American College of Physicians is fine with medical marijuana
Posted 2 years 5 weeks ago byA preface: Marijuana use has never been among my vices. I've never toked, though I can't say I haven't inhaled -- it's occasionally impossible to avoid a cloud of smoke at our local music festival. But it was never intentional; it's just not something I'm interested in.
So I don't have a personal dog in the fight over medical marijuana. That leaves me to take the word of the American College of Physicians that it's O.K.
The American College of Physicians, the nation's largest organization of doctors of internal medicine, with 124,000 members, contends that the long and rancorous debate over marijuana legalization has obscured good science that has demonstrated the benefits and medicinal promise of cannabis.
In a 13-page position paper approved by the college's governing board of regents and posted today on the group's website, the group calls on the government to drop marijuana from Schedule I, a classification it shares with illegal drugs such as heroin and LSD that are considered to have no medicinal value and a high likelihood of abuse.
Here's a link to the ACP position paper.
I realize that no sane politician will run on a plank of advocating drug legalization, but -- in this case -- that's too bad. The White House, though, disagrees:
But officials at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said calls for legalizing medical marijuana were misguided.
"What this would do is drag us back to 14th-century medicine," said Bertha Madras, the agency's deputy director for demand reduction. "It's so arcane."
But arcane isn't necessarily the same thing as bad. And the feds know this: They're the ones who approved leeches for medical use.
Thoughts
Also, for those who are
Submitted on April 16th, 2009 by GazleAlso, for those who are getting their information from the government - the NIDA or (god forbid) police organizations and/or the DEA (rehab clinics, which are subject to intense government scrutiny would be included here)- consider the inherent conflict of interest.
Regardless of any positive or negative attributes of marijuana, it is in their best interest to demonize it. Not only would a policy reversal put countless federal agents out of work and potentially add discredit to an already mistrusted system, the opinion of the mob is still against it (though less so every year).
For an alternate source of information, several prestigious organizations have published far more scientifically rigorous (read: valid) studies including several by researchers at Harvard.
Agreed
Submitted on April 15th, 2009 by GazleI would agree with the comment below. I was diagnosed with ADD at the age of 12 and prescribed the stimulant dexadrine (dextroamphetamine). Now, 10 years later, i've tried almost every popular drug (excluding meth and heroin) and i can honestly say that dexadrine and alcohol are the most destructive drugs i have ever experienced.
Dexadrine is dangerous because its prescription status belies the hazards and side-effects associated with it. As with most stimulants, it destroys the kidneys and liver and the not sleeping burns away your mind. Alcohol is just as (if not more) destructive to all three and is the only drug i've ever noticed any form of addiction to.
If i can legally obtain these drugs, why is marijuana, which nearly all unbiased (which is to say not government funded and staffed) studies have found to be relatively harmless, still illegal?
this is completely besides
Submitted on September 1st, 2008 by Anonymousthis is completely besides the point (the whole article is)
even if marijuhana has no medical purposes what so ever
it still should be legal (and not just cuz i like to smoke it)
there are far more harmfull drugs (like alchohol, tabbaco and many synthetic drugs (like the study pills containing AMPHETAMINES (also known as speed) wich are freely available.
so banning marijuhana is just hypocricy at it's finest!
It does not... totally faulty logic
Submitted on September 1st, 2008 by AnonymousMarijuana does not create drug addiction. A person can be addicted to nicotine or alcohol and never have touched any marijuana, any other source of THC nor any other hallucinogen. By your logic, prohibition should never have been repealed because most of the people that voted to repeal it were regular alcohol drinkers.
Well I am a little bit
Submitted on July 15th, 2008 by AnonymousWell I am a little bit skeptical about that, marijuana creates drug addiction and there are plenty people voting for medical marijuana because they are regular users. Physicians should be more cautious about these public statements...
Yes, they are a very
Submitted on May 28th, 2008 by karen29Yes, they are a very relevant source for this matter, but this is not worrying me, I am worried about those people who are looking forward to hear such news so they can use marijuana under medical excuses. This was the problem all along... Any drug addiction treatment center could give you clear references about this.
Best To Legalize It
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonI'm not a pot smoker or a drug user. I just don't do it.
But when my mother came down with cancer, I started shifting my view. If someone is sick and wants medical marijuana, what business is it of Congress or the DEA?
I agree with that as well.
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by ShannonI agree with that as well. Ironic that processed foods are causing just as many problems as the drugs. And people wonder where cancer comes from...oh, the money trail.
As a Cancer Survivor
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by AnonymousI can tell you that medical marijuana was a lifesaver. Kytril was $1500 for 60 pills to control nausea resulting from chemotherapy. Instead, I was able to buy the "good stuff" for about $100 in enough quantity to get me through my treatments with even better results than I could achieve with the Kytril. Worked for a friend of mine as well, who fought cancer for 6 years before finally succumbing at the age of 21.
Natural vs. fabricated
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by JoelShannon, Michael Pollan makes the observation that it's harder to make a profit from "real" food than processed foods. I suspect the same dynamic might be a factor here...
What's arcane is saying that
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by ShannonWhat's arcane is saying that 17th century medicine should be scorned. 17th century medicine didn't offer the risk of side effects like "Blood clot, heart attack or stroke." For God's sake, does no one see the problem with the boom of the chemical age?