Marijuana legalization on the ballot in three states.

Post Reply New Topic

I find it disturbing that there is a belief that we can meaningfully quantify the "danger" of various substances, and then engange in some type of scaling based on that quantification. I am further disturbed that the only standard on which these comparisons are being made is lethality.

The lethality of peanuts is directly related to the incidence of autoimmune response to them. Leaving aside accident, the lethality of peanut ingestion is entirely coincidental with a propensity of adverse reaction. If you are not sensitive to peanuts, then there is not meaningful lethality. If you are sensitive to peanuts, then there is potentially no safe dose. To put it simply, the lethality of peanuts has to do with the person, not the peanut--what is perfectly safe for over 98% of the population is deadly to less than 2% of the population. Nothing will ever make the peanut dangerous to the 98% who have no immune response to it.

On the other hand, with drugs, the effects are more universal. Everyone who takes LSD is affected by it. There is still an issue of degree, to be sure, but no one is immune (so far as I am aware) to its effect. Now that doesn't, in and of itself, make LSD more dangerous. But hallucinogens do present increased danger of collateral injury. And like the peanut, for a very small percentage of people, LSD can exacerbate other conditions.

None of which demonstrates that one is more or less dangerous than the other. I don't give my patients a hard time for marijuana use, provided that they do not present a respiratory disorder or an immune disorder. But just as I would tell the 1% of the population who have a confirmed peanut intolerance to avoid peanuts, so too i would advise the small percentage who have immune disorders to avoid marijuana. Simple as that.

And let's be clear. When I give advice to a patient, or when a pharmacist does so, we are professionally responsible for the advice that we give. And we professionally misconduct ourselves if we subordinate that professional responsibility to other motivations. But a lay person who is pursuing a political agenda is free to tout marijuana as a panacea and has no responsibility to the people who receive that advice. If an oncologist wants to prescribe marijuana as an appetite stimulant to a patient undergoing chemo, then I would never second guess that oncologist's opinion (unless the patient asked me for a second opinion). But I would not extend the same respect to an opinion rendered generally, or an opinion rendered by a lay person.

It is only the individual who can make a meaningful determination of what is safe and what is harmful. And that determination should be made with the best information possible, and that includes talking with a knowledgable professional like a physician or a pharmacist.

So I-502 passed in Washington, and Colorado passed prop 64. I'm wondering what the Feds will do.

So I-502 passed in Washington, and Colorado passed prop 64.

Exactly... So technically, water IS more dangerous than marijuana, and coffee is water plus tiny particles of coffee, so coffee is ABSOLUTELY more dangerous than marijuana. So, if marijuana is to be banned, let's ban water, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, and a whole shedload of other things.

No, I don't actually mean we should ban any of these things; quite the contrary. Nothing should be banned. Even in the case of extremely dangerous and addictive drugs, they should be legal. It's your body, and you should have the choice to do what YOU want with the damn thing. Most of the troubles associated with drugs are caused by the fact that they're illegal in the first place. people wouldn't be robbing old ladies and beating the sh** out of each other to get heroin if you could just go get it at the store or make it yourself at home. Gangs wouldn't be killing each other over drug-selling turf if you didn't need to find a dealer in the first place. All the anti-drug laws does is force people who wish to do them to deal with the real criminals, the dangerous ones. It also causes people to get ripped off and burned, which causes people to want to go cause the ones who ripped them off harm. It causes violence and all other kinds of crime. Look at what happened with prohibition of alcohol. It's the same concept.

If you wish to destroy your own body and life, that should be your choice, and it already is, with other things like alcohol and tobacco. So, you can't even try to pretend that the laws are there to protect us. There's zero consistency. sh**, look at how many idiots end up killing each other every year from auto accidents... But are cars outlawed? WHERE'S THE CONSISTENCY!?!?

Oh by the way, marijuana is not a drug. It is an HERB. And also, most LEGAL drugs are just as bad if not worse for you than the ILLEGAL ones. That, and THC and CBD(the two active compounds in cannabis) have been PROVEN to be therapeutic. In addition to this, and because of this, the pharmaceutical industry has been trying to find a way to alter those compounds in a way that allows them to patent them and use them in "medicine." But, guess what? The medicines they made do just as much harm as good, if any good, and I'm pretty sure they found out it can be lethal.

VICTORY!


Now WHERE is ValentineWiggin when you need her? This is truly the beginning of the end for the drug war.....I will thoroughly rejoice the day that I read/hear on the news that the DEA ceases to exist from thence forward.

Pot can trigger LSD flashbacks.