|
|
| Marijuana Isn't Medicine |
|
Posted by FoM on March 19, 2000 at 07:37:50 PT By Joyce Nalepka Source: Washington Post 
The bill that Maryland Del. Ulysses Currie discussed [Close to Home, March 12] was defeated in the state legislature by a group of parents, grandparents and law enforcement personnel. Still, misinformation in his piece should be cleared up.
First, a National Institutes of Health publication says, "Patients with HIV and other diseases of the immune system should avoid marijuana." Second, state legislatures, city councils and Congress should not vote on the use of anything for medicine. Approval of medicines is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration. Third, marijuana was disproved as a medication for glaucoma during the early 1980s, when research proved that it was not a good treatment for this delicate and difficult eye disease. Marijuana produces unstable eye pressure changes in glaucoma patients. Fourth, marijuana has been shown to worsen coordination in multiple sclerosis patients. Fifth, no national medical group has approved marijuana as medicine. Joyce Nalepka The writer is president of America Cares, a national organization that fights drug legalization. Sunday, March 19, 2000; Page B06 Related Articles: Panel Blocks Medical Use of Marijuana National Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics - April 7 & 8 http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml http://google.com/search?q=cannabisnews+medical+marijuana http://google.com/search?q=cannabisnews+patients+out+of+time Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #20 posted by MMM on March 20, 2000 at 23:10:45 PT |
Simply put: It's a sin to keep marijuana away from sick people. Truly a sin.
| Comment #19 posted by Question on March 20, 2000 at 10:59:39 PT |
That's akin to dumping one of the Ten Commandments because the government decided it didn't meet the needs of our society.
This trouble may only get worse, so I may join the others who believe Europe is much more civilized than the U.S. at this point in time. Too many very intelligent people I've spoken to believe that just like the Roman Empire fell, so will the U.S. I'd hate to leave my home country, but when the government allows the courts to ignore the constitution, we're in BIG trouble.
| Comment #18 posted by observer on March 20, 2000 at 09:49:44 PT |
Why? Because tyrannical governments need scapegoats. What "The Jew" was to Nazi Germany, so are "drugs" and "the addict" to many Governments. It allows them to direct public attention and energy to "the evil other", while all the while seizing more power and rights from the people.
Historian Richard Miller writes,
``Unquestionably, police power and resources can never eliminate drug use. Such a goal is impossible.
Nonetheless, drug warriors have established and maintained a national consensus that American must become free of drug use. By accepting an impossible goal and by accepting the idea that it must be achieved through police power, citizens relinquish more and more rights and revenue to police upon demand by Drug War leaders. Continued acquiescence to these escalating demands should create a police state.
I believe authoritarians are manufacturing and manipulating public fears about drug use in order to create a police state where a much broader agenda of social control can be implemented, using government power to determine what movies we may watch, determine who we may love and how we may love them, determine whether we may or must pray to a deity. I believe the war on drug users masks a war on democracy.
After all, what is the vision of a Drug-Free America? Millions in prison or slave labor, and only enthusiastic supporters of government policy allowed to hold jobs, attend school, have children, drive cars, own property. This is the combined vision of utopia held forth by Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, William Bennett, Daryl Gates and thousands of other drug warriors. News media and "public interest" advertising tell us this is the America for which all good citizens yearn. ''
(Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.191 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425/Cannabisnews/ )
``We have seen how drug war rhetoric transforms drugs users into scapegoats. Voters in my county passed a sales tax increase devoted exclusively to the drug war; those funds have hired a staff person for my neighborhood association. Even peeling paint and unkempt lawns are now the fault of drug users.
In 1941, instead of annihilating the red
Army which refused to be annilihated and
continued fighting, one could kill helpless
Jews. . . . Instead of driving away the
Anglo-American fliers, one could again kill
Jews: after the first RAF bombardment of
Cologne, 258 Jews in Berlin were lined up
in the Gross-Lichterfield barracks and shot
"in reprisal." In other words, while the
actual fighting foes were out of reach,
Germany could kill, as savages do, the
images of foes, the Jews. But in this case
the images, too, were people of flesh and
blood.3
For authoritarians a crucial benefit of scapegoating is that directing public anger toward scapegoats assures continuance of public anger, because problems creating fear and anger thereby remain unaddressed and will continue. In contrast to a confident and contented citizenry, a fearful and angry citizenry is more susceptible to authoritarian demands. Scapegoats are crucial for maintaining social turmoil by authoritarians.
It was the Jews who helped hold Hitler's
system together -- on the practical as well
as ideological level. The Jew allowed
Hitler to ignore the long list of economic
and social promises he had made to the SA,
the lower party apparatus, and the lower
middle classes. By steering the attention
of these groups away from their more
genuine grievances and toward the Jew,
Hitler succeeded in blunting the edge of
their revolutionary wrath, leaving him
freer to persue his own nonideological
goals of power in cooperation with groups
whose influence he had once promised to
weaken or even destroy. An ideological
retreat on the Jewish issue in these
circumstances was impossible. . . . The
continues search for a solution to the
Jewish problem allowed Hitler to maintain
ideological contact with elements of his
movement for whom National Socialism had
done very little.4
(Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.191-192 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425/Cannabisnews/ )
| Comment #17 posted by Question on March 19, 2000 at 19:13:06 PT |
Are the lobbyists running the country? Why are the research projects showing the positive aspects of marijuana use being overlooked, especially in the media? Why are other countries decriminalizing BUT haven't gone so far as to make it legal? Is it that all governments around the world are frightened of some futuristic scenario where the foundations of a society could be shaken if made legal? Is man's fear denying sick people medicine?
| Comment #16 posted by FoM on March 19, 2000 at 18:26:32 PT |
| Comment #15 posted by greenfox on March 19, 2000 at 18:26:05 PT |
-greenf0x
|
Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on March 19, 2000 at 18:25:12 PT:
|
Macchiavelli once wrote about using enthusiastic but politically ignorant groups as shock troops. They were called auxilliaries, to be used in attack in front of a main army's battle lines foes. Why do that? Two reasons. The first being the auxilliaries don't really have much use other than being cannon fodder. Why have your professional geting caught in a meatgrinder when you can send these fools in?
The second being, they are made up of people who in their zeal for ideological purity, might start finding fault with their supposed benefactors, and turn on *them*.
I think you can see where this is going: the PFDFA, the DWI, and this bunch, AmericaCares, are nothing but the catspaws, the 'auxilliaries' of the much more politically savvy ONDCP. Much like the late 'Peggy Mann's' organization was in an earlier time and regime, they are being funded (just enough) by those in the ONDCP. And as soon as they have outlived their usefulness, they will be discarded in much the same manner as used toilet paper. Because, if they get too close, they may learn something they don't like.
http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/facstaff/davis_r/fallout.htm
|
Comment #13 posted by Doc-Hawk on March 19, 2000 at 17:34:05 PT:
|
The following thread is really interesting. Her email is amercares@aol.com and you probably will get some kind of answer. I got two, both suggesting that I was under the influence and one even suggested that maybe I should stay straight for 120 days and see what a great change it would make in my life. I guess my beer is okay though. It is truly unfortunate that SHE REALLY CARES about drug abuse...but attacks it in such a destructive fashion.
While legalization would put most pushers out of business, she would still be screeching. In the mean time, people like her help to prolong the ordeal of patients who could benefit from the medical uses of cannabis. That is immoral.
| Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 19, 2000 at 17:07:16 PT |
Round Up Online Poll:
Which drugs, if any, should be legalized?
1 - All Drugs should be legalized
2 - Only Marijuana should be legalized
3 - No Drugs that are currently illegal should be legalized
http://roundup.nmsu.edu/public/03*16*00/opinion.html
|
Comment #11 posted by greenfox on March 19, 2000 at 16:35:08 PT:
|
This is a very scary video. Does anyone have insight on this?
| Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 19, 2000 at 15:41:09 PT |
PS: I have had problems with my email and it is in my isp connection so if I don't answer emails like I should I hope you all understand.
| Comment #9 posted by observer on March 19, 2000 at 15:26:18 PT |
> ``Promote clear and consistent messages of "no use," "no legalization," ...
(In other words, `Facts are not relevant, we're on a mission to keep jailing adults!' Gotcha, Joyce. You're got an agenda to jail adults (or force `treatment' on them?). This certainly lends perspective to your bent.)
also see:
Nazi Propaganda by Joseph Goebbels
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm
The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm
| Comment #8 posted by observer on March 19, 2000 at 15:06:54 PT |
Is that because the *US* doctors daily are threatened by the Federal government? That SU doctors are beholden to the US Federal government for everything from licenses to inspections to taxes to prescription "privileges", etc.
Where Prohibitionists hold less sway, the "national medical groups" approve cannabis as medicine. (Since it had been used traditionally as such for 1000's of years perhaps ... and has no lethal dose).
Finnish Medical Association Supports Medical Marijuana
http://marijuananews.com/finnish_medical_association_supp.htm
UK:’DON’T PUNISH CANNABIS USERS’ SAYS BMA
http://marijuananews.com/british_medical_association_call.htm
Oregon Medical Association Declines to Oppose Medical Marijuana...
http://marijuananews.com/oregon_medical_association_decli.htm
Australian Medical Association Endorses Medical Marijuana Trials:
``The government should make marijuana available as a medicine to seriously ill patients, and remove criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) declared recently.'' (5/1999)
http://marijuananews.com/australian_medical_association_e.htm
Scottish Committee of British Medical Association Backs Legalizing Marijuana (4/1999)
http://marijuananews.com/scottish_committee_of_british_me.htm
Canadian Medical Association Passes Resolution Urging Possession Of Marijuana Not Be Punishable By A Jail Term
http://marijuananews.com/canadian_medical_association_pas.htm
also see:
http://marijuana-as-medicine.org/alliance.htm
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/
http://www.rxcannabis.org/
http://www.acmed.org/english/index.html
http://marijuananews.com/journal_of_the_american_medical_.htm
etc.
| Comment #7 posted by FoM on March 19, 2000 at 13:25:53 PT |
She says: Nalepka said any person who gets a doctor's prescription for marijuana should ``fill it with a new doctor.''
|
Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on March 19, 2000 at 13:13:36 PT:
|
Times change, and the 'Sick Turks' know they are on their last legs. That's why their attacks are so vehement. They have been flailing about, trying to regain their balance while trying so very hard to keep from looking weak.
A sure sign of their losing is when they start to repeat drivel like la Nalepka has done. *They've run out of new lies to tell*. Now they are trying to wrap their old and worn out ones in a new wrapper and trot them out for a new generation. The problem is, *this* generation has the Internet. Lie to them, and they know within the time it takes to boot up their computer and do a search that someone has tried to hoodwink them. The dinosaurs who are in charge of the WoSD think they can ape the methods of their much, *much* more savvy opponents by setting up web sites and all, but the kids just laugh at how hokey it is. The dinosaurs are simply, hopelessly *outclassed* in the information department; they no longer have a monopoly as a source. So they are relying more on the methods that they have tried to use in the past, a la catspaws and mouthpieces like Nalepka. So I wouldn't despair.
| Comment #5 posted by observer on March 19, 2000 at 13:10:28 PT |
But Joyce-baby, are you not forgetting a teeny little detail ?here ... The detail that you're suggesting throwing people in JAIL for daring to disagree with thy royal highness over the relative effectiveness of medicines? I love how these oppressors try to shift the issue from one of jailing people who use a traditional plant remedy, to one of whether or not the remedy is as effective, or needs "more research', etc. The issue is jailing people. Don't let lying propagandists like Joyce Nalepka ever forget the real issue of jail!
No, this is not over the effeciveness of medicines at all. It is over power. The power of people, like petty tyrant cheerleaders like Joyce Nalepka, to continue to imprison peaceful Americans who civilly disobey an odious and oppressive law. May Joyce Nalepka suffer the pain that she so glibly suggests others endure. (For "the children", of course: she's only jailing adults who use marijuana "for the children.")
| Comment #4 posted by Freedom on March 19, 2000 at 12:54:23 PT |
I know you might be reading this Joyce, so, just for you:
you are still a fraud.
Those who need MMJ will not be stopped by the likes of you.
We are winning, one state at a time. We have many more victories coming this fall. We have 73% public support.
The very paper who just published your imbalanced bull called for the reopening of the Compassionate Use Program just last winter.
Why do you avoid the recomendation of the IOM Report to allow smoked marijuana to be used in n-1 trials? Why do you avoid that this report stated that the immune system effects
are not established, and that even if they were that they would be so small as not to preclude a legitimate use for AIDS patients? Don't try the "Sandra Bennett" bull either,
Dr. Eric Voth was on the review board of the IOM Report.
I know you are aware of these facts, I mentioned a number of them last week. You willingly lie. Do you honestly believe
that children are so simple and ignorant that they do not see you for what you are, once they reach the age of reason
(14)?
You are a fraud Joyce. I shared your link with Dick Cowan, for your little video on evil drug legalizers. He was quite chagrined by the amount of editing you had to do to warp the meaning of his words. So much so, that he stated that your organization must have known you were lying. MMJ will
simply serve overall reform by allowing proper research to be done, to allow the truth about casual use of marijuana to be known. As is already known. As The Lancet has stated.
Or, would you try to tell me recreational use is now legal in any state MMJ has passed?
You make me sick. you expect those who are informed to even listen to the NIH when they are complicit in suppressing MMJ?
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n294/a11.html?80900
US: Wire: Feds Rebuff Marijuana Researchers
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: 15 Mar 1999
Source: United Press International
Copyright: 1999 United Press International
Feedback: www.sciencenews.org/sn_forms/sn_ctact.htm
Author: Ellen Beck
I will take especial pleasure in watching you whine.
If your organization had any real support, you would go out and collect signatures and try to get the passed referendums reversed. You know how pointless that would be, don't you?
| Comment #3 posted by researcher on March 19, 2000 at 12:23:52 PT |
Two decades ago, when biological psychiatry was taking hold and medicine was used to treat emotional illnesses, the OLD GUARD PSYCHIATRISTS were screaming that medicine only covers up the problems. It's now known they were WRONG. Biochemical problems are the causes of many disorders.
Oregon is expanding the uses of medical marijuana to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression, Anxiety, Attention Deficit Disorder, Schizophrenia and insomnia. Why? Because it alleviates the biochemical imbalances for those who are not helped by conventional pharmaceuticals.
Marijuana IS medication, but too many people are blinded and repeat rhetoric -- not surprising because they're like parrots and repeat what they hear, like the old guard psychiatrists who were indoctrinated in medical school to think in certain ways.
Hats off to Oregon, and Holland, and all the countries that have decriminized or will be doing so soon -- European countries, Australia, New Zealand and all the others who will follow suit.
America will NOT be the watchdogs of the world when they're dead wrong about medical marijuana.
| Comment #2 posted by greenfox on March 19, 2000 at 11:41:01 PT |
More nonsense. There is no data to support this. Articles like these sicken me; the mere fact that they make it to print is disgusting, but what is worse is that the A.P. takes it seriously.
"Fourth, marijuana has been shown to worsen coordination in multiple sclerosis patients."
OK, this is a very broad statement; once again, where is the data to support this claim? It is my personal experience that whenever someone mumbles off a numbered list with no sources, it is moreoften fiction than fact. Not just *any* fiction, mind you; rhetoric from the power moms of america. You know the type. Sit front and center in mass, every sunday, like clockwork. They don't actually worship, per say, but they DO love to look nice for the neighbors, and show that they are there. The same falls true for drug law reform. "I'm against drugs", they chide and smile, and in the very next breath "Uh.. can I have a pack of misty slims in the box and, oh, these wine coolers are mine too". Smile, wink, nod, .... "thank you!" click click click go the high heels, and the obsession in the brain. My drug is better than yours. You can't have YOUR drugs of choice, as so long as I don't loose mine. Poo.
"Fifth, no national medical group has approved marijuana as medicine."
Whatta crock. It amazes me that these people can even open their mouths... `lest the fecal matter that they spewith reach dangerous volume.
"The writer is president of America Cares, a national organization that fights drug legalization."
Sure, "america cares" enough to lock you up for a non violent, victimless drug crime. This letter is bias at best. It's this type of ignorance that makes me swear to you all that we will not and can not ever win. When fact becomes fiction and logic is no more, we are the whores to the system. Someone please tell me how we can win against such ignorance. (and it's so wide spread!) Looking forward to discussions on this one....
and I'm back, folks... after a little bout of sickness.. (as if I was even missed to begin with.) Oh well, sometimes I wonder why I try.. my opinion means nothing anyway.. the only people that read it agree with me, anyways.. so sometimes I ask myself.. why bother? Oh well, oh well, oh well... must be the illness talking. Time to administer myself 2g of mm. Later all.
-greenf0x
|
Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on March 19, 2000 at 09:03:51 PT:
|
Well, now we have just been treated to a dose of 'compassionate Conservatism': if you have cancer or AIDS, they would rather you just died quietly and out of sight; allowing cannabis use might upset the chil-drun, you know.
'The bill that Maryland Del. Ulysses Currie discussed [Close to Home, March 12] was defeated in the state legislature by a group of parents, grandparents and law enforcement personnel.' With a serious emphasis on the latter group. Money always does talk. Strange how few of them showed up in uniform for the debates, though.
However, it should be noted that the Room and the area immediately outside of it where the legislation was being debated was PACKED with people. As my Marine Dad would say 'A**hole to bellybutton' People without very much money to pay hot-shot lawyers and silver-tongued lobbyists. People who *supported* the legislation. Grandmothers, Grandfathers, Moms & Pops, sisters, brothers, Aunts, Uncles... all who either had used cannabis, or knew someone who had, or just plain felt the law was *wrong*.
Ms. Nalepka obviously feels that she belongs on the side of the angels. She is certain of her good intentions in denying those most needy of the best medicine available. But according to some branches of Christian faith, there are such things as 'fallen angels'. And we all know what the Road to Hell is paved with.
Evidently, Ms. Nalepka has been smelling the brimstone and mistaking it for freedom's atmosphere for so long, she can't tell the difference, anymore.
| Post Comment |  |
|  |