<p>^^Thank you, Nova!</p>
<p>When it comes to pharmaceuticals, I side with the FDA. A randomized, multi-patient, multi-stage, controlled clinical trial is the only way to prove medicinal benefits of a substance. Everything else is anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>Well, this is an interesting study because it addresses the molecular processes involved in at least one illness. It’s a bit more than just self-reporting feeling better. There seems to be some biochemical explanation for why it may be helpful for at least this particular disorder.</p>
<p>[Patients</a> Report Cannabis Use Alleviates Crohn’s Symptoms | Garden State Alternative | Medical Marijuana](<a href=“http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/08/patients-report-cannabis-use-alleviates-crohns-disease-symptoms/]Patients”>http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/08/patients-report-cannabis-use-alleviates-crohns-disease-symptoms/)</p>
<p>mimk, I do believe the “stuff” has some benefits, however, such reports, no matter how scientifically sound they look, do not serve as substitutes for FDA-approved trials.</p>
<p>True, BB, but I’m guessing there are some underway as that study was in 2005. There seems to have been enough research to justify trying to find a way to create a medication that will work. It’s worth noting that often, in the U.S., doctors prescribe off label before a drug is FDA approved. A drug is approved for one illness, doctors see that it works for something else and they start prescribing before the FDA approves it for that illness. It happens quite a bit. It’s because the approval process is so long and cumbersome.</p>
<p>“the U.S., doctors prescribe off label before a drug is FDA approved.”</p>
<p>Not exactly correct. Only FDA-approved drugs (for one or more indications) can be prescribed “off label” (for an indication that was not part of the clinical trial that led to the approval), because there are no FDA labels for substances not yet approved by the FDA.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant to say that they prescribe off-label for an illness before it’s approved for that illness, but after it is approved for another. It seem that almost always, the drug does end up FDA approved for the illness it was being prescribed for off-label. The point I was making is that often everyone knows that a drug is effective for something long before the FDA approves it.</p>
<p>"The DEA could easily stop this by yanking the DEA licenses of the physicians who “write” for marijuana. "</p>
<p>The way I understand it, here in California, the doctor prescribes the card, but does not provide the marijuana.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/mmp/pages/medical%20marijuana%20program.aspx[/url]”>http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/mmp/pages/medical%20marijuana%20program.aspx</a></p>
<p>Oops! Same link in post #16.</p>
<p>OK, so there is a medical marijuana program in CA, but no dispensaries or clinics. Doctors are writing scripts for something that is obtained… how?</p>
<p>I am more confused now that when I began this thread.</p>
<p>BB - I assumed that pharmaceuticals are researching this widely, especially if, given some of the studies that have been reported on, it is offering relief as is being reported.</p>
<p>I guess I’m not quite understanding how and why are people getting ‘cards’ and what privileges these cards offer them then.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap - but with any other prescription drug, the physician only offers the written prescription. He/she does not take responsibility for dispensing it, or the quality control of what is being dispensed.</p>
<p>^^That’s where it set’s weird, but the “law” allows folks to grow in limited quantities.</p>
<p>Terwilt, I agree… just explaining that the doctors I’ve met aren’t actually dispensing,</p>
<p>The card allows them to possess “small quantities” without getting arrested.</p>
<p>Re post #28 – there are medical marijuana dispensaries all over the place. It’s become an issue in cities like SF over concerns like zoning and location. (such as whether a dispensary should be allowed to operate in close proximity to a public school). Here’s one list – [url=<a href=“http://www.sanfranciscocannabisclubs.com/directory/]San”>http://www.sanfranciscocannabisclubs.com/directory/]San</a> Francisco Cannabis Club Directory<a href=“it’s%20just%20the%20first%20thing%20that%20came%20up%20for%20me%20with%20Google%20–%20I%20don’t%20know%20how%20comprehensive%20or%20current%20it%20is”>/url</a></p>
<p>Marijuana is a gateway drug. To any who would like to post a disagreement, YOU ARE WRONG.</p>
<p>One medical benefit is its role in causing amotivational syndrome (which could actually decrease a person’s anxiety about a chronic condition, and therefore actually help…sort of). I guess like anything else, there are side effects. Marijuana does have a special propensity for abuse, but so do painkillers. I used to be completely against it. I probably still am, but I would say that the way California is handling this is FUBAR. Pretty much how California handles everything these days. Marijuana should be as closely regulated as Oxy.</p>
<p>In the U.S., Marinol is a C-3 while Nabilone is a C-2. This is the big reason why Marinol is more popular than Nabilone. However, Marinol has to be stored in the fridge.</p>
<p>DEA license holders still cannot give a marijuana card without running afoul of the DEA regulations. Physicians rarely dispense. Most of the time they act as prescribers. They are still acting as an agent for the person to get a controlled drug illegally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With high taxes you will force an illegal black market with all the enforcement expenses and criminalized behavior all over again.</p>
<p>Would you prohibit home production of MJ to help maintain the cost structure of this ‘whole new industry’?</p>
<p>spideygirl, would you care to provide some links proving that marijuana is a “gateway” drug? I think the relationship between marijuana and harder drugs is simply correlational rather than causal.</p>
<p>To compare marijuana to oxycontin is a little ridiculous. One has HUGE potential for physical addiction and some potential for overdose, the other completely lacks those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not so sure about that–we have plenty of taxes on cigarettes and booze, but I don’t see a big black market for those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point - maybe!</p>
<p>You can’t easily produce commercial quality cigarettes (from home-grown tobacco) and alcohol (beer, wine, whatever) at home.</p>
<p>MJ probably costs pennies (well, I have no real idea, maybe a couple of dollars) per ounce for you or your neighborhood friend to produce, and it can be as good as any commercial product. Sure if you tax it $1 an ounce (and hardly get much revenue), there may be no black market. But if you want to tax it to raise serious money and/or limit access - say $100 an ounce, then there will be a black market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that is relevant to the question of whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. There are many legal drugs that are very addictive, such as many of the drugs used for pain and many of the drugs used to treat anxiety. However, those drugs have a proven benefit and the benefit needs to be weighed against the risk of dependence/addiction when they are prescribed. There are many drugs whose toxicity and risk far exceeds that of marijuana that are approved to treat disease. And, when talking about illness, gateway to what? When my mother was dying of cancer, her pain was not well controlled by the medications then available. If smoking pot could have eased her pain, what difference would it possibly have made? She was already on the harder stuff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Totally agree with this. It’s a darn shame that people in need of a substance that isn’t anymore toxic or addictive than alcohol can’t get it because of what??? Because Big Pharma and the acohol industry have the most to lose and since there are no marijuana lobbyists…</p>
<p>A friend (who is a physician by the way) has been saying for years that Big Pharma works day and night to keep beneficial substances that are freely available and can’t be patented (anyone can grow marijuana) illegal because it will hurt their pockets. I’m beginning to agree with this.</p>
<p>My husband has MS and although he doesn’t smoke it often (only when a friend who does smoke offers it to him), he says that for those few hours he is ‘high’ he has no symptoms of his MS…symptoms that have plagued him for 10 years. It’s really the only relief he gets.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OPs question (I have only skimmed the thread):</p>
<p>MT had a voter initiative couple of years ago for ‘medical marijuana.’ It passed by an astoundingly large margin. The way it works is:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Medical provider has to certify that a patient has one of several conditions (intractable nausea/vomiting, chronic pain, irreversible weight loss (I think) etc). The provider does not actually prescribe marijuana.</p></li>
<li><p>State issues a card for the patient.</p></li>
<li><p>Patient is then allowed to have up to 6 plants in their possession legally.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It is being mightily abused at the moment (out of state providers coming into a town, seeing dozens of ‘patients’ in one day and dispensing cards left and right for a ‘consultation fee’), and hopefully will be revised by the legislature when they meet this winter (it only meets for 90 days every 2 years :D).</p>
<p>As a medical provider, I have certified a handful of patients for this card. I am in a specialty that has a high morbidity and mortality among patients and they have a lot of severe chronic problems. I have actually suggested to some patients that they try it, but they have not been interested. There was an 82 year old, whom I expected to die within weeks, who asked me about it (said ‘I used to roll my cigarettes so I know how to do it’) and I would have gladly given it to him, but he died before it got off the ground. I think all my patients on the program were already experienced users, and I just ‘legalized’ it for them. I have refused some requests, and got ‘fired’ in at least one case because of this. </p>
<p>I have prescribed marinol for some patients with variable effect. It is very expensive and unless insurance covers it (very few do, including, interestingly, some Federal programs), most patients cannot afford it. </p>
<p>I think marijuana can be helpful in certain situations, I think its fine to use it, but I do object to the abuses of the medical marijuana laws because it may end up adversely affecting those patients who do truly benefit from it. Legalization would not bother me one bit.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I was in Amsterdam this summer, and interested to read that per capita use in Netherlands is actually lower than in USA. Not sure how you measure that. Never saw it once in the stores, but smelled it a few times walking the streets (not supposed to smoke in public, as I understand it).</p>