Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
I got my own editoral segment on the school news
I am part of the school news program on public access (you gotta start somewhere I suppose), and from the first semester of last year till today I was a cameraman for a reporting segment of the news. However, my teacher (who also worked with my parents, cause they are both librarians, at grad school) noticed a lot of my writing skills because many of my teachers have been praising my said skills and felt that I should have a promotion to have my own segment (her relationship with my parents has nothing to do with this at all). Basically it's an editorial segment where I get to talk about anything I want to, and I thought it best that I start with something a lot of people need to know. Needless to say, I reported on DRM for my very first editorial and also revealed the existence of Defective by Design. This is a good step into taking down DRM because I'm aware that a LOT of people watch the school news, and they will get enlightened.
For the name of my editorial segment, I totally stole the name "My Two Cents" from The Simpsons for my segment, because I couldn't come up with anything better but no one will ever know...hopefully. Just felt like I should get that out on the forum since it's an incredibly relevant topic all over the internets (especially this forum).
For the name of my editorial segment, I totally stole the name "My Two Cents" from The Simpsons for my segment, because I couldn't come up with anything better but no one will ever know...hopefully. Just felt like I should get that out on the forum since it's an incredibly relevant topic all over the internets (especially this forum).
Comments
Why we don't prescribe tree bark for cancer.
It really makes you think about medical marijuana in a whole new light. Really, there shouldn't be prescription marijuana, there should be prescription THC pills. How would you like it if you went to the doctor and they prescribed you to eat some mold instead of giving antibiotic pills? Sure, if you are stuck in the woods with pneumonia, finding and eating penicillin mold might be a good idea, if you aren't allergic. Otherwise, not so much.
If you have any sort of back pain, you should see a a physical therapist or a *gasp* back doctor. If it turns out that all you need is a massage once in awhile, then you'll be able to get one from someone who doesn't put you at risk of permanent spinal injury.
I think the problem is that it's a hell of a lot more expensive than straight up weed is (growing weed isn't any more expensive than growing any other plant, especially if you don't have to hide it).
Plus, vaporizing or eating weed (in the form of brownies or even candy) has virtually no health problems associated with it, so there's really no reason to go into making pills.
D.D. Palmer regarded chiropractic as partly religious in nature, and in a letter of May 4, 1911 he said: "we must have a religious head, one who is the founder, as did Christ, Mohamed, Jo. Smith, Mrs. Eddy, Martin Luther and other who have founded religions. I am the fountain head. I am the founder of chiropractic in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase."
Fucking scary. Sorry for stating what I did. Seeing that and reading quite a few other things, as well as stepping back and looking at the big picture, I can see the issue.
Overall though, I still have a question. Do any of you pop your back at all? I mean, I've pretty much been unable to move until having it popped or popping it myself. Granted, it's not in a shop with an hour and a half treatment, but I can still see the benefits. If you don't pop your back, are there any safe ways to do it? What do you do if you get extreme back pain? In some cases, pain killers just don't get the job done.
Marijuana not only helps to ease pain, it also increases appetite and minimizes nausea.
Also, marijuana has been linked to testicular cancer. If you have testicles, it might help you with one cancer, and then give you another one. This news makes you wonder about famous men who have had testicular cancer. Tom Green was almost surely smoking the weed. Lance Armstrong doing the weed also? Maybe weed, not steroids, is his problem with drug testing. I can imagine that his gigantic lungs might allow him to get extra high.
EDIT: Does that study take into account men that are already going cancer therapy and consume medical marijuana? If not, the point is moot until further research is completed.
Also, when you smoke weed, there are lots of inactive ingredients in the plant that you do not want to be inhaling. The smoke that comes from the burning plant is just as bad for you as the smoke that is released when you burn a pile of leaves in your backyard in the fall. You're basically breathing in ash. In some cases, side effects of medicine can not be avoided. For example, psuedophedrine relieves congestion, but also makes you drowsy. If the unwanted side effects come from the inactive ingredients, it is medically unethical to deliver that as medicine when there is an alternative available. Did you read the article? I don't know anything more about the study than what the articles on news sites say.
Also, the arguments you are presenting suggest that you have not read the previous article I linked to about why we do not prescribe tree bark for cancer. That article was written by a doctor, who is much smarter than myself. If you want to continue this discussion, I highly suggest you read it very carefully. As of right now, every point you have made is covered by that article, and my rebuttals are merely paraphrasing points from it, only with far less eloquence and detail.
As for the testicular cancer study, I did not see it mention any of the variables of cancer treatment.
Moreover, you assume that there will not be harmful effects of other forms of THC. I am all for developing the most useful drugs possible, but all drugs have risks and side effects. Medical marijuana is no exception. I hope that a more effective delivery method or drug is made available. Medical marijuana (like all medicines) isn't for everyone and should only be taken under advisement and informed consent. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option until a new delivery method or drug is available that provides all of the same benefits and fewer side effects.
Let me make the point using Acetaminophen(Tylenol) as an example. Acetaminophen is a symptom treating medicine, but has a side effect of liver damage, especially if you take too much of it. However, that side effect is seen as acceptable because the long term potential damage is seen as being relatively small next to the much larger immediate symptom relief. Now imagine, for a second, that the liver damage from Tylenol was not caused by the active ingredient Acetaminophen, but by some other inactive ingredient in the Tylenol. Also, there are readily available alternatives to those inactive ingredients that do not cause the liver damage. Would it not then be ethnically unacceptable to prescribe the Tylenol in that form?
That is the issue with weed. The inhaled burning plant matter doe snot just contain the active ingredient. It definitely contains cellulose, but could also contain just about anything else, such as pesticides, fertilizer, bird poop, heavy metals from ground water, etc. All of those possible contaminants, and potential damage they might cause, make it ethically unacceptable to deliver that as a symptom-treating medicine when alternatives exist.
Smoke TCH on its own? In what form? How? Do you know what you are talking about?
As for smoking THC on its own, its elementary school science. Solid, liquid gas. All you need to do is turn THC into its gas form and breathe it in. That means you need to isolate it from other chemicals, which has already been done many times. Then you just need to turn it into a gas, by applying heat. How about putting it into some water, boiling the water, and inhaling the steam? How about putting the crystals on your tounge and letting them dissolve slowly instead of eating an entire pill? You can even use a hookah or bong, you just need to have some constant source of fire because you don't have any smoldering plant matter. That can either be something like a candle, or you can just use some other non-toxic perhaps non-smoking, flammable material. Maybe a hot rock? There are a million ways.
You are looking at this as if the person using medical marijuana isn't fighting a deadly disease, dying, or has a chronic condition. Moreover, the case you keep citing discusses chronic pot smokers that use it recreationally (not for a medical condition). It is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to talk adverse side effects to people that would be prescribed medical marijuana, then cite relevant information.
Vaporizing is when you put straight up weed buds into a machine, like <a href="http://www.77seeds.com/images/volcano.jpg">the volcano, fire it up, and go. It is not smoke. It is almost pure THC vapor that comes off. Thus, you're getting all the helpful THC you need, minus the harmful smoke.
Here is some more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Reducing_Health_Risks [notice how the picture they use is almost exactly what you described]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer
That method does use plant matter, though, but it's still achieving the goal that you're looking for. Liquid THC is already available. This is an episode of the weed report, which is a Youtube show that a medical marijuana patient puts out every so often. He goes to dispensaries in California, and in this episode he is showcasing some liquid THC he bought.
There's also Green Dragon, which is when you let weed soak in high proof alcohol, which somehow activates the THC. I think you get drunk and high on this, and I've only heard limited reports of actually using Green Dragon. But again, no smoke, liquid form.
Also, when you make and consume marijuana edibles, you're not smoking it. So again, you're not getting the harmful smoke. Medical marijuana dispensaries already sell edibles in the form of dessert items, candy, butter, and various other foods. If you're growing it yourself (and medical patients are legally allowed to), you'll know what went into that plant. If you're growing it inside (and most people would be, since growing it outside is harder due to numerous factors), bird poop and pesticides aren't a factor. Fertilizers are still present, but most people stop using them a week or two before they harvest their plants.
Marijuana smoke certainly does have bad things in it...but nothing you mentioned (other than the heavy metals, which I'm not sure about). Plus, as I pointed out above, there are many safer alternatives to smoking. Good thing you don't smoke weed leaves to get high. [Though in this case, Scott is right. Measuring precise amounts when smoking is a ridiculous and nigh impossible suggestion.]
Also, that article made me rage a little: That's garbage. People have been smoking weed in America for a long time. There are easily many studies of people who have been smoking weed for 10-30+ years out there. People who smoked weed in the 60s and 70s are now getting to the age where cancer and other health problems would be showing up, so uh...yeah, I don't see why we would know very little about long term health problems...
To shed a little more light on this, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Cancer_risk
In the articles that wikipedia cited, there are numerous studies of long term smokers (such as this one), which furthers my point.
Now, whether or not marijuana is linked to testicular cancer is something I don't want to comment on, since (other than that article) I haven't read anything about a link to weed and testicular cancer. I just wanted to point out that ridiculous statement.