Should people with AIDS, CANCER,etc, be able to get Medical Marijuana?
YES
86%
[ 13 ]
No
13%
[ 2 ]
Total Votes : 15
Author
Message
homerx
Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3143 Location: , USA
Thanks: 356
Thanked:1091
Should People with Cronic Illness Be Free To Get Marijuana? Posted: 01-31-08 19:16pm
Should it be legal to prescribe Medical
Marijuana to people with AIDS,Cancer or
other life threatening chronic illnesses?
|
bobbette
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 121 Location: ,
Thanks: 20
Thanked:3
online
Posted: 01-31-08 19:41pm
Of course it should be legal to get
medicinal mj for these ails-- they have
fewer side effects with mj than those RX
drugs that can cause all sorts of damage
and even death from taking-- c'mon nobody
has ever died from or od'ed on mj. this
is a no-brainer--but like Drew said they
like to equate mj with heroin!!! Geez!!the
world we live in --
Of course smoking marijuana should not be
legal for those with any illness since it
has not been proven to be safe (a
requirement of the FDA to approve any
drug) . Marijuana is today just like
cigarettes were in the 1950s...it is chic
for everyone to be doing it, but just as
with cigarettes in the 1950s it is assumed
to be safe because the studies have not
been done to prove long term safety. It
has killed thousands if not tens of
thousands of people from cancer, lung
diseases, traffic fatalities, and drug
culture crimes. It is a no-brainer for
the FDA.
|
bobbette
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 121 Location: ,
Thanks: 20
Thanked:3
online
Posted: 01-31-08 22:30pm
The Fda is not doing long term research
on some of these new rx drugs they put out
there that are damaging peoples' organs
and in some cases even killing them-- i am
sure you have seen the commercials and
heard of the litagation. Personally , i
think the fda is a joke...like so many
other agencies these days --they are not
doing their jobs and throwing these drugs
out there for pharmaceutical profits. It
is a fact that cigarettes and alcohol are
killers--the research on marjuana pros and
cons are at an all time high (no pun
intended)--there are no pros to cigarette
smoking or alcohol consumption
--none....however both of these are legal.
You actually think the fda is out there
to protect the people? i agree with u the
fda has no brain or conscience.
Peace==did u even watch and listen to the
video????
|
backpain1955
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
Posted: 01-31-08 23:18pm
The FDA does not perform any research but
approves drugs submitted to it as "safe
and effective" insomuch as is possible
given the data available. If there is
insufficient data, then the FDA requires
further studies by the manufacturer.
|
bobbette
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 121 Location: ,
Thanks: 20
Thanked:3
online
Posted: 01-31-08 23:55pm
The fda is the overseer of all the drugs
that are put out there on the market for
human use. Yes, and again there is
something wrong with its checking and
balancing system when drugs that are
supposedly "safe and effective" wind up
killing people or causing irreversible
organ damage or lesser but still
significant side effects. And they even
have the audacity to promote some of these
drugs on tv and state that "death may
occur"--as the very last possible side
effect. Again, i say they are not doing
their job at protecting people from
potentially harmful drugs--neither are the
people doing the research. Why don't u do
some research on the fda kickbacks from
pharmaceutical companies? It does not
seem that further studying is being
expected by manufacturers of drugs that
they are publicly stating serious side
effects may occur!!! And that indeed
should be a "red flag" for the fda --or
they themselves will just know better not
to touch the drug.i would really like to
know if u bothered to view Drew Carey's
video or did u just vote 'no" on the poll.
|
backpain1955
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
Posted: 02-01-08 06:43am
I have no interest in what a comedian says
about marijuana.
The FDA does not promote drugs nor does it
advertise them on TV. Manufacturers list
all serious side effects as required by
law but if you note the stratification of
these events have been collated into
statistical probability segments in drug
information sheets. No drug is
completely safe, no chemical is completely
safe. The FDA's job is not to insure
products have no side effects with proper
or improper use. Their position is to
define the side effects, determine
relative risks of these side effects, then
if sufficiently safe to release on a
population when USED AS PRESCRIBED, permit
the manufacture, advertising, and sale of
the product. It should be pointed out,
the FDA is not a monolithic structure, nor
is it intransigent. The regulation
imposed on drugs today compared with 40
years ago is several orders of magnitude
greater. Don't you ever ponder why
acetaminophen or aspirin have very short
information sheets with virtually no side
effects at all listed? It is not because
there are not any side effects, nor are
the drugs safer than many prescription
drugs in the same classes today. The
reason is that the FDA has evolved over
time into an entity that requires full
disclosure for new drugs. You decry the
release of drugs with bad side
effects....well guess what? Acetaminophen
(Tylenol) kills hundreds to thousands of
people each year in the US as does
aspirin. There is no long list of side
effects during their advertisement since
they were approved using different
standards during a different era in which
far fewer clinical studies were required
before approval.
Certain delivery systems such as smoking a
drug have so many known inherently
malevolent side effects that consideration
of such would be verboten by the FDA. If
the FDA ever considered marijuana to be
made available, it would definitely not be
in a form in which causes cancer, lung
disease, liver damage, and death, but
would be in the form of a pill. Oh, the
recreational drug users posing as medical
orphans trying to get the drug "legally"
will state the drug is not effective as a
pill. But how would they know? They have
never tried it. The FDA may eventually
legalize some form of marijuana, but it
will not be smoked and it will not be in a
form that recreational users will want.
And if approved, it too will have a long
list of side effects including death.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-01-08 08:17am
backpain1955
wrote:
Of course smoking marijuana
should not be legal for those with any
illness since it has not been proven to be
safe (a requirement of the FDA to approve
any drug) . Marijuana is today just like
cigarettes were in the 1950s...it is chic
for everyone to be doing it, but just as
with cigarettes in the 1950s it is assumed
to be safe because the studies have not
been done to prove long term safety. It
has killed thousands if not tens of
thousands of people from cancer, lung
diseases, traffic fatalities, and drug
culture crimes. It is a no-brainer for
the FDA.
If marijuana is proven safe, will you be
for legalization for medical use?
|
backpain1955
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
Posted: 02-01-08 09:19am
Yes, but there will have to be a way to
separate it from the drug culture and
illegal activities that surround that
culture.
|
bobbette
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 121 Location: ,
Thanks: 20
Thanked:3
online
Posted: 02-01-08 10:11am
Of course the fda does not promote dugs
nor advertise on tv!!!! By "they" i meant
the pharmaceutical companies. It seems u
like play semantics and dwell on the
little things so as not to deal with what
is actually being said. If i say "they" ,
u automatically refer back to the fda
instead of the pharmaceutical companies
--give me a break --i am sure other people
know what i am talking about.... it is
lost on u.
|
homerx
Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3143 Location: , USA
Thanks: 356
Thanked:1091
FDA KICK BACKS from PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES Posted: 02-01-08 10:37am
bobbette
wrote:
Of course the fda does not
promote dugs nor advertise on tv!!!! By
"they" i meant the pharmaceutical
companies. It seems u like play semantics
and dwell on the little things so as not
to deal with what is actually being said.
If i say "they" , u automatically refer
back to the fda instead of the
pharmaceutical companies --give me a break
--i am sure other people know what i am
talking about.... it is lost on
u.
In increasing numbers, pharmaceutical
fraud whistleblowers have come out of the
woodwork to target the pharmaceutical
industry. Several hundred pharmaceutical
fraud cases covering more than 500 drugs
are now under investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice under the False
Claims Act. Settlement of the first 16
pharmaceutical fraud cases (including
kickbacks, Medicaid rebate fraud, and best
price violations) brought by
whistleblowers has returned over $4
billion to the U.S. On the radar screen in
addition to pricing schemes, off-label
marketing fraud and pharmaceutical
kickbacks, are NDA fraud, cGMP fraud,
clinical trial fraud, average sales price
fraud, Medicaid rebate fraud, and a
variety of other fraudulent schemes
exposed by whistleblowers.
Recent News Focus:
Nolan & Auerbach represents
whistleblowers in Schering-Plough Qui Tam
Case
2 of the 3 whistleblowers in this case are
clients of Nolan & Auerbach. Their
recovery relates to the off-label
marketing of Temodar, Rebetron and Intron
A. The final relator share recovery by our
two clients is over $12 million.
In January 2007, Schering Sales Corp. and
its parent company were sentenced to pay
$435 million as part of a settlement with
the Justice Department over accusations it
improperly marketed drugs for unapproved
uses and lied to the government about drug
prices. Under the settlement which was
announced in August 2006, Schering Sales
pleaded guilty to conspiracy and agreed to
pay a criminal fine of $180 million. Its
parent company, Schering-Plough Corp.,
agreed to pay another $255 million to
resolve civil aspects of the case,
including a qui tam lawsuit. The qui tam
lawsuit included allegations that
Schering-Plough marketed drugs for uses
that had not been approved by the Food
& Drug Administration. One drug was
Temodar, a drug the FDA approved only to
treat a rare type of brain tumor called
anaplastic astrocytoma. The company also
promoted the unapproved use of Intron A
for the treatment of cancer on the surface
of the bladder.
