cannabisnews.com: For Medicinal Use Only
function share_this(num) {
tit=encodeURIComponent('For Medicinal Use Only');
url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24758.shtml');
site = new Array(5);
site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
return false;
}
For Medicinal Use Only
Posted by CN Staff on April 27, 2009 at 05:11:35 PT
Opinion
Source: Buffalo News
Albany, N.Y. -- New York State has the opportunity to demonstrate the compassion shown by 14 other states in legalizing medicinal use of marijuana. But lawmakers also must ensure tight controls to avoid simply making marijuana easier to get for nonmedical uses, and must review serious scientific studies to avoid basing this kind of law only on anecdotal evidence. The issue of medical marijuana has been a topic of debate across the country, with the federal government still staunchly opposed. But states have carved out their own laws to help people in pain from diseases such as multiple sclerosis or experiencing nausea from undergoing chemotherapy.
New York’s proposed law stands a decent chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate and Assembly before the end of this legislative session in June. And while Gov. David A. Paterson reportedly has concerns about the issue, and rightly wants to ensure marijuana doesn’t simply become more available to anyone, he has been known to be supportive of the concept of legal medical use. Republicans are likely to oppose the measure, and proponents are concerned that four Democrats, including Sen. William T. Stachowski, D-Lake View, also might vote against it. The thin Senate Democratic majority puts the legislation in peril. Opponents have offered the notion in the past that medical marijuana could develop into an illegal side business. That is a valid concern, but one that calls for careful monitoring and not for the outright denial of relief to people who are suffering. Anecdotal evidence abounds. In a recent report, News Albany chief Tom Precious cited the experience of Joel Peacock, enrolled in the Conservative Party, who used marijuana during a construction job in Louisiana several years ago, and then in Florida, in order to relieve pain from an accident. Peacock is following the law—he does not use it in this state, where it is illegal. But he shouldn’t have to make the choice between expensive medications and limited medicinal use of marijuana. Under state laws already enacted, and the measure proposed here, there are restrictions to discourage illicit trade. Patients deciding to grow their own marijuana have to keep it in a locked, enclosed area, such as a greenhouse or closet accessible only to the patient or caregiver. The bill also would allow the state to charge a fee to dispensers, from pharmacies to hospital clinics to registered marijuana producers. Insurers can rest easy, as the bill does not require them to cover the treatments. These provisions should help quell much of the debate, but opponents also argue that the use of marijuana exposes the user to such additional medical threats as psychosis, memory loss and cognition problems. And, they insist, it’s an addictive drug that provides a gateway to other, harder drugs. That’s why solid scientific studies should be brought into this debate. Clarity on risks and benefits still is needed. Although the therapeutic use of marijuana has a history spanning 4,500 years, gathering data on usage for the wide range of diseases marijuana is claimed to alleviate remains a challenge. With the right controls, though, compassion for those suffering extreme pain and discomfort should prevail. Counterpoint: http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/652965.htmlSource: Buffalo News (NY)Published: April 27, 2009Copyright: 2009 The Buffalo NewsContact: LetterToEditor buffnews.comWebsite: http://www.buffalonews.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #8 posted by John Tyler on April 28, 2009 at 20:55:45 PT
cancer research
I suspect that those big time caner research places get an awful lot of funding from the Federal government, so to keep the money coming they are not going to say a good word about cannabis ever, until the feds say they can. In a nutshell, the feds are paying the bills and make the decisions about what get researched. They don’t want to get embarrassed again like they did in the 1974 Medical College Virginia cancer and cannabis study.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by ekim on April 27, 2009 at 19:47:50 PT
plow a head instead
today on C-Span Washington Journal the end of the three hour show had on the studentcam grandprize winner Sawyer Bowman and showed his video Cancer = about brain cancer.
The show also had on the head dir of the Nat'l Cancer Institute Dr Niederhuber and had a short section with Nancy Brinker the founder of the Susan G Kormen Breast Cancer Foundation.no mention of any study of Cannabis on any type of cancer.what a shame --
at a time when more and more States are voting to allow the med use of Cannabis- not one word on the subject on S-Span.What if we contracted with the farmers in Afganistan for seed and oil and showed them how to use the rest of the plant plus as a boness we could even say listen to them as i am sure thousnds of years growing the plant has given them far more insite into the plants value that we do not.below just some of the studies http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org./node/346610 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by NikoKun on April 27, 2009 at 13:56:39 PT
PLEASE... This issue is not black and white!
Everyone, this is a BIG problem we need to publicly address.Why are they insisting on finding some line in the sand, for which to measure patients by? Why do they insist it should be medical use only, when it is clearly safer than the other 2 legal recreational drugs?The eligibility and necessity patients have for using marijuana medically is, and always will be by nature, a GREY AREA! This is not a hard-core prescription medication, it is a self-regulatable medical/recreational herb!Even recreational users, whether they realize it or not, have many medical reasons for which they are actually using it. Is stress relief not considered a medical use? How about using it for nausea? Because I don't know a single smoker that hasn't used it at least once to alleviate a sick tummy. Reducing depression and stress is key to the well being and health of everyone, thus using Marijuana for these things MUST BE BY DEFINITION a medical use.I suspect that they are so opposed to Marijuana, so scared by it, that they simply cannot accept that it has such wide uses... They feel they must turn it into a dangerous prescription, when that is CLEARLY not the case.WE CANNOT LET THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE REGULATE OUR MEDICATION LIKE THIS! It is not up to them, they are not involved enough to understand.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on April 27, 2009 at 13:54:12 PT
Constitution
Sure, it's in there, you just missed the fine print, subsection 2851.31a says:"DO NOT touch the cannabis plant! Ever! For anything!! Other than that, you're free. God bless"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by dongenero on April 27, 2009 at 12:59:34 PT
Sam comment #1
Apparently we have a Constitution to answer just that very question.I don't think anyone has seriously asked (or listened to, to be more correct)this of the Constitution.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by FoM on April 27, 2009 at 10:26:07 PT
Related Article From HealthNews.com
Medical Marijuana Requests Higher Since Obama Term BeganBy Jennifer NewellPublished: Monday, 27 April 2009The rise in requests for medical marijuana has been dramatic of late. In various states where laws allow, dispensary owners recently admitted to an increase in 2009 requests for the pain reducer that ranges from 50 percent to as much as 300 percent. The high numbers seem to be implicitly linked to the stance of the Obama administration on the subject; the federal government will not interfere with state laws and patients who abide by them.URL: http://drugsense.org/url/ByoV88MG
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by museman on April 27, 2009 at 10:11:06 PT
Sam
Yes,"To be free, or not to be free, that IS the question."FREE CANNABIS FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on April 27, 2009 at 09:52:23 PT
interesting
my perspective as a patient is that we DON'T need any more science in this "debate". This is a human rights issue and civil rights issue, not a "science" issue.The question is, do we live free or do we live under tyranny?
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment