# Dr. Sanjay Gupta : Why I changed my mind on weed



## easyrider (Aug 8, 2013)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Interesting article about , weed.

_[Moderator Note:  FYI, you can edit the titles of your own posts by clicking on "Edit" and then "Go Advanced."]_


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Aug 8, 2013)

Weed needs to be legalized. Personally I don't smoke it but know so many that do and not one of them has an overt problem from their smoking habit.

Certainly can't be said about alcohol or any other drug on the street.

We definitely need a strict policy about under age smoking but otherwise it needs to be legalized for consenting adults.


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Aug 8, 2013)

In addition, THC (the chemical that gives a person the feelings) can be extracted and added to different foods. So, it doesn't have to be smoked.

TS


----------



## Patri (Aug 8, 2013)

Kid just got stopped here for running a red light. High on weed.


----------



## SmithOp (Aug 8, 2013)

It can be legal to use, like several states now, and still be illegal to drive, it's classified as under the influence.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 8, 2013)

An interesting chain of reason. So far voters in 19 states and DC agree with his findings. The evidence is worth revisiting in the other 31.

Jim


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (Aug 8, 2013)

easyrider said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> 
> Interesting article about , weed.



Maybe if somebody can edit the title to correct the name of this doc:

"Sanjay Gupta" is the correct name.


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 8, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> An interesting chain of reason. So far voters in 19 states and DC agree with his findings. The evidence is worth revisiting in the other 31.
> 
> Jim



What a talking head says doesn't count for much to me since Smoking anything legal or not seems stupid.

No dog in this fight but I am waiting to see what happens since it is still a federal offense AFIK. 

Cheers


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 8, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> What a talking head says doesn't count for much to me since Smoking anything legal or not seems stupid.
> 
> No dog in this fight but I am waiting to see what happens since it is still a federal offense AFIK.
> 
> Cheers



I'm curious, did you read the article before posting?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 8, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> I'm curious, did you read the article before posting?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Nope and I still think smoking anything, legal or illegal is dumb. Maybe I am prejudiced knowing a few smokers in the family with lung cancer.

Comments


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 8, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Nope and I still think smoking anything, legal or illegal is dumb. Maybe I am prejudiced knowing a few smokers in the family with lung cancer.
> 
> Comments



By not reading the article, you are missing the bigger picture. Do yourself a favor and read it. It's not just about smoking.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## am1 (Aug 8, 2013)

I think it should be allowed in limit medical cases.  Not abused the way it seems to be at the moment.  

I would double or triple the sentences that are currently given out.  If it were not for US demand then thousands of people inside and south of the US would not be needlessly killed every year.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 8, 2013)

The group of people that I have met that use weed for medicinal purposes is larger than the group of recreational users. I use weed for kidney stone pain. Indica strains works good for this type of pain for me. My wife used it to sleep for pain with her torn rotator cuff for a couple of weeks before bed. 

Neither of us smoke pot with the exception of these few times when vicodin doesn't do the trick. Both of us would rather drink.

I know a person with a painful disintegrating back disc problem that almost overdosed on oxy. This person now uses indica strains and has a tolerance to the buzz part of the pot. Kind of like a tolerance. You would never know this person had just smoked some pot. 

In my younger days all most every one was smoking pot and most every one was very mellow. Now kids are using meth, designer drugs and legal toxic bath beads / potpourri. I think they would be safer smoking pot. Then like every one else I know they would out grow it.


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 9, 2013)

"Kid just got stopped here for running a red light. High on weed."
-------------------------------
Anyone is capable of stupid behavior, no matter what substance is involved.
A DUI is a DUI, but your comment adds nothing to the debate on the merits.
------------------------------

I know a guy who, as a result of multiple surgeries is in constant pain.
He says that pot is the only thing that lets him sleep at night.
He's tried all the usual prescribed narcotics, including morphine.

Yet in Florida, he could be jailed for up to a year for a minor amount.
That's stupid, too. IMHO, it should at least be available as an Rx.


----------



## SmithOp (Aug 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> I think it should be allowed in limit medical cases.  Not abused the way it seems to be at the moment.
> 
> I would double or triple the sentences that are currently given out.  If it were not for US demand then thousands of people inside and south of the US would not be needlessly killed every year.



So you don't mind paying higher taxes to support the legal and penal systems that enforce these triple sentences?  

It should be legalized, regulated and taxed.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 9, 2013)

Funny.. About 2 years ago I started a thread about legalizing weed and it was shut down by the moderators for being controversial. I guess its not controversial anymore.