Kickbacks
In April 2007 the Government announced
that Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.
will plead guilty to a single count of
offering to an outside vendor a kickback
in the form of an award of a contract to
manage a Genotropin patient assistance
program as an inducement for recommending
the purchase of its medicines.
Federal law prohibits pharmaceutical
kickback fraud because it is thought to
color the judgment of the physician, i.e.
the physician will prescribe a
prescription drug based not on what is
best and economical for the patient, but
based upon what prescription drug product
most increases the physician's bottom
line. This is bad for the patient and bad
for Medicare, Medicaid and other
Government healthcare programs. Other
examples of kickbacks are as follows:
Offering Pharmaceutical Kickbacks to
Physicians in the Form of Phony Drug
Studies - Some pharmaceutical companies
have provided remuneration for clinical
studies as a means to induce physicians to
prescribe their products. The "research"
performed has no legitimate value, and is
merely a pretext for payments for
referrals.
"Phony Speaker fees" paid for by
Honoraria - Some pharmaceutical companies
have used "honorarium" fees or "speaker"
fees for physician marketing. Approved by
management, they were ostensibly
compensation to physicians for agreeing to
speak at a formal speaking engagement. In
most instances, they were kickbacks for
prescriptions, with the physician never
speaking at any formal function.
Phony Grants - Approved by management,
pharmaceutical sales representatives have
been allowed by certain companies to give
"grants" to physicians, physician groups
and medical facilities ostensibly for an
educational program or research program.
They have actually been used to provide
kickbacks to physicians and companies to
do whatever they wanted with the money, in
return for business.
Phony Unlimited Preceptorships -
Preceptorships are ostensibly a teaching
session in which a physician would teach
the sales representatives certain
technical aspects of his practice in
exchange for a sum of money, say $500.00.
If the preceptorships were used to induce
the physicians to prescribe a drug product
(rather than in exchange for teaching),
the payment violates the Anti-kickback
Statute.
Phony Investigator Meetings - In some
pharmaceutical companies, investigator
meetings are ostensibly called for
physicians to talk about potential
non-indicated uses of drugs. Sales
representatives are allowed and instructed
to spend lavishly on all physicians, both
the speakers and invitees. It has been
typical for investigator meetings to last
only two hours, yet pharmaceutical
companies paid for the physicians'
airfare, hotel, golf, spa treatments, etc.
at luxury hotels around the country.
Advisory Board Meetings - These
meetings are typically for the ostensible
purpose of getting input/feedback from
physicians on drug performance, how they
treat disease states. During Advisory
Board meetings, honoraria, lavish
entertainment and expenses for physicians
have been paid for by the pharmaceutical
companies.
Offering Pharmaceutical Kickbacks to
Physicians in the Form of Samples - Some
pharmaceutical companies have encouraged
and facilitated the widespread provision
of free vials of injectable drugs to
physicians. How much the physician is
given depends upon what the sales
representatives negotiate. It is
attractive to the physicians because each
vial provided as a "free sample" is worth
from $100.00 to $1,000.00 in revenue. Due
to this inducement, the physician then
determines that it would be quite
profitable to start treating his patients
with the injectable drug that he profits
most on.
A physician and a former vice president
for sales for TAP Pharmaceutical Products
("TAP") exposed a pharmaceutical kickback
scheme in a case, which settled for $875
million ($290 million in criminal fines
and $585 million in civil damages and
penalties). TAP, Abbott Laboratories'
joint venture with Takeda Chemicals of
Japan, pled guilty to a criminal charge of
conspiring with doctors to overbill
government insurers for Lupron. The
allegations involved manipulating the AWP
(used at the time to set reimbursement
rates for the Medicare program), and
providing pharmaceutical kickbacks in the
form of free samples to physicians.
Off-label Marketing
Off-label whistleblowers have caused
several pharmaceutical companies to modify
their illegal promotions where the FDA has
not.
In April 2007 the Government announced
that Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC
entered into a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement with the Department of Justice
(DOJ) that includes a fine of $15 million
to address the improper promotion of
Genotropin, supposedly based upon a full
self-disclosure of the off-label promotion
of Genotropin by a Pharmacia subsidiary
before Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer.
In May, 2004, Pfizer, Inc.'s
Warner-Lambert unit agreed settle a qui
tam lawsuit that alleged it promoted its
epilepsy drug Neurontin, for uses not
approved by the FDA. In addition to
pleading guilty to criminal charges (which
included a $240 million criminal fine)
that it misbranded the drug, the company
paid a civil fine of $152 million and
agreed to pay an additional $38 million to
various state consumer protection
agencies, bringing the total settlement
amount to $430 million for this
pharmaceutical fraud case.
Clinical Trial Fraud
An article that appeared in The Wall
Street Journal Europe reveals how
pharmaceutical trials sponsored by
pharmaceutical companies as well as those
conducted by the government and other
public entities may not always produce the
same results, with results seemingly too
often being in favor of the entity funding
the study. For example, in an analysis
published in the American Journal of
Psychiatry, it was found that in every
publicly available trial funded by Pharma
that compared five new antipsychotic drugs
against each another, the results of nine
out of 10 studies concluded that the best
drug was the one manufactured by the
pharmaceutical company sponsoring the
study. The article suggests that such
divergent results can be the result of
biases in trial design and even in
interpreting the study outcome. Experts
say that this situation is even more
prevalent in trials that measure
symptomatic relief as opposed to whether
or not a disease was actually cured, as
such trials lend themselves to less
stringent results interpretation this is a
case of pharmaceutical fraud. Nolan &
Auerbach is currently representing
whistleblowers in sealed qui tam cases
involving drugs that were approved by the
FDA based upon fraudulent manipulation of
clinical trial data - clinical trial
fraud.
cGMP Fraud
A corollary of clinical trial fraud are
violations of the current Good
Manufacturing Practices. cGMP fraud is a
practice that also frustrates the
scientific process and jeopardizes the
integrity of the drug product. "cGMP"
fraud is the acronym for the current good
manufacturing practice regulations.
The cGMP regulations stem from
Congressional concern over the danger that
impure and otherwise adulterated drugs
might escape detection under a system
predicated only on seizure of drugs shown
to be in fact adulterated. That is,
Congress desired to require manufacturers
to abide by laws that, if complied with
during the manufacturing stage, would
theoretically prevent pharmaceuticals from
contamination, bioavailability, or potency
defects, for example. The cGMPs require
manufacturers to have adequately equipped
manufacturing facilities, adequately
trained personnel, stringent control over
the manufacturing process appropriate
laboratory controls, complete and accurate
records, reports, appropriate finished
product examination, and so on.
|
homerx
Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3143 Location: , USA
Thanks: 356
Thanked:1091
Posted: 02-01-08 10:42am
backpain1955
wrote:
I have no interest in what a
comedian says about marijuana.
The FDA does not promote drugs nor does it
advertise them on TV. Manufacturers list
all serious side effects as required by
law but if you note the stratification of
these events have been collated into
statistical probability segments in drug
information sheets. No drug is
completely safe, no chemical is completely
safe. The FDA's job is not to insure
products have no side effects with proper
or improper use. Their position is to
define the side effects, determine
relative risks of these side effects, then
if sufficiently safe to release on a
population when USED AS PRESCRIBED, permit
the manufacture, advertising, and sale of
the product. It should be pointed out,
the FDA is not a monolithic structure, nor
is it intransigent. The regulation
imposed on drugs today compared with 40
years ago is several orders of magnitude
greater. Don't you ever ponder why
acetaminophen or aspirin have very short
information sheets with virtually no side
effects at all listed? It is not because
there are not any side effects, nor are
the drugs safer than many prescription
drugs in the same classes today. The
reason is that the FDA has evolved over
time into an entity that requires full
disclosure for new drugs. You decry the
release of drugs with bad side
effects....well guess what? Acetaminophen
(Tylenol) kills hundreds to thousands of
people each year in the US as does
aspirin. There is no long list of side
effects during their advertisement since
they were approved using different
standards during a different era in which
far fewer clinical studies were required
before approval.
Certain delivery systems such as smoking a
drug have so many known inherently
malevolent side effects that consideration
of such would be verboten by the FDA. If
the FDA ever considered marijuana to be
made available, it would definitely not be
in a form in which causes cancer, lung
disease, liver damage, and death, but
would be in the form of a pill. Oh, the
recreational drug users posing as medical
orphans trying to get the drug "legally"
will state the drug is not effective as a
pill. But how would they know? They have
never tried it. The FDA may eventually
legalize some form of marijuana, but it
will not be smoked and it will not be in a
form that recreational users will want.
And if approved, it too will have a long
list of side effects including
death.
Talking to old school folks like you is a
waste of breath, algosdoc!
And another thing algosdoc, why are you
still posing as backpain 1955?????? So
pathetic..keep reaching....
|
homerx
Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3143 Location: , USA
Thanks: 356
Thanked:1091
Posted: 02-01-08 10:53am
asspain1955 wrote "I have no interest in
what a comedian says about marijuana. "
Then why are you spouting off,
ALGOSDOC???? Watch the video or shut up
already...
Bobbette did not say that the FDA
advertised drugs. The only kind of doctor
you are is a spin doctor and a fraud,
algosdoc/asspain1955....
|
homerx
Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3143 Location: , USA
Thanks: 356
Thanked:1091
Posted: 02-01-08 11:12am
futureshock
wrote:
backpain1955
wrote:
Of course smoking marijuana
should not be legal for those with any
illness since it has not been proven to be
safe (a requirement of the FDA to approve
any drug) . Marijuana is today just like
cigarettes were in the 1950s...it is chic
for everyone to be doing it, but just as
with cigarettes in the 1950s it is assumed
to be safe because the studies have not
been done to prove long term safety. It
has killed thousands if not tens of
thousands of people from cancer, lung
diseases, traffic fatalities, and drug
culture crimes. It is a no-brainer for
the FDA.
If marijuana is proven safe, will you be
for legalization for medical
use?
futureshock, this person has at least 2
other profiles under different names as
suspected by the admin. they go by
backpain1955 and algosdoc.FYI
By the way backpain1955/algosdoc, you
STILL haven't been on the back pain forums
according to your profile....not even one
time...and I directed you to it and you
said you would DEFINITELY go to it for
your "back pain" and yet, low and behold,
you have only hit the medical marijuana
threads....does anyone else find that
odd??
|
bobbette
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 121 Location: ,
Thanks: 20
Thanked:3
online
Posted: 02-01-08 11:38am
Homerx--of course it is more than odd--but
let the baby have it's bottle--it'll be
empty soon-----B---Isn't Drew Carey not
only a very intelligent , amusing
comedian but also a long-standing activist
for many worthy causes?? I have such
disdain for people who discredit others
without even knowing about who they really
are and what good they are doing in the
world. Someone who won't even watch a
video re: the topic posted on this site is
not even worth talking to--closed-minded.
plp B
|
homerx
Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3143 Location: , USA
Thanks: 356
Thanked:1091
Drew Carey-Libertarian Posted: 02-01-08 11:50am
Here's what TV sitcom star Drew Carey
doesn't like: censorship, anti-smoking
laws, drug laws, immigration laws, "stupid
big government in general" -- and award
shows. (They're "publicity stunts" for
needy actors, he explains.)
Here's what Drew Carey does like: freedom,
competition, free minds, free markets, and
-- he won't deny -- beer, dirty jokes, and
gambling.
Those likes and dislikes tell you pretty
much everything you need to know about
Carey. He's not afraid to speak his mind.
He's proud of his blue-collar
sensibilities. And he's a libertarian.
Carey left no doubts about his political
philosophy in a November 1997 interview
with Reason magazine. He had a quick
answer when asked, "What's your basic
attitude toward government?" Carey said:
"The less the better. As far as your
personal goals are and what you actually
want to do with your life, it should never
have to do with the government. You should
never depend on the government for your
retirement, your financial security, for
anything. If you do, you're screwed."
Carey's libertarian perspective extended
to a wide range of issues. Some examples
from the Reason interview:
• On censorship: "What right does [a
politician] have to tell me what I can and
cannot watch? Change the channel if you
don't like what's on TV!"
• On the free market: "Some people
don't like competition because it makes
them work harder, better. I'm competitive
at everything. It's a natural driving
force, a way of testing yourself, of
measuring how you're doing. How can people
not know that competition makes everything
better?"
• On drug laws: "Liquor prohibition
led to the rise of organized crime in
America, and drug prohibition has led to
the rise of the gang problems we have
now."
• On government power: "P.J.
O'Rourke once said the government has
passed enough laws -- it should just stop.
It oversteps its bounds so often. Giving
it a little bit of power is like getting a
little bit pregnant..."
