Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano
- 06-12-2006, 12:47 PM
- 06-12-2006, 12:49 PM
Anybody changed anyone else's opinion in this matter yet? No? Ok, off I go to re-unsubscribe and think happy thoughts!
Besides, I don't want BigV hunting me down!Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
06-12-2006, 01:01 PM
I can't remember if it was the seattle PI or seattle times, but i did search a bit but said i needed sign up. Anyways i may make account just to find the artical.(depends how much sleep i get before work)
06-12-2006, 01:03 PM
Changed? Nah, most of these regardless never change a opinion usually ingrained after years of [insert reason]. However, you hope to inform the opposing side that the viewpoint isn't based off ignorance or hatred etc.
I don't believe pot to be bad in and of itself. I don't believe users are all bad people. Everyone has their reasons for use or their reasons not to use. Just like I don't believe every illegal immigrant from the southern border should be locked up for life among other things because some are here to escape poverty and feed their families. However, you still need laws and rules to keep some sort of order.
I believe that with the way our society is that due caution is deserved when thinking about introducing a substance like this. Not just immediate short term or believed to be long term results by those who want it legalized nor the Short term or believed to be long term results by those who want it kept illegal.
There's propaganda and lies on both sides of the arguement regardless of your stance. The hard part is sifting through both sides to find the truths and weigh those as well as possible and slowly, through intelligent debate, science and finally though laws make the changes that the people want.
09-17-2006, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Jay your oppinion and mine are usually pretty close but answer me this one question...
Why cant i put what I want in my body?
I'm going to go one step farther and say that you are in opposition of freedom if you think cocane should be illegal. Again, I should be able to put what I want in my body. Just beacuse some people do stupid things while under the influence doenst mean I should be able to put what I want in my body.
09-17-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Nope. Doesnt work that way. I choose to live my life the way I want to, maybe smoke crack, I go to jail.
09-17-2006, 06:38 PM
[QUOTE=Jayhawkk4. Was this 400 grams of pot in a brick form or stored in individual baggies making them believe intent was to sell?
I'm not saying your friend is a bad person. I also know that there are many upstanding people who are later found to have violated laws and they are usually weighed in when deciding punishment. Was this guy given a leniant sentence?[/QUOTE]
"intent to sell" laws are a crock of ****. If I walk around town with a knife in my pocket, do i get charged with attempted murder? Anyone who is charged with "intent" of anything is guilty untill proven innocent
09-17-2006, 07:25 PM
So you don't think there should be a recognized difference between a guy in a school zone with one crack rock vs. pockets full of them?"intent to sell" laws are a crock of ****. If I walk around town with a knife in my pocket, do i get charged with attempted murder? Anyone who is charged with "intent" of anything is guilty untill proven innocent
Also you're comparing apples and oranges.
09-17-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
I'm saying (if i thought crack should be illegal, which i dont) slam him for SELLING, not because he might sell. How could you prove he was going to sell anything?
09-17-2006, 08:45 PM
That's where they lawmakers came in. Motive bro, it's throughout all your laws. The intent behind the crime changes the punishment. If you're going to get angry at that then you need to be equally angry with non drug related crimes that have it.
09-18-2006, 03:33 AM
Just want to add some personal input on the addictiveness of marijuana. I don't smoke, never have, but my best friend is a hardcore pothead and is addicted to the stuff in many of the same horrible ways an alcoholic becomes addicted to booze. As a person he has always had a natural lazyness about him, but smoking amplifies it drastically for him, to the point where he is lethargic and unproductive, unable to sustain an academic career at school or a normal 9-5 job. Although he graduated the same year from HS as me he has only 10 units of college credit total, has failed out of numerous community college classes, lossed many jobs, all because he can't get his **** together when he is smoking heavily. I am in no way trying to say the weed *made* he make these poor decisions, but he is so dependent on it he puts it above all his other priorities, and just litterally "shuts off" when he is without it. It is like he cannot deal with the normal pressures of life without getting high. Like alcohol or many other drugs it is an escape for him. He has gotten a lot worse lately, he can't go out anywhere without smoking first, and when he is down to his last dollar he chooses pot over food (wtf!?). From what I have described here you must be picturing someone living in a card board shack, but at first glance he would probably seem pretty normal. If you were to tell me he has other issues besides the weed, I wouldn't disagree, but lemme tell you for some people this stuff is as addictive as anything could be.
Also, I gotta agree with Jawhawk in that our particular society could not handle legalized pot. Maybe you guys could, or some of your friends or family, but in general there are just too many idiots out there. It's not that weed is inherently evil, or that it has devestating effects in isolated incidents, but rather on a national scale it is likely to cause a surge in various negative behavoirs.
09-18-2006, 04:06 AM
I have a couple of good articals for people to read in regards to the FDA's latest politcally motivated letter. (Prime example how it warned us of how dangerous plan B was, even though it has been proven to be safe)
For Immediate Release
April 27, 2006
Hinchey Leads Bipartisan House Coalition In Calling For FDA
To Explain Baseless Anti-Medical Marijuana Policy
Twenty-Four Members Say Agency Needs To Start Responding
To Science & Not To Political Pressure
Washington, D.C. - One week after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a baseless, one page press release claiming that marijuana had no medical benefits, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) led a bipartisan group of 24 House members in calling on the agency to explain its reasoning and show scientific proof to support its view. Hinchey, who has offered an amendment in the House three times that would bar the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients, doctors, and suppliers in states where medical marijuana is legal, and his colleagues said the FDA's action appears to be politically motivated and defies the results of a White House-commissioned Institute of Medicine (IOM) study from 1999 that detailed the benefits of medical marijuana use.
"Despite the fact that you are responding to a scientific question, your press release failed to provide any scientific expertise. We call on you to show us the purported scientific evidence for the basis of this response. There is no evidence that you have new scientific proof or that you oversaw clinical trials," Hinchey and his colleagues wrote in a letter sent today to FDA Acting Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach. "It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date."
On April 20, the FDA issued a one-page press release without any documentation to back up its claim that, "...No sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." This statement fails to take into account the IOM report from 1999, which found that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.
"We saw it with the agency's decision on the emergency contraceptive, Plan B, and we're seeing it again with medical marijuana: the FDA is making decisions based on politics instead of science," Hinchey said. "The FDA should not be a political entity. Rather, the agency should be in the business of ensuring all Americans have access to safe and effective drugs, including medical marijuana."
Hinchey and his colleagues noted in their letter to von Eschenbach that the FDA has an Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed some Americans with certain medical conditions to apply to the agency to receive marijuana from the federal government. Seven people are currently still in the program and routinely receive marijuana from the federal government. The House members suggest that the IND is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of marijuana without having to go through the series of steps many other drugs go through before getting approved.
Hinchey intends to offer his medical marijuana amendment for a fourth time when the House takes up the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2007. The measure would prohibit the U.S. Department of Justice from spending any funds in its budget to prosecute patients, doctors, and others who are associated with the use of medical marijuana in states that allow the drug from medical purposes.
The text of the letter from Hinchey and his House colleagues to FDA Acting Commissioner von Eschenbach follows:
April 27, 2005
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857
Dear Dr. von Eschenbach:
We are troubled by the FDA's April 20th press release in which the agency states that
"[N]o sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." The timing and the lack of substantial information included in this release lead us to conclude that this was a politically motivated statement rather than one based on scientific evidence and fact.
Despite the fact that you are responding to a scientific question, your press release failed to provide any scientific expertise. We call on you to show us the purported scientific evidence for the basis of this response. There is no evidence that you have new scientific proof or that you oversaw clinical trials. In conjunction with the lack of scientific evidence, it is troubling that your release seemed to defer to the DEA's medical opinions on the drug despite the fact that determining the medical importance of a drug is not in the DEA's jurisdiction.
After deferring to the DEA, your release reads that, "FDA is the sole federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications." Why then has the FDA failed to respond to the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report which concluded that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials? It perplexes us that even though the FDA is responsible for protecting public health, the agency has failed to respond adequately to the IOM's findings seven years after the study's publication date. Additionally, this release failed to make note of the FDA's Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program, which allowed patients with certain medical conditions to apply with the FDA to receive federal marijuana. Currently, seven people still enlisted in this program continue to receive marijuana through the federal government. The existence of this program is an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of a drug, such as medical marijuana, without going through the "well-controlled" series of steps that other drugs have to go through if there is a compassionate need.
In light of our concerns over this release, please inform us if there is new scientific information that disputes the IOM study, including the results of the evaluation, any scientific paperwork generated in the study, the length of time the evaluation occurred, and whether the DEA or any other federal agencies aside from the ones mentioned in the letter had a role in the evaluation. If, as the press release leads us to believe, there is in fact no evaluation, please let us know what motivated the FDA to write a release that lacks scientific review. It disheartens us to see the FDA veer off course in this area of public health especially at the expense of many terminally ill Americans. We understand that FDA's mission is to protect public health, which is why we respectfully request that you respond to these questions on this very important issue.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (NY22) :: Press Release :: Hinchey Leads Bipartisan House Coalition In Calling For FDA To Explain Baseless Anti-Medical Marijuana Policy
09-18-2006, 04:08 AM
All SmokeThe FDA's statement on medical marijuana isn't about science.
By Sydney Spiesel
Posted Monday, April 24, 2006, at 3:36 PM ET
Download the MP3 audio version of this story here, or sign up for Slate's free daily podcast on iTunes.
Medicinal marijuana. Click image to expand.Medicinal marijuana
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration reported that it had definitively established that marijuana has no medical use or value. Definitively? Established? I don't think so.
The FDA's announcement begins by acknowledging the claim that smoked marijuana may be beneficial for some conditions. Then the agency points out that among drugs with a potential for abuse, marijuana is lumped in with the most dangerous drugs, the ones that have no potential medical benefits and the highest likelihood of misuse. The FDA next affirms that a collection of federal agencies have together concluded that marijuana is both dangerous and medically valueless, based on scientific studies in humans and animals. The announcement—actually, it's an "inter-agency advisory"—concludes by asserting, with a boldness that might belie a certain uneasiness, that it is the FDA's job to approve drugs. Take that, state legislatures and voters.
The FDA's statement implies that the agency reached its conclusion about marijuana after conducting a new serious analysis of the existing scientific literature on the drug. But of course no such analysis was reported in the medical literature and, in fact, no identifiable official at the FDA took responsibility for last week's advisory. It was just put out there as a statement of fact.
But it's not. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine, the medical arm of the National Academy of Sciences (an organization chartered by Congress to provide independent, nonpartisan scientific and technological advice) examined this same question in considerable depth and published a 288-page report of its findings. Put together by 11 distinguished scientists and physicians, the IOM report examined the known and potential harms of marijuana use and the known and potential medical benefits. The report is broad in its vision and thoughtful and cautious in its interpretations and recommendations. Its authors acknowledged that the medical uses of marijuana entail some risk of harm—for instance, it's pretty clear that inhaling marijuana smoke can't be good for the lungs, and who knows if there are significant psychological side effects for some users. But the authors concluded that these risks were not terribly high. They also found that other putative risks often attached to this drug—the potential for addiction, for instance, or for marijuana serving as a "gateway" to further drug abuse—were much overstated. The report urged further study to determine the real level of risk.
In examining the potential medical benefits of medical marijuana, the IOM report was equally cautious. It described relief from nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy, appetite stimulation for cancer and HIV patients, and treatment of muscle spasticity for patients with multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury. Though these benefits seem real, the authors of the IOM report point out that we really don't know yet if they are significant or valuable enough to warrant the use of medical marijuana. Again, the report urged further study to determine the real level of benefit.
However, in the seven years since the IOM report was issued, virtually no research on potential risks and benefits has been done, because the government has blocked such studies. So, we know neither more nor less about medical marijuana than we did seven years ago, whatever the FDA says. Why would the agency inaccurately claim that the science is settled when it isn't? I hardly need to say it: This isn't a medical or scientific conclusion. It's a political one.
This is certainly not the first time that politics has trumped science at the FDA. Another recent example: the agency's decision to block over-the-counter availability for emergency contraceptives in the face of overwhelming evidence that the treatment is safe and effective, and support for over-the-counter availability by the FDA's own advisory committee. From my standpoint as a doctor, the question is this: What do you do when federal agencies become so politicized that their recommendations can't necessarily be trusted? Do you have to treat other things they say as suspect? I depend on good advice and honest information from government agencies in the daily conduct of my work. I need to know what epidemic illnesses are circulating in my neighborhood even if that information might put a government agency in a bad light. I need to be able to trust government-sponsored research (especially because, goodness knows, I have learned not to trust manufacturer-sponsored research). I need to know that the advice I glean from government-sponsored agency Web sites will lead to the best care for my patients.
Marijuana as a medicine—whatever its risk and benefits are eventually determined to be—may turn out to be much less important than the question of whether we can count on agencies like the FDA to be honest in their dealings.
The FDA's statement on medical marijuana. By Sydney Spiesel - Slate Magazine
09-18-2006, 11:02 AM
No, there shouldn't. One, because you don't know what any one person's intent is until you prove it with facts. Assuming it is just wrong. Two, the government's idea of levels that indicate intent to sell are often ridiculous. I've known people who grew their own weed who had more than enough in their houses at any given time to go to prison for life. They didn't sell however. Pretty soon having enough Dianabol for one cycle will count as intent to sell because of how they deal with dosage units legally. The laws impose an artificial structure that is more often than not divorced from reality on true intent.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
09-18-2006, 11:13 AM
Nothing new here, actually, Doc. Scientists have been politely telling congress, the FDA and the DEA that marijuana really isn't all that bad in the end and probably shouldn't be illegal much less the focus of a drug war. Congress, the FDA and the DEA have been politely ignoring them for decades.Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot
09-18-2006, 01:08 PM
The problem CDB is that people seem to only care about the parts of the law like this when dealing with areas that affect them directly. In this case certain drugs. I won't argue that laws may be screwed but they are there.
A lot of law is based around certain facts to seemlingly prove others. i.e., they had prior selling charges, they were 35 miles from their house and had enough product on them at that time to supply personal use for 7-10 weeks.No, there shouldn't. One, because you don't know what any one person's intent is until you prove it with facts. Assuming it is just wrong
Could he have just just been walking through the school zone from a friends where he picked it up to suply himself because going on buys every other day was too much of a risk? Very well could be. I didin't write the laws and I know you didn't either but they are there.
When dealing with law it sounds easy enough to just pull out a part we don't like and think it'll be fine but the puzzle that the law is makes pulling one piece usually mess other areas up that we don't see right away,
09-18-2006, 01:09 PM
Oh and a Charge /= a conviction.
Saying no charges can be made without every provable fact out there would just take out the courts and put the cops as enforcement and judge. Certain criteria are met before a charge can be made but that doesn't mean they are enough to convict. What you are asking would be hell when applied to all law and not just the ones you feel passionate about.
09-18-2006, 04:51 PM
It ain't supposed to be easy, Jay. If it is that's called a police state. I would argue that if the law were restricted to those areas classically considered criminal, that is not victimless crimes and the like, that the extra burden you speak of would not be an issue. It is precisely the massive over reaching of law makers in an attempt to legislate every single aspect of our existence that makes the measures you mention necessary. I understand your point on needing more to convict, my answer would be it's a bit weird to argue over the specifics of the application of a law that I really don't think should even be on the books to begin with.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
09-18-2006, 05:05 PM
I can understand that. There's a lot of laws that I don't believe should be there to begin with or how genericly written they can be used by those wishing to bend the law to put you in a bad istuation.
I also know people who were wrongfully pulled over but ended up being charged for much worse. Like revoked license and suspended tags etc. They are too scared to do anything and usually too broke to get a good lawyer. But that's a whole other story.
09-18-2006, 09:40 PM
I dont mean to be offencive, but I want you anti-pot dudes to answer me this question before you post anything else on this topic.
How does myself smoking weed IN MY HOME, not opperating a vehicle for the rest of the day, affect ANYONE else on the planet other than myself.
You give me a legit answer to this and I will NEVER say it should be legal again.
09-18-2006, 09:42 PM
If I attempt to sell weed, then charge me with selling. Kind of like a man who actually stabs you will get attempted murder as opposed to the guy with the knife in his pocket that never pulls it out.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
09-18-2006, 09:46 PM
09-18-2006, 09:49 PM
Law makers have decided that the people who do this are in the minority. Change the laws is all I cansay or move to a place that better serves your interests. Most of the laws and people i've voted for have never seen the light of day. I don't agree with a lot of the laws out there but they are there.How does myself smoking weed IN MY HOME, not opperating a vehicle for the rest of the day, affect ANYONE else on the planet other than myself.
When you find utopia please send me a email cause i'll pack my bags and join you.
09-18-2006, 09:50 PM
Again, there's criteria that have to be met before a proper arrest can be made and that still will not always mean a conviction. I don't know what else to tell you.If I attempt to sell weed, then charge me with selling. Kind of like a man who actually stabs you will get attempted murder as opposed to the guy with the knife in his pocket that never pulls it out.
09-19-2006, 09:48 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By BatCountry in forum Weight LossReplies: 43Last Post: 05-13-2012, 08:54 PM
- By superdrollover in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 60Last Post: 07-29-2007, 12:35 PM
- By powerlifter in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 10-20-2004, 07:30 PM
- By supersoldier in forum General ChatReplies: 7Last Post: 09-06-2004, 12:36 AM
- By Bean in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 10-22-2003, 03:36 PM