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Aug 9, 2013)

(1) Make marijuana legal 100%, *BUT* regulate it the same as alcohol (limit to 21+ except medical, illegal to drive under the influence of it, etc).
(2) Allow chemical addition to foods with the same regulations - especially for those who can't smoke it

TS


----------



## am1 (Aug 9, 2013)

SmithOp said:


> So you don't mind paying higher taxes to support the legal and penal systems that enforce these triple sentences?
> 
> It should be legalized, regulated and taxed.



Taxes do not always have to be raised to pay for things.  Have the criminals pay court fees and the cost of staying in jail.  Or the cost of one trial and lengthy jail stay may be cheaper then cost of multiple trials and shorter jail stays.  

When it comes to the safety of innocent people money should not be the first concern.  

That being said maybe it should be legalized and maybe it will eventually.  Until then it is illegal in most cases.  Anyone who uses is partly the cause of thousands of murders every year and the waste of government funds that are needed elsewhere.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> Taxes do not always have to be raised to pay for things.  Have the criminals pay court fees and the cost of staying in jail.  Or the cost of one trial and lengthy jail stay may be cheaper then cost of multiple trials and shorter jail stays.
> 
> When it comes to the safety of innocent people money should not be the first concern.
> 
> That being said maybe it should be legalized and maybe it will eventually.  Until then it is illegal in most cases.  Anyone who uses is partly the cause of thousands of murders every year and the waste of government funds that are needed elsewhere.



So it costs around $54000 a year to keep someone in prison for your average offense. More for a high security prison. How would the prisoners pay for that plus court fees? . Should we also charge the prisoners for the cost of running the DEA and the cost of the police needed to make the arrest? It makes more sense not to send them to prison in the first place for smoking weed.


----------



## geekette (Aug 9, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> So it costs around $54000 a year to keep someone in prison for your average offense. More for a high security prison. How would the prisoners pay for that plus court fees? . Should we also charge the prisoners for the cost of running the DEA and the cost of the police needed to make the arrest? It makes more sense not to send them to prison in the first place for smoking weed.



exactly.  If people could grow their own, it would not need to be imported.  Smoking pot is a victimless crime.  The only reason it was known as "a gateway drug" is that it could only be gotten from a dealer, and they are the gateway to "whatever you want".  

Legalize it and tax it, just like nicotine.  Convert tobacco farmers to hemp farmers.

I would certainly prefer folks smoke pot than have to kill pain with oxy.  That's just so much worse.  Damned few crimes committed by potheads.


----------



## geekette (Aug 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> Anyone who uses is partly the cause of thousands of murders every year and the waste of government funds that are needed elsewhere.


Pure Crap.


----------



## geekette (Aug 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Nope and I still think smoking anything, legal or illegal is dumb. Maybe I am prejudiced knowing a few smokers in the family with lung cancer.
> 
> Comments



Good for you.  we all appreciate your condemnation.

May you never encounter chronic pain that requires serious drugs to combat since you surely don't ever want to do something Dumb like suppress the pain via pot smoking.  This ought to free you up to denigrate those that choose weed over oxy.  Lucky you.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> Taxes do not always have to be raised to pay for things.  Have the criminals pay court fees and the cost of staying in jail.  Or the cost of one trial and lengthy jail stay may be cheaper then cost of multiple trials and shorter jail stays.
> 
> When it comes to the safety of innocent people money should not be the first concern.
> 
> That being said maybe it should be legalized and maybe it will eventually.  Until then it is illegal in most cases.  Anyone who uses is partly the cause of thousands of murders every year and the waste of government funds that are needed elsewhere.



From what I have seen, young people that get caught indulging in weed sometimes end up with a criminal record that makes gainful employment at a good place to work almost impossible for the rest of their life. 

The sentencing for having weed can be extreme because of the guidelines which can be used subjectively by law enforcement. 

Keeping weed illegal has made a weed mafia of sorts making drug lords very violent and rich.

My experience has been that most people that frequently smoked weed when they are young have out grown it by 30 or so and are well adjusted citizens.


----------



## am1 (Aug 9, 2013)

easyrider said:


> The sentencing for having weed can be extreme because of the guidelines which can be used subjectively by law enforcement.
> 
> Keeping weed illegal has made a weed mafia of sorts making drug lords very violent and rich.
> 
> My experience has been that most people that frequently smoked weed when they are young have out grown it by 30 or so and are well adjusted citizens.



Thousands would tell you it is not pure crap if their voice could be heard from 6 feet under.

Currently I see it as a demand problem.  Stop the demand and the cartels will be in trouble.  

As for paying for jail stays.  Maybe haver the rap artists and other musicians pay for it as they are the ones promoting it.


----------



## fillde (Aug 9, 2013)

easyrider said:


> My experience has been that most people that frequently smoked weed when they are young have out grown it by 30 or so and are well adjusted citizens.



Was your previous screen name easy wider.:rofl:


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 9, 2013)

geekette said:


> Good for you.  we all appreciate your condemnation.
> 
> May you never encounter chronic pain that requires serious drugs to combat since you surely don't ever want to do something Dumb like suppress the pain via pot smoking.  This ought to free you up to denigrate those that choose weed over oxy.  Lucky you.



Sorry I offended you and I didn't "condemn" anybody. Doesn't change my opinion.

As I said, seeing the results of lung cancer up close and personal affected me deeply concerning smoking anything, cigarettes, cigars, pipes, catalpa leaves, marijuana, hookahs, whatever. If marijuana is your choice for pain relief, there are many forms not associated with smoking AFAIK. 

People are free to make their own choices and I made mine. You apparently made yours and that's fine with me.

Cheers


----------



## rleigh (Aug 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Sorry I offended you and I didn't "condemn" anybody. Doesn't change my opinion.
> 
> As I said, seeing the results of lung cancer up close and personal affected me deeply concerning smoking anything, cigarettes, cigars, pipes, catalpa leaves, marijuana, hookahs, whatever. If marijuana is your choice for pain relief, there are many forms not associated with smoking AFAIK.
> 
> ...



I don't understand that either. I wonder if it lessens the effectiveness if not smoked? Like with the hookah thing. Come on, I understand the cultural aspect but seeing these "hipters" going to the latest local hookah place is just funny. 


///


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 9, 2013)

"Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United States drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed was neuropathic pain. It is a miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have described it as "lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles." While marijuana has long been documented to be effective for this awful pain, the most common medications prescribed today come from the poppy plant, including morphine, oxycodone and dilaudid.
Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well for this kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem."  (from the article)

I have this type of pain.  It is miserable.  I can't even take the poppy-derived drugs as they make me horribly sick.  Currently, I take Cymbalta and gabapentin.  I still have pain.  Then I take a zolpidem so I can sleep through the pain.  I feel like a zombie most of the time.  Quit my job because I couldn't handle the stress.  Stress amplifies the pain.  

I'd really like the chance to try medical marijuana but it is illegal where I live.  I can't see that it would have any worse side effects than what I am currently taking.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Sorry I offended you and I didn't "condemn" anybody. Doesn't change my opinion.
> 
> As I said, seeing the results of lung cancer up close and personal affected me deeply concerning smoking anything, cigarettes, cigars, pipes, catalpa leaves, marijuana, hookahs, whatever. If marijuana is your choice for pain relief, there are many forms not associated with smoking AFAIK.
> 
> ...



It appears that you still haven't read the article. I have valued your posts in the past, as they appeared relevant, informed and cogent. Your posts on this thread have not been up to your standard. By not reading the article, and repeating your preconceived notions on the subject you are directly influencing others who may think you have all the facts when making your claims...and you do not. 

I don't understand why you do not take the few minutes needed to read the article, and then consider over time if the salient points made in it should influence your opinion. I do understand that you, along with many others, have painful experiences dealing with the result of smoking. Obviously, this thread began with the news that a widely respected medical doctor reversed his stance on this topic. If he can change his opinion on this topic, why can't you? But, you won't if you don't even bother to read this simple article, and perhaps related others, and then consider options after knowing more about the topic. Dismissing this out of hand as you have done does no one any good and may simply perpetuate outdated beliefs.

I know someone right now - today - in hospital about to go to hospice who likely cut short his life by many years due to smoking and eventual lung cancer. It is not stopping me, nor his immediate family members (with whom I have had this conversation) from looking to the future and the possible positive uses which may result from this being more accessible, particularly for medical use.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## geekette (Aug 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> Thousands would tell you it is not pure crap if their voice could be heard from 6 feet under.
> 
> Currently I see it as a demand problem.  Stop the demand and the cartels will be in trouble.
> 
> As for paying for jail stays.  Maybe haver the rap artists and other musicians pay for it as they are the ones promoting it.



Presumably the 6 feet under refers to the drug runners vs users?

If the latter, I'm gonna need a source for that, please.  

If the former, folks that engage in dangerous professions know the risks.  Presumably the big money is worth the risk.  

Demand has not gone away for all these decades.  Why would it suddenly be so?  

why not attack from supply side and cut the drug runners out?  Let people plant their own garden for their own use and thereby circumvent dealers.  

If I had curious teens, I would far rather they secretly harvest my crop than head for the seedy side of town to procure their own.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> As for paying for jail stays.  Maybe haver the rap artists and other musicians pay for it as they are the ones promoting it.



You have got to be kidding me. As if The Who, The Rolling Stones, or other bands didn't directly or indirectly "promote" it. I don't like rap, but at least I know it (and other music) is not the source of our problems. You can't seriously believe what you wrote.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 9, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> It appears that you still haven't read the article. I have valued your posts in the past, as they appeared relevant, informed and cogent. Your posts on this thread have not been up to your standard. By not reading the article, and repeating your preconceived notions on the subject you are directly influencing others who may think you have all the facts when making your claims...and you do not.
> 
> I don't understand why you do not take the few minutes needed to read the article, and then consider over time if the salient points made in it should influence your opinion. I do understand that you, along with many others, have painful experiences dealing with the result of smoking. Obviously, this thread began with the news that a widely respected medical doctor reversed his stance on this topic. If he can change his opinion on this topic, why can't you? But, you won't if you don't even bother to read this simple article, and perhaps related others, and then consider options after knowing more about the topic. Dismissing this out of hand as you have done does no one any good and may simply perpetuate outdated beliefs.
> 
> ...



I did read it and still retain my opinion about smoking. I am not against using marijuana for pain relief. I am against smoking anything.

If Dr Gupta has an opinion and has changed his view, its just that, his opinion and he is certainly entitled to it and I feel I am as well. Smoking has so many bad effects besides lung cancer, I do not believe it is good in any form. 

I am differentiating between smoking in general and marijuana use, which are two different things to me. IMHO, smoking is bad for your system while marijuana, just like many other things can be beneficial or detrimental depending how it is used or abused. 

If others choose to smoke whatever, that's their choice and I certainly did not "condemn" them. If they choose to use marijuana brownies, cookies, hot dog buns, waffles or whatever that's fine as well. It just seems to me that those type of alternatives are better for your body that inhaling burned anything including smoke from forest fires for that matter. I have no clue as to the relative efficacy of smoked or eaten marijuana (Dr Gupta did not mention it in the article either) and if it is only effective as a pain reliever when burned then inhaled, I would use another palliative but that's my choice. Others may certainly choose otherwise and smoke rather than eat but it is not my place to decide for them. 

Cheers


----------



## am1 (Aug 9, 2013)

geekette said:


> Presumably the 6 feet under refers to the drug runners vs users?



The innocent people that are killed because of the drug trade including the police.  

I do not seriously believe that rappers and other artists should pay but they are responsible for a lot of problems in todays society.  People look up to them and they are out of touch with reality.


----------



## SmithOp (Aug 9, 2013)

The medicinal patients I know use a vaporizer or edible.  Vaporizing has a faster short term effect, edibles are slower effect and last a longer period, it all depends on how the patient wants to use it.


----------



## Smokatoke (Aug 10, 2013)

Im sure by my user name you all know i am pro legalization 

Regulate it like alcohol, 21 and up. My stance is alcohol has a much more dramatic impact on lives an health and provides no where near the medical benefits they are finding with THC and cannabanoids. 

I hold a good job, go to the gym daily and instead of coming home to drink a beer or have some wine, I smoke a toke with the wife and chill out. Never bother anyone.

The billions we would save in the legal system and the billions generated in revenue can help pay for all the debt the country continues to rack up :ignore:


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 10, 2013)

I find this thread interesting.  I've never used marijuana in any form.  Like Dr. Gupta, I have been changing my mind regarding its use.  I'd like to see well-regulated studies done on sufficient numbers of subjects to make reasonable conclusions.  That is not happening here in the USA due to irrational, IMO, laws.

I've listened to interviews on NPR as well as news shows on television weighing the pros and cons and the history of how it came to be banned in America.  It definitely needs some worthwhile studies.  

As to regulating it like alcohol, that seems reasonable but there are differences in that any one can grow marijuana but most people are not willing to go to the time and trouble to make beer or wine or other forms of alcohol at home.

As to regulating the growing of marijuana, we don't regulate the growing of poppies, foxgloves, datura, etc.  I see them all around the neighborhood.  There are many poisonous and toxic plants sold in nurseries as well as the local grocery store.


----------



## Pat H (Aug 10, 2013)

I've always been against legalizing marijuana but am slowly changing my mind. What I think is really funny, is that seniors are the fastest growing users.

From classicalvalues.com:
Seniors are the fastest growing population segment when it comes to marijuana use. And not all of that use is medicinal. 

Statistics suggest that more members of the older generations, like Ms. Neufer, are using marijuana. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported in 2011 that 6.3 percent of adults between the ages of 50 and 59 used the drug. That number has risen from 2.7 percent in 2002.

And anecdotal evidence points to much of this use being sociable rather than medical.

When 70-year-old Robert Platshorn, a marijuana activist who was jailed for three decades after dealing the drug, moved into a gated community in West Palm Beach, Fla., three years ago, he said he “met people in my development who were looking strange at me.” Now, he said, couples invite him to their condominiums to get high together (Mr. Platshorn insisted he never accepts these offers).

Moms for Marijuana International, a pro-marijuana group that brings people together to socialize and learn about the positive aspects of the plant, has received so many queries from older people over the past year that it is creating chapters called Grannies for Grass in Illinois, Ohio and Missouri.

I do resent the name Grannies for Grass though. Makes us sound really old.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 10, 2013)

Rose Pink said:


> I'd like to see well-regulated studies done on sufficient numbers of subjects to make reasonable conclusions.  That is not happening here in the USA due to irrational, IMO, laws.



I could not agree more. It's (pardon the pun) high time to test the effects of cannabis on various diseases just like other drugs are tested. Double blind- with large scale studies. 

Some of the effects of cannabis will be shown to be subjective, as the major 'organ' that is affected is the nervous system. So the benefit- or lack thereof- will be in the opinion of the user. 

Some effects can be measured and those should be published in recognized medical journals. 

Marijuana possession in small quantities for personal use should be decriminalized.  Folks who have a patch of cannabis growing in the back yard or hydroponically under lights in the basement shouldn't fear for the Revenooers beating down the door in the middle of the night. Parents should not have to fear losing their children over recreational use of cannabis.

While I am not in favor of any sort of smoking- as I think it does harm to the body of the smoker and is unhealthy to those around the smoke- besides it stinks- there are other ways to ingest the active ingredient. For those who DO choose to smoke it, smoking areas are not all that hard to locate. With the price of pot, all the users I know don't want any of the precious smoke just wafting away anyway. They want it as concentrated in their lungs as possible.

Test it. Label it. Regulate it. Decriminalize it.

Jim


----------



## persia (Aug 10, 2013)

If they turned over marijuana production to Monsanto, Congress would fall over itself trying to legalise it...


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 10, 2013)

persia said:


> If they turned over marijuana production to Monsanto, Congress would fall over itself trying to legalise it...


So true. And soon they would make a GMO version, patent it and then successfully sue all surrounding farmers for growing the patented version even though their crops were contaminated by the wind or animals pollinating their crops with the Monsanto strain. Wouldn't it be nice if we could sue Monsanto for not containing their own GMO pollens.


----------



## geekette (Aug 10, 2013)

Thank you.  I appreciate and respect your point of view.

I apologize for the condemnation crack.  

If you know of someone undergoing chemo, they may appreciate a brownie.  



x3 skier said:


> I did read it and still retain my opinion about smoking. I am not against using marijuana for pain relief. I am against smoking anything.
> 
> If Dr Gupta has an opinion and has changed his view, its just that, his opinion and he is certainly entitled to it and I feel I am as well. Smoking has so many bad effects besides lung cancer, I do not believe it is good in any form.
> 
> ...


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 10, 2013)

geekette said:


> Thank you.  I appreciate and respect your point of view.
> 
> I apologize for the condemnation crack.
> 
> If you know of someone undergoing chemo, they may appreciate a brownie.



No worries. 

Cheers


----------



## geekette (Aug 10, 2013)

agree on decriminalization at a minimum.  Locking up casual pot smokers is worse for society overall based on how they return from that experience and the cost involved.  I'd prefer those dollars further attempt to stop meth and the ever-scary heroin.

It seems to me that it was many decades ago that it (edit:  weed) was found to aid glaucoma patients somehow.  

Agree on regulating like alcohol and tobacco - restricted sales by age.  Could certainly produce it in cigarette form and let each state apply their tax.   

People can make their own alcohol, few choose to do so.  Ditto growing tobacco.  While I don't know quite how to make opium out of poppies, I can grow poppies legally also.  Today in my state, a sale of mari within X miles of a school adds extra mandatory fine or time (don't remember which) and I think a radius around a school needs to be maintained.  No growing it OUTSIDE within 2 miles?  

Hemp also is a wonderful rope, and for that reason alone, it was silly to ever prevent the crops.


----------



## geekette (Aug 10, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> No worries.
> 
> Cheers



Cheers, indeed!


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 11, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> I did read it and still retain my opinion about smoking. I am not against using marijuana for pain relief. I am against smoking anything.
> 
> If Dr Gupta has an opinion and has changed his view, its just that, his opinion and he is certainly entitled to it and I feel I am as well. Smoking has so many bad effects besides lung cancer, I do not believe it is good in any form.
> 
> ...



Dr. Gupta opinion is not the same as any other person. He is a medical doctor with experience in public health. His opinion was formed by reading medical journals and studies that he could understand better then people without his expertise. His opinion is an informed opinion and should be taken seriously.  We have a real problem in our society because the media and the public think all opinions are equal no matter the source. This crucial mistake allows the media to call something a controversy when there is no controversy in the scientific community. An excellent example is the phony controversy about vaccinating children. The doctors, scientists, studies, and empirical proof is treated as being no more valid then the ravings of some distraught parents swayed by irrational fear. The studies are clear-marijuana is safe for adults but should be used with caution and restrictions on driving etc.  The anti marijuana lobby is supported by nothing except years of misinformation and hysterical fear and the greed of the prison industrial complex that wants to keep the prisons full and profitable.


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 11, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Dr. Gupta opinion is not the same as any other person. He is a medical doctor with experience in public health. His opinion was formed by reading medical journals and studies that he could understand better then people without his expertise. His opinion is an informed opinion and should be taken seriously.  We have a real problem in our society because the media and the public think all opinions are equal no matter the source. This crucial mistake allows the media to call something a controversy when there is no controversy in the scientific community. An excellent example is the phony controversy about vaccinating children. The doctors, scientists, studies, and empirical proof is treated as being no more valid then the ravings of some distraught parents swayed by irrational fear. The studies are clear-marijuana is safe for adults but should be used with caution and restrictions on driving etc.  The anti marijuana lobby is supported by nothing except years of misinformation and hysterical fear and the greed of the prison industrial complex that wants to keep the prisons full and profitable.



I have no idea why you quoted my comments and what your comments have to do with mine. I did not say Dr Gupta's opinion was the same as any other individual, just that he is entitled to his as I am to mine.

As a member of "the public" I certainly do not believe "the public think all opinions are equal no matter the source" except for those who might read the National Enquirer and believe aliens are among us or the Moon landings are faked. 

I happen to agree with Dr Gupta's assessment but am totally against a person burning things, whatever they are, and inhaling the result. Why this engenders comments inferring my views about marijuana, Dr Gupta or the phase of the moon is a mystery to me. I have tried to be very clear marijuana use and smoking *anything* are two entirely different things to me.

BTW, your observations regarding the total ignorance and self denial by those who are anti vaccination are spot on. As long as vaccinations are not administered by burning a vaccine in a cloud of smoke and then inhaled, I get every one my physician recommends for myself and my family. 

Cheers


----------



## Big Matt (Aug 11, 2013)

Never mentioned in this thread is what it could do for our economy. Like few nations, we have the ability to grow crops cheaply and in large quantities.  It could be a huge export business.  A lot of our tobacco goes over seas now.  Phillip Morris, Reynolds, among others would be all over this.


----------



## Mosca (Aug 11, 2013)

Regarding the smoking, 

From what I understand weed today is about 30 times more powerful than the lids we got high on in the '70s, and about 4-5 times more powerful than the sinsemilla that replaced those lids. One toke processed through a water filter every few hours is a lot different than a couple joints a day, or a pack of cigarettes. 

The criminalization of this popular substance is one of the great tragedies of our country. It feeds a criminal/industrial complex that enforces racial and class disparities, and costs the taxpayers far, far more than just the expense of housing those unlucky enough or too poor to avoid prosecution.


----------



## Kal (Aug 11, 2013)

One remedy would be for the state(s) to change their laws. In the state of Washington it was done by the voters. Then there is the political option. I doubt the citizens have enough resource$ to accomplish the goal, so the ultimate decision is controlled (as always) by those who get what they want by buying politicians. Private prison industry has total control in some states while elsewhere we get the standard opposition groups. 

Can you imagine what the process would look like in congress (Ft. fumble)!


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 11, 2013)

Interesting article.  Thanks for sharing.  I will admit to mixed feelings about this.  As the mother of a soon to be teenager ( and as coincidence would have it, a former teenager myself) I am uneasy about the legalization of ANY drug.

As the wife of a disabled man, who suffers greatly everyday, and ironically has suffered terribly  by prescribed meds as well, I think this might be a good avenue for him.

And I've been around enough "consumers" to know that the side effects are nothing compared to opioids.


----------



## DazedandConfused (Aug 12, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Funny.. About 2 years ago I started a thread about legalizing weed and it was shut down by the moderators for being controversial. I guess its not controversial anymore.



Progress



x3 skier said:


> I did read it and still retain my opinion about smoking. I am not against using marijuana for pain relief. I am against smoking anything.
> 
> If Dr Gupta has an opinion and has changed his view, its just that, his opinion and he is certainly entitled to it and I feel I am as well. Smoking has so many bad effects besides lung cancer, I do not believe it is good in any form.
> 
> ...



Most Pros use a VAPORIZER for SAFETY reasons - 95% carcinogen free


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 12, 2013)

I have procured cannabis for very, very old people in my life. They could barely see before, they could see reasonably well after. They also said it helped with their daily aches and pains -- better than prescription drugs, which simply "numbed" them. Opiates made injury MORE likely because they wouldn't know if they were doing something that might hurt them. Not so with MJ.

Still, the federal government claims "no known medicinal use." An utter crock. I don't imbibe anymore. But if I reach an advanced state of decrepitude, I hope I'll be able to lay my hands on cannabis again. Because I know what it can do.

Besides, incarcerating people for using an herb which grows wild (98% of all the cannabis destroyed by the US government is "ditch weed") is the second dumbest thing our government does.

The dumbest thing our government does is to fight an ideology with weapons. Can't be done.


----------



## JudyS (Aug 12, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Nope and I still think smoking anything, legal or illegal is dumb. Maybe I am prejudiced knowing a few smokers in the family with lung cancer.


I agree that inhaling smoke is very harmful. However, marijuana can be consumed in several ways without smoking it.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 16, 2013)

*WEED*

The show is to be on CNN tonight and replayed Saturday.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...this-cnn-special-programming-fri-816-mon-819/


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 16, 2013)

Can't argue against "controlled" medical use but giving access to "medical marijuana" to just about anyone seems disingenuous.  Kind of like refusing to call the "coup" in Egypt a coup.  Both are back door ways to achieve something that can't be achieved honestly.

George


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 17, 2013)

bogey21 said:


> Can't argue against "controlled" medical use but giving access to "medical marijuana" to just about anyone seems disingenuous.  Kind of like refusing to call the "coup" in Egypt a coup.  Both are back door ways to achieve something that can't be achieved honestly.


So, do you think adults should be prohibited from purchasing alcohol as well?  Why or why not?  There are many studies showing alcohol is more dangerous, more addictive and can be abused more easily than marijuana.

As a person who has never touched the stuff (and has no plans to do so), I used to think having MJ illegal was the correct thing to do, but after educating myself (mainly due to the Colorado vote; where I live), I simply can't justify my old position.  If we, as a society, deem alcohol as an acceptable vice, I can't find a valid reason not to allow MJ as well.

Kurt


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 17, 2013)

PigsDad said:


> So, do you think adults should be prohibited from purchasing alcohol as well?



In a perfect world, yes.  But the world is not perfect.  Full disclosure.   I drink  3 (one ounce) shots of Vodka daily.  For medicinal purposes naturally.  

George


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 17, 2013)

I watched the above referenced program on CNN last night. It's to be re-broadcast today. I found it interesting. One take-away I got from it that I wasn't aware of it the relative 'strength' of currently available weed. Back when I was imbibing, the 'ditch weed' and available Maui Wowie, and various Mexican varieties were about 1-1% THC, while the program I watched stated that the current stuff can be as much at 22-25% THC. No wonder it's considered 'pharmaceutical strength'.

I still say that it's use and legality should be tested, evaluated and de-criminalized.

JIm


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 17, 2013)

bogey21 said:


> In a perfect world, yes.  But the world is not perfect.


The US tried that once.  Didn't work out so well. 

Kurt


----------



## Dori (Aug 17, 2013)

I watched the fascinating special on CNN on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. I was amazed at the effect the medical marijuana had on the little girl who had been experiencing hundreds of seizures per week, each one potentially fatal.

She now is able to function, and is learning to talk, walk, eat independently. This is definitely something to think about and perhaps adopt a different perspective.

Dori


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 18, 2013)

I also was impressed with the way weed helped that little girl.

Also of interest was the family of guys in CO who were growing it for commercial use and had develped a strain which had a minimal amount of whatever causes a 'high' (THC?), so that the result was a weed that was primarily for medicinal use.  

Maybe their next step is to develop an extract to use in cases as covered in the show (or working with a big pharma to make it happen), but they may already be doing this.


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 18, 2013)

muranojo said:


> I also was impressed with the way weed helped that little girl.
> 
> Also of interest was the family of guys in CO who were growing it for commercial use and had develped a strain which had a minimal amount of whatever causes a 'high' (THC?), so that the result was a weed that was primarily for medicinal use.
> 
> Maybe their next step is to develop an extract to use in cases as covered in the show (or working with a big pharma to make it happen), but they may already be doing this.



I didn't dabble with drugs in my youth. I was into full-scale research. I was Mr. Involved. A member of NORML and all that. Paid writer of pro-pot magazine articles. I gave up on cannabis because I grew tired of getting high. 

But I can say with certainty that the "cannabis extract" called Marinol, is utter, useless crap. People who need it -- people who suffer from AIDS wasting syndrome, glaucoma patients, etc. -- are better off with brownies or similar.  

There are still MOUNTAINS of bogus scientific "studies" starting in 1937 when the Marihuana Tax Act made the drug illegal in the first place. This is also the time when the propaganda movies such as Reefer Madness came out. 

And here's the deal. The main reason? Not DuPont or synthetic rope or similar. White girls were going to black jazz clubs and smoking reefer with people like Louis Armstrong. THE HORROR! That's what got America up in arms about cannabis. White girls with black musicians. There are plenty of other reasons, too. But that's the biggie.

Louis Armstrong continued to smoke reefer every day for the rest of his life, incidentally. What a wonderful world.



EDIT -- PS -- Jim, no big deal about the increase in THC content. All that means is the user doesn't need as much to achieve the same result. Many stoners (and patients with legitimate medical need) do not like the process of smoking. I sure as hell didn't. It's harsh -- even with a good vaporizer or water pipe. I'd rather get the job done with the minimal amount of inhalation. (And I can't stand orally imbibing. For me, it was a buzzy, confusing experience.) Everyone is different. And the government (of course) deems it necessary to pigeonhole everyone. "Marinol worked in our blind tests, so it will work for you."  (Well, it makes me sick to my stomach.) "Our tests indicate that it works for the majority of patients." (Well, majority isn't the same as 100%.) "Too bad. Marinol is legal (in the eyes of the feds). And nothing else is. Sucks to be you."

PPS -- If you poke a hole in a marinol tablet and squirt the liquid onto a bong hit, it's really, really good. We used to call it "Marijuana Helper."

PPPS -- I have smoked with Elvy Mussika. She is one of the remaining four people in America who receives her cannabis directly from the Federal Government under the IND program from the Carter Administration. Google her. On one hand, the government says cannabis has no medicinal value and arrests hundreds of thousands of people each year for simple possession. On the other hand, the federal government grows cannabis at the University of Mississippi, and sends 300 joints to Elvy Mussika every month. Her government weed sucks, incidentally. They just grind the whole plant, stems, seeds, leaves and all. But at least they don't kick in her door, confiscate her stuff, and pack her off to jail like they do to everybody else.


----------



## Carol C (Aug 18, 2013)

persia said:


> If they turned over marijuana production to Monsanto, Congress would fall over itself trying to legalise it...



You're right, if there's money to be made and if it becomes legal nationwide, Monsanto would be all over it, producing GMO and Roundup-Ready ganga (sp?)

Btw, I saw the Sanjay Gupta special Weed last night on CNN. It was fascinating, and frankly it's wonderful to know that in Colorado a family that was once opposed to pot can get a strain low in THC that has helped their epileptic little girl to normalize. I felt like I was watching a miracle unfold...and having a hubby with Parkinsons I'm interested in the groundbreaking work being done in Israel. I hope everyone reading this thread will reserve judgement on medical marijuana until you've viewed the one hour special Weed on CNN.


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 18, 2013)

Interesting and informative show.  I told my Daughter who has kids 8, 4 and 1 that she needs to learn more about marijuana as legalization is coming, maybe slowly, but it is still coming.

George


----------



## persia (Aug 18, 2013)

Well it worked as well as the current Marijuana laws do...



PigsDad said:


> The US tried that once.  Didn't work out so well.
> 
> Kurt


----------

