digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Drew Carey on Medical Marijuana [Reason.tv]

reason.tv — Drew Carey is hosting the new Reason.tv episodes. This is the latest, on Medical Marijuana. It's like a Deli in there!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bratpack8, on 11/10/2007, -10/+34These are pretty well produced, but I'm surprised that the Reason Foundation wouldn't even mention what should be the primary argument -- property rights. It shouldn't matter, at least on the Federal level, what people use marijuana for because it is THEIR BODY, which is THEIR PROPERTY. When people start to understand that without property rights, freedom is impossible, then maybe we'll start to be free again.
    • gregfadein, on 11/10/2007, -8/+22I think you're getting some Libertarian ideas a little bit confused.

      Most Libertarians are for legalizing marijuana not because a human body is that human's property, but rather, because marijuana prohibition is a gross, gross infringement on human freedom.

      When Libertarians talk about protecting property rights, they mean that that's all the government should do—protect us from thieves and murderers, as opposed to telling us how to live our lives.

      • emjaymj, on 11/10/2007, -3/+5It's a gross gross infringement on human freedom BECAUSE a human's body is that human's property. You're making a distinction that doesn't really exist.
        • bratpack8, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2Thank you emjaymy, I'm not sure what gregfadein is arguing about. He says the same thing.
        • gregfadein, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Not quite. Just because you don't understand a distinction doesn't make it false.

          Looking as a human body as property is a flat-out bizarre way of looking at the world. You certainly don't have a deed to your body, nor can you sell or give your body to someone else. Declaring your body to be property is odd, and ultimately unnecessary.

          Consider my argument:

          - Marijuana prohibition prevents me from doing something I may want to do, restricting my freedom.
          - Things that restrict my freedom are bad.
          - Therefore, marijuana prohibition is bad.

          Now consider bratpack's argument:

          - My body is my property.
          - Marijuana prohibition prevents me from using my property as I possibly would otherwise.
          - Anything that restricts my freedom to use my property is bad.
          - Therefore, marijuana prohibition is bad.

          Bratpack's argument doesn't satisfy Occam's razor, and has extra assumptions and vulnerabilities that leave it more open to attack from authoritarian ne'er-do-wells. Worse, it's more complicated and harder to understand than it needs to be; making it inferior as an ideavirus, which is certainly reason's goal.

          That's not terribly important, actually—bratpack and I agree almost completely. The problem lies in his belief that his argument is superior to reason's: this isn't the case.
    • LaGStAr, on 11/03/2007, -11/+4I'm calling for legalization of crack cocaine, because it is MY BODY, which is MY PROPERTY that I would use it for.
      • bratpack8, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2You should have that right, as idiotic as it is. Stating that one is for freedom (i.e. impossible without property rights) to use drugs is not condoning the usage of them. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
      • eviltandem, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Probably not your best idea. But I think that should be your right...
    • Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -13/+7That's because most advocates' definition of "property rights" and "freeeeeeedom" usually fall apart in a tangle of ridiculousness when you actually try to make them apply to something they were not designed to interact with: the real world.

      Don't get me wrong, I believe in strict property rights, but property rights that recognize that there was a world before me, there will be a world after me, and that the existence I enjoy today is reliant on a certain interdependence among us all in a society; an interdependence I have to contribute to as well as take from.

      If you're the only person in the world, standing on land you got from no one, are reliant on nothing, will have contact with no one else, and will live forever, then this broad-brush "property rights above all" vision applies. Otherwise it's just bongwater poli-sci.
      • lendrick, on 11/05/2007, -4/+3You have strayed from the Sacred Libertarian Talking Points, and shall be dugg down!
      • bratpack8, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2Actually, if you were the only person in the world, it wouldn't be necessary. And if we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be necessary. We would also not have conflict if we had unlimited resources. But we do have limited resources, including property, which is why property rights are needed. Economist Hernando de Soto actually wrote a book showing how wealth creation (and thus better health and better living standards) are impossible without property rights. It is that important.
        • Humptydank, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1I'm not suggesting no property rights, but the Libertarian definition ignores one crucial necessity: practicality. It's far to general and far to broad to generate anything but exceptions right out of the box.
      • Humptydank, on 11/04/2007, -3/+3I'm not surprised to be dugg down. I'm just surprised that nine people total dugg me down (five up) and not a single one could put together a coherent reply that even addressed the merits, or lack of merits, of my post.

        I'm not out against Libertarians in particular, I'm addressing my opposition to simplistic ideological movements. In simplistic ideological movements, compromise, even in light of irrefutable problems, dilutes their simplicity and makes them pointless, but a lack of compromise makes them impractical-to-irrelevant. That's why so many of them never make it out of the dorm room.

        What's worse, the people attracted to a simplistic ideological movement are there specifically because it brings simplicity to something that would otherwise be overwhelming. So any attempt to introduce some subtlety or practicality starts raising accusations of selling out. The core of the movement is often happier chanting slogans, remaining pure, and not addressing the actual problems with the philosophy, thereby ensuring that some of the truly useful core philosophies that might be included in their movement are never seen by the outside world.

        I'm not tacitly referring to Libertarians here, by the way, Libertarianism has actually matured some over the years, but there are still huge aspects that are obviously unworkable, but once it works those out then it could be a contender. I'm primarily referring to any movement or argument that relies on a series of shallow, unsupported ideological populist statements designed to over-simplify important issues and stir emotions over intellect.

        "It all comes down to property rights," is not true on the face of it, simply because one thing never *always* comes down to something else. Various situations need to be anticipated or dealt with as they arise, and occasionally personal property rights need to be forfeited when the price to society of not doing so is too high.

        So ideologies are a fine starting place, but eventually you need to turn the process over to human judgment. It's terribly scary for me to think that our system is based on human judgment, but I feel much better about that than immutable ideological rules.
        • eviltandem, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1I would reply, but after reading both posts I can't even figure out what you are trying to say...
    • BabaRamDass, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Not all libertarians are principled libertarians; some are pragmatic libertarians. From the pragmatic argument, we should legalize marijuana because the prohibition is costly and ineffective. From the principled argument, we should legalize it because your body is your property.

      Reason provides a venue for both types of libertarians, though their magazine tends to lean toward pragmatics, which is much easier to argue with someone who doesn't quite grasp abstract concepts too well (the average person). It's also easier to defend reason and common sense rather than ideology.
  • spankaccount, on 11/03/2007, -4/+13@brat Thats not how property rights work.
    That said, this is a great video. I love Reason - it's politics and news for adults, without all the childish name calling and PC thought/speech control.
    • SeethisPass, on 11/04/2007, -1/+7My body is my property. Yours is yours , do you disagree?
      The government does.
    • bratpack8, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Then please explain to all of us, wiseman spankaccount, how property rights work? Are they not directly tied to freedom?
  • brickandwind0w, on 11/04/2007, -11/+24As much as drew carey pisses me off, this is actually a very well put-together, informative video.
    dugg...
    • whatthefu, on 11/05/2007, -2/+35Why does Drew Carey piss you off?
      • ShinRaTDR, on 11/04/2007, -2/+17You know all those awful things that Drew Carey does. Like that video of him clubbing baby seals while pissing on the flag.
      • brickandwind0w, on 11/04/2007, -2/+1His face. Plus the fact that he's ATTEMPTING to take over The Price is Right is a travesty.
    • JoEBlack982, on 11/04/2007, -2/+5seriously drew rocks
  • Jazzillion, on 11/05/2007, -2/+29A well done video with honest footage and accurate information. The cannabis plant has so many potential uses it doesn't do it justice just to convey its medical purposes, as powerful as they may be.

    "Thanks for watching the Price is Right. Don't forget to spay and neuter pets...And lobby your politicians for cannabis law reformation. Don't let them blind YOU with vicious propaganda. Buh-Bye Now."
  • swatward, on 11/03/2007, -3/+20Obligatory; legalize it.
  • zeromancer, on 11/04/2007, -12/+2so i don't have flash, but is the video about Drew Carey discussing medical marijuana or is he literally 'on' medical marijuana and acting all stoned?
    • kyouteki, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4The story's title was a bit vague, wasn't it? In any case, it is only Drew discussing marijuana.
  • tmoney578, on 11/05/2007, -3/+35*interpreted as Drew Carey actually ON medical marijuana*
  • ButterBuddha, on 11/04/2007, -6/+14The Religious Right is inherently unreasonable
  • TECHSev, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Watch clip @ 1:51

    I now understand why that kid's spoon was to big.

    • clothmonkey, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1I am a banana!
    • NikoKun, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Oh I get it... cause like, they used the same Banana as that Rejected cartoon... XD
  • andrewrocks, on 11/03/2007, -2/+8I love having my medical marijuana license and living in California. It's just ridiculous that everyone can't enjoy that same "right". And by the way, The Farmacy (dispensary featured in this video) is outrageously expensive. If you have your rec and live in L.A., there are much better spots.
  • kukumaka, on 11/04/2007, -6/+2when i first read this i thought he was ON medical marijuana, as in using it...anyone agree ?
  • medicineman24, on 11/03/2007, -6/+20Matt Thielen
    Mrs. Tiedeman
    Reading For College/ Period 8
    01 October 07
    Marijuana: Legalization
    Contrary to what is taught in most high school Health classes, marijuana is not five times as damaging as conventional cigarettes. A cigarette is actually 14.5 times more damaging than a joint (CBC). Surprisingly, the same study was used to support both these claims. Unprofessional reporters often represent only certain portions of data, which is true in these cases. The use of marijuana, a depressant produced from Cannabis sativa plants, among high school students is very common; 42% of high school seniors had reported using marijuana in 2006 (FBI). Marijuana’s widespread use also resonates through the Uniform Crime Report of 2006. According to the report, 829,625 people had been arrested that year for either the possession (89%), or the sale/manufacture (11%), of marijuana (FBI). Apart from being an inconvenience to those arrested, marijuana’s legality also costs the U.S. tax payers billions of dollars a year (Miron). These facts lead a person to question the legal status of marijuana. Why is marijuana illegal? Assuming marijuana is relatively safe and produces few long term effects, one would think possessing and smoking marijuana should be legal, a choice up to the individual. The legalization of marijuana, apart from freedom of choice, would also save the state and federal governments billions of dollars, ensure the safety of the marijuana, eliminate some violence related to the black market, and allow patients to easily get their prescribed medication.
    Marijuana was originally made illegal as Mexican immigrants introduced it for recreational use in the early 1900’s: “The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana” (PBS). Today, the illegal status of Marijuana is no longer attributed to these prejudices, but primarily safety. As stated above, a joint is often considered to be much more dangerous than a cigarette. A recent study, seemingly supporting this theory, shows another side to this argument. On one hand, marijuana tightens small airways in the lungs. In this respect one joint is equal to about 2.5-5 cigarettes. However, the same study also shows that emphysema, a chronic disease causing shortness of breath, was 14.5 times as prevalent in cigarette smokers as marijuana smokers (CBC). So, in short, there are two sides to the coin.
    Popular beliefs are thus: marijuana causes cancer, and damages the brain, causing such diseases as schizophrenia. These beliefs are either blatantly incorrect or lack direct evidence. A study led by Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, sought to link lung cancer and marijuana use. Tashkin, after studying marijuana for thirty years, was completely astounded at the results. Tashkin said, “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.” Even though the “very heavy smokers” had smoked over 22,000 joints each, they showed no increase in lung, head, or neck cancer. In effect, marijuana could not be linked to causing cancer; it possibly slowed it down (Kaufman). In another study, researchers linked marijuana to a 41 percent increased chance of developing psychotic hallucinations later in life (Kahn). Although, when one considers the very low chance in the first place, about one percent (neglecting genetics), this increase is very minimal, increasing your chance to only about 1.41 percent (Schizophrenia). One researcher involved in the study, Stanley Zammit, a psychiatrist at the University of Bristol and Cardiff University, said “If you compare other substances like alcohol or tobacco it may not be as harmful” (Kahn).
    Also concerning safety, marijuana is rarely physically addictive (Medical Marijuana ProCon.org), leaving only a longing for the drug, like one that may develop from extended use of sleeping pills. Marijuana has also been cited as a “gateway drug.” Although, in the Netherlands, when marijuana use became more common due to its legalization, hard drug use dropped (Reinarman), disproving this gateway theory. Also, marijuana use has shown to be much less impairing than alcohol when one compares the related car accident rates of the two (Frood). In the end, marijuana use lacks many of the long term effects associated with alcohol and tobacco.
    Being relatively safe, why not legalize marijuana? It is estimated that the state and federal governments of the United States could save $7.7 billion a year without having to enforce the marijuana prohibition. They’d have about 829,625 less people to arrest a year! If marijuana were taxed like cigarettes or alcohol they could also make an additional $6.2 billion annually (Miron). With an approximate $13.9 billion surplus a year, what could the United States do? Terri-form Mars? Provide universal health care to its citizens? The government certainly shouldn’t waste another penny battling marijuana.
    In legalization, marijuana would, itself, become safer. The U.S. government could regulate its production, ensuring the marijuana is pure and lacking other substances. The drug would be required to have labels and warnings. Legalization would also eliminate marijuana’s black market, with its associated violence, and unpaid taxes. Finally, the legalization of marijuana would allow its medicinal properties to be easily taken advantage of, allowing those who suffer from nausea, glaucoma, pain, and multiple sclerosis to be at peace (Staff).
    Marijuana, shown to harbor few ill effects, should be legalized. Alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs, have shown to be just as dangerous as the illegal drug, marijuana. In society, which is more disruptive: an inebriated employee cursing the world, or a high employee feeling a little dazed? It seems that the legalization of marijuana would have few ill effects on society. In Holland, drug use is not a criminal matter, but rather a public health matter (Drug Policy Alliance). As human beings we should be allowed to lead our own lives, provided we don’t impede on one another’s. This would encompass the activity of reclining after a long day’s work and taking a long drag on that store bought joint.











