cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana: No Case





Medical Marijuana: No Case
Posted by FoM on July 15, 2001 at 08:45:34 PT
A Boston Herald Editorial 
Source: Boston Herald 
The latest nail in the coffin of marijuana for medical purposes has been hammered in by an article in the British Medical Journal. Two groups of researchers combed through 39 clinical studies on the use of cannabis. The first found that pot is no better than codeine for relief of severe pain, and has undesirable side effects. The second found that the active ingredients in marijuana were better than some drugs in relieving illness caused by chemotherapy, but side effects were potentially serious and would limit medical usefulness.
Marijuana ``hasn't turned out to be a great success. There are, at the moment, better alternatives,'' wrote Eija Kalso, an associate professor at Helsinki University Hospital and one of the authors of the pain report. She also wrote an editorial that said marijuana should be used medically only in carefully controlled clinical trials, against conditions that have no effective treatment.For almost a decade, the drug lobby has tried to achieve back-door legalization with an appeal to compassion. Several states, including California, have passed medical marijuana laws by referendum. But cooler heads are beginning to prevail.In May, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there is no ``medical marijuana defense'' to federal law banning distribution of the drug, because there's no conclusive evidence that the relief alleged to come from smoking pot couldn't be obtained from other treatments.Agitation for medical marijuana is a cruel hoax that plays on the vulnerability of patients and the sympathy of the public. The British Medical Journal report has helped to make this point.Source: Boston Herald (MA) Published: Sunday, July 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Boston Herald, Inc. Website: http://www.bostonherald.com/ Contact: letterstoeditor bostonherald.com Related Articles & Web Site:OCBC Versus US Governmenthttp://freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmCannabis 'No Better Than Codeine' for Headacheshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10230.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #16 posted by Kevin Hebert on July 16, 2001 at 14:26:21 PT:
My response to the Boston Herald
Dear Editor:The unsigned Herald editorial "Medical Marijuana: No Case" posits that medical marijuana is not effective.This could not be further from the truth. Your article claims that marijuana is as effective as codeine for pain relief. Since codeine is an addictive narcotic, and marijuana is a nonaddictive herb, that alone should have been cause for celebration. But, of course, why bother printing the truth, when passing along long-discredited propaganda and lamentable reefer madness is what reallysells papers?Thousands of people get relief for a variety of ailments from using marijuana. They should not have to risk going to prison for doing so.                Sincerely,                 Kevin Hebert   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by truthisfree on July 16, 2001 at 12:48:38 PT
more lies
the writer(s) of this editorial tried very hard to use deceiving information, including taking the supreme court's ruling out of context and claiming that they ruled against medical marijuana because "there's no conclusive evidence" -when actually the court was binded into the ruling because of legal semetics ("schedule I" meaning there is no such thing as medical necessity), not scientific evidence that proves otherwise. this article also seems to imply that the medical marijuana movement (drug lobby) is led by the same people who failed to legalize pot/*drugs* and are attempting a (last ditch) "back door" legalization effort. not pleasant ideas that could easily be placed in the heads of simpler minds who feed daily on strategically alloted newspapers-the way such "strategic writers" warp reality with words is amazing!i just thought those notes should be added&i'm really sick of all the lies . . . 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Dan B on July 16, 2001 at 07:14:03 PT:
Kap
I'm glad you laughed; I couldn't resist.I hope nobody was offended.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on July 16, 2001 at 05:24:38 PT:
LOL
Dan, you're incorrigible! I certainly didn't mean to imply such a relationship...but now that I think about it, it's awfully damn' close. I've said in another forum that Reps and Dems are actually Siamese Twins joined at the wallet. But that description is just as fitting for 'news' outlets. Case in point: General Electric owns NBC. General Electric practically is nuclear power in the States. You never hear anything negative about fission power on their TV stations. Even when the link between depleted uranium shells and Gulf War Syndrome was pointed out, their stations were the absolute last to comment. And they very studiously ignored the fact that the very same shells were made from the very same plants that provided GE with their bread-and-butter.So, yes, the mega-corporations do indeed control what is considered news and what isn't. As one science-fiction writer I used to read once commented: "Multinational? Hell, they're quasi-national! All the power of a nation, and none of the social responsibility of one! neat deal, if you have the stomach for it." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Dan B on July 16, 2001 at 01:41:40 PT:
Great Quotations
I found this quotation from the link kaptinemo provided, http://www.druginfonet.com/acetamin.htm , quite interesting:"No adequate studies have been conducted in animals to determine whether acetaminophen and codeine have a potential for carcinogenesis or mutagenesis."Oops! Didn't mean to let that little tidbit slip! Do you mean that after hundreds of years of legal medical use in the United States, these basic studies on the safety of this universally-used product have never even been conducted? This makes the rather extensive studies of marijuana look amazingly comprehensive in comparison and reveal yet another gigantic hole in the argument that "we need more research."But, I found this quotation from kaptinemo's post to be the gem of the day:"Since the major news organs have almost entirely been swallowed by mega-corporations - corporations that have their own peculiar view of history and their roles in it - they will print nothing of any really conroversial nature besides their corporate 'spin'."Fellatio in the corporate media! How did that pass the censors?! ; )Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by jorma nash on July 15, 2001 at 20:51:55 PT
no better than = no worse than.
well, i guess these points have been made, but it's worth restating:"The first found that pot is no better than codeine for relief of severe pain, and has undesirable side effects."oh, really. yet's just play with their 'facts' at face value, just for fun.remember how it used to be the idea cannabis had any medical use whatsoever was garbage?now it's: it's EQUALLY as effective as codine...although of course it goes without saying (or certainly debating) they will continue to throw in prison anyone who chooses a garden growing for free over the oh so profitable synthetic drugs.an let's discuss 'undesirable' side effects, cannabis: euphoria synthetics: break out the microscope to read the book they have to print on the label.he thinks "The latest nail in the coffin of marijuana for medical purposes has been hammered in"but it looks to me the alleged "corpse" is standing beside him, watching with some amusement.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by schmeff on July 15, 2001 at 16:09:41 PT:
My Response to the Boston Herald
Your editorial demeaning the use of marijuana for medical purposes has left this reader confused. By printing the results of a study by the British Medical Journal which states that "pot is no better than codeine for relief of severe pain" and concluding there is no case for medical marijuana, the editors are either employing an ironic tone that I feel most readers will fail to appreciate, or the the editors simply fail to understand the news they print.The irony, of course, is that codeine is one of THE most effective drugs for pain relief. Although the drug of choice for effective relief of severe pain, codeine has its own extensive list of possible negative side effects. It is an opiate, which has a high potential for addiction and can kill in high doses.Cannabis is a natural herb, easily grown at low cost. It is non-addictive and in thousands of years of use by millions of people has never killed anyone. It has fewer side effects and is considerably safer than aspirin. But what's that you say? It's no more effective than codeine! Perhaps The Herald believes that mouse traps are a sham because they are no more effective than cats at killing mice.Neither the editors nor the British researchers actually specified the "potentially serious" side effects of medical marijuana, because to compare the side effects of cannabis to those of opiates would expose this research - and editorial - as the shameless pieces of propoganda that they are. I can understand why the Brit researchers would side with the medical status quo in issues related to control of/and access to pain relief. What I can't understand is why the editors would promote an addictive opiate over a relatively benign herb. Can anyone say "conflict of interest"?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by de facto on July 15, 2001 at 14:42:00 PT
Codeine
Codeine killed Elvis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Offspring on July 15, 2001 at 14:30:49 PT
Write back
Everone who reads this should write their opinion to the Boston Herald.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by sm247 on July 15, 2001 at 13:15:22 PT
More b.s.
The latest nail in the coffin of marijuana for medical purposes has been hammered in by an article in the British Medical Journal. Two groups of researchers combed through 39 clinical studies on the use of cannabis. The first found that pot is no better than codeine for relief of severe pain, and has undesirable side effects. The second found that the active ingredients in marijuana were better than some drugs in relieving illness caused by chemotherapy, but side effects were potentially serious and would limit medical usefulness.No better than??? So lets reverse the role here...codeine is no better than pot for relief of severe pain, and has undesirable side effects. I remember a friend coming to school with a bottle of codeine because of a broken jaw... didn't take long for the bottle to empty as it was passed between many classmates (I personnally did not partake and at the time I had never even heard of "marijuana")but I do recall the effects of my friends on this codeine and compared to what I do know about marijuana now codeine will knock you out unlike marijuana. You cannot drive safely under the effects of codeine but you are actually a safer driver after using marijuana.As for the second study about chemotherapy I never have had this done but the side effects must be worse than the munchies pot gives you.I believe this article is just rambling b.s. with the only purpose of discrediting marijuana ....propaganda .
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dan Hillman on July 15, 2001 at 11:26:08 PT
To all reading this article:
So the Boston Herald has printed hooey concerning medpot. My question to you is as follows: how do you feel about the *rest* of the stories printed in this coporate house organ?No need to answer. My only hope is that you'll consider this the next time you are headed for the newspaper rack to "find out what's happening in the world".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by ExtreamSmoker on July 15, 2001 at 11:18:37 PT
Side effects
What kind of medical professional goes out of their way to prevent people from feeling better? This person may have the credentials of a professional, but they have the heart of Hitler.I smoke about an ounce every month, and have so for about 23 years. The only side effect I have ever noticed was happiness. Who gave anyone any permission, at any time, to tell me what vegetables I can produce and consume?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by lookinside on July 15, 2001 at 10:55:31 PT:
LD-50
that stands for LETHAL DOSE for 50% of those exposed to acertain substance...the LD-50 for pot is non existent for ingestion...now if youare BURIED in it, it depends on how tall you are...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on July 15, 2001 at 10:38:17 PT:
Another example of McJournalism at work
Amazing, isn't it?This article is almost word for word the same as the original article. This should surprise no one; as 4D has pointed out repeatedly, the relationship between corporations and the news media they de facto own is downright incestuous. Since the major news organs have almost entirely been swallowed by mega-corporations - corporations that have their own peculiar view of history and their roles in it - they will print nothing of any really conroversial nature besides their corporate 'spin'.The proof of the pudding is that this article makes the exact same mistakes as the original. The most glaringly obvious of which is failure to mention specifically the much-ballyhooed 'negative effects'.What are they, pray tell? And as to the effectiveness of cannabis vis-avis codeine, I say, look at it from this point of view:Acetaminophen and Codeinehttp://www.druginfonet.com/acetamin.htmRead the warnings. Now ask yourself: which would you put in your body? Something that can make you nauseous? Leave you mentally null-and-void? Addict you? Even kill you? Cannabis does none of these things. A good rule of thumb: if something says it has an LD-50, leave it be.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by lookinside on July 15, 2001 at 10:20:00 PT:
personal opinion...
re: Medical Marijuana: No CaseEditor,My wife is a user of Medical Marijuana. She suffers from avariety of problems that doctors chose to treat withstandard medications over the last 20 years. Two of thesemedications are highly addictive. Side effects from othershave caused liver damage. None of these medications can cureher illnesses. They are designed to reduce symptoms such aspain.Marijuana, with the recommendation of her doctors, hasallowed her to reduce or eliminate the need for all nine ofher previously prescribed medications. Her condition isimproving. Her liver function is approaching normal.Editorials, like the one mentioned above, shows your lack ofresearch on the subject. It destroys your credibility. Thesources you cite are questionable. Anyone who would suggestthat addictive codeine is preferable to non-addictivemarijuana without consulting the patient, is not a scientistor a doctor worth their salt.If you choose to print a newspaper, it should at leastattempt to present news and opinions in an intelligentmanner. Your current approach is merely a waste of perfectlygood newsprint. Frank L. Cowsert Jr.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Andy on July 15, 2001 at 09:06:19 PT
side affects, give me a break
I've been smoking 5-10 joints a day for the last 10 years and have yet to find any side affects. The only affects I get are enhanced self-feeling, and it makes me hungry. ooooo those are such bad things.  and they think it has stronger side affects then codeine. Codeine that makes people violent, codeine that stressed me out when I was on it at the hospital. codeine that can make people really dizzy and sick.  geeshAndy Lee
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment