digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

American Psychiatric Association Unanimously Backs Medical Marijuana!

salem-news.com — This is BIG. A major move by one of the nation's top medical groups, they are backing medical marijuana and they want the federal government to leave doctors alone. In a unanimous vote, the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association has approved a strongly worded statement supporting legal protection for patients using medical marijuana...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JandtheBoingers, on 11/08/2007, -4/+62We need someone to introduce legislation to reschedule Marijuana in THIS Congress! Hinchey Rohrabacher is an equally important states rights issue, but the facts are there. The government currently provides marijuana as medicine to the 'closed' group of recipients, federal research supports using marijuana as medicine, major medical associations continue to endorse marijuana as medicine along with 12 states worth of voters.

    RESCHEDULE IT!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_rescheduling ...

    Schedule I is the only category of controlled substances that may not be prescribed by a physician. Under 21 U.S.C. ยง 812b, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:
    * The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
    * The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
    * There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
    • bmorris, on 11/08/2007, -1/+56The government's argument against rescheduling marijuana is that it has no accepted medical use and the basis for that claim is the lack of FDA clinical studies. Yet, the Drug Enforcement Administration -- an organization whose stated mission is to fight the liberalization of marijuana laws -- has the authority to block research into marijuana's medical efficacy. The DEA's arguments are so disingenuous it makes me sick.
      • JandtheBoingers, on 11/08/2007, -1/+34Perhaps a better approach is for Congress to revoke the scheduling authority of the DEA. Giving drug scheduling authority to a more independent department would likely have the desired affect of using common sense about this issue.
      • gropo, on 11/08/2007, -2/+25Much in the same way it's insane to accept computer/equipment purchasing advice from the same people you contract service calls from, allowing an enforcement agency to schedule substances allows for a bureaucratic dependency cycle within the agency.

        Add to the issue: puritanical zealots either naturally gravitate to such agencies or are assigned to them (due to their puritanical zealotry) and the scheduling authority of the DEA becomes entirely FUBAR'd. These people don't want to hear the truth on the ground. They're entirely too 'bought in' to the running fairy tale realities they've meticulously created.
        • cashman57, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15Because I have seen with my own eyes the effect of marijuana on a cancer chemotherapy patient I know that the statements from the DEA that it is not medicine are bunk.
          I often wonder why it is we cannot sue those people to make them tell the truth or at the very least stop violating the rights of patients and their providers.
          Personally I see no recreational use for marijuana but I guess others do. In any event the classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 was shot down in 1999 when the government sanctioned a study which concluded that marijuana is medicine and has medical use. Further research led to a whole plant extract called Sativex to be prescribed in Canada and the UK.
          • WiseWeasel, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3Duh, the recreational use is to take the edge off an alcohol binge...
          • scrogger, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3we are suing - the ASA is suing under the Quality Data Act - the process began 2 years ago. for more info go to safeaccessnow.org
      • VIrus9, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4There's also the fact that despite the claims marijuana has no medical use, the federal government has supplied medical marijuana to a handful of patients since 1988.
      • fiestycrumbler, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1if marijuana is schedule one whats alcohol?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 11/08/2007, -17/+2No seriously guys.. this is sooo huge... no um.. really... wow...
    • flashingcurser, on 11/08/2007, -1/+19What is amazing is that coke and meth are schedule II drugs.
      • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7Exactly! I know that cocaine has medical uses but meth? Meth has more legitimate medical uses than pot? WTF?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 11/09/2007, -31/+1LAME... Let's keep illegal narcotics illegal
      • HomerPimpson4, on 11/09/2007, -2/+19Marijuana is not a narcotic.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1you seem to know a lot about this... tell me more about the effects of Marijuana on the body.. long term and short
          • 5urr3al5am, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1no response I see.. mums the word
      • WiseWeasel, on 11/08/2007, -1/+9Troll. Go back under your bridge!
      • 5urr3al5am, on 11/12/2007, -2/+1eh.. close enough.. both kill you in the end
    • stoanhart, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Wow, pot fails all three. lol.

      wait, that's not funny :(
    • rarson, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10Cannabis is extremely safe, even if you abuse it. And there's tons of medical uses for it, too. It definitely doesn't meet the criteria of a schedule I drug.
    • CamZak, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4Ban smoking. It's highly abused. Has no medical purpose, at least that's what the television ads say, and it kills people. Heck, lets just ban chocolate while we're at it.
      • scrogger, on 11/13/2007, -3/+2technically nicotine, but yes, it should be banned - it definitely has all 3 points above
        • mailman451, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0yes ban nicotine and cigarettes and cigars and watch the revolution begin. pot would be a forgoten evil they would be to busy looking for people growing tobacco plants.
    • brownrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Consider joining, and thus supporting MAPS - the Multi-disciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies- http://maps.org/
      MAPS is a membership-based, IRS-approved 501 (c) (3) non-profit research and educational organization. They assist scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana.
      MAPS' mission is to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and MARIJUANA into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs. Read our strategy statement for more information.
      We need your support so together we can make a difference. In addition to general membership donations, MAPS is seeking to raise funds for specific research projects. These are our funding priorities and here are our financial reports.
      For background reading, see MAPS President Rick Doblin's doctoral dissertation (Harvard, Kennedy School of Govt., 2001) "Regulation of the Medical Use of Psychedelics and Marijuana," visit our media and audio/visual archives, or peruse the latest issue of the MAPS Bulletin and our monthly news update. (taken from their website)
      Blessings.
  • gropo, on 11/08/2007, -3/+49Let's hope this takes a little wind out of the sails of these apparent astroturfers posting questionable anecdotes and 'studies' of psychiatric doomsday scenarios related to cannabis.

    Truly sad when you consider all the actually questionable prescription SSRI's and selective dopamine antagonists that they could be going after. But instead they'd rather fabricate bizarre tales regarding an herb humanity has been consuming for literally millenia. Shows the sickness that underlies the prohibition.
  • heartcoldfusion, on 11/14/2007, -1/+45Land of the free*
    • deadnelsons, on 11/14/2007, -0/+32Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited.
  • whyufail, on 11/09/2007, -38/+4Prepare for the obligatory 500 comments to "legalizzz it" As long as its still illegal to smoke it in public i don't give a ***** what you guys do, but I prefer my braincells unmutilated kthx
    • sockpuppets, on 11/09/2007, -1/+18You seem a little tense.
    • sorrytheusernam, on 11/09/2007, -2/+28The problem with your assertion is that marijuana has been proven to not kill any braincells.
      By Harvard.
      • Flamekebab, on 11/09/2007, -20/+2Doesn't change the fact that many of the people I've known who habitually used marijuana ended up ruining their own lives.
        • m0tbaillie, on 11/08/2007, -1/+14That's the stupidest anecdotal generalization I've heard.....all day.
        • CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/09/2007, -1/+27sorry to say, but those people would have ruined their lives without marijuana. Its not the weed that ruined their lives, its their choices. I myself am a very successful weed smoker, and know many more like me. I have a great job and a great family. Weed doesn't control or make decisions for me. And if you or the people you know are blaming their failure on weed, that is called denial. Stop believing the stereo-types.
        • HomerPimpson4, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15I know of many people who have had their lives ruined by alcohol abuse yet alcohol remains legal.
        • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+8Correlation without causative linkage.
        • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Many people I know who habitually breath and blink end up ruining their lives. That doesn't mean there is a connection between them.
      • capiCrimm, on 11/09/2007, -7/+4there's your problem, your going to argue this with facts when it's in the realm of emotion. Beginners blunder.
    • azprofessional, on 11/08/2007, -2/+9Do I smell a FAILURE?
      • MacEnvy, on 11/08/2007, -2/+6Nah bro, that's just my stash of dank in that drawer next to you.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/08/2007, -6/+1LEGALIZE ITZZZ!!!! DUUUUUUUUUDE!!!!
    • delmar14, on 11/08/2007, -1/+8obviously you've never tried it...
    • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5They are asking for it to be approved for medical uses. I'm sure that then they are in public, they can stick to the pot brownies, and only smoke at home. Anything less would be irresponsible, so I am guessing that you think that cancer patients are irresponsible.

      Responsible people don't dose everyone around them with hallucinogens.
    • PistolSO, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Better not drink alcohol then...that kills brain cells. Cannabis doesn't kill brain cells.
  • slashbot, on 11/09/2007, -63/+4And this matters why?

    Still doesn't change the fact that marijuana is dangerous, it kills, causes cancer, and that the majority of Americans want it banned.
    • obelisky, on 11/09/2007, -2/+34you need to get a job. you suck at trolling.
      • slashbot, on 11/09/2007, -35/+2What you call trolling, I call expressing a conservative point of view.

        What does that make your comment?
        • busby2, on 11/08/2007, -0/+25I googled marijuana and cancer and more results came up that it helps treat cancer rather than cause it.
          Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection was the first result.
        • TBagwell, on 11/08/2007, -1/+29your "point of view" is contrary to all the facts. what does that make you?
        • gropo, on 11/08/2007, -0/+17"what does that make you?"
          Answer: Someone who expresses thoughts according to their reactionary effect rather than reason or facts. This kind of person is commonly referred to as a "troll"
        • MalenfantX, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4That's not a conservative point of view, it's an authoritarian one.
        • Shaman760, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Glad to see that the conservatism you speak of is still just as ignorant as it's been purported. Tell me, how's the kool-aid in your world? Are you a "24 percent-er"?

      • personfromhell, on 11/08/2007, -0/+19plz stop making a fool of yourself and read up on what conservative thought actually is
        *hint* its not ignoring factual evidence
      • m0tbaillie, on 11/08/2007, -0/+15If by "expressing a conservative point of view" you mean "spouting nonsensical ***** backed up by no factual evidence whatsoever", then yea, I guess that's what you were doing. Nobody has ever directly died from marijuana, *****. Marijuana isn't even in the top ten list of most dangerous drugs. Alcohol is fifth, tobacco ninth.

        http://drbenkim.com/ten-most-dangerous-drugs.html You fail.
      • AmICoolNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Ahhh, truthiness...
    • raybury, on 11/08/2007, -0/+26You just described tobacco. And possibly George Bush or Hillary Clinton.
    • ucbluman, on 11/08/2007, -2/+6i hear posting on digg causes cancer.
    • sockpuppets, on 11/08/2007, -1/+16The American flag avatar is a nice touch.
    • sorrytheusernam, on 11/08/2007, -1/+21THC has been shown to reduce tumors by up to 50%. It can even completely reverse some small ones.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
    • azprofessional, on 11/08/2007, -1/+22Slashdouche strikes again with the unproven spewings of a complete hypocrite moron.

      You go on and on about 'libs' fuddling facts and so on and so forth and then you come up with an argument completely based on nothing.

      Do you practice having no credibility when you express yourself or does it come naturally?
    • barandon0D9, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10wow. I already thought you were little crazy from reading your posts on political topics... but now i can't even tell if you're for real or not...
    • analogvoid, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6yeah, marijuana kills. right....
    • delmar14, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6If you really are for free markets and less federal regulation, why is marijuana (a naturally occurring plant) the exception
    • solid12345, on 11/09/2007, -8/+1If you admit tobacco is bad you have to admit marijuana is just as bad. Nicotine is no less a carcinogen than THC.

      But either way it is your choice what you put in your body.

      • nicholai, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3"But either way it is your choice what you put in your body."
        Then you would support legalizing it?
      • brownrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4For your education: In the case of cannabis, it is the tar that can cause cancerous growth, not THC.
        &
        Tobacco is used medicinally by healers in South America; Cigarettes are another story.
      • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3THC is not a carcinogen. Please do some research before making claims.
        "There was no evidence that delta 9-THC was carcinogenic in rats or mice."
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retri ...
    • PistolSO, on 11/08/2007, -1/+0Nobody has EVER died from a THC overdose, Cannabis can be vaporized or eaten and that doesn't cause cancer. The only cancer risk from cannabis is when it's smoked...because inhaling smoke isn't good for the body.
      • dreagen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I am not going to say smoking Marijuana is safe but I will say that there has been no link to Marijuana smoking causing cancer. There has actually been a study that showed Cigarette Smokers that smoke Marijuana actually had a lower chance of getting Lung cancer.
  • skews13, on 11/08/2007, -4/+6chipping away at the stone
  • evileddy60, on 11/09/2007, -13/+3Wake me up when I can buy weed at the LCBO ( Canuck Beer Store for you USA'ers )

    Till then I don't care if even the Pope says: "And yee.. god said unto Abraham.. find thee leafy weed and come sit and digest tasty fishcakes upon the mountain"

    • sockpuppets, on 11/09/2007, -1/+14You live in Canada. If you have a hard time finding weed then you have to be borderline retarded.
      • Coffeedemon, on 11/08/2007, -3/+6Maybe he doesn't want to break the law to get it? Or end up with some Gatineau Ditchweed from buying it on the street.
  • bingobongony, on 11/09/2007, -22/+4Medical Marijuana would get more support if not for the stories of doctors prescribing it for simple aches and pains that would be FAR more effetively treated with other medication. Again, that episode of Entourage where Drama gets a prescription is not a complete fabrication. Thre are doctors that are basically "pot doctprs." Go to them, say your arm hurts and get medical marijuana.

    Until that stops, the public will not be in favor of it. Because while the public is slightly in favor of limited medical marijuana use ,it is OVERWHELMINGLY against legalizing it.
    • gropo, on 11/08/2007, -1/+10I've responded to why your claim is baseless on a previous occasion today. Not worth repeating again (like you did).
      • bingobongony, on 11/09/2007, -13/+2You responded with ***** though. Look, it is no secret how worthless your opinions are. Look at your logo. Anyone who think that using pot leaf as a logo is a cool idea is not one that needs to worry about intelligent debates. I don't want to hear you repeat the crap you read at all the wacko "LEGALIZE IT NOW" websites. Those are for comic relief, not intelligent debates.
        • ehalasey, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4"Anyone who think that using pot leaf as a logo is a cool idea is not one that needs to worry about intelligent debates."
          So, what you're really saying is . . . you consider gropo, who is obviously more informed than you on the subject to be an absolute moron based on an avatar choice? Your credibility is completely shot, now, as I would think most "intelligent" people know better than to judge strangers outright based on superficial criteria. Meanwhile, I greatly enjoy the part where you're not even engaging him in discussion based on your judgment. Fearful of the part where you're being proven wrong so you have to latch onto whatever you can much? Back to your hole.
        • sabach, on 11/08/2007, -0/+211 hours and we're still waiting for your side of the intelligent debate...tick tock...
        • dreagen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2"Anyone who think that using pot leaf as a logo is a cool idea is not one that needs to worry about intelligent debates."
          Oh *****... What was I thinking...
        • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Ad Hominem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
          Don't feed the trolls.
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Who authorized you to speak for 'the public', what they support and when they will support it? There are doctors who will prescribe anything to anyone who can pay the bill. Having a perfect medical system is not a prerequisite for the use of any of the medications we have currently. The abuse of a thing by some is never a reason to ban that thing for all people. There are literally hundreds of examples of this that you see in everyday life. Why should we apply a standard to medical marijuana that has never been successfully applied to anything else?
  • 5urr3al5am, on 11/08/2007, -13/+4Just an FYI, at this point and time... this so call 'breaking news' can only be found on this lame duck 'news' site and not on the official apa.org site? sounds like a fraudulent story to me.. again
    • JonnyTrombone, on 11/09/2007, -0/+10Well, it would help if APA.org were to be the American Psychiatric Association website. It's psych.org.

      Also, they make NO MENTION of Marijuana legalization on psych.org
    • 5urr3al5am, on 11/08/2007, -7/+1so it's NOT on psych.org either... wow... phone Dan Rather
    • almalax19, on 11/08/2007, -2/+9Here it is on the Marijuana Policy Project's website. They are the biggest lobbying group for Marijuana so if its on there it ain't *****. Sorry to the HATERS.

      http://www.mpp.org/site/c.glKZLeMQIsG/b.1493403/ap ...
    • Phrag, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3The purpose of digg was to be an alternative to MSM news. If you need to see something on FOX/CNN/MSNBC before you will believe it, you might as well leave this site now.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1I knew Phrag would be all over this ... Phrag hits all the Pot articles
        • Phrag, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2So do you. What is your point? At least my comments have some substance instead of just being pointless sarcasm like yours.
        • gropo, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2While Phrag is actually advocating for something, what are you doing? Oh right... The intellectual equivalent of tagging bathroom stalls.
  • cusoman, on 11/08/2007, -8/+18How many of you people digging these stories actually want marijuana legalized for medical purposes? How many of you NEED it for medical purposes, for either a family member or yourself?

    Be honest.
    • slashbot, on 11/09/2007, -22/+2They are using this issue as a front for the agenda behind the TOTAL legalization of marijuana.
      • azprofessional, on 11/08/2007, -2/+11You assume so much for such an ignorant stance
      • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Lying does not become us.

        Hence, more reports for you!
      • ehalasey, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Meanwhile, decriminalization of drugs is proven to greatly reduce the instances of abuse.
      • Shaman760, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Regardless what your party or your side or whatever or whomever it is that you ally yourself with thinks or does, you will never be able to abate the usage of marijuana. Hear that? NEVER.
        And for a conservative you are equally as vapid for not seeing the revenues that could be generated in the sale and taxation of Marijuana.
        But you conservatives are more for keeping people under control? Oh wow...I can't imagine giving people something they enjoy and then asking them to do what you want them to.
        You really think that people who smoke marijuana are stupid don't you? Keep on thinking that. We like you to underestimate us.
    • Coffeedemon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+20I don't need it but I fully support any effort that will block obstacles to testing it as a potential medicine. My own non scientific study declares it safe but I want to see it rescheduled so they can run some real clinical trials on it.
      • actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6Agreed. I want some real research done so the marijuana-truthers can shut the hell up. There is no evil ploy against civilization -- marijuana does a lot of good for (most) people mentally. I personally know an adult in CA with severe ADHD that smokes a ton and makes millions as a national sales representative. His response: "it keeps me level."

        Let's get some hard facts and shut most nay-sayers up.
      • scrogger, on 11/08/2007, -3/+0there have been plenty of clinical trials run already, the latest by the Uni of Cal, just a few months ago. So we already have plenty of hard facts
        • raithetarkon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4We need independently funded studies. I'm not sure if that one was.
    • sockpuppets, on 11/08/2007, -1/+25I need it for medical purposes because of my family members. Particularly around the holidays.
      • mailman451, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0I need it for severe spasticity, but Living without it is not as much of a problem as it would be for someone sicker, but when I smoke, my body just kind of unkinks which is a buzz in itself.Medicine can do no more. I was a pot smoker before and was enjoying the effects long before my stroke, but is there anything wrong with enjoying your medicine? Why does that bother the MAN?
    • azprofessional, on 11/08/2007, -3/+4Total legalization would be bad in my opinion no government operated substance ever works, so assuming everyone is on that bandwagon is forever false from your perch atop mount *****. However allowing people to medically have proper access to it and allowing doctors to do their job in helping the sick and people in pain is something I support. Just because your cousin or neighbor or brother or however this story goes for you, smoked it, and couldn't get off the couch or went onto smoke ice or some variation of it, it is a poor and insufficient reason to blanket all smokers with lies and nonsense.

      You're a poor conservative and an even poorer troll.

      Seek help.
      • cusoman, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2Slashbot apparently isn't the only one assuming things.
    • starkruzr, on 11/08/2007, -0/+20Let's suppose the percentage is 0%.

      So what? Marijuana is less physically damaging, less addictive and less socially destructive than alcohol. The conservative position is to only have laws about things when we need them.
    • WilliamDavis, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8"How many of you people digging these stories actually want marijuana legalized for medical purposes? How many of you NEED it for medical purposes, for either a family member or yourself?"

      I don't have to personally need it to see that marijuana prohibition has been a huge failure. I don't have to personally need it to believe that others should make their own medical decisions with their doctor. I don't have to personally need it to feel that prohibition is wrong in general.

      No, I don't need it. It's an issue of how the state treats people and empathy toward those in situations where they do need it. I wasn't a victim of child abuse. I still believe it to be wrong. I still come out against it when it doesn't personally affect me.
    • knobtwiddler, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6well ican tell you first hand marijuana is particularly good for people with post traumatic stress disorder. it turns off dreams (nightmares) like a switch. now whether that can be considered a "need" is open to debate, but it is beneficial in that way and many other ways, and its been shown to be quite safe.

      its a hell of a lot safer than some of hte anti-depressants on the market now anyway.

      not sure what you're getting at playing devil's advocate here but seriously.. you should just unlearn your programming. marijuana can be quite beneficial.
    • stoanhart, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5You're right. I don't need medical marijuana. But legalizing it is step 1 in clearing marijuana's name in the general public, thus setting the stage for full decriminalization/legalization.
    • wishninja, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10My father has a blood cancer called myeloma and lives in Ohio. After years of drug therapy (they call it that but they are just poisoning you slowly and hoping the cancer dies off first) he constantly complains of a aching numbness due to the high doses of thalidomide he has to take. It hurts the most in his hands and back. It really sucks to see him like this the damage is irreversible.

      Me and my friends were all drinkers in high school, no drugs just booze. I started to smoke pot like the last year of highschool. One of my friends shot himself in the head last year after killing someone because he is an alcholic and was driving drunk another is in jail, most are not doing very well. I am finishing up my masters and have had a good job as an engineer for the last 7 years.

      Many, Many people I know could benifit from this superdrug. I see the suffering every day and all around me, people popping zanex just so that they can go to work, other I know are taking an ambian and drinking a six pack on the drive home, and the road rage guy that was riding my bumper all the way to work today even though I was driving +5mph over. Wow dude to think of it I see people all over that would benefit from a good toke. It is safer than aspirin I think that if it were legal people would benefit from taking it like aspirin.
    • SiNN4R, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8I have a friend with HIV. She doesn't NEED marijuana but it sure takes the edge off slowly dying. I would like for her to be able to smoke a joint without having to worry about getting a ticket when she is already poor. I would like her not to be hassled by the government for doing what she wants with her shortened life.
      • mailman451, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0HOW RIGHT UR SINN4R and why shouldn't she have that right? , any compassionate person would say "go for it girl" JHope she does and it gives her a few bright moments. If she likes the blues, have her buy bbkings live at N ick's she will have a good time.
    • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4I want it legalized for medical purposes. I don't enjoy pot so legalizing it for recreational use doesn't impact me. I think that it is stupid that it isn't available for recreational use because it is safer in many ways than tobacco or alcohol. But it being available for recreational use is not the issue.

      If I get cancer and I am in pain all of the time and I can't eat and no other medication works for me, screw that I don't enjoy pot. It's a heck of a lot better than living in pain, slowly starving to death. I bet that under the same circumstances, you would be downright ASHAMED that you had been opposed to medical marijuana.

      Cocaine is available for medical use. Cocaine is one of the most addictive and physically harmful drugs on the planet but it has medical uses. Cocaine is FAR worse of a drug than pot, so you can take your "you just want it legalized for recreational use" and shove it up your uninformed, bigoted butt.
    • VaporBro, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Two good friends of mine are cancer patients (Both Medical Marijuana patients), my mom has rheumatoid arthritis and can't take opioids anymore. That's 3 for me directly

      LEGALIZE IT
    • dreagen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3I need it. I have Friends that need it. I have friends that needed it before they died.
    • Tetraca, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2I don't smoke any marihuana, and I don't know anyone that needs to smoke it. I'm just against substances being illegalised unless there is a legitamate threat from taking them which will kill society.
    • franznpdx, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2I qualify for medical marijuana because of an AIDS diagnosis along with fibromyalgia (chronic pain syndrome) it helps with both the pain and the nausea that accompanies my anti viral medications. It also makes it possible for me to keep a moderate amount of body weight instead of wasting away.
      • knobtwiddler, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2check out something called tetra silver tetroxide (i think.) some people claim it has cured their HIV.
        i know some of those aids drugs can be deadly. best of luck.
    • amyracecar, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0You are a despicable human being.
      THC is already on the market as a pharmaceutical which proves its medicinal value. Me personally, I qualify for medicinal applications for both psych and an extremely painful spinal condition. In addition I have 4 family members that are all in need of medicinal use due to cancer and AIDS but instead I have to watch my cousin waste away as she dies a prolonged and painful death.
      There is a clear and distinct need for this medication and I do not see how anyone can argue otherwise. We should not have to fight or be afraid of prosecution simply to obtain the medicine we desperately need. I have read almost every professional journal article on this subject and they all support the positive benefits of medicinal usage.
      Just because your brother gets high, sits on the couch, and does nothing with his life is not a function of the drug it is an excuse because he is just a lazy bastard. And you clearly have no concept of what real suffering is.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/08/2007, -6/+2This needs to hit every paper right now. Where the ***** is the fourth estate?
  • Klepto21, on 11/08/2007, -4/+7I'm all for medical and nonmedical marijuana. But I think people go into the "grass is always greener on the other side" mode with stuff like this: They don't even want to admit that there are bad things about marijuana, like the fact that you're putting smoke in your lungs.
    • Coffeedemon, on 11/08/2007, -1/+15Then put it in brownies and eat it.
      • Coffeedemon, on 11/09/2007, -0/+16Oh sorry I forgot about transfats I suppose?

        Life itself is a sexually transmitted disease and its always terminal... have fun out there but stay out of the sun and don't breathe the air.
      • dreagen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Use a Vaporizer
    • republicker, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5SAve mE fROM mYselF
    • starkruzr, on 11/08/2007, -0/+13Of course there are bad things about marijuana. There are bad things about tobacco and alcohol too. Should the nanny ban those as well?
      • actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3I'd be okay banning both if marijuana were legal. Seems to make more sense that way, anyways.
        • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2We tried that already. Limiting alcohol while keeping it legal works better than a complete ban with criminal penalties.
      • solid12345, on 11/09/2007, -2/+0But at least smokers don't pretend the cigarettes they smoke are good for you.

        You'd be amazed how many tokers ***** and say there are no health effects from weed.
      • SQLDigger, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0maybe they should just throw a 250% tax increase on them instead
    • ats314, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8not from a vaporizer
    • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5The smoke is not as bad for you as the smokes from other things though, like pollution and cigarettes. I'm not saying that the smoke doesn't damage the lungs but did you know that there is evidence to suggest that marijuana can help asthma? Wouldn't it be nice if we could do studies to compare the effects on the lungs of smoking cigarettes and smoking pot? Or to determine if it *does* help asthma?

      I don't enjoy pot; I just don't believe Refer Madness. Marijuana use for medical and research purposes should be legal, just like cocaine and morphine and if I remember correctly, heroin.
      • brownrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Marijuana is much better for your asthmatic lungs if you DON'T smoke it.
        Try making a tea or cooking it into an oil and using that for oral consumption; your asthmatic conditions will improve. Stop smoking it.
        Peace on.
  • berb, on 11/08/2007, -5/+3Anybody have this story from a reputable news site? Sadly I don't trust "salem-news.com" any more than some random blogspam.
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2What do you consider a reputable news site? If it has to be MSM to be reputable to you, then there really is no reason for you to read digg.
    • amyracecar, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0I have one article sitting right in front of me from the Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology that supports the beneficial aspect of medical marijuana but it is written in a way that really only those with a specific education in biology and chemistry can read it. The article is "Therapeutic Potential of Endocannabinoid-Hydrolysing Enzyme Inhibitors" First Author - Saario, Susanna M. and Jarmo T. Laitinen; Pub: 2007 Vol. 101, pgs. 287-293

      Is that enough support so that you can believe that the s-n.com article is real.........
  • meantime, on 11/08/2007, -5/+2American Psychiatric Association Unanimously Backs Medical Marijuana!....I'll toke to that.
  • tyaron, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12Can anyone link me directly to the paper from APA? I want this from the horse's mouth.
    • gropo, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4From the comments thread attached to the article:

      "Editor: We have asked where this exists on the APA site, will post answer"
    • brownrabbit, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4and also look to MAPS for information - The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (http://maps.org);
      MAPS pursues its research mission by helping and/or sponsoring scientific researchers to design, obtain governmental approval for, fund, conduct and report on psychedelic and marijuana research in human volunteers. MAPS pursues its educational mission through its website, a willingness to engage the media in dialogue, the publication of books and a quarterly Bulletin that is sent to its members as well as government policy makers and academic experts.
      &
      MAPS worked closely with Dr. Donald Abrams, UC San Francisco, for over five years to obtain permission for the first FDA-approved human study with marijuana in fifteen years. MAPS then worked with Dr. Ethan Russo on a protocol for the use of marijuana in migraine sufferers that was approved by the FDA but didn't take place because the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) refused to provide the marijuana.

      MAPS then began working on two prerequisites that needed to be accomplished before it would make sense to invest the resources required for a realistic drug development effort with marijuana. The first prerequisite was to break NIDA's monopoly on the supply of marijuana, but no other Schedule I drug, that can be used legally in FDA-approved research. MAPS is actively seeking to sponsor a medical marijuana production facility at UMass Amherst The second prerequisite is to obtain permission to use a vaporizer in FDA-approved clinical trials, with vaporizers being the only non-smoking delivery system which still works with the marijuana plant and heats but doesn't burn marijuana. This objective has been reached in March 2004, when Dr. Donald Abrams obtained final permission for his clinical research with vaporizers.

      After six years of attempting to obtain a DEA Schedule One license for the proposed MAPS-sponsored marijuana production facility, on May 15, 2007 DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner concluded in an "Opinion and Recommended Ruling" that it would be "in the public interest" for DEA to grant the license. Since the ruling is non-binding, however, MAPS is now coordinating a Congressional and organizational lobbying campaign to demonstrate to DEA that there is public support for medical marijuana research. Massachusetts Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well over 40 members of Congress, have already written to DEA in favor of MAPS' proposed facility.

      Peace on.
      Peace in.
      Peace out.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 11/08/2007, -4/+6No mention of the paper on Psych.org... so I'm calling Shenanigans.
    • Meowbiusfox, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4Hey Farva,What's the name of that Irish pub again?
      Farva:You mean Shenanigans?
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I think its going to be a while before you can see it there for free. You have to pay for a lot of the content on that site. The most recent stuff that was available for free was from May.
  • mediatedthought, on 11/08/2007, -4/+2I wish it were true, but google doesn't find any referneces to it that aren't copys of the same article. Seems bogus.
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2When you read a story from a MSM site, you know that they are mostly just repostings of the same article from AP or Reuters right? Collaboration doesn't make something true while lack of collaboration doesn't make it false. If you read the comments under the article, they say that the APA won't post anything until it is approved by the board of trustees. They are meeting next month to vote on it.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 11/08/2007, -10/+0Huh? We move from cigarettes and cigars to weed and bongs...whats the difference again?
    • ats314, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1*slaps hand against forehead* - seriously?
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Cigarettes cause cancer. Marijuana doesn't. Marijuana has medical uses. Cigarettes don't.
  • Defuser, on 11/08/2007, -19/+3Hey, I've got an idea. Let's all pretend that the kids that keep submitting these idiotic threads have ANY CONCERN AT ALL for "medical marijuana". Because otherwise we'd have to accept the fact that it's really just a bunch of pothead dorks trying to drum up support for their drug of choice.
    • jdoe562, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Or maybe people think that it's truly an injustice when the government lets people die because of the Great *****, Henry J Anslinger.
    • WiseWeasel, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6Even if that were the case, who's to say they're wrong? Why SHOULDN'T marijuana be legal, considering the cases of alcohol and tobacco? What, in your view, makes marijuana use more deserving of criminalization than alcohol use? Why is it wrong to not want a nanny state running our lives for us?
    • dreagen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Wow, Thanks for the Kids comment. I appreciate the fact that some out there still consider me a Kid. Now the fact that I didn't smoke marijuana until my doctor recomended it doesn't matter.
      But lets all pretend that we are intelligent enough to actually have someone that is anti-marijuana come up with some real facts that I shouldn't use it for medical purposes.
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Can I pretend that I have ESP and can tell what people's intentions and concerns are without ever meeting them like you do?
  • BigDavidO, on 11/08/2007, -1/+19To everyone who doubts the truthfulness of this original posting regarding the American Psychiatric Association (not the Am Pyschological Assn as some have assumed), as one of the persons who has lobbied the APA for the past 18 months, I can tell you that there is nothing phoney or incorrect about the original MPP alert that was picked up by one newspaper so far. Just because you can't find much in Google yet is more a result of two things:
    1. These Action Papers that were unanimously approved last Friday by the APA Assembly meeting in Washington, DC, are still subject to review by the APA Board of Trustees at their December meeting. Hopefully, if we spread the news widely, the BOT will not dare to bury or water down these action papers and will bring them to the AMA House of Delegates and fight for their adoption by the AMA, the ultimate goal of this project initiated by the Medical marijuana Policy Advocacy Project. To learn more about MMPAP and this project, please go to my web site David@OstrowAssociate.com and click on the "Medical Marijuana" tab there.
    2. I am beginning to get calls from newspaper writers about this, but most are hesitant to write about the vote in the Assembly until the BoT passes them on to be presented at the AMA HOD meetings.
    So just like you can't believe everything you read on the Web, you can believe this "miracle" change in policy by the largest professional society of psychiatrists in the world.
    David G Ostrow, MD, PhD
    Founder, MMPAP
  • maiku00, on 11/08/2007, -13/+3TOO BAD!
    DRUGS ARE BAD AND EVIL
  • Plumber1, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3It's a good endorsement from the A.P.A. - I guess if you don't think it should be legalized then possibly you are nuckin' futs!
    Take a look at this book about mj and the war of terror. http://www.lulu.com/content/820972
  • jbird71, on 11/08/2007, -5/+4Every time you smoke a joint, Jesus kills a kitten.
    • AttackingHobo, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3but he only kills the deformed kittens dragging themselves on the ground to take them out of their pain and put them in kitty heaven filled with their choice of green herb, catnip.
    • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Dude, Domo Kun smokes pot! That explains EVERYTHING!
  • hinchb, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Too bad the congress doesn't care. They aren't going to pass anything or even do anything credible except pass resolutions to piss off turkey and make it harder for some of our resources to get to the troops (not saying I like the war, but if we're going to stay there our guys need fuel and *****). I would say theres a silver lining to this because the democrats, even though they can't pass anything useful, could ATLEAST stop stupid ***** from passing, but they keep letting blank checks through, letting Mukasey be approved (which is great because he won't even define what he thinks torturing is), and let the neo-cons pass things to weaken the posse comitatus laws, haebeus corpus and such. Sadly, they've done none of this, and consistently cave in. I think these findings are great, but we're just going to have to put anything we want to do on the back burner until the democrats wise up, or the next election comes.
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3In fairness, there are some federal congressional representative that care. They are just a minority facing a majority of corrupt peers and a President who thinks he's a dictator.
  • Richandler, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6The only way to legalize this stuff is going to be a politician with balls or a million person movement!
  • DadeEldron, on 11/09/2007, -5/+4it feels so good when I smoke pot, i can jerk off with my computer(endless-porn-machine) for HOURS
  • fixedcoma, on 11/09/2007, -5/+2Good cause i'm going to need it, rather than taking any prescribed pill! I have a really bad anger problem to where i destroy my own stuff and want to beat the hell out of arrogant snobs that think their ***** doesn't stink! I'm tired of living without my marijuana and i'd hate to actually beat up some poor schlub on the street , just because they have no common sense!
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2You might want to try therapy for that too. There are some forms that don't use any drugs which you may be more open to since you dislike prescription pills. Just thought I would throw that out there.
  • cambob76, on 11/08/2007, -3/+4Mary-jew-wanna is bad mmmkay. Drugs are bad mmmkay.
  • solid12345, on 11/08/2007, -8/+1Can we drop this medical marijuana crap stories.

    99.9% of all digg users have no need for a prescription so why are you so strongly for it? Because you want to go doctor shopping, scam the system and say you need some cannabis for your restless leg syndrome or some other ***** affliction you make up.
    • numb401, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3oh yea, since other people suffering from debilitating diseases that NEED pot should keep on getting raided by feds and thrown in jail
    • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Well, you can count me out of that group because I don't ENJOY pot and I am totally for medical marijuana. The drug schedule was modified to classify marijuana as the worst kind of drug possible, above cocaine and morphine. That is a classification not supported by the rules for drug classification. I have studied the rules for classification in college and I know how it is supposed to work. Most drugs are classified according to medical criteria but that one was put there not by medical classification, but by legislation.

      I want medical marijuana studies to take place. I want drugs to be developed based on the findings of medical marijuana studies so that the good chemicals can be separated from the bad ones, eliminating side effects. I want cancer patients to live comfortably because chances are, I will one day be a cancer patient and if I am ever a cancer patient, I want medicine that will keep me from starving to death. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about people who are being denied the only medication that they have found that allows them to eat.

      There are people right now being arrested for *possessing* the medicine that keeps them alive. What kind of society denies medication to people who will die without it and then throws them in jail on top of it? It is simply uncivilized.

      Cocaine is available for medical use. Pot is far worse than cocaine but if you ever have a body part chopped off, topical cocaine will be your first pain treatment. I have been given morphine during medical procedures. It didn't even *work* for me and it is more addictive than pot and it is legal. How can any civilized country deny *proven* medication to people who are in horrible pain and will die without it, while approving the use of far worse substances for people who are simply in horrible pain? It is astoundingly immoral and unethical, and it is completely and utterly loathsome.
    • brownrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Most people do not need a lot of the substances they use.
      The point is that it is no longer appropriate for our governments to criminalize the use of this plant.
      Classifying it as a medical substance is the political strategy towards the free and responsible use of the substance which is ALREADY being used by millions of Americans.
      This is about FREEDOM and upholding the first amendment.

      Peace on.
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Can we stop assuming that we know other people's intentions without even asking them? Maybe people care about it because they are compassionate and wouldn't want to be raided if they needed a medication that was allowed by the state but banned by the feds. Maybe they are people who believe in state's rights and the constitutional limitations on federal government. Maybe they believe in people's right to decide what they do to their own body. There are reasons to support people's right to use marijuana medically besides personal need or wanting to use marijuana recreationally.
  • diablo75, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Kinda funny how they use the Caduceus instead of the Rod of Asclepius....
  • getouttamyfog, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1toke toke toke!!!
  • AgmLauncher, on 11/08/2007, -5/+1I love how all of the common sense comments in this story have been buried by people who think this brings them one step closer to legal use of drugs as recreation....
    • brownrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Get with another program besides sarcasm mixed with passive aggressive displays of how little you understand about this political and medical issue.

      Bless you.
    • sabach, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4I've lost count of the "you only support this because it furthers your agenda of full legalization" comments.
      • dreagen, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Last week when I was doing a talk at the college for this issue I got asked that almost as many times as it shows up here. That and, "My friend in California gets it for ..., he really doesn't need it."
      • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I think that was the third.
  • truegodofwar, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6But it causes violence in colored folk!
  • josh42042, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1I always knew they were cool
  • GuacamoleSan, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Most people don't realize that marijuana is more illegal than cocaine in the U.S....
  • jetsetter883, on 11/09/2007, -5/+1because what the American Psychiatric Association says has tons of credibility...

    /sarcasm
    • dreagen, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2More than the FDA
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Because some anonymous guy on digg knows anything about the APA or their credibility...
  • MrESaulved, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Imagine how much a single aspirin would cost if it were newly 'discovered' by a pharmacutical company instead of it being the generic, readily available molecule that it is. Aspirin is a miracle drug that treats a wide variety of mundane and life-threatening conditions with just a few, well understood side effects. Just thinking about that concept, the things we take for granted in our medicine chests, should lead you to ask, "What other substances have similar universal benefit...and are either suppressed or usurped by corporate interest." No, besides Chocolate.

    Marijuana is arguably one of humanities greatest beneficial substances, medicinally and for general well-being. Possessing a whole range of useful characteristics beyond the cannabinoids it produces such as strains for hemp cultivation and oil (!) production.

    To be against the harvesting and exploitation of this precious, unique, renewable and harmless plant would be to admit your reliance on intellectual incompleteness. {That's a fancy way of being called stoopid.}
    • VIrus9, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I doubt they'd be able to get aspirin past the FDA nowadays.
  • mattewood, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5I'm from Vancouver, Canada, so obviously I support decriminalization of the plant. Heck, anytime I'm out in public I always get a waft of someone smoking bud... that's just the smell of freedom. Truth shall overcome fiction and liberty shall prevail.
    • Plumber1, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0So you're from Vancouver.... This particular novel; relevant to the subject, takes place in the lower mainland. Fun and informative too. Thought you might want to take a look. http://www.lulu.com/content/820972
  • SirMolle, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Yes but Mary-Jane cannot be patented by the big election money donating Drug Corporations.
    The same thing also applies for the Hydrogen Peroxide therapy (saline solution intravenous drip with a 1 to 2% hydrogen peroxide that literally wipes out any infection! )
    Don't believe me just goggle it.
    Why? because they cannot patent Hydrogen Peroxide and would rather sell their 10-50 dollar a pill antibiotics.

  • TheBigBentley, on 11/08/2007, -5/+1The fact this made it to the top 10 explains the reason for so many dumb diggers. Show of hands! Whos stoned now?
  • SwiftP, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4"Prohibition didn't work and prohibition on drugs hasn't worked either." -Ron Paul
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU
  • brownrabbit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Consider joining, and thus supporting MAPS - the Multi-disciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies- http://maps.org/
    MAPS is a membership-based, IRS-approved 501 (c) (3) non-profit research and educational organization. They assist scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana.
    MAPS' mission is to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and MARIJUANA into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs. Read our strategy statement for more information.
    We need your support so together we can make a difference. In addition to general membership donations, MAPS is seeking to raise funds for specific research projects. These are our funding priorities and here are our financial reports.
    For background reading, see MAPS President Rick Doblin's doctoral dissertation (Harvard, Kennedy School of Govt., 2001) "Regulation of the Medical Use of Psychedelics and Marijuana," visit our media and audio/visual archives, or peruse the latest issue of the MAPS Bulletin and our monthly news update. (taken from their website)
    Blessings.
  • Shaman760, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5I am an SSRI "victim" and had a very negative life-changing experience on the drugs Paxil, Prozac, Wellbutrin, and Zoloft that cost me dearly. I have every reason to hate the Psychiatric sector. However, seeing this report kind of makes me raise an eyebrow in their direction. If there is anyone who has the lobbying power to institute change, it is these people. They pretty much control the FDA.
    • amyracecar, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0I too am an SSRI victim in every sense of the word but I do not hold that against the Docs, instead I see pharma as the major obstacle in this. They are the ones who come and wine/dine the Docs swearing that their new and very expensive meds will make us better, dole out samples, give out some pretty neat toys, and go on their merry way making a ton of money along the way. In the meantime they have NO clue what they are even trying to treat, what causes it, or what could possibly alleviate the symptoms so they play chemist until the get a drug with a 50% success rate (i wonder if anyone even checks their statistical methods as you can manipulate that so much) and then call it the next new wonder drug. Meanwhile the Docs are trying to help us out but alot are blinded by this bait and wind up playing guess and test with us until nothing works and we are more screwed. I put my foot down along time ago and said I would only take Lithium - antiquated yes, effective yes, cheap yes, side effects minimal. I am so glad I did that because the guess and test was destroying my body.
  • JustinTense, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Hey guys, question for my American friends here. What "exactly" are your pot laws now in the US in regards to recreational weed found on a person? The reason I ask this is due to the fact that I am Australian, most of the news presented to me on the "war on drugs" I figure is delivered with some kind of bias as with other topics covered.

    So that being I would like know the laws from an actual citizen of the states? I'm driving down the street with a gram or two, cops pull me over. Do I fear getting arrested/fined or maybe just let off with a warning? If I do it again what then, etc etc.
    • dreagen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Here in New York I would get $100 fine for 25 grams or less
    • Phrag, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2If you visit norml.com there is a link on the left where you can see all state and federal laws on marijuana.
    • amyracecar, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Here each state has its own laws but if you had only a few grams on you then alot of it depends on the cop that pulls you over; In FL most will just make you throw it out but if they are in a bad mood they can arrest you (I have a friend who was taken along with roomates because after an illegal no-knock warrant they found
  • ikepigott, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1What would Ron Paul say?
  • Lothar121, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2People are still arguing that the medical marijuana is a hoax whenever large organizations such as this and the American Nurses' Association have endorsed medical marijuana use.

    Here is the deal. Not all medications work equally as effective in all patients. Marijuana is a fairly effective medicine for certain symptoms like pain from MS, but for some patients, IT IS THE BEST and perhaps even the ONLY medicine that works for them.
    Effectively, many people here and elsewhere want to arrest and incarcerate patients that are simply following doctor's order. Yes there is some abuse, but there is also some abuse with other opiate pain medicines. This abuse does not negate the fact that those medicines do more good than harm. A similar case can easily be made for marijuana.
    I'm urging everyone here to email their Congressmen and state representative to support medicinal marijuana with a physician's recommendation.
    • RevRayGreen, on 11/10/2007, -0/+0I'm living proof medical marijuana works...........diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 2004. The most dangerous part about marijuana is going to jail.



      www.myspace.com/niceria
  • RevRayGreen, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I'm living proof medical marijuana works...........diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 2004. The most dangerous part about marijuana is going to jail.

    www.myspace.com/niceria


    RELAGALIZE
  • wem511, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1ty ty ampa!
  • destx, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0This has to be some of the best news I have heard all day! Medical Marijuana users like myself should not have to worry about taking our own medicine. If you really want to get involved check out http://mmjsearch.com where you can find out many sources.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.