[Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
Darrell Keim
keim153 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 4 07:49:42 PDT 2013
Sunil:
The article wasn't about the war on drugs. A large part of it was about
how the pro legalization side react to research showing m is bad for you.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Darrell,
>
> Is the so-called 'War on Drugs' a success? I think it's as much a failure
> as our other wars on nouns, as destructive and pointless.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:33:58 -0700
> From: rforce2003 at yahoo.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
>
> I think you need to weigh the harm the substance does versus what is
> required to suppress it. In the long stretch of human history, people have
> ingested various mood-altering substances, alcohol being one that was
> integrated into many cultures going back into prehistory. It happens to be
> a drug that can be easily produced from readily available substances by
> unskilled labor. We had some experience with prohibition of alcohol in the
> US, and democratically decided that the cost of general suppression was not
> what we were willing to pay; we'd settle for curbing the most egregious
> abuses, and live with the deleterious effects, estimated at $223 billion
> per year. The economic costs of tobacco smoking are estimated at $157
> billion per year.
>
> Marijuana is another drug with a long history, but was not as widespread
> culturally, indeed, in the US is was regarded as only being used by "those
> people". However, over the last fifty years use has become more widespread
> among the general population (roughly half have tried it). A small majority
> now support legalization, yet the cost to state and federal governments for
> marijuana suppression is an estimated $20 billion per year. The argument
> can be made that the relatively benign effects of the drug as compared to
> alcohol or tobacco doesn't warrant such an expenditure. Voters in Colorado,
> Washington, California and Alaska seem to agree. à chacun son goût<http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%A0_chacun_son_go%C3%BBt&action=edit&redlink=1>
>
>
> Ron Force
> Moscow Idaho USA
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 2:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media
>
> Absolutely, Art! So the logical thing to do is to legalize more drugs,
> thereby increasing that toll.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Its difficult for me to understand those bitching so much about marijuana
> given huge toll that alcohol consumption has on our society. Just Google
> the costs of alcohol consumption on society to get a little hint.
>
> w.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had heard about it, but not realized it was available online. Watching
> momentarily. Personally, I don't have much issue with medical marijuana.
> People in real pain should have access to relief. What I don't like is
> the poor way it has been implemented in the various states that are
> trying. If it is medical, it should be treated as such. The drug should
> be dispensed from REAL pharmacies.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>wrote:
>
> Did you happen to catch Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s recent “Weed” documentary? It
> really was quite interesting . . . and discussed how the “anti” crowd
> really has been who manipulates the science J****
> ** **
> In case you missed it:****
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana****
> ** **
> *Why I changed my mind on weed*
> By *Dr. Sanjay Gupta*, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent****
> updated 8:44 PM EDT, Thu August 8, 2013****
> ** **
> *(CNN)* -- Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary
> called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.
> ****
> ** **
> I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers
> and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I
> found was stunning.****
> ** **
> Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific
> literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was
> fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to
> make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME
> magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2c9171%2c1552034%2c00.html>
> ."****
> ** **
> Well, I am here to apologize.****
> ** **
> I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look
> far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries
> doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus
> of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.****
> ** **
> Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking
> to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed
> marijuana as a schedule 1 substance<http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml>because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning
> as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that
> have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."****
> ** **
> They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that
> when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't
> have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical
> applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
> Take the case of Charlotte Figi<http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html>,
> who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after birth. By age
> 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different medications.
> Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures to 2 or 3 per
> month.****
> ** **
> I have seen more patients like Charlotte first hand, spent time with them
> and come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide the
> best care we can as a medical community, care that could involve marijuana.
> ****
> ** **
> We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the
> United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.****
> ** **
> I hope this article and upcoming documentary will help set the record
> straight.****
> ** **
> On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O.
> Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as
> a schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years.
> My research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What
> I found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:****
> "Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant
> and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that
> marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of
> certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."****
> ** **
> Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was
> classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg
> mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my
> investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have
> important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25
> years earlier.****
> ** **
> *High risk of abuse*****
> ** **
> In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research<http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm>to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their
> conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in
> the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence
> marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.****
> ** **
> We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence in
> around 9 to 10% of its adult users. By comparison, cocaine, a schedule 2
> substance <http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml> "with less abuse
> potential than schedule 1 drugs" hooks 20% of those who use it. Around 25%
> of heroin users become addicted.****
> ** **
> The worst is tobacco, where the number is closer to 30% of smokers, many
> of whom go on to die because of their addiction.****
> ** **
> There is clear evidence that in some people marijuana use can lead to
> withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea. Even
> considering this, it is hard to make a case that it has a high potential
> for abuse. The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like
> those of the other drugs I've mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from
> alcohol, and it can be life threatening.****
> ** **
> I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young,
> developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than
> adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years
> leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible
> heightened risk of developing psychosis.****
> ** **
> Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I
> wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about
> trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s
> when their brains are fully developed.****
> * *
> *Medical benefit*****
> ** **
> While investigating, I realized something else quite important. Medical
> marijuana is not new, and the medical community has been writing about it
> for a long time. There were in fact hundreds of journal articles, mostly
> documenting the benefits. Most of those papers, however, were written
> between the years 1840 and 1930. The papers described the use of medical
> marijuana to treat "neuralgia, convulsive disorders, emaciation," among
> other things.****
> ** **
> A search through the U.S. National Library of Medicine this past year
> pulled up nearly 20,000 more recent papers<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=medical+marijuana>.
> But the majority were research into the harm of marijuana, such as "Bad
> trip due to anticholinergic effect of cannabis<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906840>,"
> or "Cannabis induced pancreatitits<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23892868>"
> and "Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283>."
> ****
> ** **
> In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current
> U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The
> rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly
> distorted picture.****
> ** **
> *The challenges of marijuana research*****
> ** **
> To do studies on marijuana in the United States today, you need two
> important things.****
> ** **
> First of all, you need marijuana. And marijuana is illegal. You see the
> problem. Scientists can get research marijuana from a special farm in
> Mississippi, which is astonishingly located in the middle of the Ole Miss
> campus, but it is challenging. When I visited this year, there was no
> marijuana being grown.****
> ** **
> The second thing you need is approval, and the scientists I interviewed
> kept reminding me how tedious that can be. While a cancer study may first
> be evaluated by the National Cancer Institute, or a pain study may go
> through the National Institute for Neurological Disorders, there is one
> more approval required for marijuana: NIDA, the National Institute on Drug
> Abuse. It is an organization that has a core mission of studying drug
> abuse, as opposed to benefit.****
> ** **
> Stuck in the middle are the legitimate patients who depend on marijuana as
> a medicine, oftentimes as their only good option.****
> ** **
> Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United States
> drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed was neuropathic
> pain <http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/guide/neuropathic-pain>. It is
> a miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have described it
> as "lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles." While
> marijuana has long been documented to be effective for this awful pain<http://www.jwatch.org/ac200704300000001/2007/04/30/marijuana-painful-peripheral-neuropathy#sthash.e8PMYHlU.dpuf>,
> the most common medications prescribed today come from the poppy plant,
> including morphine, oxycodone and dilaudid.****
> ** **
> Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well for
> this kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem.****
> ** **
> Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United States every 19
> minutes from a prescription drug overdose<http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/health/gupta-accidental-overdose>,
> mostly accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much
> as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana
> overdose.****
> ** **
> It is perhaps no surprise then that 76% of physicians recently surveyed<http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/poll-76-percent-of-doctors-approve-of-medical-marijuana-for-advanced-cancer-pain>said they would approve the use of marijuana to help ease a woman's pain
> from breast cancer.****
> ** **
> When marijuana became a schedule 1 substance, there was a request to fill
> a "void in our knowledge." In the United States, that has been challenging
> because of the infrastructure surrounding the study of an illegal
> substance, with a drug abuse organization at the heart of the approval
> process. And yet, despite the hurdles, we have made considerable progress
> that continues today.****
> ** **
> Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain
> and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401181217.htm>and its components. I'm intrigued by the neuro-protective study by Lev
> Meschoulam in Israel, and research in Israel and the United States on
> whether the drug might help alleviate symptoms of PTSD<http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-case-for-treating-ptsd-in-veterans-with-medical-marijuana/251466/>.
