I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet, but as I'm sure you've heard, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that federal marijuana laws allow no exception for medical use.

The ruling isn't surprising, but it's still depressing. According to that article, 79% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical use. I know that some of the science regarding medical marijuana is a little dubious, but it still seems pretty horrible to me that with the vast majority of our population in favor of decriminalizing marijuana for medical purposes, Congress and the feds still won't get their heads out of their asses.

What are your thoughts? If you support the legalization of marijuana for medical uses, what do you think it will take to change federal law? If that 79% figure is correct, then a good number of Bush's own supporters favor a change in the law ... why then has it been so tough to accomplish?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Answers

H ere is another article on the subject, for anyone who's interested.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I expect the federal marijuana laws to be repealed in about 20 years, when the generations have completely turned over. There's no way, apparently, that the GI generation is ever going to think of marijuana as anything except a hallucinogen used by hippie freaks. As soon as they move out of politics, I think pot will be less of a hot-button issue.

BTW, how screwed up is it that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of medical science? They've opined on when a fetus is viable (Roe v. Wade), whether a patient's HIV-positive status should affect how dental care is administered (I forget the name -- the big ADA case two or three years ago), and now what can be administered as a remedy. I have as much respect for the Supremes as my bar membership requires, but it dazzles me how sure they are of their medical competence.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I think medical marijuana in its current form is pretty dubious. It's hard to study the medical value of raw marijuana because there's so much variation in potency and efficacy of delivery (because it depends on how hard you inhale). And, of course, there are the cognitive side effects which would probably be considered unacceptable if this were some new compound being developed by a pharmaceutical company.

However, I think that big changes are coming in the near future--many pharmaceutical companies are in the process of testing marijuana- derived drugs in pill form, which have a consistent level of medication and which lack the cognitive side effects. If these products get FDA approval, I think it'll make the whole medical marijuana debate moot-- if peopel can get a prescription for a drug that has the medicinal benefit of marijuana without the cognitive effects, nobody will have a medical reason to smoke pot.

Interestingly, though, early trials have indicated that cannabis is less effective than other drugs currently on the market for improving the appetites of cancer patients. But, it also had fewer side effects, so maybe there will be a niche for it after all. Also, it remains to be seen how it measures up to other drugs as a general analgesic.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Is it still true that research regarding medical marijuana has been hampered by federal drug laws? I haven't really followed the scientific aspects of the issue.

I do wonder about the analgesic effects. I'm not sure whether this is common knowledge, but there are a whole lot of people out there who are alcoholics due to self-medicating for back pain. I think that's partly due to a lack of health insurance, partly due to frustration and ignorance, and partly due to the fact that back pain is a bitch. Often surgery seems to do more harm than good, and with serious and chronic back injuries, the types of pain killers that help tend to leave you nonfunctional. I don't know that alcohol really helps with back pain, but it's a pretty common road to alcoholism: start having a drink after work because it helps the muscles relax, and eventually get to the point where the pain is so bad you can't get to sleep unless you're completely sloshed.

Speaking from my own (ahem) experience, I know pot makes it easier to deal with things like severe menstrual cramps and back pain; it's certainly more effective than alcohol and less debilitating than either alcohol or prescription muscle relaxants.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I don't know to what extent marijuana research is affected by federal drug laws--I suspect not much, though, since so much research is going on. Here at UCSF they just opened a new medical marijuana research institute.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

The 79% figure is interesting. I've seen similarly high figures discussing the American public's desire for a nuclear freeze in the early eighties. We never got one. Why? Because contrary to misleading propoganda, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic governened by unaccountable "leaders" who really don't give a fuck what we want.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Is it really such a bad thing that we don't live in a democracy? After all, by many accounts, a majority of Americans opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And according to the coalition to ban dihydrogen monoxide webpage, approximately 80% of the American public favors a ban on that chemical. The common name for dihydrogen monoxide is water.

I, for one, am kind of glad I don't have to live at the whims of the often-moronic American populace.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I agree that there are times when the will of the people can be an ugly thing. It does sort of irritate me, though, that kids are brought up believing that the U.S. is a democracy. Until a certain point they are taught that in schools, and plenty of people believe it as adults. The propaganda aspect is a little revolting.

(Did I ever tell you about the time I was tutoring kids in juvie and discovered that they'd been given an edited version of the Bill of Rights in their social studies class? The 10th Amendment was eliminated and the 9th was edited to read, "If the right isn't listed here, you don't have it." I tend to favor full disclosure.)

Anyway, I do think there are some issues that ought to be left to the democratic process, no matter how flawed it is. And I think at some point criminal offenses fall into that category. No, I don't want governance by initiative measure, like we have in California, but I think it should work the other way -- if a majority of people don't want something to be illegal anymore, then I think we need a process for that will to be carried out. That seems pretty fundamental to me.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

They bowlderized the Bill of Rights??

That just boggles my mind.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Well, I think this is a medical issue, and I don't see how the American public is qualified to be in the business of approving medical treatments.

Out of those 79% who support medical marijuana, how many do you think are aware of any of the scientific data concerning the efficacy of marijuana as a medical treament? How many know how it compares to drugs currently on the market? How many even know what diseases marijuana helps (I've heard of people using it for everything from post-traumatic stress disorder to chronic pain to the common cold despite the fact that there is no evidence it actually abates some of these conditions)? How many know what other marijuana-derived treaments are in the pipeline and how they differ from smoking unprocessed pot?

There is a very well-established process for approving medical treatments in this country. Many pharmacutical companies are already putting their marijuana-based drugs through that process. I think that circumventing the process for the sake of popular opinion would set a bad precedent.

From what I've read, it does seem that marijuana is an effective treatment for some illnesses, but I think it should have to go through the same FDA approval process as any other drug to ensure that it is used safely and effectively.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Of course medical marijuana is a medical issue, and it should be decided by researchers and doctors. But it's not being decided by them, because lawmakers -- acting against the apparent will of the American people -- have put up a criminal barrier. The medical marijuana legalization bills and initiatives I've seen haven't regulated who may use it, how it may be prescribed, etc.; that's all between a patient and his or her doctor. That wouldn't change if medical marijuana were legalized. But right now, even if the researchers at UCSF were to discover that marijuana is a miracle cure for a dozen different diseases, they'd still have to get the federal drug laws changed in order for anyone to be able to use or prescribe it without going to jail.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Ah, Beth, ye hath little faith in the power of the biomedical industry machine. I guarantee you that as soon as one giant drug company has a decent marijuana drug ready to go, those pesky little laws will be history...

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I agree with Jen, the concept of medical marijuana is dubious. In fact, I'd take it a step further. The concept of medical marijuana makes me laugh. All indications are that it doesn't treat anything that other drugs don't treat as well or better (and in fact this was the court's reason for rejecting it). Come on! The whole medical marijuana issue is driven by people who want to legalize marijuana. It's just a way for them to get their foot in the door, so to speak -- a first step on the long road to full legalization.

If you think it's only about making sick people feel better you're naive.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Just to clarify, I think that medical marijuana as it is now being used is dubious, meaning people smoking the unprocessed plant. I think the jury is still out on whether it will have a compelling medical use in a more refined form, but early indications would suggest that it does. Even the study which came out yesterday which showed that it was less effective than other anti-nausea drugs showed that it was significantly better than placebo treatment and didn't have the sexual side effects of the conventional treatment. That might be enough to get it FDA approved.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

But Jen, what about that other side effect? You know, that whole intoxication thing? ;-) It seems to me this wouldn't be a very good drug to take while you're driving, or at work, etc.

Besides, there are already THC pills on the market (the active ingredient in marijuana). So why do we need the leafy stuff?

It's a sham.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

A technical question - isn't it actually the "intoxicating" effect which relieves the side effects of chemotherapy?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Just so we're all on the same page, perhaps I should clarify. THC pills (containing the active ingredient in marijuana) are already FDA approved and available for doctors to prescribe. This "medical marijuana" issue is solely about the smoked form.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Here's a story about the legal stuff: http://www.pdxnorm l.org/HT_Marinol_0794.html.

But it's not natural and it doesn't work! Heh.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Other Jen: It may well be that the intoxication effect is how it works but it is still considered an undesirable side effect in that it interferes with things like driving, work, etc. Ideally a drug cures a specific symptom (nausea, glaucoma, pain, etc.) without any other effects.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Aha. Well, you know, ideally NyQuil wouldn't knock me flat on my ass, when I have a cold. And ideally, Sudafed wouldn't make me feel as if my head was about to fly off my shoulders and go bouncing around on the ceiling.

Ideally is well and good, but if it's the "intoxication" that relieves the truly awful feelings of nausea and all the accompanying horribleness of chemotherapy, similar to most medication which impairs coordination, why couldn't a warning label simply be added: "do not operate heavy machinery, or talk to conservatives about the nature of the universe while under the influence of this medication."

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Jen, I'm not really addressing the issue of whether or not people should be allowed to smoke it. What I am saying is that "fewer side effects" is not one of marijuana's strong points. It has all the problems associated with inhaling smoke, along with intoxication.

In fact, it seems that for most users the intoxicating effect is entirely a good thing.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Argh! I just noticed my last two posts may appear to contradict each other. To clarify:

From a doctor's perspective, it would be considered an undesirable side effect if a drug used to treat a specific ailment also causes the user to become intoxicated.

From a stoner's perspective this side effect is a happy one.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Now why in the world is it absolutely necessary to reprocess this drug before it can be used?

Because in its current form, there is no way to control the dosage. Additionally, processing will allow drug companies to increase the "good" effects of the drug while minimizing the side effects (intoxication).

As for Jen's question, I'm not sure if analgesia and intoxication are one and the same...but the study that came out this week indicates that it is possible to have an appetite-enhancing pot drug which doesn't cause intoxication

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Oh, and Dave, THC is only one of many compounds found in marijuana. It is believed that THC is responsible for most of the psychoactive effects of pot, but I think that many of the medicinal benefits come from other components of the plant.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Jen, I would call that belief rather naive. This is precisely what I find laughable about this whole situation, this idea that one day the dumb, plodding scientists will discover what the genius pot-smokers knew all along: "that many of the medicinal benefits come from other components of the plant." Absolute poppycock. There is currently no evidence to support that theory. Today's marijuana has been bred to increase its THC content substantially. The notion that "many of the medicinal benefits come from other components of the plant" flies in the face of THC's powerful, known psychoactive properties. Gee, do you think that maybe, just maybe, these people could be feeling good because of THC's effect on the cannibinoid receptors in their brains?

I mean, let's be reasonable here. And where is this report you keep citing? I'd like to confirm it wasn't done by the Cannabis Grower's Association.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Beth said: (Did I ever tell you about the time I was tutoring kids in juvie and discovered that they'd been given an edited version of the Bill of Rights in their social studies class? The 10th Amendment was eliminated and the 9th was edited to read, "If the right isn't listed here, you don't have it." I tend to favor full disclosure.)

Fuck, that's not even accurate! The amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That is, if the right isn't listed here, that doesn't mean you don't have it.

Jesus. That pisses me off!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Jen Wade: Ah, Beth, ye hath little faith in the power of the biomedical industry machine. I guarantee you that as soon as one giant drug company has a decent marijuana drug ready to go, those pesky little laws will be history...

Actually, there is a drug called Marinol made with THC. I know because my cousin was on it when his AIDS progressed to the point where there was nothing to do for him but relieve pain and wait for the end.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Cory: Actually, Marinol (the synthetic form of THC being used clinically to treat nausea) is cheaper than marijuana for patients who have medical insurance. If the drug becomes more widespread in use, the absolute price will probably be lower, too, as it is generally cheaper to produce synthetic drugs than it is to grow plants, which are slow-growing and high-maintenance.

Furthermore, I would disagree with your contention that marijuana in its smoked form has been "well tolerated by users." It has pretty severe and long-lasting intoxicating effects, and uses a delivery method (smoking) which is known to cause serious health problems. With any drug, the goal is always going to be to create the most effective medication with the fewest side effects. Clearly, marijuana in its raw form does not meet that standard.

And Dave: The article about Marinol which I alluded to earlier is linked in my first post on this topic.

As for my supposed naivete, here is a list of several marijuana-derived drugs currently in development as of 1999. As you can see, two of them do not work through cannabinoid receptors, although they are still classified as cannabinoids because they are related to THC. In addition, so far, two families of cannabis receptors have been discovered, one of which is predominantly expressed outside the central nervous system, and is believed not to contribute to the intoxicating effects of cannabis. Given that marijuana contains more than 60 cannabinoids, it is not unreasonable to predict that one of them may selectively target this second, non-CNS receptor, which is believed to modulate the actions of the immune system.

Further evidence for the medicinal value of non-THC cannabinoids includes the fact that anecdotal evidence suggests that marinol is less effective than whole marijuana at stimulating appetite in patients with wasting syndrome. A controlled study on this issue is coming out later this year.

As for your contention that the only reason why THC works is because it leaves "feeling good because of THC's effect on the cannibinoid receptors in their brains," I would point you to this study which suggests that taking pure THC actually induces dysphoria. In addition, the journal article (Gorter, RW. Cancer cachexia and cannabinoids. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 1999 Oct, 6 Suppl 3:21-2.) suggests that cannabis is better tolerated than THC because of the presence in the plant of additional cannabinoids, including cannabidiol, "which antagonize the psychotropic actions of THC, but do not inhibit the appetite-stimulating effect."

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

I'd like to add a little personal perspective here. I've been taking chemotherapy for two years, but for MS (which means a lower dosage), so the side effects are much less severe than what cancer patients suffer. I can only imagine. But the effects are cumulative, so this last treatment left me pretty nauseated. They prescribed "the best" anti-nausea medicine they have, but it barely took the edge off. Three hits from a joint stopped the nausea completely and gave me some appetite.

This leads me to believe that medical marijuana is a viable treatment for at least the chemotherapy patients. Stoned or not. I don't particularly like the cognitive effects of pot (what was I doing? Oh yeah...) but I can tell you that every single drug I've ever used for medical reasons has side effects. Sleepiness, lethargy, weakness, hyperactivity, etc. The difference? They're legal and the drug companies are making money.

And, um, waiting for the FDA to approve anything? That's a joke.I can't find the article I recently read about how many deaths have been reported in the last 10 years related to drugs that the almighty FDA approved.

So, where was I going with this? Oh yeah...

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Jen, you know, when I read a post like your last one I always find myself wondering: are you a master troll or hopelessly lost? Whatever the reason, you continually and consistently come up with these specious arguments. (And seeing as how you have gloated in the past about how much you love getting me steamed I tend to lean towards the former.)

I mean, in order to back up your claim that "many of the medicinal benefits come from other (ie, non-THC) components of the plant" you provide "a list of several marijuana-derived drugs currently in development as of 1999." If someone actually bothers to follow the link they find only 4 drugs listed, two of which are THC and "Marijuana plant." Clearly those are THC related and do not support your hypothesis. The third one, CT-3, is a synthetic derivative of a natural metabolite of THC. You know what that means, right? It means a person who smokes mary-J doesn't actually get any CT-3, although their body produces something similar to CT-3 (but far less effective) from the THC. HU-211 is a synthetic cannabinoid compound not found in marijuana (afaik). To summarize: two of the four drugs in the list are not found in marijuana, and two are THC and marijuana. Thus, although your statement has a false look of supporting you hypothesis, it does no such thing. Not a single drug on that list supports your hypothesis.

And then you bring up dubious study results and anecdotal evidence. As if you don't know the problems associated with both. I mean, for a good laugh have a look at this story. Are you going to read that and conclude that willow-bark has some magical properties and the results of that study aren't just due to aspirin? Because if you do you're a moron.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure we can discuss medical marijuana without using the word "moron." I think it can be done. Go on, impress me.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Before Jen nails me I should point out that I was using the term aspirin somewhat loosely in that last sentence. Aspirin is actually better the the salicin found in willow-bark but works the same way.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Jody: The results you get from marijuana might seems impressive, but there are a number of factors to consider. First of all, in the clinical study Jen first referred to, "40 percent of patients responded to placebos alone." Appetite is a fairly subjective thing.

What I also found very interesting from that article was the statement, "the marijuana derivative, given in a dose based in part on recommendations from the maker, had none of the effects for which the drug is known." This tells me that the pill form's THC dosage level is nowhere near what you get from marijuana.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Dave, you quoted me in a misleading way. What I said was "I think that many of the medicinal benefits come from other components of the plant." (italics added later). Is there firm scientific evidence that this is the case? No. But this is a largely unexplored field, and I think there are many indicators that the marijuana plant has medicinal value beyond the effects THC.

The reason why I cited the list of cannabinoid drugs in development was to demonstrate that the cannabinoid family is diverse and acts through a number of receptors, including non-cannabinoid receptors and the CB2 cannabinoid receptors which are believed not to contribute to cannabis's intoxicating effect.

The fact that CT-3 and HU-211 are synthetic (as most commercial drugs are) and not found in marijuana is irrelevant--both are chemically similar to compounds which are naturally found in cannabis or its metabolites and both are non-intoxicating. My point was that given that more than 60 cannabinoid compounds (that is, compounds which are structurally similar to THC) have been identified in marijuana and given the fact that many cannabinoid compounds are non-intoxicating and appear to have therapeutic value, it is likely that many of the non-THC cannabinoids found in marijuana will also be non-intoxicating and therapeutic.

I agree that the anecdotal evidence suggesting that whole marijuana is more effective than THC alone is weak, however, at present, it is the only indicator we have. As I mentioned, the first controlled study comparing smoked marijuana to THC in patients was undertaken in 1997, and the results will be released later this year. Another study on this is underway in Germany, and those results will probably also come out later this year.

And finally, I'm not going to respond to your posts any more if you can't discuss this in a civil and respectful manner.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Oops ... I posted my note about marinol without realizing it had already been mentioned. I must have been stoned. Sorry. ;)

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Yeah, Cory, THC is quite expensive to synthesize. It would likely be cheaper to get it from plants. I believe opiates are expensive to synthsize as well, and are currently commercially produced from poppies.

Beth wrote:
Of course medical marijuana is a medical issue, and it should be decided by researchers and doctors. But it's not being decided by them, because lawmakers -- acting against the apparent will of the American people -- have put up a criminal barrier.

So will this "will of the American people" be a new way to get drugs approved? If BigDrugCompany has a great new drug all ready to go should they launch an advertising campaign and forgo FDA approval in favor of the "will of the American people?" Perhaps they could illegally supply it to cancer patients and have them all testify how great it is. I don't think that's what we want, is it?

The FDA is there for a reason.

Jen Wade wrote:
Ah, Beth, ye hath little faith in the power of the biomedical industry machine. I guarantee you that as soon as one giant drug company has a decent marijuana drug ready to go, those pesky little laws will be history...

This seems like a strange thing to say. Marinol is already on the market and FDA approved.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

But see, Dave, the FDA has nothing to do with it in the case of marijuana. Even if the FDA were to approve marijuana for medical use, it would still be illegal. Federal narcotics statutes are separate from FDA approval; they're passed by Congress. The FDA is part of the executive branch.

If you read what I said, I didn't say the people should be able to vote on whether the drugs could be prescribed. I said the people should have some say as to whether drugs that have otherwise been medically approved are nonetheless banned because of morality issues.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Beth: But that's just the thing. Marijuana has never been medically approved. Medical approval is granted by the FDA, is it not? In fact, in 1986 Marinol (synthetic THC) was moved from schedule I to schedule II on the basis of its FDA approval in 1985. It was subsequently moved to schedule III in 1999.

Jen: You were saying all the right things until I posted that, "I agree with Jen, the concept of medical marijuana is dubious. In fact, I'd take it a step further. The concept of medical marijuana makes me laugh."

Suddenly you were all about singing the praises of medical marijuana. Unfortunately you are merely parroting the propaganda of the massive pro-marijuana conspiracy.

For example, you keep talking about the "60 cannabinoids" in marijuana. That is deliberately misleading. There are only 3 or 4 present in appreciable quantities, and in the marijuana that is smoked by drug users today THC is far and away the predominant cannabinoid, accounting for 90-100% of the total, depending on the part of the plant. (Results from university of Mississippi: ref1, ref2)

This admittedly not altogether confidence inspriring study found that "Aside from THC, we could find no significant presence of the other tested cannabinoids, CBN and CBD, except in one or two anomalous samples."

As I said earlier, Jen, today's marijuana is bred for its high THC content. It seems unlikely that the medicinal effects of smoking pot are largely due to anything other than the THC.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Dave, the concentration of these substances in marijuana is not relevant, as I am not condoning using whole marijuana as a pharmacologic agent.

I think you are misunderstanding my point, which is that purifying or modifying naturally-occurring cannabinoids is likely to result in creating effective novel therapies for several diseases, and that due to the diverse effects of cannabinoid compounds it is likely that these therapies will not necessarily be accompanied by the intoxicating side effects associated with whole cannabis.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and I actually don't think we're too far apart on this issue.

And Cory, a plant can grow more leaves in a few days, but a batch of recombinant bacteria or an organic chemist can make more chemical in a few hours. Synthetic compounds are a lot easier and faster to produce than plants and, of course, unlike whole plants, they enable the user to regulate the dosage taken. If synthetics were really less cost- effective than plants, why on earth would drug companies go to all the trouble to come up with methods to make synthetics for things like quinine instead of just building a greenhouse?

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Well, I had to go read up about that, but you're comparing trees that grow naturally only in certain parts of the world to a smallish plant that grows readily in a typical household or yard. (okay they can become as big as corn stalks but they're still manageable outside or under normal ceilings)

But even if you offer up the perfect example, the fact is marijuana is easy to grow at home. I might not even be exaggerating to say, if or when it becomes legal it will be about as easy to price-fix as home grown tomatoes. In fact, I'm not even sure if the government could ever really regulate it for tax purposes. It would be difficult.

Call marijuana atypical, but you can bet your ass, if people could grow a reasonable facsimile of Tylenol tablets in their garden, they probably would.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Dave, read what I wrote before. I *know* that marijuana has not been approved for medical use. But as I said twenty or so posts up there, "right now, even if the researchers at UCSF were to discover that marijuana is a miracle cure for a dozen different diseases, they'd still have to get the federal drug laws changed in order for anyone to be able to use or prescribe it without going to jail."

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Well, Cory, Marinol is produced synthetically, which is a pretty good indication that UNIMED Pharmaceuticals thinks it's cheaper to synthesize the synthetic form of THC than it is to isolate it from the plant.

Marijuana in its raw form is just not a very good drug. It has highly incapacitating side effects, and the fact that the level of drug varies among different plants and among different parts of the plant precludes one from altering the dose so as to maximize the therapeutic benefit and minimize the side effects.

I mean, sure, in an absolute sense it might be cheaper for end users to grow marijuana than it would be for them to pay drug companies to produce it, package it, test it, distribute it, and recoup their research costs, but they'd be getting a superior product in exchange. Do you really think that people would prefer to use home-grown tylenol if that form were so intoxicating it left you unable to operate a car for 12 hours? You'd have to have one hell of a headache to justify that.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Let me put it this way: if I stubbed my toe, taking heroin would make me feel better. However, despite its efficacy, it would be inappropriate for a doctor to prescribe heroin for a stubbed toe, even if the patient was willing to put up with the side effects.

I mean, yes, obviously, people enjoy the intoxicating side effects of pot and are all too happy to put up with them. That doesn't mean that they are desirable from a medical or social perpective. If they can be easily avoided by making alterations in the drug, they should be.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

A poll of Canadians shows them to be about evenly split about whether or not to legalize marijuana. The demographics are interesting (and not that surprising):

Support Grows for legalizing marijuana

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

From that article:
He said highly publicized court rulings and a 1999 Health Canada decision in favour of using marijuana for medical purposes likely contributed to the drug's kinder reception.

This is precisely what I was talking about earlier. Notice how the acceptance of "marijuana for medical purposes likely contributed to the drug's kinder reception." I mean, if doctors say it's okay for their patients to use how bad could it be, right? This is why the pro-marijuana lobby has embraced the medical marijuana cause.

Also from the article:
"It is clear from these findings that, for better or for worse, a growing number of Canadians of all ages simply do not see marijuana in negative terms," he said yesterday.

I don't quite agree with that. I'd say most people just don't see it in negative enough terms to justify making its users criminals.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001

"I'd say most people just don't see it in negative enough terms to justify making its users criminals."

I'd agree with you. And that's as fine a reason as I can think of not to continue making its use a crime.

(There are probably thousands of things that I'm negative about - that doesn't mean they ought to be illegal, at least not until I'm acknowledged as Queen of the Universe.)

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001