cannabisnews.com: A Prescription for Marijuana





A Prescription for Marijuana
Posted by FoM on June 14, 2000 at 10:53:02 PT
By Virginia Bloom 
Source: Echo Press 
It may be past time for us to rethink our attitude towards marijuana. It has served as a useful bugbear for years and the warning always was, "If you begin with marijuana you will wind up becoming an addict of some much more powerful drug." Which could happen. But before we begin discussing the ill effects of smoking it, maybe we ought to consider the beneficial effects of the use of marijuana in certain narrowly defined instances in the treatment of cancer, say. 
There have been reports from the medical community of the easing of nausea induced by chemotherapy as well as alleviating pain in other aspects of cancer.Billie Young, president of the Drug Policy Reform Group and wife of St. Paul superintendent of schools, called in to Open Line last Friday to tell us about her group which is working to try to get the legislature to change the law so that with a physician's prescription marijuana could be used for medicinal purposes. She put forth a powerful plea to have all of us write our representatives and urge them to legalize the drug for cancer treatment. She pointed out too that there is real reluctance on the part of the legislators to consider marijuana in a different light. The fear is that they might be perceived to be approving of its use to "get high," which is a very real concern.Mrs. Young also made the point that marijuana is regarded now by many people in the same way that communists were years ago…that there was one hiding under every bed. An aside here. The whole nation was held in thrall by the antics of Senator Joe McCarthy and his vicious nonsense about the hordes of communists lurking everywhere trying to bring the nation down. It took Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Republican, to call for censuring McCarthy early on. (The guys on both sides of the aisle were scared.)Years ago I read an article by William F. Buckley who was incensed that his housekeeper's sister could not get the proper drugs when she was suffering great pain. I thought then that it would take someone like Mr. Buckley to get things changed, conservative as he is, and to point out that our desperate fear of pain relievers is not always justified.As things stand now a physician could have his license revoked if he were to prescribe marijuana. For those of us who have experienced unremitting grinding pain day after day and on into months, the advent of an effective safe pain reliever could make the difference in our wanting to continue your life at all. I know; I've been there.Eight states have already gotten on board, making it possible for physicians to use their own judgment treating the illness. This is a purely personal feeling but it seems to me that anything which will address pain successfully and under the care of a knowledgeable physician holds out a lot of hope. But it will take time. We have emphasized the ill effects of marijuana for so long that it is going to take a lot of education to try to look at it dispassionately.Mrs. Young compared marijuana as a threat with that of communism and the point was neatly made. What she did not mention is that during the height of McCarthy's "investigations" it was popular that former communists come in to speak to various civic groups about their sinning and redemption…how they now had reclaimed their lives. For those of us who by chance or design avoided all communists one thing was abundantly clear. They were all dreadful bores. But, of course, being a bore is not a hanging offense, more's the pity. I intend to write my representative and I hope you will too.Not that you care but…Camilla Parker Bowles, "friend" of Prince Charles, dropped a curtsy to Queen Elizabeth the other day and the queen, who had heretofore ignored her existence chatted her up for a bit. This is the same lady who Princess Di said had ruined her marriage…she did so on the "telly". Shortly after that when Mrs. Parker Bowles was buying groceries in the supermarket the shoppers all threw buns at her. Susan Stamberg said admiringly, "Those Brits really know how to express themselves, don't they?" Made my whole morning. And revealed to me that the Brits who have always been perceived as unflappable…insouciant to a fault…are just impossible human beings at times after all.Carlyn Coats said it. Think about it. "Children have more need of models than of critics."Virginia Bloom of Alexandria is a regular contributing columnist to the Echo Press Opinion page.Published: June 14, 2000Copyright: 2000 Fargo ForumEcho Press, Alexandria, MN, USACannabis & Drug Policy Information:http://cannabisnews.com/information/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by dddd on January 13, 2001 at 01:32:14 PT
Far out
Observer....ThanxThis is some astounding,eye opening stuff.The tone of the NIDA report is very disturbing.When you consider the tone that it's written in.They seem to think they have a mandate to poison the minds of the public....And this was in 1979.Can you imagine how much further they have gone into the application of advanced mind control hoo-doo in 22 years?.......And again,I have to mention the size of the anti camp.Percentage-wise,of the American people,your anti group is miniscule,yet it is monstrous in terms of power. They are a very dangerous group.They have successfully convinced mainstream America that there is a drug problem,and that most Americans are behind the anti drug movement,but in reality,very few people buy into the antis' view...If you watch the national news,the"drug problem",is always spoken of,as if it was a proven fact,,yet in terms of actual reality,THERE IS NO DRUG PROBLEM. The only drug problem we have,is the one that has been created,in a most devious way,,by the,(excuse the expression again),"Evil Empire"....If you were to suggest to the average citizen that the federal government was up to such scandalous tactics,you would be labeled a conspiracy nut.Everybody knows that the government couldn't get away with mass mind control without someone noticing.Well I've rambled far enuff,,,,,,,, ,,thanx again Observer.........................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by observer on January 12, 2001 at 20:54:42 PT
gate of their city
 I would like feed back if I am wrong (though I'm not),..No, you're so correct it hurts. The "gateway" metaphor is full on, 100% propaganda, classic, so classic. I suppose it propagandistically twists an aspect of human nature, namely, that some people sometimes like to alter their consciousness, perhaps not always in the same manner. People try all sort of different things, sometimes some people who like one kind of substance (like tobacco, say), may also like other types, too (like alcohol). All of these rather informal observations of human nature do not imply that "tobacco LEADS TO alcohol (or qat or betel nut chewing or brugmansia teas, etc.), which is the lie, the propagandistic slip the prohibitionists give us. That "leading to", the attribution of causality where no causal connection has been proven, is at the crux of the many logical fallacies involved with the "gateway" image.One of my favorite guides for analyzing prohibitionist propaganda is Themes in Chemical Prohibition [NIDA, 1979]. Yes, that's "NIDA" (The US government's National Institute on Drug Abuse, written by William L. White). I doubt if such a report could see the light of day in the year 2001, but in 1979 somehow it slipped by.http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.htmlI bet you'll recognize #4 -``THE PROHIBITIONIST THEMES ...``4. The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino theory" of chemical progression.''The "Domino theory" and the "stepping-stone theory" are terms that are also used. The NIDA report goes on.The history of prohibitionist pronouncements is replete with examples which propose a "domino theory" of chemical usage. Such a theory holds that the use of a particular drug (usually the one presently targeted for prohibition) inevitably and with rare exception leads-to the use of other drugs (usually drugs already prohibited or drugs already defined as evil). For example, the publication in 1798 of Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical by Benjamin Rush includes the following comments from an anti-tobacco essay: "A desire of course is excited for strong drink, (by smoking tobacco) and these (cigarettes) when taken between meals soon lead to intemperance and drunkenness.35 The following is from a 1912 article in Century magazine:The relation of tobacco, especially in the form of cigarettes, and alcohol and opium is a close one . . . Morphine is the legitimate consequence of alcohol, and alcohol is the legitimate consequence of tobacco. Cigarettes, drink, opium is the logical and regular series. 36One of the most dramatic and all-inclusive examples of this "domino theory" can be seen in the following illustration from The Temperance Program (1915) of Evangelist Thos. F. Hubbard. 37[illustration]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/Image19.gif That illustration has to be seen to be believed ... it "shows" the progression from evil like "pickles & pork" and "mexicanized dishes" leading to a "drunkard's grave"!The section on the "domino theory" continues. The contention that alcohol abuse was the basis for morphinism was not uncommon in the late 1800's, and more recently the mystical connection between marihuana and heroin has been central to the rationale for continued prohibition of marihuana.The destruction of the concept of controlled drug usage implies that everyone who ever uses heroin will be a "dope fiend," everyone who drinks will be an alcoholic, etc. In general this strategy equates the use and abuse of drugs and implies that it is impossible to use the particular drug or drugs in question without physical, mental, and moral deterioration. Such a view holds that there are powers within the drug over which no one can exert control. The extreme absurdity of such a view seems apparent when one considers the vast majority of persons who use alcohol in this country with minimal or no dysfunctional consequences and the numbers of users of illicit drugs who do not suffer physical deterioration, who do not progress to compulsive drug usage, who do continue to work, raise children, and maintain the usually expected social responsibilities. The idea that there are overwhelming powers within drugs is probably nowhere better illustrated than in a statement in Marc Olden's 1973 book, Cocaine, in which he states: "It's possible to get a habit just from handling the drug." 38 The continued belief in this domino theory of chemical progression and its implications for current policies is perhaps well illustrated by a 1974 survey in which 39 percent of non-marihuana users in the sample cited "marijuana use leads to harder drugs" as the primary reason for their opposition to legalization of marihuana.39Themes in Chemical Prohibition, NIDA, 1979http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.htmlHope that gives a little perspective as to where prohibitionists are coming from, and what they're trying to do with their "gateway theory" bunk.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by pot head in TX. on January 12, 2001 at 20:14:23 PT:
 "GATEWAY DRUG" SAYS WHO??!!
   I just wanted to give my two cents on the matter of pot being a "gateway drug", as so many people who have never smoked the stuff in their lives tend put it. First, I have to say that a drug is something that has to be manufactured, in my opinion anyway, like PCP, LSD, cocaine, ect. But pot, like tabbaco is simply grown, dried, and smoked. I would like feed back if I am wrong (though I'm not), but please only the hard facts. No bull-crap that someones Mommy or Daddy has to say becuase their children choose pot over them. And back to the point, I have been smoking for about seven years and personly have never so much as touched anything else, though I have had ample opportunity, I haven't even so much as had a drink of beer or liqor, which most "outstanding citizens" drink on a daily basis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Kanabys on June 15, 2000 at 17:52:16 PT
If more dad's were like you.......
I wish more parent's would talk to their kids like you, Suspect. I think the kids would grow up much more mature and informed on this matter. Oh, I forgot, it's the govt that's our parents, right?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Suspect Stereotype on June 14, 2000 at 17:24:28 PT
In the days of my youth...
The misconception that marijuana leads to harder drugs is actually attributable to prohabition. I remember trying pot for the first time and thinking, "is this what all the fuss is about?"Sure I got high, but I didn't think I could fly, and Sonny Bono didn't sprout a white mustash and start chasing me with a gun. (Long Story)Anyhow, when the opportunity to try acid came along I took it. Well then Sonny Bono showed up and the rest is history.The short of it is that if MJ had not been illegal I couldn't have gotten it so easily and I wouldn't have been taking advice of the proper dosage of psychactive chemicals for someone that sucked at math worse than I did.Prohabition is the number one cause of drug abuse among children.Now I have a son that is the same age I was then. And while I don't think the late Mr Bono would pose any threat real or imagined, who knows what his mind would conjur.I tell him the truth about drugs--information I was never given and had to find out the hard way.I tell him that MJ will make everything seem funny and make him feel wonderful but that using it could cost him his freedom at the hands of our government.I tell him that the government likes to lump MJ in with all other illegal drugs in an attemp to make MJ seem to be more dangerous--but the opposite happens.Kids are growing up without a healthy respect for some of drugs they will be exposed to.I tell mine the truth, and I'll let him make his choice based on fact instead of fiction.SS
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Dan B on June 14, 2000 at 13:31:04 PT:
A Couple of Problems
The language in this mostly pro-medical-marijuana article is rather disturbing. I am glad that somebody else is calling for medical use of marijuana, but I disagree with some of the other assertions made."'If you begin with marijuana you will wind up becoming an addict of some much more powerful drug.' Which could happen." In actuality, eating a Twinkie is more likely to cause one to become a food addict than marijuana is to cause hard drug addiction. This statement just isn't factual. It is true that most hard drug addicts first used marijuana, but the overwhelming majority of those who have tried marijuana--even recreationally--never go on to use harder drugs, and even fewer choose to continue using harder drugs beyond the first or second use. "The fear is that they might be perceived to be approving of its use to 'get high,' which is a very real concern." Why? Is it so wrong to enjoy a drug that happens to also be an effective treatment against several chronic diseases and disorders? Why, then, do drug companies make special drugs for children that taste good? Aren't they worried that children will become addicted to gummy bear Dimetap or tasty orange children's chewable aspirin (both of which are far more dangerous than marijuana). If getting high is what these people are worried about, give it a rest. Go home, take off your shoes, sit back with your favorite brandy, and let the pot smokers smoke.These "problems" that people worry about are really not problems at all. They are misperceptions based on erroneous propaganda.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: