[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23717528]Both.
If it has medical benefits, it's easier to make than refined medicines, why wouldn't the pharma companies just you know, set up hydro facilities? The profit margins would be massive compared to something like a normal painkiller that you have to synthesize.[/QUOTE]
google medical marijuana.
because there's no money to be made off of natural plants (marijuana in its natural herbal form is generally considered the most effective form for medicine). if you have this amazing medicine that you can grow in your own home, you're gonna do that. no hassles for multiple prescriptions etc.
the way to riches in the pharmaceutical industry is to have a drug that you can patent and charge what you want. marijuana is a problem right from the start in that it's a plant that anyone can grow. you need water and dirt and you have it forever. drug companies want to make money and don't want you growing your own medicine.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23717613]google medical marijuana.
because there's no money to be made off of natural plants (marijuana in its natural herbal form is generally considered the most effective form for medicine). if you have this amazing medicine that you can grow in your own home, you're gonna do that. no hassles for multiple prescriptions etc.
the way to riches in the pharmaceutical industry is to have a drug that you can patent and charge what you want. marijuana is a problem right from the start in that it's a plant that anyone can grow. you need water and dirt and you have it forever. drug companies want to make money and don't want you growing your own medicine.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact that no one bothers to do any of this. HAve you ever heard of the supplement industry? Most of this crap is much easier to grow than marijuana, and they still sell it, unregulated, by the fucking ton every day.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSHEA#United_States[/url]
It's also not my job to go hunt for evidence supporting your claims, the burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative statement. So you can go and google it and find the proof and present it here.
Also, I very much doubt that marijuana in its natural form would be the most effective or consistent medicine that could be derived from it. Just as we don't drink willow bark tea anymore but take aspirin, we would derive medicines from its chemical makeup.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23717734]Except for the fact that no one bothers to do any of this. HAve you ever heard of the supplement industry? Most of this crap is much easier to grow than marijuana, and they still sell it, unregulated, by the fucking ton every day.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSHEA#United_States[/URL]
It's also not my job to go hunt for evidence supporting your claims, the burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative statement. So you can go and google it and find the proof and present it here.
Also, I very much doubt that marijuana in its natural form would be the most effective or consistent medicine that could be derived from it. Just as we don't drink willow bark tea anymore but take aspirin, we would derive medicines from its chemical makeup.[/QUOTE]
dietary supplements aren't exactly useful as a medicine whereas cannabis is.
obviously when people realize this incredibly useful medicine is just a plant they're buying they'll realize they don't have to go waste money and can just grow it themselves.
[URL]http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/54[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ukcia.org/medical/medicinaluseofmarijuana.php[/URL]
[URL]http://www.brighthub.com/health/alternative-medicine/articles/68930.aspx[/URL]
i don't see how you can say cannabis doesn't have medical benefits when 14 states have passes medical marijuana laws and you see all those stories of people getting help.
there's actually already a marijuana medicine on the market. it's called marinol. but why isn't everyone using it? because it's not as effective.
using a vaporizer or smoking it allows the THC to enter the bloodstream far faster than a pill, especially when they can't be held down in the case of cancer and chemotherapy patients.
there is no medicine out there with as many benefits as marijuana, with very little side effects. i'd call that an incredible medicine.
plus if people do go out and buy it will be from the dispensaries already in place that have a very wide range of marijuana products. the pharmaceutical market simply won't be able to pick up anything from this.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23717990]dietary supplements aren't exactly useful as a medicine whereas cannabis is.
[url]http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/54[/url]
[url]http://www.ukcia.org/medical/medicinaluseofmarijuana.php[/url]
[url]http://www.brighthub.com/health/alternative-medicine/articles/68930.aspx[/url]
i don't see how you can say cannabis doesn't have medical benefits when 14 states have passes medical marijuana laws and you see all those stories of people getting help.
there's actually already a marijuana medicine on the market. it's called marinol. but why isn't everyone using it? because it's not as effective.
using a vaporizer or smoking it allows the THC to enter the bloodstream far faster than a pill, especially when they can't be held down in the case of cancer and chemotherapy patients.[/QUOTE]
Just by the way, if it were completely legal all along, cannabis would be a dietary supplement, as it's unrefined and "natural" so it would be picked up by that sort of people.
