Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medical marijuana: The real stakes
TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-442 next last
To: robertpaulsen

"These groups do NOT want to see medical marijuana in the form of a pill, patch, injection, mist, or suppository"

Why must a God given healing herb be altered in some commercial venture before it is consumed? Answer: to make it commerce and thereby controllable.


151 posted on 12/18/2004 8:21:54 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Theo
"Those who are against MJ for medical purposes don't understand how powerful physician-prescribed medicines are...."

And those who favor smoked marijuana for medical purposes don't understand how dangerous that can be.

Were you on chemotherapy for your cancer? Did your oncologist explain that chemo compromises the immune ststem, and you were susceptible to infection? (While on chemo, my brother-in-law stubbed his toe, it became infected, and they had to amputate to stop the rapid progression.)

Did you know that marijuana may be contaminated with salmonella bacteria which gives diarrhea and with a fungus, aspergillus, which may cause severe bronchopneumonia? Bad enough for a healthy person -- lethal for those on chemo.

Do you still believe that people on chemo "would benefit greatly from MJ"?

152 posted on 12/18/2004 8:24:49 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
"You are more concerned with the founding fathers intent in growing a gift from God"

Trust me. I'm not the least bit concerned with the Founding Fathers growing anything. YOU brought it up.

If they were growing it for hemp, what's your point? If they were growing it to smoke it and get high, I'd like to see some proof.

Otherwise, go away.

153 posted on 12/18/2004 8:30:13 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"Legalizing just marijuana is equivalent to legalizing just wine during Prohibition."

Wine was still legal as a sacrament during prohibition.
Moreover, grapes were not illegal to grow.
But, I'd liken it to how grape juice remained legal.


154 posted on 12/18/2004 8:30:45 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But legislation which bans the commerce of a product between all states for "the positive purposes of the General Government" is, of course, allowed.

So in other words you diametrically disagree with Madison. That's fine, if that's your opinion, but I'd advise from now on not invoking the Founders in support of your opinion.

155 posted on 12/18/2004 8:32:48 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"If they were growing it for hemp, what's your point? If they were growing it to smoke it and get high, I'd like to see some proof."

Intent is irrelevant. It is an herb! Prove the enumerated power exists to eradicate an herb gifted by God!


156 posted on 12/18/2004 8:36:04 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
See my post #152.

Of course, if the person dies because they smoked your harmless plant, you can always say it was "God's Will". Right, my Bible-quoting friend?

You smoke, boil, or chew what you want. Me? I'm goin' with Merck & Co.

157 posted on 12/18/2004 8:37:36 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"marijuana may be contaminated ...Do you still believe that people on chemo "would benefit greatly from MJ"?"

Perhaps the ill would benefit from a clean regulated and legal growing environment.


158 posted on 12/18/2004 8:40:33 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Your chemist buddies have almost killed me three times now.
I will stick with my Lord and savior. You can stick with the beast
to which you surrender your sovereignty.


159 posted on 12/18/2004 8:42:48 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Get rid of the nanny state first, then I'm willing to discuss the legalization of drugs.

You must have won the dance contest as a kid.

It's amazing how far you will go to avoid admitting what you believe and who you are. You just can't bring yourself to answer honestly.

Get rid of the nanny state first

If ever there was a safe rock for a coward to hide behind, it's that one. Not to mention, it has nothing to do with what I asked.

I would be willing to outlaw all substances and submit to anything any government wanted to do to me, as soon as you start flapping your arms and fly to Mars under your own power. LOL

then I'm willing to discuss the legalization of drugs

Then you are willing to discuss it? LOL

More childish BS. And it still didn't address my question, which had to do with your opinion, not a law.

160 posted on 12/18/2004 9:07:25 AM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: inquest
tacticalogic keeps bringing out that 1829 letter from Madison to Cabell in an attempt to support his point that the commerce clause was meant only to encourage trade.

If you read the complete text, you'll find that this letter was a response from Madison to a question raised by Cabel.

Cabel was wondering if he could tax imports, not to raise money, but to encourage local manufacturing. In other words, if the commerce clause power to regulate commerce with foreign nations included the power to tax to favor local goods over imports. The exact question:

"It is a simple question under the Constitution of the U. S. whether "the power to regulate trade with foreign nations" as a distinct & substantive item in the enumerated powers, embraces the object of encouraging by duties restrictions and prohibitions the manufactures & products of the Country?"

Madison basically said, sure, everybody else does it, without exception.

I agree with Madison.

161 posted on 12/18/2004 9:09:07 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
"Perhaps the ill would benefit from a clean regulated and legal growing environment."

YOU would restrict "an herb gifted by God"?? You would regulate God's gift? A simple herb?

Sick children, God's children, could not benefit from God's gift?

Blasphemy! You heartless person, you.

162 posted on 12/18/2004 9:14:46 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You've just inducted yourself into the ranks of Michael Moore. You know perfectly well that the letter you linked to referred to commerce with foreign nations, whereas the letter tl cited at #88 referred to interstate commerce. Madison explicitly states in that second letter that he was distinguishing between the two, and that the comments that he made in his first letter (which he explicitly referenced in the second) should not be taken to apply to interstate commerce.

This isn't the first time this has been explained to you, so why are you being so dishonest about it?

163 posted on 12/18/2004 9:22:58 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
It has everything to do with law. You're asking me to make an exception to the law for "certain responsible people".

Then let's have different speed limits based on a person's ability to drive. Maybe taxing people for the actual services they get? Homes sized for the number of occupants? Number of children based on the ability to raise them?

I bet you'd like your little fascist dictatorship, making exceptions, helping "friends", micromanaging peoples lives.

Sorry. Our system doesn't work that way.

164 posted on 12/18/2004 9:34:15 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Okay, but you're being just as duplicitous in using the lack of studies to prove your point. When studies don't exist for whatever reason one has to at least listen to anecdotal evidence, and there's a lot more out there for MJ than there is for most of the other quack stuff available at the GNC.

Personally I don't smoke it though I claim the 5th on what I did 25 years ago. I do feel that having completely unenforceable laws such as banning pot only encourages further abuse of the laws and the system. Anyone can grow pot - it's just a weed, for pete's sake. If you couldn't ban alcohol, how do you expect to keep people from growing it?


165 posted on 12/18/2004 9:36:10 AM PST by Spyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

I guess what I'm *for* is research into medical use of marijuana and/or its consituent elements.

If the medically beneficial ingredients can be isolated, and appropriate dosages identified, that would be wonderful! Simply "smoking" enough off-the-street marijuana until you feel better is, as I believe you've said, pretty sloppy/archaic, and may be dangerous.

In the meantime, I'm still in favor of seeing states allowed to set their own policies regarding the medical use of such a (relatively) powerful drug.


166 posted on 12/18/2004 9:47:39 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Ease up. I pulled up the letter that tacticaligic used to use. I didn't realize that he's now serving up another.

As to this latest Feb. 13th offering -- I don't disagree with Madison. Something very similar was said in The Shreveport Rate Cases years later by Justice Hughes:

"It is of the essence of this (Commerce Clause - rp) power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"

In this letter, Madison is clarifying his earlier statements about foreign trade. Keep in mind, the Commerce Clause does not define differently regulate with foreign nations and regulate among the several states. Madison is saying that although regulate with foreign nations gives our federal government the power to tax their imports to favor our country, regulate among the several states does not give our federal government the power to tax one state to favor another.

He reminds Cabel that the original intent of the Commerce Clause was to prevent injustice among the States themselves, even though the power could also be used against imports for the general good. I agree.

How do you read this letter, and what do you offer as proof?

167 posted on 12/18/2004 10:29:49 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
"When studies don't exist for whatever reason ..."

I should have asked before. What kind of studies are you talking about? Are you talking about studies using smoked marijuana to relieve some condition?

Just how would that study be conducted? It wouldn't be all that scientific and it would probably be no better than anecdotal information.

C'mon. This isn't science.

168 posted on 12/18/2004 10:45:04 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Theo
"If the medically beneficial ingredients can be isolated, and appropriate dosages identified, that would be wonderful!"

I agree. And I would support such a product.

"I'm still in favor of seeing states allowed to set their own policies regarding the medical use of such a (relatively) powerful drug."

On that, I disagree. We do not do that for any other drug. Why start now, and why start with marijuana? That is a Pandora's Box that I do not want to open.

169 posted on 12/18/2004 10:49:53 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: inquest
why are you being so dishonest about it?

Because that's the only way to make a pro-WOD argument.

170 posted on 12/18/2004 10:54:13 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Legalizing just marijuana is equivalent to legalizing just wine during Prohibition.

Wrong. Wine, beer, and liquor are just different delivery systems for the same drug, whereas marijuana does not deliver the same drug as, say, heroin or meth.

171 posted on 12/18/2004 10:57:47 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Spyder

"it's just a weed, for pete's sake. If you couldn't ban alcohol, how do you expect to keep people from growing it?"

"Weed" is an ignorant dysphemism! as are "pot" and "dope."
Some seem to believe that an herb given by God to man and beast alike at the beginning of time and which has grown freely almost everywhere,
including here long before our nation was formed, is permissibly eradicable or controllable by the federal government through powers granted by the
interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Though, it is an impossible task to devise a logical explanation of how this could be true. In light of
the rest of the Constitution any such perceived mandate dissolves.



