Some Skeptical Views On “Medical Marijuana”

Weekend Libertarian ^ | May 10, 2011 | B.P. Terpstra

[AustralianConservative]

New Zealand

Are addictive medicines cures or problems?

“Legalising cannabis for medicinal purposes would be the thin end of the wedge towards increasing drug use in New Zealand, according to a former detective who now manages a drug education company.”

APN News and Media also reports: “Dale Kirk, managing director of MethCon, said taking a softer line on drug offenders would do more harm than good.”

“I think we'd see people suddenly developing medical problems to source the drug,” asserts Kirk.

The former detective is also concerned about impressionable children and vulnerable teenagers, but especially the many ways in which confusing messages threaten stability. “I think any moves to liberalise cannabis laws are not necessarily beneficial to the overall community, particularly young people,” stresses Kirk. “I think anything that makes it easier for young people to get their hands on drugs is not helpful.”

United States

But what critical-thinking New Zealanders fear is already a reality for duped Americans, thanks to drug-first libertarians.

“It's not cancer or Alzheimer's or glaucoma that had droves of Michiganders going to doctors over the past two years to get certified to use medical marijuana,” reports the Detroit Press. “The vast majority of about 64,000 people authorized to use marijuana as medicine have unspecified ailments that cause severe and chronic pain, muscle spasms and nausea, state data obtained by the Free Press show.”

As Americans were warned, the “medical marijuana” movement is a Trojan horse, and it appears as though an elite group of liberal doctors are benefiting. From the compelling data we can see that “just 55 doctors certified about 45,000 patients -- 71% of all the authorized medical pot users.” And: “In all, 2,197 doctors wrote at least one certification for a patient asking for marijuana approval.”

[Semper911]

Pure THC is prescribed under the brand name Marinol and truly helps people every year.

The only people who claim that Marinol helps people are the people who sell it.

I went through a hellish 5 months of chemo/radiation treatment a year and a half ago, and I finally gave in to trying smoking a little weed. It relieved my nausea within seconds. I mean nearly instantly. So I asked the doc for a Marinol rx, and all it did was make me high for 12 hours, with no nausea relief whatsoever. It is synthetic, suspended in oil and contained in a gel-like ball. It is useless as a nausea drug. (I should add that none of the other drugs they gave me had any effect on the nausea either.)

There is something in the smoke that is not in the Marinol. And that something is the key. I still have lasting intestinal effects from the treatments, and I still keep some weed around for when it gets bad. I wouldn't be without it, even though I only use it once in a while.

It is too bad the stoners have ruined it for the people who could really benefit from it. Yes it has side effects (it makes you high), but so do narcotics, and they give them out like candy if you have pain.

If anyone reading this ever finds themselves undergoing cancer treatment, get your hands on some weed and a pipe (or better yet, a vaporizer.) It saved my life because it allowed me to drink fluids and eat a little. It is just sad I had to buy it from the creepy guy down on the corner, and worry about getting arrested.

[varyouga]

Thanks for your testimony, FRiend

Everyone has a different response to cannabinoids and Marinol does help some people. Many claim to feel no high from it but everyone agrees that natural cannabinoids are a superior medication. Especially since it can be inhaled through a smoke-free vaporizer and the dose instantly controlled by the user.

I also don't consider the “high” to be a side-effect for seriously ill people. Anything that lifts their mood and allows them to laugh easier is as good or better than any drug therapy.

[Semper911]

Anything that lifts their mood and allows them to laugh easier is as good or better than any drug therapy.

Believe me, laughing and lifting my mood was the last thing on my mind during treatment. I was just trying to keep fluids down and stay alive. I can't even describe how awful it was. I am so thankful I had the weed during that time, and I cringe at these threads where FReepers are bitching about medical marijuana being just about potheads whining about insignificant aches and pains.

My state allows medical marijuana, but they don't have any legal places for people to buy it yet. So the desperate cancer people have to buy it on the street. It is so wrong.

[Ken H]

You seem to have skipped past my question in post #11. I asked you the same thing on several other threads in the past and you failed to respond. You claim to have studied the US Constitution, so I ask again:

According to your understanding of the US Constitution, do you think states have legitimate authority under the Tenth Amendment to enact medical marijuana policies, or do you think fedgov has legitimate authority under the Wickard Commerce Clause to shut them down?

[dawn53]

Are you saying they’re lying about the results? Then find someone who’s has MS or read Semper911’s replies on this thread about how it helped him during cancer treatment.

I have MS, never tried marijuana because it’s illegal in my state. But have talked to those who have tried it and they say it is effective for spasticity, more effective as any med that’s prescribed.

Instead I had to have a surgically implanted device to administer med to my spine in order to control my spasticity.

You can’t deny people’s testimonies of the help they’re received from marijuana for their medical problems...they’re not lobbyists, they’re real people.

[wolfcreek]

‘cept, IMO, there is only one wrong here.

[AustralianConservative]

You can’t deny that medical science has contradicted your arguments. We can’t make laws around your social experiencers and comments from friends. MS patients are not rat labs.

[Ken H]

You avoided my question on the US Constitution twice on this thread and on other threads as well.

You claimed to have studied the Constitution, so why are you ducking and running, eh? In case you've forgotten, here it is again:

According to your understanding of the US Constitution, do you think states have legitimate authority under the Tenth Amendment to enact medical marijuana policies, or do you think fedgov has legitimate authority under the Wickard Commerce Clause to shut them down?