Not all dietary supplements don't work, but most don't, or are unsafe in some fashion. They're also woefully inconsistent in dosage. This is true for medical marijuana as well.
I do like how one link is a pro-drug organization, one is an alt-med source, and one is a non peer reviewed outlooks nursing journal from '93, you're really good at finding sources for your claims. Even though I agree with most of the ones you have made so far, you really need to find better people who support them.
I do admit it is great for treating nausea chemotherapy, there needs to be some way to dose it more properly for other indications.
Again, my problem was never with the fact that it has medical benefits, but the scale of them. They're there, but they aren't "incredible," and they don't really form a large risk to the pharma companies at large.
[editline]08:00PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23717990]
there is no medicine out there with as many benefits as marijuana, with very little side effects. i'd call that an incredible medicine.[/QUOTE]
Source?
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23717990]
plus if people do go out and buy it will be from the dispensaries already in place that have a very wide range of marijuana products. the pharmaceutical market simply won't be able to pick up anything from this.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt that. It's not like one strain of marijuana differs that much in the type of active chemicals it has, just the dosage, and that only adds to the confusion of treatment, it doesn't take away from it.
You are not free until you can legally fuck a hooker in the ass while snorting lines of coke off her back while also rolling up a fat blunt out of an American flag, all the while being the age of majority in this country (eighteen years old). Don't let them control you. You own your own body.
[img]http://www.etnvets.com/crying-eagle.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23718114]Just by the way, if it were completely legal all along, cannabis would be a dietary supplement, as it's unrefined and "natural" so it would be picked up by that sort of people.
Not all dietary supplements don't work, but most don't, or are unsafe in some fashion. They're also woefully inconsistent in dosage. This is true for medical marijuana as well.
I do like how one link is a pro-drug organization, one is an alt-med source, and one is a non peer reviewed outlooks nursing journal from '93, you're really good at finding sources for your claims. Even though I agree with most of the ones you have made so far, you really need to find better people who support them.
I do admit it is great for treating nausea chemotherapy, there needs to be some way to dose it more properly for other indications.
Again, my problem was never with the fact that it has medical benefits, but the scale of them. They're there, but they aren't "incredible," and they don't really form a large risk to the pharma companies at large.
[editline]08:00PM[/editline]
Source?
I highly doubt that. It's not like one strain of marijuana differs that much in the type of active chemicals it has, just the dosage, and that only adds to the confusion of treatment, it doesn't take away from it.[/QUOTE]
what does dosage matter? it's physically impossible to overdose on marijuana so i don't know what you're getting at. it's not like people get a lower amount than needed. if this even does happen it's basically "smoke until you feel better" which surprisingly works.
because obviously anti drug websites are going to list the benefits of medical marijuana, who would have guessed. if you looked at drugwarfacts they listed all their sources at the bottom of every paragraph.
i feel bad for linking to wikipedia but it's rather relevant: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Recent_studies[/url]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23718292]what does dosage matter? it's physically impossible to overdose on marijuana so i don't know what you're getting at. it's not like people get a lower amount than needed. if this even does happen it's basically "smoke until you feel better" which surprisingly works.
because obviously anti drug websites are going to list the benefits of medical marijuana, who would have guessed. if you looked at drugwarfacts they listed all their sources at the bottom of every paragraph.
i feel bad for linking to wikipedia but it's rather relevant: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Recent_studies[/url][/QUOTE]
Because that's what I said when I was saying that a pro-drug source was a bad idea.
