Pot Kills (very rarely)

Sep 10, 2007 12:05

I've been talking with spiritualmonkey in the comments of another post about medical marijuana and whether to encourage or require medical cannabis dispensaries to treat their "medication" like other medication: to standardize it, dispense it in measured doses, or certify its purity and potency through trusted third parties. He pointed out (I hope I'm ( Read more... )

health, superstition:harmful, skeptic, mcd

Leave a comment

Comments 9

ikkyu2 September 10 2007, 19:51:23 UTC
Yeah, what you said. Also I think you mean paraquat, not parquat.

Reply


leighton September 10 2007, 19:58:41 UTC
This is dead on, because it's not coming from one side or the other wielding an ax.

People suffering mental illness often try to self-medicate with pot (or worse) out of desperation or comfort.

I have no problem with recreational use either. But I have seen up close (my friends) and from a clinical distance (my father's psychiatric patients) what even pot can do to derail therapy.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

doctors are not pharmacologists.... drieuxster September 10 2007, 23:53:19 UTC

Minor Nit here, the analysis of the utility of a drug is not something that the average MD is qualified to argue about one way or the other.

One of the reasons we got the FDA is 'heroin' which was the 'heroine' who would help folks to break their addiction to Morphine, Opium and Lodnium.... WOW DUDE, THE COLOURS!!!

So the real problem is how do folks in a representational federal republic go about working out what is and what is not good national policy.

Reply

Re: doctors are not pharmacologists.... tongodeon September 11 2007, 17:40:30 UTC
the analysis of the utility of a drug is not something that the average MD is qualified to argue about one way or the other.

Yeah I'm intentionally avoiding implementation details because I don't want to get into the discussion about who's best qualified to determine and write the standards and how they should be certified enforced. For now it's sufficient if we all agree that there is a potential for complications, standards will mitigate those complications, and a trusted party should be in charge of drafting and enforcing them.

Reply

Re: doctors are not pharmacologists.... drieuxster September 11 2007, 17:47:46 UTC
Good tactical choice. There is the current effort to get third party standards for such things as renewable wood and sea foods, so that may actually be a better approach - when we get to the phase where we want to implement the standards.

The challenge is to get the compelling argument FOR the standards, which is why politically you do not want to engage in the means or methods. My intention was to point out that mere MD's were not the place to park that...

Reply


can I argumentatively support your position here? drieuxster September 10 2007, 23:49:58 UTC

Having used Peppermint Extract to sterilize what we were using for stitches, and having.....

The Idea of getting a legitimate medical standard up would be great!!! And would conform to the traditional family values maxim:If you do not know your Dope!
Know Your Dope Dealer!!!
Hence more reason to have the neighborhood dope dealer prescribing the dope that your kids and friends need, and not some out of town nutJob...

The challenge seems to be that we have at least two groups who are running scared. One side is the folks who hate science, and hence are not sure what to do with the medical data about the re-use of non-standard 'drugs' - while at the same time are the folks who hate science, because it would stab the cash cow of the cult of alternative medicines and supplements; with it's steely knife....

May you be lucky in this quest.

Reply


spiritualmonkey September 19 2007, 15:35:18 UTC
He pointed out (I hope I'm paraphrasing his argument correctly) that while this ought to be true of potentially toxic, commerically synthesized medications where overdose is a concern, THC is a naturally occurring agent with an extremely low toxicity. Cannabis has never killed a single person in centuries of recreational and medicinal use. It is unnecessary to demand testing for purity and potency for such a safe and harmless medication.

That was largely my point before you pointed out the issues with contamination. I must certainly concede that contaminants in anything are bad and that the gummint has a legitimate interest in making sure that products sold on the market are free of contaminants, and produced in line with basic standards.

The fact that for the most part, cannabis is a weed that doesn't require much in the way of pesticides and responds well to natural soap-and-tobacco-based substances rather than Monsanto's poisons is a bonus ( ... )

Reply

tongodeon September 25 2007, 05:42:26 UTC
I must certainly concede that contaminants in anything are bad and that the gummint has a legitimate interest in making sure that products sold on the market are free of contaminants, and produced in line with basic standards.

That's really my central point, and I couldn't say it better myself. The only difference of opinion we might have seems to be over what constitutes "contaminants" and what "basic standards" are required.

cannabis is a weed that doesn't require much in the way of pesticides and responds well to natural soap-and-tobacco-based substances rather than Monsanto's poisons is a bonus. The fact that for the most part, cannabis is a weed that doesn't require much in the way of pesticides and responds well to natural soap-and-tobacco-based substances rather than Monsanto's poisons is a bonus ( ... )

Reply

tongodeon September 25 2007, 17:56:55 UTC
We evolved alongside plants, not test tubes.So I was thinking about this one. Sativa is native to India, and Indica is native to Pakistan and Afghanistan. *Those* populations evolved next to cannabis, but European and American populations didn't obtain cannabis until quite recently. Our genes and adaptations don't get influenced by a different genetic community's experience with cannabis any more than I get better cold-temperature survival from the adaptations of eskimo communities. (You might get a partial pass - I have no idea when Filipinos obtained cannabis from India/Pakistan but it could have been way earlier than the last three generations when my ancestors did ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up