Author Message

>>{*filter*} can be legally prescribed to patients with glaucoma.  Now, I know
>>from personal experience that low doses of {*filter*} completely eliminate
>>muscle spasms temporarily (and smoking is not how the drug was ingested).
>>Many people with neurological disorders are incapacitated by severe

 LS> It's not clear that just because the _symptoms_ are the same
 LS> that the same drug would have an effect.  Worth looking into,
 LS> if you can get any researchers interested, which isn't very
 LS> likely.

There isn't much doubt that {*filter*} _does_ reduce spasticity.  It's
effects in that regard are fairly well documented.  The problem is
that there are other {*filter*} available that have the same effects on
spacticity without the risk for abuse inherent in {*filter*}.

>>What must be done to make {*filter*} legally prescribable to such

 LS> Well, {*filter*} _is_ legally prescribable for a couple of
 LS> things, but very, very few doctors have prescribed it due to
 LS> the enormous red tape and stigma. I recall reading that less
 LS> than ten people in the entire US are prescribed {*filter*} for
 LS> their glaucoma, although many more could benefit.  For all

The main consideration here is whether theraputic effects outweigh
the danger of abuse.  The glaucoma patients for whom it is
prescribed are typically older persons with personality profiles
indicating little risk of abuse.  Spinal cord injury patients,
for better or worse, tend as a group to be younger, male, and
in a higher-risk group, and practitioners to this group spend
a good deal of time combating the effects of abuse and are
understandably reluctant to risk adding to that problem.
Second, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that
associated euphoric effects of {*filter*} lead to a relaxation
in the level of self care that the spinal cord injured patient
must demonstrate -- and no one is willing to risk the
prospective studies that would objectify these data with so
minute a probability of results counter to the anecdotes.  Finally,
the patients most strident in demanding canabis therapy -- the ones
who _know_ that it is effective, are those who have gained that
knowledge through recreational or otherwise illegitimate use of the
drug -- who thereby eliminate themselves from consideration as
theraputic-use subjects.

{  Take care, Rich                                            }
{    If I have only one life to live                  0       }
{              let me live it with a bird...      ///{|}\\\   }

Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!135!36!Rich.Veraa

Fri, 02 Apr 1993 03:27:00 GMT
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Glaucoma and Marijuana

2. George Bush uses Marijuana????

3. Germany Legalises Marijuana

4. Marijuana Smokers as Disease Vector?

5. marijuana

6. Marijuana and asthma

7. Marijuana and asthma

8. MAO inhibitors + Marijuana

9. No more medicinal marijuana

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software