Medical Marijuana

[ropeadope1983]

Rope -

Its too bad that vaporization destroys that objection to smoking marijuana.

Like I said though, this whole discussion is moot with the availability of vaporization as a vector for treating chronic pain, loss of appetite, and other related symptoms without causing extensive negative side effects.

It is too bad there isn't sufficient evidence that vaporization destroys that objection to smoking marijuana. Here are some snippets from the major source that studied the effects of vaporizing marijuana to try to reduce its negative respiratory effects (if you have a single shred of credibility as a student of science I would expect you to call into question both the study and the source):

From: Harm Reduction Journal 2007. 4:11 "Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis users who vaporize" by Mitch Earleywine and Sara Smucker Barnwell

-Table 1: Vaporizer group has a standard error of 0.424 for the 152 respondants

-In the author's own words: "Several important limitations of these data deserve mention, particularly those related to sampling, Internet reporting, limitations of our measures, and the lack of random assignment to vaporizer use. In an effort to find regular users of cannabis, we targeted people with a potential interest in changing cannabis policy (!!!!!!!!!!). These individuals might have consciously or unconsciously minimized their reports of symptoms that might cast cannabis in a negative light.Nevertheless, literally thousands of participants admitted to experiencing respiratory symptoms. The symptoms covaried with cannabis use, cigarette use, and the interaction of the two, as work with samples gathered in other ways has revealed [6]. These results suggest that reports among these participants are comparable to those found in other work. Any bias in reporting remains a problem, and only further work can help address this issue.
Vaporizer users might be more inclined to minimize respiratory symptoms than people who smoke cannabis in other ways. The price of a vaporizer can range as high as hundreds of dollars. Vaporizers also lack some of the convenience of other methods of marijuana use. Users who have spent this much money and effort might minimize reports of their respiratory symptoms, consciously or inadvertently, in an effort to justify their actions. Only a more objective measure of respiratory function that does not rely on self-report can sidestep this potential problem. Laboratory measures of lung function would make a nice addition to further work on this topic. Nevertheless, roughly 1/3 of the participants who used a vaporizer (52/152) did report symptoms (!!!!!!!!!!!!), suggesting that self-report biases on symptom reports likely does not account for the entire phenomenon.
The use of the Internet for this type of work has advantages and disadvantages as well. This approach might lead individuals who are unwilling to travel to the laboratory to participate, potentially increasing generalizability. Heavy users with severe symptoms might be particularly disinclined to participate without the convenience of the Internet.
Recent work also suggests that people report more drug use while using the Internet than they do on standard paper-and-pencil measures [10]. Nevertheless, because Internet access was required for participation, these data might not generalize to meaningful subsets of the population without such access.
Our measures of vaporizer use and respiratory symptoms could also have been more detailed. A single question about the primary technique used for administering cannabis neglects potentially meaningful variation in vaporizer use. Some participants might use a vaporizer primarily but also smoke cannabis. In contrast, other participants might use a vaporizer exclusively. Both of these groups of participants would end up in the group who uses a vaporizer primarily. Vaporizers come in several forms, including conduction-style machines that employ a hot plate as well as convection-style devices that use warmed air. The efficacy of these different machines could vary substantially, but we could not address the question with the current data. These limitations, however, should decrease power rather than create a spurious result. By lumping participants who occasionally smoke cannabis into the same group with those who vaporize exclusively, we actually weaken the ability to detect effects. Including any type of vaporizer, no matter how effective, also has the potential to weaken effects. In a sense, the current study's estimate of the effect of a vaporizer on respiratory symptoms might be an underestimate of the improvement that could arise from a good vaporizer used as the exclusive method for ingesting cannabis. We also did not assess the length of time each participant had used a vaporizer. A vaporizer's impact might grow more dramatic with longer use. The assessment of respiratory symptoms was also not particularly elaborate, but the same measures revealed a significant impact of cannabis and cigarettes in this sample and in other work [6].
Finally, the use of a vaporizer was not randomly assigned. The possibility exists that cannabis users who choose a vaporizer might engage in a host of other behaviors designed to minimize respiratory symptoms, or simply be more health conscious in general. Like any correlational study, this one cannot address the role of causality. The current data are consistent, however, with the idea that cannabis vaporizers can decrease respiratory symptoms in regular users of the plant. A better test of a vaporizer's potential for minimizing problems would require recruiting cannabis smokers who report respiratory troubles, randomly assigning a group to use a vaporizer, and assessing any decrease in symptoms. The current data suggest that such an intervention could prove helpful.
Although the use of a vaporizer has the potential to increase the safety of cannabis as far as respiratory symptoms are concerned, pulmonary problems are not the only potential negative consequences of the plant. Reviews suggest that 9–12% of cannabis users develop symptoms of dependence [11]. Cannabis can lead to impaired driving skills [12], and heavy use in adolescence might create deviant brain structure [13] as well as decreases in intelligence [14]. A vaporizer offers no protection against these negative consequences. Nevertheless, a vaporizer has considerable potential for increasing cannabis drug safety by minimizing pulmonary troubles."

(sure as heck sounds like a lot of limitations of this study)


-Last but not least: Competing interests:
ME (Mitch Earleywine...the author) is affiliated with organizations devoted to changing cannabis laws.
Acknowledgments: This work was funded by a grant from the Marijuana Policy Project.



