Recreational Cannabis use legalized in Colorado and Washington

[PikminOC]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been doubting your sincerity for a while now. Everything so baited with triteness and oversimplification such that I'm having a hard time imagining you as fully grown and American born. That is, if you are sincere, you seem like you're from a foreign culture.

No offense. I just am curious if you're for real. You're an attending physician?

There might be some precipitous increase in usage if legalized. Car accidents? iphones are a moral outrage then, scientifically provable killing machines. Clearly, the question is not for the psychiatrists alone. And the legislative effect is not reducible to the incidence of use alone. The other implications involving that which a psychiatrist is no more qualified than a forklift operator to assess.

You can only get the physician logo on SDN if you prove you are a physician. You can ask them if youd like.

People get so defensive about cannabis..wow..

the question is not for psychiatrists alone..i just happen to be one who posted on here..

and i dont think any of us has a say in the legislation of this particular issue...

i will bow out and leave this to the experts.

 

[JourneyAgent]

You can only get the physician logo on SDN if you prove you are a physician. You can ask them if youd like.

People get so defensive about cannabis..wow..

the question is not for psychiatrists alone..i just happen to be one who posted on here..

and i dont think any of us has a say in the legislation of this particular issue...

i will bow out and leave this to the experts.

Alright then forgive my indiscretion. It just seems the psych board is a troll magnet and your posts seem strange to me. Maybe I'm strange then.

Regardless I'm not the least bit defensive of pot use. I'm against academic isolationism. I'm anti-drug war. And am critical of medicine's propensity to attract obedient, conservative intellects who wouldn't know an addict from a stereotypical depiction of one, even in themselves. Narratives of moral superiority ready for use.

I once had to nudge my attending pediatrician into recognizing the signs of methamphetamine abuse in our Caucasian patient. I was her medical assistant, a vocational level slightly above brain dead. She was a top notch physician. Among the best I've ever seen in my non-clinical opinion. But lacked a common street sense. Much like the medical opinion regarding controlled subtances. Narcotics, good. Marijuana, bad.

 

[notdeadyet]

And am critical of medicine's propensity to attract obedient, conservative intellects who wouldn't know an addict from a stereotypical depiction of one, even in themselves.

If this is really what you see, you may have chosen the wrong medical school. Most of the ones I looked at attracted folks much more along the liberal spectrum.

As for "obedient," I agree that medical school attracts folks who are able to conform more ably than most, but this is a necessity. Flying the wild card is a lot of fun, but at the end of the day, you need to make sure that you admit people who will be able to be rule followers. The license that allows you to practice medicine also can literally allow you to kill people if you don't follow certain sets of practices.

Much like the medical opinion regarding controlled subtances. Narcotics, good. Marijuana, bad.

I live in a state with legal medicinal marijuana and don't prescribe it. It's just not a good medicine. It's not at what folks want to prescribe it for, as an analgesic (effects vary widely) or anxiolytic (it can cause paradoxical anxiety in many, many folks). It can't be dosed effectively. Which shouldn't shock anyone who has noticed that we don't have many medicines prescribed by smoking.

Take care in writing off physicians who don't prescribe marijuana as lacking "street smarts." Many of us have indulged and/or been around the block a few times, likely even more than you. We just disagree on the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine.

Dismissing a viewpoint as uneducated because it differs from yours is the portrait of close-minded conservatism.

 

[JourneyAgent]

If this is really what you see, you may have chosen the wrong medical school. Most of the ones I looked at attracted folks much more along the liberal spectrum.

As for "obedient," I agree that medical school attracts folks who are able to conform more ably than most, but this is a necessity. Flying the wild card is a lot of fun, but at the end of the day, you need to make sure that you admit people who will be able to be rule followers. The license that allows you to practice medicine also can literally allow you to kill people if you don't follow certain sets of practices.


I live in a state with legal medicinal marijuana and don't prescribe it. It's just not a good medicine. It's not at what folks want to prescribe it for, as an analgesic (effects vary widely) or anxiolytic (it can cause paradoxical anxiety in many, many folks). It can't be dosed effectively. Which shouldn't shock anyone who has noticed that we don't have many medicines prescribed by smoking.

Take care in writing off physicians who don't prescribe marijuana as lacking "street smarts." Many of us have indulged and/or been around the block a few times, likely even more than you. We just disagree on the effectiveness of marijuana as medicine.

Dismissing a viewpoint as uneducated because it differs from yours is the portrait of close-minded conservatism.

Never said it was a good all-purpose medicine. It's a pretty good antiemetic from what science I've seen on it, and so given its side effects of appetite increase and euphoria it seems like a good option for terminal and/or cancer patients with wasting syndromes. And who says you have to smoke it. Do I really need to explain how THC is oil soluble? And what that means for innumerable preparation options? Would it prevent that consistent sniping comment from proliferating?

And many things are dosed nebulously. How much and what type physical therapy is required for a particular MSK injury? Does that mean it's ineffective? How much psychoanalysis produces transformative insight? What about good nutrition? How much should we perscribe of it? How about laughter? It has a positive effect on well being and mood. 6 or 8 jokes for being a grouchy f@ck?

If it could be demonstrated as a sleep aid or pain medicine, hasn't to my knowledge, then it would be far, far better than the much more addictive substances currently in use.

But you're having a conversation that I hadn't tabled. I'm talking about legalization or possibly just decriminalization of it. Street smarts comes into play you think about policy as it pertains to every day situations for most people. I've been blue collar my whole life. I'm almost 40. I have intimate experience with addiction and its consequences. With the legal stuff. That's not stuff I like or put on a resume. But if suits your requirement for worldly rather the moral experience, it's yours.

I speak at a medical stereotype. Of the sort that the deans and such put on a pedestal. If that hits anyone in the nose. Or you think I'm opinionated or close minded. Fine by me. I think I'll sleep alright tonight. Without smoking or eating weed. Or boozing. Or munching perscription sedatives.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Additonally, ndy....

I rarely think of conservative and liberal as political archetypes. I meant conservatism as orthodoxy. Taking the canonized narrative as self-evident truth. Instead of relying to some extent, wherever possible, on your own experience. Science can inform us only to a certain extent. Policy and societies of crafty bipedal apes cannot always be modeled by it.

I am more than aware of the necessity of walking a tight line of your superiors instructions while learning medicine.

But the occasion where I celebrate the presence of a wiser, funnier, more creative spirit than my own is certainly less frequent in medicine than on the street with everyone else.

Open mindedness is not some ideal that justifies itself without question. If one doesn't want to get mind raped on the regular, closing your mind like a steel trap on some bull**** is a fundamental life skill. The Drug war is some world-class bull****. Subscribers are not morally superior, their tricks turned for tax-payer funded profit. I don't have the habit of mind to speak and think in ways that are universally palatable. I don't like offending people--wish I hadn't been so presumptive with goverpsychmd--but I can't fake my contempt for lots of things. Taking potshots at potheads while supporting the criminalization state under the guise of medical orthodoxy and "good society" being one such thing. That I'd rather impolitely, verbally butt rape, than speak in Gomer Pilish open mindedness.

I can hold these thoughts--obedience in clinical scope of activity and rebellion of medical culture--simultaneously in play. The existence of one doesn't obliterate the other.

 

[jmadden]

Does anyone else see this as a disaster? What do you think would be the potential social, occupational, and economic sequelae that could stem from this decision?

Have you ever been to those 2 states?

It will hopefully reduce our insane 1% population of incarcerated citizens. China .1% and india .02%ish.

Do you know the cost of this? Even just avoiding incarceration with our legal system, which is also no value added economic transaction and unsustainable.

Besides money, maybe we can start to alleviate root causes of why people use it and addressing ways to quit besides a better educated public who will abstain by their own decision

 

[jmadden]

I do not think weed is harmless either. Habitually using for years clearly has effects while using as well as depression and anxiety when abstaining.

But do not think for a second these issues are addressed with our legal or judicial system

 

[billypilgrim37]

This thread is not doing a very good job of separating decriminalization from legalization.

 

[bob1234]

This thread is not doing a very good job of separating decriminalization from legalization.

Who cares? I should be able to do whatever I want even if it kills me. Where is the opposition to fatty foods? Should we ban stupid and fat people, or do we try to help them . . .

 

[billypilgrim37]

Who cares?

I would say the multitude of people, including I believe most psychiatrists, who would agree with decriminalization but not legalization.

 

[Rhayven44]

Should we ban stupid and fat people.

I believe Billypilgrim knows my stance on this particular question well🙂

 

[billypilgrim37]

I believe Billypilgrim knows my stance on this particular question well🙂

You're going into forensics. None of your opinions count anymore. 😉

 

[bob1234]

I would say the multitude of people, including I believe most psychiatrists, who would agree with decriminalization but not legalization.

I can only speak for myself, but I think you shouldn't be forced or coerced into something, even if it will benefit you, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Above all, drugs still exist and are used in increasing number while their status remains illegal.

 

[Salpingo]

I can only speak for myself, but I think you shouldn't be forced or coerced into something, even if it will benefit you, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Not to derail the thread, but what if someone is a danger ONLY to themselves, but grossly psychotic? Or delirious? Or, to make it relevant to this thread, high?

And who says you have to smoke it. Do I really need to explain how THC is oil soluble? And what that means for innumerable preparation options? Would it prevent that consistent sniping comment from proliferating?

THC has been FDA approved since 1985 as Marinol, and no self-respecting palliative care doctor would prescribe it except maybe as a Hail Mary last ditch attempt. Also, the purpose of dosing is primarily done to prevent adverse effects and allow for appropriate titration. I'm not familiar with PT, but if there's a chance that overexercise or overanalysis could be detrimental (maybe start with Woody Allen as a case study for the latter), then there'd be dosing for them as well. Same goes for laughter, rainbows, unicorns, etc. Although you make a fair point, and I think a large part of the success of CBT, DBT and module-based treatment has been the standardization/dosing of psychotherapy.

I see the double standard, practically, when you take a step back and look at all the prescription pill abuse. But I think its easier to determine criminal activity in these cases BECAUSE of the dosing, and track down the patients taking grams of Percocet and doctors prescribing kgs of Adderall. I'm fine with decriminalizing MJ, but making doctors the dispensers is just an all around sloppy and irrational way to distribute it.

 

[bob1234]

Not to derail the thread, but what if someone is a danger ONLY to themselves, but grossly psychotic? Or delirious? Or, to make it relevant to this thread, high?



THC has been FDA approved since 1985 as Marinol, and no self-respecting palliative care doctor would prescribe it except maybe as a Hail Mary last ditch attempt. Also, the purpose of dosing is primarily done to prevent adverse effects and allow for appropriate titration. I'm not familiar with PT, but if there's a chance that overexercise or overanalysis could be detrimental (maybe start with Woody Allen as a case study for the latter), then there'd be dosing for them as well. Same goes for laughter, rainbows, unicorns, etc. Although you make a fair point, and I think a large part of the success of CBT, DBT and module-based treatment has been the standardization/dosing of psychotherapy.

I see the double standard, practically, when you take a step back and look at all the prescription pill abuse. But I think its easier to determine criminal activity in these cases BECAUSE of the dosing, and track down the patients taking grams of Percocet and doctors prescribing kgs of Adderall. I'm fine with decriminalizing MJ, but making doctors the dispensers is just an all around sloppy and irrational way to distribute it.

We should grant privacy to those who want it and provide help to those who seek us out. I'm not a cold person and I wouldn't refuse helping someone if I can. You cross the line when you apply unwanted force on another person (banning certain sized drinks, fast food, etc). In the pursuit of happiness, what do you know about another person's happiness? Does happiness exist in profession, food, or leisure? To each his own.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Not to derail the thread, but what if someone is a danger ONLY to themselves, but grossly psychotic? Or delirious? Or, to make it relevant to this thread, high?



THC has been FDA approved since 1985 as Marinol, and no self-respecting palliative care doctor would prescribe it except maybe as a Hail Mary last ditch attempt. Also, the purpose of dosing is primarily done to prevent adverse effects and allow for appropriate titration. I'm not familiar with PT, but if there's a chance that overexercise or overanalysis could be detrimental (maybe start with Woody Allen as a case study for the latter), then there'd be dosing for them as well. Same goes for laughter, rainbows, unicorns, etc. Although you make a fair point, and I think a large part of the success of CBT, DBT and module-based treatment has been the standardization/dosing of psychotherapy.

I see the double standard, practically, when you take a step back and look at all the prescription pill abuse. But I think its easier to determine criminal activity in these cases BECAUSE of the dosing, and track down the patients taking grams of Percocet and doctors prescribing kgs of Adderall. I'm fine with decriminalizing MJ, but making doctors the dispensers is just an all around sloppy and irrational way to distribute it.

Fair enough. I can get what you're saying. Dose tracking medical practice. Figuring out what scandalous f'er in West Palm Beach is slingin narc's and givin out bubble gum to grandmas. Enabling cross state line smuggling in mass quantities. All easier to prosecute with batches of mass produced pharmaceuticals sold to licensed practitioners.

And yes. Walking into a "doc's" office for "I can't sleep bro...and...like...it's...I got some pain man" and getting a script to go to Cali-Amsterdam and say....give me an eighth of the double bubble and some of that wizard's goo too. Yeah...so I can sleep or....

Yeah that's crazy. To be medically sponsored.

But no more crazy than hanging out with people who are drowning their misery amongst other people doing the same in some devolved drunken sadness. Like the whole country coast to coast. Red white and f'n blue.

So I'm with bob. We should get out of the drug game. So that our scientific and medical instruments can be directed at being the most reliable and honest and unimpeachable sources of public information out there. So that we don't become corrupted with the legitimization of legal recreational drugs at the behest of huge multi-national corporations. And get used lamely in that process by participating in knocking out their competition with moral and legal sanction.

Opiates don't like weed. Legal opiates and amphetamines are the uncle tom's of the recreational drug game. They can't stand some bastard usurper cutting in on the feel good action. I'm not going through all this training to be the mouth piece of legal feelgood corporation.

There's no way to be half in the game. Or out.

If I'm gonna push paperwork around the hospital the honest, right way. Then I can't see any other way than to at least look at pharmacology objectively--completely depoliticized--and to think like a regular person when it comes to recognizing the distribution and economics of the situation that I'm surrounded by.

Such that yes...weed as a unmeasurable panacea is f'n ridiculous. But that's the end of it for us. What our fellow monkeys want to do with their feel good stuffs is up to them.

We have to be trustworthy advisers. And that requires us not to be hypocritical.