I believe this IS a tough issue. Besides my sister, who is facing chemo treatment, I have two other friends who are undergoing this treatment. One is not faring well with the chemo. The stuff makes her very sick and unable to eat.
Based on this recent decision, my friends will be criminals should they purchase and use Pot to help ease the pain of taking chemo! Yes, I'd say this is a serious and tough issue.
------------------
GEM
A medicine or an illegal drug?
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
A medicine or an illegal drug?
Some drug law background:
Drugs of abuse are "Scheduled" according to their abuse potential.
Schedule 1 drugs are those medications that have NO accepted medical use in the US and have a potential for abuse. Heroin and marijuana are in this category.
Schedule 2 drugs are those that have high potential for abuse, but have approved uses in the US. Morphine, codeine and even cocaine are in this category.
Approved drugs with less abuse potential are also listed in Schedules 3, 4 or 5.
The DEA is the federal gov't. agency charged with maintaining the schedules. Drugs are periodically added. None have ever been removed, to my knowledge. Anabolic steroids were added to the Schedules in 1991 or 1992.
Massachusetts also created a Schedule 6 category. This contains all other prescriptions drugs not listed in Schedules 1 through 5. So actually, the antibiotics you take for infection or the Claritin you take for allergies are "controlled substances". I never asked why this law was made. Maybe I should...
To touch on Panther's questions:
(1) Yes, some drugs should be completely illegal. Drug use causes physical and mental illnesses in people. It causes a negative impact on people family lives, it has a negative impact on business and commerce and is linked to a high crime rate (stealing to pay for the habit, turning to prostitution to earn money and then spreading communicable diseases to sex partners, child neglect, etc...). Now, I know where Panther stands on those issues, but public health and welfare dictate certain drugs of abuse be banned. It is a reasonable step, in my opinion (which is not up for argument, just a friendly, civil, toned-down discussion).
(2) This Supreme Court at times holds up States Rights in invalidating federal law. For example, it invalidated the Violence Against Women Act. It also invalidated a federal law allowing state government workers to sue under the Americans with Disabilites Act. It also invalidated some parts of the Brady Bill. So the SCOTUS does uphold state's rights, but on a case-by-case basis. Also, a collateral cause of the US Civil War was state's rights vs. a strong federal gov't. The state's rights side lost. What that ultimately means, I have no clue...
(3) Except in certain instances, patients have absolute, complete autonomy in choosing the medical care they receive. But this must be tempered with the knowledge that not everything a patient can do or wants to do is in the patient's best interest, overall. Nor is the patient's choice the most beneficial or least risky. There needs to be a risk/benefit analysis. But, again, the patient does have the ultimate choice among the available and acceptable options.
We want people to know as much as they can about diseases and their treatments. This also means they can make the best choices for them. But, certain choices need to be off the table. This includes dangerous therapies and treatments that have not shown to be beneficial or are patently dangerous. I know someone will come back with a statement about personal liberties, etc. But, overall from a public health standpoint is also the correct decision. A difficult decision to reach and heartwrenching, but the correct one.
The drug Dronabinol is a chemical analogue of THC and is marketed as a treament against nausea and vomiting due to chemo and/or radiation. There are also other medications out there that work well against nausea. Does Pot work better then these other medications? How do we know the Pot the cnacer patient gets is pure? How much drug is someone actually smoking?
At the moment, and until science proves the converse, it makes sense to ban Pot.
Again, these are my opinions. I tried to be reasoned and clear with my comments. No personal attacks, please.
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 17, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 17, 2001).]
Drugs of abuse are "Scheduled" according to their abuse potential.
Schedule 1 drugs are those medications that have NO accepted medical use in the US and have a potential for abuse. Heroin and marijuana are in this category.
Schedule 2 drugs are those that have high potential for abuse, but have approved uses in the US. Morphine, codeine and even cocaine are in this category.
Approved drugs with less abuse potential are also listed in Schedules 3, 4 or 5.
The DEA is the federal gov't. agency charged with maintaining the schedules. Drugs are periodically added. None have ever been removed, to my knowledge. Anabolic steroids were added to the Schedules in 1991 or 1992.
Massachusetts also created a Schedule 6 category. This contains all other prescriptions drugs not listed in Schedules 1 through 5. So actually, the antibiotics you take for infection or the Claritin you take for allergies are "controlled substances". I never asked why this law was made. Maybe I should...
To touch on Panther's questions:
(1) Yes, some drugs should be completely illegal. Drug use causes physical and mental illnesses in people. It causes a negative impact on people family lives, it has a negative impact on business and commerce and is linked to a high crime rate (stealing to pay for the habit, turning to prostitution to earn money and then spreading communicable diseases to sex partners, child neglect, etc...). Now, I know where Panther stands on those issues, but public health and welfare dictate certain drugs of abuse be banned. It is a reasonable step, in my opinion (which is not up for argument, just a friendly, civil, toned-down discussion).
(2) This Supreme Court at times holds up States Rights in invalidating federal law. For example, it invalidated the Violence Against Women Act. It also invalidated a federal law allowing state government workers to sue under the Americans with Disabilites Act. It also invalidated some parts of the Brady Bill. So the SCOTUS does uphold state's rights, but on a case-by-case basis. Also, a collateral cause of the US Civil War was state's rights vs. a strong federal gov't. The state's rights side lost. What that ultimately means, I have no clue...
(3) Except in certain instances, patients have absolute, complete autonomy in choosing the medical care they receive. But this must be tempered with the knowledge that not everything a patient can do or wants to do is in the patient's best interest, overall. Nor is the patient's choice the most beneficial or least risky. There needs to be a risk/benefit analysis. But, again, the patient does have the ultimate choice among the available and acceptable options.
We want people to know as much as they can about diseases and their treatments. This also means they can make the best choices for them. But, certain choices need to be off the table. This includes dangerous therapies and treatments that have not shown to be beneficial or are patently dangerous. I know someone will come back with a statement about personal liberties, etc. But, overall from a public health standpoint is also the correct decision. A difficult decision to reach and heartwrenching, but the correct one.
The drug Dronabinol is a chemical analogue of THC and is marketed as a treament against nausea and vomiting due to chemo and/or radiation. There are also other medications out there that work well against nausea. Does Pot work better then these other medications? How do we know the Pot the cnacer patient gets is pure? How much drug is someone actually smoking?
At the moment, and until science proves the converse, it makes sense to ban Pot.
Again, these are my opinions. I tried to be reasoned and clear with my comments. No personal attacks, please.
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 17, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 17, 2001).]
A medicine or an illegal drug?
Personally, I don't consider this really a "tough issue" at all. But given the fact that the SCOTUS recently overruled a California law allowing medical marijuana, there are a couple of interesting questions that arise.
1) Should (some) drugs be completely illegal?
2) What happened to the concept of State's Rights? (The principle that said that the States were autonomous and could set their own standards.)
3) Why can't a person with an illness "self-medicate" as they see fit?
I hope that the points I would make will get covered by others... and I'm certain that opinions on these questions are varied.
What do you think?
1) Should (some) drugs be completely illegal?
2) What happened to the concept of State's Rights? (The principle that said that the States were autonomous and could set their own standards.)
3) Why can't a person with an illness "self-medicate" as they see fit?
I hope that the points I would make will get covered by others... and I'm certain that opinions on these questions are varied.
What do you think?
A medicine or an illegal drug?
(1) Yes, some drugs should be completely illegal. Drug use causes physical and mental illnesses in people. It causes [bad things].
I completely agree. But it doesn't follow that the offending substance should then be banned. Here's why:
1) People will get the drug anyway. This has been the case despite a full scale war against drugs from home to Peru. In many cases prices have fallen nevertheless. Preventing drug abuse by eliminating drug availability has failed.
2) Since people WILL get their drugs, the question is, what is the best thing to do about it.
Example A: heroin addicts get their drugs on the street, share needles, get AIDS. If heroin were legal, education and clean needles could be supplied at the source. But in the USA, what we get instead of needle exchange are spineless officals who refuse to provide needles despite published articles pretty much proving beyond argument that exchange saves lives without increasing use. FACT: people DIE because these officials are too busy looking tough on drugs to do the right thing.
B: heroin user overdoses and dies. Many American servicemen who went to Asia for the Vietnam war died underestimating the higher purity there. If drugs were legal, we could standardize the dosing making them far safer.
C: heroin user avoids all authorities and lies about use at hospitals when ill because he is a criminal. If drugs were legal, the same user would find helpful faces offering counseling and addiction services (and would have heard warnings before starting from same), and would be more open about his use helping medical personnell treat him.
D: We spend bajillions on drug wars. But, if we stopped fighting imports we could #1 lower gang violence dramatically #2 save money for rehab services (direct and saving TONS not jailing addicts and dealers) #3 and most importantly, start treating drug abuse like a disease and social problem instead of a crime.
Heroin is indisputably a much more dangerous drug than marijuana, and I think we do no one a service by trying to stop people from using it.
Go back to the orginal statement and recall that the word used is "drug(s)." Alcohol is a dangerous drug. Cigarettes supply a dangerous drug. Applying the same logic, we conclude these must also be banned.
What is it that THC does that's so bad anyway? There is no lethal dose. There are theoretical concerns because immune cells have THC receptors so there may be a immune system problem.... but I've heard of no actual problems associated with it. It's not physically addictive. It does produce a noxious smoke which is bad for the lungs but we allow smoking. I'd like to see joints with filters or more brownie pot or pill-pot to avoid this. There was that commerical pointing out that the guy running the railroad line when a crash killed several was smoking pot... well he could have been drinking. Or playing video games. "Do not take while operating heavy machinery" is found on labels of many drugs we don't ban.
"This includes dangerous therapies and treatments that have not shown to be beneficial or are patently dangerous. I know someone will come back with a statement about personal liberties, etc."
Well... so what if a sick or dying AIDS or cancer patient gets high? Pot is not among the dangerous therapies you mention. Chemo can and does KILL patients on a regular basis. So does surgery. TYLENOL and ADVIL are demonstrably more dangerous and sometimes lethal! But I've never heard of a serious or fatal reaction to pot (I wouldn't recommend smoking it to a patient with lung disease... but who has a brownie hurt??) There just isn't much at stake.
"Nor is the patient's choice the most beneficial or least risky. There needs to be a risk/benefit analysis."
I had a patient--an MD--dying of prostate cancer. His cost benefit anaylsis went like this:
1 month Zofran (ondansetron): partially effective at $1,200 (!!!!!)
Other drugs: Phenergan, etc, even Haldol... ineffective! Needed narcotics: very nauseating. Find something that works, he thought, or "I would rather be dead than continue suffering like this." Pot is cheap, safe, and if people say its effective, why deny it to them?
"Does Pot work better then these other medications?"
Often. It improves appetite better than other anti-nausea drugs. This can be key for people with AIDS or caner who are wasting away. It's also cheaper, and less sedating. **we also allow people access to drugs that don't work as well as others--we need a strong reason to prevent access. We don't just ban all drugs but the "best" **
Example: Reserpine is still available for hypertension. Better researched drugs (thiazides, beta blockers) are available that have very few side effects (ACE inhibitors). But reserpine causes significant mood changes--to the point of severe depression and suicide--and other serious side effects!!
And we deny people a joint?
"How do we know the Pot the cnacer patient gets is pure?"
By legalizing it and setting standards as with any other drug! If we leave things alone, we don't know (but, it's still safe).
"How much drug is someone actually smoking?"
The experience of patients has been that pot is easier to dose than THC analogs. They smoke till they have less nausea and get the munchies. With the pill they risk underdosing and waiting while uncomfortable / anorectic, or, overdosing and falling asleep. On the other hand, that's ALL that happens to them when they overdose.
"At the moment, and until science proves the converse, it makes sense to ban Pot."
I think with something as benign as pot, the burden should be on science to come up with a reason to deny pot to people, not a reason to supply it. But that said, there's plenty of evidence that pot can fight nausea and anorexia. And there's no evidence of any dangers besides raiding the fridge. There are many more dangerous drugs already legal and in widespread use... alcohol and tobacco foremost among them. What is wrong with pot?
"Again, these are my opinions. I tried to be reasoned and clear with my comments. No personal attacks, please."
Agreed! It'll be a pleasure chatting.
I completely agree. But it doesn't follow that the offending substance should then be banned. Here's why:
1) People will get the drug anyway. This has been the case despite a full scale war against drugs from home to Peru. In many cases prices have fallen nevertheless. Preventing drug abuse by eliminating drug availability has failed.
2) Since people WILL get their drugs, the question is, what is the best thing to do about it.
Example A: heroin addicts get their drugs on the street, share needles, get AIDS. If heroin were legal, education and clean needles could be supplied at the source. But in the USA, what we get instead of needle exchange are spineless officals who refuse to provide needles despite published articles pretty much proving beyond argument that exchange saves lives without increasing use. FACT: people DIE because these officials are too busy looking tough on drugs to do the right thing.
B: heroin user overdoses and dies. Many American servicemen who went to Asia for the Vietnam war died underestimating the higher purity there. If drugs were legal, we could standardize the dosing making them far safer.
C: heroin user avoids all authorities and lies about use at hospitals when ill because he is a criminal. If drugs were legal, the same user would find helpful faces offering counseling and addiction services (and would have heard warnings before starting from same), and would be more open about his use helping medical personnell treat him.
D: We spend bajillions on drug wars. But, if we stopped fighting imports we could #1 lower gang violence dramatically #2 save money for rehab services (direct and saving TONS not jailing addicts and dealers) #3 and most importantly, start treating drug abuse like a disease and social problem instead of a crime.
Heroin is indisputably a much more dangerous drug than marijuana, and I think we do no one a service by trying to stop people from using it.
Go back to the orginal statement and recall that the word used is "drug(s)." Alcohol is a dangerous drug. Cigarettes supply a dangerous drug. Applying the same logic, we conclude these must also be banned.
What is it that THC does that's so bad anyway? There is no lethal dose. There are theoretical concerns because immune cells have THC receptors so there may be a immune system problem.... but I've heard of no actual problems associated with it. It's not physically addictive. It does produce a noxious smoke which is bad for the lungs but we allow smoking. I'd like to see joints with filters or more brownie pot or pill-pot to avoid this. There was that commerical pointing out that the guy running the railroad line when a crash killed several was smoking pot... well he could have been drinking. Or playing video games. "Do not take while operating heavy machinery" is found on labels of many drugs we don't ban.
"This includes dangerous therapies and treatments that have not shown to be beneficial or are patently dangerous. I know someone will come back with a statement about personal liberties, etc."
Well... so what if a sick or dying AIDS or cancer patient gets high? Pot is not among the dangerous therapies you mention. Chemo can and does KILL patients on a regular basis. So does surgery. TYLENOL and ADVIL are demonstrably more dangerous and sometimes lethal! But I've never heard of a serious or fatal reaction to pot (I wouldn't recommend smoking it to a patient with lung disease... but who has a brownie hurt??) There just isn't much at stake.
"Nor is the patient's choice the most beneficial or least risky. There needs to be a risk/benefit analysis."
I had a patient--an MD--dying of prostate cancer. His cost benefit anaylsis went like this:
1 month Zofran (ondansetron): partially effective at $1,200 (!!!!!)
Other drugs: Phenergan, etc, even Haldol... ineffective! Needed narcotics: very nauseating. Find something that works, he thought, or "I would rather be dead than continue suffering like this." Pot is cheap, safe, and if people say its effective, why deny it to them?
"Does Pot work better then these other medications?"
Often. It improves appetite better than other anti-nausea drugs. This can be key for people with AIDS or caner who are wasting away. It's also cheaper, and less sedating. **we also allow people access to drugs that don't work as well as others--we need a strong reason to prevent access. We don't just ban all drugs but the "best" **
Example: Reserpine is still available for hypertension. Better researched drugs (thiazides, beta blockers) are available that have very few side effects (ACE inhibitors). But reserpine causes significant mood changes--to the point of severe depression and suicide--and other serious side effects!!
And we deny people a joint?
"How do we know the Pot the cnacer patient gets is pure?"
By legalizing it and setting standards as with any other drug! If we leave things alone, we don't know (but, it's still safe).
"How much drug is someone actually smoking?"
The experience of patients has been that pot is easier to dose than THC analogs. They smoke till they have less nausea and get the munchies. With the pill they risk underdosing and waiting while uncomfortable / anorectic, or, overdosing and falling asleep. On the other hand, that's ALL that happens to them when they overdose.
"At the moment, and until science proves the converse, it makes sense to ban Pot."
I think with something as benign as pot, the burden should be on science to come up with a reason to deny pot to people, not a reason to supply it. But that said, there's plenty of evidence that pot can fight nausea and anorexia. And there's no evidence of any dangers besides raiding the fridge. There are many more dangerous drugs already legal and in widespread use... alcohol and tobacco foremost among them. What is wrong with pot?
"Again, these are my opinions. I tried to be reasoned and clear with my comments. No personal attacks, please."
Agreed! It'll be a pleasure chatting.
-
Guest
A medicine or an illegal drug?
Ian, I am in agreement with your post.
Why we continue to prosecute addicts and withhold Canibus for medical treatment baffles me.
Many European nations have operated needle exchange programs for decades. These government programs are valuable in the prevention of disease transmission.
Strange that governments are so involved in the taxation of addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco.
Laird
Why we continue to prosecute addicts and withhold Canibus for medical treatment baffles me.
Many European nations have operated needle exchange programs for decades. These government programs are valuable in the prevention of disease transmission.
Strange that governments are so involved in the taxation of addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco.
Laird
A medicine or an illegal drug?
It's getting a bit spooky in here guys.
I haven't seen this much agreement in 'tough issues' ever!
Count me in, I agree with Ian.
A friend has just come back from Colombia and reports the millions of dollars thrown at the drug problem there has been wasted. Just recently the U.S. has sent a few million dollars to the Colombian military to battle drug running. The problem is, the military control all drug movement out of the country.
________________________________
We spend bajillions on drug wars. But, if we stopped fighting imports we could #1 lower gang violence dramatically #2 save money for rehab services (direct and saving TONS not jailing addicts and dealers) #3 and most importantly, start treating drug abuse like a disease and social problem instead of a crime.
Ian
________________________________
Not to mention Uncle Sam's power of the tax grab on all this, every school in the country could be carpeted and airconditioned.
The war against drugs is lost.
nick
I haven't seen this much agreement in 'tough issues' ever!
Count me in, I agree with Ian.
A friend has just come back from Colombia and reports the millions of dollars thrown at the drug problem there has been wasted. Just recently the U.S. has sent a few million dollars to the Colombian military to battle drug running. The problem is, the military control all drug movement out of the country.
________________________________
We spend bajillions on drug wars. But, if we stopped fighting imports we could #1 lower gang violence dramatically #2 save money for rehab services (direct and saving TONS not jailing addicts and dealers) #3 and most importantly, start treating drug abuse like a disease and social problem instead of a crime.
Ian
________________________________
Not to mention Uncle Sam's power of the tax grab on all this, every school in the country could be carpeted and airconditioned.
The war against drugs is lost.
nick
A medicine or an illegal drug?
Ummmm... I need to be careful how I say this...
Good post Ian! 1000% "on target"!
Couldn't agree more.
Good post Ian! 1000% "on target"!
Couldn't agree more.
-
Yosselle
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Massachusetts commonwealth uSA
- Contact:
A medicine or an illegal drug?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:
"How do we know the Pot the cnacer patient gets is pure?"
By legalizing it and setting standards as with any other drug!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with legalization of all drugs.
I disagree with government "setting standards". Let the market do this job. Underwriters Laboratories does a good job with appliances, and UL is is a private company. Private testing and certification is the way to go.
"How do we know the Pot the cnacer patient gets is pure?"
By legalizing it and setting standards as with any other drug!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with legalization of all drugs.
I disagree with government "setting standards". Let the market do this job. Underwriters Laboratories does a good job with appliances, and UL is is a private company. Private testing and certification is the way to go.
A medicine or an illegal drug?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yosselle:
I agree with legalization of all drugs.
I disagree with government "setting standards". Private testing and certification is the way to go.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But who's going to keep an eye on the private testing labs? And what standard are they going to test to?
I agree with legalization of all drugs.
I disagree with government "setting standards". Private testing and certification is the way to go.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But who's going to keep an eye on the private testing labs? And what standard are they going to test to?
A medicine or an illegal drug?
"I agree with legalization of all drugs.
I disagree with government "setting standards". Let the market do this job."
If all drugs are legalized and held to this standard, you won't know what you're getting when you shoot up--or more importantly, take your coumadin, digoxin, erythromycin, or atenolol.
Don't you like knowing that the drugs you (or loved ones) get from your pharmacy contain the promised medication and are held to a high standard of purity and safety, and that they are accurately labeled (no exaggerated claims, etc)? Why would the more dangerous "drugs of abuse" be any better candidates for unregulated production?
The free market is already acting on street drug quality and the results have been poor--people buying don't know what they're getting and some OD as a result or suffer damage from grabage cut into the drug to increase profit (for example, talc injected along with drug).
I disagree with government "setting standards". Let the market do this job."
If all drugs are legalized and held to this standard, you won't know what you're getting when you shoot up--or more importantly, take your coumadin, digoxin, erythromycin, or atenolol.
Don't you like knowing that the drugs you (or loved ones) get from your pharmacy contain the promised medication and are held to a high standard of purity and safety, and that they are accurately labeled (no exaggerated claims, etc)? Why would the more dangerous "drugs of abuse" be any better candidates for unregulated production?
The free market is already acting on street drug quality and the results have been poor--people buying don't know what they're getting and some OD as a result or suffer damage from grabage cut into the drug to increase profit (for example, talc injected along with drug).