• On freedom versus security: "I
think a lot of people are afraid of
freedom. They want their lives to be
controlled, to be put into a box... People
like that cradle-to-grave concept because
it says you don't have to think too much,
you don't have to worry too much, because
someone else is looking out for you. But
that also means you can't do as much as
you want. Why should someone else put a
limit on how much fun I can have; how much
I can accomplish?"
Carey's career is a tribute to exactly how
much -- in the Washington Post's classic
description -- "a tubby dork in a crew cut
and thick-rimmed glasses" can accomplish.
After a stint in the U.S. Marine Reserves
(where he adopted his trademark crew cut),
the Cleveland native spent several years
doing stand-up comedy. He was catapulted
to household-name status in 1995, thanks
to his top-rated ABC sitcom, The Drew
Carey Show. The program, which ran for
nine years, starred Carey as a put-upon
office worker in Cleveland, and combined
standard blue-collar sitcom gags with
innovative song-and-dance sequences. (And
an occasional libertarian plug: On a
January 15, 1997 show, Carey's character
wore a Reason tee-shirt.) The Drew Carey
Show won the comedian two People's Choice
Awards.
In 1997, Carey published the best-selling
book, Dirty Jokes and Beer: Stories of the
Unrefined, which combined autobiography,
short stories, an inside look at his TV
show, and bawdy jokes.
Carey also hosted the comedy
improvisational shows Whose Line Is it
Anyway? (ABC, 1998-2004) and Drew Carey's
Green Screen Show (The WB, 2004). In 2007,
he took over as host of the popular
syndicated game show, The Price Is Right.
Despite all the success, Carey's
libertarian views haven't changed. In
1998, he engaged in an act of civil
disobedience when he lit up a cigarette in
a bar in California to protest the state's
new anti-smoking law. "I don't think there
should be a total ban," he told CNN. "It
should be up to each bar owner and patron
to decide if they want to smoke or not."
And in 2004, Carey penned an introduction
to a Reason retrospective book, Choice:
The Best of Reason. "We need a magazine
like yours to help fight the stupid drug
laws, the stupid immigration laws, and
stupid big government in general," he
wrote. "'Free Minds and Free Markets!'
Right on, my man. Freedom!"
-- Bill Winter
Quotable
"I never thought I was a libertarian until
I picked up Reason magazine and realized I
agree with everything they had printed.."
-- Drew Carey in Time (August 9, 2007)
|
o0Heather
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 Posts: 26 Location: ,
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-01-08 20:15pm
backpain1955
wrote:
Of course smoking marijuana
should not be legal for those with any
illness since it has not been proven to be
safe (a requirement of the FDA to approve
any drug) . Marijuana is today just like
cigarettes were in the 1950s...it is chic
for everyone to be doing it, but just as
with cigarettes in the 1950s it is assumed
to be safe because the studies have not
been done to prove long term safety. It
has killed thousands if not tens of
thousands of people from cancer, lung
diseases, traffic fatalities, and drug
culture crimes. It is a no-brainer for
the FDA.
If I was dying of cancer I wouldnt give a
rats ass about the FDA. Medical marijuana
also administers the marijuana through a
smokeless pipe. It cost about $300 for the
apparatus and you can get the same effect
as smoking it. It heats the marijuana to a
temp that releases the thc but doesnt put
harmfull smoke in your lungs. There are
also pills availible. Or you could always
bake up some brownies, yum! Its not
harmfull in any of these forms. And the
way the FDA works is total BS they do get
kickbacks even if they dont make the
advertisements as you say they are getting
paid for passing the drugs.
Also the goverment makes more on fine's
and arrest, probation, court cost ext.
Than if they were to legalize it and just
tax it. Just like they probably make more
money on keeping alchohol legal, they can
tax it and then arrest you for DUI, public
intoxication, abuse,....
Marijuana doesnt cause those things so if
they made it legal they would only get $$
from taxing it.
I think medical marijuana should be given
to those in possibly terminal cases.
oOHeather, I couldn't have said it
better...Thanks for taking my POLL!! Peace
and Love,HomerX
|
bobbette
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 Posts: 121 Location: ,
Thanks: 20
Thanked:3
online
Posted: 02-01-08 21:15pm
Thanx heather!!! i did not know about the
smokeless pipe-- how cool. Sorry, it was
my error to infer that the fda did
research-- they are the watchdogs for the
research being done and of course the
pharmaceutical companies are the ones
doing the ads-- i had not had my coffee
completely downed when i wrote that-- but
they get kickbacks anyway. Some people
think our govt and govt. agencies are
doing a good job and looking out for our
best interests. Bobbette
