Political Theory

Re: Medical Marijuana

Juan — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:43:22 GMT

Individualist:
Why can't people make medicines that contain both THC and the other compounds in Marijuana? Will it still be inferior?

Not necessarily. Take lsd-25 for instance. It's a semi-synthetic compound developed and marketed (hahaha) by a medium/big business...until the gov't outlawed it, of course.

Re: Medical Marijuana

Individualist — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:24:46 GMT

Why can't people make medicines that contain both THC and the other compounds in Marijuana? Will it still be inferior?

Re: Medical Marijuana

The Rev — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:45:18 GMT

GilesStratton:

All this medical marijuana talk pisses me off, most of the time it's a bunch of white rich kids spouting this nonsense because they want some way to get drugs without coming into contact with the sketchy dealers.

And how is this any of the government's business?

I would expect here, moreso than most places on the internet, to find people who are tolerant of those who wish to live differently from themselves. Ultimately, isn't this all about the freedom to live YOUR life as YOU choose, so long as the rights of others are not infringed upon?

The Rev

Re: Medical Marijuana

Individualist — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:11:07 GMT

J.R.:

Individualist:
I never heard about THC before, though. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned by legalization proponents, like Ron Paul. I also wonder why this wasn't dealt with (in relation to Gonzalez v. Raich) by Woods and Gutzman in their book Who Killed the Constitution.

I'm, sorry, what do you mean by being surprised Marinol was not discussed in these books?

I think a libertarian point (and the basis of the court's decisions, as the availability of Marinol was not mentioned and did not appear to impact the Court's written opinion in Ganzalez v. Raich) is that this is a state's rights issue.

The state's rights issue (i.e. not interstate commerce and thus subject to federal regulation pursuant to the commerce clause) was the legal issue before the court. Or said another way, or the way the Court framed it in ruling against Ms. Raich and medicinal marijuana -- what is the regulatory power of Congress, or could Congress regulate an entirely intrastate activity that might have had tangential impact on an interstate activity (the illegal cultivation, transportation of marijuana), and thus be subject to regulation under the Controlled Substances Act pursuant to the Federal Government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

In SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) jurisprudence, findings of fact by Congress are given deference, so the marinol/medical marijuana descrepancy isue has a huge uphill fight, as Congress, in classifying the respective drugs as they have under the Controlled Substances Act, made factual fidnings as to this issue (depsite the fact these "factual findings" are garbage and unequivocally at divergence with reality).

The authors seemed to imply that, although medical marijuana is a state issue, the decision had important health consequences. I'm surprised they didn't discuss Marinol in that case.

Re: Medical Marijuana

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:18:17 GMT

GilesStratton:

All this medical marijuana talk pisses me off, most of the time it's a bunch of white rich kids spouting this nonsense because they want some way to get drugs without coming into contact with the sketchy dealers.

That doesn't mean that marijuana can't be used for medicinal purposes; or, better yet, that it's not a helpful medicine. I can get a medical marijuana card for my back, but I don't like smoking and it's cheaper to get it on the street, anyways. The fact that a lot of the pro-marijuana argument is carried out by "kids" who want to get drugs is largely irrelevant (and it's not because they don't want to get into contact with sketchy dealers; most of connects can be close friends; it's because they don't want to get into legal trouble if they're caught smoking it).

All of the card holders I've known, which are all friends (and who smoked before they got the card), had legitimate reasons to get the medical card. Just that, instead of marijuana they were popping other, legal painkillers.

Re: Medical Marijuana

hayekianxyz — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:14:47 GMT

All this medical marijuana talk pisses me off, most of the time it's a bunch of white rich kids spouting this nonsense because they want some way to get drugs without coming into contact with the sketchy dealers.

Re: Medical Marijuana

J.R. — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:18:40 GMT

Individualist:
I never heard about THC before, though. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned by legalization proponents, like Ron Paul. I also wonder why this wasn't dealt with (in relation to Gonzalez v. Raich) by Woods and Gutzman in their book Who Killed the Constitution.

I'm, sorry, what do you mean by being surprised Marinol was not discussed in these books?

I think a libertarian point (and the basis of the court's decisions, as the availability of Marinol was not mentioned and did not appear to impact the Court's written opinion in Ganzalez v. Raich) is that this is a state's rights issue.

The state's rights issue (i.e. not interstate commerce and thus subject to federal regulation pursuant to the commerce clause) was the legal issue before the court. Or said another way, or the way the Court framed it in ruling against Ms. Raich and medicinal marijuana -- what is the regulatory power of Congress, or could Congress regulate an entirely intrastate activity that might have had tangential impact on an interstate activity (the illegal cultivation, transportation of marijuana), and thus be subject to regulation under the Controlled Substances Act pursuant to the Federal Government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

In SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) jurisprudence, findings of fact by Congress are given deference, so the marinol/medical marijuana descrepancy isue has a huge uphill fight, as Congress, in classifying the respective drugs as they have under the Controlled Substances Act, made factual fidnings as to this issue (depsite the fact these "factual findings" are garbage and unequivocally at divergence with reality).

Re: Medical Marijuana

Individualist — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:04:24 GMT

J.R.:

In Gonzalez v. Raich, the US government took the position in oral argument that:

“To the extent there is anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it’s THC, which has been isolated and provided in a pill form.”

The essence of the retort is that herbal cannabis contains hundreds of other compounds, and thus pills do not work the same as medical marijuana. Patients much more prefer medical marijuana over Marinol (THC pills)

=========

NORML page on Marinol v. medicla marijuana (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6635) -the topics

I. Marinol Lacks Several of the Therapeutic Compounds Available in Natural Cannabis

II. Marinol is More Psychoactive Than Natural Cannabis

III. Cannabis Vaporization Offers Advantages Over Orally Administered THC

IV. Marinol is More Expensive Than Natural Cannabis

V. Patients Ultimately Prefer Natural Cannabis to Marinol

======

A key point that gets missed is the debate is usually framed as a strawman, in that anti-medicianal marijuana proponents claim that medicinal marijuana needs to be smoked to be consumed.

In fact, Vaporizers are more commonly used and minimize/eliminate many of the smoking related health risks.

From Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer)

"Regardless of the benefits of medical cannabis, the widely perceived health risks of smoking as a route of administration have been viewed as a major obstacle for the legal approval of cannabis for medical uses, though some studies indicate that the expectorant activity of THC may help the lungs remove much of the inhaled tar through coughing.^[9] In response to the concerns, several studies have aimed to establish whether or not vaporizers could offer a clinically reliable and safe route of administration for cannabis. Though vaporizers show great variations in performance, such studies have consistently found vaporization superior to smoking and with best case (high-end vaporizers used with potent cannabis) results showing an elimination of undesired compounds suitable for clinical trials.^{[citation needed]} In comparison to other routes of administering cannabis such as eating, vaporization offers the advantages of inhalation - immediate delivery into the bloodstream, rapid onset of effect, and more precise titration,^{[citation needed]} the ability to more accurately control the dosage to produce a desired effect.

Thanks for the info. I never heard about THC before, though. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned by legalization proponents, like Ron Paul. I also wonder why this wasn't dealt with (in relation to Gonzalez v. Raich) by Woods and Gutzman in their book Who Killed the Constitution.

Re: Medical Marijuana

J.R. — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:38:29 GMT

Byzantine:

My theory is that Prohibition incentivizes more potent drugs to increase margins and make smuggling easier.

There is a greater risk of tainted or laced marijuana bought on the black market (although this is a largely non-existent risk for high grade consumers).

But the legal cultivation of medicinal marijuana will lead to better cultivation and harvesting techniques and the development of more potent strains (i.e. marijuana more rich in THC and other active components).

This is a good thing because it means less medical marijuana needs to be ingested to produce the same effect on the user, thus further limiting the health concerns over the consumption of medicinal marijuana.

Re: Medical Marijuana

J.R. — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:31:55 GMT

In Gonzalez v. Raich, the US government took the position in oral argument that:

“To the extent there is anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it’s THC, which has been isolated and provided in a pill form.”

The essence of the retort is that herbal cannabis contains hundreds of other compounds, and thus pills do not work the same as medical marijuana. Patients much more prefer medical marijuana over Marinol (THC pills)

=========

NORML page on Marinol v. medicla marijuana (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6635) -the topics

I. Marinol Lacks Several of the Therapeutic Compounds Available in Natural Cannabis

II. Marinol is More Psychoactive Than Natural Cannabis

III. Cannabis Vaporization Offers Advantages Over Orally Administered THC

IV. Marinol is More Expensive Than Natural Cannabis

V. Patients Ultimately Prefer Natural Cannabis to Marinol

======

A key point that gets missed is the debate is usually framed as a strawman, in that anti-medicianal marijuana proponents claim that medicinal marijuana needs to be smoked to be consumed.

In fact, Vaporizers are more commonly used and minimize/eliminate many of the smoking related health risks.

From Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer)

"Regardless of the benefits of medical cannabis, the widely perceived health risks of smoking as a route of administration have been viewed as a major obstacle for the legal approval of cannabis for medical uses, though some studies indicate that the expectorant activity of THC may help the lungs remove much of the inhaled tar through coughing.^[9] In response to the concerns, several studies have aimed to establish whether or not vaporizers could offer a clinically reliable and safe route of administration for cannabis. Though vaporizers show great variations in performance, such studies have consistently found vaporization superior to smoking and with best case (high-end vaporizers used with potent cannabis) results showing an elimination of undesired compounds suitable for clinical trials.^{[citation needed]} In comparison to other routes of administering cannabis such as eating, vaporization offers the advantages of inhalation - immediate delivery into the bloodstream, rapid onset of effect, and more precise titration,^{[citation needed]} the ability to more accurately control the dosage to produce a desired effect.

Re: Medical Marijuana

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:27:15 GMT

In California, "medical marijuana" is the "real thing". Normally, once you have your medical marijuana card you can legally smoke, but you can also apply for a grower's card (after taking a test and taking some classes, and whatnot). If you grow that means you can distribute to people who are assigned to you by the healthcare provider; otherwise, you can join a "collective" and you just sell your marijuana in bulk to the collective, which then distributes. But, the marijuana is the same thing and it's grown the same way. There are not chemical additives. In fact, it's the other way around. Generally, off-the-street marijuana has a higher chance of being laced than medical marijuana.

Re: Medical Marijuana

Jordan — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:41:45 GMT

Actually, I thought that the synthetic stuff had some really nasty side effects vis. the real thing.

Medical Marijuana

Individualist — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:26:08 GMT

This is not a thread about legalizing all drugs and ending the Drug War (although I'm in favor of doing these things). I read recently that the medical incredient(s) in marijuana are already available. I also read that using these substitues are healthier. This doesn't ring true to me. What's all this about?