Try this:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed[/url]
And because dosage can affect things in unforeseen ways, if you're treating a tumor with it, like in [1], too much of something good can be bad.
[1]: [url]http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196[/url]
Again, I never said that medical marijuana doesn't exist or has no benefits, I said that it could probably be improved by isolation and refining of the active chemicals within it, as well as saying that it isn't really a threat to the pharmaceutical industry.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23718432]Because that's what I said when I was saying that a pro-drug source was a bad idea.
Try this:
[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed[/URL]
And because dosage can affect things in unforeseen ways, if you're treating a tumor with it, like in [1], too much of something good can be bad.
[1]: [URL]http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196[/URL]
Again, I never said that medical marijuana doesn't exist or has no benefits, I said that it could probably be improved by isolation and refining of the active chemicals within it, as well as saying that it isn't really a threat to the pharmaceutical industry.[/QUOTE]
they already did that with a medicine. it's called marinol which is basically THC in capsules as an oral medicine. not exactly as popular because as said, it's simply not as effective. sure, you can put THC and chemicals in a test tube, but how in a test tube do you do the natural electron spins and refine the quarks and what have you, it can't happen. there's about 66 cannabinoids that exist only in natural marijuana, it's quite hard to synthesize all that when you can just grow an herb and smoke it and get the same if not better effects.
there's a guy in this video with multiple painful bone tumors who smokes 10-12 joints a day and has been for about 30 years, and he's perfectly fine and doesn't have to take any other medicine. supplied by the federal government, no less.
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=k7Tg795-TLM[/URL]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23718569]they already did that with a medicine. it's called marinol which is basically THC in capsules as an oral medicine. not exactly as popular because as said, it's simply not as effective. sure, you can put THC and chemicals in a test tube, but how in a test tube do you do the natural electron spins and refine the quarks and what have you, it can't happen. there's about 66 cannabinoids that exist only in natural marijuana, it's quite hard to synthesize all that when you can just grow an herb and smoke it and get the same if not better effects.
*snip of video*[/QUOTE]
Again with the anecdotes and claims not supported by evidence.
The reason why you might want to purify these things is because if you go around smoking the marijuana all day, you're helped, but you're high and can't do some things, if you isolate the chemicals that are useful for a certain indication, then you might not even need the psychoactive ones.
My point isn't that you can or should replicate the plant in drug form, my point is that you might not want everything the plant has when you're trying to treat a disease. I don't see how you can argue against that.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23718754]Again with the anecdotes and claims not supported by evidence.
The reason why you might want to purify these things is because if you go around smoking the marijuana all day, you're helped, but you're high and can't do some things, if you isolate the chemicals that are useful for a certain indication, then you might not even need the psychoactive ones.
My point isn't that you can or should replicate the plant in drug form, my point is that you might not want everything the plant has when you're trying to treat a disease. I don't see how you can argue against that.[/QUOTE]
i can see you didn't watch the video because pretty much all of that is explained in it. with the one of the guys explaining this has an MD from Harvard.
and the guy who smokes all day doesn't even get high. he's a stock broker who handles millions of dollars daily. i'm sure he hasn't gotten high and caused a stock market crash. he doesn't have to take prescription medicines. when he did, he had every conceivable prescription medicine multiple times and they still weren't as effective as him smoking a few joints, and that's all he has to take. how is this not a very amazing medicine? the other guy, robert randall was told when he was 25 that he would be blind by the time he was 30. he smoked marijuana and was able to see until he died. all his prescription medicines were ineffective.
i'm tired of having to hold your hand when i'm obviously not getting through to you because apparently you disagree that there's a brand medicine called marinol or that cannabis has about 60 cannabinoids exclusive to the plant where if you had a tiny bit of knowledge or willingness to learn you would see how scientifically common it is and accepted.
what exactly is 'everything the plant has' that you don't want when treating a disease? and you say i don't back up my sources.
also watch The Union or something too, great documentary.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23718829]i can see you didn't watch the video because pretty much all of that is explained in it. with the one of the guys explaining this has an MD from Harvard.
and the guy who smokes all day doesn't even get high. he's a stock broker who handles millions of dollars daily. i'm sure he hasn't gotten high and caused a stock market crash.
i'm tired of having to hold your hand when i'm obviously not getting through to you because apparently you disagree that there's a brand medicine called marinol or that cannabis has about 60 cannabinoids exclusive to the plant where if you had a tiny bit of knowledge or willingness to learn you would see how scientifically common it is and accepted.
also watch The Union or something too, great documentary.[/QUOTE]
That's nice that you showed me a case study. That doesn't actually prove anything, even with an MD explaining the case study.
Again, I accept that medical marijuana is legitimate, I just have contention with the claim that it's some wonder drug that big pharma is trying to suppress.
And again, I'm not saying that people haven't seen benefit from it, I do however have issues with the way you're trying to argue your point that I fully agree with. You're doing it by providing unscientific reports, and sources that are themselves unsourced. The single best source you've used is the Wikipedia article.
I completely agree that there are many uses of marijuana as medicine, and I completely agree it warrants much research and should be legal, and I agree that the current option of just a single synthetic cannabiniod is not enough. (Δ9-THC/Marinol)
All I'm saying is that it would be nice and probably prudent to have an arsenal of all the cannibiniods synthetically made, as to allow for the best course of treatment, and the best control over the ratios and dosages, to allow for the best option for the indication. How you have contention with this is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23718909]That's nice that you showed me a case study. That doesn't actually prove anything, even with an MD explaining the case study.
Again, I accept that medical marijuana is legitimate, I just have contention with the claim that it's some wonder drug that big pharma is trying to suppress.
And again, I'm not saying that people haven't seen benefit from it, I do however have issues with the way you're trying to argue your point that I fully agree with. You're doing it by providing unscientific reports, and sources that are themselves unsourced. The single best source you've used is the Wikipedia article.
I completely agree that there are many uses of marijuana as medicine, and I completely agree it warrants much research and should be legal, and I agree that the current option of just a single synthetic cannabiniod is not enough. (Δ9-THC/Marinol)
All I'm saying is that it would be nice and probably prudent to have an arsenal of all the cannibiniods synthetically made, as to allow for the best course of treatment, and the best control over the ratios and dosages, to allow for the best option for the indication. How you have contention with this is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
i have contention with it because it's a waste of time and money, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. there's simply no reason to synthesize it because the natural form works perfectly fine and no one's having any problems with it. it's not like the medicine is ineffective or going to hurt them if they get the wrong dose or an unneeded cannabinoid. the benefit of smoking it is because of its immediate effect and you can take just as much as you need because you feel it within minutes.
it may as well be a wonder drug because it was the only medicine that helped those two people and many more people around the world. you sort of act like it's just another prescription like vicodin or valium you could go get when that's not the case.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23718987]i have contention with it because it's a waste of time and money. there's simply no reason to synthesize it because the natural form works perfectly fine and no one's having any problems with it. it's not like the medicine is ineffective or going to hurt them if they get the wrong dose or an unneeded cannabinoid. the benefit of smoking it is because of its immediate effect and you can take just as much as you need because you feel it within minutes.
it may as well be a wonder drug because it was the only medicine that helped those two people and many more people around the world. you sort of act like it's just another prescription like vicodin or valium you could go get when that's not the case.[/QUOTE]
It is just another prescription you can get like doxycycline or penicillin, it does wonders, but only in certain things. It's not a fucking panacea.
Again, I'm not saying that it would have a large harm, but it's always better when you can control ratios and dosages. Medicines commonly have a synergistic effect, and having a stable dosage over a long period of time is a better idea than smoking plants which may or may not have the same dosages or ratios. This doesn't matter so much in some of the less critical things like nausea, but for people like bone tumor man, he may be better served by having his ratios adjusted artificially.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23719065]It is just another prescription you can get like doxycycline or penicillin, it does wonders, but only in certain things. It's not a fucking panacea.
Again, I'm not saying that it would have a large harm, but it's always better when you can control ratios and dosages. Medicines commonly have a synergistic effect, and having a stable dosage over a long period of time is a better idea than smoking plants which may or may not have the same dosages or ratios. This doesn't matter so much in some of the less critical things like nausea, but for people like bone tumor man, he may be better served by having his ratios adjusted artificially.[/QUOTE]
if it ain't broke, don't fix it?
bone tumor man isn't complaining that he's not getting the right dosages or ratios or what have you and i don't think any other medical marijuana patient is complaining either.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23719155]if it ain't broke, don't fix it?
bone tumor man isn't complaining that he's not getting the right dosages or ratios or what have you and i don't think any other medical marijuana patient is complaining either.[/QUOTE]
That's not exactly the best way of dealing with things, some people could be better served with a different approach.
These things have actual physiological effects in the body, and if you change the dosage and ratios over time, it does actually effect progressions of disease. This isn't anything radical or odd.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23719216]That's not exactly the best way of dealing with things, some people could be better served with a different approach.
These things have actual physiological effects in the body, and if you change the dosage and ratios over time, it does actually effect progressions of disease. This isn't anything radical or odd.[/QUOTE]
bone tumor man has been smoking for about 30 years, if this was going to show up, it would have shown up by now, no?
if scientific studies find that as the best way to do it, i'll be all for it. but as it stands what's working now is quick, effective, cheap, and it works.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23719280]bone tumor man has been smoking for about 30 years, if this was going to show up, it would have shown up by now, no?
if scientific studies find that as the best way to do it, i'll be all for it. but as it stands what's working now is quick, effective, cheap, and it works.[/QUOTE]
Probably for him it would have, yes.
I'm not really making specific claims, so this could have gone on for a while. All I'm trying to say is that if something comes up where a cannibinoid is a treatment option, and the treatment is dose-dependent, wouldn't it be a better idea to have something that is stable over the long term?
Like in this study, certain cannibinoids lead to adverse outcomes with co-infection, but others didn't, so if you had the option to selectively use them, it would be far safer:
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903762/?tool=pubmed[/url]
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23719344]Probably for him it would have, yes.
I'm not really making specific claims, so this could have gone on for a while. All I'm trying to say is that if something comes up where a cannibinoid is a treatment option, and the treatment is dose-dependent, wouldn't it be a better idea to have something that is stable over the long term?
Like in this study, certain cannibinoids lead to adverse outcomes with co-infection, but others didn't, so if you had the option to selectively use them, it would be far safer:
[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903762/?tool=pubmed[/URL][/QUOTE]
because it would be a pain to isolate and synthesize every single cannabinoid and it would probably be a waste of money too if you market some obscure cannabinoid not many people need.
once again, doses really don't matter with marijuana because of how easily it's titrated (aka you know how much you need to take by smoking it because you feel the effects right away and can smoke as much as you need).
it's simply much, much more easier and it still does very very little in the way of adverse and dangerous side effects.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23719500]because it would be a pain to isolate and synthesize every single cannabinoid and it would probably be a waste of money too if you market some obscure cannabinoid not many people need.
once again, doses really don't matter with marijuana because of how easily it's titrated (aka you know how much you need to take by smoking it because you feel the effects right away and can smoke as much as you need).
it's simply much, much more easier and it still does very very little in the way of adverse and dangerous side effects.[/QUOTE]
It would be a pain, but then again if it works better than the original, it would be worth it.
You can't titrate the active ingredients in marijuana in vivo, especially not for an indication that isn't obvious like treating cancer or blocking certain obscure inflammatory reactions.
Most Facepunchers support legalization.
Most of these supporters are also under the age of 21, so it will be illegal until then anyway.
21+? I'm ok with this.
I would be up for the synthesizing of marijuana. It could help with dosage (although as stated previously dosage isn't much of an issue) and potency. Where I have trouble is where privatized companies get to patent such chemicals. It scares me that a company such as Monsanto can patent a type of soybean i.e. nature. Could a company do this to marijuana as well? It would certainly deliver many immunities and much cash flow to any corporation. Nevertheless, people will always be able to grow marijuana on their own, in their own houses, legal or not. So, synthesizing simply adds more options to the curious; it doesn't conflict with a typical "raw" smoker.
The truth is infectious, even more so than ignorance and distortion. It saddens me to encounter so many people without the slightest clue of what marijuana is actually like, fed by their parents and health class lies which have been passed down as the result of a culmination among the factors of economic greed, religious bigotry, and racism. With science backing it, marijuana has been proven to be incredibly useful, economically and personally. However, change starts with the individual: you! The main reason marijuana is still illegal is because people want it like that. So please, if you want to see some change, start with conversation. Talk to people about marijuana. Talk to them about the benefits, about the misconceptions, about the science, about the experience. It's not difficult, and I'm sure many are interested in the topic.
Spread the truth.
From a pot smokers perspective, I do not support this bill. It is not the proper path for us to go down. It's going to turn things into a bad mess of bullshit with corpratization being such a driving factor of this rather than phasing it in a smart way.
[editline]06:26AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=nickohlus;23778177]I would be up for the synthesizing of marijuana. It could help with dosage (although as stated previously dosage isn't much of an issue) and potency. Where I have trouble is where privatized companies get to patent such chemicals. It scares me that a company such as Monsanto can patent a type of soybean i.e. nature. Could a company do this to marijuana as well? It would certainly deliver many immunities and much cash flow to any corporation. Nevertheless, people will always be able to grow marijuana on their own, in their own houses, legal or not. So, synthesizing simply adds more options to the curious; it doesn't conflict with a typical "raw" smoker.
The truth is infectious, even more so than ignorance and distortion. It saddens me to encounter so many people without the slightest clue of what marijuana is actually like, fed by their parents and health class lies which have been passed down as the result of a culmination among the factors of economic greed, religious bigotry, and racism. With science backing it, marijuana has been proven to be incredibly useful, economically and personally. However, change starts with the individual: you! The main reason marijuana is still illegal is because people want it like that. So please, if you want to see some change, start with conversation. Talk to people about marijuana. Talk to them about the benefits, about the misconceptions, about the science, about the experience. It's not difficult, and I'm sure many are interested in the topic.
Spread the truth.[/QUOTE]
Every strain of grain(wheat and etc) grown in the US is patented for it's specific genetic structure. "Seed stealing" is a major offense and the farmers that are accused of it generally lose everything.
If this happens with marijuana, we're all fucked.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23778215]From a pot smokers perspective, I do not support this bill. It is not the proper path for us to go down. It's going to turn things into a bad mess of bullshit with corpratization being such a driving factor of this rather than phasing it in a smart way.
[editline]06:26AM[/editline]
Every strain of grain(wheat and etc) grown in the US is patented for it's specific genetic structure. "Seed stealing" is a major offense and the farmers that are accused of it generally lose everything.
If this happens with marijuana, we're all fucked.[/QUOTE]
That situation would be bad. It would be years before anything like that was overturned. And it seems to me that marijuana would be back to the state it's in right now: an underground society of people breaking the law, only this time it's in the name of a corporation.
But won't the restrictions on the prop be limiting the capability of corporations? Apparently only one ounce is allowed to be exchanged during transactions, and people are only allowed to grow so much marijuana. I think it's a step in the right direction for this prop to be passed. Monsanto is able to win because they are a large corporation against a handful of simple farmers. I don't think a company can stand against millions of pot smokers who have had a taste of freedom. They won't give it up without a fight.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.