• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Why Marijuana instead of pain pills?

Melensdad

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
Just a question here, but please read the following short article.

Rhode Island now decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes, and now issues a photo ID card to selected people who can prove that marijuana MIGHT ALLEVIATE SOME SYMPTOMS of whatever disease or diability they may have.

So my question is why is marijuana better than a legal drug? (bear in mind that marijuana is illegal to grow, sell and buy in Rhode Island, but not illegal for 'licensed users' to possess).



ap_small.gif

R.I. Gets Its First Medical Marijuana Bid

BY RAY HENRY, Associated Press WriterWed Apr 5, 12:24 PM ET



A multiple sclerosis patient who hopes to use marijuana to ease the painful symptoms of her disease became the first person to apply for state permission to legally use the drug under a new Rhode Island law Wednesday.


Rhonda O'Donnell submitted a two-page application and a $75 check to the Department of Health. Once the department confirms her doctor's diagnosis, she will be issued a photo ID card and will be allowed to buy or carry up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana.


"I am just so thankful that our legislators have been compassionate enough to care about the disabled," O'Donnell said.


Rhode Island in January became the 11th state to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. The drug remains illegal under federal law, however, and even those who get permission from their states to use the drug could still be prosecuted by federal officials.


Health Department spokeswoman Maria Wah-Fitta said the agency has mailed 50 to 60 applications to people interested in getting permission to use marijuana.


The program does not provide marijuana and does not say how people can get the drug.


Applicants must provide certification from a doctor in Rhode Island that says marijuana could mitigate their symptoms. Patients under 18 may use the drug with permission from a parent or legal guardian.


The state's Medical Marijuana Program will expire on June 30, 2007, unless the General Assembly renews it. Gov. Don Carcieri had vetoed the program, but the Legislature overrode his veto.



LINK TO YAHOO!


​
 
I guess I don't understand your question. Is it legal to posess narcotics that are not prescribed to you? If so, then I see your point. Also, is it legal to make morphine from opium or poppies or whatever the base ingredient is?
I think the issue here is that marijuana is something that is a common recreational drug that is easy to grow and so has some legislation around it.

Personally, I think marijuana - if it alleviates the pain - is probably more desirable because it may not "space you out" as much as morphine/demaral/oxycotin.
 
Well actually Marijuana is NOT prescribed by the doctor. Bascially the doctor provides a statement saying that marijuana may alleviate some of your symptoms (bear in mind it may not alleviate them). The individual then takes that statement, along with an application form and files with the state. The state then issues you an ID card that gives you permission to possess a very small amount. It is still illegal for you to buy it. It is still illegal for you to grow it.

Now I am not trying to level any value judgement here, I'm just curious.

As to your observation that it might not space you out as much as morphine/demarol/oxycotin that may be true (unlike Bill Clinton, I honestly have no idea), but my M-I-L had the same disease that the woman in the article has and my M-I-L was never prescribed morphine/demarol/oxycotin.

So I'm not sure that it is necessary to equate marijuana with strictly regulated narcotic drugs. It may be that the lady in the article just prefers smoking marijuana to taking a much milder and far more common pain medication such as Tylenol 3? Or it may not be a substitute for a pain medication at all, perhaps it is being used as a substitute for a common anti-inflamitory, anti-coagulant, etc?

So my question is why is marijuana better than some legally prescribed drug? Is it just a matter of preference to some people? If so, then we should legalize all sorts of currently criminal activity using that logic?!?
 
Well, is it still legal to own codeine without a prescription? If tylenol 3 is our benchmark entry level pain medication, then I could see how there would be arguments to suggest that marijuana is a better long-term solution. And codeine is a controlled substance for you guys in the U.S.. From what I know, we're talking about long-term pain management for cancer and other devastating diseases. I've been on tylenol 3 for months at a time, and it's very constipating and not a real pleasant experience in general. If I were faced with doing that for years, I would be looking at alternatives. I haven't smoked pot since high school, but I have respect for people who do. There are no known side effects aside from "leads to more serious drug use" which isn't really an issue for the poor dying people who this is being prescribed for.
 
1- No it is not legal to own codeine without a prescription.


2- Bear in mind that there is no evidence that suggests that marijuana is used as a substitute for a pain medication.


3- The smoke from marijuana is known to have many chemicals that are known carcinigens, in addition to tar and several posions. So lung cancer and numerous lung diseases are a known risk but to my knoweldge no study has 'formally' linked them yet.



ONCE AGAIN, not trying to level a value judgement here, just trying to understand why someone would use marijuana instead of a legal drug.
 
Maybe the person does not like the side effects of the other pain drugs. Maybe there is some form of placebo effect going on - (the person believes the marijuana relieves the pain so it does) - who knows? If a person is in enough pain that they need to take that level of pain pills or marijuana to dull the pain the likelihood is that any negative effects of the marijuana just don't really mean anything - the person will in all likelihood be dead before those negative effects manifest themselves.

I just finished reading a book called "Send in the Waco Killers" which was given to me by a guy I work with. The author Vin Suprynowicz argues that Constitutionally the Federal Goverment has no right to regulate things such as marijuana and other hard drugs. The precedent for this was established when Prohibition was repealed and also by the fact that during the 1800's and before there was no real regulation of this stuff ( Coca Cola actually used to have cocaine extract in it). I still don't know if I quite agree with him but he makes a pretty good argument for deregulation - the book is worth a read if you have the time:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967025907/104-5729436-9059900?v=glance&n=283155
 
It makes no sense to have a card saying that you can have small quantities of the drug, but it is still illegal to buy or grow it. Typical nonsense legislation.
Bone
 
I suppose it might be cheaper than SOME medications, but it is still illegal to buy, grow or sell. So any time a person with one of the state supplied ID cards went to buy it, they still could be arrested during the act of the purchase, the seller obviously could be arrested and charged with far greater criminal offenses. So there are still risks involved that would make people question the rationale of doing this.

Further, depending on the type of medication someone is replacing with marijuana, you couldn't drive a car for a few hours after smoking your dose. Now many pain medications have similar mind numbing effects, but most anti-inflamitories, and many other drugs would not prevent you from driving a car. Marijuana qualifies as a substance that that "impares" your judgement and you could get a DWI and lose your drivers license or end up in jail if caught a couple times.

Seems to be a lot of downside?

Why not just have the drug companies distill down the chemical in the plant and take it in pill form?
 
It's kind of like the "gay agenda" keep chipping away at it and eventually society will just give in to the minority just because they are numb from hearing the noise all the time.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
I kind of missed out on the beginning of this thread, but I did have a physician once tell me that I needed qualudes (sp?) for my migraines. Dummy me went to the pharmacy and asked for some. :o Yeah, that was a hard one to explain. Fortunately the physician admitted that he suggested it in jest and never thought I'd to the pharmacy to ask for some. :pat:

But, that does bring up an interesting argument. If I have severe pain that an be relieved, why do I have to live with the pain? It's proven that I am not a drug abuser, but it is also a fact that I'd rather not roll around on the floor in pain throwing up on myself when I can be given something to alleviate the pain. Who gets to play "god", if you will, and decide that passing out 4 times because of pain within 10 minutes with constant nausea is enough? Really, when is enough pain enough?
 
B_Skurka said:
Why not just have the drug companies distill down the chemical in the plant and take it in pill form?
Click to expand...

It still has to be grown. Given that you are growing it and "legalizing" it, does it matter what form the customer gets? I agree that a pill is a much easier delivery method than rolling a joint and getting a zip-lock bag for your prescription!

We have licensed growers in Canada :). Not sure how they manage it, but there must be alot of security requirements.
 
Dargo, I don't know the answers to your questions, and simply put I don't know the answer to my question either.

But one thing that totally baffles me is that if marijuana's known active ingredient is beneficial to treating some diseases, then rather than doing a half-assed work around like Rhode Island did, why not make a drug (pill, oral liquid, or injection) the contains the drug? It would offer many advantages.

Just some thougths, but if they they take the compound THC found in marijuana and make it into a legal drug it could be prescribed, then . . .
  1. it would be legal,
  2. it would not require a trip to the shady side of town to buy a bag,
  3. it would not support an underground economy,
  4. it would not support illegal activity,
  5. it would be 'pure',
  6. it would be of a known & established dosage,
  7. it would not contain the harmful toxins that perist in smoke
  8. it would be taxed
  9. it would add to our economy
  10. it would eliminate any stigma associated with smoking 'pot'
  11. it would become accessable to people who would not break the drug laws
  12. it would become usable to people who oppose smoking
Sandra Bennett, Director of the Northwest Center for Health and Safety, stated in a March 14, 2002 radio interview:
"Having medical properties is not the same thing as being safe and effective for medical use. Marijuana has 483 compounds, 66 of which are cannabinoids. Several of the cannabinoids have already been developed into FDA approved medications. But these medications are not marijuana. They are pharmaceutical drugs, which can be carefully titrated [dosed] to the patient's needs.

Here is an illustration that may make this easier to understand. Compare marijuana to a chocolate fruitcake. The cake, like marijuana, contains many ingredients, i.e., eggs, flour, sugar, salt, fruit, nuts, leavening, and cocoa. The cocoa is to the cake what THC is to marijuana. However, to a diabetic, or someone allergic to nuts or flour or eggs, there are likely to be some very bad reactions to eating the cake. Using the word "cocoa" interchangeably with the word "cake" is incorrect, misleading and confusing. However, that is what is being done with THC and marijuana. THC is no more marijuana than cocoa is a chocolate cake."
beds said:
It still has to be grown. Given that you are growing it and "legalizing" it, does it matter what form the customer gets? I agree that a pill is a much easier delivery method than rolling a joint and getting a zip-lock bag for your prescription!

We have licensed growers in Canada :). Not sure how they manage it, but there must be alot of security requirements.
Click to expand...

Here in the US, there is only one licensed grower. It is a University research program and it is regulated by the FDA, the field is strictly regulated and controlled as is the crop that is produced.
​
 
B_Skurka said:
Just some thougths, but if they they take the compound THC found in marijuana and make it into a legal drug it could be prescribed, then . . .
  1. it would be legal,
  2. it would not require a trip to the shady side of town to buy a bag,
  3. it would not support an underground economy,
  4. it would not support illegal activity,
  5. it would be 'pure',
  6. it would be of a known & established dosage,
  7. it would not contain the harmful toxins that perist in smoke
  8. it would be taxed
  9. it would add to our economy
  10. it would eliminate any stigma associated with smoking 'pot'
  11. it would become accessable to people who would not break the drug laws
  12. it would become usable to people who oppose smoking
Click to expand...

But what about the munchies? :thumb: :yum:
 
Well I suppose in pill form "the munchies" would be eliminated. We might see stock in "Frito Lay" go down if a legal drug form is commonly available. Brian, I suggest yell your Frito's stock now, just to be safe.
 
Dargo said:
I kind of missed out on the beginning of this thread, but I did have a physician once tell me that I needed qualudes (sp?) for my migraines. Dummy me went to the pharmacy and asked for some. :o Yeah, that was a hard one to explain. Fortunately the physician admitted that he suggested it in jest and never thought I'd to the pharmacy to ask for some. :pat:

But, that does bring up an interesting argument. If I have severe pain that an be relieved, why do I have to live with the pain? It's proven that I am not a drug abuser, but it is also a fact that I'd rather not roll around on the floor in pain throwing up on myself when I can be given something to alleviate the pain. Who gets to play "god", if you will, and decide that passing out 4 times because of pain within 10 minutes with constant nausea is enough? Really, when is enough pain enough?
Click to expand...

Literally I know your pain, Dargo. I suffer Cluster Headache. Thank God for the evil medical researcher and their evil-er drug company that invented Imetrex. (Sumatriptan-Succonate) I use the injections, but there is a pill and a nasal spray available now too.

Without that drug, I would have taken the 9mm cure for my headaches long ago. (Yes, they're that bad.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top