DonR101395
New member
Antipitas,
Are you aware that they can decide not to fund any national security project they choose to not fund?
Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life
- Thread starter Redworm
- Start date
Antipitas,
Are you aware that they can decide not to fund any national security project they choose to not fund?
FirstFreedom
Moderator
It's an excellent point that if the right to contraception and abortion fall under the penunbra of rights found by the court in Griswold & Roe, then that entails the right to make personal medical decisions about one's own body - if a medical doctor prescribes it, then surely this is indistinguishable in any principled way from the right to abortion for the health of the mother?
This sure has a LOT to do with medical marijuana?
One of our Medics was diagnosed with Type II Glaucoma. He was placed on MM to allow the pressures in his eyes to be reduced. It worked, for about eight months. During the time, he couldn't work, and wasn't even fit for office work. He said that the MM messed his life up more than the Glaucoma. He's now 100% retired on disability, and blind.
MM isn't a very effective pain reliever. It may dull the pain, but even that is a transient condition. As with most inhaled substances, after a short period of time, you need more to achieve the same results.
The fact that the woman has scoliosis has nothing to do with the cancer, or the pain. The condition is a curvature of the spine. Only in the worst cases does this allow the pain causing arthritis to be debilitating.
For true pain relief in hospice cases, they usually prescribe morphine sulfate. It works, but leaves the patient nearly comatose. A valid point can be made for the use of Heroin during the end phase, as it allows the patient freedom from pain, and lucidity. Both are exquisitely addictive, but death has a way of curing that.
Hydrocodone and Oxycontin would both relieve the pain caused by the tumor. Both carry the risk of addiction, but are easily managed. Before you ask, my son is 38, and in the 4th year after being diagnosed with ALS. Prior to that, he had injured his shoulder, and was scheduled for surgery. The diagnosis rendered the surgery impractical, as rehab wouldn't have been effective. The constant pain has been relieved by Hydrocodone, with OXY as a back-up for the times when he is man-handled and his shoulder flares up badly. I was certified as a Maryland EMT-P for 10 years.
One of our Medics was diagnosed with Type II Glaucoma. He was placed on MM to allow the pressures in his eyes to be reduced. It worked, for about eight months. During the time, he couldn't work, and wasn't even fit for office work. He said that the MM messed his life up more than the Glaucoma. He's now 100% retired on disability, and blind.
MM isn't a very effective pain reliever. It may dull the pain, but even that is a transient condition. As with most inhaled substances, after a short period of time, you need more to achieve the same results.
The fact that the woman has scoliosis has nothing to do with the cancer, or the pain. The condition is a curvature of the spine. Only in the worst cases does this allow the pain causing arthritis to be debilitating.
For true pain relief in hospice cases, they usually prescribe morphine sulfate. It works, but leaves the patient nearly comatose. A valid point can be made for the use of Heroin during the end phase, as it allows the patient freedom from pain, and lucidity. Both are exquisitely addictive, but death has a way of curing that.
Hydrocodone and Oxycontin would both relieve the pain caused by the tumor. Both carry the risk of addiction, but are easily managed. Before you ask, my son is 38, and in the 4th year after being diagnosed with ALS. Prior to that, he had injured his shoulder, and was scheduled for surgery. The diagnosis rendered the surgery impractical, as rehab wouldn't have been effective. The constant pain has been relieved by Hydrocodone, with OXY as a back-up for the times when he is man-handled and his shoulder flares up badly. I was certified as a Maryland EMT-P for 10 years.
invention_45
New member
I worked with a guy who got pancreatic cancer. His wife was a RN at a big medical center in Miami.
As time went by, he ended up carrying around a pump (presumably morphine) and using dilaudid.
They did not stop the pain.
It was necessary for him to undergo surgery in which nerves were severed in order to stop the pain, and even two months after that he still used the pump plus stronger dilaudid.
He lasted another 3-4 months.
Does anyone know whether MM would have helped him? He didn't try it, so it's unknown. But the pain was clearly not manageable using the most extreme narcotic methods.
One day a few weeks before he died he was sitting in my office. He had some control over the pump. He said "watch this". He pressed the dose button, and in a few seconds his eyes fell shut. He managed to get the words "it still hurts" out. It was about 20 seconds before he could open his eyes again.
As time went by, he ended up carrying around a pump (presumably morphine) and using dilaudid.
They did not stop the pain.
It was necessary for him to undergo surgery in which nerves were severed in order to stop the pain, and even two months after that he still used the pump plus stronger dilaudid.
He lasted another 3-4 months.
Does anyone know whether MM would have helped him? He didn't try it, so it's unknown. But the pain was clearly not manageable using the most extreme narcotic methods.
One day a few weeks before he died he was sitting in my office. He had some control over the pump. He said "watch this". He pressed the dose button, and in a few seconds his eyes fell shut. He managed to get the words "it still hurts" out. It was about 20 seconds before he could open his eyes again.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Well, that puts the debate where it should be, at least....the question is whether the prescription is medically valid and supported by the medical science.
However, *IF* it's the case that a licensed M.D. in Calif did prescribe it, but JR47, then we must ask whether JR47 is a licensed medical doctor. If not, then what extrinsic reason is there that we (or Angel) should listen to your advice, not that of the licensed M.D.?
However, *IF* it's the case that a licensed M.D. in Calif did prescribe it, but JR47, then we must ask whether JR47 is a licensed medical doctor. If not, then what extrinsic reason is there that we (or Angel) should listen to your advice, not that of the licensed M.D.?
Shadi Khalil
New member
Playboy, are you on to me? I'm not taking any chances, see y'all in mexico!!!
Exactly what was my advise? As a paramedic, I had the misfortune to transport a fair number of terminal patients to the hospital from home, or nursing homes. The conversation always turned to their pain, which was the number one reason for their transport. I offered no profound direction to anyone. I have, to my benefit, actually interviewed people on Medical Marijuana, and been given their opinion of how it worked on them. I also have experience in managing long-term use of pain medications.
I would suggest that this puts me head and shoulders above 99% of the posters here in experience, and knowledge (Maryland/DOT Paramedic). I have made no claim as to being an MD. However, others have talked about the experience of nurse relatives in hospice, so I'm ahead of that source.
I would also ask that the expertise of one MD be considered for just what it is. One man's opinion. Medical marijuana has never been a studied and peer reviewed subject. With the number of malpractice suits successfully brought against doctors every year, you might not want to trumpet a single opinion. Unlike House, most doctors readily admit that most treatments are "we'll try this."
So, unless you actually have knowledge, instead of having slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Let's not make claims that we don't have the ability to back up. Smoking a doobie in college hardly makes you an expert on Medical Marijuana.
Actually, it is occasionally studied in the US...
OK, everyone who wants to work for 5 years to get permission to do an expensive project concerning a drug on which you can make no money, raise your hand.
Gee, no takers?
(And that was just one of almost 25,000 google results for the phrase "medical marijuana research")
OK, everyone who wants to work for 5 years to get permission to do an expensive project concerning a drug on which you can make no money, raise your hand.
Gee, no takers?
(And that was just one of almost 25,000 google results for the phrase "medical marijuana research")
By the way, it seems it is much easier to convince the government to let you study the safety of marijuana than to let you study the benefits of marijuana. Try to get a study approved which focuses on "caloric intake and weight gain" and you'll probably meet a wall.
In other words, the subject of whether pot causes the munchies is medically taboo.
In other words, the subject of whether pot causes the munchies is medically taboo.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
the 1% (remaining after the 99% you referenced that you know more than), happen to be those who are
-Medical doctors
-who went to medical school
-did an intership
-did a residency
-passed their boards
-and are thus LICENSED by the state to dispense medical advice and prescribe medicine
not a paramedic who may have also slept at a holiday inn last night. The fact that there are no studies, as you say, means that it's all the more important to listen to those who know the most about the human body, and have been tested & licensed by the state, not rely LESS on them in the absence of proof to contravene them. So an internet paramedic guru, or a licensed MD - hmmm, easy choice there to be honest. I don't doubt for an instant that you have more knowledge than 99% of the public on the subject, and far far more than myself. I do however, doubt that you have more knowledge and expertise that that 1% or less who are licensed M.D.s and are forced to pass a test before they experiment on the public. Sorry, had to be said.
-Medical doctors
-who went to medical school
-did an intership
-did a residency
-passed their boards
-and are thus LICENSED by the state to dispense medical advice and prescribe medicine
not a paramedic who may have also slept at a holiday inn last night. The fact that there are no studies, as you say, means that it's all the more important to listen to those who know the most about the human body, and have been tested & licensed by the state, not rely LESS on them in the absence of proof to contravene them. So an internet paramedic guru, or a licensed MD - hmmm, easy choice there to be honest. I don't doubt for an instant that you have more knowledge than 99% of the public on the subject, and far far more than myself. I do however, doubt that you have more knowledge and expertise that that 1% or less who are licensed M.D.s and are forced to pass a test before they experiment on the public. Sorry, had to be said.
DonR101395
New member
here's an interesting article written by the Mayo Clinic. The cons IMO don't out way the pros. Does the Mayo clinic cancer department meet the 1% of those educated enough to make an informed response criteria?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical-marijuana/GA00014
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical-marijuana/GA00014
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I would have to say that Mayo article pretty much lays it out. It states how marijuana...
helps with nausea of cancer patients,
prevents wasting in AIDS and cancer patients,
releives gluacoma symptoms and helps prevent vision loss,
works well as a pain reliever (maybe even as well as coedine),
and states that there is evidence of it helping with symptoms of MS.
It then goes to list the possible side effects as...
impaired thinking,
light headedness,
possibility of a cough,
increased risk of heart attack (although not near as great an increase as regular smokers),
and the possible experience of much disputed withdrawl symptoms.
