serephino]

I remember a discussion like this in one of the groups I belong to.  The person who started had something... MS I think it was... and said marijuana was the only think that helped with the pain.  It was a while ago so I can't remember the details, but what her doctor was prescribing wasn't helping.  She was very frustrated with the whole thing and wanted it legalized so she didn't have to break the law to get some relief.

I'm not a big fan of studies for many reasons.  For one, they tend to find in favor of whoever is funding the study as Trieste pointed out.  Statistics can be twisted to make the results say whatever you want.  I was taught that in high school.

Two, people don't fit into a box.  If we did, then we'd only need one medication for everyone with depression because it would work for everybody.  But in reality land there are several and each person needs to find the right one with the right dosage through trial and error.  Medical studies are done with just a small sampling of people.  Just because there wasn't much of a difference in those study groups doesn't mean there aren't people out there who would truly be helped by medical marijuana. 

I can remember when a shrink I was seeing thought she had the perfect drug for me.  It was fairly new and wasn't supposed to have any side effects.  The people who participated in the studies didn't suffer from any of the usual side effects...  And yet, even though I was given a small dose I still ended up loopy and high strung just like every other pill I tried.  When I was a kid caffeine used to make me sleepy.  When my dad was alive his doctors had to give him drugs that did the opposite of what he needed it for because that was how his body reacted.

My point is that each person is different.  If I were to use medical marijuana I wouldn't need several doses a day because I metabolize things slowly, and I'm very sensitive so I don't need as much.  When I had my gallbladder out I told the Anesthesiologist I was sensitive so she gave me a light dose and I was completely out in 3 seconds.  The surgeon told my mom that in his twenty some years of practice he'd never seen anyone go under that fast. 

It really should be up to the doctors and the patients.  That lady in one of my groups needed it because it was the only thing that gave her relief.  There are probably other people out there just like her.  Why deny them relief? 

[Jude]

I still don't think I've seen one convincing argument as to why we should be allowed to protect people from themselves.  It doesn't matter what the pros and cons are in relation to health, taking away people's choices in order to make their life better if it only directly affects them (which is debatable, though I don't think it is convincingly), then drug prohibition is parenting.  I'm sure we're all against the government treating citizens like children.

Debating whether or not potsmokers have a negative effect on other people requires massive leaps in logic in order to establish any sort of negative effects.  Sure you can make the friends and family argument, but then anything which negatively effects the individual should be banned by that logic because anytime one of your friends or family members is negatively impacted it effects you.

Even if we accept that it's okay to tell people what to do when they're only affecting themselves, to be completely honest about the question of legalization drugs you not only need to consider the effects of the drug, but you also need to consider the sort of effects it being legal and illegal have/would have.  It's not as simple as "is it good for you."

[Zeitgeist]

I still don't think I've seen one convincing argument as to why we should be allowed to protect people from themselves.

And I can't understand why people think just because its legalized, it will be a free for all.

[Kane Gunlock]

And I can't understand why people think just because its legalized, it will be a free for all.

I can you it's all about location location location

[Senti]

Ok I really have only skim read most of this, and am joining the discussion rather late. I used to be a smoker as well as one of the mushroom people and many other things besides, (Strangely at the time Mushrooms were legal as long as they were not prepared...this was in the UK…) but I digress.

First I think the whole drugs issue is a very grey area at least for me, and my own experiences. I have seen both the good and rather less pleasant side of even cannabis. Though the same can be said for legal drugs like Alcohol, nicotine, and even prescription drugs.

As I is I no longer smoke cannabis or even nicotine I have a glass of wine most night but that’s about. My partner however still smoks cannabis, he keeps it in a Tupperware tub in the medicine cabinet which makes me laugh, also he wont have nicotine with it, and smokes it outside …rain or shine as we have kids.

He holds down a decent job, is a great father and I see no issue with him smoking it, personally I would prefer that than him going off to the pub. Many of our friends smoke and most of them are very ordinary folks that hold down good jobs have kids and to all intense and purposes are ‘normal’ folks.

I think as well as legalisation  there also has to be education. A couple of our friends with teenagers have suggested that if their kids want to talk about drugs then to come to my partner or I. At least we will be honest. Instead of demonising these things, take the glamour out of it.

As it is we are looking into cannabis and how it works with CP for my daughter, because be sure if it will help her legal or not we will get it for her.

[Black Howling]

I used to smoke when I was a teenager, and have to say that the medical benefits are somewhat of a mute point. Most of the benefits can be derived from other sources, and usually ones that have a lesser chance of side-effects. Those that can't are MS, and Cancer; which I can attest that if it is legalized for medicinal purposes it will be a controlled substance, thus still not available for recreational use. [Sorry guys...]

Fact be I used a lot of drugs when I was teenager, and I have to say that I don't support any of them. All, including Nicotine, have an affect on coordination and reaction time. Cigarettes are kept legal, if demonised, for the fact that Nicotine isn't classified as a drug. It's considered a 'smooth relaxant', and while it does still go under aphrodisiacs, it's still no more controlled than most ingested sensitivity enhancements in the fact that you have to be of age to purchase them.

Now that I clarified a few things I'll bring up another aspect. To legalize it for recreational use would mean we would have to install another agency to control it, or take out those specifically designed to target offenders. This can't go to the ATF, for they already have their hands full with what is already on their plate. Furthering this is the money that would have to be spent taxing, and controlling it which wouldn't even begin to come back to the government until 30 years after legalization.

America cannot afford to legalize cannabis, at-least not in their current state. This speech is not to say that I am against legalization, I'm just stating the facts. Even if the people in charge will agree, the problems it will incur afterward will keep their hands at bay. I would actually like to see it legalized on the same level as alcohol, not for personal use, but merely as a means to cut down the drug dealers sources of income. I've seen too many scathe by on the harm of others through drugs in general.       

[auroraChloe]

Cigarettes are kept legal, if demonised, for the fact that Nicotine isn't classified as a drug.


America cannot afford to legalize cannabis, at-least not in their current state.

i am just too cynical to not smile at this... if only this were true.   

in this 2000 article, even philip morris admits nicotine is a drug though still hedge they're bets on what kind.  i didn't find 'smooth relaxant' in there any where. (seriously, i googled nicotine and 'smooth relaxant' and exactly one result came up from a forum talking about an advertising campaign.) 

cigarettes are kept legal because of the amount of money big tobacco puts into lobbying washington dc.  There is no way big tobacco is going to loose their profit.  Don't kid yourself; they have and would still continue to sell cigarettes to children if they could.  "the magical amount" is not a lie. 

and america can not afford to keep criminalizing the average joint smoker.  most of them have steady jobs and all that, they smoke like other people drink 5 o'clock martinis (and alcohol is also a drug, as is caffeine.)  keeping these people in jail is more expensive than their crime is worth.  it's insane. 

and as far as findings of 'studies'.  how many things have been studied and found to be good / helpful for us then years later another study reverses that.  i take such studies with a grain of salt. 


(i'd be happy to see a more current article on nicotine's 'drug classification'.)

[Jude]

Now that I clarified a few things I'll bring up another aspect. To legalize it for recreational use would mean we would have to install another agency to control it, or take out those specifically designed to target offenders. This can't go to the ATF, for they already have their hands full with what is already on their plate. Furthering this is the money that would have to be spent taxing, and controlling it which wouldn't even begin to come back to the government until 30 years after legalization.

America cannot afford to legalize cannabis, at-least not in their current state. This speech is not to say that I am against legalization, I'm just stating the facts. Even if the people in charge will agree, the problems it will incur afterward will keep their hands at bay. I would actually like to see it legalized on the same level as alcohol, not for personal use, but merely as a means to cut down the drug dealers sources of income. I've seen too many scathe by on the harm of others through drugs in general.

The money spent taxing it?  Taxing it makes money.  Even if there was an initial cost at setting up the regulations and such, we're spending a ridiculous amount of money in the war on drugs which we would no longer have to spend if it was legal.  It would definitely be a money saver.

[Oniya]

i am just too cynical to not smile at this... if only this were true.   

(i'd be happy to see a more current article on nicotine's 'drug classification'.)

Nicotine crosses the blood-brain barrier, which classifies it as a psychoactive drug.  Chemically, it is a cholinergic drug, which means that it mimics or enhances the affects of Acetylcholine (ACh) in the nervous system.  At this point, I'm getting a little beyond my knowledge base, though.  Before the article on ACh started looking like Greek (or Latin?), I saw something about ACh stimulating production of epinephrine and norephinephrine, the latter of which I've heard of in reference to treatment of ADHD, which might explain why some people I know with that problem hit the cigs.

[Trieste]

If I remember correctly: Epinephrine and Norephinephrine are essentially in charge of fight or flight. Epinephrine (also known as adrenaline) is the jumpy chemical that gets your heart pounding and your muscles keyed and your liver slamming into gear and and and ... etc. Norephinephrine makes you hyperaware, tends to focus your body on the task at hand. Epinephrine is more flighty, norephrinephrine is more fighty - to put it very simply.

Cigs do both. They make you jittery. They are stimulants. But it becomes a focused sort of jitters, and the act of smoking - regulating your breathing - is also calming.

[Will]

Yeah, the only reason that nicotine might feel like a 'smooth relaxant' is because your body is getting the chemical it craves, and thus it relaxes.  I haven't smoked in years (so expensive!), but I remember the feeling well.

I go through the same thing with coffee now; I would have to drink several cups to actually get jounced and jumpy on the stuff.  Sometimes I drink a cup to help me go to bed.  Caffeine is definitely a stimulant, right?  But in normal doses all it does is calm my nerves and ease my brain.