Sounds to me like it should have been published in "High Times Magazine"


The only other source out there is simply a 6-day proof of concept pilot study that only measured expired carbon monoxide as the negative marker and currently has no relevance to long term outcomes:
"Vaporization as a smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study"
DI Abrams1,2,3, HP Vizoso1,3, SB Shade1,3, C Jay4,5, ME Kelly1,2,3 and NL Benowitz3,6

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[realitybias]

It is too bad there isn't sufficient evidence that vaporization destroys that objection to smoking marijuana. Here are some snippets from the major source that studied the effects of vaporizing marijuana to try to reduce its negative respiratory effects (if you have a single shred of credibility as a student of science I would expect you to call into question both the study and the source):

From: Harm Reduction Journal 2007. 4:11 "Decreased respiratory symptoms in cannabis users who vaporize" by Mitch Earleywine and Sara Smucker Barnwell

-Table 1: Vaporizer group has a standard error of 0.424 for the 152 respondants

-In the author's own words: "Several important limitations of these data deserve mention, particularly those related to sampling, Internet reporting, limitations of our measures, and the lack of random assignment to vaporizer use. In an effort to find regular users of cannabis, we targeted people with a potential interest in changing cannabis policy (!!!!!!!!!!). These individuals might have consciously or unconsciously minimized their reports of symptoms that might cast cannabis in a negative light.Nevertheless, literally thousands of participants admitted to experiencing respiratory symptoms. The symptoms covaried with cannabis use, cigarette use, and the interaction of the two, as work with samples gathered in other ways has revealed [6]. These results suggest that reports among these participants are comparable to those found in other work. Any bias in reporting remains a problem, and only further work can help address this issue.
Vaporizer users might be more inclined to minimize respiratory symptoms than people who smoke cannabis in other ways. The price of a vaporizer can range as high as hundreds of dollars. Vaporizers also lack some of the convenience of other methods of marijuana use. Users who have spent this much money and effort might minimize reports of their respiratory symptoms, consciously or inadvertently, in an effort to justify their actions. Only a more objective measure of respiratory function that does not rely on self-report can sidestep this potential problem. Laboratory measures of lung function would make a nice addition to further work on this topic. Nevertheless, roughly 1/3 of the participants who used a vaporizer (52/152) did report symptoms (!!!!!!!!!!!!), suggesting that self-report biases on symptom reports likely does not account for the entire phenomenon.
The use of the Internet for this type of work has advantages and disadvantages as well. This approach might lead individuals who are unwilling to travel to the laboratory to participate, potentially increasing generalizability. Heavy users with severe symptoms might be particularly disinclined to participate without the convenience of the Internet.
Recent work also suggests that people report more drug use while using the Internet than they do on standard paper-and-pencil measures [10]. Nevertheless, because Internet access was required for participation, these data might not generalize to meaningful subsets of the population without such access.
Our measures of vaporizer use and respiratory symptoms could also have been more detailed. A single question about the primary technique used for administering cannabis neglects potentially meaningful variation in vaporizer use. Some participants might use a vaporizer primarily but also smoke cannabis. In contrast, other participants might use a vaporizer exclusively. Both of these groups of participants would end up in the group who uses a vaporizer primarily. Vaporizers come in several forms, including conduction-style machines that employ a hot plate as well as convection-style devices that use warmed air. The efficacy of these different machines could vary substantially, but we could not address the question with the current data. These limitations, however, should decrease power rather than create a spurious result. By lumping participants who occasionally smoke cannabis into the same group with those who vaporize exclusively, we actually weaken the ability to detect effects. Including any type of vaporizer, no matter how effective, also has the potential to weaken effects. In a sense, the current study's estimate of the effect of a vaporizer on respiratory symptoms might be an underestimate of the improvement that could arise from a good vaporizer used as the exclusive method for ingesting cannabis. We also did not assess the length of time each participant had used a vaporizer. A vaporizer's impact might grow more dramatic with longer use. The assessment of respiratory symptoms was also not particularly elaborate, but the same measures revealed a significant impact of cannabis and cigarettes in this sample and in other work [6].
Finally, the use of a vaporizer was not randomly assigned. The possibility exists that cannabis users who choose a vaporizer might engage in a host of other behaviors designed to minimize respiratory symptoms, or simply be more health conscious in general. Like any correlational study, this one cannot address the role of causality. The current data are consistent, however, with the idea that cannabis vaporizers can decrease respiratory symptoms in regular users of the plant. A better test of a vaporizer's potential for minimizing problems would require recruiting cannabis smokers who report respiratory troubles, randomly assigning a group to use a vaporizer, and assessing any decrease in symptoms. The current data suggest that such an intervention could prove helpful.
Although the use of a vaporizer has the potential to increase the safety of cannabis as far as respiratory symptoms are concerned, pulmonary problems are not the only potential negative consequences of the plant. Reviews suggest that 9–12% of cannabis users develop symptoms of dependence [11]. Cannabis can lead to impaired driving skills [12], and heavy use in adolescence might create deviant brain structure [13] as well as decreases in intelligence [14]. A vaporizer offers no protection against these negative consequences. Nevertheless, a vaporizer has considerable potential for increasing cannabis drug safety by minimizing pulmonary troubles."

(sure as heck sounds like a lot of limitations of this study)


-Last but not least: Competing interests:
ME (Mitch Earleywine...the author) is affiliated with organizations devoted to changing cannabis laws.
Acknowledgments: This work was funded by a grant from the Marijuana Policy Project.



Sounds to me like it should have been published in "High Times Magazine"


The only other source out there is simply a 6-day proof of concept pilot study that only measured expired carbon monoxide as the negative marker and currently has no relevance to long term outcomes:
"Vaporization as a smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study"
DI Abrams1,2,3, HP Vizoso1,3, SB Shade1,3, C Jay4,5, ME Kelly1,2,3 and NL Benowitz3,6

Haha, I'm just for a moment going to pretend like the emphasis was added. Once again, you are detracting from the real debate here, but for a moment I will address your concerns. First of all, the title itself talks about the decrease in respiratory symptoms in those who use vaporization. Likewise, the chest symptoms that appeared with frequent, long term marijuana use were very much decreased. Did you notice what these symptoms were? Phlegm and cough... only a third reported them, sounds about on par with season allergies (which over 70 million Americans suffer from). Here is a quote by the person who did the test that you are referring to...

"Our study clearly suggests that the respiratory effects of marijuana use can be decreased by use of a vaporizer," Earleywine commented. "In fact, because we only asked participants about their primary means of using marijuana, it's likely that people who exclusively use vaporizers will get even more benefit than our results indicate, because no doubt some in our study used vaporizers most of the time but not all of the time."

As for the other test, here's a quote from the study, and what the study means..

"...measured the volunteers' plasma THC levels and the amount of expired carbon monoxide, which is considered a reliable marker for the unwanted combustion products contained in smoke.

The two methods produced similar THC levels, with vaporization producing somewhat higher levels, and were judged equally efficient for administration of cannabinoids. The big difference was in expired carbon monoxide. As expected, there was a sharp increase in carbon monoxide levels after smoking, while "little if any" increase was detected after vaporization. "This indicates little or no exposure to gaseous combustion toxins," the researchers wrote. "Vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion gases, and therefore is expected to be much safer than smoking marijuana cigarettes." "

You missed one, by the way

- Evaluation of a vaporizing device (Volcano) for the pulmonary administration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal Of Pharmaceutical Sciences [J Pharm Sci] 2006 Jun; Vol. 95 (6), pp. 1308-17
--- reported that cannabis use through a vaporizer is safe.


You seem to be having fun with bolded words though, so I figured I would give it a try. You see, you would do well to realize what symptoms we are talking about here. Phlegm, cough, and chest tightness. Sounds scary, perhaps we should just allow people to keep taking their daily acetaminophen, consuming their vicodin, and destroying their livers because 30% of people who smoke it develop phlegm, cough, and chest tightness. Never mind that this seems to match up adequately with the normal population of America and seasonal allergies.

The fact of the matter is, vaporization and even smoking is much safer than what is on the market today. I am sure many people would choose to live with, and heck, HAVE choosen to live with a small increase in phlegm over the harmful effects of other drugs, coupled with side effects that make cough and phlegm seem like a cold (Haha, get the pun?). The vector of vaporization brings these side effects down to normal levels, and it is downright a shame that because it has any side effects at all, it therefore has "no medical use and leads to high dependence."

Guess what, bob, so does most of the drugs scheduled bellow it, heck, so does many over the counter drugs. The difference between cannabis and these drugs, though, is that cannabis is gram for gram, magnitudes of orders safer. And yet, we still let people go to the store, purchase cigarettes, purchase alcohol, which are infinitely more dangerous than marijuana, but we watch as chemo patients waste away from lack of appetite, chronic pain sufferers become addicted to vicodin and their livers fail, and people abuse tylenol and ibuprofin daily.

I know you seem not to like that cannabis is being prescribed in many states for medical problems, and I suppose you think you're smarter than many of the doctors out there because you are a "student of science." You've got a lot to learn when it comes to treating patients, and you've sure got a heck of a lot to learn when it comes to treating people with chronic pain. It seems to me you are speaking from a position of ignorance, and you have never seen the pain they go through and how much drugs such as these help them. Cannabis WILL one day be legal, and I suspect that the day is coming soon with how quickly its medical benefits are being realized from state to state. There is even evidence that it is anti-carcinogenic.

Of course, you probably just think only hippies on college campuses who go out and have lots of sex are the only ones who use marijuana.

You'd be very, very wrong.

 

[ropeadope1983]

Well, since the supposed evidence supporting the safe use of vaporized marijuana essentially went up in a big puff of smoke, lets take a look at some other health concerns related to smoking marijuana (for all of you who assumed that marijuana is so harmless). Do you think that a drug that triggers acute myocardial infarction in patients at risk for heart disease would make it very far in the process of getting FDA approval? Take a look for yourself:


M.A. Mittleman, R.A. Lewis, M. Maclure, J.B. Sherwood and J.E. Muller, Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana, Circulation 103 (2001), pp. 2805–2809.

A.C. Lindsay, R.A. Foale, O. Warren and J.A. Henry, Cannabis as a precipitant of cardiovascular emergencies, Int J Cardiol 104 (2005), pp. 230–232.
W.S. Aronow and J. Cassidy, Effect of marihuana and placebo-marihuana smoking on angina pectoris, N Engl J Med 291 (1974), pp. 65–67.

B A C Fisher, A Ghuran, V Vadamalai and T F Antonios, Cardiovascular complications induced by cannabis smoking:
a case report and review of the literature, Emergency Medicine Journal,
2005;22: 679-680

 

[ropeadope1983]

- Evaluation of a vaporizing device (Volcano) for the pulmonary administration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal Of Pharmaceutical Sciences [J Pharm Sci] 2006 Jun; Vol. 95 (6), pp. 1308-17
--- reported that cannabis use through a vaporizer is safe.

I almost started to read that one, until I noticed that it was published in The Netherlands and couldn't keep from laughing my a$$ off. Seriously...you need to stay off the grass. It is impairing your judgement. It is amazing to me that you go to such great lengths do defend your love for reefer. To take these select few articles that all seem to be conducted on shaky ethical grounds and weight them against the professional opinions of countless medical doctors, professional medical associations, and have already made up your mind that you will give your patients a drug that we know so little about with no FDA aproval calls your credibility into question if you ever become an MD.

 

[ropeadope1983]

While we are at it, why don't we just bring assistant suicide back into the mix since we are so willing to go to great lengths to accommodate those who have chronic pain? Oregon and The Netherlands are doing it, so there must be something to it.

 

[realitybias]

Well, since the supposed evidence supporting the safe use of vaporized marijuana essentially went up in a big puff of smoke

Sounds to me like you are incapable of reading, because I certainly showed you the evidence of safe use of vaporized marijuana using your own study, and how vaporized marijuana has no increased incidence of even minor side effects as compared to seasonal allergies. You're pulling at straws now.

Do you think that a drug that triggers acute myocardial infarction in patients at risk for heart disease would make it very far in the process of getting FDA approval?

Sudafed

"... cardiovascular collapse with hypotension."

Tylenol

"acetaminophen liver injury"

Nexium

"hypertension"

and just for kicks... a drug that Marijuana is used in place of by many physicians...

Vicodin

"physical dependence, respiratory arrest, increased intracranial pressure, liver failure over extended periods of time"



As for your studies on heart attacks triggered by marijuana, the correlation is spurrious. Once again, you throw in a post hoc fallacy. The study itself even admits that those who experienced the increase risk in heart attacks were smokers.

"Those who smoked marijuana were largely men, were twice as likely to be cigarette smokers"

M.A. Mittleman, R.A. Lewis, M. Maclure, J.B. Sherwood and J.E. Muller, Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana, Circulation 103 (2001), pp. 2805–2809.

A.C. Lindsay, R.A. Foale, O. Warren and J.A. Henry, Cannabis as a precipitant of cardiovascular emergencies, Int J Cardiol 104 (2005), pp. 230–232.
W.S. Aronow and J. Cassidy, Effect of marihuana and placebo-marihuana smoking on angina pectoris, N Engl J Med 291 (1974), pp. 65–67.

B A C Fisher, A Ghuran, V Vadamalai and T F Antonios, Cardiovascular complications induced by cannabis smoking:
a case report and review of the literature, Emergency Medicine Journal,
2005;22: 679-680

And once again, from your own studies, which you seem to not even read...

"The decrease of oxygen delivery to the heart (only if cannabis is smoked), due to the production of carbon monoxide."

and they go on to speak about how it actually limits the cardiovascular problems in many individuals,

"- If the angina is based on a spastic contraction of the coronary arteries, cannabis may relax the spasm.
- Cannabinoids reduce platelet aggregation, thus they may reduce the tendency of the blood to form clots.
- Cannabinoids act anti-inflammatory. Inflammation measured as the level of CRP is associated with a higher risk of heart attack."

And lastly, from your own study...

"In coronary disease the heart attack risk of cannabis use may be as high as going for a walk or having sex."




So as a student of science, I suggest you rethink calling yourself a "student of science."

 

[ropeadope1983]

Where did you go realitybias??? I thought you were going to cite another "scientific article" published in the Netherlands, or through the financial support of the Marijuana Policy Project, or in "High Times Magazine", etc. I'm anxious to hear your wisdom.

(I know...he probably has the munchies and needed to grab a bite to eat )

 

[realitybias]

I almost started to read that one, until I noticed that it was published in The Netherlands and couldn't keep from laughing my a$$ off. Seriously...you need to stay off the grass. It is impairing your judgement. It is amazing to me that you go to such great lengths do defend your love for reefer. To take these select few articles that all seem to be conducted on shaky ethical grounds and weight them against the professional opinions of countless medical doctors, professional medical associations, and have already made up your mind that you will give your patients a drug that we know so little about with no FDA aproval calls your credibility into question if you ever become an MD.

For one, it's an insult that you are going to try to attack my position on medical marijuana through claims that I even use or abuse it, and likewise, it does not help your case when your own studies are refuting your points. You pick and choose small parts of what I respond to you with and go on to make yourself look like a fool by not even understanding the mechanisms that they work under. And then, whenever you are proven wrong, you pretend like nothing happened and go on to repeat the same stuff over and over, ad naseum.

So anyone who recommends medical marijuana is not worthy to be an MD, huh? There are over 5000 doctors in the states that currently allow medical marijuana that use it with great results. There are immense promises for it as a pain medication with a safety profile better than sex, tylenol, and certainly better than vicodin. Its use with a vaporizor puts its respiratory side effects, which are extremely minor, on the same level with the normal population. Lets go over what has happened so far...


1) You suggested Medical Marijuana was less dangerous than Relafen.

2) You posted an article about smoking marijuana, claiming it causes chronic COPD Turns out, even heavy smoking for 40 years shows a small increase in phlegm and cough.

3) You pretended that vaporization did the same thing.

4) You cited a study to prove that vaporization did the same thing. Turns out, it only has a 30% incidence of phlegm and cough. Guess what? So does life (70+ million people have seasonal allergies).

5) Somehow, this was supposed to prove that marijuana should not be used medically, while vicodin, liver damaging drugs, and recreational substances like alcohol and tobacco (which have no medical use) should be legal.

6) As a "student of science", you then rejected an INTERNATIONALLY recognized journal. Of course, though, because the research was done in the netherlands, that makes it moot.

7) You are then backed into a corner by your own articles AGAIN, which show that SEX has a higher chance of causing a myocardial infarction than marijuana.

8) And now, you have no choice but to attack my character, by calling me a "reefer head" and trying to assault my dignity.

What you dont realize, is that the only person's dignity who is slipping away is your own.

 

[DarknightX]

wow...ropeadope...you are a loser...just like the other *****s on here who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[SupernovaNights]

No kidding, dude. Rope looks like he's one of those hoity toity, sit back and take the moral highground sort of guys.

Seriously, dude, lay off. You apparently don't see what 80% of us see as a potential medicine that deserves a shot in pain management and appetite stimulation.

 

[realitybias]

Just a little bit more, for everyone to read:

"THC has been found to combat formation of arterial blockages."
---Khamsi, R: Cannabis compound benefits blood vessels. Nature, 4 Apr 2005

"# 56 Patients who had achieved no success with other antiemetics; 72% found success — the study also concluded that smoked marijuana was more effective than oral THC pills"

---Vinciguerra et al., Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," The New York State Journal of Medicine

"In children receiving cancer chemotherapy delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has an antinausea and antivomiting effect."

---Ekert H, Waters KD, Jurk IH, Mobilia J, Loughnan P: Amelioration of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Med J Aust. 1979 Dec 15;2(12):657-9

"THC seems to be an effective antiemetic in many patients who receive chemotherapy for cancer and for whom other antiemetics are ineffective."

---Sallan SE, Cronin C, Zelen M, Zinberg NE: Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer: a randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prochlorperazine. N Engl J Med. 1980 Jan 17;302(3):135-8

"A random survey of oncologists found that 44% had illegally recommended marijuana for the control of vomiting and that 48% would do so if it were legal; 54% thought it should be available by prescription."
---Khamsi, R: Cannabis compound benefits blood vessels. Nature, 4 Apr 2005



OF course, he will probably call Nature, the New England journal of medicine, the NY state journal of medicine, etc. the High Times.

 

[ropeadope1983]

For one, it's an insult that you are going to try to attack my position on medical marijuana through claims that I even use or abuse it, and likewise, it does not help your case when your own studies are refuting your points. You pick and choose small parts of what I respond to you with and go on to make yourself look like a fool by not even understanding the mechanisms that they work under. And then, whenever you are proven wrong, you pretend like nothing happened and go on to repeat the same stuff over and over, ad naseum.

So anyone who recommends medical marijuana is not worthy to be an MD, huh? There are over 5000 doctors in the states that currently allow medical marijuana that use it with great results. There are immense promises for it as a pain medication with a safety profile better than sex, tylenol, and certainly better than vicodin. Its use with a vaporizor puts its respiratory side effects, which are extremely minor, on the same level with the normal population. Lets go over what has happened so far...


1) You suggested Medical Marijuana was less dangerous than Relafen.

2) You posted an article about smoking marijuana, claiming it causes chronic COPD Turns out, even heavy smoking for 40 years shows a small increase in phlegm and cough.

3) You pretended that vaporization did the same thing.

4) You cited a study to prove that vaporization did the same thing. Turns out, it only has a 30% incidence of phlegm and cough. Guess what? So does life (70+ million people have seasonal allergies).

5) Somehow, this was supposed to prove that marijuana should not be used medically, while vicodin, liver damaging drugs, and recreational substances like alcohol and tobacco (which have no medical use) should be legal.

6) As a "student of science", you then rejected an INTERNATIONALLY recognized journal. Of course, though, because the research was done in the netherlands, that makes it moot.

7) You are then backed into a corner by your own articles AGAIN, which show that SEX has a higher chance of causing a myocardial infarction than marijuana.

8) And now, you have no choice but to attack my character, by calling me a "reefer head" and trying to assault my dignity.

What you dont realize, is that the only person's dignity who is slipping away is your own.

It is so sad that you continue to hang onto this pipe dream of yours that it is undisputed that vaporized marijuana is completely safe, that marijuana in general is completely safe, and that we have even come close to undergoing clinical trials to demonstrate any of this. You are telling me that you want to be an MD and yet you want to jump the gun on pushing this drug just because some 5000 crackpot sharlatan doctors are doing it? I already demonstrated to you that there is a severe lack of good scientific literature on this and you still have made up your mind that it's the way to go. That is what is scary, that there are potential MD's out there like you. You are so ignorant that you continue to cite the author of the article in the Harm Reduction Journal after I thorougly blew his credibility out of the water (this Earleywine character is clearly an activist, not a scientist...you ask any good research scientists to review this journal article and I guarantee that you will be humiliated to even bring this to his or her attention as you are laughed out of the room...go ahead and try it, I dare you....better yet, have all of your LOR writers review this article and defend your position on medical marijuana to them before they write what they will about you).

The fact of the matter is that medical marijuana is much more of a social movement than science right now. Come a few years down the road and there is a lot more credible research on the uses of medical marijuana, then I'm certainly open to its uses (after FDA approval!). For you to list every drug under the sun that has potential side effects as support for why another potentially dangerous drug should be made available to the market is about as dumb of a reason as I could possibly think of (and after conversing with you on the subject, believe me...I've already entertained plenty of dumb reasons). But go ahead, prescribe drugs without clinical trials or FDA approval when you become a doctor. If it sounds like a good idea to you, who am I to hold you back?

 

[ropeadope1983]

Just curious SupernovaNights and DarknightX....is there a reason why when realitybias is logged in, you two are logged off, and why all three of you joined SDN at about the same time?...could it be that I'm talking to realitybias' multiple personalities that come out to play when he is doing drugs?

What a loser?

 

[realitybias]

It is so sad that you continue to hang onto this pipe dream of yours that it is undisputed that vaporized marijuana is completely safe, that marijuana in general is completely safe, and that we have even come close to undergoing clinical trials to demonstrate any of this. You are telling me that you want to be an MD and yet you want to jump the gun on pushing this drug just because some 5000 crackpot sharlatan doctors are doing it?

You have such a lack of respect for the medical profession that it is preposterous. You call 5000 physicians crackpot physicians while they are focused on improving the lives of their patients. Why? Because they are using a drug that has been found to be safe for thousands of years, which the FDA has stupidly scheduled higher than vicodin and cocaine. Many states allow it, and many doctors practice it, whether you like it or not.

Maybe you would call 54% of all oncologists crackpots...
"A random survey of oncologists found that 44% had illegally recommended marijuana for the control of vomiting and that 48% would do so if it were legal; 54% thought it should be available by prescription."
---Khamsi, R: Cannabis compound benefits blood vessels. Nature, 4 Apr 2005

I already demonstrated to you that there is a severe lack of good scientific literature on this and you still have made up your mind that it's the way to go.

The only thing you demonstrated was the lack of ability to read your own scientific literature, the lack of respect for scientific literature as a whole (by disregarding a scientific finding because it was in the netherlands? The hell?). International journals are peer reviewed, done and over with.

That is what is scary, that there are potential MD's out there like you. You are so ignorant that you continue to cite the author of the article in the Harm Reduction Journal after I thorougly blew his credibility out of the water (this Earleywine character is clearly an activist, not a scientist...you ask any good research scientists to review this journal article and I guarantee that you will be humiliated to even bring this to his or her attention as you are laughed out of the room...go ahead and try it, I dare you....better yet, have all of your LOR writers review this article and defend your position on medical marijuana to them before they write what they will about you).

And yet you were the one who brought it up, and even bolded out the things that you THOUGHT supported your case. In actuality, I gave two other journals that also show vaporization is a good alternative to smoking marijuana, and I also spoke about smoking marijuana's effects in general, and how they did not lead to the devastating things you believed they did (like myocardial infarction! Where the hell did you get that? Even your own journal author stated that sex has a higher risk and said that it may even have some anti-infarction properties in the long term).

The fact of the matter is that medical marijuana is much more of a social movement than science right now. Come a few years down the road and there is a lot more credible research on the uses of medical marijuana, then I'm certainly open to its uses (after FDA approval!).

I hope you live up to this, because legalization is coming, and more and more doctors (judging not only from the current movement in the medical community, but the poll as well) are realizing that it does have medical benefits with low risk.

For you to list every drug under the sun that has potential side effects as support for why another potentially dangerous drug should be made available to the market is about as dumb of a reason as I could possibly think of (and after conversing with you on the subject, believe me...I've already entertained plenty of dumb reasons).

The point is that marijuana has a BETTER safety profile than these drugs. You have not shown me one piece of evidence that marijuana is more dangerous than any of these drugs used to treat medical conditions and that are considered safe.

But go ahead, prescribe drugs without clinical trials or FDA approval when you become a doctor. If it sounds like a good idea to you, who am I to hold you back?

A better idea would be for you to call me a reefer head, refer to medical journals as "high times," and watch your credibility burn before your eyes.

 

[realitybias]

Just curious SupernovaNights and DarknightX....is there a reason why when realitybias is logged in, you two are logged off, and why all three of you joined SDN at about the same time?...could it be that I'm talking to realitybias' multiple personalities that come out to play when he is doing drugs?

What a loser?

Uhm, are you ******ed or something?

Supernova joined a year after I did.

And from what I can tell, SupernovaNights is still online.

 

[ropeadope1983]

realitybias...would you log off already? I want to talk to SupernovaNights. After I'm done with him, could you then log him off so I can talk to DarknightX? Seriously, I'm not getting enough love from you three (or you one)

 

[SupernovaNights]

Wow. Is this guy on drugs?

 

[ropeadope1983]

Even better....you logged onto another computer as SupernovaNights while you are still logged on as realitybias. Give yourself a high five .

Well, I'll leave you three (or one) to discuss this with yourself.

 

[realitybias]

Even better....you logged onto another computer as SupernovaNights while you are still logged on as realitybias. Give yourself a high five .

Well, I'll leave you three (or one) to discuss this with yourself.

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end. I guess I'll take this as you arguing yourself insane.

Much love, dude, and I hope you become a respectable doctor one day.

I'll just have everyone else (who has an intelligent head on their shoulders) know that I am certainly not supernovanights or darknightx. Supernova's already come back, and I hope darknight does too, heh. It looks like our friend, who has spouted forth slew after slew of ad hominems and attacks on people who believe in the benefits of medicinal uses for marijuana, has really run out of things to say and has left the debate. Good riddance, he wasn't bringing anything new either way.

I am certainly aware of the possible side effects of Marijuana. Any drugs have side effects. Its the wanton discrimination of marijuana as a powerful drug with a great safety profile that has got me and many physicians up in arms. I hope that anyone who reads this takes the time to decide for themselves whether or not its worth it, and likewise, I hope that even more people open up to the possibility of using it as a medical tool to accomplish our goal of creating healthy patients and ceasing their pains and ailments.

 

[gwangelyopo]

what a messed up thread...trolls abound.

 

[On3H34rT]

ropeadope, who the hell do you think you are? I am a sufferer of chronic pain, and you are willing to make the decision to ban Marijuana even if it is the safest way to treat pain? Did you say you wanted to be a DOCTOR? I am on Relefen, Nexium, Plaquenil, Methotrexate, Nifidipine, and had monthly treatments of Cytoxan for 7 months. When the Relafen doesn't work like it should, I take Tramadol. If marijuana has been proven safer than some of my medications, why not use it? Look up the dangers of each of those drugs, then you tell me that Marijuana should not be prescribed to me. I'll gladly take a cough over heart failure. Your own closed mindedness is not an attractive quality in a doctor. Being a doctor is not ABOUT YOU, it's about your patients, so put your politics and so called "morality" away. It is immoral to deny a patient the best treatment for his or her condition based on your own stubborness. Marijuana isn't the moral issue. It is your willingness to deny ones rightful treatment.

Usually i wouldn't care enough to respond, but your statements hit close to home. You said marijuana is like assisted suicide to chronic pain sufferers.

You my friend have issues.

 

[badasshairday]

ropeadope, who the hell are you to tell anyone what is best for them. I am a sufferer of chronic pain, and you are willing to make the decision to ban Marijuana even if it is the safest way to treat pain? Did you say you wanted to be a DOCTOR? I am on Relefen, Nexium, Plaquenil, Methotrexate, Nifidipine, and had monthly treatments of Cytoxan for 7 months. When the Relafen doesn't work like it should, I take Tramadol. If marijuana has been proven safer than some of my medications, why not use it? Look up the dangers of each of those drugs, then you tell me that Marijuana should not be prescribed to me. I'll gladly take a cough over heart failure. Your own closed mindedness is not an attractive quality in a doctor. Being a doctor is not ABOUT YOU, it's about your patients, so put your politics and so called "morality" away. It is immoral to deny a patient the best treatment for his or her condition based ony our own stubborness. Marijuana isn't the moral issue. It is your willingness to deny ones rightful treatment.

Usually i wouldn't care enough to respond, but your statements hit close to home. You said marijuana is like assisted suicide to chronic pain sufferers.

You my friend have issues.

 

[realitybias]

ropeadope, who the hell do you think you are? I am a sufferer of chronic pain, and you are willing to make the decision to ban Marijuana even if it is the safest way to treat pain? Did you say you wanted to be a DOCTOR? I am on Relefen, Nexium, Plaquenil, Methotrexate, Nifidipine, and had monthly treatments of Cytoxan for 7 months. When the Relafen doesn't work like it should, I take Tramadol. If marijuana has been proven safer than some of my medications, why not use it? Look up the dangers of each of those drugs, then you tell me that Marijuana should not be prescribed to me. I'll gladly take a cough over heart failure. Your own closed mindedness is not an attractive quality in a doctor. Being a doctor is not ABOUT YOU, it's about your patients, so put your politics and so called "morality" away. It is immoral to deny a patient the best treatment for his or her condition based ony our own stubborness. Marijuana isn't the moral issue. It is your willingness to deny ones rightful treatment.

Usually i wouldn't care enough to respond, but your statements hit close to home. You said marijuana is like assisted suicide to chronic pain sufferers.

You my friend have issues.

