cannabisnews.com: Rehberg Praised for Medical Pot Rehberg Praised for Medical Pot Posted by CN Staff on July 20, 2007 at 05:44:37 PT By Bob Meharg Source: Helena Independent Record Montana -- In 2004, Montanans set the still-standing national record in voter support for medical marijuana.More of us voted to make Montana the 10th state with a compassionate medical marijuana policy than voted for Bush, Schweitzer or Rehberg. Since then, several more states have followed suit, and medical marijuana remains a popular, common-sense issue. The policy doesn’t affect very many Montanans directly, but its effect is huge and entirely positive. Today, 368 of us from 36 different counties use medical marijuana, with recommendations from 121 different physicians around the state. For many, medical marijuana is literally a life-saver.Marijuana’s medicinal value to Montana patients mirrors the modern scientific research findings that have steadily been documenting how miraculous marijuana really is. There are literally hundreds of scientific, peer-reviewed research papers that explain why Dr. Lester Grinspoon, of the Harvard Medical School, has written that “marijuana is safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug.”One of the most recent findings confirmed the results of many other studies on pain relief. The research, published in Neurology, documented that marijuana has dramatically helpful effects on neuropathy, a severe kind of nerve pain commonly experienced by people with diabetes and HIV-AIDS. Marijuana has similarly been found to help people suffering from chronic pain caused by arthritis, rheumatism, M.S., fibromyalgia, migraines, and the permanent effects of severe accidents such as car crashes. Other research has discovered that besides delivering pain relief, marijuana works as an anti-inflammatory, acting directly on the site of inflammation.Marijuana’s benefits to cancer patients also are well-known. Not only does marijuana help alleviate the pain cancer patients suffer, but it also combats the nausea and lack of appetite that are common side-effects of chemotherapy. Some believe that the prescription drug, Marinol, offers an equivalent, but research shows that isn’t true. Marinol only contains one of the more than 60 active cannabinoids present in marijuana, and its FDA-approved uses don’t even include pain relief (Marinol actually has been found by some researchers to be counter-productive for pain). On top of that, the average one-month supply of Marinol can cost more than $1,000 for the typical patient, whereas medical marijuana can be virtually free to those who grow their own, which is what registered patients do. For most patients, one of the best things about medical marijuana other than its effectiveness is that the risks and side effects are so much milder than with alternatives. The amount of opiates it takes for me to be pain-free, for example, makes it virtually impossible to actually live. They don’t fully quell my pain, but they do turn me into a zombie, and I hear the same complaint from other patients all the time. But with marijuana, most of us can function very well, and without needing other pain-relievers, with no fear of addiction, liver damage or other common side effects of opiates. For those of us who will never be free of pain, this is a godsend.Marijuana is truly a wonder drug, as Dr. Grinspoon has reported, and all the members of Patients & Families United are grateful to Montana voters for allowing us the right to follow our doctors’ advice in using it. We’re also thankful for Congressman Denny Rehberg’s favorable attitude toward an important issue commonly called the “Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.” Denny has supported this vital amendment ever since Montana voters made their marijuana decision in 2004, and another House vote on this proposal is expected this week. It addresses the most important remaining threat that medical marijuana patients face.Although medical marijuana is now legal under state and local law, the federal DEA continues to persecute patients and their caregivers. Very recently, the DEA confiscated a legal Montana patient’s medicine, causing unnecessary, unfair suffering. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment would stop the DEA from interfering in medical marijuana issues in states with policies like Montana’s. It’s a basic state’s rights issue, combined with compassion and a simple recognition of the science behind marijuana as medicine.And that’s the key: the science. Marijuana is perhaps the oldest medicine known to humans, and modern science keeps proving every year the ways its effects are beneficial, not negative, as the rhetoric of the “drug war” would have us believe. Montana’s national record-setting vote, and Congressman Rehberg’s support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment ever since, are a harbinger of a smarter future on “drug war” issues. A future where those of us who benefit from marijuana don’t have to fear arrest and prison at the hands of an anti-science, authoritarian policy that actually helps no one.Bob Meharg is a retired critical-care and trauma nurse who is a registered marijuana patient due to diabetes-caused polyradicular neuropathy. He also is chairman of the board of directors of Patients & Families United, a support group for Montana medical marijuana patients, http://www.mtmjpatients.org/Source: Helena Independent Record (MT)Author: Bob MehargPublished: July 20, 2007Copyright: 2007 Helena Independent RecordContact: irstaff helenair.comWebsite: http://www.helenair.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #31 posted by Hope on July 21, 2007 at 18:24:59 PT Museman Thank you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by museman on July 21, 2007 at 11:03:36 PT Hope#28 I like that one too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by Hope on July 21, 2007 at 10:40:27 PT I'm so tired of being beat up on. I'm so tired of being bullied, smacked around on, threatened, and abused by my own government and it's minions.Every time they hit anyone, in any way, over these outrageously unjust laws...they hit me. It hurts. It hurts bad. I'm so tired of it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by Hope on July 21, 2007 at 07:49:05 PT I've been searching for the right analogy to describe this situation, for years. I like this one. "If you don't want me to have a lollipop...and I do anyway. Then you smack me in the mouth and break all my teeth...how dare you blame me or the lollipop for my broken teeth?That's what prohibitionists are doing, though. Smacking us down...then saying, "See what marijuana did to you?" " [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by Hope on July 21, 2007 at 07:00:46 PT Long Term Damage? We have a plethora of cannabis/marijuana users now in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and probably more than a few in their 90s.Willie is partially through his seventies. Neil and Bob have been around for quite awhile. They, among many, are prime examples of long term cannabis users. There are many, many more. Many of them posting right here.Wayne, we could show your rep the long term damage of prohibition. Prisons packed. Lives and families destroyed because of prohibition....not destroyed by their cannabis use. Prohibitionists want to delude themselves, and everyone else, into believing people are hurt or destroyed by the herb. But it was, and is, the prohibition and it's harsh penalties and it's harsh jack booted thug enforcers, home and field invasions, and narco traitor spies within American citizen's homes and lives that hurt them...or even destroyed them. The herb did not.If you don't want me to have a lollipop...and I do anyway. Then you smack me in the mouth and break all my teeth...how dare you blame me or the lollipop for my broken teeth?That's what prohibitionists are doing, though. Smacking us down...then saying, "See what marijuana did to you?" [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by whig on July 20, 2007 at 22:00:13 PT Wayne It does look like he could be brought around eventually, given the research data to support our position. So I agree it's hopeful. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by whig on July 20, 2007 at 21:57:03 PT Wayne That sounds like a polite brush-off; what long-term damage is caused by marijuana use?Good to have called him though, and now he can vote on the amendment and you'll know for sure where he stands. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by Wayne on July 20, 2007 at 21:14:57 PT Re: dongenero, Sinsemilla, Hope #7, 8, 11 Well I thought I might share my news for the day also. I got a response back (rather quickly, I must say) from my new Democratic representative today. I emailed him on Tuesday asking about his take on the Hinchey amendment. He says he is "keeping an eye on all the new information coming out" about MMJ and that he "realizes that adult marijuana use is a very popular and controversial topic", but he still fears the "long-term damage caused by marijuana use". I don't feel I got a definite answer on the amendment, and I don't feel I got a solid Yes or No. He is a lawyer by profession, which would explain that. But I judged from what he said that he will probably make his decision based on how much feedback he gets, which gives me a tiny bit of hope.But I will say his response was quick, brief, and courteous, if not completely forthcoming. Which may not be what I want to hear necessarily, but I can also tell he is not the rabid prohibitionist that his predecesor was. Baby steps, I suppose... I don't necessarily trust any lawyer or politician, but I DO count my blessings as they come... [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 21:06:41 PT Sinsemilla Jones Thank you. I really want to understand. I spent a couple years driving on the road with my husband and we drove thru almost every state all but the north west. I considered it my country not just different states. I could find something nice and unique in everywhere we stopped. We are one country. We don't have to act like we are two countries. We need to have a big north and south shindig and get it together.War is over if we want it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on July 20, 2007 at 20:39:11 PT FoM I agree, the GOP hasn't been at all conservative as I define it, either.Of course, there is a lot of religious fundamentalism in the South, but there is also a lot of mistrust of the federal government. Certainly, there are many who would like to legislate their morality, but there are many others who just want the government to leave them alone.Racism does still play a role, but not the major one it once did, at least not obviously. It's now a more systemic and economic problem like in the rest of the country. Without a doubt, there are those who vote Republican because they believe it to be the white party, but most probably really did buy into the smaller government bs, or maybe more accurately feared an even larger and more intrusive government from the Democrats. By the same token, blacks in the South still tend to vote Democratic, not because Democrats treat blacks so well, but because they feel Republicans would treat them worse.Thanks for the maps. The swing away from a solid Democratic south in Presidential elections did indeed start in 1964, and without a doubt was a reaction to the Democratic attempts to enforce the end of segregation. But the state governments remained pretty much solidly controlled by the Democrats, and by 1976 Jimmy Carter was able to regain a solid Democratic South for President.I think it's interesting to note that the same swath of the deep south from S. Carolina over to Louisiana and Arkansas that were just about the only states to vote for Goldwater in 1964, were also just about the only ones to vote for Adlai Stevenson over Ike in the 1950s, and were the only ones along, amazingly, with Massachusetts to vote for Al Smith over Herbert Hoover in 1928.The South did pretty much vote for Kennedy in 1960, and it would take a JFK for someone from Massachusetts or the northeast to carry the South again.I think many in the South are waking up to the truth about Bush. He was vulnerable in 2004 if the Democrats had put up someone better than Kerry. I think the South could even vote for Obama, if he can passionately defend his own convictions. Playing it safe will only make him, or any other Democrat from the north or the south at this point, come off as vague, weak, wishy washy, etc., and therefore untrustworthy and unelectable. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 11:57:03 PT Sinsemilla Jones Do you mean they will keep pushing fundamentalist religious beliefs as law? That's what I think of when I think of the word conservative. The RP spend lots of money and that isn't conservative. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on July 20, 2007 at 11:46:02 PT This is all generalities, of course. There are a lot of different individuals in the South these days. In fact, a lot of Southerners used to be Northerners. And today, black and white, young and old, long haired and short haired can all work together for the same low wages.Like I said, I think the South, in general, has been over the Civil War for a couple of decades. But if you're waiting for it to get over its general conservatism, you're gonna be waiting for quite a spell. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 11:43:10 PT Sinsemilla Jones They have Republicans as blue and Democrats as red. That's not right. Oh well it's very confusing to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 11:38:02 PT Sinsemilla Jones I found this red and blue state map page. It shows when people changed directions and I thought you might want to check it out.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_maps [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 11:24:12 PT Sinsemilla Jones It's really a shame that the whole USA has to suffer over memories from a long time ago. When will they start liking the north? I think the south is pretty. I consider the south part of our country. I don't know if the south thinks the north is part of their country though. Maybe the 08 elections will put it to rest and we can all be just Americans once again. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on July 20, 2007 at 11:12:50 PT FoM The South didn't go Republican till the 1980s. In the 60s they had southern Democrats like George Wallace and Lester Maddox. The South voted solidly for Johnson in 1964 despite his support of civil rights, because they still hated Republicans.They weren't alive during the war and occupation of the South but their parents and grandparents might have been. Stories of the war were passed down, and just like the survivors of WWII tell us, they were told to never forget.I think the South did finally get over it in the 1980s, and their embrace of the Republicans proves it. Not that I approve, but in the South there truly isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 10:24:15 PT Sinsemilla Jones I want to know when they will get over losing a war that none of us were alive or even care about when it happened. Putting things to bed once and for all would help united the US of A. I know that Mexican labor is everywhere. I was talking about the south and why they turned against Lyndon Johnson. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on July 20, 2007 at 10:15:41 PT Wars create long memories in the conquered. Occupations tend to lengthen those memories the longer they go on.The collateral damage of the Civil War took place almost entirely in the South. It was the South that was burned and looted.Most people in the South never owned slaves to begin with.Just like most Iraqis probably didn't like Saddam.Just like we don't like the DEA.It doesn't mean we want to be invaded, occupied, and have our infrastructure destroyed.Doesn't California have a lot of Mexican slaves?What about the Asian slaves who make most all our clothes?And where did the North get its cotton for manufacture?Do you think the Drug War will be forgotten in a hundred years? [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 09:13:49 PT Sinsemilla Jones I find going back to a war that old is really not relevant to our times. The war is over. Does the south still want to own slaves? They have the Mexicans now it seems to fill the shoes of the blacks. President Johnson did a wonderful thing and signed the Civil Rights law and then it seems they turned Republican. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on July 20, 2007 at 09:07:39 PT FoM - It all goes back to The Civil War. After The Civil War (The War Between The States) and Reconstruction (Northern Occupation) the Republican Party literally ceased to exist in most of the South, and remained irrelevant until the 1980s. (The Republicans really hadn't existed in the South before the war, either. It was a new party that had mainly western and northern support.)So the Solid South was solid Democrat. However, the South tended to be conservative, favored state rights, and was segregated, but since the Democratic Party of the 19th century was conservative, favored state rights, and had been ok with slavery, it made sense.As the national Democratic Party became more liberal, more in favor of federal government, and less tolerant of segregation during the 20th century, most southern democrats remained the opposite.However hatred of the Republicans remained in the South, because they were the party of invaders and occupiers. A combination of Reagan's popularity and many incredibly corrupt southern Democrats, finally got the Republicans established in the South.But this has only made a lot of southern Democrats even more conservative, trying to avoid that dreaded liberal label, which the southern Democrats themselves had made a dirty word long before the Republicans arrived. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Hope on July 20, 2007 at 07:43:29 PT My rep is an old, set in his wrong headed ways, dust ball of a curmudgeon.We've already sort of gotten in each others faces about it. He's hopeless. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 07:29:35 PT Sinsemilla Jones I don't understand why southern democrats are more like republicans. That is why I want a northern democrat as our next president. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 07:26:58 PT How My State Voted All the Democrats voted yes and the one Republican voted no. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on July 20, 2007 at 07:16:19 PT How sad. My representative, a Democrat, in the Noes. (not in the know)Of course, he's a former DA and saw first hand the damage that drugs do...(And as a good southern Democrat, votes with the Republicans more than most Republicans.) [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by dongenero on July 20, 2007 at 07:12:38 PT My Representative My Representative is worthless to any issue I have concern about. It's really unfortunate she made it through the last election. I don't even write her any longer. She follows the Bush/Neocon Republican party line like a good pet, on war, environmental stewardship, cannabis, etc.My county and district is highly moneyed and Republican, which is not to say they are politically engaged. It's more like they have their hands too full consuming, to really pay much attention to anything else. Unfortunately, the Bill will not be supported from my district. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by PatrioticDissension on July 20, 2007 at 06:44:01 PT: Hope When we let go of our hope that is the day the DEA wins. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 06:28:53 PT PatrioticDissension Here is last years vote.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll333.xml [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by PatrioticDissension on July 20, 2007 at 06:22:47 PT: Hinchey amendment I don't favor Hillery Clinton as much as some of the other canditates but since she directly said she would stop the federal mmj raids she is probably referring to signing the Hinchey amendment. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 20, 2007 at 06:12:55 PT Maybe This Year I hope it passes this year. I want to be hopeful but it's hard. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on July 20, 2007 at 06:06:04 PT: In a nutshell: "Anti-science, authoritarian" Two of many objections to Government efforts to demonize cannabis. And a slap in the face to every so-called 'scientist' who sold their intellectual integrity for a mess of government pottage, i.e. a paycheck from Uncle to promote lies about cannabis. Lysenko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko will have plenty of company in Hell thanks to the DrugWar's prostitution of science for political and personal gain. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by PatrioticDissension on July 20, 2007 at 06:05:30 PT: the future of mmj You can bet that if the Hinchey amendment passes that all the states that are currently debating medical marijuana will quickly pass laws to allow it and other states will follow suite. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment