Cannabis News Students for Sensible Drug Policy
  Court: Law Allows No Medical Use of Marijuana
Posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 08:19:25 PT
Marijuana Information 
Source: Mayo Clinic 

medical Advocates seeking the right to use marijuana as a medical therapy were turned back May 14 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal law banning the drug includes no exception for ill people.

The court ruled 8-0 against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and five other groups seeking to distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The cooperative began organizing to distribute marijuana after Californians voted to legalize the sale of marijuana for medical uses.

In 1998 the federal government won an injunction against the cooperative, but that decision was reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

In the decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court concluded that "there is no currently accepted medical use" for the drug. It also noted that the possible medical benefits of marijuana for some people could not outweigh Congress's intent that the drug be made illegal.

"They're saying that not until the right studies have been done and reviewed can they make a decision," says James Lipsky, M.D., of the Clinical Pharmacology unit at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. "Just because some drugs work in some people doesn't necessarily mean they work in everybody. Certain drugs may typically work better, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have others also."

The ruling was based on very narrow and specific grounds. It leaves open the possibility of another look at the law later on if, for example, more evidence is available. It is unclear how state governments will react to the ruling.

Individuals with AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer and other conditions have sought the right to legally treat their illness with marijuana. The federal Controlled Substances Act, however, prohibits the use of marijuana.

"The Supreme Court really didn't say that there is no use for medical marijuana. They just believe that the drug should remain classified as it is now until more research has been done," says Dr. Lipsky.

Marijuana studies provide no clear answer about role in medicine

Pot. Weed. Mary Jane. Grass. The names and the drug are familiar to most Americans, even those who don't use marijuana. Though possession of marijuana is illegal in the United States, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimates that marijuana is used by 75 percent of those taking illicit drugs, making it the number one street drug in the nation.

Historical artifacts make it clear that people have used marijuana to treat various illnesses for more than 5,000 years. In the United States, it gained prominence as a recreational drug during the 1960s. Marijuana has been studied as a possible treatment for nearly a dozen conditions since the 1970s.

Still, relatively little is known about the medical effects of marijuana. In the 1970s it was tested as a treatment for the nausea and vomiting (emesis) that occurs with many types of chemotherapy for cancer. Research in the 1980s and 1990s examined its role in treating glaucoma, pain and movement disorders such as Tourette's syndrome. And research continues today through 138 studies by the National Institutes of Health, as well as additional projects funded by private organizations.

Nonetheless, it still is not clear how effective marijuana is in treating illnesses and adverse effects that occur with treatments such as chemotherapy. Some research suggests that marijuana and other related compounds may have a role in medical practice, but other studies find no significant benefits. Many more studies point out the hazards associated with marijuana and, in particular, the smoking of marijuana. This article reviews the results of some key studies in each area.

Marijuana is the substance people are most familiar with, but other related compounds are often used in medical research. When reading a study, it's important to keep in mind which compound was examined.

Marijuana refers to the dried flowers and leaves of Cannabis sativa , the hemp plant. These parts of the plant contain the compounds that may help people with certain conditions. Cannabis is classified as a hallucinogenic drug because it affects the way people perceive the world around them.

The cannabinoids are a group of chemicals that come from the hemp plant. Three compounds have been studied most extensively: tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabinol, and cannabidiol. As research continues, other compounds may be identified as cannabinoids.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical that produces the "high" associated with marijuana. THC can exist in two forms, called isomers, and both are active in humans.

Cannabinol and cannabidiol have some of the properties of THC, but they do not produce the psychoactive effects — the "high" — that marijuana users experience. However, these two compounds still may offer the other therapeutic effects provided by THC.

Dronabinol (Marinol) is a synthetic (man-made) form of THC dissolved in sesame seed oil. It is used to make THC capsules. The Food and Drug Administration has approved it.

Hashish contains dried cannabis resin and compressed flowers. Its THC content can be much higher than that of marijuana. It is not used in medical research.

Cannabinoids act on two types of cell receptors, one (CB1) that is found mainly in certain parts of the brain and another, (CB2), found in small numbers throughout the rest of the body. CB1 receptors are located in the parts of the brain that influence memory, pain perception, motor coordination and cognition (thinking and perception). The roles and actions of these receptors have not been determined yet.

Scientists discovered in 1992 that the human brain contains a natural cannabinoid known as anandamide. The exact action of anandamide is not clear, but its effects appear to be similar to those of THC. Anandamide binds to the same receptors that bind THC. However, anandamide is much less potent than THC, and its effects are of a much shorter duration.

In most work, researchers studied either smoked marijuana or THC given in capsules. Although both forms provide THC, marijuana smokers inhale other chemicals common in tobacco cigarettes along with the THC. Therefore, the two forms of cannabinoid may produce different effects in the body. So little is known about cannabinoids that some researchers believe that study results might be different if another form of THC was taken.

Oral and smoked THC act differently in the body. When dronabinol is taken orally, the peak blood concentration of THC occurs within 1 to 6 hours, and THC may remain in the blood for several hours.

Inhaled THC, such as that in marijuana, is absorbed into the blood stream very quickly. The peak blood THC concentration occurs at the end of smoking and then falls during the next half-hour. The peak blood concentration of smoked THC is higher than that of THC taken orally, but oral THC yields a longer effect.

The form of cannabinoid used and the way it is taken may make a big difference in the degree of relief provided and the severity of side effects.

Emesis nemesis

In the popular media, marijuana was initially reported to prevent nausea and vomiting (emesis). These side effects often occur with chemotherapy or radiation for cancer.

Controlled studies that assess cannabinoids as antinausea drugs have been conducted for more than 20 years, with mixed results. Some researchers found statistically significant differences between marijuana and standard antivomiting (antiemetic) medicines, and others saw little improvement in those taking a cannabinoid. The following studies illustrate some general findings of the research:

A 1979 study of stomach cancer patients compared the antiemetic properties of THC with prochlorperazine (Compazine) and with a sugar pill (placebo). The median age of the patients was 61 years, and none had ever used cannabinoids prior to the study. Each treatment was given orally three times a day during the first course of chemotherapy. The THC provided better control of vomiting than the placebo, but was no better than the prochlorperazine. About 32 percent of those receiving THC could not tolerate the central nervous system (CNS) side effects.

Another 1979 study evaluated THC in 15 people (median age 24) with osteogenic sarcoma, a form of bone cancer. Each person received THC capsules three times and placebo capsules three times during treatments with high-dose methotrexate. Eleven had used marijuana prior to the study, and all were experienced smokers. Based on the amount of vomiting and nausea, THC was rated "excellent" in eight people and "fair" in six people. One person had no response.

A study published in Veterinary and Human Toxicology in 1979 evaluated THC in 11 people receiving chemotherapy for lymphomas. About three-quarters reported a positive response against vomiting, but THC toxicity forced a halt to the trial.

In 1980, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined the effects of THC in 53 people with severe nausea and vomiting that was not relieved by medications available at the time. Ten (19 percent) of the people had no further nausea and vomiting and 28 (53 percent) had at least a 50 percent reduction compared with previous episodes of chemotherapy. However, nine people receiving THC experienced major CNS toxicity.

A 1984 Cancer Treatment Reports study reported less control of vomiting and more side effects with dronabinol than with metoclopramide (Reglan), a common therapy for nausea. Thirty-one people received either THC capsules or a metoclopramide infusion during their first treatment with cisplatin (Platinol), a platinum-based cancer drug. Only 27 percent of those receiving THC had an antiemetic response, compared with 73 percent of those receiving metoclopramide.

A study comparing smoked marijuana with oral dronabinol in 20 people reported that 25 percent were free of vomiting and 15 percent were free from nausea. Dronabinol was more potent than marijuana, but the participants had no preference for the form used.

In a trial of smoked marijuana, about 25 percent who initially agreed to participate later refused because of the harshness of marijuana smoke and preference for oral dronabinol. Thirty-four percent of the remaining patients rated it very effective, 44 percent rated it moderately effective, and 22 percent reported no benefit.

Most of the research into the effectiveness of THC was done before the development of the antinausea drugs most often used today. Recent antinausea therapies typically combine a serotonin antagonist — such as ondansetron (Zofran) or granisetron (Kytril) — with dexamethasone. This combination has been found to prevent vomiting in 79 percent of people receiving cisplatin, the most potent drug that causes vomiting.

"The newer drugs for nausea are far, far better than what we had 20 or 30 years ago," says Edward Creagan, M.D., of the Department of Oncology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. "Now nausea and vomiting are controllable in most patients. Control of symptoms is a goal for all patients."

The demographics of those using cannabinoids also are likely to influence how users perceive the effectiveness of THC. In the majority of studies in which antinausea benefits were reported, the patients were young adults with previous experience smoking marijuana. These users generally were less concerned about central nervous system effects, such as loss of coordination, than older patients, or they even desired CNS side effects.

"Initially, most of the information came from studies with a fairly young population and previous experience with marijuana. In our studies, the patients were usually older and had not used illicit drugs. [Our patients] were really troubled by the dysphoria," says Dr. Creagan. Dysphoria (excessive anxiety or restlessness) is a CNS side effect.

Stephen Frytak, M.D., an oncologist at Mayo Clinic and author of the first study described previously, agrees that cannabinoid compounds are not for everyone.

"Marijuana may be a more acceptable antiemetic drug for younger patients with tumors, but the use of cannabinoids in adult tumor patients has not gained a substantial foothold," says Frytak. "There may be a certain mindset that benefits from it, but that may be a placebo effect."

Sight saver

Marijuana has been studied as a possible treatment for glaucoma. In glaucoma, cells in the retina of the eye and nerves that send images to the brain are damaged, possibly resulting in blindness. Glaucoma usually occurs in people over age 50, although young adults may get it too. Intraocular pressure (IOP) is the major risk factor for vision loss from glaucoma. Cannabinoids reduce IOP and, thus, decrease the likelihood of blindness, although it's not known how they reduce IOP.

Three types of therapy can provide relief and prevent blindness. In 80 percent to 85 percent of people with glaucoma, medications control the disease adequately. Laser surgery can cause moderate decreases in IOP. Surgery creating a new path that drains fluid outside the eye also can relieve high intraocular pressure.

Four groups of drugs may be used to treat glaucoma. Beta blockers, alpha agonists and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors inhibit secretion of fluid in the eye that increases intraocular pressure. Prostaglandin analogs change tiny structures within the eye, making it easier for fluid to leave the eye.

As with most medicines, these drugs have side effects. The most common effects include small changes in heart rate and blood pressure, small increases in cholesterol (lipid) count and lower tolerance for exercise. Because relatively small doses are used in treating glaucoma, however, few people must quit these drugs because of side effects.

Cannabinoids, too, have side effects. They reduce not only IOP, but also the body's overall blood pressure, which can be a problem in older persons. A 1980 study noted a small drop in IOP and return to the starting pressure during a 4-hour period. However, the average heart rate rose 50 percent and blood pressure dropped during the same time. Many people cannot tolerate such changes in heart function.

Cannabinoids may also reduce blood flow to the optic nerve, which may promote disease progression. A single cannabinoid dose decreases IOP for 3 to 4 hours, so users must take 5 to 6 doses a day to keep IOP down. Other approved medications can be used once or twice a day, which makes it easier to stick with the therapy.

"Marijuana is effective in reducing ocular pressure, but there are many other systemic effects that occur when it is used, too," says David Herman, M.D., an ophthalmologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. "Many other medications can produce good results without these negative effects."

Feeding frenzy

People with AIDS, advanced cancer and certain other conditions often lose their appetite. Marijuana smokers believe the weed can increase appetite, giving users "the munchies." However, little research has been done on using cannabinoids to enhance appetite.

Mayo Clinic oncologist Aminah Jatoi, M.D., was a lead investigator on a collaborative trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group that compared dronabinol, megestrol (Megace) and a combination of the two drugs. Megestrol is a hormone given to people with cancer and other conditions to stimulate appetite. The results of the trial were presented at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology May 12, 2001.

In this double-blind study, 469 people with advanced cancer — other than brain, breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers — received either dronabinol, megestrol or both medications. Clinicians evaluated the participants' appetite, weight and quality of life.

Among those receiving megestrol, 75 percent reported an increase in appetite during the study, compared with 49 percent of those receiving dronabinol and 66 percent of those who received both medications. Taking dronabinol with megestrol provided no extra benefit.

Researchers also assessed weight gain during the study. Eleven percent of the megestrol group reported a weight increase of 10 percent or more, compared with 3 percent of those taking dronabinol and 8 percent of those taking the combination.

"Loss of appetite is a very distressing symptom for patients with advanced cancer," says Dr. Jatoi. "We were looking for a better drug, but unfortunately dronabinol, in the doses we prescribed it, didn't measure up to standard treatment."

Other researchers studying cannabinoid use in older people have reported cognition problems. Such disturbances were not an issue among study participants, most of whom were in their middle to late 60s. However, men who received megestrol reported a higher incidence of impotence.

Dronabinol also has been studied for appetite enhancement and weight gain in people with AIDS. One trial compared appetite and weight gain in 139 people who received daily doses of dronabinol or placebo for 6 weeks. Those taking dronabinol gained weight more frequently than those taking a placebo (38 percent versus 8 percent) and had less nausea than individuals taking the placebo (20 percent versus 7 percent). The most common side effects — euphoria, dizziness and thinking abnormalities — were generally mild to moderate.

A later study evaluated the effects of long-term dronabinol use in the same group. In this trial, 94 late-stage AIDS patients received dronabinol daily for 12 months. Study participants had improvements of 48 percent to 76 percent above their hunger level at the end of the 6-week study. They also tended toward a stable body weight for at least 7 months.

Pain preventer

Marijuana has been suggested as a pain relieving (analgesic) medicine. Much of the published research in this area reports the effects of marijuana use by a few individuals. Few researchers have published results from traditional trials with large numbers of people that included control (no treatment) groups.

A 1975 study in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics compared THC and codeine, a drug commonly used to treat pain. In people with cancer pain, pain relieved by 60 mg of codeine was relieved by 10 mg of THC, and pain relieved by 120 mg of codeine was relieved by 20 mg of THC. Inexperienced users taking 20 mg of THC were uncomfortable with the sedation and psychic disturbances that occurred at the higher dose.

Another report looked at changes in pain threshold in experienced and new users of smoked marijuana. Both groups showed a statistically significant increase in their tolerance of pain after smoking marijuana. However, the testing methods don't indicate whether there was less stimulation of pain receptors or participants were less aware of pain because of marijuana's psychoactive effects.

Studies in mice comparing cannabinoids' painkilling properties to those of opioids such as heroin offer some clues about cannabinoids' biological action. Researchers reported that cannabinoid action was not blocked by naloxone (Narcan), so it does not function in the same way as opioids. They could not identify how cannabinoids block pain, which may indicate that several actions are involved.

Movement matters

Because the brain is known to contain receptors for cannabinoids, some people have suggested that cannabinoids might prove useful in treating disorders of the brain and central nervous system, such as multiple sclerosis (MS). Unfortunately, there is little research so far to suggest whether cannabinoids can help people with movement and nervous disorders.

One study evaluated the effect of oral THC on tremor in eight people with MS. They performed basic movement and memory tests before and after receiving THC. The doses were increased until unpleasant side effects occurred. Seven of the eight participants thought their condition improved, but statistically significant changes in movement were not observed during physical testing of five participants. It's not clear how these results should be interpreted.

There are also a few published case studies that report an improvement in one symptom after an individual took a cannabinoid. The smoking of marijuana has been reported to suppress rapid eye movement (pendular nystagmus) and to decrease spasticity, but these effects have not been shown in large trials.

Despite the lack of clinical research to date supporting the use of cannabinoids, people with MS remain interested in using it. A 1996 study in the journal European Neurology reported results of a survey of 53 British and 59 American people with MS. Participants were asked to report any improvement in 28 different symptoms after smoking marijuana. The most common benefits that were named include:

Improvement in spasticity (96 percent)
Reduced muscle pain (95 percent)
Reduced head and arm tremor (91 percent)
Reduced depression and anxiety (90 percent)
Less tingling in the face, trunk and limbs (81 percent)
Less numbness in the chest and stomach (75 percent)

Cannabidiol was tested in 15 people with Huntington's disease. The group took both the drug and a placebo orally for 6 weeks each. However, there were no significant improvements in symptoms such as movement jerkiness.

Some researchers have suggested that the cannabinoids may be useful in treating Tourette's syndrome, a condition involving movement and vocal tics. At this time, there is not enough published research to support or disprove this idea.

It's not easy to make blanket statements about cannabinoids as medicine because there are so many questions about how they act in the body. In therapeutic areas in which they've been studied extensively, such as the treatment of nausea, more effective alternatives are available. In areas where few treatments are available, they may be shown to offer some people some relief.

Marijuana: Quick facts

Because marijuana is a plant, rather than a man-made chemical, its properties may vary from one plant to the next. Still, it's possible to make some general statements:

THC content is highest at the top of the plant (the flowers) and decreases gradually in through the leaves, lower leaves, stems and seeds.

THC content varies from 0.5 percent to 5 percent in marijuana and from 2 percent to 20 percent in hashish. Hashish oil may contain as much as 50 percent THC.

Cannabis may be eaten or smoked. Smoking produces a shorter, more intense "high," so recreational users typically smoke it.

A joint (marijuana cigarette) typically contains 1/2 to 1 gram of marijuana. Some of the THC is destroyed during smoking, so a user gets only 20 percent to 70 percent of the THC in the joint.

Approximately 5 percent to 24 percent of the THC left after burning is biologically available to the user.

Adverse effects of cannabinoids

The cannabinoids are best known for the "high" they produce, but they also act on many other tissues in the body. Not all of these effects are positive. Research into their effects on the kidneys, brain, heart and reproductive system offers a look at the dark side of cannabinoids. Here's a brief summary of trial reports:

In doses as small as 7.5 milligrams (mg), THC impairs users' ability to perform tasks that require short-term memory, such as recalling words from a list seen 20 minutes earlier.

Cannabinoids impair driving ability to a manner similar to that of alcohol. Australian researchers who tested driving skills reported effects similar to those associated with a blood alcohol level of 0.07 percent to 0.10 percent. As with alcohol, driving problems increased with the quantity used.

Accuracy and perceptual motor speed are impaired immediately after cannabis use.

Starting regular use of marijuana during early adolescence (before age 16) may result in permanent changes in the ability to pay attention. In a study of 99 cannabis users and 49 nonusers, those who began using the drug early showed difficulties on tests that involve visual scanning, divided attention, flexibility and working memory. Those who start using marijuana later in adolescence showed no statistical differences from nonusers.

Even after a day of not using marijuana, adverse cognitive effects — such as problems paying attention — can still be detected in heavy users of marijuana. It's not clear whether the deficit results from a marijuana residue in the brain, a possible toxicity of marijuana or withdrawal from the drug.
Frequent use of marijuana may promote a recurrence of schizophrenia in people who are vulnerable to this condition.

Regular users of products that contain THC go through withdrawal when they quit. Abstaining from THC used at 80 to 120 mg a day for 4 days produced disruptions in mood, sleep and food intake in both men and women, according to a 1999 study in the journal Psychopharmacology. Participants reported increases in anxiety, depression, irritability and restlessness.

Whether taken orally or in smoked marijuana, THC increases heart rate. How much faster the heart contracts depends on how much THC is consumed. THC taken regularly may cause the heart rate to become lower than usual. Changes in heart rate may be unsafe for some older adults or in persons with certain other conditions.

THC also affects blood pressure. Blood pressure stays the same or increases slightly after a single dose of THC. If THC is taken regularly, blood pressure drops below its level prior to THC use. This drop in blood pressure may make a person feel dizzy or affect the ability to exercise.

Immune system cells — including the lymphocytes and natural killer cells, and their products, cytokines — are less active in protecting the body after cannabinoids have been smoked or injected. As a result, users may get infections more easily or be more susceptible to disease than nonusers.

Marijuana use may affect newborn infant health. In a study that used urinalysis to identify pregnant women who used marijuana, babies born to marijuana users were smaller and weighed less than infants born to nonusers. However, effects on infant size were not reported in some other studies.

Children who were exposed to marijuana while in the womb show deficiencies in memory, the ability to sustain attention and some thinking (cognitive) skills when tested between 4 and 9 years of age.

Chronic doses of THC lowered testosterone production and reduced sperm production, motility, and viability in animals. It also disrupts ovulation. It's not known whether these effects occur in people who take THC over long periods of time.

In summary, even when cannabinoids are taken to treat a condition, they may create other health problems. When another drug can be used to treat a condition, that may well be a healthier option.

How the smoking of marijuana affects the body

Though some users of marijuana report relief, marijuana does have one serious drawback compared with other substances: The act of smoking creates hazards not found with oral THC and medicines for nausea, pain and other health problems.

One problem with studying smoked marijuana is that joints and pipes deliver varying doses of THC and other substances that may produce the desired effects. Some marijuana users also smoke tobacco, so it can be hard to determine which type of smoke causes a health problem. Placebos can be created for drugs taken in pill form, but there are no placebo cigarettes that smell and taste like real marijuana joints. Finally, the known hazards of smoking make it unethical to ask nonsmoking volunteers to light up.

There are still many questions about the effects of smoking marijuana, but research published in the past 15 years addresses some of these issues.

Unfiltered marijuana cigarettes may contain more of some carcinogens than filtered tobacco cigarettes. Marijuana smokers inhaled three times as much tar and retained one-third more tar in their lungs than tobacco smokers. The carboxyhemoglobin level in marijuana smokers was five times as high as in tobacco smokers, indicating that marijuana smokers had much more carbon monoxide in their blood.

Compared with tobacco smokers and nonsmokers, heavy smokers of marijuana show reduced airway function. The loss in function was worse among marijuana smokers than among tobacco smokers. Damage from long-term use occurs in spite of the fact that marijuana acts as an airway opener (bronchodilator) when used only occasionally.

Marijuana smokers have a lesser ability to fight off infections and cancer. Alveolar macrophages (AMs) (cells in the lungs that break down disease organisms) were unable to destroy Staphylococcus , a common and sometimes life-threatening bacteria. The AMs also showed limited ability to kill tumor cells, and produced below-normal amounts of interleukin and other cancer-killing biochemicals.

Some people are allergic to cannabis pollen, resulting in asthma and inflammation of the nose (rhinitis). Nebraska researchers took pollen counts from mid-July through mid-September and did skin tests for cannabis and other common allergens such as ragweed on 127 people. Seventy-eight (61 percent) of the participants tested positive for cannabis and, of those testing positive, 22 experienced respiratory symptoms during the test period.

Marijuana also may promote cancer of the upper digestive tract. Some reports note an increase in cancer of the tongue in persons who smoke marijuana but who have no other risk factors. Normally, such cancers are rare in people under age 60.

Note: A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial use.

Newshawk: Rainbow
Source: Mayo Clinic
Published: March 18, 2002
Copyright: 1998-2002 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
Website: http://www.mayoclinic.com/
Contact: http://www.mayoclinic.com/aboutmayo/contactus.cfm

Medical Marijuana Information Links
http://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm

Chronic Cannabis Use in PDF Format
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/ccu.pdf

Cannabinoids in Pain Management
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/drr.htm

CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #40 posted by Dankhank on March 21, 2002 at 07:34:55 PT:

Great memories ...
A wealth of info here ...

played Itchy Coo park whle reading ...

That song was one of the first songs I ever downloaded ...

Should be played at high volumn ...

Peace to all and thanks for the time it takes to type the long entries ...

Peace and Love to all who fight ..

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #39 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 19, 2002 at 06:04:43 PT:

El Toonces
I understand your feelings about Mayo Clinic. I did not want to respond to the post, but felt obliged in the event that C-News readers felt that they needed more ammunition at their disposal. There is little hope for most of my colleagues, but I am trying.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #38 posted by el_toonces on March 19, 2002 at 05:39:43 PT:

Ethan...I was wondering.....
Why you even bothered to refute the crap (excuse my French) Mayo put out in this piece? I went to medical school at Mayo and found them to be so biased about this issue I long ago gave up even any attempt to reason with or persuade anyone associated with Mayo. Of course, I know you wrote to serve the C-News readers, so they could have access to accurate information about this topic and not be blinded or schmoozed over by the "brand name" reputation of an institution like Mayo. [Here, I must be joking because it's hard to picture C-News readers swallowing any information in such a submissive fashion].

I have always had a huge problem with the way medicine has approached this issue, particularly large institutional entities like Mayo, especially in what I call the DARE-ville Midwest.

Of course, after leaving medicine with the bad taste Mayo put in my mouth -- and I am most ambivalent about the pun -- I decided to enter the "family business" and I became an attorney. And, on the legal issue(s), this piece by Mayo seems to rely upon the assumption that "if we at Mayo don't believe in the efficacy of a substance 100%, it is okay to throw folks in jail for using it." Having studied there and lived among the "Mayo-people", I have no doubt these "nice" suburban white folks would and could look the other way if the government wanted to everyone who uses St. John's Wort or Ginkgo (sp?) behind bars.

I always had to laugh inside when we were working up a new patient who came a long way to the clinic after failing to find relief with their own doctors at home -- the "local MD's" or "LMD's" or "community docs" as they were reduced to in the Mayo charts. The "consultants" (Mayo term for staff doc) made a big fuss over the patient's "quest for relief" and then proceeded to talk the about the lowly "LMDs" who had "failed" the patient as if those docs were incompetent or lacking in good intent. The funniest time I had there, though, was serving in the adolescent "chemical dependency unit," where we would hospitalize/incarcerate mostly kids (more often than not the children of the "consultants" who were our supervisors) who had done nothing more than hoot a doob or have a couple beers, their stay costing $10,000.00 per month (this was years ago, so it would cost much more now). The few kids that came in really sick and needing real help always got shipped up to a treatment facility in Red Wing, MN, or the Twin Cities.

I spend a lot of time, much more than I should, wondering why so many in organized medicine are so afraid of cannabis? Sometimes I wonder if, as Dr. Thomas O'Connell states in http://www.cultural-baggage.com/DrugTruth.pdf, doctors today are "motivated to cherish the monopoly they have received for prescribing legal pharmaceuticals," so much so that they are now hindering what our movement is trying to accomplish.

Oh no, I am ranting again. Time for a hoot and a swim.

As a final note, though, I do appreciate the irony that a piece by written by folks at an institution that made the politburo look good is followed a HUGE number of comments about the kind of music I love but folks in Mayo-viile hated and saw as representative of the "drug culture" during my time there.

Have a good day all.

El



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #37 posted by Jose Melendez on March 19, 2002 at 04:48:12 PT:

more on omissions of fact
From:
http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=3030&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Physical effects:

So yes, it raises the heart rate and blood pressure. But no more than normal exercise. So the only people at risk are those with heart disease.

And yes, it affects the brain - that's the point of recreational use - so you shouldn't drive or fly a plane.

But compared with alcohol it relaxes rather than triggers aggression and it rarely contributes to violence.

Addictive?

True too, some people DO develop dependence - but in small numbers, they say, "well below nicotine and alcohol".

The trouble is, the science behind these facts isn't new: but ministers and their appointees quote science to justify policy, so in the past, these same facts have been used for the opposite purpose than today's support for declassification.

This, for example, from the previous Home Secretary, Jack Straw: "The long-term effects include a very severe exacerbation of mental illness and also include cancer. It is reckoned that cannabis is between two and four times as carcinogenic as tobacco."

True. But - and it's the science Mr Straw didn't quote - today's report says cannabis users smoke fewer joints than tobacco smokers smoke cigarettes and many give up in their 30's so the long-term cancer risks are limited.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #36 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 23:18:22 PT
....DdC....
..I think your commentaries are outstanding...Dont stop........Perhaps you wouldnt mind revealing how old you were in 1969.....?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #35 posted by DdC on March 18, 2002 at 23:00:57 PT
Let There Be Song....To Fill The Air....
Folk, Rock, 60/70's,oldies,showtunes...
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/3225/

Dylan's Lyrics
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/index.html

Grateful Dead
http://arts.ucsc.edu/GDead/AGDL/#songs

Bob Marley
http://www.bobmarley.com/songs/songs_bytitle.html#R

Beatles
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/9773/lyrics.html

Cybrary Music
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionfrm13


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #34 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 22:36:15 PT
..yes,,it was Small Faces...
...with Steve Marriot on vocals...he left the band in 69,and formed Humble Pie with Pete Frampton....Rod Stewart and Ron Wood took control of Small Faces after that........1969,,,I was 13 years old....those were the days...You are right goneposthole,,most people born after 1970 or thereabouts,,have no idea about the way things used to be,,the way thing should be....the term;"freedom",is relative......a person who gets released from jail in China feels "free",,,,people who enjoy relaxing with Marijuana feel "free",,,,until they get BUSTED!!!! ...and then they go from being nice peaceful sheeple,,and are transformed into angry,pissed off goats........cant trust no one nowdays.....here are the lyrics to Itchycoo Park...

Over bridge of sighs To rest my eyes in shades of green Under dreamin' skies To Itchycoo Park, that's where I've been

What did you do there? I got high What did you feel there? Well I cried But why the tears then? I'll tell you why It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful

Feel inclined to blow my mind Get hung up feeding ducks with a bun They all come out to groove about Be nicer than fun in the sun

Tell you what I'll do (what will you do?) I'd like to go there now with you You can miss out school (won't that be cool) While I learn about the words of fools What will we do there? We'll get high What will you touch there? Touch the sky But why the tears then? I'll tell you why

It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful

I feel inclined to blow my mind Get hung up feeding ducks with a bun They all come out to groove about Be nicer than fun in the sun

It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful It's all too beautiful Ha! It's all too beautiful

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #33 posted by goneposthole on March 18, 2002 at 21:59:59 PT
Stumped
Used an internet search and came up with Small Faces. I vaguely remember the band. Is that correct?

"Just A Little" by the Beau Brummels came into my mind, though.

I caught one of their concerts; a great band.

1965 is a long time ago. Good Lord.

I didn't start smoking marijuana until the fall of 1969. I say anyone born after 1970 has little idea of what freedom is. Just my humble opinion.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #32 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 20:44:46 PT
you are a heavy cat goneposthole......
..1970 sounds right,,the song was released in 68......OK....even though it's kinda embarassing to wander so far off topic,,,here's more for you,,,or anyone else who is old enough to try and scare up forgotten marbles that are embedded deep within the depths Gray matter..............What band did "Itchycoo Park"?,,,,,,and if you get that right,,,then who was the lead singer,,and what band did he go on to form?....(sorry,,I'll get out of the Dick Clark quiz mode now).......

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #31 posted by goneposthole on March 18, 2002 at 20:27:58 PT
No internet search required here
I was at the concert in , oh, maybe 1970. I can't forget that.

She sells sea shells sitting by the sea shore.

By the way, leagaleyes marijuana.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #30 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 20:09:01 PT
...goneposthole...
...yes,,,,Thank you for the correction....The First Edition.....The Fifth Dimension,,,who knows where I came up with that........Am I correct in assuming that you retrieved the trivia without the aid of a cybersearch?...

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #29 posted by goneposthole on March 18, 2002 at 18:40:18 PT
Kenny Rogers and The First Edition
Yeah, yeah, oh yeah. What condition my condition was in.

Live in concert

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #28 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 18:10:21 PT
qqqq
I cannot tell a lie. I cheated. I am very poor at remembering names of groups but I don't forget the songs. They're stuck in my head. I had the best time last night. I don't usually laugh a lot but we sort of had a St. Patrick's Day Party in the DS Chat last night. Everyone had an O' in front of their name. You should drop in sometime on the weekends. I don't get there often but it really was nice.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #27 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 18:00:35 PT
..WHOA!...FoM..I'm impressed!
.....yes,,,it was indeed The Fireballs.......you didnt cheat and cybersearch it did you?......It's really weird,,I can remember old songs and their lyrics,,,but there are times I have trouble remembering my current phone number....

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #26 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 17:56:41 PT
qqqq I Love Google!!!!
It makes me seem smart when I'm far from it! LOL!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #25 posted by Jose Melendez on March 18, 2002 at 17:55:54 PT:

Rainbow
Rainbow,

I am trying hard to reread the article to come up with constructive comments. I am encouraged by the fact that they admit:

Historical artifacts make it clear that people have used marijuana to treat various illnesses for more than 5,000 years.
But most of the article ignores positive effects, or disingenuously suggests that those positive effects are somehow invalid.For instance:
Another report looked at changes in pain threshold in experienced and new users of smoked marijuana. Both groups showed a statistically significant increase in their tolerance of pain after smoking marijuana. However, the testing methods don't indicate whether there was less stimulation of pain receptors or participants were less aware of pain because of marijuana's psychoactive effects
What is the point? People report that they feel less pain, that is what is important to them. I should know, my back and neck hurt from years of skydiving abuse. And ,y religious cannabis use is the only way I have found that still lets me function without destroying my liver in the process. Similarly the following statement takes a positive effect:
Studies in mice comparing cannabinoids' painkilling properties to those of opioids such as heroin offer some clues about cannabinoids' biological action. Researchers reported that cannabinoid action was not blocked by naloxone (Narcan), so it does not function in the same way as opioids. They could not identify how cannabinoids block pain, which may indicate that several actions are involved.
... and treats it as if it is some sort of toxic reaction. Of course, I'm no doctor, so I don't receive several hundred advertisements from pharmacetical companies. Perhaps I would feel different if several multi,illion dollar firms were competing to bribe me with vacations, cash and other perks.

Too bad the Federal Trade Commission does not read cannabisnews.com

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #24 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 17:54:33 PT
Ya got it FoM
..It was Kenny,with the fifth dimension,,,,,,,,of "Would you like to fly in my beautiful balloon" fame........Far Out!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #23 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 17:53:31 PT
Got it I Think
Fireballs

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #22 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 17:48:29 PT
....even older...
...I was in elementary school when the song "Bottle of Wine" was in the top ten on KJR Seattle......
The chorus was;

Bottle of wine
Fruit of the vine
When ya gonna let me get sober
Leave me alone,Let me go home
Let me go home and start over

I'll bet no one who remembers the song,,can remember the name of the band.....


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #21 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 17:45:46 PT
qqqq
I'll guess. Was it Mickey Newbury or Kenny Rogers?

Actually I have no idea and was trying to be cool but I cannot tell a lie. I used google and came up with this. I cheated! LOL!

http://mostwantedlyrics.tripod.com/kennyrogers/justdropped.htm

http://www.lyricscafe.com/r/rogers_kenny/krog12.html

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #20 posted by qqqq on March 18, 2002 at 17:28:31 PT
...I remember ....it was not that long ago...
....when you could turn on a local AM radio station,and hear Eric Clapton...."she don' mind,,she don' mind,,,,she don' mind,,,,,,,,, .cocaine",,,,,,,or perhaps;;; "Dont bogart that joint,,my friend,,,pass it on over to me..."
....if you wanna win the Old Hipster Award,,,then you will be able to tell me who sang;;;"I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in."........


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #19 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 16:52:10 PT
I Need To Say Something Else
I didn't mean censor the word evil but don't censor the word joint in a classic song. That's all I meant when I said censor the word evil. I was just very mad that they did that. It was way off base in my mind. There I feel better.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #18 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 15:00:45 PT
It Just Really Bothered Me
We just paid more money to Direct TV so we could get other stations and one was a CLASSIC music channel. I figured they'd leave our old music alone. That's so wrong I can't tell you how annoyed I am. I love that song and was enjoying it and then (?) Censor words like calling everyone EVIL not JOINT! for Pete's sake.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by Rambler on March 18, 2002 at 14:49:26 PT
VH1
I believe that VH1 is owned by Disney???or perhaps the Time-Warner/AOL beast.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by dddd on March 18, 2002 at 14:45:42 PT
..I know what you mean FoM...
...about things like the Tom Petty word scramble........quite disturbing,,,indeed!...
...Another similar item is the new movie rating qualifications on TV commercials,,,notice,,that they now say something like;;"Rated M,for mature audiences due to violence,partial nudity,and DRUG CONTENT"...I'm not joking..."Drug content" is now a factor in rating movies.....srange new world!......dddd


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #15 posted by DdC on March 18, 2002 at 14:44:11 PT
Is that owned by MTV FoM?
I know they censored the same word on MTV's version that Saturday Night Live didn't censor when he sang it live. I heard today they censored a song title called Hashpipe too. Underage sex, binge drinking and beavis butthead materialism... but not taking a toke. Such hypocrites. I hate both shows and try to never watch them. Although I thought VH1 was a little better I know now its all the same propaganda...Not much news coverage on England decriminalising or the new government in Colombia. Faux is so hardup for substance other than favorable cannabis stories they're bringing back Jane Fonda bashers... ¶8)

Boycott Mindwarp TV...
DdC


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by DdC on March 18, 2002 at 14:31:47 PT
We Must Hold the D.E.A.th Propagandist Accountable
STOP the Lies!!!

Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles
"Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social "high" and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects"

Australia: No Proof Cannabis Put Drivers At Risk (2001)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1849/a09.html

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993
"THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small"

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.html

Professor Olaf Drummer,
a forensic scientist the Royal College of Surgeons in Melbourne in 1996
":Compared to alcohol, which makers people take more risks on the road, marijuana made drivers slow down and drive more carefully.... Cannabis is good for driving skills, as people tend to overcompensate for a perceived impairment."

University Of Toronto Study
Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htm

Federal highway funds in millions of dollars are held back from states not adopting penalties for driving while using cannabis. Even though it has been proven safer than booze and this law includes if your not even driving, just in your living room. It has nothing to do with the reality of driving stoned...
Smoke a Joint Lose your License
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionwhyitstimetolegalize.showMessage?topicID=90.topic

The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 1987
"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied... The chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation".

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.html

Researchers at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine have announced the results of an 8 - year study into the effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the lungs. In Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported: "Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease.
..Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]<%quot;> as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana.
Researchers added: "No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana."

Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06

1968 UK ROYAL COMMISSION, THE WOOTTON REPORT
"Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India (1893-94) and the New York Mayor's Committee (1944 - LaGuardia)that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects" "the long-asserted dangers of cannabis are exaggerated and that the related law is socially damaging, if not unworkable"

Researcher Studies Effects of Pot on Driving
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9860.shtml

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
From Benito Mussolini contributing to the "London Sunday Express," December 8, 1935

Driving studies conclude cannabis safer than alcohol and even abstinence in heavy traffic.
http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha01206.html

"There is a point at which the law becomes immoral and unethical. That point is reached when it becomes a cloak for the cowardice that dares not stand up against blatant violations of justice. A state that supresses all freedom of speech, and which by imposing the most terrible punishments, treats each and every attempt at criticism, however morally justified, and every suggestion for improvement as plotting to high treason, is a state that breaks an unwritten law."
- Kurt Huber [The head of White Rose], killed by the Nazis in 1943.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 14:19:23 PT
Off Topic But I'm Mad
While I'm looking for news I'm listening to VH1 Classic Channel and Tom Petty is singing: Let's get to the point Let's roll another (?) and they change the word from joint to something I don't understand! I am so angry. How dare them change the song.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 14:02:51 PT
Jose
Well the last comment looks good and centered! LOL! Just kidding. That's OK.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by Jose Melendez on March 18, 2002 at 13:55:29 PT:

max width?
Sorry about the width error. I think it has something to do with the long URL (http:// etc.)

I'll try harder.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 18, 2002 at 13:32:10 PT:

Rainbow!
You would be doing me a great favor if you would pass along my writings, and the Musty-Rossi article to your contacts.

Many thanks.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by DdC on March 18, 2002 at 13:11:46 PT
You said a mouthful there Doc...
We do not call any other medicinal agent by a slang Mexican term 100 years old. It is cannabis, and should be referred to in that manner.

A Few Buzzwords
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionstuff.showMessage?topicID=131.topic

Anecdotal proof is said to be inelegible for court and yet the wod junkies total argument comes from theory and anicdotal evidence, mostly flat out lies and gossip by cops.Though who would know more than the patient if something works? Always trying to tie crack or heroin or some other white powder. And the press wittingly and willingly goes along with the bias slants. Even in Santa Cruz the local paper prints cop science and testimony and shuns International tests. An example as subtle as possible was a local cop interviewed in the person on the street segment. He said he had a "friend" They all seem to have junkie friends, who smoked a joint of marijuana and died.Period. Next paragraphIt was laced with pcp. and he ran into a semi getting up after falling off a bridge when he lost his balance choking on a Slim Jim. Designed to break the segment causing the reader to see the words "died from marijuana". Subconsciously, subliminally along with the hundreds of pounds of Hearst Anslinger baggage already attached previously. I question weather a law can even exist using derogitory slang in the legal language. I've made the point several times of how ridiculous it would look if Martin Luther King carried a sign saying "Free the N...'s" or the Gays or Jews or the thousands of other cultures stigmatized like us, for no other reason than the greed of a few perpetuated by the intended forced unawareness of the masses.

In the 30's it was geared to the fear of whites having minorities taking over jobs or public offices, or women or kids, then the "commies" taking all the jobs or whatever,I never did figure out how Russians in gulags were a threat or starving Chinese getting fed if I ate my spinach. Then the hippies and its always been the same International Corporations behind it. Change their names from Farbin to Dupont or Bayer or Monsanto or Dyncorps or Anheiser Busch or Phillp Morris or Ely Lily run by Dan Quayles daddy with W's daddy second in command. Same as breaking up Rockefeller Oil into mini Rockefeller Oils, still controled by the same entity. Bogus Bush/Dupont or Rayguns/Monkey test busted over and over never making the media. Tumor research hidden since 74, MS research bumped on ABC for bogus heart attack anticdotes. Klintoon interventions. Thousands of test already done. Besides the remaining 7 patients getting government ganja. The IOM report requested in 99 still sits on Thompsons desk after Shalala sat on it. Posted on the net yet Clarence couldn't find it cause its not officially released. Shaffer Commission was released and scraped by Nixon. UCLA research censored by Rayguns never talked about by Faux or CNN.

Racism also helped drive the fear in the 30's as it does today. Where's the Black Caucus? Its still used as a tool to keep the people divided. Instead of more lawyers perpetuating this nonsense we need a few more Woody Guthrie Fascist Killers I do believe. And SOLIDARITY amoung wod victims. Including the chemically poisoned and foreign poor and alternative renewables and enviromentally concerned more for the trees than the jobs canvassing fliars shunning hemp like many of the rest. We as responsible speak for yourself! users are the real danger to the wod junkies. And dumping the "M" word is a good start...
Peace, Love and Liberty or D.E.A.th!
DdC

PS: I got your pdf from a friend and am getting my i-Mac to read it as a bedtime story each night, thanks. ¶8)

PSS: This war has been a long one, over 70 years. It is perpetuated by unawareness, yet still basically good people duped into another orchestrated delima needing fixed. So I don't wish to hold grudges when its over or punish the ignorant. But I do believe something should be done with those behind the prohibition legislation, propaganda and fascism. I also do not wish to judge anyones use of the term "marijuana", as this be a long war it will take time to overcome the pitfalls and obtain a SOLIDARITY with the victims of WoD. Though we all should make an effort to use acceptable terms that have no past of stigma or hurt. Cannabis medicine, Hemp food fuel and fiber and Sacramental Ganja or re-creational doesn't seem to offend. I'm not sure where the term "Pot" comes from but "Pothead" has negative conotations behind it usually, so Ganja suits me...

When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall... Think of it... always." ¶8)
-- Mahatma Gandhi

The Buzz on M-A-R-I-J-U-A-N-A...(XXX vulgarity! Be Warned!)
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fendingcannabisprohibitionstuff.showMessage?topicID=130.topic


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by Rainbow on March 18, 2002 at 13:09:53 PT
Mayo Article
Folks

I know some folks who might have edited written this article. I meet the Dr. recently.

I have mentioned (want to keep my job) that they are reporting improperly. You should go to the article and read the cons in the sidebar. The ole sperm and harm to unborn babies is there.

I will take these comments without names and provide them to the chief editor.

Also I am wondering if Jose's article could be formated to fit 800 width or at least 900 or 950. I have a 21 inch screen and still have to vertical scroll which is a pain.

If you want to put more constructive comments please do. They might need them :-)

BTW Dr. Grinspoon helped me on a previous letter campaign and at least they cleaned up some of the BS.

Thanks, Rainbow

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on March 18, 2002 at 13:01:14 PT:

Bet the FTC ignores this:
Here are some legal points on omissions of fact, as they apply to deceptive advertisements: From:
http://advertising.utexas.edu/research/law/
According to its 1993 Policy Statement on Deception, the FTC considers a marketing effort to be deceptive if:
  • (1) there is a representation, omission, act or practice, that
  • (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and
  • (3) that representation, omission, or practice is "material." The term "material" refers to the fact that some deceptive claims are trivial, and that the FTC will only regulate deceptions that are important to consumers, i.e., those that affect consumers' "choice of, or conduct regarding, a product."
Also from:
http://www.lawpublish.com/ftc-decept.html
Certain elements undergird all deception cases. First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer.4 Practices that have been found misleading or deceptive in specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services, without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations.5

Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. If the representation or practice affects or is directed primarily to a particular group, the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group.

Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.

from:
http://www.lawpublish.com/ftc-eyecare2.html
The FTC enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), which among other things prohibits deceptive or unfair practices in or affecting commerce. 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 52-57. An advertisement is deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and therefore unlawful, if it contains a representation or omission of fact that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and that representation or omission is material, that is, likely to affect a consumer’s choice or use of a product or service. It is important to note that advertisers are responsible for claims that are reasonably implied from their advertisements, as well as claims that are expressly stated.

In addition, under the FTC Act, advertisers must have substantiation for all objective claims about a product or service before the claims are disseminated. In the context of claims about the safety, efficacy, success or other benefits of RK or PRK, substantiation will usually require competent and reliable scientific evidence(1) sufficient to support the claim that is made.(2)

Finally, under the FTC Act, deception can occur through omission of information when that information is necessary to prevent an affirmative representation from being misleading, or simply by remaining silent, if doing so constitutes an implied but false representation. Not all omissions are deceptive, even if providing the information would benefit consumers. An omission is considered deceptive only if the absence of the information causes the advertisement to convey an inaccurate impression about a material fact.

from:
http://www.law.arizona.edu/library/LibraryInternet/legal_guides/consumer_protection/Consumer_Fraud.htm
Consumer Fraud is the “act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, supression, or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby.” A.R.S. §44-1522(A).

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:KIRpTZL4ycwC:www.oag.state.md.us/Homebuilder/laws/cpa.pdf+omission+of+fact+law&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1

Unfair or deceptive trade practices include any:
  • (1) False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or otherrepresentation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleadingconsumers;

  • (3) Failure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive;
  • (4) Disparagement of the goods, realty, services, or business of another by a false or misleadingrepresentation of a material fact;

from:
http://www.ptrc.net/liedetect.htm

There is much to be observed not only in what is said, but what is not said when evaluating the truthfulness of what you see, hear. and read.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on March 18, 2002 at 13:00:12 PT:

It's the hypocrisy , stupid.

Thanks to Dr. Russo for pointing out that the article plays fast and loose with the facts. I'll add that this article contains several glaring omissions of fact.

First, the authors imply that tobacco smokers are somehow less at risk than cannabis users, despite the fact that over four million Americans die each decade from cigarettes. Of course, deaths and lung cancer attributable to cannabis smoke are consopicuous by their absence in all of recorded human history.

Also, metacloprimide is mentioned (advertised) by the trade name Reglan, but no effort made to point out the side effects of that drug, despite warnings that appear in many places, even the Mayo Clinic's own website:

from:
http://www.mayo.edu/research/trials/trial_detail_235.html

Some medications are permitted and, in fact, their use encouraged in the treatment of renal disease. However, the following medications are known to interfere with Sirolimus and should not be used before you discuss it with your physician: Diltiazem, fluconazole, verapamil, itraconazole, erythromycin, ketoconazole, metoclopramide, grapefruit juice, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin and rifampin.

from:
http://www.criany.org/treatment/treatment_edu_side_effects.html

A few words of caution when taking medications to control nausea, vomiting, or any other side effect: make sure they do not interact with the anti-HIV drugs you might be taking. For example, Reglan, an antiemetic, can be dangerous if it is taken at the same time as some of the protease inhibitors, especially Norvir.
Also from:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/digest/pubs/gerd/gerd.htm
Another group of drugs, prokinetics, helps strengthen the sphincter and makes the stomach empty faster. This group includes bethanechol (Urecholine) and metoclopramide (Reglan). Metoclopramide also improves muscle action in the digestive tract, but these drugs have frequent side effects that limit their usefulness.
And:
PROKINETIC AGENTS
Metoclopramide - (Reglan)* or Maxeran
(see info on safety and home infusion below)
  • Reglan blocks dopamine receptors in the CTZ and increases the CTZ threshold & decreases the sensitivity of visceral nerves that transmit afferent impulses from the GI tract to the VC. Peripheral antiemetic enhanced gastric emptying.
  • Drowsiness, dizziness, diarrhea, restlessness, EPS
  • Additive CNS side effects with phenothiazines.
From:
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/2193/aug.htm
PHYSICIAN ALERT

Consider side-effect profile when prescribing metoclopramide (Reglan)

Physicians should consider, and discuss with patient families, the CNS side effects of metoclopramide (Reglan) when prescribing this drug. Metoclopramide crosses the blood-brain barrier and frequently affects the Central Nervous System.

"Side effects occur in 20% -30% of patients treated with effective doses. Side effects include somnolence, restlessness, and insomnia, but the most troubling are dystonic and extrapyramidal movements. Tremors, trismus, facial spasms, and oculogyric crises improve after withdrawal of the drug or administration of intravenous diphenhydramine 1mg/kg. Tardive dyskinesias may not respond to drug withdrawal." Pediatric Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders, (Hyman, Di Lorenzo, eds), Chapter 25 (Pharmacotherapy), p. 379.

Incidence of side effects of metoclopramide is 20%.1 Neurological symptoms such as oculogyric crisis and involuntary contractions of the eye muscles leading to upward conjugate gaze occur in about 1% of patients.2 Children and young adults are more prone to develop these symptoms, even after a single dose.3,4 Despite the fact that these effects disappear spontaneously and completely after discontinuation of this treatment, they create unnecessary anxiety for the patient, parents and health care personnel. This problem would not have emerged without the uncontrolled, and most of the time unnecessary, prescription of metoclopramide to young children. In this study, over a one-year period, we analyzed the clinical data of 24 children who presented with these manifestations after being prescribed metoclopramide for an acute illness.

Additionally, safer methods of ingesting THC are ignored, nowhere in this extensive yet biased paper are brownies or vaporizers mentioned, even though those delivery methods completely eliminate most of the negative side effects presented in this alarmist but skewed analysis.

Further investigation reveals that this is not the first time the Mayo Clinic has demonized inexpensive drug alternatives while ignoring the negative side effects of substances whose manufacturers often fund those same studies. From:
http://www.iahf.com/usa/980901.html

The most shameful chapter in this sad saga came when the FDA held a public hearing in the Masur Auditorium at NIH on August 29, 1990 for the purpose of hearing comments from the public regarding Dykstra's proposed rule from hell, when the FDA paraded a number of victims of the Showa Denko contaminated Tryptophan up to the microphone as political pawns, with zero concern for their well being.

I say this because they were being denied the life saving nutritional protocol developed by Dr.Christopher Caston of Spartenburg S.C., who's work was published in several peer reviewed journals, including the June 1990 issue of Advances in Therapy, but it was ignored by NIH and by FDA because his patients were cured of eosinophilia myalgia syndrome via a nutritional protocol which included... L-TRYPTOPHAN.

Meanwhile NIH hopsital was KILLING these patients by putting them on dangerous drugs such as Prednisone, while denying them the nutrients they needed to heal-- and then they were paraded up to the microphone as unwitting pawns- sent up by the FDA to denounce the dietary supplement industry, when- IRONY OF IRONYS- Showa Denko is a PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY.

