The U.S. government classifies marijuana—along with heroin and LSD—as a Schedule I drug, the most tightly restricted category of drugs in the United States. According to the federal government, Schedule I drugs are unsafe and have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

Really?

As medical marijuana proponents have pointed out since the Controlled Substances Act was passed by Congress in 1970, cannabis has been used medicinally for thousands of years, and there has never been a reported case of a marijuana overdose. Moreover, in recent years clinical researchers around the world have demonstrated the medicinal value of cannabis.

We talked to a doctor, a pharmacist, and a patient to get three firsthand perspectives on medical cannabis.

>

Approximately 10 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

http://reason.tv via  boingboing

Category: Weekend

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

9 Responses to “Perspectives on Medical Cannabis”

  1. FrancoisT says:

    Don’t get me started on the DEA. In some respects, they’re the same as the Soviet NKVD or the Iranian Shavak.

  2. drewburn says:

    Silly, the status of this material. Science has little bad to say about it, yet as the physician in the vid said, politics and economics (in the sense other business interests want it outlawed) rule the show. I angers me how science is so often spun, ignored and misused by those with political and business agendas. Shame on them.

  3. DL says:

    Cut the DEA budget by 90%.

    Let the chips fall where they may.

  4. DL says:

    Drewburn,

    “It angers me how science is so often spun, ignored and misused by those with political and business agendas”

    . . . . . . . . .

    Good thing no one ever does that to justify a tax on carbon-based fuels.

  5. Opir Music says:

    People think about this issue completely the wrong way. The main issue is the basic one of sovereignty of the self; the ability to do whatever you want with your own body without imposing costs on others. It’s the very same idea underpinning the legalization of suicide.

    Now the second part of the statement is very important: /without imposing costs on others/.

    So what we should do is make *smoking anything where others can inhale it without consent illegal* and legalize everything else-whether snorted, injected, swallowed or absorbed of all drugs. The only places you should be allowed to smoke are designated private smoking facilities with air filtration systems or your own home if you install an air filtration system yourself. I cannot refuse or consent to inhaling smoke (and where I live, it’s a constant assault on your respiratory system. If the people using it ate, snorted, or injected it, there would be no problem). Otherwise, just legalize and regulate; you should have to go through a thorough process to determine whether you’re fit to use drugs (including alcohol) and you’d have to sign consent forms, and agree that any costs incurred due to potential addiction are your own and will not be borne by the state (except addiction programs themselves, of course). If you agree, you’re sold drugs by state-chartered companies that are tightly regulated, including pricing, to eliminate the black market. If you use them for medical purposes, you’d be able to bypass
    the process with a prescription (subject to the same regulations about methods of use.)

    People are going to do drugs no matter what we do, so we should be talking about methods of use and harm reduction, not just “substances.” Don’t “legalize pot”; protect sovereignty of the self.

  6. Opir Music says:

    Regarding DEA funding. Under the system I outlined, this agency would actually get useful: to crack down
    on and prosecute black market (for those who want to go around the screening process) drug smugglers, importers/exporters, and sellers to the full extent of the law.

  7. People should bother to know about this Man

    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Judge+James+Gray
    ~~

    and, LSS: the “War on Drugs” has, always, been a War on Individual Liberty.

    “Fear the Government that Fears your Plants.”

    see, also

    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Codex+Alimentarius

    LSS(2): It’s about ‘Cake’, for the Entrenched Interests, and Crumbs, if that, for Everyone else..

    as a PSA: if you don’t go quietly, you may find yourself ‘on the List’

    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Domestic+Terrorism+Pennsylvania%27s+homeland+security+office%2C+an+apologetic+Gov.+Ed+Rendell+

    the Stasi had nothing on these peep — FrancoisT, no ‘h’ in Savak.. )

  8. 4053jrc says:

    This is slightly off topic but addresses the “sovereignty of the self” statement. I believe fully in the concept, however anybody attempting to apply its’ precepts to suicide is at best deluded in my opinion. There is no way that a human being can terminate their own life without adversely affecting those around them PERMANENTLY. (A terminally ill individual with the prior knowledge of family members is of course not what I am talking about.)

    From those left behind that loved the victim to the innocent stranger that happens upon the corpse of those who choose to carry out the task in dramatic fashion, all are impacted for life.

    What gives them the “right” to inflict that kind of misery on their fellow human being?

    The “self sovereignty” precept and harm no others rule are automatically violated by a suicide.

  9. subscriptionblocker says:

    All I need to know:

    The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy … says that more than 60 percent of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market. …

    6,300 drug cartel-related murders in 2008

    Whatever your viewpoint…propping up monoply pricing to sponsor horific killings is an insane policy.

    And given the continual erosion of citizen rights in this country, one would think that any true conservative would become rabid at enforcing “body ownership rights”. That it hasn’t happened is a great bafflement.

    Am really surprised we haven’t yet seen a Mexican national who has lost loved ones go “postal” on us.
    Those cartel creeps are funded here.