Well said, good man. I am glad that I could do you and all chronic pain sufferers justice. I hope that one day, you can get the pain relief you need without worrying about public policy problems and worrying about getting a doctor's license suspended.

 

[sonofschmilsson]

Alright. Alcohol and cigarettes are many factors more deadly, the regular use of acetaminophen leads to liver damage and isn't nearly as strong of a pain reliever, dex-containing cough syrups are more abused and addicting, and marijuana of all things is bad because it can "lead to a sedentary lifestyle and junk food consumption."

i'm pretty sure dxm is not "more abused and addicting" than marijuana. i could be wrong about that

also, i never said pot was bad. it is what it is

I really take it that you have no ability to distinguish the lifestyles of those who use the drug recreationally and those who use the drug medicinally

incorrect. why would you conclude this?

 

[realitybias]

i'm pretty sure dxm is not "more abused and addicting" than marijuana. i could be wrong about that

also, i never said pot was bad. it is what it is

incorrect. why would you conclude this?

Look man, I don't mean to be so hard on you. You're not as militant as that other dude, but I still feel like you don't quite understand the medicinal use of it when you talk about how it makes people eat junk food and lay around and watch TV. That's not what the debates about. Sure, it's got a few negative side effects (as do all drugs), but many doctors around the nation (A substantial amount, from polls) believe that it should be legal. A cough beats a burnt out liver, I'd say.

As for DXM, DXM is more readily available than marijuana, even openly allowed over the counter. Yet, it is gaining widespread popularity among people who want a cheap, "legal" high. It leads to brain damage and severe internal problems... of which marijuana does not do in the slightest.



That being said, it'll be legal. I'd be willing to bet it will be within the next 10 years. It already is in many states.

 

[sonofschmilsson]

I still feel like you don't quite understand the medicinal use of it

i think i have a pretty good grasp on the idea

As for DXM, DXM is more readily available than marijuana, even openly allowed over the counter. Yet, it is gaining widespread popularity among people who want a cheap, "legal" high. It leads to brain damage and severe internal problems... of which marijuana does not do in the slightest.

i understand this and stand by my original comment

That being said, it'll be legal. I'd be willing to bet it will be within the next 10 years. It already is in many states.

i assume you mean on the federal level? i'm not terribly familiar with how dea re-scheduling works but i wouldnt put money on it happening in the next ten years. you never know, though, i suppose

 

[russ123]

l

 

[Cirrus83]

There's different vaporizers though...some poorer vaporizers probably actually contain a lot of just plain smoke in their vapor. And even on the medical grade ones (well, actually far as I know only the volcano is really medical grade) I think you could force up the heat levels and probably get it to produce something that was more irritating.

Anyways, that study where the vaporizers still had 1/3rd of using reporting side effects might have had a lot of users with cheap vaporizers...since it sounded like they were just pot smokers who wanted to change marijuana legislation it's unlikely that all the study participants had anted up for a $500 medical grade vaporizer.

 

[badasshairday]

Old thread, bumped in lieu of this week's poll.

 

[fahimaz7]

Mary Jane is so minor, when you compare it to the plethora of drugs that physician's can order.

Such a joke.

 

[binko]

Dilaudid is legal. I rest my case.

 

[swamprat]

"A man should be judged by the quality of his work, not the quality of his piss."

- Kottonmouth Kings

Happy 420 haha

 

[BORNagainSTDENT]

I simply find it amusing that alcohol and tobacco are granted specific exemptions from drug scheduling, while marijuana is a schedule III i.e., more dangerous than heroin and cocaine. Seriously, who are we kidding? Alcohol and tobacco have essentially no medicinal value, while being highly addicive, yet anyone can buy them, no prescription needed!

Drug laws in this country are ridiculous, but nobody can get elected trying to change them. Cause drugs are bad, mmmkay?

I agree, alcohol can ruin any ones life in one night. I'm sure an ER doc can chime in.

 

[NotAndrew]

I can't believe this is the only thread about pot today.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I'm in the middle. Abuse is the only issue...but people do that anyway...I just hate how it has gone mainstream (& becoming a casual thing). However, medically, it does offer some benefits...but if you do it everyday (and all the time)...it does endanger some lives to almost the same effect as alcohol (I do argue that an alcoholic is worse than a potthead though). But anyway, I'm split whether it should be legalized or not, because if you look at any other medications (more powerful than marijauna) legalized for docs to prescribe...marijauna isn't as bad as some of them...

 

[BTC]

Anyone who lives or has spent any time near a California dispensary knows what a joke 'medical' marijuana is.

 

[Bananas Foster]

I agree, alcohol can ruin any ones life in one night. I'm sure an ER doc can chime in.

As an interesting aside, I know a primary care doc who "prescribes" alcohol. For people who have very low HDL (good cholesterol) counts studies show one unit of alcohol (not just red wine, any alcohol) every day or two can bump HDL levels 4-6 points.

Of course the type of people you advise this too are older adults whom your pretty sure are at absolutely no risk for addiction, and are at a very low baseline level of drinking, cause you really start to poison you body at levels beyond one drink a night. Also this advice isn't backed by the American Heart Association, which is understandably squeamish about the idea of doctors advising patients to drink.

Just food for thought for those people who love to compare recreational drugs....