No more medicinal marijuana 
Author Message
 No more medicinal marijuana

The following article appeared on page 5F of the San Jose Mercury News on
Saturday, June 22, 1991:

        U.S.: No {*filter*} for new AIDS patients

        Mercury News Washington Bureau

        WASHINGTON -- Government health agencies will no longer provide
        {*filter*} cigarettes to new patients with AIDS, cancer or glaucoma,
        despite claims that smoking the drug eases chronic symptoms of
        those diseases.

        For a decade, the government has distributed {*filter*} to a small
        number of seriously ill patients nationwide.  But fearing that the
        program sends mixed signals about drug use -- and worried about a
        "rapid increase" in demand because of AIDS -- officials said Friday
        they are virtually halting new approvals.

        "It was felt that this might get out of hand, both in terms of the
        supply we might have and the government saying, rather successfully,
        that {*filter*} is not good for you," said Bill Grigg, a spokesman
        for the U.S. Public Health Service.  "It might be (perceived as)
        saying that it's safe and effective, which is the standard for a
        new drug."

        The new policy was angrily criticized by some activists, who believe
        that smoking {*filter*} eases pain and restores appetite in people
        ravaged by AIDS.

        "They're really saying to terminally ill people, 'Go die in agony,'"
        said Arnold Trebach, president of the Drug Policy Foundation, a drug
        think tank.  "With AIDS, many of the medications cause terrible
        problems, and this eases some of the discomfort, eases some of the
        nausea."

        Under the new policy, the 34 Americans now approved to receive
        government-grown {*filter*} cigarettes will continue to get them.

What an incredible advance in the sorry state of government doublethink!

-Pete Zakel



Sat, 11 Dec 1993 08:38:52 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:

>The following article appeared on page 5F of the San Jose Mercury News on
>Saturday, June 22, 1991:

>    U.S.: No {*filter*} for new AIDS patients
[...]
>    "It was felt that this might get out of hand, both in terms of the
>    supply we might have and the government saying, rather successfully,
>    that {*filter*} is not good for you," said Bill Grigg, a spokesman
>    for the U.S. Public Health Service.  "It might be (perceived as)
>    saying that it's safe and effective, which is the standard for a
>    new drug."

I just heard an interview on NPR with Bill Grigg and decided to followup my
own posting with new information.

Mr. Grigg said that one of the goals is to try to get doctors to prescribe
Marinol (synthetic THC) instead of {*filter*}.  And that if Marinol didn't
work, than applications for government {*filter*} would be entertained.

Unfortunately, Marinol given in pill form may not be suitable at all for
someone with extreme nausea.  It can be very difficult to swallow and
hold down a pill -- especially since the pill will take some time to have
the anti-nausea effect.

According to Grigg, Marinol pills should have the beneficial effects of
{*filter*} without the side effect of making a person high (allowing them
to hold down a job, etc.).  This may me true.  He also said that Marinol
has the benefit of not having the "contaminants" (I can't remember if this
was the exact word he used, but it had a similar connotation).  In this
case, some researchers postulate that various of the cannabinols and
cannabinoids may actually enhance the beneficial effect of the THC.

The other drawback to Marinol is that since it is synthetic, I imagine it
costs far more to produce per dose than {*filter*} cigarettes.  This is the
same problem with synthetic opiates w/r/t {*filter*}, morphine and {*filter*}.  With
{*filter*}, one could conceivably grow one's own for very little cost,
thus helping to relieve the cost burden on the medical establishment, the
insurance industry and the government.

But that's probably far too pragmatic for Uncle Sam -- it's far more
important to keep up the Big Lie of {*filter*} being a "dangerous drug".

Feh!

And of course, the drug manufacturers also would have a lot to lose if
certain synthetic {*filter*} were replaced by the cheap, natural substances that
many of them were created to replace (please note that I am *not* saying that
all natural {*filter*} are better than their synthetic counterparts).

-Pete Zakel



Sat, 11 Dec 1993 09:34:17 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

if 34 people currently recieve mj for medicinal use from the federal
government, why is mj a schedule 1 drug?  "A substance may be classified as
Schedule 1 if it is found to have: a high potential for abuse; no accepted
medical use; no way to safely supervise its medical use.  {*filter*} and
{*filter*} are currently classified as Schedule 1 substances, for which the CSA
mandates the most severe controls and penalties."

--

cat psychology | computer_science > opinions
jews, 1933, germany; drug users, 1990, the united states.



Sat, 11 Dec 1993 12:18:29 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

writes:

Quote:
>if 34 people currently recieve mj for medicinal use from the federal
>government, why is mj a schedule 1 drug?  "A substance may be classified as
>Schedule 1 if it is found to have: a high potential for abuse; no accepted
>medical use; no way to safely supervise its medical use.  {*filter*} and
>{*filter*} are currently classified as Schedule 1 substances, for which the CSA
>mandates the most severe controls and penalties."

There's no good answer to this, except to note that only two or three
substances (not counting MDMA's bouncing) have ever been removed from
Schedule I.  I believe that all these substances were determined to have
low potential for human (ab)use.

Quote:
>--

>cat psychology | computer_science > opinions
>jews, 1933, germany; drug users, 1990, the united states.

--Matt Funkchick


Sun, 12 Dec 1993 04:53:11 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:
E. Snyder) writes:

>>There's no good answer to this, except to note that only two or three
>>substances (not counting MDMA's bouncing) have ever been removed from
>>Schedule I.  I believe that all these substances were determined to have
>>low potential for human (ab)use.

>What substances have been removed from C-I?  I wasn't aware of *any*
>{*filter*} that have been down scheduled.  (But I would be happily surprised!)

The only one I know of is sufentanil, which moved from I to II in 1984.

Quote:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG
>Eric E. Snyder                            
>Department of MCD Biology              ...have mercy on the frozen man.  
>University of Colorado, Boulder  
>Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347
>LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--M/F


Sun, 12 Dec 1993 12:00:13 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:

>if 34 people currently recieve mj for medicinal use from the federal
>government, why is mj a schedule 1 drug?  "A substance may be classified as
>Schedule 1 if it is found to have: a high potential for abuse; no accepted
>medical use; no way to safely supervise its medical use.  {*filter*} and
>{*filter*} are currently classified as Schedule 1 substances, for which the CSA
>mandates the most severe controls and penalties."

It was available only under a special research program. Your doctor
simply couldn't prescribe it for you, you and your doctor had to
apply for the program. {*filter*}, on the other hand, IS a prescribable
drug, but all prescriptions for it are closely monitored.

Zack C. Sessions

          ^^^
           |
           +--->  Note! Username is session, NOT sessions. Not my fault!
                                        Ask my SysAdmin why!!



Sun, 12 Dec 1993 08:46:11 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:

>There's no good answer to this, except to note that only two or three
>substances (not counting MDMA's bouncing) have ever been removed from
>Schedule I.  I believe that all these substances were determined to have
>low potential for human (ab)use.

What substances have been removed from C-I?  I wasn't aware of *any*
{*filter*} that have been down scheduled.  (But I would be happily surprised!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG
Eric E. Snyder                            
Department of MCD Biology              ...have mercy on the frozen man.  
University of Colorado, Boulder  
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347
LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sun, 12 Dec 1993 06:37:43 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:

> >The following article appeared on page 5F of the San Jose Mercury News on
> >Saturday, June 22, 1991:
> >       U.S.: No {*filter*} for new AIDS patients
> [...]
> Mr. Grigg said that one of the goals is to try to get doctors to prescribe
> Marinol (synthetic THC) instead of {*filter*}.  And that if Marinol didn't
> [ ... ]
> The other drawback to Marinol is that since it is synthetic, I imagine it
> costs far more to produce per dose than {*filter*} cigarettes.  This is the
> [ ... ]
> But that's probably far too pragmatic for Uncle Sam -- it's far more
> important to keep up the Big Lie of {*filter*} being a "dangerous drug".
> [ ... ]
> And of course, the drug manufacturers also would have a lot to lose if
> certain synthetic {*filter*} were replaced by the cheap, natural substances that
> [ ... ]

        It would be interesting, to look at Johnson & Johnson's support
        to PDFA, in this light.

Quote:
> -Pete Zakel

--
William "Alain" Simon



Sun, 12 Dec 1993 00:04:58 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana
I agree that it's silly for {*filter*} to be a schedule 1 drug.  I *also* feel
that the federal government does NOT have the jurisdiction to prevent the local
sale and use of controlled {*filter*} -- note that the only way they can do it is by
claiming to be regulating interstate commerce, since they cannot regulate
intrastate commerce.  How on earth is it that, for example, growing poppy in my
ba{*filter*}t for my own use would be subject to regulation by the federal
government?  Someone ought to reread that pesky Constitution again!

(See also the most recent issue of The Progressive.  There are a series of
articles in it about the "War on {*filter*}.")

--
Disclaimer:  I cannot speak for Data General.  You should have guessed that.

.//.



Sat, 11 Dec 1993 21:41:08 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:

>The following article appeared on page 5F of the San Jose Mercury News on
>Saturday, June 22, 1991:

>    U.S.: No {*filter*} for new AIDS patients
>    For a decade, the government has distributed {*filter*} to a small
>    number of seriously ill patients nationwide.  But fearing that the
>    program sends mixed signals about drug use --

---
        But morphine is ok eh?....

        Great.
-wat-
--
"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
 I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of
 Christian dogma."                      
                                -- Abraham Lincoln



Mon, 13 Dec 1993 01:08:36 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:
 writes:

> --

> cat psychology | computer_science > opinions
> jews, 1933, germany; drug users, 1990, the united states.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Jack, what the {*filter*} is this supposed to mean???  If your intent is to draw
an analogy between the situation of drug users in the United States and the
situation of Jews in Nazi Germany, then it is a warped and exceedingly
offensive one!

Although the "War on {*filter*}" is certainly an unjust, repressive, and sometimes
barbaric campaign, one need not resort to extreme and idiotic comparisons to
make the point.  There are enough compelling reasons to oppose the WOD and to
support the legalization of {*filter*} without making the absurd comparison between
the U.S. government and the Third Reich -- or the even more absurd and
obnoxious comparison between the persecution of drug users in this country and
the far more heinous persecution of Jews (as well as gypsies) in 1933 Germany.
If you still think your analogy is a valid and effective one, take a minute to
read over the details of the Nuremberg Laws and become a little more
knowledgeable about the brutality of Nazism.

Get a clue!

-- Big Red



Mon, 13 Dec 1993 05:28:34 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana

Quote:


>> cat psychology | computer_science > opinions
>> jews, 1933, germany; drug users, 1990, the united states.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hey Jack, what the {*filter*} is this supposed to mean???  If your intent is to draw
>an analogy between the situation of drug users in the United States and the
>situation of Jews in Nazi Germany, then it is a warped and exceedingly
>offensive one!

Actually I find that to be a quite accurate analogy.  The Nazis achieved
their goals by inflaming an irrational hate against their target, the
jews.  I don't see any material difference between that and the
irrational hate the drug Nazis have tried to stir up against the evil
drug empire.

In both cases, innocent people are being hurt and killed.  The only
difference is magnitude.  And since the Drug War on the Constitution has
not played itself out  yet, we really don't know what the magnitude
difference will be, do we?  I can imagine more than one scenario that
could result in as many deaths as were taken by Nazi Germany.  The
drug war degrading to a civil war or a revolution is one.

Quote:
>read over the details of the Nuremberg Laws and become a little more
>knowledgeable about the brutality of Nazism.
>Get a clue!

I think he had a very good clue.  What is the difference between SS troops
dragging a jew out of his house in the middle of the night and thhe
modern Brown Shirts in Blue smashing innto innocent peoples' houses
i the middle of the night and perhaps  killing them in the process.
Much tidyier to clean  up some {*filter*} than to have to face the inconvenience
of a wrongful injury suit.  In both environments, the rational is that the
ends justify the means.  Once that is accepted policy, the {*filter*} involved
is simply a matter of degree.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  |
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      | "Vote early, Vote often"



Mon, 13 Dec 1993 13:29:40 GMT
 No more medicinal marijuana


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 68 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

 Relevant Pages 

1. URGENT: First ever congressional vote on medicinal marijuana

2. MEDICINAL MARIJUANA?

3. URGENT: First ever congressional vote on medicinal marijuana

4. URGENT: First ever congressional vote on medicinal marijuana

5. Medicinal Plants

6. Medicinal Marijauna?


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software