    Works Consulted
    Anonymous. Marijuana: Marijuana Myths. 1 October 2007. 1 October 2007 .
    CBC. 1 joint equivalent to smoking up to 5 cigarettes: study. 30 July 2007. 1 October 2007 .
    Drug Policy Alliance. 1 October 2007 .
    FBI. 2006 Crime Under the United States. 1 January 2007. 1 October 2007 .
    —. Drug Facts: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 26 March 2007. 1 October 2007 .
    Frood, Arran. New Scientist. 20 March 2002. 1 October 2007 .
    Kahn, Michael. Reuters. 26 July 2007. 1 October 2007 .
    Kaufman, Marc. Washington Post. 26 May 2006. 1 October 2007 .
    Kirchheimer, Sid. WebMD. 1 July 2003 . 1 October 2007 .
    Medical Marijuana ProCon.org. 1 October 2007 .
    Miron, Jeffrey A. The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2005.
    PBS. Frontline: Busted - America's war on marijuana: marijuana timeline. 1 October 2007 .
    Reinarman, Craig. Cedro. 23 September 2007. 1 October 2007 .
    Schizophrenia. 1 October 2007 .
    Staff, Mayo Clinic. Marijuana as medicine: Consider the pros and cons. 25 August 2006. 1 October 2007 .


    • TheBasass, on 11/09/2007, -6/+21I'm assuming your stoned out of your mind because you just turned your homework into digg.
    • mad05963, on 11/04/2007, -3/+4holy ***** that's funny
    • 6L6GC, on 11/04/2007, -1/+5Dugg for including citations, sources, etc.

      Even though I haven't checked them.
    • darkamster07, on 11/04/2007, -1/+2may I please copypasta this to inform the ignorant throughout my travels?
  • BornLegend, on 11/09/2007, -2/+16Allowing medical marijuana should just be the first step.
    Marijuana should be legal to everyone for recreational purposes. =P
  • UncleBadTouch, on 11/04/2007, -2/+10This is a great video. Spread it around.
    • clothmonkey, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Agreed, one of the best I've seen since "Grass"
  • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 11/03/2007, -6/+4it doesn't matter that 'everyone' agrees. the government doesn't agree, and short of a revolution, we won't change their minds (what, do you think you live in a democracy?).

    for the government to legalize even medical marijuana, there has to be not only a financial reason (which exists in the potential for taxation and licensing), but also an excuse or reason to say it's ok "in these special circumstances" when they've denied it vehemently all this time. that and the conservative groups who won't listen to reason and somehow also control a huge amount of lobby money.

    basically, they need to be able to approve it and save face on finally admitting it's ok.
    • gregfadein, on 11/03/2007, -1/+9Um, no. Welcome to this thing called a "democracy."

      Medical marijuana is a major issue this election. The public—including Democrats, Republicans, and independents—is largely in favor of medical marijuana. It's a matter of when, not if.
    • InsaneOni, on 11/03/2007, -0/+4For the People, by the People.
  • radikul, on 11/03/2007, -6/+1Rofl. They must have been blitzed out of their gourds inhaling ALL of that smoke. Wow.
  • masterofjoe, on 11/09/2007, -21/+2No, no, no! This man is all wrong! Marijuanna is one of the most dangerous plants in the world. It has over 3000 chemicals in it, and the high is the feeling of your brain cells dying. One of my friends was addicted to it, and had seizures from withdrawl. It is one of the most addictive plants in the world, even worse than tobacco.
    • Hananda, on 11/03/2007, -0/+6Given that everything you said is wrong, I have to assume that this was an attempt at humor. Still, better safe than sorry.
    • rustintable, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1I know many successful professionals who do it some as often as twice daily with absolutely no ill effect.
      And besides Carle Sagan Fransis crick and Richard Feyman all did it.
    • masterofjoe, on 11/04/2007, -4/+0LOL NO GOD IS REAL
    • taquitohater, on 11/03/2007, -0/+4I dugg him up because I have enough faith left in humanity to take it as a funny joke. Next week will probably be different, but for now I refuse to believe this wasn't a joke.
    • toxicshok, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2Ohhh ... the chemicals are going to get us... ohhh.... 3000. Chemicals are not bad. You have over 3000 chemicals in you, are you bad?
  • jetblackz4, on 11/03/2007, -6/+2Drew is a bad ass
    He and Snoop should hook up
  • MrClownn, on 11/03/2007, -1/+14Why would anyone digg this story down? Because you didn't watch it and it has 'Drew Carey' and 'Medical Marijuana' in the title? It was a very well produced piece that stated it's case and backed it up with facts and real people, without being overly preachy. I'm not saying it needs to be number one, but for *****'s sake view the content of a link before you bury it.
  • zachshmack, on 11/03/2007, -1/+8Great video, but what most people fail to realize is that the federal government is anything but logical and reasonable. In fact, the more cogent your argument is, the more likely they are to put their fingers in their ears.
  • chrisc3, on 11/03/2007, -5/+6"smoke weed everyday"

    -Dre Chronic 2001
  • XedLos, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5For some reason this reminded me of Sicko
    • zachshmack, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4I was thinking that too. I think it's because Carey and Moore have similar voices and they both showed the issue from perspective of individuals.
    • toxicshok, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5and their both fat
  • RegalGSX, on 11/03/2007, -4/+0Oh, from the title I thought you meant Drew Carey was ON medical marijuana.
  • syroncoda, on 11/03/2007, -1/+8drew carey is totally cool in my books.
  • GlorifiedSlave, on 11/03/2007, -1/+6OK, here's how I see it. Marijuana is not legal because it never has been accepted by the middle class, unlike alcohol. It has always been associated with deviate subgroups (like beatnicks, hippies, bohemians, etc). Many powerful people hold marijuana responsible for the anti-consumerist culture of the late sixties. Also, they connect marijuana (and LSD) to the economic recession in the 70's.
  • Infowarmachine, on 11/03/2007, -4/+5heres my arguments for marijuana
    1. its natural, comes from the earth
    2. its non addictive
    3. its less hazardous than alcohol and has lesser effects, less impairing

    also in california especially, this is something the STATE has specifically voted to allow, according the constitution this is a state issue, and the state says its ok, according to the constitution the federal government isnt even allowed to make a ruling on this one way or the other

    ron paul for president ;)

    • Petzke, on 11/03/2007, -4/+2"2. its non addictive"

      Hey now, I wouldn't go that far. I can think of at least 3 people off of the top of my head who are 100%, cannot-get-through-the-day-without-a-bowl, addicted.

      Is it as dangerous as alcohol addiction? No, not even close.
      • clothmonkey, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1Please read up on the difference between psychological addiction and physiological addiction. EX:
        I am psychologically addicted to digging you down. I could quit, but I don't want to, because I enjoy it. If I could do it every day, I would.
    • toxicshok, on 11/03/2007, -1/+3Though I agree with you, your first argument is a logical fallacy.
    • kinghajj, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1Heroin and cocaine are natural, too. You might counter that they are processed, but so is marijuana. Really, all drugs should be legal, but punishment for abuse should be high, and, of course, any punishment for drug abuse should include some form of rehabilitation.
      • izzie2, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Heroin and cocaine come from the poppy and the coca plants respectively and are a derived substance.Weed is the only natural pure substance on the planet.Well ,that and it can get you ripped but I smoke it for the dibilitating back pain that cut my livelyhood short and like the guy in the video I have a curvature of the spine.Without weed I would have already found a bridge.
      • daeken, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Heroin isn't natural, it's a synthetic morphine derivative. Cocaine, however, exists in natural form in the coca plant.
      • Phrag, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1Marijuana is 'processed' if you consider drying it without adding, removing or changing its chemicals 'processing'.
  • skews13, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1cannabis was once,and is today a viable industry.if you take a really long,and honest look at just who would be threatened by this industry.that should give you some insight as to the farce of public protection.is why it is still illegal today.i wonder who that might be?
  • offspring06, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Good video
  • dman99, on 11/09/2007, -0/+9And the actual retail price of this bag of weed is.....
  • sq2shooter, on 11/05/2007, -6/+3When are you people going to realize this is not the battle to fight? The FDA is never going to approve a drug that requires the patient to smoke it. No matter how beneficial it may be, the FDA is not stupid enough to go near ANY drug that exposes the patient to cancer risk in order to get it. Especially when there is already a form of it available in pill form. Legalize weed, yes. Approve it in smoking form for medical use, never, ever, ever, going to happen. Even if they legalized it, it still would not get FDA approval as a drug in smoking form.
    • GlorifiedSlave, on 11/03/2007, -0/+6Good point, however most doctors in California who prescribe it recommend using a vaporisor or consuming it oraly.
    • kinghajj, on 11/05/2007, -1/+6Marinol is not "pot in a pill," but "THC" in a pill; pot has other chemicals that also affect users. And like the poster above said, vaporizers almost completely negates the risk of cancer, and oral ingestion completely removes it.
    • andrewrocks, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Find me one marijuana user (who DID NOT smoke cigarettes) that died from lung cancer due to prolonged use. Smoking marijuana may be semi harmful in the short-term (by gunking up your lungs) but it has NOT be shown to cause cancer. Do some research.
      • sq2shooter, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1You are a moron if you think inhaling any type of smoke into your lungs is not a cancer risk. The head in the sand approach is not a good one.
        • Phrag, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3And you're a moron is you believe that inhaling smoke automatically creates an increased risk of cancer despite there being no evidence to support this. How are you not taking the head in the sand approach when you make incorrect claims with no evidence and insulting anyone who disagrees?
    • Phrag, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1"No matter how beneficial it may be, the FDA is not stupid enough to go near ANY drug that exposes the patient to cancer risk in order to get it."
      Wow is that laughable. Elidel (pimecrominum) and Protopic (tacrolimus) were both linked to increased risk of cancer after being approved by the FDA. Even after this finding, the FDA allows them to be prescribed with a warning. Aspartame has been linked to a increased risk of cancer and it was FDA approved and is still found in many foods as an artificial sweetener (really beneficial drug there). They approved implanting RFID chips in people and they can cause cancer. I could keep going or you could do a simple seach for "FDA approved link to cancer risk" and see how incorrect that claim is for yourself.
      • sq2shooter, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1You need to educate yourself a little better about drugs and how they get approved. Postmarketing data has nothing to do with approval.
  • cunnelatio, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3We all know it makes sense, but it's not like the federal government listens to reason especially when it comes to drugs. You can refute every ***** claim they make until you are blue in the face but nothing will happen. Maybe once the current generation starts getting into office you might see some change, but don't hold your breath.

    And let's be honest here, it would require an act of God for Ron Paul to even win the republican nomination let alone the presidency
    • rocket777, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3God made marijuana, maybe he might finally rid us of the Federal Tyranny.

      Did you ever think the Soviets would lose their power? Or the Berlin Wall to tumble?

      It is possible. Ron Paul is our 21st century Tom Jefferson. All we need to do to win is get all the non-voters to vote for Ron. They are, after all, the majority in nearly all elections, and especially primaries. I haven't voted since 2000 when I voted for Harry Browne. Before that, I voted only 1 other time, for CA 215.

      But this year I will donate over $1000, and maybe the limit of $2300. And me, a don't care at all about those criminals in DC. Must be lots more like me.

      One Ron Paul supporter is worth 50 of any the other guys supporters, who won't do anything cause they really don't care. They are not supporters, just followers who don't think anything will change but when pressed will say they are for one of the puppets.

      But when the dollar really crashes (Ron knows the Austrian school of Economics, and they were right about the depression, the dot com bust, and they know that printing money forever will destroy the dollar). We've never been this bad off dollar wise, because all the other times we still had some tie in with gold. Now they can destroy it. If it's not Ron Paul in 2008, then over the next 4 years things will get so bad that someone else, that Ron Approves of will get the nod. Maybe not this year, but it will have to happen, since there really is no free lunch.

  • igotnotime, on 11/04/2007, -3/+2Hindering a persons right is wrong and I agree with the above. On the other hand I know many people who only smoked and used no other drugs. Contrary to what the smokers claim a few of these people are quite literally brain fried. They are slow in thought reaction time on many levels, much the way Tommy Chong acted in his movies. These people were good students and smart adults but after just a few years of smoking are now just functional. Granted not all turned out like this, but several I know did.

    Those who need to digg me down for the honest observation merely need a few years to see it in their own friends. Give it some years, it will show.

    Honestly though, every person should have the right to do what they like with their body and mind. Great report though Medicineman24!
    • cunnelatio, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3and there are people who have smoked it for decades with no ill effects, medicinally and otherwise. Perhaps your friends were braindead to start with?
    • kinghajj, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2If those "brain-fried" people stop smoking, they will eventually return to their previous mental capabilities.
  • fLUx1337, on 11/04/2007, -2/+7Never thought about it like shown in the video....

    My doctor can easily prescribe me strong pain killers, which will cause my organs to start failing after time. All legal, and can go on for the rest of your life, depending on the problem, then you start to need more pills for those problems. By the end of it, your high 24/7, you can't work, and your dying.

    But cannabis (marijuana) is still illegal, and doctors rarely prescribe it - but it will make you less high than stong pain killers, but will remove most of the pain, and won't cause any major long term effects! (WAY less than cigrettes, which has tar and other crap in which will drestroy your lungs by filling them with that crap!)

    Plus you can illegally get cannabis pretty cheap, and your dealer will proberly have stronger things like heroin which you will proberly try sometime or another, which will really ruin your life.

    Stupid really, and thats before you think about alcohol....
    • kinghajj, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5Dugg down for the "gateway" theory-like writing at the end, but otherwise good.
  • MPSRuo, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1bravo
  • dchaosdx, on 11/03/2007, -3/+1i guess i never understood the medical marijuana movement... i'd imagine that there are plenty of other things that you can get at a walgreens that can be doctor prescribed or o.t.c. that would have the same effect as medical marijuana but in a legal non-scary way. i can't believe that for any ailment out there that weed is the only thing that makes it better, except the munchies. is it just a psychological created need? or a real one. i'd love for someone to clue me in, and i'm being honest, not sarcastic, as i really really don't get the argument.
    • mad05963, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4Well, It's fairly simple. Marijuana does a number of things better without the typical side effects of synthetic medications. For instance every time you take a pill you damage your liver. For many people, this is not an issue, but it you've had liver failure, pot would be the most unobtrusive pain reliever, anti-anxiety, relaxant. That's just an example, in a wide range of possible medical ailments in which mainstream medicine sometimes does more harm than good. Appetite loss for instance is a serious problem for people who are clinically depressed, recovering from Chemo or taking AIDS medications, marijuana can alleviate that condition without harming the patients course of treatment. In the end medical marijuana comes down to allowing a doctor the flexibility to employ it as treatment or part of a treatment when mainstream medicine could harm the patient more.
    • Phrag, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1Having alternatives is not a good reason to ban something. We have many alternative to aspirin, but we still allow people to use it.
  • 97bravo, on 11/03/2007, -6/+0I hear Drew supports Ron Paul.
    Q: What is the definition of a Libertarian?
    A: A Republican that smokes pot.
    Well, there you go.
  • sx66gns, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2I'm really surprised at how good that really was , thanks Reason & Drew.
  • complainforever, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5I smoked pot infrequently for the most part of my life. I gave it up completely 2 years ago because of my position in society. Chances are high to lose everything you worked for because of the stigme accociated with smoking pot.
    As far as your worry about the children, do you really think that if an adolescent wants to smoke pot that anything hinders him right now? Getting caught means only inability in obtaining the right job or sholarship in the future. Do you prefer that your kids drink alcohol, which is much more addictive? Not only that, but alcohol also makes you feeling strong and on top of the world. Pot is not having that effect at all.
    I don't want to promote drug use, but let's face it, they will be around forever. To give marihuana the same level of criminal use and possession as cocain, heroin and meth is just insane. Most of Americas childen could have health insurance just from the savings of no procecutions and no incarcerations of pot users.
    By the way, when it was legalized in Holland and Spain, the use went up initially and then back down to the level it always was. In Germany it was decriminalized and consumption did not go up. There when you get in a police trap and you are suspicious they test your saliva to make sure you are not high while driving.
  • fixedcoma, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5it's better than doing coke or alcohol or smoking cigarettes !
  • Plumber1, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1What about the children indeed... I believe the war on drugs is the primary cause today for the drug addictions occurring with such frequency today. Prohibit something from the youth and they will use it as their form of rebellion. Making a consumable illegal only opens the doors for criminals to capitalize on that particular foolishness. Using marijuana, whether used medically or recreationally remains a choice that one has to make regardless of it's legal status. It's only our government that, in it's desire to control, is the problem. For a look at a fun and light hearted examination of the counter culture surrounding weed, take a look at this link. http://www.lulu.com/content/820972

  • Pantheras420, on 11/04/2007, -0/+8Weed helps my ADHD, panic and anxiety attacks. Legalize it.
  • 6L6GC, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3Dugg for including citations, biblograpy, & sources.

    Even though I haven't and won't check them.

  • rocket777, on 11/03/2007, -0/+5I spent some time in Amsterdam. They are so much wiser than us here in the US. The kids I spoke to didn't care much about pot, since it was legal. And I don't think they have that much trouble with the hard stuff either. Maybe the answer to really dangerous drugs is to legalize pot. Alcohol is supposed to be the opiate of the people, but it's just to dangerous, and it makes people do really stupid things, like drive cars when drunk.


    We are like the old tragedies I studied in High School. It was pride that brought them down. We may have surpassed those old societies in technology, but as to political knowledge and the understanding of human nature, it's like we at still using stone age tools.

    All empires die from corruption and the destruction of the economic system. We have a cancer and it has metastasized into wars on everything. Drugs, terror, trans-fat, poverty, the rich, and it goes on and on.

    But we have one chance. We have a man running for office that would change this. It's no wonder that he gets the support of the youth. My youth ended the viet nam war, then lost their minds. I think the next generations will sink or swim on these wars, and they, unlike my parents, know that the DEA is lying about pot. All we need is one more war, say with Iran, and this country is going to implode.

    Then we will have either freedom, like in 1776, or tyranny, like in 1984 (the novel).
  • sexydarin, on 11/09/2007, -9/+1All marijuana is unmedical. it's a stoners excuse for getting stoned. they have medical painkillers for pain.
    • cerealjynx, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6those painkillers are addictive as hell.
      • clothmonkey, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4And they come with serious side effects.
    • BabaRamDass, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3a) Marijuana is used for other things too, not just pain relief.
      b) Not all pain responds to opiates.
    • andrewrocks, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Double post, ***** me.
      • Xondar, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Are you an incredibly hot girl? If so, then yes.
    • andrewrocks, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Thanks for being the judge of that, King SexyDarin.

      Under your logic, people shouldn't be able to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes either, because there are other "safer" ways to relax. Just because prescription drugs are EVERYWHERE (thanks a bunch big Pharmaceutical) doesn't mean that they're the best way to go all the time. What about the people who have violent allergic reactions to their medication and find their only solace in marijuana? I should introduce you to some of the cancer patients at the dispensary I frequent so that you can inform them of their "stoner" status and tell them all about the glories of the prescription medicines that they've tried already and to no avail.

      You should not speak about what you do not know.
    • Xondar, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Did you even watch the video before coming here to spew your pathetic, uninformed rhetoric?
  • APOI, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here but the government needs to legalize marijuana. At the very least, decriminalize it like London recently did. It's a crime that the DEA is just the pharmaceutical mafia. You gotta pay the man to get your drugs on the market. WIth increasing regularity the DEA approved drugs are having some nasty side effects..like killing the patients. Pot has only killed the very stupid and if it wasn't pot, then they would have died doing some other bone-headed thing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only should pot be legalized, heroin and all of the rest should be legal as well.
  • bandhftw, on 11/03/2007, -1/+3Pasted this in the vid comments, shame some of you didnt bother to read the comments there. haha just remembered this was also posted on digg a week or two ago but here it is again.

    Marijuana and the Brain, Part II:
    The Tolerance Factor
    The architects of marijuana prohibition have long maintained that tolerance to cannabis means the same thing as tolerance to addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin - that users need more and more to get high, driving them to crime and desperation. Now, the federal government's own research indicates that precisely the opposite is true. Science has finally caught on to what tokers have known all along: With marijuana tolerance, you have to smoke less to get high! High Times correspondent Jon Gettman explains the latest findings and how they discredit the government's drug policy.
    by Jon Gettman
    High Times, July 1995

    
    One of the safest qualities of THC, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive substance in marijuana, is the natural limit the body places on the drug's effects.
    It has long mystified scientists how most individuals can consume enormous quantities of marijuana with few or no obvious ill effects. But the explanation will not surprise regular marijuana users.
    Early researchers were often alarmed by this, believing that this tolerance was a warning sign of dependence or addiction. Tolerance generally describes the condition of requiring larger doses of a drug to attain consistent effects. While tolerance to marijuana has never exactly fit the classic definition, some form of tolerance to pot does develop.
    Regular users of marijuana frequently claim that this tolerance reduces troublesome side effects, such as loss of coordination. They also claim that tolerance to marijuana develops without risk of dependence.
    Cynics have argued that tolerance to marijuana is proof of dependence, and proof that the drug is too dangerous to be used safely and responsibly.
    Science has finally proven otherwise. The cynics have been wrong, the pot-smokers have been right. Tolerance to marijuana is not an indication of danger or dependence.
    This conclusion also adds credence to anecdotal accounts of marijuana's therapeutic benefits by patients suffering from serious illnesses.

    YOUR BRAIN IS PROGRAMMED TO PROCESS POT
    The recent discovery of a cannabinoid receptor system in the human brain has revolutionized research on marijuana and cannabinoids, and definitively proven that marijuana use does not have a dependence or addiction liability ("Marijuana and the Human Brain," March 1995 High Times). Marijuana, it turns out, affects brain chemistry in a qualitatively different way than addictive drugs.
    Drugs of abuse such as heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol and nicotine affect the production of dopamine, an important neurotransmitter which chemically activates switches in the brain that produce extremely pleasurable feelings. Drugs that affect dopamine production produce addiction because the human brain is genetically conditioned to adjust behavior to maximize dopamine production. This chemical process occurs in the middle-brain, in an area called the striatum, which also controls various aspects of motor control and coordination.
    Dr. Miles Herkenham of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and his research teams have made the fundamental discoveries behind these findings, and finally contradicted well-known marijuana cynic Gabriel Nahas of Columbia University. Supported in the 1980s by the antidrug group Parents Research Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE), Nahas has long argued that marijuana affects the middle-brain, justifying its prohibition.
    Now Herkenham and his associates have proven that marijuana has no direct effect on dopamine production in the striatum, and that most of the drug's effects occur in the relatively "new" (in evolutionary terms) region of the brain - the frontal cerebral cortex. There is now biological evidence that far from being the "gateway" to abusive drugs, marijuana is instead the other way to get high - the safe way.

    THC: DOSE AND EFFECT
    The effects of marijuana share certain properties with all the other psychoactive drugs - stimulants, sedatives, tranquilizers and hallucinogens. Scientists are just now figuring out how marijuana users manipulate dosage and tolerance to manage those effects.
    Small doses of THC provide stimulation, followed by sedation. Large doses of THC produce a mild hallucinogenic effect, followed by sedation and/or sleep. The effects of mild "hypnogogic" states produced by THC are often undetected, contributing to mood variations from gregariousness to introspection.
    The effects of marijuana can be sorted into four categories. First, there are modest physical effects, such as a slight change in heart rate or blood pressure and changes in body temperature. Tolerance develops to these effects with familiarity and/or regular use.
    Tolerance next develops to the depressant effects of marijuana, particularly to its effects on motor coordination. However, tolerance to these effects depends on the quality of the marijuana consumed as well as the frequency of use. THC is one of several cannabinoids in marijuana. While it is the only cannabinoid to produce the psychoactive or stimulative effects, another cannabinoid, named cannabinol (CBN), produces only the depressant effects. CBN is generally present in low-potency marijuana, or very old marijuana in which the THC has decayed; it accounts for the generally undesirable effects of bad pot. While cannabinol gets someone "stoned," THC gets them "high."
    After a while, tolerance develops to even the stimulative effects of marijuana. Experienced users learn that there is an outer limit to how high they can get. Paradoxically, this limit can only be exceeded by lower consumption.
    Patients who require marijuana for medical purposes generally discover what dose provides steady maintenance of therapeutic benefits and tolerance to the side effects, both depressant and stimulative.

    MARIJUANA TOLERANCE: EQUILIBRIUM, NOT ADDICTION
    Research into drug tolerance is in its infancy. There are actually three forms of tolerance. Dispositional tolerance is produced by changes in the way the body absorbs a drug. Dynamic tolerance is produced by changes in the brain caused by an adaptive response to the drug's continued presence, specifically in the receptor sites affected by the drug. Behavioral tolerance is produced by familiarity with the environment in which the drug is administered. "Familiarity" and "environment" are two alternative terms for what Timothy Leary called "set" and "setting" - the subjective emotional/mental factors that the user brings to the drug experience and the objective external factors imposed by their surroundings. Tolerance to any drug can be produced by a combination of these and other mechanisms.
    Brain receptor sites act as switches in the brain. The brain's neurotransmitters, or drugs which mimic them, throw the switches. The basic theory of tolerance is that repeated use of a drug wears out the receptors, and makes it difficult for them to function in the drug's absence. Worn-out receptors were supposed to explain the connection of tolerance to addiction. This phenomenon has been associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (Valium, Prozac, etc.), for example, but not with cannabinoids.
    An alternative hypothesis about how dynamic tolerance to marijuana operates involves receptor "down-regulation," in which the body adjusts to chronic exposure to a drug by reducing the number of receptor sites available for binding. A 1993 paper published in Brain Research by Angelica Oviedo, John Glowa and Herkenham indicates that tolerance to cannabinoids results from receptor down-regulation. This, as we shall see, is good news. It means that marijuana tolerance is actually the brain's mechanism to maintain equilibrium.

    THE N.I.M.H. TOLERANCE STUDY
    Herkenham's team studied six groups of rats. They compared changes in behavioral responses with changes in the density of receptor sites in six areas of the brain. One group of rats was the control group, which were given the "vehicle" solution the other five rat groups received, but without any cannabinoids. In other words, the control rats got a placebo; the other rats got high. A second group was given cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. The third group was given delta-9 THC. Three other groups were given different doses of a synthetic cannabinoid called CP-55,940, with a far greater ability to inhibit movement than delta-9 THC. CP-55-940, a synthetic isomer of THC, was developed as an experimental analgesic.
    First, the study determined the effects of a single dose of each compound compared to the undrugged control group. Rats receiving the placebo and the CBD displayed no sign of effects. The animals receiving the psychoactive cannabinoids, THC and CP-55,940, "exhibited splayed hind limbs and immobility."
    Anyone who has eaten too many pot brownies should have some idea of the condition of the rats after their initial doses. The human equivalency of the doses of THC used in this study would be in excess of a huge brownie overdose.
    A single 10-milligram dose of nonpsychoactive CBD for a one-kg rat actually increased the density of receptor sites by 13% and 19% in two key areas of the brain: the medial septum/diagonal band region and the lateral caudate/putamen - both motor-control areas.
    A single 10-mg dose of delta-9 THC had no change on receptor-site density. A single 10-mg dose of CP-55,940 produced a drop in the density of receptor sites, to 46% and 60% of the control group's levels.
    The effect the drugs had on motor behavior was observed daily, and at the end of the study the rats were "sacrificed" (killed) and the density of the receptor sites in various areas of their brains was determined.
    What effect did the daily injections have on the various rats' behavior? According to the researchers, "The animals receiving the highest dose of CP-55,940 tended to show more rapid return to control levels of activity than did the animals receiving the lowest dose, with the middle-dose animals in between."
    The groups receiving CBD showed no changes in receptor-site density after 14 days. All the other groups exhibited receptor down-regulation of significant magnitudes.
    The changes consistently followed a dose-response relationship, especially in regard to CP-55,940. The high-dose animals had the greatest decrease (up to 80%), the low-dose animals had the lowest reduction (up to 50%), and the middle-dose group exhibited an intermediate reduction (up to 72%). The delta-9 THC group exhibited receptor reductions of up to 48%, comparable to the lowest dose of CP-55,940.
    
    The conclusions of the researchers: "It would seem paradoxical that animals receiving the highest doses of cannabinoids would show the greatest and fastest return to normal levels [of behavior]; however, the receptor down-regulation in these animals was so profound that the behavioral correlate may be due to the great loss of functional binding sites." In other words, when the rats had had "enough," their receptors simply switched off.

    HOW TO STAY HIGH: LESS IS MORE
    The NIMH tolerance study confirms what most marijuana smokers have already discovered for themselves: The more often you smoke, the less high you get.
    The dose of THC used in the study was 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, a dose frequently used in clinical research. What is the equivalent of 10 mg/kg of THC in terms of human consumption?
    While most users are familiar with varying potencies of marijuana, many are only vaguely aware of differences in the efficiency of various ways to smoke it. Clinical studies indicate that only 10 to 20% of the available THC is transferred from a joint cigarette to the body. A pipe is better, allowing for 45% of the available THC to be consumed. A bong is a very efficient delivery system for marijuana; in ideal conditions the only THC lost is in the exhaled smoke.
    The minimum dose of THC required to get a person high is 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. For a 165-pound person, this would be 750 micrograms of THC, about what is delivered by one bong hit.
    The THC doses used on the NIMH rats were proportionately ten times greater than what a heavy human marijuana user would consume in a day. Assuming use of good-quality, 7.5% THC sinsemilla, it would take something like 670 bong hits or 100 joints to give a 165-pound person a 10 mg-per-kg dose of THC.
    Obviously, the doses used are excessive. But the study indicates that the body itself imposes an unbeatable equilibrium on cannabis use, a ceiling to every high.
    According to Herkenham's team: "The result [of the study] has implications for the consequences of chronic high levels of drug use in humans, suggesting diminishing effects with greater levels of consumption."
    Tolerance and the quality of the marijuana both affect the balance between the two tiers of effects: the coordination problems, short-term memory loss and disorientation associated with the term "stoned" and the pleasurable sensations and cognitive stimulation associated with the word "high."
    The distinction between the two states is nothing unique. Alcohol, nicotine and heroin can all produce nausea when first used; this symptom also disappears as tolerance to
  • bandhftw, on 11/03/2007, -1/+3this symptom also disappears as tolerance to the drug develops. To conclude that marijuana users consume the drug to get "stoned" would be as accurate as asserting that alcohol drinkers drink in order to vomit.
    One result of the NIMH study is that there is now a clinical basis for characterizing the differences between these two tiers of effects. In clinical terms, the effects of one-time (or occasional) exposure are referred to as the acute effects of marijuana. Repeated use or exposure is referred to as chronic use.
    In addition to the now-disproved claims of dependence, opponents of marijuana-law reform always refer to the acute effects of the drug as proof of its dangers. Prohibitionists believe that tolerance is evidence that marijuana users have to increase their consumption to maintain the acute effects of the drug. No wonder they think marijuana is dangerous!
    Marijuana-law reform advocates, more familiar with actual use patterns and effects, always consider the effects of chronic use as their baseline for describing the drug. "Chronic use" is just regular use, and there is nothing sinister about regular marijuana use.
    Most marijuana users regulate their use to achieve specific effects. The main technique for regulating the effects of marijuana is manipulating tolerance. Some people who like to get "stoned" on pot, which (unlike the initial side effects of other drugs) can be enjoyable. These people smoke only occasionally.
    People who like to get "high" tend to smoke more often, and maintain modest tolerance to the depressant effects. But this is not an indefinite continuum. Just as joggers encounter limits, regular users of marijuana eventually confront the wall of receptor down-regulation. Smoking more pot doesn't increase the effects of the drug; it diminishes them.
    The ideal state is right between the two tiers of effects. One of the great ironies of prohibition is that most marijuana users are left to figure this out for themselves. Most do, and strive for the middle ground. Some just don't figure it out, and this explains two behaviors which are identified as marijuana abuse.
    First is binge smoking, often but not exclusively exhibited by young or inexperienced users who mistakenly believe that they can compensate for tolerance with excessive consumption. The second behavior these new findings on tolerance explain is the stereotype of the stoned, confused hippie. According to this NIMH study, tolerance develops faster with high-potency cannabinoids. People who have irregular access to marijuana, and to low-quality marijuana at that, do not have the opportunity to develop sufficient tolerance to overcome the acute effects of the drug.
    Another popular misconception this study contradicts is that higher-potency marijuana is more dangerous. In fact, the use of higher-potency marijuana allows for the rapid development of tolerance. Earlier research by Herkenham established why large doses of THC are not life-threatening. Marijuana's minimal effects on heart rate are still mysterious, but there are no cannabinoid receptors in the areas of the brain which control heart function and breathing. This research further establishes that the brain can safely handle large, potent doses of THC.
    Like responsible alcohol drinkers, most marijuana users adjust the amount of marijuana they consume - they "titrate" it - according to its potency. In the course of a single day, for example, the equilibrium is between the amount consumed and the potency of the herb. Tolerance achieves the same equilibrium; over time the body compensates for prolonged exposure to THC by reducing the number of receptors available for binding. The body itself titrates the THC dose.

    TOLERANCE, DEPENDENCE AND DENIAL
    Herkenham's earlier research mapping the locations of the cannabinoid brain-receptor system helped establish scientific evidence that marijuana is nonaddictive. This new tolerance study builds on that foundation by explaining how cannabinoid tolerance supports rather than contradicts that finding.
    "It is ironic that the magnitude of both tolerance (complete disappearance of the inhibitory motor effects) and receptor down-regulation (78% loss with high-dose CP-55,940) is so large, whereas cannabinoid dependence and withdrawal phenomena are minimal. This supports the claim that tolerance and dependence are independently mediated in the brain."
    In other words, tolerance to marijuana is not an indication that the drug is addictive.
    Norman Zinberg, in 'Drug, Set and Setting' (Yale, New Haven, CT, 1984), explained that the key to understanding the use of any drug is to realize that three variables affect the situation: drug, set and setting. It is now a scientific finding that the pharmacological effects of marijuana do not produce dependency. The use and abuse of marijuana is a function of behavior - interrelated psychological and environmental factors.
    Addictive drugs affect behavior through their effects on the brain "reward system" - the production of dopamine, linked to the pleasure sensation. This brain "reward system" has a powerful influence over behavior. Dependence-producing drugs - drugs that, unlike marijuana, affect dopamine production - eventually exert more influence on the user's behavior than any other factor. The effect of addiction on behavior is so profound as to create a condition called denial, in which someone will say or do anything to continue access to the drug.
    Denial is a characteristic of drug abuse, and it is largely cultivated by the effects of various drugs on the brain reward system. Herkenham's research provides a clinical basis for claims that denial is not a characteristic of marijuana use.

    THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS
    This is devastating to opposition to the medical use of marijuana, which is solely based on challenges to the credibility of personal observations by patients exploiting marijuana's therapeutic benefits.
    John Lawn, then-administrator of the DEA, had this to say in 1989 about the credibility of marijuana's medicinal users when he rejected the recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Francis Young that marijuana be made available for medical use: "These stories of individuals who treat themselves with a mind-altering drug, such as marijuana, must be viewed with great skepticism...These individuals' desire to rationalize their marijuana use removes any scientific value from their accounts of marijuana use."
    As a result of this new research at the National Institute of Mental Health, there is no scientific basis for that sort of prejudice on the part of our public servants. Just as marijuana users have been accurate in describing the tolerance and dependence liabilities of marijuana for over 20 years, patients who use marijuana medicinally are accurate in describing the therapeutic benefits they achieve with their marijuana use.
    Constant therapeutic use of marijuana represents a third tier of effects from the drug, a tier once thought unimaginable because of the now-discredited fear of addiction. At this level, tolerance compensates for virtually all marijuana-related impairment of motor coordination and cognitive functions. The result is a therapeutic drug with wide applications and few debilitating side effects.
    The outer limits of being high are reached when natural systems decide that the needs of the body supersede the wants of the mind. The third tier represents the most noble effects of marijuana: comfort, care and treatment for people with genuine needs.
    The discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system was a revolutionary event of profound significance. These new findings on tolerance may presage further revolutionary developments from the laboratories of NIMH in the next few years - such as the natural role of the cannabinoid receptor system and the brain chemical which activates it.
    Meanwhile, advocates of marijuana-law reform must learn to use the latest research as a tool to demonstrate that marijuana users have been right for a long, long time. The remaining challenge is to confront the irrationality of America's current public policy.
    • medicineman24, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Wow. You posted more than me. Good read.
  • Mellowman999, on 11/05/2007, -4/+0Wow. It took me so long to ***** SCROLL DOWN, I actually forgot what I had to say. Thanks for the novels you assholes. Your time would be better spent doing anything else.
  • Xondar, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Good video, but this site is the slowest I've ever seen. I haven't seen this much buffering since I stopped using RealPlayer.
  • jester55, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1i wonder what the difference between the Friday night special and the regular cannabis is.
  •  

    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.