Sorry about that, I just get carried away sometimes.
In one of those rare instances I find myself on the same side as the ACLU, I am very glad the Bush Administration got legally stiffed over this issue. Medical pot laws survive challenge.
JUSTICES TURNED down the Bush administration?s request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or perhaps even talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients. An appeals court said they cannot be punished.
Now, let’s be clear on this: I’m a horrible square (the only thing in my life more white and square than me is sliced bread), I’ve never smoked marijuana in my life, and I’m not for pot smoking. I’m aware of studies that say it helps a small subset of patients, and aware of studies that say it doesn’t help.
What I am completely against is the Government restricting my speech in a physician-patient relationship. As long as I’m not conspiring to either defraud the government or overthrow it by force, they should stay the heck out of what I tell my patients.
Bush-Ashcroft will push their anti-medical marijuana agenda until their last dying breath. And wouldn’t it be ironic if that dying breath were extremely painful, and could be relieved by medical marijuana.
I certainly am not qualified to speak to the Dr/Pt relationship; however, I do have some (legitimately gained) knowledge about marijuana and some of the myths surrounding the controversy.
First, an observation; why is it that some people will eschew a properly prescribed drug but run out and eat some weeds that someone else said was better for you?
It routinely takes at least eight years to bring a drug to market; It?s extensively tested and has to meet FDA standards and leap through hoops that border on the absurd. But yet, let one person say that apricot pits cure cancer and thousands of desperate people flock into Mexico to find them. No tests, no FDA standards, no nothing except desperation and self-serving half-truths.
The same is true of every other ?herbal remedy? available. They?ve NEVER been properly tested, analyze or even standardized according to dose efficacy and people STILL flock to the herbalists to buy them. If they were so much better why the hell did we ever create effective pharmaceuticals?? Shouldn?t we still be chewing on the willow tree bark for a hangover?
The plain and frequently ignored truth about ?medical marijuana? is that while it MIGHT help in some instances there are still drugs that perform at as well and usually better without the side effects. And that?s assuming that you can get a consistently regulated dose. Could you imagine the public uproar if the big drug companies tried to get the FDA to approve a unpredictable hypertrophic drug with known enormous potential for all kinds of lethal effects, possibly including cardiovascular side effects so they can have another so-so treatment for nausea in cancer patients??
We?ve been able to synthesize tetrahydrocannabinol for decades but you don?t hear anyone calling for its substitution for botanical marijuana in medicine, presumably because it takes all the fun out of treatment if you are able to precisely control dosages and eliminate ?side effects? (def. Highs).
I tend to agree with Jim Hougue’s comments although I believe that marijuana’s limited use in sick patients, usally those with cancer, should not pose a problem.
There are, indeed, good drugs that can be used in place of marijuana, but we ought not to ignore studies where marijuana fared better than these other drugs.
If there is fear that its use is going to pose a problem, we ought to develop strict guidelines for its use, in the same manner that we have guidelines for using other drugs like morphine, codeine and its synthetic analogues, and other strong substances. That should benefit patients who are appropriate candidates for marijuana use,
but still leaving options for using other treatments if marijuana fails.