medical mj
 

http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html

sent to me, presented to you sans commentary.

Is that a link I can click at work?

Alex, it's a report on medical marijuana, and a possible research cover up.

sorry for the vagueness.

yes, its an article concerning old research (1970's era)/discoveries on the effect of THC in shrinking of tumors in rats and how the government basically covered up the info, mandated a stop on all further research and hid the information.

I will say 'consider the source'...a website called Cannabis Culture, but as jaded as most have become (myself included) as far as any and all things Government, its not that surprising. I just find it disappointing considering Ive lost a couple of folks to brain tumors and know a couple more battling cancers of all sorts and it makes me wonder if any of those people could have been/could be helped if the research had received funding 30 years ago.

but yes, other than the giant pot leaf in the logo, its work safe.

Depends on your work - I work for the city. :)

My commentary - Our Drug Laws Are Dumb.

That is the correct commentary. Abolish the FDA and the War on Drugs.

Hail thee Marijuana. Is there anything you can't do?

If you abolish the FDA along with the war on drugs, then what assurances will you have that the pharmaceutical companies will be utilizing appropriate controls in their mass manufacture of cocaine, heroin, PCP for the average consumer?

None.

In a more complete answer: if the government wants to maintain itself as a certification body (which consumers can rely for knowing they're getting a clean product) then fine, I can live with that. But they shouldn't be controlling or limiting access to any drugs. And this means that if people want to buy cheaper drugs without the certification then more power to them.

Criminalization of vicodin is just as stupid as criminalization of heroin.

Isn't there enough of a stigma to using cocaine, heroin, PCP that major pharmaceutical companies probably won't jump at the opportunity?

Those who are going to use and abuse drugs, in my personal experience and from the experiences of friends and family members who have gone down every path, do it regardless of obeying or breaking any laws. This just cuts out the criminal element. When there is an implicit danger and risk (i.e. Johnny Law), it raises the cost of the item on its own, and attracts an underground market that supports gangs and other criminals. Legalization takes away their business.

Smoking tobacco is legal, and yet as we have become more educated, more and more, people either never start or are quitting an addiction that many say is more powerful than heroin. I don't see why the same could be true for the theoretically less-addictive other drugs. We're taught drugs are wrong, not only because they're illegal, but for what it does to our health and our lives.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if I want to abolish the FDA. I do like having the belief (true or otherwise) that I know what's in whatever I'm ingesting.

Given the size of the herbal supplement market, which is completely unregulated, I suspect the average person doesn't give a damn.

Scientifically-credentialled research into the therapeutic benefits of LCD has recently begun in ernest again ... after decades of government cover-up of beneficial research results, and refusal to allow any futher research be done.

I don't know why anybody would want to do acid (I found it to be an incredibly false experience) but if they do it shouldn't require a proven medical benefit to do so.

The government interferes with our lives long enough and we start licking their hand because they only hit us twice.

No, but it's nice that it's got a medical benefit for people with intractible psychiatric problems.


It was incredibly beneficial to me, as a person. My experiences with it were quite the opposite of false-seeming.

Agreed. But while I disagree with the arguments for banning recreational use, I can certainly understand the reasons behind them. There is a rationale behind it, no matter how short-sighted I may think it is. Whereas banning research into the effects and possible controlled beneficial uses seems completely irrational to me.

Hmm, yes, I see your point; but now let's light up and re-lax.