<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Debbie wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"I don't see how the statistics that say 'alcohol kills 6.5 times <BR>
more youth than all other illicit drugs' provides much support <BR>
for legalizing marijuana for non-medical use (if that is what <BR>
your previous post was getting at)."<BR>
<BR>
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 "<B>Medicinal Cannabis & Prescription Drugs."<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
Again, I presented no argument whatsoever for general legalization of cannabis for nonmedical use.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
Again, I made no argument for the general legalization of cannabis outside of a strictly medical use under a doctor's care:<BR>
<BR>
I think any careful reading of the post included below exactly as it appeared on V2020 will reveal this.<BR>
<BR>
Yours in fact based accurate rational discussion of all issues...<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</B> <BR>
<BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
The writer appears to argue vehemently against cannabis use in medicine, when towards the end of his "argument," the writer states:<BR>
<BR>
"Until manufacture, control and distribution issues have been resolved,<BR>
I will oppose widespread medicinal use."<BR>
<BR>
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?"<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
"Are we just trading pain control for cancer, the pain<BR>
of which, they would want to control with the thing that caused the cancer<BR>
in the first place? Kind of twisted to me."<BR>
<BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
Consider these cases:<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
"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." <BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.csdp.org/news/news/winona_medmj_033005.htm">http://www.csdp.org/news/news/winona_medmj_033005.htm</A><BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Consider the following relating to the abuse of and lack of control over prescription drugs:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/10/31/fp1s4-csm.shtml">http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/10/31/fp1s4-csm.shtml</A><BR>
<BR>
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." <BR>
<BR>
------<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN_ED_Interim2003.pdf">http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN_ED_Interim2003.pdf</A><BR>
<BR>
>From page 49 at the above link: <BR>
<BR>
52% of emergency room visits were due to consumption of prescription drugs.<BR>
-------<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v6/4.aspx">http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v6/4.aspx</A><BR>
<BR>
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). <BR>
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). <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY>"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."<BR>
Dr J. H. Jaffe, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. L.Goodman and A Gillman, eds. 3rd edn. 1965.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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: <BR>
<BR>
"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."<BR>
<BR>
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 155<BR>
<BR>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><I>"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."</I> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#408080" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1 PTSIZE=8 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">(10/1/97)</FONT><FONT COLOR="#408080" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>Lester Grinspoon, M.D.</B> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, author of <BR>
<U>Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine</U>, 1993, and <BR>
<U>Marihuana Reconsidered</U>, 1994 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
-----------------<BR>
Forwarded Message: <BR>
Subj: <B>[Vision2020] Hooray! Kai Changed His Position!....Not </B> <BR>
Date: 6/23/2005 2:07:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com">editor@lataheagle.com</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
My position hasn't changed:<BR>
A. Some drugs work for some people and don't for others. Marijuana (THC) is<BR>
a drug, and therefore will NOT work for everyone as Ted so eagerly seems to<BR>
claim. (Sorry, "bud", you ain't the silver bullet) <bad pun, I know><BR>
B. How is the prescription filled? The abilty to grow your own, for your own<BR>
"ills"? Well, that'll open up a whole new can of worms......every ganja<BR>
freak in the country will suddenly get "sick". Again, I point to the<BR>
potheads who show up at the pro medicinal use rallys and gleefuly light up.<BR>
C. How would theft or illegal sales of the drug from or by the grower be<BR>
controlled? And how will consistent quality be maintained in order for the<BR>
user to be able to properly dose him/herself to recieve a consistent effect?<BR>
There is a rather large difference between , say, Kona and that stuff that<BR>
grows along the highways of Arizona. (And yes, I think we are all<BR>
intelligent enough to know that thefts and illegal sales WILL happen, it<BR>
happens with just about every controlled substance)<BR>
D. What are the long term effects on those not suffering from a life<BR>
threatening or terminal illness? Remember what the National Cancer Institute<BR>
said in 1954 about cigarettes, "If excessive smoking plays a role in the<BR>
production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." They were wrong on<BR>
that one.........<BR>
We know that in addition to pot's mind altering capabilities, it is higher<BR>
in tar than cigarettes and is inhaled more deeply. It has also been shown to<BR>
lower the sperm count in men. (Which maybe isn't a bad thing, natural birth<BR>
control for potheads.) Are we just trading pain control for cancer, the pain<BR>
of which, they would want to control with the thing that caused the cancer<BR>
in the first place? Kind of twisted to me.<BR>
Too many people just jump onto a bandwagon because it seems to be a good<BR>
idea. Until manufacture, control and distribution issues have been resolved,<BR>
I will oppose widespread medicinal use.<BR>
I will ALWAYS oppose legalization.<BR>
I'll tell you why.<BR>
I have a younger brother, Anthony, or Danny, as we called him. In junior<BR>
high, he started smoking weed. It progressed through high school, escalating<BR>
into booze, coke, speed, opiates, you name it. All through it, he always<BR>
wanted his weed more than anything.<BR>
Now, 30 years later, nobody knows where he is, whether he is dead or alive,<BR>
in prison or in a gutter. I haven't seen or spoken with my brother in 15<BR>
years, I can recall every word of our last conversation. My mother has<BR>
searched for him, to no avail. My daughter has never met her uncle, she only<BR>
knows him from stories and pictures.<BR>
I had a brother, but drugs stole him away.<BR>
You can stand there and spout about the virtues of pot all you want. I've<BR>
seen it's dark side, the pain it causes can't be controlled with a drug. The<BR>
pain of having a lost brother cuts into one's very soul and it is always<BR>
there, throbbing icily day in day out, it never goes away.<BR>
<BR>
Kai T. Eiselein<BR>
Editor<BR>
Latah Eagle<BR>
521 S. Jackson St.<BR>
Moscow, ID 83843<BR>
(208) 882-0666 Fax (208) 882-0130<BR>
editor@lataheagle.com<BR>
<BR>
</P></P></FONT></HTML>