should medical marijuana be allowed or not what is your thought?

Answer 1

The first thing you should know is that these questions typically get lots of answers from people who really don't have a clue what they are talking about.

The first thing you should do is read the story of why marijuana was outlawed in the first place http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm It is funny and fascinating.

In short, marijuana was outlawed because of racial prejudice against Mexicans and because of the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana -- exactly the opposite of the modern gateway myth. The head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics knew the laws were unenforceable from the very beginning so he reasoned that the only way to combat marijuana was through a campaign of stupendous lies. For example, the US Official Expert on marijuana testified in court, under oath, that marijuana would make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood. He went on to say that, when he tried marijuana, it turned him into a bat.

As you can see from the responses above, there are still a lot of people who believe these things.

Then you should take a look at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm This is a collection of the full text of most of the major government commission reports on drugs over the last 100 years. They all concluded that there was no justification for making marijuana illegal for any purpose. They all said it should be legalized completely -- not just for medical use.

For those who say that the active ingredient is available in Marinol -- this is a really dumb argument. First, it proves conclusively that the marijuana plant really does have medicinal properties. If there is a prescription drug made from it, then -- obviously -- it has medicinal properties. That alone should prove that putting marijuana in Schedule I (high potential for abuse, no medical use) is nonsense.

What these people will fail to tell you is that the US Government currently distributes big tin cans full of 300 marijuana joints to a number of patients each month. The reason they do this is because some of those patients went to court and proved to a legal certainty that marijuana is the only medicine suitable for their needs.

The legal Federal patients report similar experiences with the prescription drug Marinol. They report:
1) Marinol doesn't work as well to relieve their symptoms. This is probably due to the fact that there is more than one medicinal ingredient in the plant.
2) The pills cost at least 15 dollars each, which many of these people simply can't afford.
3) Pills are no good if you have nausea and just throw them up as soon as you take them. Inhaled medicines are better in that case.
4) It is harder for them to get a therapeutic dose with the pill without getting a "debilitating" high. The pill only comes in two doses and it takes a half hour to know whether the right amount was taken. With marijuana smoking, they can take light puffs and then wait a minute to see if they got the right medical effect without too much of the "high". It is much easier to get the right dose.

I have met thousands of people who used marijuana for medicinal purposes, including a number of the people who get their medical marijuana directly from the US Federal Government. To date, not one of them has reported that the Marinol pill is an acceptable substitute.

Of course, that is the same conclusion that the US Institute of Medicine reached in their report, too. They concluded that there are some patients for whom there is simply no good alternative to medical marijuana. They recommended that patients be allowed to use it. You can read their entire report in the collection of major studies of the subject at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm

Contrary to the misinformation posted by others:
-- the pill gets people "higher" than the plant.
-- It is harder to regulate the dose with the pill
-- the pill is in Schedule III, not Schedule II. The fact that the primary active ingredient is in Schedule III, while the plant itself is in Schedule I further proves that the current laws make no sense.
-- you should know that the US Federal Government has made it next to impossible to do real research on marijuana for decades now. Basically, anyone who attempts to do anything that might contradict the party line is either ignored or outright attacked. That is a whole other story in itself.

I can guarantee you that all those people who say that there is no medical use for cannabis have never read the most basic research on the subject. They couldn't pass a basic quiz on the subject to save their own lives. How do I know? I have quizzed them literally thousands of times. Read the research I have linked and you will see what I mean.

Answer 2

Before I answer this question, I want everybody to know that I really don't care about marijuana. I am just a guy who calls it like I see it.

Medical marijuana is a joke and it should not be made legal. Although there are therapeutic qualities to marijuana, these can be given through other, safer, drugs that don't get you high. With all the information we have now about smoking, do you really believe that any medical professional in their right mind would prescribe you a smoked drug? Not one I would see. The dosage cannot be regulated, and the risk of harm far outweighs any potential benefit.

Also, in response to a previous answer, the indians did not smoke marijuana. Regardless of what marijuana advocates tell you, the plant is not native to the United States.

Answer 3

I have some difficulty justifying my position, as I'm coming close to feeling the need for socialization of medicine in the U.S.: single-payor, tax-supported, universal coverage, somewhat as a public utility. I come to this position quite painfully as my general political views tend to have a highly libertarian bent.
"Medical marijuana" shouldn't be allowed. Marijuana should be decriminalized in general.
The medicalization of marijuana use without general decriminalization is a wrong-headed idea, to wit:
Marinol, a cannabinoid, is already available as a Schedule II drug.
Any benefits of marijuana beyond those of Marinol have yet to be proven. There will be those who do not believe that statement, but let me explain. To legalize marijuana for medical use, the proper method, and there is a legal mechanism, is to apply for the proper permits and do controlled medical trials, and go through the same new drug application process as with any new drug. The FDA reviews the data, and if there is adequate data to approve the drug, it is allowed. Decades ago the University of Mississippi set up a project growing marijuana under controlled conditions for study purposes. Its business seems not to have been brisk.
The FDA has taken a lot of heat for being too willing to allow new drugs to enter the market, and this is wildly past just the opposite, using raw politics to make a complete end-around on the drug-approval process that has been so painstakingly developed.
I might add a related anecdote. Some years ago the state of TN's medical board had a policy of not allowing amphetamine-like drugs to be used for weight reduction. There was a popular outcry, and the legislature overrode the board's position in the specific case of the wonderful combination Fen-phen, and I think we all know how that worked out.
Also, there is some misinformation posted. There is NO legal "medical marijuana" in your state. There may be no state prohibition, but it's still a federal violation, so I'd avoid smoking in front of FBI agents, etc.

Answer 4

YES! I'm a resident of California, and have a medical condition that involves bleeding ulcers. IT'S FUN! (I'm not comparing myself to people with AIDS or Lymphoma or anything) But while not life-threatening, the condition causes extreme discomforat at times. I have a medical pot lisence and IT'S AWSOME. It really helps with my pain, and you're getting the stuff in a safe manner that doesn't involve shady drug dealers in back alleys, and it's always clean (in fact, it's orgainic).
Pot is a drug. All drugs have negative side-affects. But no stupid red-necked son of a ***** has any right to tell people what to do with their lives. No one has ever died from pot. It's no one's ******' business what people do in their private lives. **** any ****-kicker who is aginst medical marijuana. They're just ignorant.
Oh, and you should see the quality of the **** you get! California rules!

Answer 5

Yes. Medically it is allowed here. I saw Al Gore and Howard Dean smoking a big fat one...

Answer 6

weed should not be a crime weed has been around for ever it grow natural the indians smoked and so on weed dont hurt nothing the goverment is mad because they dont know how to tax it yet

Answer 7

being that my late husband battled nonhodgkins lymphoma, I have a strong opinion on this matter. It does not make me more knowledgable than thenext person, but it does certainly add a little bit of passion to the subject...
There are really no other medications that have the same mechanisms of action as marijuana. Dronabinol (Marinol) is available by prescription in capsules, but has the distinct disadvantage of containing only synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is only one of many therapeutically beneficial cannabinoids in the natural plant.
People suffering from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and other serious or terminal illnesses sometimes turn to marijuana on the advice of their doctors when other treatments fail. DC's Initiative 57 would protect these patients, their doctors, and immediate caregivers from criminal prosecution in the use of marijuana in medical treatment. The tightly worded measure, proposed by the local AIDS activist group ACT UP, requires that medical marijuana be restricted to use under the supervision and care of a licensed physician.

Initiative 57 firmly establishes that medical decisions are best determined within the doctor-patient relationship, not politicians or government prosecutors. Volunteers have until December to gather approximately 16,700 signatures of DC registered voters to place Initiative 57 on the DC ballot.

Jailing sick and dying patients, in the name of public safety, is used by politicians trying to look tough on drugs. Under current law, the seriously ill who turn to marijuana for its possible therapeutic effects are subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, and incarceration.

Caregivers have no other option but to enter dangerous open air drug markets to purchase the marijuana that might provide some comfort to loved ones in their final days. Physicians who even discuss the possible benefits of marijuana in the medical treatment of their patients have been targeted by federal prosecutors.

Many AIDS patients have found relief with marijuana to ease severe nausea and vomiting, and to help counter the loss of appetite and weight loss of deadly AIDS wasting syndrome. Expensive new triple-combination therapies hold little promise for those AIDS sufferers who are unable to hold their pills down.

Cancer patients enduring the side effects of radiation and chemo-therapy sometimes find relief in marijuana. For over twenty years, marijuana has successfully treated some patients with glaucoma, one of the leading causes of blindness among Americans.

For those sick and dying patients who use marijuana to ease their suffering, marijuana is hardly a recreational drug. Withholding from these is patients a potentially life-saving therapy is criminal.

Initiative 57 simply provides legal protection to these patients, their physicians, and caregivers in the medical use of marijuana from prosecution of DC's Uniformed Controlled Substances Act. The DC initiative is much tighter than measures passed by voters in California and Arizona.

Under the provisions of Initiative 57, non-medical use of marijuana is explicitly prohibited. Use of medical marijuana, like other prescription medicines, cannot defend against any other crime, such as driving while intoxicated. DC activists have included a parental consent clause, Section 9 of Initiative 57, which prohibits the distribution of medical marijuana to any person under the age of 18 for the treatment of a minor's medical condition, without the informed, written consent of a parent or legal guardian.

The marijuana sold by drug dealers on the streets is sometimes laced with drugs or other contaminates. Initiative 57 would allow legal, non-profit corporations or cooperatives to ensure a safe supply of marijuana to patients, taking drug dealers out of the equation. Patients are limited under Initiative 57 in the quantities they are permitted to possess.

The integrity of the doctor-patient relationship is protected under Initiative 57 by allowing physicians to defend the medical-use of their patients before a judge in sealed testimony. Federal prosecutors are outflanked in their attempts to target physicians who discuss medical marijuana as an option for patients.

The local petition effort is drawing national attention from those who have shown little interest in the well being of the people of the District of Columbia. The DC campaign for Initiative 57 is turning into the first Republican primary of the 2000 presidential election. Billionaire publisher and former presidential candidate Malcolm 'Steve' Forbes Jr. has loudly launched a big money media campaign against Initiative 57, calling the AIDS activists sponsoring the measure "twisted drug predators." William Bennett, the failed drug czar under President George Bush, is directing opposition to Initiative 57 through his group Empower America. Representatives from the Family Research Council, headed by Reagan Administration domestic policy adviser Gary Bauer, tried to block Initiative 57 at the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, but they were unable to find a DC voter to oppose the initiative.

Reacting to pressure, Drug Czar General Barry McCaffery has weighed in, opposing the petition drive in a letter sent to local DC officials.

McCaffery's office admits that they have not yet reviewed the legislative text of Initiative 57.

Meanwhile, amid the posturing of presidential aspirants, open air drug markets and crack houses in DC continue to flourish. The Drug Detox Center at DC General Hospital is overflowing. Waiting lists for drug treatment slots grow as funding for these life-saving programs has been eliminated.

Drug king-pins continue to import crack cocaine for sale in our city, and the Lorton prison complex. Yet these pressing problems, so apparent to DC residents, have failed to grab the attention of political grandstanders, much like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

By supporting DC Initiative 57, the people of the District of Columbia can free those suffering from AIDS, cancer, and other serious illnesses from the threat of prosecution and imprisonment if their doctor recommends relief in marijuana as a medication of last resort.

Answer 8

No, I know wut drugs can do to you (see my previous song to the Amerrcan peple). But hey--druggies can be PRESDIENT sometimes, too--heh heh.