Unfortunately any an all opinions on the effectiveness of Marijuana as
a medicinal substance are based on anecdotal evidence.  There have
been very few (if any) long-term studies on the effectiveness of
Marijuana for anything.  

However, the effectiveness of many of its components is well known&
documented.  Drugs such as Marinol which is just one of the over 60
cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), found in Marijuana have been
approved by the FDA.  Unfortunately it takes over one hour for Marinol
to reach full systemic effect, compared to minutes for smoked or
vaporized cannabis. Some patients accustomed to inhaling just enough
cannabis smoke to manage symptoms have complained of too-intense
intoxication via Marinol's predetermined dosages.

Sp all-in-all what is my rambling point?  First & foremost there is no
such thing as "Medical Marijuana", just plain old regular Marijuana
used for medicinal purposes.  Many's main complaint against using it
as a medicine are the same as those used with Opiate based
medications, namely it has the side-effect of also making the patient
"feel good".  Now we couldn't possibly have patients feeling good now
could we?  

Now opinion wise (as I have no proof), the major drug companies do not
like the idea that a patient with a minimal gardening skill set could
produce their own medicine without the need for a pharmaceutical
company.  Cuts into the profits don't ya know?

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
kurtullman-4FCE97.11023014062008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net,

And you think you're getting an unbiased opinion from the FDA? The FDA
is a joke.

The FDA's policy on medical marijuana is based soley on drug war
politics and not science.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine: The Medical Value
of Marijuana
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/ch4.html

"In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies
indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect."
"Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes
available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people
suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking
marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."

According to a 2001 national survey of US physicians conducted for the
American Society of Addiction Medicine, nearly half of all doctors with
an opinion on the subject support legalizing marijuana as a medicine.
Moreover, no less than 80 state and national health care organizations -
including the American Public Health Association, The American Nurses
Association, and The New England Journal of Medicine - support
immediate, legal patient access to medical marijuana.

The FDA Contradicts The National Academy of Sciences
In the ongoing battle over the legalization of marijuana for medicinal
purposes, the Food and Drug Administration has now shown that ideology
can bend almost anything to its will. Recently, the FDA claimed that "no
sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana -
flatly contradicting the above review by the National Academy of
Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Could FDA scientists be so far off as
to come up with a completely incorrect reading of the medicinal value of
marijuana? Of course not. Right-wing politics have trumped science once
again.

On Jun 14, 8:02 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:I find it
instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA and Pharm
companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on
substantially flimsier medical documentation. <<

Not to argue whether marijuana is good or bad but in order to
understand that statement one just has to remember 'they' tell us
phytate the chaff of our grain is "bad for you binds up minerals and
can illicit horrible body disfigurement".

When in fact it is very good for you and cures cancer.

Just to keep things in .. perspective.

Who loves ya.
Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh

Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3

DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk

Kurt,

The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous
substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and
dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA.
Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too?
Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana
studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course
if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to
destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess
smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in
Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the
idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise,
to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are
talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no
room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.

Moron--og

kurt - you are  - quite simply - 'mis' or 'un' informed

factually incorrect - there have been several sanctioned uses of the
word.

one of the first federally 'recognized', and authorized usage's of the
term was for marijuana  [inhaled] usage to relieve symptoms and effects
of severe glaucoma.

an acquaintance of mine from off-broadway theatre was among the first 20
individuals to receive it thru a government run program back in the
early 70's - not thru a lab, but directly from a federally run and
operated agricultural farm. and it was/is called medical mj -
compassionate clinical use

you might not know that there is still an extremely small remnant of
that program in existence today:
<http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-F-Subs-3.
db&command=viewone&op=t&id=5&rnd=556.0115317119844>

"Smoked marijuana has been shown to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in
subjects with normal
IOP and patients with glaucoma. The duration of the pressure-lowering
effect is 3 to 4 hours.
Single-administration studies have reported blood pressure falls
concurrently with the IOP
lowering, raising concern that blood flow to the optic nerve could be
compromised. Mitigating
this concern are data suggesting that tolerance may develop to
cardiovascular effects. Efforts to
avoid or reduce side effects led to the development of a topical dosage
form of THC. Topically
applied THC did not lower IOP." [1977]

and the studies continue, albeit curtailed to a great degree -

"In summary, the testing of smoked marijuana to evaluate its therapeutic
effects is a difficult, but
not impossible, task. Until studies are done using scientifically
acceptable clinical trial design
and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, the questions
concerning the therapeutic utility
of marijuana will likely remain much as they have to date–largely
unanswered. To the extent
that the NIH can facilitate the development of a scientifically rigorous
and relevant database, the
NIH should do so."

here is one source of information:

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/faq.htm

it is also important to remember that this isn't just an issue for the
u.s.a., rather it's worldwide, and the rest of the world certainly uses
the term

below is the summery of the 1999 institute of medicine review on this
issue - it clearly shows the medical benefits, as well as the concerns
about oral [smoked] delivery systems  that contain harmful  [pulmonary]
substances along with the beneficial elements - as you will read - the
sceintists understand the medical aspects, and you can infer that the
conservative political arm  simply doesn't want to hear it.

but!!! the science is there, and regardless of your political bent, this
is a government paid for review, it shows/confirms the benefits.

yet the government paid for studies call for further tests to be done.
and the political powers sideline those efforts.

the true effort is to insist that the remaining and necessary studies be
done - as such, there are several lwasuits and hearings pending - here
is just one:

MAPS LAWSUITS

Professor Lyle Craker, PhD, director of the medicinal plant program in
the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences, at the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst, has been attempting for six years to obtain a
Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule I license to manufacture
marijuana exclusively for privately funded, federally approved research.
The federal government has a monopoly over the supply of marijuana — but
no other Schedule I drug — and uses that monopoly to obstruct privately
funded research. Craker’s case is the focal point of the struggle to
bring medical marijuana before the FDA to determine whether it meets the
FDA’s standards for safety and efficacy.

Craker’s applications for regulatory approval, legal struggles, and
proposed facility are sponsored by MAPS, which plans to design, fund,
and obtain government approval for the clinical research necessary to
develop marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine. If
successful, MAPS would bring smoked and/or vaporized marijuana to market
under a nonprofit pharmaceutical model similar to the Population
Council’s development and distribution of RU-486.

On Feb. 12, 2007, following a comprehensive review of the available
evidence from the 2005 DEA law hearing, DEA Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen Bittner issued a decisive — but nonbinding — "Opinion and
Recommended Ruling" that Craker’s application be approved. It is now up
to the DEA to decide whether to accept or reject Bittner’s
recommendation.
US Representatives John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) are
co-sponsoring a Congressional Sign-On Letter urging the DEA to accept
DEA Administrative Law Judge Bittner's Recommended Ruling to license
Prof. Lyle Craker's proposed MAPS-sponsored medical marijuana production
facility. We need you to help by contacting your Congressional
Representative -- here's how. For background on the case, see MAPS' DEA
Lawsuit page.

I suspect you are a troll Herr Ullman, but puff on this

What's the status of medical marijuana in Canada?
In Canada, possession of medical marijuana is controlled under the Marijuana
Medical Access Regulations, which came into effect in the summer of 2001.
The regulations allow individuals with severe diseases to use marijuana to
relieve their symptoms when the usual treatments for these conditions have
failed.

and here is information from the Government website:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/how-comment/applicant-demandeur/info_pa
tient-eng.php

and this:

http://mercycenters.org/links/Hawaii.html

Just because it's not legal in the good old USA doesn't mean that the rest
of the civilized world is just as immoral as the Republicans, shills for the
fat cat pharmaceutical limpets.

- cactus jammies --------------

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote >>