91. #89 Adam says: {{"Morphine and cocaine-based drugs, are ABOLUTE MEDICAL MIRACLES for so many patients and so many medical situations...BUT, for many people and for many medical situations, MARIJUANA IS MORE EFFECTIVE AND MUCH SAFER."}}

After being in the medical field for 25+ years in various capacities, this statement is so obnoxiously laughable, that it's beyond reproach or deserving of commentary.

{{"Death by medication or by prescription is one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. (JAMA info.)"}}

(((YAWN)))

1.)Heart Disease 685,089
2.)Malignant Neoplasm (Cancer) 556,902
3.)Cerebralvascular Disease 157,689
4.)Chronic Lower Respiratorty Disease 126,382
5.)Unintentional injuries (MVA) 109,277
6.)Diabetes Mellitus 74,219
7.)Influenza/Pneumonia 65,457
8.)Alzheimer's Disease 63,457
9.)Nephritis/Nephrosis 42,453
10.)Septicemia 34,069
Complications from Med/Surgical care: 3,059 (1.0%)
(Mostly infancy and age 75+)

--Sources: U.S. National Center For Health Statistics, United States, 2005
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol.50, No.15

{{"No frickin' deaths from marijuana toxicity in 5,000 years..."}}

Really? Then we must also assume that there have been no deaths from cigarette toxicity??

You potheads are making this way too easy.

lizard at 1:24AM on Nov 28th 2007

92. #90 Well "brother" enoch..don't try to get on my good side by agreeing with me and stating that it's "dumb" for someone to post on here that taxing and regulating weed would "eleviate" our deficit problem. You kinda sound like "Potsie" (heh, heh, what a pun) sucking up to Arthur Fonzarelli. Besides, I'm still searching for that little ditty a while back where you stated (paraphrasing) "We are missing an opportunity on so much income by not taxing/regulating marijuana."
I'll get back to you, for sure, when I find it.

P.S. I don't smoke (never have) and I don't consume illegal substances. My brew of choice is Miller Lite, which I'll have one or two, while watching a ball game. --Just to satisfy your insatiable curiosity.

Lizard ---Truth Detector Extraordinairre
"So many liberal lies, so little time."

lizard at 2:03AM on Nov 28th 2007

93. In my defense:

First, regarding the 42 billion figure I cited earlier (from Dr. Jon Gettman's book "Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws"):

1) "Government reports from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Library of Congress, and other sources indicate that the supply of marijuana in the United States is 14,349 metric tons, or 31.1 million pounds. Various price indexes from public and private sources produce a retail price of $7.87/gr or $3,570/lb, setting the overall retail value of the illicit marijuana market at $113 billion."

2)"The diversion of $113 billion from the taxable economy into the illicit economy deprives taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually."

3) "Marijuana arrests cost taxpayers $10.7 billion annually."

For a Grand Total of 42 Billion.

To give you a sense of the $$$ we are talking about, an association representing just a few California growers recently offered Governor Arnold one billion dollars to help solve California's budget crisis.

Tax it and it will be worth its weight in gold; let the pharmaceutical companies have a shot at "encapsulating" its over 60-something compounds; and let patients grow their own, just like Beer (nobody getting killed for their home-brewed Stout anymore).

Second, regarding the J.A.M.A. report that said deaths from adverse drug reactions are a leading cause of death in the U.S. (from Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients:
A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies, Jason Lazarou, MSc; Bruce H. Pomeranz, MD, PhD; Paul N. Corey, PhD JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.):

"Perhaps, our most surprising result was the large number of fatal ADRs (adverse drug reactions).

We estimated that in 1994 in the United States 106000 (95% CI, 76000-137000) hospital patients died from an ADR. Thus, we deduced that ADRs may rank from the fourth to sixth leading cause of death.

Even if the lower confidence limit of 76000 fatalities was used to be conservative, we estimated that ADRs could still constitute the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease (743460), cancer (529904), stroke (150108), pulmonary disease (101077), and accidents (90523); this would rank ADRs ahead of pneumonia (75719) and diabetes (53894).