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness."

Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.



Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated what one may put into ones body. Therefore, that right is reserved for the states or the people. However,
since God has already specified in the Bible what one may consume, it is, in fact, the People’s God given right.


172 posted on 12/18/2004 10:58:02 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
Wrong.

Legalizing one part of the WOD will not have the same effect as legalizing all parts of Prohibition.

Oh, and I'd say, "Welcome Back" but that would be a lie.

173 posted on 12/18/2004 11:01:39 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Spyder; PaxMacian
Spyder, all this from a person who believes that God's children should suffer -- that they should not benefit from "an herb gifted by God".

Oh ... oh, the heartlessness. The inhumanity.

174 posted on 12/18/2004 11:05:57 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; PaxMacian
Perhaps the ill would benefit from a clean regulated and legal growing environment.

You would regulate God's gift?

Yes, for noncontamination, as is rightly done for many of God's gifts. Respecting God's gifts doesn't imply permitting their fraudulent sale (which is what the sale of contaminated goods is).

175 posted on 12/18/2004 11:06:21 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Wine, beer, and liquor are just different delivery systems for the same drug, whereas marijuana does not deliver the same drug as, say, heroin or meth.

Wrong.

So you claim that marijuana does deliver the same drug as heroin or meth?

Legalizing one part of the WOD will not have the same effect as legalizing all parts of Prohibition.

I never said it would. I pointed out the falsity of a statement you made ... and my observation stands unrefuted.

176 posted on 12/18/2004 11:09:07 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Simply "smoking" enough off-the-street marijuana until you feel better is, as I believe you've said, pretty sloppy/archaic, and may be dangerous.

Do you agree that smoking legal and regulated marijuana would be significantly less sloppy, archaic, and dangerous?

177 posted on 12/18/2004 11:13:00 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
So a 10-year-old California child would legally be allowed to smoke marijuana for medical purposes, such medical purpose as defined by Proposition 215?

As I said, you wouldn't deny "an herb gifted by God", would you? You wouldn't regulate God's gift away from this needy child of God, would you?

178 posted on 12/18/2004 11:13:18 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; supercat
Then the University of Alaska did a study in 1988 and found that twice as many Alaskan teens were using pot as the lower 48.

Without knowing what the ratio was before Alaskan legalization, that factoid is meaningless.

179 posted on 12/18/2004 11:17:04 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights; Theo
"Do you agree that smoking legal and regulated marijuana would be significantly less sloppy, archaic, and dangerous?"

Nope.

But receiving the appropriate and effective cannabinoids via a pill, patch, injection, mist or suppository would definitely be less sloppy, archaic, and dangerous.

180 posted on 12/18/2004 11:18:42 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So a 10-year-old California child would legally be allowed to smoke marijuana for medical purposes

With the consent of his paerents, of course ... just as he may nowe legally make medical use of much stronger drugs.

181 posted on 12/18/2004 11:19:09 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Theo
Do you agree that smoking legal and regulated marijuana would be significantly less sloppy, archaic, and dangerous?

Nope.

So all your ruckus about contaminants was just a smokescreen. Why am I not surprised?

182 posted on 12/18/2004 11:21:40 AM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: inquest
But under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the possession of marijuana for any reason is illegal.

If it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal, how did the feds get away with this by simply passing a law?
183 posted on 12/18/2004 11:23:17 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

After re-illegalization, teen marijuana use in Alaska dropped to that of the lower 48.


184 posted on 12/18/2004 11:23:47 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: inquest

If you smoke marijuana in spite of all the evidence that shows it diminishes cognitive ability, then you're already an idiot and it probably won't do much harm.


185 posted on 12/18/2004 11:26:38 AM PST by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

I see. Taking out the bacteria and fungi makes marijuana safe for everyone to use? Is that what you're saying?


186 posted on 12/18/2004 11:27:36 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Medical marijuana - BAD. Religious peyote - GOOD. Go figure.


187 posted on 12/18/2004 11:34:21 AM PST by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
"If it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal ..."

It didn't.

"Encouraged by such signs of progress as six state prohibition laws since 1907 and congressional passage early in 1913 of the Webb-Kenyon Act, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry, the Anti-Saloon League declared in November 1913 that it would seek a federal constitutional amendment providing for nationwide prohibition."

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding.

188 posted on 12/18/2004 11:45:45 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Post #188 from http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html


189 posted on 12/18/2004 11:46:56 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
After re-illegalization, teen marijuana use in Alaska dropped to that of the lower 48.

Measured how?

Unless there are secret spy cameras in everybody's home, how are you going to know how many people are actually smoking pot? If the study used any sort of polls or surveys, the results are meaningless, since it is quite possible that legalization of pot would double the percentage of people who would admit to using it, whether or not it had any effect whatsoever on the number of people who actually did.

Further, with just about any drug, usage will cause more problems for some people than for others. If the drug is being banned because it causes serious problems for some people, the n for the ban to accomplish a useful goal it should reduce usage among the people for whom the drug would otherwise cause serious problems. If the people among whom the ban reduces usage are those who would not have had problems anyway, what's the point?

190 posted on 12/18/2004 12:27:56 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Theo
If the medically beneficial ingredients can be isolated, and appropriate dosages identified, that would be wonderful! Simply "smoking" enough off-the-street marijuana until you feel better is, as I believe you've said, pretty sloppy/archaic, and may be dangerous.

So you would say that people should be required to spend hundreds of dollars per month on pills even if they could get results they would deem equally acceptable with some plants they could cheaply grow themselves if allowed to?

191 posted on 12/18/2004 12:30:39 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: inquest

http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/Pages/detox.html



Detoxing from Marijuana





What is Detoxing?

Detoxing is the way in which your body gets rid of the toxins accumulated from years of using. It happens the first few days or weeks after getting clean and/or sober. It is also the very beginning of getting used to dealing with reality and real feelings with no numbing agent.

Can there be physical effects from quitting marijuana?

In spite of numerous years of being told that there are no physiological effects from marijuana addiction, many of our recovering members have had definite withdrawal symptoms. Whether the causes are physical or psychological, the results are physical. Others have just had emotional and mental changes as they stop using their drug of choice. There is no way of telling before quitting who will be physically uncomfortable and who will not. Most members have only minor physical discomfort if any at all. This pamphlet is for those who are having trouble and wonder what's happening to them.

Why do some effects last so long?

Unlike most other drugs, including alcohol, THC (the active chemical in marijuana) is stored in the fat cells and therefore takes longer to fully clear the body than with any other common drug. This means that some parts of the body still retain THC even after a couple of months, rather than just the couple of days or weeks for water soluble drugs.

Can this affect a drug test?

The experiences of some members have shown that if you quit marijuana and expect to take a drug test you should not go on a crash diet at the same time. Fasting, or a crash diet, can release the THC into the bloodstream very rapidly and can give a positive reading. This has happened to several of our members, but each time only with crash diets and major weight loss, not with just eating less than usual.

What are some of the more common symptoms?

By far the most common symptom of withdrawal is insomnia. This can last from a few nights of practically no sleep at all, up to a few months of occasional sleeplessness. The next most common symptom is depression (that is, if you're not euphoric), and next are nightmares and vivid dreams. Marijuana use tends to dampen the dreaming mechanism, so that when you do get clean the dreams come back with a crash. They can be vivid color, highly emotional dreams or nightmares, even waking up then coming back to the same dream. The very vivid, every-night dreams usually don't start for about a week or so. They last for about a month at most and then taper off. "Using" dreams (dreams involving the use of marijuana) are very common, and although they're not as vivid or emotional as at first, they last for years and are just considered a normal part of recovery.

The fourth most common symptom is anger. This can range from a slow burning rage to constant irritability to sudden bursts of anger when least expected: anger at the world, anger at loved ones, anger at oneself, anger at being an addict and having to get clean. Emotional jags are very common, with emotions bouncing back and forth between depression, anger, and euphoria. Occasionally experienced is a feeling of fear or anxiety, a loss of the sense of humor, decreased sex drive, or increased sex drive. Most all of these symptoms fade to normal emotions by three months. Loss of concentration for the first week or month is also very common and this sometimes affects the ability to learn for a very short while.

What about physical symptoms?

The most common physical symptom is headaches. For those who have them, they can last for a few weeks up to a couple of months, with the first few days being very intense. The next most common physical symptom is night sweats, sometimes to the point of having to change night clothes. They can last from a few nights to a month or so. Sweating is one of the body's natural ways of getting rid of toxins. Hand sweats are very common and are often accompanied by an unpleasant smell from the hands. Body odor is enough in many instances to require extra showers or baths. Coughing up phlegm is another way the body cleans itself. This can last for a few weeks to well over six months.

One third of the addicts who responded to a questionnaire on detoxing said they had eating problems for the first few days and some for up to six weeks. Their main symptoms were loss of appetite, sometimes enough to lose weight temporarily, digestion problems or cramps after eating, and nausea, occasionally enough to vomit (only for a day or two). Most of the eating problems were totally gone before the end of a month.

The next most common physical symptoms experienced were tremors or shaking and dizziness. Less frequently experienced were kidney pains, impotency, hormone changes or imbalances, low immunity or chronic fatigue, and some minor eye problems that resolved at around two months. There have been cases of addicts having more severe detox symptoms, however this is rare. For intense discomfort, see a doctor, preferably one who is experienced with detoxing.

How can I reduce discomfort?

For some of the milder detoxing symptoms, a few home remedies have proven to be useful:

* Hot soaking baths can help the emotions as well as the body.
* Drink plenty of water and clear liquids, just like for the flu.
* Cranberry juice has been used effectively for years by recovery houses to help purify and cleanse the body.
* Really excessive sweating can deplete the body of potassium, a necessary mineral. A few foods high in potassium are: melons, bananas, citrus fruits, green leafy vegetables, and tomatoes.
* Eliminate fat from the diet until digestion is better.
* Greatly reduce or eliminate caffeine until the sleep pattern is more normal or the shakes are gone.
* The old fashioned remedy for insomnia, a glass of warm milk before bedtime, helps some people.
* Exercise not only helps depression and other unpleasant emotions, it helps the body speed up the healing process.


Conference Approved Literature

©1992 Marijuana Anonymous
All Rights Reserved
P-04
6/96


192 posted on 12/18/2004 12:41:41 PM PST by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
After re-illegalization, teen marijuana use in Alaska dropped to that of the lower 48.

For all the times you've raised the Alaska case, this is the first time I've seen you make this claim. What's your source?

193 posted on 12/18/2004 12:55:20 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The "condition" in 2 out of 3 cases? Pain.

In case you weren't aware of the situation, "pain" can be a serious medical condition that adversely affects the lives of the sufferers.

I have to live with chronic pain from arthritis, luckily I can get by with ibuprofin, although I've got Rxs for more powerful, narcotic drugs, which I very rarely use (I can't work if I take them). I do NOT use MJ at all. I just wanted to make that point here. But I've also known very severe, long term pain. I had "shingles" and it took more then 6 months for the pain to completely subside. The first 2 months were the worst. There were nights where I really wanted to die, and even with a Rx for oxycontin, the pain was serious. And I like to think that I have a very high pain threshhold.

This is completely anecdotal, but it's a real situation. I've got a friend who was in a severe auto accident a number of years ago. Many broken bones, including a smashed pelvis. To this day, she suffers severs pain due to the accident. She has Rxs for narcotic pain meds, including oxycontin. However, all of those leave her in a state where she really can't do anything. They also seem to supress her appitite, and she's already a size 0, being about 5' tall, and 95#. She lives in Oakland, CA, and she's been using the "medical MJ" for some time. Actually, she was buying it illegally even before, because she liked the relief it gave her better than the "legal" narcotic drugs that she could be taking. It doesn't leave her in a "comatose" state, where all she wants to do is sleep. It's also increased her appetite, and the last time I spoke to her, she said that she's gained 5 pounds over the last 6 months, which for her, is really something.

The thing is, that chronic pain will ruin your life. I'm all for giving people who live in chronic pain whatever relief they need. Even if that relief is not scientifically proven.

Mark

194 posted on 12/18/2004 1:02:33 PM PST by MarkL (Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Taking out the bacteria and fungi makes marijuana safe for everyone to use?

Less unsafe.

195 posted on 12/18/2004 1:11:02 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute [to ban alcohol]"

Says who?


196 posted on 12/18/2004 1:12:34 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: april15Bendovr
Detoxing from Marijuana

Many approved medicines, and legal recreational drugs, have withdrawal effects. What's your point?

197 posted on 12/18/2004 1:15:17 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights; TKDietz
Source for what? That current Alaskan teen use is equivalent to the lower 48?

You've got numbers on that, don't you? Plus, TKDietz made some general claim that the numbers were about equal.

I mean, I'd look them up, but why? You'd just make some excuse that they weren't valid, so why bother?

Now, if you're willing to admit up front that if the teen numbers today were about equal, it means that legalization for adults does impact teen use ... well, I'd make the effort.

198 posted on 12/18/2004 1:15:27 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: supercat
You're right. We don't have a clue. The numbers are all made up. There's a government conspiracy -- black helicopters and all.

But hey, thanks for playing on this thread. We've got some nice parting gifts for you backstage. Don't let the door hit ya.

199 posted on 12/18/2004 1:19:19 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
chronic pain will ruin your life.

But your chronic pain won't ruin robertpaulsen's life.

200 posted on 12/18/2004 1:21:56 PM PST by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-442 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson