Now let's have a class in how to read a government propoganda website.
If you are someone who believes the government won't lie to you about the subject of marijuana, then the following won't make sense to you. But if you are someone who believes the government might just have a stake in misleading the public about marijuana, tag along while we look at NIDA's report.
Note first that NIDA is not permitted funding if they conduct studies seeking possible benefits to marijuana use. They are only funded for studies which produce conclusions or hypothesis that highlight the risks of using marijuana. The report below of course has no conclusions, but only poses theories.
*Marijuana use impairs driving-related functions and is linked to a pattern of behaviors that leads to poor job performance, according to two NIDA-supported studies on the effects of marijuana on human performance.
BAR: This introductory statement is not part of the actual study, but rather composed by the ONDCP.
* Figures from previous studies of automobile accident victims show that from 6 to 12 percent of nonfatally injured drivers and 4 to 16 percent of fatally injured drivers had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their bloodstream, Dr. Heishman said. One study showed that 32 percent of drivers in a shock trauma unit in Baltimore had marijuana in their bloodstream, he noted.
BAR: Good solid facts. Now here's what is not shared. Marijuana THC metabolites remain in the bloodstream for up to 30 days. With this information, we know that about 3% of the drivers at most had actually ingested marijuana the same DAY as the crash.
*However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving.
BAR: It may have been difficult to single out THC's effect on driving, but it didn't stop the ONDCP from presenting it as causational effect.
*In a laboratory study at NIDA's Addiction Research Center in Baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, Dr. Heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. Study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. Both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent THC. Twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. The test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. As the dose of THC increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. Subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger.
BAR: So this suggests that someone who drives within 10-20 minutes of using marijuana may be impaired. It does not account for the other literally 99% of the above statistical group who had THC metabolites in their bloodstream.
It also does not include mention of the basic scientific method which of course included alcohol users as a control group. So the results of this subset include both alcohol users and non-alcohol users.
This doesn't stop the ONDCP from using the entire group in the leading summation.
What this study shows is what most NIDA and government sponsored studies about marijuana show. And that is people in a certain subset - in this case, drivers who have had accidents - test positive for marijuana metabolites.
This information is then used to demonstrate causation, even though it simply shows a correlation.
If you've never studied scientific logic, this won't mean much. But I'll use a simple example to explain.
A group of people may be shown to have ingested milk prior to a specific event - let's say it's having an automobile accident.
Using NIDA's logic, we could then state, "Milk causes impairment for drivers, because this percentage of accidents had drivers with milk in their bloodstream."
The normal person would ask, "Hey, I accept your statistic about the milk, but can you demonstrate how it definitely impairs driving?"
In other words, an accurate correlation has been demonstrated, but the causation is very questionable. Note the quote from the study, "However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving"
So in an attempt to show some causation, they do the independent exams where they examine coordination 10-20 minutes after toking.
And from that, the ONDCP (not NIDA) posts as CONCLUSIVE that if pot causes impairment of coordination after 20 minutes, than by God, anyone with pot in their system from the past 30 days must also be impaired.
Here's a BIGG clue and tell me if this makes sense. (No, not you Truthteller, because you strike me as someone who buys government web information without question)
Do you think NIDA stopped testing after just 10 and 20 minutes?
Don't you think they also included tests that would examine coordination after 30, 60 and 120 minutes? How about 30 days after toking?
If it's reasonable to suggest they did do additional testing, then why wasn't it included in the summary report??
Well maybe because they did do the additional testing and they found that after 30-60 minutes, there's no measurable impairment whatsoever. And as I noted above, NIDA is not permitted to release information that may show anything favorable towards marijuana use.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now that we've seen the NIDA report for what it truly is...accurate information used to produce bullshit conclusions, let's return to the fundamental question TTeller asks, and btw, it's not an unreasonable question on his part.
"If there's some dispute about the findings, isn't it better to err on the side of saving a few lives?(by taking any driver with THC metabolites in his system off the road)?
And the answer is, Oh my god NO.
The proposed legislation at the federal level and in several states is to criminalize any level of THC whatsoever in the drivers system.
And even if we accept the NIDA information as acceptable for drawing a conclusive correlation, you've just made criminals out of 100 drivers, when in actuality at most ONE of them had ingested pot anywhere even near the defined 10-20 minute period where impairment was demonstrated.
CRIMINAL RECORDS DESTROY LIVES.
If someone is truly a danger to others and thus worthy of criminal charges, I'll be the first in line to support laws which help protect us all.
But if we're destroying lives based on such info as the NIDA report above, I am the first in line to denounce such junk science which if used, protects no one while destroying millions.
If you are someone who believes the government won't lie to you about the subject of marijuana, then the following won't make sense to you. But if you are someone who believes the government might just have a stake in misleading the public about marijuana, tag along while we look at NIDA's report.
Note first that NIDA is not permitted funding if they conduct studies seeking possible benefits to marijuana use. They are only funded for studies which produce conclusions or hypothesis that highlight the risks of using marijuana. The report below of course has no conclusions, but only poses theories.
*Marijuana use impairs driving-related functions and is linked to a pattern of behaviors that leads to poor job performance, according to two NIDA-supported studies on the effects of marijuana on human performance.
BAR: This introductory statement is not part of the actual study, but rather composed by the ONDCP.
* Figures from previous studies of automobile accident victims show that from 6 to 12 percent of nonfatally injured drivers and 4 to 16 percent of fatally injured drivers had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their bloodstream, Dr. Heishman said. One study showed that 32 percent of drivers in a shock trauma unit in Baltimore had marijuana in their bloodstream, he noted.
BAR: Good solid facts. Now here's what is not shared. Marijuana THC metabolites remain in the bloodstream for up to 30 days. With this information, we know that about 3% of the drivers at most had actually ingested marijuana the same DAY as the crash.
*However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving.
BAR: It may have been difficult to single out THC's effect on driving, but it didn't stop the ONDCP from presenting it as causational effect.
*In a laboratory study at NIDA's Addiction Research Center in Baltimore that controlled for alcohol's confounding effect, Dr. Heishman tested marijuana's effects on the functional components of driving. Study subjects smoked a marijuana cigarette, waited 10 minutes, then smoked another cigarette. Both cigarettes contained either 0, 1.8, or 3.6 percent THC. Twenty minutes after smoking the cigarettes, the subjects were given a standard sobriety test similar to a roadside sobriety test. The test showed that marijuana significantly impaired their ability to stand on one leg for 30 seconds or touch their finger to their nose. As the dose of THC increased, the subjects swayed more, raised their arms, and had to put their feet down in an attempt to maintain their balance. Subjects also committed 2.5 times more errors when they attempted to touch their nose with their finger.
BAR: So this suggests that someone who drives within 10-20 minutes of using marijuana may be impaired. It does not account for the other literally 99% of the above statistical group who had THC metabolites in their bloodstream.
It also does not include mention of the basic scientific method which of course included alcohol users as a control group. So the results of this subset include both alcohol users and non-alcohol users.
This doesn't stop the ONDCP from using the entire group in the leading summation.
What this study shows is what most NIDA and government sponsored studies about marijuana show. And that is people in a certain subset - in this case, drivers who have had accidents - test positive for marijuana metabolites.
This information is then used to demonstrate causation, even though it simply shows a correlation.
If you've never studied scientific logic, this won't mean much. But I'll use a simple example to explain.
A group of people may be shown to have ingested milk prior to a specific event - let's say it's having an automobile accident.
Using NIDA's logic, we could then state, "Milk causes impairment for drivers, because this percentage of accidents had drivers with milk in their bloodstream."
The normal person would ask, "Hey, I accept your statistic about the milk, but can you demonstrate how it definitely impairs driving?"
In other words, an accurate correlation has been demonstrated, but the causation is very questionable. Note the quote from the study, "However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving"
So in an attempt to show some causation, they do the independent exams where they examine coordination 10-20 minutes after toking.
And from that, the ONDCP (not NIDA) posts as CONCLUSIVE that if pot causes impairment of coordination after 20 minutes, than by God, anyone with pot in their system from the past 30 days must also be impaired.
Here's a BIGG clue and tell me if this makes sense. (No, not you Truthteller, because you strike me as someone who buys government web information without question)
Do you think NIDA stopped testing after just 10 and 20 minutes?
Don't you think they also included tests that would examine coordination after 30, 60 and 120 minutes? How about 30 days after toking?
If it's reasonable to suggest they did do additional testing, then why wasn't it included in the summary report??
Well maybe because they did do the additional testing and they found that after 30-60 minutes, there's no measurable impairment whatsoever. And as I noted above, NIDA is not permitted to release information that may show anything favorable towards marijuana use.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now that we've seen the NIDA report for what it truly is...accurate information used to produce bullshit conclusions, let's return to the fundamental question TTeller asks, and btw, it's not an unreasonable question on his part.
"If there's some dispute about the findings, isn't it better to err on the side of saving a few lives?(by taking any driver with THC metabolites in his system off the road)?
And the answer is, Oh my god NO.
The proposed legislation at the federal level and in several states is to criminalize any level of THC whatsoever in the drivers system.
And even if we accept the NIDA information as acceptable for drawing a conclusive correlation, you've just made criminals out of 100 drivers, when in actuality at most ONE of them had ingested pot anywhere even near the defined 10-20 minute period where impairment was demonstrated.
CRIMINAL RECORDS DESTROY LIVES.
If someone is truly a danger to others and thus worthy of criminal charges, I'll be the first in line to support laws which help protect us all.
But if we're destroying lives based on such info as the NIDA report above, I am the first in line to denounce such junk science which if used, protects no one while destroying millions.
And now we tie it all together in a big bow by returning to the actual Topic headline here, "John Ashcroft Escalates War Against Americans"
If you just slogged your way thru my last long post and are thinking, "Hey, Barman seems to present a reasonable explanation, but hey, why would the government lie to us about something as important as driving while impaired?"
I'll remind you that our federal government is currently working to take cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other seriously ill medical patients and put them in federal prison simply for using marijuana as medicine.
Now this didn't start with Bush/Ashcroft, though Rev John has embraced the policy with a rather unholy glee, including having his agents storm into medical hospices in California with SWAT gear and pointing automatic rifles at crippled patients lying in hospital beds with IV bags attached and all - just so they could seize all the medical pot and patient records.
No, it started with the Clinton administration and it continues today. Even though 11 states have passed laws legalizing marijuana for medical use and even though GW Bush told us in 2000 that he believed the issue should be decided at the state level, federal agents continue to conduct raids against legal patients and their caregivers.
Given this insane and well, INSANE, attitude towards marijuana being used for any good reason whatsoever, is it that much of a stretch to have suspicions about other government produced information about marijuana?
Yep, I didn't think so either.
The prosecution rests, your honor.
If you just slogged your way thru my last long post and are thinking, "Hey, Barman seems to present a reasonable explanation, but hey, why would the government lie to us about something as important as driving while impaired?"
I'll remind you that our federal government is currently working to take cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other seriously ill medical patients and put them in federal prison simply for using marijuana as medicine.
Now this didn't start with Bush/Ashcroft, though Rev John has embraced the policy with a rather unholy glee, including having his agents storm into medical hospices in California with SWAT gear and pointing automatic rifles at crippled patients lying in hospital beds with IV bags attached and all - just so they could seize all the medical pot and patient records.
No, it started with the Clinton administration and it continues today. Even though 11 states have passed laws legalizing marijuana for medical use and even though GW Bush told us in 2000 that he believed the issue should be decided at the state level, federal agents continue to conduct raids against legal patients and their caregivers.
Given this insane and well, INSANE, attitude towards marijuana being used for any good reason whatsoever, is it that much of a stretch to have suspicions about other government produced information about marijuana?
Yep, I didn't think so either.
The prosecution rests, your honor.
TT: Don't want a criminal record, smoke your shit at home.
BAR: Sigh. I'll repost this to remind anyone else reading this Topic, since it obviously means little to you.
CURRENT legislation being proposed would criminalize ANYONE who has ANY marijuana metabolites in their bloodstream.
Marijuana metabolites can be detected for as long as 30 days after actual ingestion.
Therefore I can be marijuana free for 29 days and when the police run a blood test on me, I will be arrested and charged with DWI.
In simple terms, it means that for every 1000 people who test postive for marijuana metabolites, less than 10 will fit the definition provided by NIDA, yet all 1000 will receive permanent criminal records.
Fortunately, I am extremely confident that you(TTELLER) are the only person who will read this and not understand the insanity of such a law.
BAR: Sigh. I'll repost this to remind anyone else reading this Topic, since it obviously means little to you.
CURRENT legislation being proposed would criminalize ANYONE who has ANY marijuana metabolites in their bloodstream.
Marijuana metabolites can be detected for as long as 30 days after actual ingestion.
Therefore I can be marijuana free for 29 days and when the police run a blood test on me, I will be arrested and charged with DWI.
In simple terms, it means that for every 1000 people who test postive for marijuana metabolites, less than 10 will fit the definition provided by NIDA, yet all 1000 will receive permanent criminal records.
Fortunately, I am extremely confident that you(TTELLER) are the only person who will read this and not understand the insanity of such a law.
Oh really? Well isn't witchcraft protected under Freedom of Religious Practices, or sumpin' like that?
No wait, pharmakia implies DRUGS...so any use of DRUGS is practicing witchcraft?
Holy cow. 89% of Americans will use drugs in the next 24 hours....
"IF SHE WEIGHS THE SAME AS A DUCK...BURN HER!!!"
No wait, pharmakia implies DRUGS...so any use of DRUGS is practicing witchcraft?
Holy cow. 89% of Americans will use drugs in the next 24 hours....
"IF SHE WEIGHS THE SAME AS A DUCK...BURN HER!!!"
Nominated for idiot post of the year:
Railbird
CERTIFIABLY CRAZY
posted May 17, 2004 12:14 AM
marijuana is witchcraft, witchcraft= pharmakia in greek, see Galatians 5. to use marijuana is to practice witchcraft.
Wheatgrass is obviously more harmful than marijauna.... just look at what it's done to Railbird's brain.
Railbird
CERTIFIABLY CRAZY
posted May 17, 2004 12:14 AM
marijuana is witchcraft, witchcraft= pharmakia in greek, see Galatians 5. to use marijuana is to practice witchcraft.
Wheatgrass is obviously more harmful than marijauna.... just look at what it's done to Railbird's brain.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oh really? Well isn't witchcraft protected under Freedom of Religious Practices, or sumpin' like that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why don't we ask some of the founding fathers?
Founding Fathers
Witches
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Christ, God Our Father, created cannabis and said all the seed-bearing plants are good on the very first page of the Bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's been a while since I studied the Bible but I believe that He said that everything was good. Creation in general. If we looked closely we could find things that are not good to us. Poison Oak? Snake venom?
Why don't we ask some of the founding fathers?
Founding Fathers
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Christ, God Our Father, created cannabis and said all the seed-bearing plants are good on the very first page of the Bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's been a while since I studied the Bible but I believe that He said that everything was good. Creation in general. If we looked closely we could find things that are not good to us. Poison Oak? Snake venom?
BAGS: If we looked closely we could find things that are not good to us. Poison Oak? Snake venom?
BAR: Good observation. I think you would agree though, that given sufficient hindsight, we may well learn a positive application for both of those substances....may be some now, though I've already done my No-Life Googling for the week with that ICBM deal (and I messed up the math there, so I'm retreating to the land of stuff I'M SURE OF! or so I think..heh)
BAR: Good observation. I think you would agree though, that given sufficient hindsight, we may well learn a positive application for both of those substances....may be some now, though I've already done my No-Life Googling for the week with that ICBM deal (and I messed up the math there, so I'm retreating to the land of stuff I'M SURE OF! or so I think..heh)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think you would agree though, that given sufficient hindsight, we may well learn a positive application for both of those substances <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Point taken. For example, rattlesnake venom is protein-based. Not sure of a good use for poison oak but it could exist. Those were two at the top of my head I could also think of things(not necessarily plant-based) that are harmful but might have some useful applications. You may want to use strychnine or arsenic to kill someone and that could be considered a useful application.
I would say my opinion regarding firearms is similar. I think more people should carry firearms and my opposition to gun control legislation is well-known but at the same time there are people that shouldn't be carrying anything because they have neither the skill to correctly use it in a crunch nor the emotional detachment required in such a situation. Any idiot can pull a gun but a wise person knows when it's required.
Point taken. For example, rattlesnake venom is protein-based. Not sure of a good use for poison oak but it could exist. Those were two at the top of my head I could also think of things(not necessarily plant-based) that are harmful but might have some useful applications. You may want to use strychnine or arsenic to kill someone and that could be considered a useful application.
I would say my opinion regarding firearms is similar. I think more people should carry firearms and my opposition to gun control legislation is well-known but at the same time there are people that shouldn't be carrying anything because they have neither the skill to correctly use it in a crunch nor the emotional detachment required in such a situation. Any idiot can pull a gun but a wise person knows when it's required.
Barkeeper,
Asscroft presented little Lizzy Smart, the Utah girl who was living w/ some religious fantatics, an award today for telling the cops who she was? Another Junior success story. I feel safe at night knowing that Junior and his gang of neocon, draft-dodging chickenhawks are guarding my gates.
Semper Fi,
Lt. Dan
Asscroft presented little Lizzy Smart, the Utah girl who was living w/ some religious fantatics, an award today for telling the cops who she was? Another Junior success story. I feel safe at night knowing that Junior and his gang of neocon, draft-dodging chickenhawks are guarding my gates.
Semper Fi,
Lt. Dan
Lt. Dan,
No offense but do you ever post anything positive? It seems like everytime I read your posts I can pretty much guess that your response will somehow end up bashing Bush and his chickenhawk, draft-dodging buddies. I can't help but be reminded of the old saying: Garbage in, garbage out. At least if you posted some positive stuff I could think of you as something more than a bitter, old man. Maybe that's my chickenhawk, neo-con personality shining through the dark?
No offense but do you ever post anything positive? It seems like everytime I read your posts I can pretty much guess that your response will somehow end up bashing Bush and his chickenhawk, draft-dodging buddies. I can't help but be reminded of the old saying: Garbage in, garbage out. At least if you posted some positive stuff I could think of you as something more than a bitter, old man. Maybe that's my chickenhawk, neo-con personality shining through the dark?
Uncle,
I could care less what you think. Us old guys will not be hoodwinked by a gang of cowards who have no respect in my world. You are obviously very naive to think that Junior and his gang of neocon, draft-dodging chickenhawks are worthy of respect. I will remain negative until these phonies are run out of town. There are only phonies and patriots from now on and I will always side w/ the later.
Semper Fi,
Lt. Dan
I could care less what you think. Us old guys will not be hoodwinked by a gang of cowards who have no respect in my world. You are obviously very naive to think that Junior and his gang of neocon, draft-dodging chickenhawks are worthy of respect. I will remain negative until these phonies are run out of town. There are only phonies and patriots from now on and I will always side w/ the later.
Semper Fi,
Lt. Dan
Originally, I wasn't going to respond but I couldn't resist. I think you are confusing affection and respect. I never said that you had to like him. I don't. My garbage in, garbage out reference was intended more to expose your state of mind rather than offend you. You're more like Bush than you think because phonies and patriots sounds amazingly close to you're either for us or against us.
You couldn't even respond to me without the juvenile reference to Bush. You may be older and wiser than I but you still have some maturing left to do.
You couldn't even respond to me without the juvenile reference to Bush. You may be older and wiser than I but you still have some maturing left to do.
BAGS...dig this
Western poison oak was employed medicinally by some native North American Indian tribes who used it to treat various complaints[257]. In view of the potential toxicity of the plant, extreme caution is advised in any use of it. See the notes above on toxicity.
A leaf has been swallowed in the spring as a contraceptive[257]. A tincture of the fresh leaves has been used in the treatment of eczema and skin diseases[4]. It is also used in the treatment of warts, ringworm etc[92]. A poultice of the fresh leaves has been applied to rattlesnake bites[257].
The leaf buds have been eaten in the spring in order to obtain immunity from the plant poisons[257]
A moxa of the plant has been used in the treatment of warts and ringworm[257].
The juice of the plant has been used as a treatment for warts[257].
An infusion of the dried roots has been taken in order to give immunity against any further poisoning[257]. A decoction of the roots has been used as drops in the eyes to heal tiny sores inside the eyelids and to improve vision[257].
Other Uses
Basketry; Dye; Ink; Mordant; Oil.
The leaves are rich in tannin. They can be collected as they fall in the autumn and used as a brown dye or as a mordant[169].
An oil is extracted from the seeds[4]. It attains a tallow-like consistency on standing and is used to make candles. These burn brilliantly, though they emit a pungent smoke[4].
The supple stems are used as the warp in basket making[92]. Slender stems are used as circular withes in basket making[257].
An excellent black dye is obtained by exposing the sap to air[92].
Western poison oak was employed medicinally by some native North American Indian tribes who used it to treat various complaints[257]. In view of the potential toxicity of the plant, extreme caution is advised in any use of it. See the notes above on toxicity.
A leaf has been swallowed in the spring as a contraceptive[257]. A tincture of the fresh leaves has been used in the treatment of eczema and skin diseases[4]. It is also used in the treatment of warts, ringworm etc[92]. A poultice of the fresh leaves has been applied to rattlesnake bites[257].
The leaf buds have been eaten in the spring in order to obtain immunity from the plant poisons[257]
A moxa of the plant has been used in the treatment of warts and ringworm[257].
The juice of the plant has been used as a treatment for warts[257].
An infusion of the dried roots has been taken in order to give immunity against any further poisoning[257]. A decoction of the roots has been used as drops in the eyes to heal tiny sores inside the eyelids and to improve vision[257].
Other Uses
Basketry; Dye; Ink; Mordant; Oil.
The leaves are rich in tannin. They can be collected as they fall in the autumn and used as a brown dye or as a mordant[169].
An oil is extracted from the seeds[4]. It attains a tallow-like consistency on standing and is used to make candles. These burn brilliantly, though they emit a pungent smoke[4].
The supple stems are used as the warp in basket making[92]. Slender stems are used as circular withes in basket making[257].
An excellent black dye is obtained by exposing the sap to air[92].
Oops, here's the context: http://www.scs.leeds.ac.uk/cgi-bin/pfaf/arr_html?Rhus+diversiloba&CAN=COMIND
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So then we ask, "Hey, wow, why isn't poison oak used to make baskets all over the place now if its so good?" And the answer of course is that there are so many other alternatives which work without the risk of potential side effects. The same answer applies to why we don't use PO to treat warts.
Now back to our Topic context. One of the key government responses and a key argument they've made in legal cases over the past decade as they have worked to keep marijuana illegal as a medicine would be just that:
"There are other alternatives available to patients for treating the symptoms purported to be addressed by marijuana. In fact, the FDA has already approved marijuana in pill form. (VERY inaccurate, since Marinol is simply synthetic THC, only one of the over 400 active ingredients in pot)
Therefore there is no prevailing need for the patient to have access to marijuana. Therefore it can remain illegal without harming patients, since they have these alternatives available. " etc
Sounds good, but unfortunately, testimonies from thousands of patients and from their doctors tells us that for many patients, the FDA-approved remedies are not always a better alternative, and often NO alternative at all.
For example someone with extreme nausea can't keep a pill down. There are many others.
But the fundamental question should not even pertain to 'what other options there are' when it comes to the government telling you how you can legally medicate. That should be a personal decision first for the patient, and if they wish, in tandem with their medical provider. It's absurd for police and other law enforcement to even be in the room for this discussion. But Ashcroft insists on being part of the process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So then we ask, "Hey, wow, why isn't poison oak used to make baskets all over the place now if its so good?" And the answer of course is that there are so many other alternatives which work without the risk of potential side effects. The same answer applies to why we don't use PO to treat warts.
Now back to our Topic context. One of the key government responses and a key argument they've made in legal cases over the past decade as they have worked to keep marijuana illegal as a medicine would be just that:
"There are other alternatives available to patients for treating the symptoms purported to be addressed by marijuana. In fact, the FDA has already approved marijuana in pill form. (VERY inaccurate, since Marinol is simply synthetic THC, only one of the over 400 active ingredients in pot)
Therefore there is no prevailing need for the patient to have access to marijuana. Therefore it can remain illegal without harming patients, since they have these alternatives available. " etc
Sounds good, but unfortunately, testimonies from thousands of patients and from their doctors tells us that for many patients, the FDA-approved remedies are not always a better alternative, and often NO alternative at all.
For example someone with extreme nausea can't keep a pill down. There are many others.
But the fundamental question should not even pertain to 'what other options there are' when it comes to the government telling you how you can legally medicate. That should be a personal decision first for the patient, and if they wish, in tandem with their medical provider. It's absurd for police and other law enforcement to even be in the room for this discussion. But Ashcroft insists on being part of the process.
barman,
Did you find this site or did someone point you to it? I would like to find out which tribes were referenced on that site in order to verify what was said. I am a citizen of two Indian tribes and I thought our rituals were so off-the-wall but this takes the cake. I looked at it's references section but based on the description provided I don't want to spend money on one or more books to find out. If I had to guess I would probably choose the last one but then again it could be in one of those links provided.
Did you find this site or did someone point you to it? I would like to find out which tribes were referenced on that site in order to verify what was said. I am a citizen of two Indian tribes and I thought our rituals were so off-the-wall but this takes the cake. I looked at it's references section but based on the description provided I don't want to spend money on one or more books to find out. If I had to guess I would probably choose the last one but then again it could be in one of those links provided.
