Some of you may have read that I am doing a persuasive essay for school...Well this is my topic, and I would love to have everyones input!
In my paper I will be in support of it. Let me hear both sides.
TIA

By Mommmie on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 09:05 pm:

Oh, that's a great topic! Good choice.

I'm for it. How could I be against something that helps sick people feel better?

Is it already legal in California?

By Reds9298 on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:20 pm:

Ditto on the good choice for a topic!

For it. I think it should be monitored like any other potentially addicting/hazardous prescription medication.

By Tink on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:51 pm:

I'm in CA and it is legal but not monitored very well, IMO. I have a family member that has been authorized it but doesn't use her license and another family member that was able to falsely obtain a license to purchase and abuses it. I'm for it but I think there need to be some extremely strict regulations put on it.

I agree that you've chosen a great topic.

By Cat on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:06 pm:

This was up for vote here in Colorado last year. It didn't pass. Personally, I think mj may have its place in medicine, but I think it should be prescribed by an MD as a controlled substance. I also don't think that will ever happen. Too many politics involved.

By Hol on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:10 pm:

Ditto on the choice of topic. I guess there has been extensive research done on the beneficial effects of medical marijuana. From what I have read, it eases the unrelenting nausea of chemotherapy, and helps with glaucoma. (I'm not exactly sure why).

I am for it. However, I think that it should be from a safe supply that is grown in a controlled environment so that it is clean and "uncut". It should be distributed from a pharmeceutical source, also, for the same reason. Anything that relieves suffering without causing more problems should be tried. Maybe it should be on a prescription basis to cut down on abuse. There will always be those who get it under false pretenses, just like those you get narcotic pain killers. However, at least marijuana is a plant. It is "natural". I don't think it is as addicting as vicodin or oxycodone.

I have sometimes felt that the government has it wrong. Marijuana is illegal and alcohol is legal.Alcohol can and does make some people violent. It makes them drive fast and recklessly. It causes people to have "black outs" where they don't remember being drunk. Marijuana makes people mellow, makes them drive slow, and they usually remember using it. The worst side effect is hunger. Maybe the government doesn't think that there is as much money in it as alcohol, or it would be legal and a source of tax revenue.

Don't get me wrong. I have never even TRIED pot. Seriously! and I am 58 y/o. That's just my opinion from what I have read and heard.

By Karen~admin on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 07:53 am:

Ditto Hol for the most part................

I *have* smoked, but we are talking some 35 years ago here, give or take.....pot you buy these days is much stronger than the pot of *my generation* and laced with G-d knows what, so yes, it should be grown and distributed from a pharmeceutical source.

However, I disagree with anyone who believes that pot is not just as addictive as any other drug, legal or illegal, psychological or physical. And for the *recreational* user, pot is very much a gateway drug and I would strongly disagree with anyone who claims otherwise.

I *do* believe it would - and should - have value in the medical setting if closely monitored by a physician and obtaining it would require prescription and proof of ID.

I actually tried to get my grandma to smoke pot in the late 70's and 80's - she had glaucoma and a host of other painful physical conditions, and the only reason she didn't do it was because she was afraid the rest of the family would find out and was worried about what they would think. Go figure - this was a 70/80 y/o woman who was still worried about what her family would think of her, so she suffered instead.

By Kaye on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 08:19 am:

I guess my first question is, what does mj offer than another pain med doesn't? Surely it isn't the only thing that helps with glacoma?

I have never smoked pot, but my understanding is it is much like having a buzz from drinking. At either point you shouldn't drive. So we would also have to have laws about that, right?

By Tarable on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 09:42 am:

Kaye to answer your question mj doesn't act as a pain med at all as far as I know. It is used to relieve nausea from chemo and it makes the person want to eat. I am not really sure how it helps with glacoma.

I know when I worked in a nursing home a while back one of the residents had chemo and couldn't eat was losing weight and going down hill really fast. Her daughter started taking her for "drives" daily and she would come back and eat and it really helped her have the strength to make it through the chemo.

I personally think that mj should be used just like any other beneficial narcotic and prescribed by a dr and produced by a pharmacutical company. If they can give out opium (in its many drug forms) why not allow mj which can cause addiction but has benefits also.

By Luvn29 on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:23 am:

I've heard it can also help pain that narcotics can't touch because it affects your system differently. And am I correctly remembering hearing about its use for MS patients?

By Kaye on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 01:47 pm:

It was teid for MS patients but with no real success. There are people who swear by it, but ultimatly there just weren't enough people who saw an improvement.

It is a weird concept that smoking can help you eat..LOL. I know it is about the effects later, so what about drinking a beer? I guess I have heard on movies about getting the munchies! My grandma drinks something that helps her have an appetite and eat.

By Annie2 on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 02:08 pm:

Great topic for your paper.

One of my uncles, who lived in CA, had and died from cancer. He had a Rx for medicinal marijuana. I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure he used a pill version.

By Karen~admin on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 04:27 pm:

THC is the active ingredient in marijuana. Prescription marijuana is sold as Marinol in pill form. Studies are being conducted on the effectiveness of an inhaled form or patch form as well. And yes, smoking pot is just as dangerous as smoking cigarettes - actually moreso, supposedly 4 times more dangerous than cigarettes.

By Karen~admin on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 04:37 pm:

Just want to add - there are people everywhere who are suffering from one form of illness or another, who are buying pot illegally on the street, hoping for relief. I suspect the majority of these people are chemo patients. Either way, if a pill or other Rx form of it were available, and it was legal nationwide, a lot of people could legally benefit and get relief from Marinol, or, if it proves to be effective, inhaled or patch form of the same drug.

By Hol on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 09:02 pm:

Well said, Karen.

By Unschoolmom on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 05:08 am:

I've heard that part of the benefit of pot is the fact that you ingest it by smoking, that it's NOT a pill. Especially with people who suffer nausea from chemo.

By Ginny~moderator on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 05:55 am:

Here's a link to just one page I found by typing "glaucoma medical marijuana" in Google:
glaucoma. Seems the theory (which this article "debunks") is that it lowers the intraocular pressure. It was clear from just looking at the first page Google brought up that there is lots of information, pro and con, about "medical marijuana" on the web.

I have mildly mixed feelings on the topic. Like Karen, I believe that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. I know that the larger portion of people who occasionally "use" marijuana as a recreational drug (like most of us use alcohol) don't go on to harder drugs, but there are always addictive personalities out there, people looking for a higher high, etc., and for them it is, I think, riskier than liquor (maybe). I really don't know, and am inclined to trust the medical world on this.

Whether or not it's riskier than alcohol, it is illegal, and as long as it's illegal, I would battle to keep kids at least from using it. I went through the battle about marijuana with two of my sons, and told them "not while you live in my house" in no uncertain terms, both because it was/is illegal, and because they were teens and not adults and not able, imo, to make that kind of decision - and I did the same about alcohol. I have friends who knew their teens were going to parties where there was alcohol and they just sort of shrugged and said "everyone does it", but I battled to keep my kids from buying into that "everyone" argument. I wasn't always successful, but they darned well knew what the rules were and the one time I smelled beer on an underage son he was grounded for two months.

I do think the feds are being very heavy-handed on this, and there is the problem that California (and maybe some other states, I don't know) have legalized the use of medical marijuana and the feds say that federal law overrides. I also think that a lot of professional time and tax money is spent on trying to stop the small users of marijuana, and a lot of people arrested and put in jail for small use, and I often think it is "over kill". On the other hand, most of the marijuana sold in the U.S. comes in illegally and through the larger drug cartels, thereby supporting those illegal gangs and their activities, most of which are very harmful (a lot more harmful than marijuana), and I think the effort spent in stopping the influx of marijuana from outside our borders is well spent.

I have often thought about whether marijuana should be made legal and controlled (more or less) the way liquor is controlled. Though, from what I read and hear, we don't do that great a job of keeping liquor out of the hands and bodies of minors, and probably wouldn't do any better with marijuana.

Obviously it is a good topic for your persuasive essay, Truestore. Have you decided which side you intend to persuade "for" and which "against"?

By Truestori on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:19 am:

Thanks for all your input everyone. I love to hear both sides of issues. I have choosen to support the use of medical marijuana. I don't support our youth trying it and I don't support out healthy adult population using it as recreational drug, but it you have a life threatening illness, by all means go for it. I read that some of you mentioned Marinol up above, which is a man made compount that contains THC. This isn't a well liked drug for the simple fact that it gets you too "high", many people are taking it to treat nausea and they can't even swallow, and most of all it is extremely expensive. I have known people with Aids and its out of the question for them to spend upwards of 35,000 a year on Marinol when their AZT's are already breaking them.
I truly believe marijuana is regulated simply for profit, and the fear of many lost jobs. If you research this topic you will find that marijuana was legal and honestly it was treated like any drug that is prescribed now days. People had actually pretty much forgotten about its exsistence when asprin was invented. There have never been any cases where marijuana was the key component in an over dose, and honestly there are no hard facts about its addictive properties that are reliable. I could go on and on but I am off to bring my son to school.

By Karen~admin on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 04:07 pm:

Stori, there may not be any hard facts about the addictive properties of marijuana, but I can guarantee you, if you sit a roomful of young people AND older people who use recreational drugs down and ask them, 9 out of 10 will tell you they started using marijuana first, then moved on to try illegally obtained narcotics or acid or cocaine or speed or downers or heroin or Xstacy or something. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and marijuana use among that generation was widely accepted, and *most* of the people I knew, and most of the people THEY knew had tried or used *at least* one other type of drug. Fast forward to my oldest 2 kids - who are in their mid-30's now - and it was even worse for them. My youngest two who are in their 20's - same story. I will stand by what I said above - marijuana, when used as a recreational drug, is a gateway drug, and while marijuana may be considered to be *only* psychologically addictive, most of the *harder* drugs are physically addictive as well.

As for using it for treating nausea and glaucoma, I think it should be legal.

We all know there has been SO much in the news off and on over the past 20 years or more about *to legalize or not to legalize* pot. I truly believe that the fact it is NOT legal is all politically motivated. And that's a whole other debate. LOL

By Unschoolmom on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 09:23 am:

I wonder if it's a gateway drug because of where people get it - namely often from people who sell or can get harder drugs.

Maybe if it were sold in liquer stores it would be no more a gateway drug then alcohol and nicotine.

By Karen~admin on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 10:18 am:

By the same token, how many people start out smoking cigarettes, then decide to try alcohol, then try marijuana, then maybe something else?? Happens all the time............people looking for a *bigger and better high*..........

By Hol on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 11:47 pm:

I still say that the government must not think that there is enough money to be made in making pot legal, or it would be. If they taxed it like they do alcohol and tobacco, there would be a lot of money generated for the government. Making it illegal doesn't stop it. It just drives it underground to an unsafe supply source.

Prohibition in the 1930's didn't stop people from using alcohol. It was a major failure. All it did was further deepen the depression by putting people out of work, and caused deaths. Alcoholics were drinking antifreeze and other toxic sustances to feed their alcohol high.

By Kaye on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 01:10 pm:

Hol while I agree that prohibition didn't work. I think if you ask around you will find that not many adults smoke pot now. But if you ask the same group of people you will find they have an occasional beer. So making pot illegal has work to some extent. Yes there are people who still buy it and smoke it illegally, but there are a lot of law abiding citizens that don't smoke it. I have never smoked pot, but if they made it truely legal, I think I would have to try it, just to see what all the hype is.

By Annie2 on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 02:44 pm:

I would bet that there are alot more adults smoking pot, behind closed doors, than realized.

By Karen~admin on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 05:49 pm:

Annie, I'd bet you are right......

The best friend of a surveyor I worked with 10 or so years ago was an anesthesiologist. The stories this guy told me were enough to make your hair stand on end....the guy was high, at work, when he was putting people under - their lives were literally in his hands. And since then, I've heard so many more things about people, some I suspected, some not, who get high, and many of them are in the medical profession.

I think a lot of adults equate getting high from smoking pot to having a couple of drinks after work....

As for legalization of pot - I *think* that I believe it should just be legalized. Still not 100% there on that one, but it wouldn't take much to sway me. And one of my main reasons for that is that nowadays especially, unless you *really* know people, you can't be sure of what you are getting. I've already admitted I have smoked, but it was in the 70's and I do not smoke now, nor would I smoke now, for several reasons, not the least of which is I'd be afraid of what I was smoking.

Some dealers soak it in who-knows-what chemicals to make it *stronger*, and that can kill people. There was something some years back locally about exactly that happening.

This is quite a topic - we have taken off in so many different directions and actually gotten way off topic (but we do that a lot anyway! ).

I have a lot of thoughts on the whole pot issue, both for medical and other uses, and it would probably take hours for me to get it all *down on paper*.

But, back to what you said Annie, I feel VERY sure a lot of adults are smoking pot behind closed doors, and that it would probably shock most of the people who know them.

By Hol on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 07:06 pm:

Annie and Karen - I agree with you. Also, there is an astronomical amount of money spent for law enforcement agencies to track and arrest growers, users, etc.. I just think that it is money that could be better spent elsewhere. I'm not saying that the large scale growers and distributors shouldn't be arrested for the reasons that Karen said... adulteration of the product for profits. That's precisely why it should be regulated and sold under government oversight. However, to arrest the guy who has a little patch of it on his own property, for his own use, is ludicrous. I live in the country and I know for a fact the people who are doing it. My son-in-law is a police officer in my town and is a FANATIC about arresting any and all pot smokers. (He is like Jean Valjean was in "Les Miserables" toward thieves, not that I condone stealing either). SIL is obsessed about it.

As long as an adult doesn't provide it to anyone under eighteen, his own children or anyone else's, then it's his/her business. You can argue that the child stands more of a risk of getting into it. Well, young people also get into the parents' booze, too.

I just think that there is a lot of REAL crime to spend money and manpower on. And I don't think that it would make people more likely to use it if it were legal. Alcohol is legal and a lot of people, like myself, don't drink.

By Truestori on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 07:19 pm:

Hol,
I have to agree with your above post! I finished my presentation on Medical Marijuana...YEah

School starts back up next week. UGGHH

By Karen~admin on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 07:46 am:

Stori, *you* may be finished, but the rest of us are still going strong! ROFL

By Truestori on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 11:02 am:

ROFL, Have fun with it!

By Kym on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 12:30 pm:

Personally, i Have had a family member using Percocet for "pain" and a family member using pot for cancer, I can tell you the percocet was a FAST addictive drug that led to crime, lies, unemployment and eventually death, the pot releived the pain and debilitation that came with the cancer treatments, this family member is not addicted, is fully functioning, after years of use, still takes one "ciggy" in the AM to get going, but feels no need to continue througout the day or up the dose etc.
So in my personal, and admttadely limited, experience, I would rather see a reputable conceientious doctor prescribe pot than these very powerful pain killers.
Any grade yet Stori??

By Tripletmom on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 06:35 pm:

I have to agree with legalizing pot.I think using it for medicinal or recreational is by choice.If its home grown, you don't have to worry about it being mixed/laced with anything else.The government can stop wasting there money on Joe Smoe down the street with a plant in his backyard.Personally I'd rather sit in a room with people who smoked a joint than a bunch of drunks.JMHO

By Hol on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 11:45 pm:

Well said, Kym and Tripletmom.

By Rayelle on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 01:41 am:

I heard somewhere- I believe on the news- that mj was our nations's #1 agricultural export last year, beating out corn. Is that true?

By Cocoabutter on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 05:56 pm:

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf

See page 14.


See also
http://tinyurl.com/atr5

By Vicki on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 06:47 pm:

I just have a couple of questions to those of you that want to legalize pot. Do you want there to be restrictions on where you can smoke it? I don't know if I feel one way or another about legalizing it, but if second hand smoke is bad, second hand pot HAS to be worse. Do you really want kids exposed to that?

By Karen~admin on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 07:15 pm:

No, I wouldn't want kids exposed to pot smoke OR cigarette smoke. IMO, smoking is smoking, no matter the substance.

By Tripletmom on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 08:42 am:

Ditto Karen-Smoke is smoke and NO child or any person should have to deal with second hand smoke.As for restrictions,YES,there has to be. I think it has to be dealt with like liquor to some extent.It will lower crime and let the government/law enforcements deal with the bigger stuff going on.There will ALWAYS be something bigger/better out there to sell.People are out there to make the big bucks.I think people deserve another medicinal choice besides a prescription with side/adverse reactions.How many people with debilitating(sp) conditions that can't take the NSAIDS due to stomach problems or bowel bleeding.How many people out there with little or no health insurance that could grow a plant and live pain free.If smoking a pot joint relieves pain/anxiety and stress than I honestly see nothing wrong with it.This is just another way for the government to tell people what they can or can't do.

By Karen~admin on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:01 am:

Ditto Tripletmom - however, as was stated before, I think marijuana has only been proven to help with nausea for medicinal purposes, thought I suppose it *does* help with anxiety, and *could* help with pain. But I totally agree with everything else she said.

By Ginny~moderator on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:50 am:

As I found out the hard way (through my youngest son), if a child has asthma or a predisposition to asthma-related problems, pot smoke is much worse than cigarette smoke - especially consumption of pot by people with underlying asthma. And imo, pot smoke smells even worse than cigarette smoke. To me, it smells like a cat peed on newspaper and the newspaper dried out - still stinking.

By Tripletmom on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 11:02 am:

People who have asthma,shouldn't smoke period.Just like people with diabetes shouldn't have sugar.I think it will take awhile before people accept pot and not label those who use it as hard core criminals.ALOT of people use it as stated in the above posts.Even those who are in high places who like to say they tried it but didn't inhale LOL