Woman denied right to use marijuana as life-saving medication

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

As an alternative way of easing suffering, I say it is a great option - especially in terminal patients. If someone is dying, and pot makes them feel better and suffer less, who are we to deny them freedom from pain?

There is an epidemic of undertreated or untreated pain in the USA because doctors live in fear of being prosecuted for prescribing to someone possibly using illicitly. The result - those truly suffering suffer needlessly. It's really a damn shame, and should be criminal.

Did you bother to read my post where I said legalize it?

And I have yet to see any proof that it is a medical NEED that cannot be resolved by other drugs that are available.

And you never answered my claim that the legalization crowd looks and sounds like they came from woodstock.

Common things said:

They say, "Whats the harm?"...I say, Show me the benefit that cannot be gotten from any other drug.

They say, "It eases suffering"...I say, so does Morphine and maybe crack. Also a ton of RX drugs...Use one of the current legal ones.

Quote

There is an epidemic of undertreated or untreated pain in the USA because doctors live in fear of being prosecuted for prescribing to someone possibly using illicitly

And there is also an epidemic of RX drug abuse. The result - those truly suffering suffer needlessly. It's really a damn shame, and should be criminal.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you could grow viagra in your back yard they would outlaw that too. It's all about the money. They want to take a medicine made by nature, pervert it, and charge an outrageous sum to buy what nature provides for free.

Just like tobacco.

I'm sure if one cig got you high for a few hours, millions would be growing tobacco in attics and closets.

At $10 a pound for commercial rolling tobacco, there's no financial motivation to grow your own. OTOH if it ran $2000 pound people would have sodium lamps and hydroponic gardens...

[downwardspiral 0]

You make some really good points.

As a former "user" I see absolutely no difference in the residual effects of percocet, vicodin, and MJ. Even the differences in legalities is very minor.

The biggest difference is ease of manufacture or cultivation. Legalizing MJ would be bad for the drug companies' bottom line simply because anyone will be able to grow their own supply and possibly even enough to sell on the side. So big business will never get into the fight to legalize MJ. And if big business won't get into the fight then neither will MDs.

Besides, how do you tax something that people can grow themselves? Make them get a license to cultivate? I really don't think that's an answer but its a possbility.

I will agree that legalizing and taxing is the way to go. Unfortunately I just don't see it happening.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And I have yet to see any proof that it is a medical NEED that cannot be resolved by other drugs that are available.

quite a few patients have found marinol a useless substitute to the real thing.

proof and medical need sound like weasel terms.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Besides, how do you tax something that people can grow themselves?

Think Tabacco. You can also make your own beer and wine, but most buy it since cigarettes, and booze are easier to buy than make/grow.

Quote

The biggest difference is ease of manufacture or cultivation. Legalizing MJ would be bad for the drug companies' bottom line simply because anyone will be able to grow their own supply and possibly even enough to sell on the side. So big business will never get into the fight to legalize MJ. And if big business won't get into the fight then neither will MDs.

That is a good point. I would rather think that maybe the reason that it is not legal has to do with the negatives, rather than financial. Maybe I am smokin

But really, we had big lawsuits over cancer and smoking. We have DUI issues with Alcohol. We would both of these with MJ as well and I am not sure that that part would be worth the whole.

[tkhayes 348]

reading between the lines a bit, I think that if she argued that marijuana was "keeping her alive", then i suspect she lost that argument, and thus lost the case.

So was she arguing that she needed marijuana to 'stay alive' or just to help relieve pain?

Courts like specific language and specific reasons. If she chose the wrong reason, she may very well have lost, but not because the courts are unreasonable, maybe because they did not believe it would keep her alive.

TK

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I have yet to see any proof that it is a medical NEED that cannot be resolved by other drugs that are available.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quite a few patients have found marinol a useless substitute to the real thing.

How about other drugs that exist? Are those the ONLY options?

Quote

proof and medical need sound like weasel terms.

Or they sound like something you cannot provide. And since you cannot provide them you look to attack the idea of asking for them?

Like it or not the FDA is NOT going to allow something without a PROVEN MEDICAL NEED, and some PROOF IT WORKS.

Otherwise we would have all kinds of "home remedies" out there. And if MJ is the wonder drug that some claim, it should be easy to PROVE it in clinical studies.

However, your group has not done that, and with guys leading the drive sounding like wake and bakers [stoner voice]Hey, man....This is ditch weed[/stoner voice], and the best defense you can prove "its relative benignity"...That is not the same thing as it works better than asprin and here is the clincial evidence that shows it works well or better than what is currently available and legal.

Like I said before....Show some real clinical trials, and get a spokes person that does not sound like Tommy Chong trying to get baked and give it a run.

OR, Admit that you wanna get baked and fight for it based on the fact that Alcohol is allowed, and so is tabacco.

I have no real issue with it as long as those who partake don't get behind a wheel, or engage in crime to get it, or sue since it gives them cancer.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

proof and medical need sound like weasel terms.

Or they sound like something you cannot provide. And since you cannot provide them you look to attack the idea of asking for them?

Like it or not the FDA is NOT going to allow something without a PROVEN MEDICAL NEED, and some PROOF IT WORKS.

Dude, you're talk out the rear orifice here.

I've smoked perhaps 3 or 4 cigars in my life. No cigarettes, no dope. I have no direct interest in this topic. (Save the gross money wasted on it, and the substantial crime produced by its illegal status)

The feds have stacked the deck against ever being able to provide countering evidence. They have the financial power to discourage some research topics and they use it.

I'm from the crowd that believes that the FDA has to establish how dangerous it is, not that the potheads have to prove to tighty whiteys like you that it is medically effective. I also believe in guns, booze, skydiving, motorcycles, and freedom. Go suck on that.

I would imagine that dope is somewhat dirtier for the lungs than cigarettes, but users don't smoke 40 a day either. And it's patently obvious that it's far less addictive than cigarettes. While some large portion of the country has smoked pot, few continue to so, while 25% smoke daily.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Besides, how do you tax something that people can grow themselves?

Think Tabacco. You can also make your own beer and wine, but most buy it since cigarettes, and booze are easier to buy than make/grow.

Quote

The biggest difference is ease of manufacture or cultivation. Legalizing MJ would be bad for the drug companies' bottom line simply because anyone will be able to grow their own supply and possibly even enough to sell on the side. So big business will never get into the fight to legalize MJ. And if big business won't get into the fight then neither will MDs.

That is a good point. I would rather think that maybe the reason that it is not legal has to do with the negatives, rather than financial. Maybe I am smokin

But really, we had big lawsuits over cancer and smoking. We have DUI issues with Alcohol. We would both of these with MJ as well and I am not sure that that part would be worth the whole.

While I don't know the first thing about growing tobacco, I'd be willing to bet that MJ is a hell of a lot easier to grow being a weed and all. Also 1 plant has the potential to produce about 3 ounces on average. Obviously there are alot of other factors however people would have a whole lot more interest in botany if MJ were legal so skill levels would increase but I digress.

Typically you can expect to plant, cultivate, and dry in about 4-5 months time. (Beware... I'm doing some math and making some assumptions here) Now lets say we have a hardcore stoner on our hands that smoke 3.5 grams per week. That's called an 8th (1/8) for you innocent types. Who knows how many grams is in an ounce? Exactly! There are 28 grams in an ounce. 28 x 3(oz) = 84. 84/3.5=24 weeks. 24/4=6months. That's from one plant!

So the point is.....1 plant can sustain 1 individual I would consider a hardcore stoner for 6 months and if mr. hardcore stoner can grow 1 plant then he sure as hell can grow 2 or 3 or 4 without too much more effort.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Actually the cancer causing aspect of MJ is pure bullshit. The carcinogens in MJ are due to burnin it and inhaling the smoke. I don't believe I've ever heard of the possibility of cancer due to ingestion. I could be wrong about that but I doubt it. That being said....if MJ were legal then it could easily be produced in nonsmoking forms like cookies, brownies, and water even. So somebody trying to argue against legalizing MJ because of its cancer causing potential is definately talking out of their rear orifice as you so eloquently put it.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Dude, you're talk out the rear orifice here

You are the one saying evidence and proof is using "weasel terms". If it is so much good, they should be able to show it. Failure to do that is a failure on your argument, not the other sides.

Quote

The feds have stacked the deck against ever being able to provide countering evidence. They have the financial power to discourage some research topics and they use it.

How about from other countries? The "Feds" have that much power? And there are studies being done in the US...So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it . Just not many due to the image and some questionable studies. The tokers that claim it is for "medicine" are hurting any real chance at getting it looked at. Again, not my fault.

Quote

I'm from the crowd that believes that the FDA has to establish how dangerous it is, not that the potheads have to prove to tighty whiteys like you that it is medically effective.

Then you don't know how the FDA works. Maybe you should check it out....Should they just let people do stuff till you find out it is dangerous and kill a few people? The FDA has said it IS dangerous already...The real question is does the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? And can other drugs do a better or safer job? That is what the FDA is doing.

Quote

not that the potheads have to prove to tighty whiteys like you

Can't debate like an adult so you attack? Nice.

I like this part "I've smoked perhaps 3 or 4 cigars in my life. No cigarettes, no dope". Well I have smoked dope...So much for ME being the the "tight one". Of course I never claimed it was for medicine....I did it to see what it was like. And I have said, make it legal and tax it....so stick it in your pipe also.

Quote

I would imagine that dope is somewhat dirtier for the lungs than cigarettes, but users don't smoke 40 a day either. And it's patently obvious that it's far less addictive than cigarettes. While some large portion of the country has smoked pot, few continue to so, while 25% smoke daily.

The differences in the numbers of people who smoke daily could also be due to the cost and availability.

Quote

I also believe in guns, booze, skydiving, motorcycles, and freedom. Go suck on that.

Again attacks when you can't debate?

Hey I also agree with guns, booze, skydiving...ect.

My issues are not with the act, but the deeds done.

Wanna have a gun? Great. Treat it with respect and don't use it for crimes....We don't have a gun crime problem, we have a crime problem that uses guns. My guns have never comitted a crime.

Booze? You wanna drink, GREAT. Don't DUI, or beat your wife. Have fun, but don't do stupid things.

Skydiving? I think we all agree that skydiving is OK...So go preach somewhere else.

Motorcycles? Like em. Don't own one, but have. Again don't be stupid on them.

Freedom. I served in the Infantry. I agree with freedom.

Suck on that!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So somebody trying to argue against legalizing MJ because of its cancer causing potential is definately talking out of their rear orifice as you so eloquently put it.

If you make it legal, people will smoke it. Smoking it can cause cancer.

Do you disagree with any of that?

In YOUR example....BTW you seem to know a lot about it....you even mentioned smoking it for ingestion.

Now, what method do you think is the most popular method of ingestion of MJ?

See the easy correlation between legal pot and cancer issues?

Care to discuss the other issue of DUI?

Like I said, hell, make it legal and tax it. But hold people accountable for the actions. They take.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

As an alternative way of easing suffering, I say it is a great option - especially in terminal patients. If someone is dying, and pot makes them feel better and suffer less, who are we to deny them freedom from pain?

There is an epidemic of undertreated or untreated pain in the USA because doctors live in fear of being prosecuted for prescribing to someone possibly using illicitly. The result - those truly suffering suffer needlessly. It's really a damn shame, and should be criminal.

Did you bother to read my post where I said legalize it?

And I have yet to see any proof that it is a medical NEED that cannot be resolved by other drugs that are available.

And you never answered my claim that the legalization crowd looks and sounds like they came from woodstock.

Common things said:

They say, "Whats the harm?"...I say, Show me the benefit that cannot be gotten from any other drug.

They say, "It eases suffering"...I say, so does Morphine and maybe crack. Also a ton of RX drugs...Use one of the current legal ones.

Quote

There is an epidemic of undertreated or untreated pain in the USA because doctors live in fear of being prosecuted for prescribing to someone possibly using illicitly

And there is also an epidemic of RX drug abuse. The result - those truly suffering suffer needlessly. It's really a damn shame, and should be criminal.

I agree that some idiot that sounds like a stereotypical stoner from a C&C movie shouldn't be speaking for the legalization crowd. As far as need, many patients report great benefit from pot not achieved from other drugs, and less unpleasant side effects. Pot is no worse and has no greater potential for abuse than oxycontin or other morphine sulphates, and probably less potential to do a person great harm. Nobody ever OD'd on pot, but they have on other pain killers.

As far as the FDA is concerned, they have made lots of mistakes in the past that have killed people. Look at the Fen-phen debacle for example. Their failure to legalize pot for medical use, in my opinion, is another one of those mistakes.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[downwardspiral 0]

I would love to discuss this further but its going to have to wait for tomorrow because its time to go home.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[stayhigh 2]

This is from the actual clicky from first post...

On April 20th last year, the Food and Drug Administration issued an inter-agency advisory notice about claims that smoked marijuana is a medicine. The notice says that marijuana is not an approved drug, despite the claims that it is effective and safe and has been taken under doctors' recommendations

perfect day to discuss about weed..

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I agree that some idiot that sounds like a stereotypical stoner from a C&C movie shouldn't be speaking for the legalization crowd.

Agreed, the problem is that when the issue comes up the tokers wanna get involved and try to help. That actually hurts the cause. Comments like "ditch weed" from the Directors of groups don't help.

Quote

As far as need, many patients report great benefit from pot not achieved from other drugs, and less unpleasant side effects.

But that is anicdotal evidence, not clinical. I have friends that swear they skydive better stoned. Just because they say it, does not mean it is true. Drunk Drivers often think they are fine to drive.

Quote

Pot is no worse and has no greater potential for abuse than oxycontin or other morphine sulphates, and probably less potential to do a person great harm

That is up for debate. IIRC pot is a mix of over 200 chemicals and we still do not know what they all do, or why they do what they do when combined. We don't know what it really does and why.

Quote

Nobody ever OD'd on pot, but they have on other pain killers.

That is a true statement...And I would agree that Pot has less of an addictive nature. But that does not mean it is "safe".

Quote

As far as the FDA is concerned, they have made lots of mistakes in the past that have killed people. Look at the Fen-phen debacle for example. Their failure to legalize pot for medical use, in my opinion, is another one of those mistakes.

The FDA does make plenty of mistakes...I have been given two drugs that later have been yanked back by the FDA. Both caused liver disease. But, that also does not mean they should approve anything "just cause". That kind of approach will just mean it happens more.

Now as for terminal patients....I have no issue (heck, I don't have an issue for tokers really). Use them as part of a study IMO. But I don't run things.

And wanna bet that if it was legal for terminal cases that the number of terminal cases would suddenly jump?

I guess my points are:
1. "It does not seem to hurt" is not a good reason to make the FDA allow it.

2. Tommy Chong types and comments like "Ditch Weed" are not helping.

I think the medical group would be wise to try and follow the legal path and get as far away from Cheech and Chong as possible.

[Guest]

The difference here is that heroin and morphine have legitimate medical uses, and they are proven.

It's the abuse of narcotics that is the real issue, which is why the DEA Schedule was created in the first place.

One of the government's written mandates is to "promote the general welfare" (as stated in the preamble to the US Constitution).

That means playing nanny to an extent, unfortunately.

However, the same people who demand unfettered access to narcotics under the guise of "it's none of the government's business if I wanna smoke dope / shoot up / drink myself to death", etc. are usually the same people who whine about the depredations brought on by lassez-faire capitalism.

They are two sides of the same coin, and people can't have it both ways.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[freethefly 6]

Quote

"Federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering."

Yet, federal law recognize a federal right to use potentialy deadly and highly addictive narcotics prescribed by a licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering!!!! Makes no sence to me to outlaw the safest substance known to the humanrace.
The DEA schedules mj as a class 1 narcotic when it is, in fact, not a narcotic. Mj is not addictive. Mj has never caused death. It is impossiable to overdose on mj, unlike the many opium based narcotics and synthetic painkillers prescribed. The current list of approved painkillers are extremely addictive and extremely deadly. The safe alternative is mj. It is a proven alternative and has been proven time and time again. George McMahon is one such patient ( http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=86758820
) He will also tell you that the government supplied mj is far below the standard. The mj grown at the Ms. facility is in fact a very low grade that is just a step above ditch weed. What they send to the few patients on the now defunct Compassionate Use Act is ground up leave, stems, seeds and low grade bud. Also, the government freeze the mj which in turn degrades the THC even further.
Markharju says that heroin and morphine (basically the same drug, only one is more refined) have legitimate medical use. Hmmm... wow! Two drugs that are extremely addictive and potentially deadly!!! That is insane when there is a drug that has never caused an overdose and is not addictive!!!! The proof is in on mj yet, the federal government refuses to see it. The Feds refuses to release any mj for postive research and will only release mj if the study is to prove that it is the most dangerouse drug known to man. Billions of dollars are wasted each year to combat mj use in the "War on Drugs" yet. there has not been one inch gained in curbing mj use. In fact, each year there are more smokers than the year before. Programs such as D.A.R.E. has a failure rate of more than 80%. Many teenagers have said that their first exposure to mj was through D.A.R.E.. Student drug testing programs that are meant to discourage mj use have pushed students into using more alcohol and harder to detect or not tested for substance.

Quote

American Academy of Pediatrics Slams Random Student Drug Testing Policies -- Tests are ineffective, not backed by physicians, and may push teens toward the use of dangerous drugs and alcohol

Elk Grove, IL: Federally funded random student drug testing policies are neither safe nor effective and should not be utilized in public middle schools or high schools, according to recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse and Council on School Health. The Committee's recommendations appear in the March 2007 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

"Currently, there is little evidence of the effectiveness of school-based drug testing in the scientific literature," the Committee reported. It noted that student athletes forced to submit to random drug testing "experienced an increase in known risk factors for drug use ... and poorer attitudes toward school." The Committee also reported that the largest observational study to assess the efficacy of student drug testing "found no association between school-based drug testing and students' report of drug use."

The Committee further determined that:
· Standard drug tests do not detect many of the substances most frequently abused by adolescents, including alcohol, ecstasy (MDMA), or inhalants.
· Mandatory drug testing may motivate adolescents to switch from using drugs with relatively low morbidity and mortality, such as marijuana, to those that pose greater danger (such as inhalants), but are undetectable by screening tests.
· Widespread implementation of drug testing may also inadvertently encourage more students to abuse alcohol, which is associated with a greater number of adolescent deaths than any other illicit drug.
· Few physicians support school-based testing of adolescents for drugs; a national survey of physicians found that 83 percent disagreed with drug testing in public schools.
· Few schools possess the necessary funds or the expertise to properly implement drug tests or interpret their results correctly.

Since 2005, the US Department of Education has appropriated more than $20 million to public school districts to pay for random drug testing programs.

So, this is what the "War on Drugs" has brought us. A government that will use a law that was based on prejudice to deny a proven medicine from those who benefit. A strong arm tactic to force intrusive searches of bodily fluids. I, for one, refuse to piss in a bottle for anyone. I am an AIDS patient and a medical mj patient. I do benefit from it. Marinol was useless and the other "approved" appetite stimulants did nothing at all other than causing nausea. Mj works. I realize that some of you have bought into the governments misinformation propaganda and will never see the benefit of mj untill you yourself or a loved one must endure the fight of staying alive and living without pain or wasting away from illness. Many have changed their tune to medical mj when faced with what I, myself, and others on the same boat must go through on a daily basis. I am not a criminal and neither are the millions of others who use mj whether for medical reasons or recreational reasons. We are no more a criminal than any of you who have driven over the speed limit. It is a shame that our government sees fit to jail someone soley for smoking a joint yet has allowed child molesters to walk with a slap on the hand. The time is quickly coming that all states will allow medical mj. One more such state on the verge of doing so;

Quote

New Mexico: Legislature Approves Medical Marijuana Bill

Santa Fe, NM: The New Mexico legislature approved legislation this week that seeks to establish a statewide medicinal cannabis distribution program.

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives approved Senate Bill 523, a substitute bill that is virtually identical to the "Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act." House members had narrowly rejected a similar proposal last week.

On Wednesday, the Senate concurred with a minor House floor amendment, sending the bill to the governor for his approval.

As proposed, Senate Bill 523 mandates the state Department of Health by October 1, 2007, to promulgate rules governing the use and distribution of medical cannabis to state-authorized patients. These rules shall address the creation of state-licensed "cannabis production facilities," the development of a confidential patient registry and a state-authorized marijuana distribution system, and "define the amount of cannabis that is necessary to constitute an adequate supply" for qualified patients.

Governor Bill Richardson, who worked closely with the House to persuade members to reconsider the bill, is expected to sign the measure into law. "This bill will provide much-needed relief for New Mexicans suffering from debilitating diseases while including the proper safeguards to prevent abuse," he said. "I am pleased that the legislature did the right thing, reconsidered this important bill and supported a humane option for New Mexicans who endure some of the most painful diseases imaginable."

If approved, New Mexico will become the twelfth state to enact medical marijuana legislation since 1996, though it will be only the fourth to do so legislatively.

Why not educate yourself at www.norml.org

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Armour666 0]

[replyThe "Cannabis specialists" do more harm than good IMO. And if pot is such a wonder drug the FDA should look at it an allow it.

[freethefly 6]

Methamphetamine is a Schedule II narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act.

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(b) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
I have never heard one word of Meth having any accepted medical value yet, there it is on the schedule 2 list. On the otherhand mj has been proven to have many medical uses yet, there it is on the schedule 1 list.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence

The evidence is in on medical mj.
Just a few examples;
Mj has been shown to have the greatest potential for appetite stimulation with no adverse affect.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=uclabiolchem/nutritionbytes

The greatest potential for alzheimer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224111638.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news80408190.html

THC induces apoptosis.
http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/8/549
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9771884&dopt=Abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/2/451
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/13/6748

If smoking is a concern then vaporization is the alternative.

Denying research does more harm than the drug itself when there is great potential for new and improved drugs that can be derived from the plant.
My friend Jacqueline Patterson (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=12340272) is an MS patient as well as a med-mj patient and medical mj advocate. I tend to believe her when she has shown that mj helps to curb spasticity and other MS related conditions. Montel Williams is also nboard with this knowledge. http://www.pr.com/article/1033
With so much evidence it is unfathomable to imagine why the Federal government continues with its "Reefer Madness, Harry Anslinger" mentality. It is not an evil weed that will destroy a society but a real medicine that can help millions cope while treating serious illness.
If the government wants concern for drug abuse then that concern should be directed towards the pharms that are in current use. The Iraq war itself will produce a large number of addicts of narcotic based medications. If mj can produce reasonable effect without the dependentcy related to narcotics then real research should be encouraged and not pushed aside as some sort of hippy pipedream.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Scoop 0]

Quote

There was a similar case in Britain recently, a middle aged woman who cooked with cannabis to alleviate pain was convicted on drugs charges and sentenced to 200 hours community service. I'm undecided on legalisation of recreational drugs, but this seemed like an uneccessay and and unhelpful conviction.

It borders on not being in the public interest so CPS could have potentially binned the case. There was either more to it or they didn't like the idea of Mrs X lining drug dealers pockets

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

There was a similar case in Britain recently, a middle aged woman who cooked with cannabis to alleviate pain was convicted on drugs charges and sentenced to 200 hours community service. I'm undecided on legalisation of recreational drugs, but this seemed like an uneccessay and and unhelpful conviction.

It borders on not being in the public interest so CPS could have potentially binned the case. There was either more to it or they didn't like the idea of Mrs X lining drug dealers pockets

Establishing a system of legal supply would greatly reduce the blackmarket trade and take the money out of the pockets of the drug cartels. It would be in the greater interest of the public to do so and would also free up tax dollars, reduce prison populations, possibly reduce police forces or free up manpower to battle real crimes. A growing number of police officers are in favor of legalization.
http://leap.cc/

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Scoop 0]

Funnily enough what is apparantly the worlds largest legal cannabis factory is right on my doorstep. I don't know where but have seen pics (its a government thing) No idea what they use it for though as I don't believe cannabis is used for any medicinal purpose in the UK.

Quick search revealed some info to substantiate what I was told: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/110704.stm

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Funnily enough what is apparantly the worlds largest legal cannabis factory is right on my doorstep. I don't know where but have seen pics (its a government thing) No idea what they use it for though as I don't believe cannabis is used for any medicinal purpose in the UK.

Quick search revealed some info to substantiate what I was told: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/110704.stm

GW Pharmaceuticals has used the facility for cannabis based pharmetcuticals for sometime now. In the last few years they have developed Sativex for MS patients and believe that it will also help relieve many other illnesses.
For more info regarding Sativex;
http://www.gwpharm.co.uk/sativex.asp
They are currently working to get approval for clinical trials here in the U.S. and hope to start the trials this year.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Scoop 0]

I think its great that they are making this level of investment into medical research for 2 reasons. Firstly it will help those that may genuinly benefit from medicinal products derived from cannabis and make them free to obtain such items without fear of legal repurcussions through the correct medical channels. Secondly, people found in posession of 'street cannabis' as opposed to cannabis derived products will have no excuse.