Woman denied right to use marijuana as life-saving medication

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

This might be a valid point for a new drug. But dope has been around for a long time, longer than the time in which the US has banned it for non medical reasons.

I believe the FDA claim is it has no medical value. (which is the same belief on most of the unregulated supplements). Showing it is dangerous is uncompelling to the over hundred million of you that have inhaled.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

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.

This might be a valid point for a new drug. But dope has been around for a long time, longer than the time in which the US has banned it for non medical reasons.

I believe the FDA claim is it has no medical value. (which is the same belief on most of the unregulated supplements). Showing it is dangerous is uncompelling to the over hundred million of you that have inhaled.

Not to mention the thousands of years of cannabis use with not one single death is, without doubt, testimony of its saftey. For the U.S. government inability to show a negative effect after more than 70 years of trying to do so is also a testimony to its saftey as a medicine and a recreational drug. At the sametime alcohol and tobacco has been proven, without doubt, to do great damage to the body. Hmmm, what is wrong here? The alcohol and tobacco industries have the government in their pockets and throw big cash stacks to keep themselves in business. Even the oil industry has, in the past, jumped in to outlaw the farming of hemp. It is the big stacks and the willingness of government to cater to the big industries to keep mj and hemp outlawed. Also, the private prison industry has been a factor in pushing for stiffer prison terms for pot smokers as they make big money from housing prisoners. It is quite appearent that money means more than human life. It is a shame that this government would wish to imprison cancer, AIDS, MS... patients to show that THEY controll your life. Screw the government.

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

This might be a valid point for a new drug. But dope has been around for a long time, longer than the time in which the US has banned it for non medical reasons.

I believe the FDA claim is it has no medical value. (which is the same belief on most of the unregulated supplements). Showing it is dangerous is uncompelling to the over hundred million of you that have inhaled.

The FDA will not allow a drug that does not fit two criteria:

1. Safe to use.
2. Accomplishes something of use.

MJ has not been shown to be "safe". Smoking it can lead to cancer. And quite frankly no good study has shown what side effects there are. Does the drug have terrible side effects? IMO not really, but I am not the FDA and they do have a job to do and for the most part they do more good than harm.

As to the question of "does it accomplish something". Where is the CLINICAL evidence? My Grandmother used to say Chicken Soup was a great healing device....That does not make it true. The thing is even if Chicken soup is not a miracle drug it does not HARM anyone when taking it (Except chickens).

Do I "personally" think MJ is safe? I do not think it is any more dangerous than cigarettes. And I think the high is safer than alcohol.

BUT that does not mean anything really.

You want it to be allowed? Get some evidence that it does good. NOT evidence that it can't hurt.

[ExAFO 0]

We can all petition the government for changes in the law. Until the law changes, you are subject to penalties if you are caught and convicted of violating said law.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Channman 2]

Without ready through all the crap. Marijuana is now a life saving medication? All ones needs to do is inhale this wonder drug to reap a life saving cure

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Not to mention the thousands of years of cannabis use with not one single death is, without doubt, testimony of its saftey

Not really. Smoking it can cause cancer or do you claim that is not true?

Quote

For the U.S. government inability to show a negative effect after more than 70 years of trying to do so is also a testimony to its saftey as a medicine and a recreational drug

Two seperate issues. Not being able to show a negative effect (not proven) does not mean it is medicine. It take POSITIVE evidence to prove it is medicine, not "It can't hurt".

Quote

At the sametime alcohol and tobacco has been proven, without doubt, to do great damage to the body.

Then work to outlaw those two. I agree that on the surface MJ seems better than alcohol...But that does not mean it is safe.

Quote

The alcohol and tobacco industries have the government in their pockets and throw big cash stacks to keep themselves in business. Even the oil industry has, in the past, jumped in to outlaw the farming of hemp. It is the big stacks and the willingness of government to cater to the big industries to keep mj and hemp outlawed. Also, the private prison industry has been a factor in pushing for stiffer prison terms for pot smokers as they make big money from housing prisoners. It is quite appearent that money means more than human life

"I'll take crazy Gov Conspiricy Theories for 100 Alex." This ranks right up there with the Gov has a car that runs on water.

Quote

Screw the government.

If you refuse to try and work within the Gov, expect it to continue to ignore your wishes.

Like I said before dich Cheech and Chong as your spokes person and you will get more done.

[Armour666 0]

Quote

The FDA will not allow a drug that does not fit two criteria:

1. Safe to use.
2. Accomplishes something of use.

MJ has not been shown to be "safe". Smoking it can lead to cancer. And quite frankly no good study has shown what side effects there are. Does the drug have terrible side effects? IMO not really, but I am not the FDA and they do have a job to do and for the most part they do more good than harm.

As to the question of "does it accomplish something". Where is the CLINICAL evidence? My Grandmother used to say Chicken Soup was a great healing device....That does not make it true. The thing is even if Chicken soup is not a miracle drug it does not HARM anyone when taking it (Except chickens).

Do I "personally" think MJ is safe? I do not think it is any more dangerous than cigarettes. And I think the high is safer than alcohol.

BUT that does not mean anything really.

You want it to be allowed? Get some evidence that it does good. NOT evidence that it can't hurt.

That’s a crock their are many drugs the FDA have approved that has some pretty harsh side effects in an some case kills people due to the effects.

When you talk about smoking causing cancer I think a cancer patient or some one with HIV or other life ending illness isn't too worried about that for most it's about quality of life and extending their time here. The less they eat and can nourish them self the quick the succumb to their illness that’s a proven fact.

How can you have more proof when various federal Arms from politicians, the DEA to the FDA interfere with universities and Doctors wanting to do proper studies and clinical trials. Bit of a chicken and the egg situation you put there.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As to the question of "does it accomplish something". Where is the CLINICAL evidence? My Grandmother used to say Chicken Soup was a great healing device....That does not make it true. The thing is even if Chicken soup is not a miracle drug it does not HARM anyone when taking it (Except chickens).
...
You want it to be allowed? Get some evidence that it does good. NOT evidence that it can't hurt.

There's no shortage of people like freethefly and those with cancer who can't maintain their body weight because of a lack of appetite (chemotheraphy is especially bad).

But do they represent a large enough group to have political clout? No. And most are terminal and rather ill, so it's only their friends and family that can speak for them. But they are successfully petitioning many states to pass laws supporting medical use. And then the Feds step in and violate states' rights.

So sorry, I reject the cop out that these people have to suffer until they can get the laws changed. Or that they have to prove to your satisfaction that they have a right to do it.

BTW, I believe chicken soup has gotten medical proof for its cold fight capabilities.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Without ready through all the crap. Marijuana is now a life saving medication? All ones needs to do is inhale this wonder drug to reap a life saving cure

Uh...you really need to read through all the crap.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

MJ has not been shown to be "safe". Smoking it can lead to cancer. And quite frankly no good study has shown what side effects there are.

How wrong you are.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

May I also suggest that this report ( http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/index.html) be read in its entirety. Dr. Tashkin also contributed to the report. Dr. Tashkin has since concluded that there is no relation between lung cancer and mj use. It should also be noted that this report came out in 1999 and that the authors acknowledge that further studies must be conducted. For the most, the report gives mj the thumbs up and that use as a medication outweighs most negative effects, particuraly for AIDS and cancer patients suffering from nausea and wasting syndrome.

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

MJ has not been shown to be "safe". Smoking it can lead to cancer. And quite frankly no good study has shown what side effects there are.

Your study shows that it is not linked to cancer....But the same thing was said of cigarettes before also.

But your OWN study does say:

"Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous."

And he also says: "Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. "

So, whle ONE study has show it MAY not lead to Cancer....The guy still thinks it could be harmful.

And you guys are saying it is safe. This guy says he thinks it is not.

And I have said it before....I would let terminal people smoke it and use them as a test. I have no issue with it, but to claim that it is safe and a wonder drug is still unproven....so do the tests.

And a drug that has unkown effects should not be legalized for recreation...just cause.

[freethefly 6]

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


Not to mention the thousands of years of cannabis use with not one single death is, without doubt, testimony of its saftey

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

Quote

Not really. Smoking it can cause cancer or do you claim that is not true?

Not me, Dr Tashkin has proven that there is no relation between cancer and mj. Read his report. After 30 years of intensive study he is the foremost expert on this subject. He originally set out to prove that it did cause cancer but concluded that it does not. You say it does. You are not an expert. You obviously have no knowledge on the subject and I highly doubt that you have read anything on the subject. I, on the otherhand, read every report that is published. I know more on the subject than you can ever hope to know. If you wish to discuss this subject on an informed level, may I sugest that you educate yourself before interjecting your uninformed viewpoint.


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


At the sametime alcohol and tobacco has been proven, without doubt, to do great damage to the body.

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

Quote

Then work to outlaw those two. I agree that on the surface MJ seems better than alcohol...But that does not mean it is safe.

I am a known med-mj activist. I have associations with a good number of other activist. The government is well aware of who I am. I do not hide the fact that I use mj to curb nausea and to increase my appetite. In 1998 I was asked to submit a paper to the IOM for their report. I did. I also attend rallies when ever possible. I have written to my congressman. Roy Blunt knows who I am from the many letters that I have written to him. I am sure that the DEA is also aware of me. I fight this fight untill I am dead.


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


The alcohol and tobacco industries have the government in their pockets and throw big cash stacks to keep themselves in business. Even the oil industry has, in the past, jumped in to outlaw the farming of hemp. It is the big stacks and the willingness of government to cater to the big industries to keep mj and hemp outlawed. Also, the private prison industry has been a factor in pushing for stiffer prison terms for pot smokers as they make big money from housing prisoners. It is quite appearent that money means more than human life

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

Quote

"I'll take crazy Gov Conspiricy Theories for 100 Alex." This ranks right up there with the Gov has a car that runs on water.

You have no knowledge as to how mj became illegal and how it has remained illegal. Randolph Hearst was a major player in criminalizing hemp production as was Standard Oil. In the early years, prior to 1937, racism played a big part in criminalization starting in El Paso, Tx. Harry Anslinger used this to demonize mj saying that it was the main reason for rape and murder. An uninformed public bought into the lies and opposition to legalized mj grew. We now know that this was all an orchastrated propaganda strategy that was part of the lumber and paper industry as well as the oil industry. Hemp threatened the big players as hemp was much more superior product foe building and paper products. It was also a far superior fuel as a bio-mass fuel. Henery Ford originally designed his engine to run on hemp fuel. He was often at odds with Standard oil. The two vigorously hated each other.


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


Screw the government.

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

Quote

If you refuse to try and work within the Gov, expect it to continue to ignore your wishes.

Screw their bullshit law. I am out to change it and to change the minds of those who have bought into the lie that the government has continued to hold onto.
Scew them if they don't like me. I know who my friends are.

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

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Your study shows that it is not linked to cancer....But the same thing was said of cigarettes before also.

Not my study. Dr Tashkins study. He has also shown;

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

He is the foremost expert in the field. If he had shown that after a 30 year study that mj does cause cancer, I would believe him.

Quote

But your OWN study does say:

"Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous."

Again, not my study. Dr. Tashkin is responsible for this report. His suggestion is that further study needs to be done on how is it that mj users do not develope cancer solely by smoking mj. He has suggested that THC is the link that kills potentially cancerous cells. It is known that THC promoted apoptosis on tumors. Studies abroad has shown this to be true, however, the Federal government stills refuse any study in this country to advance this knowledge which hinders the developement of potentially life saving drugs.

Quote

And he also says: "Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. "

I am not disputing that as any form of smoke is damaging to some extent. Use of a vaporizor elimenates the adverse effect of smoked leaf substance. Vaporization releases the THC and does not ignite the leaf substance. Eating the substance is also a means to the benefit of THC but, for many it is not easy to get down and keep down. The answer to the two vehicles not easy to handle is vaporization.
The following link is to NIDA in which Tashkin says more on the negative effect of smoking mj.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol21N1/Marijuana.html

It is no secret that Dr. Tashkin opposes mj use. He also opposes smoking any substance. He was surprised by his own findings. He has admitted that he hoped to prove that mj was the worst drug known to man yet concluded that it was relatively safe and now encourage that more studies need to be conducted to find why THC seems to block cancerous agents. For the government to continue blocking studies is a disservice to those who may benefit.
Personally, I prefer vaporization. No phlegm. No coughing. The onset is immediate. Nausea dissappears immediately. I can eat and I do not vomit it up. For me, it is a win-win situation. Even if smoked, the benefit out weighs the negative. This should be my choice and not the choice of the DEA.

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Not me, Dr Tashkin has proven that there is no relation between cancer and mj.

He also said that he does not think it is safe, but you ignore that to find only what you want.

Quote

You say it does. You are not an expert. You obviously have no knowledge on the subject and I highly doubt that you have read anything on the subject. I, on the otherhand, read every report that is published. I know more on the subject than you can ever hope to know

I see you claim yourself to be an expert and claim myself to be an idiot....Well if you say it, it must be true

Your own source claims he does not think it is safe.

"Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. "

So your OWN source says that he thinks it can be harmful...Sheesh talk about selective reading!

Quote

You have no knowledge as to how mj became illegal and how it has remained illegal.

Oh please, you think you are the only one that reads? There are guys that can "prove" there were aliens on the grassy knoll.

Quote

I am not disputing that as any form of smoke is damaging to some extent. Use of a vaporizor elimenates the adverse effect of smoked leaf substance. Vaporization releases the THC and does not ignite the leaf substance

So thats one point for the medical crowd, but not the tokers.

Drop the "your an idiot since you don't agree with me attitude" and maybe bother to actually read a post that disagrees with you and you will find I have stated several times that I AGREE that more studies should be done and terminal cases should be allowed. Quit looking for a fight and you might not find one.

I just think that the tokers are hurting you more than helping you.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Vaporization releases the THC and does not ignite the leaf substance

So thats one point for the medical crowd, but not the tokers.

Actually, there are a few marijuana cafes near me and they seem to do quite a lot of business in vaporizors. For $5 cover charge you can hang out and use theirs and they also sell them retail.

I gather they're quite popular.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Lindsey 0]

This is an abstract from a publication of Dr. Tashkin's from 2005.

In many societies, marijuana is the second most commonly smoked substance after tobacco. While delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is unique to marijuana and nicotine to tobacco, the smoke of marijuana, like that of tobacco, consists of a toxic mixture of gases and particulates, many of which are known to be harmful to the lung. Although far fewer marijuana than tobacco cigarettes are generally smoked on a daily basis, the pulmonary consequences of marijuana smoking may be magnified by the greater deposition of smoke particulates in the lung due to the differing manner in which marijuana is smoked. Whereas THC causes modest short-term bronchodilation, regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer. The THC in marijuana could contribute to some of these injurious changes through its ability to augment oxidative stress, cause mitochondrial dysfunction, and inhibit apoptosis. On the other hand, physiologic, clinical or epidemiologic evidence that marijuana smoking may lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory cancer is limited and inconsistent. Habitual use of marijuana is also associated with abnormalities in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, including impairment in microbial phagocytosis and killing that is associated with defective production of immunostimulatory cytokines and nitric oxide, thereby potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection. In view of the growing interest in medicinal marijuana, further epidemiologic studies are needed to clarify the true risks of regular marijuana smoking on respiratory health.

When prescription medications are found to have such prominent harmful side effects in a large percentage of the population, they're usually taken off the market unless their benefit clearly outweighs the risk.

In terms of its pain-control properties I think there are medications that cause fewer long-term problems and control pain better. I've not seen any studies comparing the efficacy of marijuana vs. meperidine for pain control though. In terms of appetite stimulation, I think megace probably works at least as well without such a concerning side-effect profile.

I don't have a problem with people smoking marijuana or of it being a prescribed medication. But I think that because it has such potent and unique psychoactive properties, it will take more than people protesting it's restrictions to make it a legally prescribed medication. It, just like other medications that are put on the market, will have to undergo controlled trials that demonstrate its efficacy....AND superiority to other medications already on the market. I wouldn't prescribe it otherwise as a medication.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[freethefly 6]

At no time time did I say that you were an idiot. In fact, I agree with you on some points that you have made.
Selective reading? Did I not post the link to NIDA.
Here it is again http://www.nida.nih.gov/...l21N1/Marijuana.html
I also said that Tashkin does not support smoking mj nor does he support the movement. He does now recommend more study into its usefulness as a medicine after thirty years of opposing it as a medicine.

Quote

Quit looking for a fight and you might not find one.

I am wondering how you came to the conclusion that I am looking for a fight? I merely posted links to several views and opinions and asked that people read them in there intirety. I also agree that the stoner attitude does harm to the med-mj movement and have brought the point up to such people as Jack Herer, Jacqueline Patterson and a others in the movement. My opinion is that projecting the right image is the only way to get the attention of those who need to be reached. To step up to a microphone with plastic pot leafs in your hair will get you nowhere with the conservative crowd nor will it give you much clout with the professional liberal crowd.
If I offended you, believe me, it was not my intention to do so.

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

[freethefly 6]

Hi Lindsey. I was on megace for a period of time. It caused uncontrollable diarrhea and covered me with rashes. It also caused some other side effects that I am not going to mention here but, I would think that you know what I mean. Also, at the time I was taking a huge number of pills daily and was compacted as if I was full of cement. Not very comfortable. When it did break loose, due to the megace, I needed to be close to a bathroom or else I was in major trouble. (Only one of the problems that those who are not on certian meds do not realize that us who are/were must face daily) My doctor at the time switched me over to marinol and it had very little effect. When it did come on, it was several hours after being taken and not at the time inwhich was desirable. My doctor, off the record, recommended smoking pot again. Up untill then I was not smoking and my weight dropped to below 150. Upon resumming smoking, I went up the scale and was able to maintian 180 pounds and at times more. The doctor, by the way, was a V.A. doctor. At this time I am again below 150 pounds and have no real hope of getting any medical care. If pot can, at least, help me to maintian a proper weight level then that greatly out weighs any negatives that smoking may cause. Then again, it is not like I am going to smoke one after another but, what is required. I have learned more about the positives and negative of marijuana in the 12 years of living with AIDS than I ever wished to know. I arm myself with that knowledge and concluded that the risk is worth the positive effect. Much like I believe that the positive effects of skydiving outweighs the negative and that jumping from a plane for the enjoyment of doing so is well worth the risk that jumping poses. Jumping is my choice and I would not want the government to limit me on that choice the same as using mj for a better life should not be limited.

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the problem. You need to possess it to study it, and since possession is a federal offense, it's big trouble.

NIDA has a contract with the University of Mississippi to grow none to 6.5 ACRES a year. NIDA provides the drug to anyone that has shown a need for FREE. Including 7 individuals.

Currently they have about 200,000 cigarettes frozen in storage.

The problem is not the availability, it is that some of the studies do not follow the rules to get the drug, or want to have someone else grow it.

And statements like this do not help: "Dale Gieringer, California coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, agrees. "It's unconscionable that they would be giving this marijuana to patients," he said. "It's stale, low-potency ditch weed."

Ditch weed?!?!?!? That sounds like a stoner pissed he got some bad smoke, not a director of a study group.

actually it sounds like the "study group' doesnt have enough information to even be examining the substance under question particularly if it cannot differentiate between potency and strains, and is 'experimenting' with what most users wouldnt touch ever...

but go ahead and trust that the government is REALLY supporting such research...
looks alot more like they are supporting a "strawman" so they can CLAIM they've actually done the "real research"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.