[Vision2020] Correcting Debbie's Implications:Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all...

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

All:

The post quoted below dated 6/27/05 from Debbie Gray makes implications that 
require correction if they lead to any misconceptions among the list serve 
members regarding the arguments and evidence I presented in the post Debbie 
references.

Debbie wrote:

"I don't see how the statistics that say 'alcohol kills 6.5 times 
more youth than all other illicit drugs' provides much support 
for legalizing marijuana for non-medical use (if that is what 
your previous post was getting at)."

Debbie does not quote the post she references, nor does she mention the 
subject heading, but as best as I can determine, she is referencing the post 
forwarded below at the bottom subject headed "Medicinal Cannabis & Prescription 
Drugs."

Apparently Debbie misunderstood the arguments and evidence presented in this 
post.  In this post I presented no arguments whatsoever for the general 
legalization of cannabis for nonmedical use.

The post was a response to a post of another V2020 list member who presented 
arguments against legal medical cannabis.  To oversimplify for the sake of 
brevity, the writer of the post I responded to presented at least two critical 
arguments against legal use of medical cannabis.  I responded with arguments and 
documentation to these two arguments regarding the legal use of cannabis in 
medicine.  

Again, I presented no argument whatsoever for general legalization of 
cannabis for nonmedical use.

The two issues argued were distribution and control of a prescription drug, 
and toxicity relating to prescription drugs, in the context of the debate over 
medical applications of cannabis.  The writer I responded to argued that 
cannabis had too many control and distribution problems and was too toxic to be 
allowed for legal medical use.  

My response, and the documentation I presented, revealed that there are many 
legal prescription drugs that have serious and fatal (numerous cases of 
overdose leading to numerous deaths) issues with abuse due to a lack of sufficient 
distribution and control, with no widespread call for these legal prescription 
drugs to be outlawed for any medical use.  And I suggested that the toxicity 
of cannabis was not of a sufficiently high enough level to justify banning it 
for medical use for short term (weeks or months not years) medical 
applications.  I presented factual reliable documentation that can be researched by anyone 
to support these two arguments.

The evidence I presented in fact suggested that cannabis is less toxic than 
many prescription drugs that are available for legal medical use, and that the 
fatal overdose potential of cannabis is nonexistent or extremely improbable, 
which cannot be said for many other legal prescription drugs.  

Again, I made no argument for the general legalization of cannabis outside of 
a strictly medical use under a doctor's care:

I think any careful reading of the post included below exactly as it appeared 
on V2020 will reveal this.

Yours in fact based accurate rational discussion of all issues...

Ted Moffett
    

All:

The post forwarded below offers not a single documented fact to support the 
thesis that cannabis available for legal medical use should be outlawed in all 
cases.  

The writer appears to argue vehemently against cannabis use in medicine, when 
towards the end of his "argument," the writer states:

"Until manufacture, control and distribution issues have been resolved,
I will oppose widespread medicinal use."

So if the legal medicinal [of cannabis] use is only in Salmon, Idaho, then he 
has no objection, considering that this is most decidedly not "widespread?"  
And all those arguments firmly declaring the harm to human beings from 
medicinal cannabis can be negated if only "manufacture, control and distribution 
issues have been resolved?"

So as long as "manufacture, control and distribution issues have been 
resolved" then the problem of "trading pain control for cancer" is not as 
significant?  If indeed the writer really believes what he states below, how can 
"manufacture, control and distribution issues" override such a dire result as someone 
blocking their pain but ending up with cancer as a result?

"Are we just trading pain control for cancer, the pain
of which, they would want to control with the thing that caused the cancer
in the first place? Kind of twisted to me."

So if "control and distribution issues" are a worry that leads the writer to 
refute the value of medicinal cannabis, what does the writer think of the 
following state of affairs, that applies to Ritalin, Oxycontin, Morphine, Prosac, 
and numerous other prescription drugs?  I suppose the writer will declare that 
all these drugs now legal for medical use should be pulled from legal use by 
doctors, considering the formidable problems now existing with control and 
distribution?  

Consider these cases:

Your mother is in the hospital dying in agonizing pain, and the doctor 
declares that morphine has just been made illegal because there are too many 
"control and distribution issues."  Your son has ADHD, and is failing in school, but 
Ritalin is now pulled off the market becoming illegal because of "control and 
distribution issues."  Your wife is having a breakdown, but Prosac is illegal, 
no longer available, because of "control and distribution issues."  And your 
brother who is dying of AIDs is blocked from being able to legally use 
cannabis to relieve symptoms because of "control and distribution issues."

As Republican State Sen. Robert Kierlin of Winona, Minnesota said in regard 
to legislation in 2005 to protect seriously ill people from prosecution for 
using medicinal marijuana:

"It's a question of compassion," the Republican said. "With terminal 
illnesses, if there's any chance to solve any of the pain problem with any drug we 
should give it a shot." 

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/winona_medmj_033005.htm

The writer did not clarify if he would support legal medical cannabis for the 
terminally ill.  Of course not.  His position hasn't changed, nor will it, 
regardless of what facts or arguments are presented.

If the writer follows his logic consistently, he would remove many currently 
legal prescription drugs from legal use by doctors because of the widespread 
abuse and lack of tight control over these drugs.  I can understand the logic, 
but is the writer willing to apply it across the board to all prescription 
drugs that are abused?  

And has the writer considered that keeping medical cannabis illegal will not 
stop the widespread use of cannabis?  That genie is out of the bottle.  In 
fact, is it not possible that keeping medical cannabis illegal actually helps 
fuel a rebellion that encourages cannabis use?  The writer offers no facts to 
back his assertion that allowing legal medical cannabis will result in a dramatic 
increase in abuse in other ways.

Consider the following relating to the abuse of and lack of control over 
prescription drugs:


http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/10/31/fp1s4-csm.shtml
 
Also known as methylphenidate, Ritalin is in the Drug Enforcement 
Administration's (DEA's) Top 10 list of most often stolen prescription drugs. It's widely 
available on college campuses, as well as in high school cafeterias. Kids are 
popping, snorting, even dissolving and injecting Ritalin, putting it in the 
same drug class as cocaine. "Virtually every data source available confirms ... 
the widespread theft, diversion, and abuse of Ritalin, and drugs like it, 
within public schools throughout the country," says Rep. Henry Hyde (R) of 
Illinois. "It seems clear from the data that children are using these drugs 
illicitly, and that this use is increasing." 

------

http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN_ED_Interim2003.pdf
 
>From page 49 at the above link: 

52% of emergency room visits were due to consumption of prescription drugs.
-------

http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v6/4.aspx

Over the past decade-and-a-half, the number of teen and young adult (ages 12 
to 25) new abusers of prescription painkillers such as oxycodone (OxyContin) 
or hydrocodone (Vicodin) has grown five-fold (from 400,000 in the mid-eighties 
to 2 million in 2000). 
New misusers of tranquilizers such as diazepam (Valium) or alprazolam (Xanax, 
called "zanies" by youth)-medicine normally used to treat anxiety or 
tension-went up nearly 50 percent in one year (700,000 in 1999 to 1 million in 2000). 

I could go on with references regarding this subject, but let's move on to 
the grave toxicity of cannabis asserted by the writer, specifically lung cancer, 
and also, just to explore the dangers of cannabis compared to other legal 
precription drugs, the possibility of overdose from not knowing the exact 
cannabinol content in the cannabis being consumed.  The false argument that a given 
genetic strain of cannabis grown under controlled conditions will vary so 
widely in the THC content that it cannot be subject to testing accurate enough to 
verify what variability of THC content is present is currently being shown 
false in the Canada Health effort to grow cannabis of a known strength for medical 
use, so I won't labor this issue.

But consider these statements from professional researchers in light of the 
claims made by the writer regarding the toxicity of cannabis and cannabinols 
and also the possibility of overdose:

"There are no long lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marijuana and no 
fatalities have ever been recorded ... there seems to be growing agreement 
within the medical community, at least, that marijuana does not directly cause 
criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction."
Dr J. H. Jaffe, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. L.Goodman and A 
Gillman, eds. 3rd edn. 1965.

In the journal Fundamental And Applied Toxicology, Dr. William Slikker, 
director of the Neurotoxicology Division of the National Center for Toxicological 
Research (NCTR), described the health of monkeys exposed to very high levels of 
cannabis for an extended period: "The general health of the monkeys was not 
compromised by a year of marijuana exposure as indicated by weight gain, 
carboxyhemoglobin and clinical chemistry/hematology values." Dr. Merle Paule of NCTR 
added "There's just nothing there. They were all fine." - "No Increase in 
Carcinogen-DNA Adducts in the Lungs of Monkeys Exposed Chronically to Marijuana 
Smoke", 1992, Fundamental And Applied Toxicology, Dec 63 (3): 321-32.

Researchers at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine 
conducted an 8-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the 
lungs. Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported: 

"Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual 
marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana 
is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease... 
Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any 
significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]" as compared with 
those individuals who never smoked marijuana... No differences were noted 
between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana."

- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 155

"Cannabis is remarkably safe. Although not harmless, it is surely less toxic 
than most of the conventional medicines it could replace if it were legally 
available. Despite its use by millions of people over thousands of years, 
cannabis has never cause an overdose death." (10/1/97) 

Lester Grinspoon, M.D.   
Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, author of 
Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine, 1993, and 
Marihuana Reconsidered, 1994 

I could go with references that tilt toward cannabis as more benign than 
often thought, and of course anyone can find contradicting references to those 
above.  Cannabis has become a focal point for a politicized war of ideology and 
culture, with much "science" being funded by the government for the purpose of 
proving they were right all along to demonize cannabis, and cannabis 
supporters making fools of themselves, as the writer indicates, lighting up at rallies 
to support legal medicinal cannabis when any idiot knows such behavior could 
possibly induce a negative reaction in public support for medical cannabis.

But I wonder if the writer will come out with equal fervor to outlaw for 
medical use the widely abused prescription drugs mentioned above that certainly 
lack the strict "control and distribution issues" the writer asserted are 
critical to his acceptance of medical cannabis.

Keeping medical cannabis illegal will not stop the widespread use of cannabis 
in our culture, but if all the pharmaceutical companies were forced to stop 
manufacturing Ritalin, Prosac, Oyxcontin, and other prescription drugs that are 
widely abused, it would likely cut back on the abuse of these drugs because 
of the difficulty in manufacturing them, a situation that does not apply to 
cannabis.  They could be illegally imported, but the quantity available would 
drop dramatically if they were no longer available for legal medical use.

Ted Moffett

-----------------
Forwarded Message: 
Subj:   [Vision2020] Hooray! Kai Changed His Position!....Not   
Date:   6/23/2005 2:07:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time  
From:   editor at lataheagle.com   
To: vision2020 at moscow.com   
Sent from the Internet (Details)    
    

My position hasn't changed:
A. Some drugs work for some people and don't for others. Marijuana (THC) is
a drug, and therefore will NOT work for everyone as Ted so eagerly seems to
claim. (Sorry, "bud", you ain't the silver bullet) <bad pun, I know>
B. How is the prescription filled? The abilty to grow your own, for your own
"ills"? Well, that'll open up a whole new can of worms......every ganja
freak in the country will suddenly get "sick". Again, I point to the
potheads who show up at the pro medicinal use rallys and gleefuly light up.
C. How would  theft or illegal sales of the drug from or by the grower be
controlled? And how will consistent quality be maintained in order for the
user to be able to properly dose him/herself to recieve a consistent effect?
There is a rather large difference between , say, Kona and that stuff that
grows along the highways of Arizona. (And yes, I think we are all
intelligent enough to know that thefts and illegal sales WILL happen, it
happens with just about every controlled substance)
D. What are the long term effects on those not suffering from a life
threatening or terminal illness? Remember what the National Cancer Institute
said in 1954 about cigarettes, "If excessive smoking plays a role in the
production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." They were wrong on
that one.........
We know that in addition to pot's mind altering capabilities, it is higher
in tar than cigarettes and is inhaled more deeply. It has also been shown to
lower the sperm count in men. (Which maybe isn't a bad thing, natural birth
control for potheads.) Are we just trading pain control for cancer, the pain
of which, they would want to control with the thing that caused the cancer
in the first place? Kind of twisted to me.
Too many people just jump onto a bandwagon because it seems to be a good
idea. Until manufacture, control and distribution issues have been resolved,
I will oppose widespread medicinal use.
I will ALWAYS oppose legalization.
I'll tell you why.
I have a younger brother, Anthony, or Danny, as we called him. In junior
high, he started smoking weed. It progressed through high school, escalating
into booze, coke, speed, opiates, you name it. All through it, he always
wanted his weed more than anything.
Now, 30 years later, nobody knows where he is, whether he is dead or alive,
in prison or in  a gutter. I haven't seen or spoken with my brother in 15
years, I can recall every word of our last conversation. My mother has
searched for him, to no avail. My daughter has never met her uncle, she only
knows him from stories and pictures.
I had a brother, but drugs stole him away.
You can stand there and spout about the virtues of pot all you want. I've
seen it's dark side, the pain it causes can't be controlled with a drug. The
pain of having a lost brother cuts into one's very soul and it is always
there, throbbing icily day in day out,  it never goes away.

Kai T. Eiselein
Editor
Latah Eagle
521 S. Jackson St.
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-0666 Fax (208) 882-0130
editor at lataheagle.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050629/257ef513/attachment-0001.htm