The advantages are numerous and more are being discovered and the risks seem to be about the same as just drinking a few beers.
helps with nausea of cancer patients,
prevents wasting in AIDS and cancer patients,
releives gluacoma symptoms and helps prevent vision loss,
works well as a pain reliever (maybe even as well as coedine),
and states that there is evidence of it helping with symptoms of MS.
It then goes to list the possible side effects as...
impaired thinking,
light headedness,
possibility of a cough,
increased risk of heart attack (although not near as great an increase as regular smokers),
and the possible experience of much disputed withdrawl symptoms.
The advantages are numerous and more are being discovered and the risks seem to be about the same as just drinking a few beers.
DonR101395
New member
PP,
Interesting how you left out the opening line of the article. I'll quote it for those who don't want to click the link.
It's also interesting that you left out the opening paragraph to the symptoms you say the Mayo clinic says it will help. Let me once again help by quoting the Opening paragraph.
May help and do help aren't the same thing. One more example of adjusting facts you don't like to fit what you do like.
Interesting how you left out the opening line of the article. I'll quote it for those who don't want to click the link.
It's also interesting that you left out the opening paragraph to the symptoms you say the Mayo clinic says it will help. Let me once again help by quoting the Opening paragraph.
May help and do help aren't the same thing. One more example of adjusting facts you don't like to fit what you do like.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I read all of it and the opening paragraph does not correspond with the data in the article. It concedes that studies have shown results in all the fields listed but then goes on to list a small list of non-sever side effects. It then list withdrawl symptoms that studies have shown are minor in the use of marijuana. Anyone with a moderate reasoning level can deduce that this articles cons do not come close to out weighing the pros.
It does not just say these things "may" be benefits it says things like "studies strongly support", "studies have found", "scientists have found" and "scientists believe." Those are quite a bit beyond saying "may."
It also admits in it's first paragraph that "Marijuana was listed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the organization that sets quality standards for approved drugs in the United States, until the 1940s, when political pressure against marijuana's recreational use triggered its removal."
Now who is reading what they want to read and adjusting facts? It is not my fault you used only a single poorly worded paragraph to base your idea of what you thought the study was saying instead of analyzing the actual data and making a logical conclussion.
It does not just say these things "may" be benefits it says things like "studies strongly support", "studies have found", "scientists have found" and "scientists believe." Those are quite a bit beyond saying "may."
It also admits in it's first paragraph that "Marijuana was listed by the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the organization that sets quality standards for approved drugs in the United States, until the 1940s, when political pressure against marijuana's recreational use triggered its removal."
Now who is reading what they want to read and adjusting facts? It is not my fault you used only a single poorly worded paragraph to base your idea of what you thought the study was saying instead of analyzing the actual data and making a logical conclussion.
DonR101395
New member
Yep, you're correct. An AIDs patient needs increased risk of respitory infections, a glaucoma patient will benefit from reduced balance and coordination, as will an MS patient. They will all benefit from increased heart disease risk and 50-70% more carcinogens than cigarettes that they are holding in their lungs longer. But on the good side they may hallucinate and not remember why they are ill.
To help quell the effectiveness of smoking vs. taking the pill discussion here is a quote from the article.
DonR101395
New member
Since you seem to be afraid to post what is actually said and seem to want to skew it to what you believe.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Don,
Why would I need to cut and paste stuff from a linked article???
Everyone was able to go read the entire article and not just chosen cut and paste pieces of it.
The side effects listed for marijuana are actually (if you look further into it) even less proven than the benefits.
And just like I said, the article did not say "it may" help with this or "it may" help with that. It qualified it's statements with things like I mentioned such as "studies have shown" etc.
What exactely was your point n the last post? Where you trying to disprove the usefullness of MM? Because the stuff you posted says they are trying to make meds that are as effective and based on MM. Seems like people would just use the MM which is already available and much, much cheaper.
Why would I need to cut and paste stuff from a linked article???
Everyone was able to go read the entire article and not just chosen cut and paste pieces of it.
The side effects listed for marijuana are actually (if you look further into it) even less proven than the benefits.
And just like I said, the article did not say "it may" help with this or "it may" help with that. It qualified it's statements with things like I mentioned such as "studies have shown" etc.
What exactely was your point n the last post? Where you trying to disprove the usefullness of MM? Because the stuff you posted says they are trying to make meds that are as effective and based on MM. Seems like people would just use the MM which is already available and much, much cheaper.
DonR101395
New member
You're quoting the article while leaving out the sentence before or after that dispel your belief.
According to the Mayo Clinic those are actual risks.
Notice it doesn't say may cause or possibly cause. It says poses several health risks. But I guess they aren't as smart as the doctors who want to prescribe it either. They just do the research on it's uses and effects.
"risk of" and "potential for" means exactly that.
so that knocks off the bottom three. The two others pose secondary health risks.. i.e. you can come up with situations where memory loss or coordination can affect your health, but they aren't themselves necessarily adverse to your health. (not saying you should ignore them by any means)