This is confirmed here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:mCwu_A31Y9kC:www.pharmanet.com.br/pdf/gmphistory.pdf+mayo+clinic+pharmaceutical+scandal+tryptophan&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1

L-tryptophan and 5HTP, naturally occurring amino acids,used to be widely promoted as dietary supplements and wereused as aids for insomnia, depression, obesity, and for childrenwith attention deficit disorder. In 1989, an epidemic ofeosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) was linked to dietarysupplements containing L-tryptophan. The Centers for DiseaseControl identified more than 1500 cases of EMS, including atleast 38 deaths, that were associated with L-tryptophan. In testsrun by both FDA and the Mayo Clinic, impurities were con-firmed in some L-tryptophan products on the market.

One im-purity was called Peak X. Although its significance remains un-known, Peak X was found in one case of EMS associated withL-tryptophan in 1991. Unfortunately,the exact cause of the 1989epidemic and of the EMS associated with 5HTP continues tobe unclear, in part because 5HTP is synthesized from L-tryp-tophan in the body. Research has not yet conclusively resolvedwhether EMS was caused by L-tryptophan, by 5HTP, by one ormore impurities, or by some other factors.



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 18, 2002 at 11:58:06 PT:

More on Chronic Use Effects
People who really wish to scrutinize this issue owe it to themselves to read the 55 page article on the Chronic Use Study in JCANT, available on the same WWW page:

http://www.cannabis-med.org/science/jcant.htm

I genuinely attempted to study both sides of the issue, but the results are overwhelmingly pro. Any significant risks with cannabis as medicine are totally avoidable by employing select material, preferably with a vaporizer, sublingual extract, or other delivery system.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 18, 2002 at 11:50:11 PT:

Comments (Reluctant)
As is often the case, the anonymous author cites a number of studies and a few staff people from Mayo to attempt to provide a "public service" in the form of information.

I am immediately biased when I see anything that purports to be science discussing "marijuana." We do not call any other medicinal agent by a slang Mexican term 100 years old. It is cannabis, and should be referred to in that manner.

Once again, we have a selective literature review that in the final analysis is superficial, sloppy, and biased. I will admit to a certain bias myself, but when I research a topic, I do so exhaustively, and counter the bad with overwhelming evidence of the good. In the last 6 years, I have read something along the lines of 1200 articles and 60 books on the subject. Have they? Have the administrators of DEA and ONDCP? Has Dubya?

I will say it again: For every study that purports to demonstrate a deleterious effect of cannabis, there are 2 or more with better methodology that disprove the contention.

As to the beneficial effects of cannabis, they have not even scratched the surface. Who among this cohort does not know someone that used the standard anti-emetics after chemotherapy at fabulous expense and continued to vomit violently? How many were relieved by cannabis? How long will this government force people to suffer needlessly? For a more complete discussion, see the Musty and Rossi article in JCANT 1(1):

http://www.cannabis-med.org/science/jcant.htm

It is free under "Sample Copy" as a PDF.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2002 at 11:35:45 PT:

The ghost of Lysenko is laughing
These people are supposed to be scientists, yes? Then how do you explain this unchallenged statement?

"A study published in Veterinary and Human Toxicology in 1979 evaluated THC in 11 people receiving chemotherapy for lymphomas. About three- quarters reported a positive response against vomiting, but THC toxicity forced a halt to the trial.

Anybody above the level of a Down's Syndrome victim should have caught that one: THC toxicity. Hoo brother, they just stuck something vital out so we could shoot it off. THC...toxicity? When there have been absolutely no indications in any studies, even anti ones, that showed 'toxicity'.

More examples that someone who isn't a scientists must have wrote this:

"Inhaled THC, such as that in marijuana, is absorbed into the blood stream very quickly. The peak blood THC concentration occurs at the end of smoking and then falls during the next half-hour. The peak blood concentration of smoked THC is higher than that of THC taken orally, but oral THC yields a longer effect.

Care to tell us how long the smoking took place? 10 minutes? Twenty? Thirty? How much THC was actually ingested during this trial? I could go on, but you get the drift; sloppy methodology, here...

They do it again, here:

"In 1980, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined the effects of THC in 53 people with severe nausea and vomiting that was not relieved by medications available at the time. Ten (19 percent) of the people had no further nausea and vomiting and 28 (53 percent) had at least a 50 percent reduction compared with previous episodes of chemotherapy. However, nine people receiving THC experienced major CNS toxicity.

Symptoms, please. And while we're at it, what constitutes 'toxicity'? I could just as easily claim that drowning results from 'acute di-hydrogen oxide toxicity'.

And here's where it would be laughable...if it didn't negatively affect people's lives - or what's left of them:

A 1984 Cancer Treatment Reports study reported less control of vomiting and more side effects with dronabinol than with metoclopramide (Reglan), a common therapy for nausea. Thirty-one people received either THC capsules or a metoclopramide infusion during their first treatment with cisplatin (Platinol), a platinum-based cancer drug. Only 27 percent of those receiving THC had an antiemetic response, compared with 73 percent of those receiving metoclopramide.

Uh, excuse me? THC...in pill form...for people who can barely keep anything down? If you administer something via the circulatory system, of course you bypass the very system that needs immediate relief. But expecting people who are experincing the kind of nausea cancer patients do to keep a pill down...that's just unscientific...not to mention stupid.

More inanities:

Children who were exposed to marijuana while in the womb show deficiencies in memory, the ability to sustain attention and some thinking (cognitive) skills when tested between 4 and 9 years of age.

Really? Evidently they haven't heard of these studies:

Hayes, J. et al, "Newborn Outcomes with Maternal Marijuana Use in Jamaican Women," Pediatric Nursing 14(2):107-10 (1988); Streissguth, A.P. et al, "IQ at Age 4 in Relation to Maternal Alcohol Use and Smoking During Pregnancy," Developmental Psychology 25: 3-11 (1989); Richardson, G.A. et al, "The Effect of Prenatal Alcohol, Marijuana and Tobacco Exposure on Neonatal Behavior," Infant Behavioral Development 12: 199-209 (1989); O'Connell, C.M. and Fried, P.A., "Prenatal Exposure to Cannabis: A Preliminary Report of Postnatal Consequences in School-Age Children," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 631-39 (1991); Fried, P.A. et al, "60- and 72-Month Follow-Up of Children Prenatally Exposed to Marijuana, Cigarettes and Alcohol," Journal of Developmental Behavior and Pediatrics 13: 383-91 (1992); Dreher, M.C. et al, "Prenatal Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica: An Ethnographic Study," Pediatrics 93: 254-60 (1994).

So many studies...and presumably the Mayo researchers had time to examine them. But apparently the Mayo people aren't interested in real research...just the semblence of it.

This is just as FF called it: "This article is just an advertising billboard for the Drug companies." And at $50 USD for a pill of Kytril, you can see why they would use a supposedly reputable medical journal for their mouthpiece; the market is in danger from cheap, easily grown cannabis. And they are well aware of it.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by freedom fighter on March 18, 2002 at 10:56:13 PT
One study
that these "bogus" doctors did not do..

The effects of putting a human being in a cage because one choose a substance that others deemed bad.

This article is just an advertising billboard for the Drug companies..

ff

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on March 18, 2002 at 08:54:16 PT
benefits of marijuana use
"We get high on the lake, then we float down the river. Get off on the backroads. Get lost in the woods. Very deep in the heart of uncertain Texas, I tried hard to leave there but never did could." -Uncertain Texas by Guy Clark

Forget the laws, marijuana helps and doesn't harm.

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 18, 2002 at 08:19:25