The survey was administered through e-mail to a database of 67,422 medical cannabis patients in the state of California using the HelloMD patient database. 2897 responded.

Opioids are the strongest medication for pain available. Marijuana has the pain relief of Tylenol. To compare the two is ludicrous.

E-mailing a survey to marijuana users and asking them about the efficacy of marijuana is like e-mailing a survey only to Lexus users and asking them what kind of car they prefer.

What a joke.

Opioids are the strongest medication for pain available. Marijuana has the pain relief of Tylenol. To compare the two is ludicrous.

THC is pretty worthless for pain relief, either sativa or indica.

CBD, however, has a pretty strong body effect. CBD is not the usual pot high. Recreational pot is high in various types of THC and related compounds (cannabinoids).

I don't find it hard to believe that opioid users find it easier to quit if they're using a CBD extract. CBD does have an effect but you wouldn't call it "stoned" or even "high".

But in the real world, people are addicted to opioids with many turning to street drugs if their scripts get cut off (in the ongoing Great Opioid Crackdown).

There is no comparison of the reduction in harm if someone is using CBD and staying off opioids. Or just reducing their opioid use considerably.

CBD, however, has a pretty strong body effect. CBD is not the usual pot high. Recreational pot is high in various types of THC and related compounds (cannabinoids).

I don't find it hard to believe that opioid users find it easier to quit if they're using a CBD extract. CBD does have an effect but you wouldn't call it "stoned" or even "high".

THAT is valuable info. Thanks.

Apparently people keep on assuming there's some kind of "Stoned" high, unaware of CBD. Wishful two-fer thinking I suppose.

In Joisey I've learned you need a license. From a licensed doc.

This type info is heresy to the holy war crusaders who have demonized the plant literally as something not of God's making, but of Satan's.

The plant itself is evil, in their black and white way of thinking, and absolutely no good can come of it at all. Marijuana is pure evil because Congress declared it as such.

I think there's the 60s stoners stereotype that c3rtain over-officious Major Burns-types can't process. By now, most of us recognize Congress for what it has become: Whores-For-Hire.

In THIS medicinal form of MJ, Congress need only be convinced by a few brown paper bags of $$ to change their mind; "Public Safety" is rarely a consideration (as we've witnessed by frivolous PD traffic stops, dangerously quick-changing traffic lights, and selective law enforcement where money or position dictates "justice.")

But in the real world, people are addicted to opioids with many turning to street drugs if their scripts get cut off (in the ongoing Great Opioid Crackdown).

We're on the same page. And I agree that if an opioid addict can't get his fix, marijuana is better than nothing.

All I'm saying is that there's no comparison between the two drugs. Not the "high". Not the medical value. This article is simply a propaganda piece.

I think there's the 60s stoners stereotype that c3rtain over-officious Major Burns-types can't process.

For a lot of people, that stereotype was all they knew about. And a lot of those old hippie stoners deserved their reputation, you have to admit.

We're on the same page. And I agree that if an opioid addict can't get his fix, marijuana is better than nothing.

I think it might help people kick or at least reduce their opioid habit. If so, we do have an opioid crisis in this country.

Keep in mind: the hippies were always after the THC. No hippie ever wanted a CBD "high" because it's too mild. The medical marijuana people are almost exclusively interested in the CBD and try constantly to reduce the amount of THC that ends up in their CBD products. Most of them try to get down to around 2% THC in their CBD products.

Whether THC is ever accepted medically is an open question. I think the various forms of CBD will eventually be recognized medically as being as useful as aspirin against a variety of ailments, just as they are today for stimulating appetite for cancer patients, treating glaucoma and severe epilepsy.

I think we'll see that in 5-10 years, possibly a little sooner.

For a lot of people, that stereotype was all they knew about. And a lot of those old hippie stoners deserved their reputation, you have to admit.

Images of Woodstock, colorful attire and VW buses painted with peace signs come to mind. Of course that was all in contrast to the rising influence of corporate powers over the federal government which may have been behind the Vietnam disaster, the cold war with Russia and the production of thousands of nuclear missiles. The 1960's also saw a very significant increase in federal taxation which enabled much greater concentration of federal power which in the 50's was quite light. And that federal growth then is what is lamented today, at least among people who don't call themselves democrats.

So the hippies of the 60's had cause for the new culture which they formed. Surely, MJ was only a small part of that, and perhaps as much of a symbol of rebellion as a personal source of enjoyment.

Whether THC is ever accepted medically is an open question. I think the various forms of CBD will eventually be recognized medically as being as useful as aspirin against a variety of ailments, just as they are today for stimulating appetite for cancer patients, treating glaucoma and severe epilepsy.

As any botanist will tell you, the plant world produces millions, perhaps billions of chemicals worldwide. Many of these are deadly, many are food, and many fall in between. And many from all three categories, including the deadly category, can be used medicinally with proper care.

The idea that one particular plant like Cannabis has no chemicals with any potential medicinal or therapeutic benefit is extremely naive and shortsighted. But people do take a religious, black and white, good vs evil spiritual view of MJ as though it really is a product of Satan and must be stamped out with all the ceremony of a holy exorcism.

I should know, as I used to think that way.

In 20 years driving while impaired will be moot.

E-mailing a survey to marijuana users and asking them about the efficacy of marijuana is like e-mailing a survey only to Lexus users and asking them what kind of car they prefer.

What a joke.

The point is well taken.

I find that contemporary people have little tolerance for discomfort, including psychological discomfort. If they stub their ego against reality, it's the end of their world. They are so soft that all discomfort is labeled as unbearable pain requiring help from medication. Much pain could be relieved by a good dose of adulthood.

Whether THC is ever accepted medically is an open question.

It was the first cannabinoid to be accepted medically (Marinol).

It was the first cannabinoid to be accepted medically (Marinol).

Back then, few people other than chemists had any idea that CBD was useful for anything.

Look at the years wasted for people suffering glaucoma. I had a friend who had a hemispherectomy (removed half his brain) due to severe epilepsy back in the Nineties. He still functions pretty well. But today, he might choose to try a CBD medicine instead of radical brain surgery.

In 20 years driving while impaired will be moot.

I think they will soon deploy breathalyzers for THC nationwide. A number of companies are starting to produce them. The police are unlikely to go after CBD users though.

Whether THC is ever accepted medically is an open question.

It was the first cannabinoid to be accepted medically (Marinol).

The approval is a bit more nuanced than a legalization of THC, which remains on Schedule I. Marinol has been downgraded to Schedule III.

Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of the Food and Drug Administration Approved Product Containing Synthetic Dronabinol [(-)-greek-D SUP9/SUP-(trans)-Tetrahydrocannabinol] in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules From Schedule II to Schedule III

A Rule by the Drug Enforcement Administration on 07/02/1999

[PDF] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-07-02/pdf/99-16833.pdf

[TEXT] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-07-02/html/99-16833.htm

SUMMARY: This is a final rule of the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) transferring a drug between schedules of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811. With the issuance of this final rule, the Deputy Administrator transfers from schedule II to schedule III of the CSA the drug containing synthetic dronabinol [(-)- 9-(trans)- tetrahydrocannabinol] in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin capsules in a product approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This rule also designates this drug as a schedule III non- narcotic substance requiring an import/export permit. As a result of this rule, the regulatory controls and criminal sanctions of schedule III will be applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importation and exportation of this drug.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1999.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Dronabinol is the United States Adopted Name (USAN) for the (-)- isomer of 9-(trans)-tetrahydrocannabinol [(-)- 9-(trans)-THC], which is believed to be the major psychoactive component of Cannibas sativa L. (marijuana). On May 31, 1985, FDA approved for marketing the product Marinol --which contains synthetic dronabinol in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin capsules--for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. Following this FDA approval, DEA issued a final rule on May 13, 1986, transferring FDA-approved products of the same formulation as Marinol from schedule I to schedule II of the CSA in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a). (For simplicity within this document, the term "Marinol'' will be used hereafter to refer to Marinol and any other products, which may by approved by FDA in the future, that have the same formulation as Marinol.) The 1986 rescheduling of Marinol was based on a medical and scientific evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Assistant Secretary for Health in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b). The transfer of Marinol to schedule II did not affect the CSA classification of pure dronabinol, which--as a tetrahydrocannabinol with no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States--remains a schedule I controlled substance. On December 22, 1992, FDA expanded Marinol 's indications to include the treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS.

On May 31, 1985, FDA approved for marketing the product Marinol...

No one cares about Marinol because it just is not effective. It never was.

It's been 15-20 years since I recall anyone even mentioning this fake drug.

Look at the years wasted for people suffering glaucoma.

There are a dozen different FDA-approved medicines for glaucoma*.

Sure, you could smoke marijuana to reduce intraocular pressure. The effect lasts about 3 hours. Meaning you'd have to smoke dope 8 times a day, every day, to have the same effect as an eye drop. Plus, you're high all the time and you may damage your optic nerve.

Betagan drops cost $12 (without insurance) and will last a month. Don't tell me marijuana is cheaper.

*Medicine choices

Medicines that decrease the amount of fluid produced by the eye include:
•Beta-blockers (such as Betagan, Betimol, Ocupress, and Timoptic).
•Adrenergic agonists (such as Alphagan and Propine).
•Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (such as Azopt, Diamox, and Trusopt).
•Hyperosmotics (such as Osmitrol).

Medicines that increase the amount of fluid that drains out of the eye include:
•Cholinergics (such as Isopto Carpine, Phospholine, and Pilopine).
•Adrenergic agonists (such as Alphagan and Propine).
•Prostaglandin analogs (such as Lumigan, Travatan, and Xalatan).

Some medicines have two different medicines mixed into one bottle.

You want to stop this. You're outraged that you're in a vanishingly small cult of old-time drug warriors.

Give it up, Elliot Ness. No one gives a crap about Reefer Madness any more.

"No one cares about Marinol because it just is not effective. It never was."

So you expect pharmaceuticals to spend tens of millions of dollars to research marijuana to find the next cannabinoid with medical value so dopers can then claim that "marijuana is medicine" and smoke dope instead of purchasing the drug from the pharmaceutical company?

And you wonder why there's no marijuana research being done.

So you expect pharmaceuticals to spend tens of millions of dollars to

I said no such thing. You're hallucinating.

And yet many people suffering glaucoma and appetite loss still prefer cannabis solutions over Big Pharma products.

Bullshit. They're smoking dope to get high. Less than 5% of "medical" marijuana users have cancer or AIDS. Most patients say they want it for pain, sleep disorders, anxiety or depression -- all subjective reasons.

Untreated, glaucoma may lead to blindness. It's a serious disease. Would you treat your glaucoma with marijuana?

Untreated, glaucoma may lead to blindness. It's a serious disease. Would you treat your glaucoma with marijuana?

People treat glaucoma symptoms with marijuana. They don't expect to cure it. Merely to alleviate and help stall its advance.

The reason you're so desperate and shrill on this minor sideshow of an issue is because you're not only losing, you've already lost. And you were invested big time into the whole failed Drug Warrior cult.

People treat glaucoma symptoms with marijuana. They don't expect to cure it. Merely to alleviate and help stall its advance.

As I said, the effect wears off in three hours. The intraocular pressure then increases. You'd have to light up 8 times a day. Otherwise you're NOT treating glaucoma.

I'm a lot closer to the average American on this than you are. And it just eats you up.

Unlike you, I don't lay awake at night worrying if someone is smoking a doobie. Or having a drink. Or fornicating.

Me neither. I'm concerned for the deteriorating concept of law and order. States are violating federal marijuana laws and you don't care because the issue doesn't bother you.

Do you think states should be able to write their own laws, even if they violate federal laws to the contrary? Should we repeal Article VI, Clause 2 or just ignore it?

Or should we keep everything as is, but make an exception for marijuana. Two sets of laws. Maybe two constitutions?

The U.S. Constitution is a sacred document to you if it protects those things dear to you. But if it doesn't, rip it up. Violate it. Ignore it.

You're one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum. Maybe you should just move over to DU and be done with it.

Me neither. I'm concerned for the deteriorating concept of law and order. States are violating federal marijuana laws and you don't care because the issue doesn't bother you.

Do you think states should be able to write their own laws, even if they violate federal laws to the contrary? Should we repeal Article VI, Clause 2 or just ignore it?

Your hatred of dirty potsmoking hippies goes way beyond any actual concern for federalism or the Constitution, however much you might pretend otherwise.

You're one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum. Maybe you should just move over to DU and be done with it.

What are you, some kind of dirty freeper? Does DU even still exist now?

You're living in the past. Obviously.

The reason you're so desperate and shrill on this minor sideshow of an issue is because you're not only losing, you've already lost. And you were invested big time into the whole failed Drug Warrior cult.

A few years back my neighbor invited me to his church. This is in a small town with two bars, one where the younger crowd hang out to play pool, shoot darts and step it out on the small dance floor. The youngish (35) preacher railed against this "evil place" and vowed that someday he was going to storm the place and preach hell and damnation to the "lost souls" within.

He set up by the door as we were leaving and I couldn't resist asking him why he didn't just stop in and make friends with those "lost souls". He smiled and said something, but his eyes had retreated to his safe space within. Funny thing, like many who don't understand the golden mean, he was a sugar addict. A former athlete, he never stopped stuffing sugary snacks into his blubbery mass, washing them down with sodas. You can spot them a mile away around here, they scowl at you over their triple chins when you're buying beer or wine at the grocery.

The town incorporated so that they could sell and serve liquor in a semi-dry country (beer and wine only). About 50 miles away is a wet county that has a small town that did the opposite -- incorporated so they could prohibit beer and wine sales. The latter town finally threw in the towel and permitted beer and wine because people were driving an additional 10 miles past their stores to buy it elsewhere.

Some people have so little enjoyment in their own lives they are desperately envious those who might be enjoying a little fun, and if that involves "getting high" then the devil must be driven out by means of the law.

Some people have so little enjoyment in their own lives they are desperately envious those who might be enjoying a little fun, and if that involves "getting high" then the devil must be driven out by means of the law.

White's monomania with the dirty hippies and the can-do-no-wrong cops seems to go well beyond your example.

He's fixated. I can't even begin to estimate the vast number of keystrokes he spends tilting at this windmill. And it is not something recent to him; he's been grinding this ax for decades.

His hatred of Evil Weed, like his craven love for authority figures, is almost Freudian.

Your hatred of dirty potsmoking hippies goes way beyond any actual concern for federalism or the Constitution, however much you might pretend otherwise.

They can coexist.

"Does DU even still exist now?"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=login&create=1

I made it easy -- a link to the sign-up page. Go for it. You'll be much more comfortable there.

White's monomania with the dirty hippies and the can-do-no-wrong cops

Mono means "one". You mentioned two. That would be "multimania", thank you.

The US Constitution was not intended to nationalize law. It includes the 10th Amendment to make that explicit.

So if your state wanted to confiscate all guns, they're free to do so. If your state wanted to bring back segregation, that's OK.

Laws requiring segregation violate the right to freedom of association, made explicit in the 1st Amendment. Segregation by private groups is not the same thing, as it is not mandated by government. The government has no right to tell me who I can do business with (unless we are in a state of war where doing business with a declared enemy is prohibited under the treason clause), nor does it have the right to tell me who I must do business with.

"The RKBA is in the Constitution."

It's in the federal constitution, meaning the federal government may not confiscate your guns. If the second amendment applied to the states, then why do states have different gun laws? How could some states allow concealed carry but other states forbid it?

"Laws requiring segregation violate the right to freedom of association, made explicit in the 1st Amendment."

It has nothing to do with the first amendment. Segregation was ended by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A federal law. Just like the federal law against marijuana.

When the States ratified the federal Constitution they agree to abide by it.

The "Civil Rights Act" of 1964 is an example of "hard cases make bad law". Laws requiring segregation were simply wrong, and the correct legal justification for abolishing them in the US was the federally guaranteed right to freedom of association. The CRA is an overcorrection that correctly struck down "Jim Crow" laws, but incorrectly denied freedom of association to private parties.

And you wonder why there's no marijuana research being done.

There is little or no research on inhaled marijuana because it is in apparent impossibility to meet required standards for all medicines.

81 Fed Reg No 156 (12 Aug 2016) 53767-53845, Proposed Rules Denial, Docket DEA-427

"Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no "currently accepted medical use" because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible...."

The impossible task is producing a marijuana cigarette which, upon smoking and inhalation, provides a specific yield of a known and reproducible chemical stew.

The specific delivery system of inhaled smoke makes it daunting or impossible to prescribe a known, predictable dose of the active ingredient. To meet medical standards, the rest of the accompanying chemical stew must also be known and predictable and safe.

The RKBA is in the Constitution.

The RKBA is not actually in the Constitution except by reference to an undefined (in the Constitution) pre-existing right.

The RKBA inhered to the colonists pursuant to English common law prior to the revolution or Constitution. The referenced right existed in English common law as documented in Blackstone's Commentaries. It was a clear individual right to keep and bear lawful arms. It was not all encompassing and entirely without regulation. It was not a guaranteed right to concealed carry or to keep and bear arms deemed unlawful.

Either by their constitution, or by statute law, every one of the original states adopted such part of the English common law that did not conflict with the Constitution.

The RKBA is not actually in the Constitution except by reference to an undefined (in the Constitution) pre-existing right.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Otherwise known as the RKBA guarantee in the US Constitution. In natural law it is known as the right to self defense.

All rights guaranteed by the BOR were pre-existing. The BOR was an explicit guarantee that those rights were recognized by the central government.

I am familiar with the history of the RKBA. Orrin Hatch (yes) entered a thorough history of it into the Congressional Record back in the late '70s.

I'm concerned for the deteriorating concept of law and order.

I am too. The goddamned government and the police state behind it, just don't give a damn about individual rights, liberties and personal dignity.

Otherwise known as the RKBA guarantee in the US Constitution. In natural law it is known as the right to self defense.

The RKBA is only referenced in the Constitution. Nowhere does it state what it consists of.

The Constitution is written law, not natural law. Natural law or common law fall to written law. We have no common law federal courts; all were created by written law.

The "right to keep and bear arms" existed in the colonies, was brought forth into the states before the union, and was protected by the 2nd Amendment. The right which existed in the colonies came from the English common law. The Framers saw no need to explain to themselves what that right to keep and bear arms was.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

1 Express gratitude or show appreciation to
2 Second person pronoun; the person addressed

This scribd file may be of interest to you. In 2012, I dug up the state constitutions of the original states and the laws or statutes where each adopted such part of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.

It can be read or downloaded at scribd. All documentation is included and hyperlinked. The total is 607 pages, but it may serve as a reference if you are interested in that old stuff.