Moreover, when we used the mean value of 106000 fatalities, we estimated that ADRs could rank fourth, after heart disease, cancer, and stroke as a leading cause of death. While our results must be viewed with some circumspection because of the heterogeneity among the studies and small biases in the sample, these data suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/15/1200?ijkey=F8guE.zA8WYTs

Third, regarding no deaths from marijuana-related toxicity in 5,000 years (from DEA Judge Francis Young's Conclusions to Reschedule Marijuana, after 16 years of court battles and a two-year exhaustive review of the medical and scientific record):

"Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana (cannabis) is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing
a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on cannabis encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, cannabis is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that 20-million to 50-million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming cannabis has caused a single death."

Here is a link for a summary of Judge Young's conclusion:

http://www.fcda.org/pdf/young88.fcda.pdf

Fourth, cannabis and tobacco are distinctly different in their effects on the lungs. At this point, there is no proven links to lung cancer, according to Dr. Tashkin, THE MAN, when it comes to lungs and cannabis.

UCLA'S Dr Tashkin thought there would be a strong connection and causation between marijuana and lung cancer, but after twenty years of research, he admitted he was probably wrong about cannabis' effect on the lungs.

In fact, Dr Tashkin said that it was possible that marijuana has an adverse effect on lung cancer - by killing glioma cells (too tired to look it up, but I'm sure someone else could "google" dr tashkin ucla marijuana lungs).

But once again (as this thread has already explained to Mr. Lizard), cannabis does not need to be smoked in order to receive its medical benefit.

No smoking = No respiratory implications.

A few other transmission methods for cannabis include pills, tinctures, teas, butters, baked goods, mouth sprays, drinks, gums, suppositories, creams, ice cream, smoothies, etc... to name just a few.

Also, "vaporizers" (like nebulizers), heat the marijuana to a point where marijuana vapors are released without combustion; so no carcinogens are released.

No carcinogens = Significantly Reduced to Very Little Lung Risk

Finally, I find it interesting that people like lizard try to perpetuate the myth that marijuana is a hippie or liberal cause. People on both sides of the political aisle are seeing that marijuana should be an option for our sick, our dying, and our Doctors.

Adam Stern at 3:59AM on Nov 28th 2007

94. lizard,

If you actually cared about your patients, you'd stop your obfuscation and begin to read some of the links I've provided.

You are a Dunce, obviously incapable of learning "new tricks."

It is funny how you keep throwing the 25-year medical professional thing around, because you seem to be stuck on the DEA's Propaganda that they feed their foot soldiers, not real medicine.

Usually, people who talk a lot about their degrees or their years of experience at whatever job/field, don't know squat about the topic at hand. I listen to what people say, not what they say they are.

How could a real medical professional deliberately set out to distort the realities regarding medical marijuana, when millions and millions of people have benefited from it.

You are a disgrace to your profession.

Adam Stern at 4:26AM on Nov 28th 2007

95. Why does lizard sound more like a cop and less like a medical professional?

Adam Stern at 4:35AM on Nov 28th 2007

96. "95. Why does lizard sound more like a cop and less like a medical professional?"

Rumor is that lizard has a Napolean complex.

Captain Negative at 5:05AM on Nov 28th 2007

97. I get a little tired of this medical MJ debate. There already IS legal medical MJ (although it's synthetic). It's called Maridol (or something like that). It's a legal prescription -- insurance companies pay for it. It's a pill, no need to smoke. I had that prescribed by my oncologist when I had cancer and was going through chemo. So there is no need to legalize MJ for medical purposes...it's just a scam to get MJ legalized.

On the other hand, from what I've read about MJ, it is less detrimental to the body than alcohol is. Although smoking anything is bad for your lungs -- it shouldn't take a genius to figure that out.

Aaron at 9:36AM on Nov 28th 2007

98. Me: "Ferarris are very high priced. Yet somehow I don't think lizard says they're high priced because of discrimination and greed"

lizard: "Actually, I think they're high priced because of the technology and exotic materials used to build them."

Then you repudiate your earlier stance about "discrimination" and "greed". Good.

You have to, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Ok, since I know you're screaming and crying now: you're a hypocrite.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:03AM on Nov 28th 2007

99. lizard.
i agreed with you because you posted a correct statement.
something you genetically predisposed of never being able to do.
and once again,
your two dimensional thinking has gotten you stuck in gear.
of course there is an opportunity to regulate and tax.
but i never stated it would make the deficit disappear.
thats called"making the statement work for your objectives".
it is false,weak and a lie.
are you a liar lizard?
your self importance is staggering in its self-aggrandizing.
you really think you are putting out well-thought out arguments,
and pertinent facts.
maybe thats why you always get your panties in a bunch when someone calls you on something.
and did you REALLY just compare yourself to the FONZ?
holy gayness batman!
you absolutely amaze me in your ability to live in your own ironic head.
your hypocrisy is only a secret to you.
you actually think by agreeing with you that i am somehow trying to get in your good graces?
are you serious man?
do you actually think your thoughts about me are
relevant?
if you have not noticed lizard,
i could care less.
you post something of value,
i applaud.
you post nimrod,knee-jerk propaganda and i chastize you mercilessly.
you have a hard-on for weed,yet you drink beer.
thats hypocrisy.
of course you do it in moderation(the fonz did to!)
but its still a drug,it still has an effect on your senses.
so what your real problem is..
is social acceptability.
which is one of the main reasons prohibition failed.
im not trying to make you accept weed,
im not even trying to change your mind.
what i am doing is manipulating you to keep trolling this post so that others who dont really know about weed will read your inane and ill-thought arguments,and see them for the hypocrisy they are.
to sit there and drink beer and then rail against the evils of weed is hypocrisy.
both are drugs.
social acceptability is the crux.
and since you have NEVER even smoked weed,
the irony should be obvious,
but of course..
its lost on you.
so you keep posting on this thread and ill keep pointing out your hypocrisy for what it is,
and people will read our little drama.
so i guess i should thank you,
because of our banter back and forth i have received over 75 emails thanking me for clarifying a situation about weed that many were ignorant of.
ah lizard..
my old friend.
you always do the work for me.
my gratitude and thanks.
you have been a great friend to the pot legalization movement.
six pack of miller lite for YOU my friend!
thanks lizard,
love you like a brother!
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S

/the "fonz../snickers
CLASSIC!
love that lizard

enoch at 10:37AM on Nov 28th 2007

100. lizard #87 :

"Do you really think there are that many "stoners" out there? I always trust those "Ph.D."---sitting yoga-style puffing on a bong with a little Sitar music in the background,--- "statistics" to get me motivated into seeing most of the population walking/driving around in zombie land...lol."

Yeah, at least 30 million of them. You're probably working right along side some of them and don't have a clue.

Are you saying that you're going to run out and score some buds as soon as it becomes legal? People usually smoke less pot when it's legal. That's why the Netherlands, where it's essentially been legal since the 70's, has one half the rate of users as the US does, and a much lower rate of use of other drugs, and one tenth the rate of incarceration. And usage has declined in the UK since it was decriminalized there in '04. Nationwide, use among teens has gone down since the first medical marijuana law was passed in '96 in California, and even faster in many states that have medical marijuana laws.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR.html
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1807.pdf
http://www.mpp.org/atf/cf/%7BFC4E88DF-6ACE-4AA6-851C-0688A929D3C5%7D/2005TeenUseReport.pdf


"When was there ever a society that taxed themselves into prosperity by hocking recreational drugs?"

Maybe you should look at where the money for that Miller Lite is going. Guess what one of the big factors was in repealing alcohol prohibition? You guessed it... the Great Depression.

What you people don't seem to be able to get through your heads is that prohibition is making the problem worse. Drug policy reform is about implementing *effective* policies. The drug markets cannot possibly be eradicated. We've been trying for 37 years. The only way to minimize the damage is to regulate them, like we do with anything else that is potentially hazardous.

And for the record, I'm a card-carrying Republican, who has enough sense to see that Ron Paul is the only real conservative out of the whole bunch. Neocons are far from conservative. Most of them are more liberal than the Dems. It's a good thing you people are slowly fading into obscurity. You'd have burnt this country to the ground trying to force your "values" on the rest of us. History will look at these 8 years and shake it's head, saying, "What were those idiots thinking?"

And I don't smoke pot either, I just have a conscience.

Sparky at 10:38AM on Nov 28th 2007

101. And no Aaron, Marinol is not "synthetic marijuana". It's just THC -- one of a group of substances found in cannabis, called cannabinoids. It's just the one responsible for the high. Works for some people though. Costs $20 a pill, and is debilitating for many -- if it even works. And it's kinda hard to hold down a pill if you're puking your guts out anyway.

Read up on it. There are enough links in here about that already.

But here's an interesting prohibition/prescription related image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Prohibition_prescription_front.jpg

Sparky at 10:49AM on Nov 28th 2007

102. Oh boy - where do you start?

It has been said here already, but let's underscore that Mitt did not dodge the question. He just didn't feel the need to answer it more than once. He does not support the use of medical marijuana. What the questioner was trying to do is pull Romney into a debate.

What did Ron Paul say? (paraphrase) "I will never use the Federal Government to enforce laws regarding the use of marijuana" - that only means he is relegating this issue to the states, at the most. You still have federal interstate trafficking laws to contend with - laws which are not likely to be changed for ANY marijuana users.

So, isn't Ron Paul the artful dodger on this issue? He is making a promise he can't possibly accomplish as a member of the executive branch. Mitt's answer was at least honest, if not a statement of policy.

"Nonviolent herbal medicine users" have to get their illegal herbs somewhere. This enters the arena of a violent and hardly victimless array of crime.

A guy like Clayton could do rather well in the Netherlands, which offers outstanding benefits and would allow him to use marijuana as he feels he needs to. Or, how about this - if you don't like the laws, gather the strength necessary to get them changed rather than break the law and use emotional pleas to justify criminal activity.

Joel (No Pundit Intended) at 11:26AM on Nov 28th 2007

103. Joel,

One more time... an illegal market is what causes the violent crime. Legalize it, regulate it, and that goes away, just like it did when alcohol prohibition was repealed.

The Federal government overriding state laws -- where the patients are often producing the pot themselves, and there is no interstate trafficking involved -- is the problem here. They are doing things like this:
http://www.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=glKZLeMQIsG&b=1425757&ct=2910161

Clayton wanted Romney to explain his position. What he was getting at, is there is more than enough evidence to reschedule marijuana, to allow for medical use. The DEA has been allowing pressure politics to override science for quite some time (click on my name).

As far as changing the laws... there has been plenty of action on the political front for years. Even though a ton of medical organizations, and a majority of both left and right support medical marijuana, very few congressman will take action because they are afraid of being smeared by a very rich and powerful group of prohibitionists -- mainly the Drug Free America Foundation and their friends. The system is just plain broken. Only a president is going to have enough influence to see to it that it works the way it was meant to. And public education is important too. Many people are just taking the Feds at their word, and don't really know that the facts paint a much different story.

Sparky at 12:58PM on Nov 28th 2007

104. Regarding Marinol vs. Real Cannabis (already touched on above):

According to a Harvard study, 77% of those oncologists who had an opinion on the matter say smokable marijuana is more effective than oral THC (Marinol).

Almost half of the 1035 oncologists surveyed (44%)said they had advised patients to smoke pot, despite the possibility of prosecution.

Worthy of note: this Harvard study was done in the early 1990s; so, the numbers of pro-medical marijuana Oncologists today would be considerably higher, due to increased exposure to the history of Cannabis and increased exposure to the science of medical marijuana.

Problem is docs are justifiably reluctant to speak publicly about medical marijuana, because the DEA does target docs recommending or talking publicly about the medical benefits of marijuana. Many docs do know the truth, but are too scared of losing their license to make a stand.

Adam Stern at 1:03PM on Nov 28th 2007

105. I do agree with Joel on one point: Romneya did not "dodge" or "duck" the question from Mr. Clayton.

Romneya clearly stated his zombie-dunce stance; and callously and heartlessly turned his back on a sick man, who was trying to secure his right to medication and his right to the pursuit of happiness.

The crime surrounding medical marijuana is due to the inconsistencies in state & fed'l law, inflating the price of cannabis to it surpasses the price of gold. (Sparky already touched on why there is crime around medical marijuana).

If cannabis were federally accessible to the sick, cannabis-related crime surrounding medical marijuana would come to a halt; because there would be no $$$ in it, for the profiteers (They would move on to more lucrative pursuits).

I wonder how Joel would "gain strength" if he were diagnosed with muscular dystrophy?

I wonder if Joel would allow a loved-one or relative to "waste away," if they were stricken with a disease like Cancer, AIDS/HIV, Epilepsy, etc... and the normal medication regimen did not work.

Romneya, McBought, Guliania -- along with most of the dems -- are corporate sluts.

So far, Dr Paul continues to speak the truth...

Adam Stern at 2:15PM on Nov 28th 2007