Federal Government Reaffirms ‘Flat Earth’ Position Regarding Medical Cannabis - Polidicks

Land of the free except plants

If it's schedule 1, then no testing can be done on it, so we should keep it on schedule 1 because there aren't any tests that show its medicinal benefits. Makes sense to me.

[QUOTE=Pepin;31247704] To some extent it is in that synthetic cannabinoids have been made, but to another there are many issues with them. Marinol is a good example of a cannabinoid made for medicinal use that should work well, but has flopped in comparison to marijuana. The issue with most synthetic cannabinoids is that they act as a full agonist which leads to different health dangers as opposed to the cannabinoids in marijuana which are just partial agonist.[/QUOTE] I know, I'm not denying that they aren't as effective as straight cannabis, I'm just saying that if we can synthesize its constituents, then we must understand the chemistry of the plant/active compounds fairly well to be able to produce them. Ah, I see what you mean now, sorry. So they only affect the same receptors, they're not actually present in Cannabis?

[QUOTE=Icedshot;31251174]No, thats not it at all. As i posted in the other thread, there have been quite a few studies done on cannabis, which range from "its harmful", to "eh, not really sure", to "it might have some benefit, but not if you smoke it". There is much [I]conflicted[/I] evidence, both for and against [/QUOTE]Oh hey, just like tobacco.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31263492]Oh hey, just like tobacco.[/QUOTE] uh no

[QUOTE=kebab52;31263022]Ah, I see what you mean now, sorry. So they only affect the same receptors, they're not actually present in Cannabis?[/QUOTE] Right. I believe Marinol is the only exception to this be cause that is the same kind of THC in marijuana. What a lot of people don't realize about marijuana is that it has a ton of different cannabinoids which all have different effects. This is why Marinol is nearly as effective as marijuana. There are other synthetic cannabinoids, but like you said, they are just made to affect the same receptor.

[QUOTE=Sanius;31263972]uh no[/QUOTE]Are you sure there were no studies that couldn't link health risk to tobacco few years back?

[QUOTE=Sanius;31243917]again, the idea of medical marijuana is ridiculous and there are legitimate reasons for it not to be classified as a medicinal drug[/QUOTE] Which are? Morphine is a medical drug. It's got a higher potential for abuse. You can overdose. It's highly addictive. But it has a legitimate medical use. Marijuana has quite a few legitimate medical uses. It's got a much lower potential for abuse than legal opiates and benzos. You can't overdose. And it has no physical addiction like opiates and benzos do. So please, enlighten me on how it has legitimate reasons not to be classified as a medicinal drug?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31263492]Oh hey, just like tobacco.[/QUOTE] Erm. The evidence for tobacco is pretty much "Smoking means that you are much, much more likely to get lung cancer" The evidence for [b]smoking[/b] cannabis suggests its more harmful than a cigarette, for your lungs. THC however, has evidence for being helpful against cancer. However, there is no definitive evidence which goes either way to say "smoking cannabis massively increases lung whatever rates" or "THC cures cancer"

[QUOTE=Icedshot;31271658]Erm. The evidence for tobacco is pretty much "Smoking means that you are much, much more likely to get lung cancer"[/QUOTE] Not when all the studies were funded or shut down by tobacco companies few years back.

[QUOTE=Icedshot;31271658]The evidence for [b]smoking[/b] cannabis suggests its more harmful than a cigarette, for your lungs.[/QUOTE] Hehe, I love this one. So go on and explain, in your own words, how cannabis smoke is more harmful to the lungs than cigarette smoke? Then give me the source. The problem with this statement is that every source says differently. One says 1 joint = 20 cigarettes in carboxyhemoglobin damage to the lungs. Another says 1 joint = 5 cigarettes. I'm fairly sure the generally accepted one is 1 joint = 5 cigarettes. Unfortunately, that study also came up to show that tobacco is more harmful in all other ways tested, and cannabis was only 5x worse for your lungs in "airflow obstruction" only. All this means is that the smoke causes an inflammation in the airway. Furthermore, that study clearly states "2.5 to 5," but of course reporters want the worst possible story so they drop the 2.5 and leave it at 5. That same study went on to say that cannabis is almost never associated with emphysema, unlike tobacco. In fact, that study turned up zero cases of cannabis-induced emphysema. So really the only problem: no filter on a joint. That is it. It is certainly no more dangerous than an unfiltered cigarette. Then there's the issue of lung cancer. I haven't seen a single case of marijuana-induced lung cancer. There have been studies attempting to prove that marijuana actually helps prevent lung cancer, but even if you want to ignore that, the fact remains that marijuana does not individually cause lung cancer. So when you say smoking cannabis is more harmful than a cigarette, you're being incredibly misleading (or misled). It doesn't have a higher chance of causing the biggest problems associated with smoking, those being emphysema and lung cancer. To reiterate: smoking an unfiltered joint only causes more airway inflammation than a filtered cigarette does.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31271717]Not when all the studies were funded or shut down by tobacco companies few years back.[/QUOTE] :I

Bullshit that it has no medical benefits. Its one of the only things that can stop my dads back pain. Even Vikaden or other pain killers wont do the trick. Here is my point. Pot does more harm then good. As do smokes and beer. They are legal and you are free to abuse them all you want. I don't want it to be legal for medical reasons. I want it to be legal for recreation. Don't like it don't smoke it.

[QUOTE=TH89;31272325]:I[/QUOTE]I don't know what you mean mr. alpha and omega but if you don't understand what I'm saying [I]again[/I], I'm saying that the lobbyists are steering those "studies" to their benefit like they did before.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;31272009]Hehe, I love this one. So go on and explain, in your own words, how cannabis smoke is more harmful to the lungs than cigarette smoke? Then give me the source. The problem with this statement is that every source says differently. One says 1 joint = 20 cigarettes in carboxyhemoglobin damage to the lungs. Another says 1 joint = 5 cigarettes. I'm fairly sure the generally accepted one is 1 joint = 5 cigarettes. Unfortunately, that study also came up to show that tobacco is more harmful in all other ways tested, and cannabis was only 5x worse for your lungs in "airflow obstruction" only. All this means is that the smoke causes an inflammation in the airway. Furthermore, that study clearly states "2.5 to 5," but of course reporters want the worst possible story so they drop the 2.5 and leave it at 5. That same study went on to say that cannabis is almost never associated with emphysema, unlike tobacco. In fact, that study turned up zero cases of cannabis-induced emphysema. So really the only problem: no filter on a joint. That is it. It is certainly no more dangerous than an unfiltered cigarette. Then there's the issue of lung cancer. I haven't seen a single case of marijuana-induced lung cancer. There have been studies attempting to prove that marijuana actually helps prevent lung cancer, but even if you want to ignore that, the fact remains that marijuana does not individually cause lung cancer. So when you say smoking cannabis is more harmful than a cigarette, you're being incredibly misleading (or misled). It doesn't have a higher chance of causing the biggest problems associated with smoking, those being emphysema and lung cancer. To reiterate: smoking an unfiltered joint only causes more airway inflammation than a filtered cigarette does.[/QUOTE] Hi [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224[/url] "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." But at the same time "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." I like however, the way that you ignored the second half of my post where i said this: However, there is no definitive evidence which goes either way to say "smoking cannabis massively increases lung whatever rates" Maybe i should have said that smoking cannabis could potentially be more harmful than smoking tobacco, but you still took my post out of context. I explicitly said that the evidence is unclear. You are wrong in the fact that smoking cannabis has been [i]proven[/i] to not cause lung problems/cancer though. Read the very end of the link i posted

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;31272009] To reiterate: smoking an unfiltered joint only causes more airway inflammation than a filtered cigarette does.[/QUOTE] It also wreaks havoc on your lungs. Smoke is terrible for your lungs, that is pretty much common knowledge. But what makes marijuana worse (in this one aspect) than, say, tobacco is that weed is usually inhaled and then held inside the lungs for longer periods of time, whereas cigarette smokers usually only hold it in for a few seconds. This doesn't just apply to marijuana, though. Anything that involves burning something and breathing in the smoke is terrible for your lungs, and these effects are very long term. Also, just to make it clear, I don't smoke but I would have no problem with weed being legalized for recreational use. I'm really kind of neutral to it.

marijuana is much less harmful when not smoked

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;31271021]Which are? Morphine is a medical drug. It's got a higher potential for abuse. You can overdose. It's highly addictive. But it has a legitimate medical use. Marijuana has quite a few legitimate medical uses. It's got a much lower potential for abuse than legal opiates and benzos. You can't overdose. And it has no physical addiction like opiates and benzos do. So please, enlighten me on how it has legitimate reasons not to be classified as a medicinal drug?[/QUOTE] Morphine is a much more effective analgesic than Marijuana, the effects justify the danger.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;31271021]Which are? Morphine is a medical drug. It's got a higher potential for abuse. You can overdose. It's highly addictive. But it has a legitimate medical use. Marijuana has quite a few legitimate medical uses. It's got a much lower potential for abuse than legal opiates and benzos. You can't overdose. And it has no physical addiction like opiates and benzos do. So please, enlighten me on how it has legitimate reasons not to be classified as a medicinal drug?[/QUOTE] I thought id just point out, that the evidence for cannabis having medical uses is unclear, and most of the research done is on THC anyway. Plus, smoking the stuff definitely isnt good for you anyway So, the medical evidence behind cannabis being good for you medically isnt rock solid, at all even slightly. Which is definitely a good enough reason in my book for not using it as medicine

[QUOTE=ThatDarnGrei;31279412]It also wreaks havoc on your lungs. Smoke is terrible for your lungs, that is pretty much common knowledge. But what makes marijuana worse (in this one aspect) than, say, tobacco is that weed is usually inhaled and then held inside the lungs for longer periods of time, whereas cigarette smokers usually only hold it in for a few seconds. This doesn't just apply to marijuana, though. Anything that involves burning something and breathing in the smoke is terrible for your lungs, and these effects are very long term. Also, just to make it clear, I don't smoke but I would have no problem with weed being legalized for recreational use. I'm really kind of neutral to it.[/QUOTE] The thing about holding it in, THC is absorbed within a few seconds. People just need to learn to not hold it in longer than 4-5 seconds. Else you're just holding in the toxins.

[QUOTE=Tinter;31287310]The thing about holding it in, THC is absorbed within a few seconds. People just need to learn to not hold it in longer than 4-5 seconds. Else you're just holding in the toxins.[/QUOTE] Particulates are deposited on your lungs whether you like it or not

[QUOTE=Icedshot;31287206]I thought id just point out, that the evidence for cannabis having medical uses is unclear, and most of the research done is on THC anyway. Plus, smoking the stuff definitely isnt good for you anyway So, the medical evidence behind cannabis being good for you medically isnt rock solid, at all even slightly. Which is definitely a good enough reason in my book for not using it as medicine[/QUOTE] We should be working towards effective pharmaceuticals derived from cannabis, not simply using cannabis as a medicine.

[QUOTE=kebab52;31287630]We should be working towards effective pharmaceuticals derived from cannabis, not simply using cannabis as a medicine.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Using cannabis as a medicine, especially smoking it, is a terrible way of going about it. THC is the chemical that is showing lots of promise, cannabis is not

[QUOTE=Icedshot;31287675]Exactly. Using cannabis as a medicine, especially smoking it, is a terrible way of going about it. THC is the chemical that is showing lots of promise, cannabis is not[/QUOTE] True, I absolutely think it should be totally legalised, but I think there are MUCH better ways of administering THC. It's like prescribing morphine and giving them a big block of opium to smoke.

The government just needs to fucking get over itself and accept it is wrong.

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;31289328]The government just needs to fucking get over itself and accept it is wrong.[/QUOTE] A lot of them sincerely believe they're right though, and we know what governments are like with admitting mistakes.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;31243780]We tried banning alcohol in the late 19th century and it was an absolute disaster. Coupled with the usual rise in drug-related crime that results from banning something, it was in high demand by the upper class, including government officials, and the people who provided it to them were usually mobsters. Nobody knew Tobacco was bad for you until after the prohibition of alcohol was repealed, and at that point cigarettes were still a high class drug, much like many alcoholic drinks Tobacco probably would've been banned at some point if it weren't for the fact that nobody know how bad smoking was for you until long after prohibition had ended, and because it was still a "high class drug" like certain alcoholic drinks at the time when this happened, people probably didn't want it banned. You know how smokers make a huge uproar when even the tiniest bit of legislation is passed to fight smoking? Imagine how they'd react to a flat out ban.[/QUOTE] Wait a minute, what's the difference? This banning of marijuana is fueling its own criminal system too. As said earlier, criminal bodies in Mexico are making billions of dollars just from this marijuana business, and that's dangerous.

I don't smoke Marijuana and I think it's disgusting, but it's not as bad as alcohol or cigarettes.

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;31289328]The government just needs to fucking get over itself and accept it is wrong.[/QUOTE] For the introduction of cannabis to be used [i]medically[/i], they are right. The evidence is uncertain. It might be awful for you, it might make you live for another 200 years. The point is, you cant introduce something like this as medicine until you are sure that it will help people. This isnt about the legalisation of cannabis, this is the use of cannabis as a medicine

Well gee, no shit its chemistry isn't well known, you pretty much banned research on it. [editline]23rd July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;31272009]Hehe, I love this one. So go on and explain, in your own words, how cannabis smoke is more harmful to the lungs than cigarette smoke? Then give me the source. The problem with this statement is that every source says differently. One says 1 joint = 20 cigarettes in carboxyhemoglobin damage to the lungs. Another says 1 joint = 5 cigarettes. I'm fairly sure the generally accepted one is 1 joint = 5 cigarettes. Unfortunately, that study also came up to show that tobacco is more harmful in all other ways tested, and cannabis was only 5x worse for your lungs in "airflow obstruction" only. All this means is that the smoke causes an inflammation in the airway. Furthermore, that study clearly states "2.5 to 5," but of course reporters want the worst possible story so they drop the 2.5 and leave it at 5. That same study went on to say that cannabis is almost never associated with emphysema, unlike tobacco. In fact, that study turned up zero cases of cannabis-induced emphysema. So really the only problem: no filter on a joint. That is it. It is certainly no more dangerous than an unfiltered cigarette. Then there's the issue of lung cancer. I haven't seen a single case of marijuana-induced lung cancer. There have been studies attempting to prove that marijuana actually helps prevent lung cancer, but even if you want to ignore that, the fact remains that marijuana does not individually cause lung cancer. So when you say smoking cannabis is more harmful than a cigarette, you're being incredibly misleading (or misled). It doesn't have a higher chance of causing the biggest problems associated with smoking, those being emphysema and lung cancer. To reiterate: smoking an unfiltered joint only causes more airway inflammation than a filtered cigarette does.[/QUOTE] Fuck joints, use a vaporizer.