> I promise to do my part to help, genuinely and honestly, fill the remaining
> void in our knowledge.****
> ** **
> Citizens in 20 states and the District of Columbia have now voted to
> approve marijuana for medical applications, and more states will be making
> that choice soon. As for Dr. Roger Egeberg, who wrote that letter in 1970,
> he passed away 16 years ago.****
> ** **
> I wonder what he would think if he were alive today.****
> ** **
> ** **
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Darrell Keim
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:32 PM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media****
> ** **
> I enjoyed this article about why talking drug use prevention is so
> difficult on the internet. Certainly matches my own findings. My father
> was also roundly attacked when he lobbied against M legalization in his
> state.****
> ****
> *This article from Sue Rusche of What About The Children campaign was
> published to show just how inane are comments from the drug user community
> on the internet. The sad part is that many young people use Facebook and
> Twitter and can be easily influenced by the comments they read on these and
> similar sites. Parents need to educate their youngsters so that they know
> how biased and full of untruths such comment from drug users can be. NDPA*
> ****
>
>
> &
> nbsp; &n
> bsp; &nb
> sp;
> *Don’t Expect to Learn Anything True about Marijuana From Internet
> Commenters* <http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?p=1079>****
> Six days after *The Huffington Post* published my latest article,
> browsers had logged in 156 comments. The post was titled Marijuana
> Legalization Proponents Deny Health Harms Just Like the Tobacco Industry Did<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-rusche/marijuana-legalization-pr_b_2884765.html>;
> 153 of the 156 comments proved the point. ****
> Just 30 people made 80 percent (125) of the comments. Contributing the
> most were truthaboutmmj<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/truthaboutmmj?action=comments>(19); kevin
> hunt2012<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/kevin_hunt2012?action=comments>(12); Andrew
> swanteni<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Andrew_swanteni?action=comments>(9); Blows
> Against the Empire<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Blows_Against_the_Empire?action=comments>and
> ConnieInCleveland<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ConnieInCleveland?action=comments>(6 each);
> RMForbes <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/RMForbes?action=comments>,
> SchumannFu<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SchumannFu?action=comments>,
> and Volteric<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Volteric?action=comments>(5 each);
> JohnThomas<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JohnThomas?action=comments>,
> Tomaniac <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Tomaniac?action=comments>,
> and WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>(4 each); average
> dude <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/average_dude?action=comments>,
> FlyingTooLow<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FlyingTooLow?action=comments>,
> JD Salinger<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JD_Salinger?action=comments>,
> Matthew Fairbrother<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Matthew_Fairbrother?action=comments>,
> McMike55 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/McMike55?action=comments>,
> moldy <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/moldy?action=comments>, Paul
> Paul <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Paul_Paul?action=comments>,
> and susierr <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/susierr?action=comments>(3 each). Eleven people contributed 2 comments each; 28 contributed 1 each.
> Only one person, Jan Beauregard, PhD<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jan_Beauregard?action=comments>,
> a Virginia psychotherapist<http://ipivirginia.com/2012/10/jan-beauregard/>whose specialties include addictive disorders, agreed that marijuana has
> health harms. She contributed three comments. ****
> Clicking a link in a commenter’s name will take you to *Huff Post’s*<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/your-huffpost-experience_b_260666.html>Social News and a collection of all the comments that person has made about
> *Huff Post* stories. Commenters apply<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?paged=1>for a spot on Social News by linking it to their Facebook accounts, which
> magnifies *Huff Post’s* reach. Call it *Huff Post* squared.* Huff Post*cubed occurs if commenters also link Social News to their Twitter accounts.
> *Huff Post *<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/introducing-huffpost-badg_b_557168.html>awards
> badges to commenters based on the number of comments they make on *Huff
> Post’s* stories and the number of Facebook Friends and Twitter Followers
> they have. The more comments, friends, and followers, the higher level
> badges they earn. WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>,
> for example, who must hold some kind of record, has written more than
> 10,000 comments since joining Social News in May 2012 and has earned four
> badges–Level 2 Networker, Level 2 Superuser, Level 1 Crime Solver, and
> Moderator. ****
> *Huff Post* has brilliantly tapped into social media to expand its
> audience exponentially. But this brave new world comes at a cost. Few
> editors live in this world. Opinions triumph over facts. Quantity trumps
> quality. Truth loses. ****
> Juxtapose this with two major problems of current science: 1) the public
> cannot access most published studies and 2) scientific disciplines are so
> specialized that public access<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?paged=1>would hardly matter. A PhD is needed to understand the complexity of new
> knowledge scientists are developing today, and a PhD in one discipline does
> not guarantee understanding of knowledge developed in another. Scientists
> can’t speak each other’s languages anymore, so specialized have various
> disciplines become. An astronomer couldn’t explain the genome to you any
> better than a geneticist could explain the cosmos. ****
> Without access to comprehensible science, science illiteracy rules,
> particularly in the area of the science that underlies addictive drugs.
> Perhaps the most puzzling argument that runs through many of the comments
> about my post is one that rejects later work which contradicts earlier
> studies. WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>,
> for example, writes, “According to Dreher 1994, there are no prenatal or
> neonatal differences between babies from mothers who did use cannabis
> during pregnancy and babies from mothers who did not.” In addition to the
> 2012 study I wrote about, more than 50 other studies about the harmful
> effects of marijuana on the developing fetus have been published since
> 1994, but WowFolksAreDumb<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>claims the 1994 study negates them all. Maxpost,
> Midnight Toker<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxpost?action=comments>,
> goes a step further. He interprets Dreher’s study to mean: “Pregnant women
> SHOULD smoke DOPE!!!” ****
> Commenters attacked all the studies I wrote about, particularly the study
> indicating a link between marijuana use and testicular cancer. Steve Hager<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Steven_Hager?action=comments>dismissed it this way: “I believe the testicular cancer study involved 6
> people, maybe it was only 3. Worthless, really.” That study actually
> involved 163 young men diagnosed with testicular cancer and a control group
> of 292 healthy men of the same age and ethnicity and asked them about their
> drug use. The investigators found that compared to those who had never used
> marijuana, men who had used the drug were twice as likely to have
> testicular cancer. It’s difficult to understand why Mr. Hager couldn’t
> trouble himself to check how many people were involved in the study since I
> provided links to both the account of it published by *Science Daily* and
> the abstract of the study itself. Both clearly state the number of research
> subjects.****
> The collision of social media with current, complex science produces a
> chasm where scientific truth can be manipulated easily – and aggressively.
> I emailed Dr. Beauregard to thank her for supporting the marijuana science
> I had written about. She emailed back, “I have found many of the same
> facts, but the comments are more than I can stand and the backlash is
> horrific. I only posted a few things and have had literally over 50 people
> email me with hostile, emotional comments based on personal experience as a
> user.” ****
> And that, in a nutshell, is the heart of the problem. When it comes to
> marijuana, users dominate not just *Huff Post*, but the Internet as well.
> They relentlessly assault anyone who reports that a marijuana study might
> show a detrimental effect. Few have time to put up with this, not
> therapists like Dr. Beauregard who treats marijuana addiction, not
> scientists who conduct the studies, not writers who report the science.
> With marijuana, what takes place on the Internet is a shouting match; those
> who shout loudest win.****
> After this experience, I’ve learned something else about the drug:
> marijuana not only makes you lie, it makes you rude.****
> Source: www.nationalfamilies.org National Families in Action<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?author=2>March 29, 2013
> ****
> ****
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130904/233366d7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list