• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Miracle Marijuana

Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%

  • No

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 11.8%
  • Total voters
    51
Captain America said:
I know that to be true as well. I have found tobacco to be the worst addiction of them all. A cigarette may not cause you to wreck your car but they are the hardest habit to break I have ever known personally.
Click to expand...

You've got that right.

I haven't had a cigarette since Sept '08. I still get the urge for one.
 
MrFungus420 said:
Only in the sense that some people can become psychologically addicted to just about anything.
Click to expand...

No, there is a physical addiction, too. Recent studies have shown this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, there is a physical addiction, too. Recent studies have shown this.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it certainly is not like opiates.

As a matter of fact I give pot credit for getting me off pain pills after a severe motorcycle wreck.
 
winston53660 said:
Maybe, but it certainly is not like opiates.

As a matter of fact I give pot credit for getting me off pain pills after a severe motorcycle wreck.
Click to expand...

The physical addiction to marijuana is tied to opiates, but not NEARLY as strong.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The physical addiction to marijuana is tied to opiates, but not NEARLY as strong.
Click to expand...

I know that you know that you know more than I do about the subject. I was addictted to pain pills though and one day took a couple of tokes fell asleep. Woke up the next day minus the cravings for the pain pills.
 
My mother was so sick before she died ten years ago of leukemia . She couldn't really communicate and we couldn't get her to eat. We didn't really know how to deal with grave illness in our family.

I couldn't believe my dad would agree to trying marijuana because he's the most far right anti-drug person there is. I was scared to even bring it up. But he didn't even think about it and said that we should get some. So one of my brothers got some and we breathed it into Mom. I don't know if it helped or not. It did not help very much.

We did what anybody might do when a family member is in trouble and I don't think anybody should have told us we couldn't.
 
American said:
Potential Merits of Cannabinoids for Medical Uses

It appears that the FDA has not seen enough evidence to approve it.
Click to expand...

From your link:
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Congress listed marijuana in Schedule I. Schedule I substances have a very high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and lack accepted safety data for use under medical supervision.
Click to expand...

Why have we made it a Schedule 1 drug? It is ****ing ridiculous that is is Schedule 1.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and FDA support the medical research community who intend to study marijuana in scientifically valid investigations and well-controlled clinical trials, in-line with the FDA’s drug approval process. HHS and FDA recognize the need for objective evaluations of the potential merits of cannabinoids for medical uses. If the scientific community discovers a positive benefit, HHS also recognizes the need to stimulate development of alternative, safer dosage forms. In February 1997, an NIH-sponsored workshop analyzed available scientific information and concluded that “in order to evaluate various hypotheses concerning the potential utility of marijuana in various therapeutic areas, more and better studies would be needed.”
In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a detailed report that supports the absolute need for evidence-based research into the effects of marijuana and cannabinoid components of marijuana, for patients with specific disease conditions. The IOM report also emphasized that smoked marijuana is a crude drug delivery system that exposes patients to a significant number of harmful substances and that “if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives.” As such, the IOM recommended that clinical trials should be conducted with the goal of developing safe delivery systems.
In May 1999, HHS released “Guidance on Procedures for the Provision of Marijuana for Medical Research,” a document intended to provide the medical research community who intend to study marijuana in scientifically valid investigations and well-controlled clinical trials on HHS procedures for providing research-grade marijuana to sponsors. The HHS guidance is intended to facilitate the research needed to evaluate pending public health questions regarding marijuana by making research-grade marijuana available for well-designed studies on a cost-reimbursable basis. The focus of this HHS program is the support of quality research for the development of clinically meaningful data regarding marijuana. An appropriate scientific study of a drug requires, among other things, that the drug used in the research must have a consistent and predictable potency, must be free of contamination, and must be available in sufficient amounts to support the needs of the study. NIDA allocates resources to cultivate a grade of marijuana that is suitable for research purposes. The HHS Guidance outlines the procedures for obtaining research-grade marijuana including: 1) the researcher must make an inquiry to NIDA to determine the availability and costs of marijuana, and NIDA has to determine that marijuana is available to support the study; 2) researchers who propose to conduct investigations in humans must proceed through the FDA process for filing an IND application: and 3) all researchers must obtain from DEA registration to conduct research using a Schedule I controlled substance.
FDA regulates smoked marijuana, a botanical product, when it is being investigated for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or other animals, as a drug, under the FD&C Act. Botanicals include herbal products made from leaves, as well as products made from roots, stems, seeds, pollen or any other part of a plant. Botanical products pose some issues that are unique to this class of product, including the problem of lot-to-lot consistency. These unpurified products, which may be either from a single plant source or from a combination of different plant substances, often exert their reported effects through mechanisms that are either unknown or undefined. For these reasons, the exact chemical nature of these products may not be known. In addition, issues of strength, potency, shelf life, dosing and toxicity monitoring need to be addressed. If a product varies greatly, as can occur with botanicals, it is critical to obtain lot-to-lot product consistency. Without this it is difficult to determine if the product is causing the change in a patient's condition, or the change is related to some other factor. Because of the problems associated with obtaining lot-to-lot consistency with botanical marijuana, it is not surprising that IOM recommended that clinical trials should be conducted with the goal of developing safe delivery systems.
HHS performed a scientific and medical evaluation of marijuana in 2001 and concluded with a recommendation to DEA that marijuana should remain in Schedule I pursuant to section 201(b) of the CSA. HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation can be found at Volume 66, Federal Register page 20038 (April 18, 2001). After receiving an HHS evaluation and recommendation, DEA is responsible for scheduling substances and as noted previously, has primary responsibility for the regulation and distribution of Schedule I substances.
Click to expand...

I can kind of understand why they would want to isolate the active component and come up with an alternative delivery mechanism. It kind of pains me that they may separate the part the gets you high from the part that heals...unless they are one and the same.

Why they would re-evaluate and classify as a schedule 1 drug again is beyond me. Damn war on drugs.

CONCLUSION
Having access to a drug or medical treatment, without knowing how to use it or even if it is effective, does not benefit anyone. Simply having access, without having safety, efficacy, and adequate use information does not help patients. FDA has and will continue to use its IND and other expanded access programs to provide patients freedom to choose investigational medical treatments while reasonably ensuring safety, informed choice, and systematic data collection that allows us to review drug applications.
FDA will continue to be receptive to sound, scientifically based research into the medicinal uses of botanical marijuana and other cannabinoids. FDA will continue to facilitate the work of manufacturers interested in bringing to the market safe and effective products.
Click to expand...

So basically as long as they have their hands in defining what is safe or not they are ok with it. I hate the FDA, the DEA, the HHC, and any other agencies involved in this. What happened to personal freedom?
 
i think it should be illegal from the simple view that do we need another drug that can put you in an altered state of conciousness, theres enough road accidents from alcohol.
 
spud_meister said:
i think it should be illegal from the simple view that do we need another drug that can put you in an altered state of conciousness, theres enough road accidents from alcohol.
Click to expand...

And it appears that 1.3 out of every 10 people here agree with you.
 
spud_meister said:
i think it should be illegal from the simple view that do we need another drug that can put you in an altered state of conciousness, theres enough road accidents from alcohol.
Click to expand...

Just because a substance puts you in an altered state of consciousness does not mean it should be illegal. It merely has to be used responsibly or serious consequences will ensue.
 
Captain America said:
Jessie Ventura said it best on Larry King. I don't remember his exact words but it went something like this. "I come up through the 60's and 70's. The age of the rock and roll concerts. The Beatles, Stones. Pot, to my generation, is as natural as beer at a baseball game. I have smoked marijuana and I have drank beer. Marijuana didn't do nearly as much damage."
Click to expand...

Isn't Jessie Ventura a 9-11 truffer? So doesn't that hurt his argument that it didn't do nearly as much damage?:mrgreen:
 
jamesrage said:
Isn't Jessie Ventura a 9-11 truffer? So doesn't that hurt his argument that it didn't do nearly as much damage?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Like anybody can argue with Jesse "The Body" Ventura. :mrgreen:
 
I dip Grizzly Green--that is addiction. Pot is nothin like that. If I want to work on a fun project, or listen to music, Pot makes it more enjoyable. and that is all it is. there is not a "need" to do it at all. I quit for a solid year once, with no need to do it. The first time I tried Pot, my response was, "and this will get me life in prison?? some body is messed up for sure"
 
Just remember that during prohibiktion that there were a record number of children who were alcoholics because any kid could buy it. They also used to deliver buckets of beer which they tweaked, during the delivery process.

Go ahead keep it illegal so our kids can ea:roll:sily obtain it from the local crack dealer.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Just remember that during prohibiktion that there were a record number of children who were alcoholics because any kid could buy it. They also used to deliver buckets of beer which they tweaked, during the delivery process.

Go ahead keep it illegal so our kids can ea:roll:sily obtain it from the local crack dealer.
Click to expand...
Hello, Kids smoke it now. Making things illegal, does not stop people from doing them. It just makes them into criminals.--If it were legal, there would be no more crack dealers. Once the criminal profit dried up, so would the dealers. The big money, is because it is risky and dangerous to deal with. If it were legal, the risk and profit for dealers is gone.
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
Hello, Kids smoke it now. Making things illegal, does not stop people from doing them. It just makes them into criminals.
Click to expand...

Come on kids, get aboard the crack train. See your local dealer today, while supplies last. If he runs out of pot you can always buy some cheap crack.:roll:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, there is a physical addiction, too. Recent studies have shown this.
Click to expand...

Anything that changes the level of dopamine in the brain can be addictive, so I agree with you, and that could also be true with chocolate.
 
jamesrage said:
No offense to you junkies but I do not buy the medical marijuana excuse. I think potheads couldn't win people over with the recreational marijuana so they made up the medicinal marijuana arguement as a back door to recreational usage. >>

Just hope you stay healthy and don't need pain relief. Pot is the only effective drug that's not habit forming. Been there, done that,

ricksfolly
Click to expand...
 
Skateguy said:
I dip Grizzly Green--

that is addiction. Pot is nothin like that. If I want to work on a fun project, or listen to music, Pot makes it more enjoyable. and that is all it is. there is not a "need" to do it at all. I quit for a solid year once, with no need to do it. The first time I tried Pot, my response was, "and this will get me life in prison?? some body is messed up for sure" >>

So far, I've been able to handle my pain, but it's good to know my doctor can legally prescribe pot if it gets to be too much.

Thanks, Skateguy, for saying it makes life more enjoyable, not just eases pain, apathy sometimes makes it even worse.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...
 
reefedjib said:
Free clue: So are cigarettes and many prescription drugs and they are legal.
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
So is alcohol, even more so than marijuana, but it is ingrained in our culture.
Click to expand...

MrFungus420 said:
Only in the sense that some people can become psychologically addicted to just about anything.
Click to expand...

winston53660 said:
Maybe, but it certainly is not like opiates.
Click to expand...

None of which counters CC point that THIS statement:

MrFungus420 said:
Free clue: cannabis is not addictive.
Click to expand...

Was either a lie, a distortion, or was simply made out of ignorance.

None of what ANY of you all said counters CC's counter to Mr. Fungus. Just because Alcohol is ALSO addicting doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct. Just because opiates are more addiction doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct. Just because it doesn't have the affect on some people doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct.

What you all did was nothing but emotionally responding because you saw someone disagreeing with your position and rather than actually deal with the context, facts, and conversation that was being presented you instead immediately went into strawman mode of "deflect, deflect, deflect".

Which is in part one of the biggest issues that pro-legalization crowd has trouble actually getting a foot hold. Because for every person that can talk about it in a reasonable, adult manner without any kind of huge emotional attachment or loads of propaganda there's 5 people that will sit there and tell you its perfectly 100% safe, you should drive on it, water is more dangerous, that is absolutely not addictive, etc etc etc.
 
Zyphlin said:
None of which counters CC point that THIS statement:



Was either a lie, a distortion, or was simply made out of ignorance.

None of what ANY of you all said counters CC's counter to Mr. Fungus. Just because Alcohol is ALSO addicting doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct. Just because opiates are more addiction doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct. Just because it doesn't have the affect on some people doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct.

What you all did was nothing but emotionally responding because you saw someone disagreeing with your position and rather than actually deal with the context, facts, and conversation that was being presented you instead immediately went into strawman mode of "deflect, deflect, deflect".

Which is in part one of the biggest issues that pro-legalization crowd has trouble actually getting a foot hold. Because for every person that can talk about it in a reasonable, adult manner without any kind of huge emotional attachment or loads of propaganda there's 5 people that will sit there and tell you its perfectly 100% safe, you should drive on it, water is more dangerous, that is absolutely not addictive, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. I did not make my statement to deflect that pot is addictive. I accept that and CC would know. Physical and psychological addictions are in play.

I made my statement that there are other legal addicting substances in order to observe that a substance being addictive is not a good reason for it being illegal.

OT: will you perhaps make it to the talk on Iraqi Elections tomorrow night?
 
Zyphlin said:
None of which counters CC point that THIS statement:



Was either a lie, a distortion, or was simply made out of ignorance.

None of what ANY of you all said counters CC's counter to Mr. Fungus. Just because Alcohol is ALSO addicting doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct. Just because opiates are more addiction doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct. Just because it doesn't have the affect on some people doesn't mean MrFungus's quote that CC was replying to was correct.

What you all did was nothing but emotionally responding because you saw someone disagreeing with your position and rather than actually deal with the context, facts, and conversation that was being presented you instead immediately went into strawman mode of "deflect, deflect, deflect".

Which is in part one of the biggest issues that pro-legalization crowd has trouble actually getting a foot hold. Because for every person that can talk about it in a reasonable, adult manner without any kind of huge emotional attachment or loads of propaganda there's 5 people that will sit there and tell you its perfectly 100% safe, you should drive on it, water is more dangerous, that is absolutely not addictive, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

You should seriously consider banging a gong. You have been using that same lame argument on all of these pot threads. Being anti pot is a cottage industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom