Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
RainDog
RainDog's Journal
RainDog's Journal
February 6, 2012
Most cancer patients currently being treated with medical marijuana are advised of the option only in the advanced stages of the illness, according to researchers.
The evidence continues to grow from all around the world that indicates marijuana should be legal and available to people NO MATTER where they live as part of pain treatment.
How much more evidence does the DEA need before it moves to correct its mistaken classification of marijuana as a substance with no medical value? How many more years? It's past time for this agency to stop its war on Americans with medical issues who may benefit from cannabis.
Israeli researchers say more doctors should recommend marijuana to cancer patients
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-researchers-say-more-doctors-should-recommend-marijuana-to-cancer-patients-1.409918Most cancer patients currently being treated with medical marijuana are advised of the option only in the advanced stages of the illness, according to researchers.
More than two-thirds of cancer patients who were prescribed medical marijuana to combat pain are reportedly satisfied with the treatment, according to a comprehensive study conducted for the first time in Israel.
The study - conducted recently at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, in conjunction with the Israel Cancer Association - involved 264 cancer patients who were treated with medical marijuana for a full year.
Researchers found that an average of 325 days passed between the time that patients were diagnosed with cancer and the time that they submitted permit requests to grow or possess medical marijuana. About 81 percent of those requests cited pain resulting from the illness. Some 8 percent of patients requested medical marijuana to combat nausea, while another 8 percent complained of weakness.
The study shows that 39 percent of respondents were initially advised of the treatment by friends, other patients or the media, rather than by their doctors. According to the study, "The treatment should be offered to patients by trained medical teams because we are dealing with an effective treatment."
The study - conducted recently at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, in conjunction with the Israel Cancer Association - involved 264 cancer patients who were treated with medical marijuana for a full year.
Researchers found that an average of 325 days passed between the time that patients were diagnosed with cancer and the time that they submitted permit requests to grow or possess medical marijuana. About 81 percent of those requests cited pain resulting from the illness. Some 8 percent of patients requested medical marijuana to combat nausea, while another 8 percent complained of weakness.
The study shows that 39 percent of respondents were initially advised of the treatment by friends, other patients or the media, rather than by their doctors. According to the study, "The treatment should be offered to patients by trained medical teams because we are dealing with an effective treatment."
The evidence continues to grow from all around the world that indicates marijuana should be legal and available to people NO MATTER where they live as part of pain treatment.
How much more evidence does the DEA need before it moves to correct its mistaken classification of marijuana as a substance with no medical value? How many more years? It's past time for this agency to stop its war on Americans with medical issues who may benefit from cannabis.
February 6, 2012
In God We Must: Why won’t the U.S. accept its atheists?
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_atheists_.single.html....David Silverman, president of American Atheists...: “We challenge the whole concept that you can’t be good without God. We challenge the idea that religion is important in the first place, and that really makes them uncomfortable.”
...Psychotherapist Marlene Winell, who practises in Berkeley, California, specialises in “recovery from harmful religion” and advocates religious trauma syndrome as a psychological diagnosis. “There are so many places in the US that are just saturated with religion. Everything is interwoven – their families, their schools, their business – so that if you were not part of the club, part of the group, you get ostracised and people go through really horrible experiences of not belonging any more.” If that sounds like the experience of leaving a cult, perhaps that’s because, as Winell argues, “in its raw form, fundamentalist Christianity that believes that the Bible is the word of God is basically a giant cult.”
...A now famous University of Minnesota study concluded that Americans ranked atheists lower than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society”. Nearly 48 per cent said they “would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group” (many more than the next most unpopular category, Muslims, at 33.5 per cent). No wonder atheist groups talk of modelling their campaigns on the civil rights, gay and women’s liberation movements. It is not that they claim their persecution is on the same level but that they suggest the way forward requires a combination of organising and consciousness-raising. “We want people to realise that some of their best friends are atheists, some of their doctors, and lawyers and fire chiefs and all the rest of them are atheists,” says Dennett.
...There’s another reason why atheists might be better off out than in. Researching his PhD, the sociologist Chris Garneau of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that, although people who self-identify as atheists are more likely to experience stigma than other seculars, such as agnostics and humanists, those who are out are significantly less likely to report psychological distress than those who struggle to keep their dissent silent.
...Psychotherapist Marlene Winell, who practises in Berkeley, California, specialises in “recovery from harmful religion” and advocates religious trauma syndrome as a psychological diagnosis. “There are so many places in the US that are just saturated with religion. Everything is interwoven – their families, their schools, their business – so that if you were not part of the club, part of the group, you get ostracised and people go through really horrible experiences of not belonging any more.” If that sounds like the experience of leaving a cult, perhaps that’s because, as Winell argues, “in its raw form, fundamentalist Christianity that believes that the Bible is the word of God is basically a giant cult.”
...A now famous University of Minnesota study concluded that Americans ranked atheists lower than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society”. Nearly 48 per cent said they “would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group” (many more than the next most unpopular category, Muslims, at 33.5 per cent). No wonder atheist groups talk of modelling their campaigns on the civil rights, gay and women’s liberation movements. It is not that they claim their persecution is on the same level but that they suggest the way forward requires a combination of organising and consciousness-raising. “We want people to realise that some of their best friends are atheists, some of their doctors, and lawyers and fire chiefs and all the rest of them are atheists,” says Dennett.
...There’s another reason why atheists might be better off out than in. Researching his PhD, the sociologist Chris Garneau of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that, although people who self-identify as atheists are more likely to experience stigma than other seculars, such as agnostics and humanists, those who are out are significantly less likely to report psychological distress than those who struggle to keep their dissent silent.
February 3, 2012
52% of Rhode Island Voters Support Legalizing and Regulating Marijuana Like Alcohol
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/02/03/52-of-rhode-island-voters-support-legalizing-and-regulating-marijuana-like-alcohol/In addition, the poll found an impressive 65 percent of the state would support dropping the penalty for marijuana possession down to just a modest civil fine. That is even a greater level of support than the 62.8 percent yes vote by which voters in Massachusetts, RI’s neighbor to the north, approved ballot initiative Question 2 that decriminalized marijuana possession in 2008. From MPP:
As a country we are quickly approaching a critical cultural and political tipping point on this issue.
Of those polled, an overwhelming 65% supported decreasing the penalties for simple possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by removing the possibility of jail time and making the offense a civil citation. Such a change received support from across the political spectrum, with 73% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans, and 60% of independents in favor of the measure. Two bills, H 7092 and S 2253, have been introduced in the Rhode Island House and Senate to remove the threat of arrest and jail for personal possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.
A majority of Rhode Islanders would like to go beyond the reforms proposed by H 7092 and S 2253. Of those polled, 52% would like to see all penalties for personal possession and use of marijuana removed and marijuana treated in a manner similar to alcohol, where it would be taxed, regulated, and sold in state-licensed stores to adults over the age of 21. This idea also received bipartisan support and was backed by 55% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans. Legislation to establish such a system will likely be introduced in Rhode Island this year.
As a country we are quickly approaching a critical cultural and political tipping point on this issue.
February 1, 2012
62% of California Voters Support Regulating Cannabis like Wine
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/02/01/62-percent-of-california-voters-support-regulating-marijuana-like-wine/A new poll found that 62 percent of likely California voters would support a ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like wine. From the Regulate Marijuana like Wine campaign:
The Field poll from April 2009 found that 56 percent of California voters supported legalizing marijuana for recreational use and taxing the proceeds. The SurveyUSA poll from Apirl 2010 found that 56 percent of California adults thought the state should legalize marijuana while 42 percent thought the state shouldn’t. Polling of all adults instead of just registered voters tends to find more liberal results.
In 2010 California Proposition 19 only failed by a vote of 46.5% yes – 53.5% no. That was a non-presidential year that also had an unusually conservative turnout, a very unfavorable climate for the initiative. Given that the general trend in the country has been towards more acceptance of marijuana legalization, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if the voters in California approve a marijuana legalization ballot initiative before the end of this decade.
A recent poll reveals that California voters, by a 62% to 35% margin, with 3% unsure, support a ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like wine. The statewide poll, by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, Inc. surveyed 800 likely voters and found that 80% of the respondents agreed to the statement, “State and federal drug laws are outdated and have failed, therefore, we need to take a new approach that makes sense for today.”
The Field poll from April 2009 found that 56 percent of California voters supported legalizing marijuana for recreational use and taxing the proceeds. The SurveyUSA poll from Apirl 2010 found that 56 percent of California adults thought the state should legalize marijuana while 42 percent thought the state shouldn’t. Polling of all adults instead of just registered voters tends to find more liberal results.
In 2010 California Proposition 19 only failed by a vote of 46.5% yes – 53.5% no. That was a non-presidential year that also had an unusually conservative turnout, a very unfavorable climate for the initiative. Given that the general trend in the country has been towards more acceptance of marijuana legalization, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if the voters in California approve a marijuana legalization ballot initiative before the end of this decade.
February 1, 2012
You can compare this lab research with Rick Simpson's experience...the video looks, as it is, entirely amateur.
Cannabis Science Research Co. (Robert Melamedes) promotes cancer-curing cannabis claims
The images that go with the series of three pictures of various types of cancer are graphic. I'm not going to post the ones concerning brain cancer, but they're available at this link:
http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/breaking-news.html - go to "breaking news" on the right-hand of the page and you can open three different documents.
Cannabis Science is a for-profit cannabis research outfit. They have posted pictures of 3 different people who have self-treated cancerous lesions and demonstrated cannabis has done what Rick Simpson and others also claimed in "Run From the Cure" Simpson was threatened with arrest. Cannabis Science will likely make millions if they bring a product onto the market to treat cancer.
Anyway, all the info and pictures are in .pdf format on the site so I've created some jpgs from those so that I can post them here.
PROCEDURE AND RESULTS
The series of photos below documents the disappearance of a biopsied squamous cell tumor after self-administration of topical cannabis extracts over a 3 month period. After treatment with cannabis extract, the tumor was expelled from below the surface, killed, and healed.
The series of photos below documents the disappearance of a biopsied squamous cell tumor after self-administration of topical cannabis extracts over a 3 month period. After treatment with cannabis extract, the tumor was expelled from below the surface, killed, and healed.
You can compare this lab research with Rick Simpson's experience...the video looks, as it is, entirely amateur.
February 1, 2012
(that's Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein, director of the Florida Poison Information Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.)
okay. so, we don't see a lot of problems with synthetic THC, except 4 deaths have been attributed to Marinol (I don't know the circumstances of those, I'm just taking the information provided on overall cannabinoid stats from the govt.) and NO deaths have EVER been attributed to whole-plant cannabis, even when smoked - but the problem is... abuse, as in, using cannabis to get high, or more to the point, using cannabis recreationally, like someone might choose to have a glass of wine in the evening.
Surely Haney, who has excellent credentials, is aware of many people who choose to ingest rather than smoke cannabis...to get high, not for medical purposes. But Sativex is better because it's less effective, slower acting? And, therefore...magically not the same as edible cannabis? But the same is true for cannabis that is eaten rather than smoked.
But then there's some truth - couched in a little fear.
"Marijuana, in the scheme of things, is a relativity safe drug," Bernstein said. "Even as a smokeable drug of abuse, it's relatively safe…compared to cocaine or heroin."
Not only compared to cocaine and heroin! Also compared to COFFEE, ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES. all legal and unregulated by the Controlled Substances Act, btw. oh yeah, and aspirin, as the DEA itself noted.
We can even compare legal and illegal substances and find that... why, legal substances are more harmful than quite a few illegal ones.
Or, we can see that cannabis compares to coffee more than any other common or illegal substance and, therefore, such a comparison would have been a more honest evaluation of its safety - I guess "smokeable" is the issue? I don't know anyone who bothers to smoke coffee beans, tho I suppose it could be done.
Isn't it interesting how it is possible to frame an issue by, first, ignoring the dependency/harm of a legal substance compared to an illegal one (both smokeable) or to other legal substances that demonstrate greater harm - and yet... are legal. Coffee doesn't have quite the "shark week" frisson of heroin or cocaine when discussing something that's illegal, even if it's the most comparable substance in terms of danger, addiction potential, withdrawal... and I also have to wonder if anyone has ever entered a substance abuse program for coffee dependency. I don't know - I kind of doubt insurance would pay for such a thing.
Here's the "tagline" for this infotainment content provider for their various articles that are picked up by various websites:
Here's my version:
But, you know what's great about this article that is appearing on various websites? The comments from readers. People are LAUGHING at this attempt to pretend Sativex is not simply cannabis that has been packaged and intends to be sold by a pharma and people KNOW that cannabis prohibition is bullshit.
I think that the internet is going to kill prohibition. I hope it's soon.
The American people are on to this bullshit
So, I was just scrolling thru digg, something I do occasionally, and saw a top news thread from live science titled "Marijuana Mouth Spray: Will Cancer Pain Reliever Be Abused?" and read it, then saw it was from another source, a sister site, MyHealthDailyNews - the sort of infotainment Yahoo and other provider sorts of sites pick up and yes, der google showed that this same link had been picked up by Scientific American - an outfit with a stellar reputation. The originating site for the article is tech media network - a "new media" journalism group that creates feeds for various sites.
all fwiw.
The article is about Sativex, the whole-plant cannabis product that will be introduced to the American market, projections from this article state, in 2014. Here's the subtitle for the article:
It takes longer for people to get high from this oral form of marijuana, so there is little potential for abuse
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marijuana-mouth-spray
Scientific American? really? You're really publishing this? Because sativex is ingested, like cannabis edibles, you're buying into the propaganda that this makes Sativex different than cannabis?
Really?
A poison expert states there is no doubt Sativex will be abused. What, exactly, constitutes abuse? Using cannabis in the form of Sativex to get high? So, is taking a drink the same as alcohol abuse too? I'm so confused. Maybe I'm supposed to be.
...because the drug is delivered through ingestion, rather than smoking, it would take much longer to have an effect — at least an hour, compared with the minutes it takes to get high after smoking marijuana, said Margaret Haney, a professor of clinical neurobiology at Columbia University. This means drug users seeking a high would be less likely to abuse it. "Smoking is a really effective way to get a chemical into the brain," Haney said. The mouth spray "is a far safer administration,"she said.
And Marinol and Cesamet, which are also administered orally, have a low rate of abuse. "We don’t see a lot of problems from [those]," Bernstein said.
And Marinol and Cesamet, which are also administered orally, have a low rate of abuse. "We don’t see a lot of problems from [those]," Bernstein said.
(that's Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein, director of the Florida Poison Information Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.)
okay. so, we don't see a lot of problems with synthetic THC, except 4 deaths have been attributed to Marinol (I don't know the circumstances of those, I'm just taking the information provided on overall cannabinoid stats from the govt.) and NO deaths have EVER been attributed to whole-plant cannabis, even when smoked - but the problem is... abuse, as in, using cannabis to get high, or more to the point, using cannabis recreationally, like someone might choose to have a glass of wine in the evening.
Surely Haney, who has excellent credentials, is aware of many people who choose to ingest rather than smoke cannabis...to get high, not for medical purposes. But Sativex is better because it's less effective, slower acting? And, therefore...magically not the same as edible cannabis? But the same is true for cannabis that is eaten rather than smoked.
But then there's some truth - couched in a little fear.
"Marijuana, in the scheme of things, is a relativity safe drug," Bernstein said. "Even as a smokeable drug of abuse, it's relatively safe…compared to cocaine or heroin."
Not only compared to cocaine and heroin! Also compared to COFFEE, ALCOHOL and CIGARETTES. all legal and unregulated by the Controlled Substances Act, btw. oh yeah, and aspirin, as the DEA itself noted.
We can even compare legal and illegal substances and find that... why, legal substances are more harmful than quite a few illegal ones.
Or, we can see that cannabis compares to coffee more than any other common or illegal substance and, therefore, such a comparison would have been a more honest evaluation of its safety - I guess "smokeable" is the issue? I don't know anyone who bothers to smoke coffee beans, tho I suppose it could be done.
Isn't it interesting how it is possible to frame an issue by, first, ignoring the dependency/harm of a legal substance compared to an illegal one (both smokeable) or to other legal substances that demonstrate greater harm - and yet... are legal. Coffee doesn't have quite the "shark week" frisson of heroin or cocaine when discussing something that's illegal, even if it's the most comparable substance in terms of danger, addiction potential, withdrawal... and I also have to wonder if anyone has ever entered a substance abuse program for coffee dependency. I don't know - I kind of doubt insurance would pay for such a thing.
Here's the "tagline" for this infotainment content provider for their various articles that are picked up by various websites:
Pass it on: Because it takes longer for people to get high from an oral form of marijuana, there is little potential for abuse of a marijuana-based mouth spray.
Here's my version:
Pass it on: Because Sativex and cannabis are virtually the same, there is little potential for abuse for either and neither should be illegal.
But, you know what's great about this article that is appearing on various websites? The comments from readers. People are LAUGHING at this attempt to pretend Sativex is not simply cannabis that has been packaged and intends to be sold by a pharma and people KNOW that cannabis prohibition is bullshit.
I think that the internet is going to kill prohibition. I hope it's soon.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784
