(This is cross-posted from another thread that is the most bizarre that I have ever been a part of here at DU. And, no, I won't give you a link. I don't want you to go there.)
This is a "share the good news!!" thread about the paradigm shift that we are witnessing at this very moment, that we are a part of and that we have helped make happen around cannabis.
I wanted to share with my DU family (and supporters of the Goddess) the on-line responses to the story of the AMA's decision to support reclassifying cannabis (to make it more available) that is occurring on another forum that I participate in (Join Together Online, composed of 55,000 substance abuse treatment professionals, health researchers, law enforcement types and more than a few assorted "drug worriers"). The responses of these intelligent people who -- for the most part -- are dedicated to reducing substance abuse, are very heartening. They suggest that this major shift in the drug policy/substance abuse paradigm around cannabis that we are witnessing might occur quickly and in a fashion that should allow us all to sigh a breath of fresh air, from the skies of the reality-based world.
Enjoy. And Celebrate. We are (indeed) the ones we've been waiting for.
FBN
-------
http://www.jointogether.org/news/features/2009/ama-says...(The linked article is well worth visiting. Here is a summary, followed by the on-line comments received so far.)
AMA Says Marijuana Has Medical Uses, Calls for More Research
Marijuana (cannabis) has been shown through limited research to have proven medical uses, the American Medical Association said in a new policy statement that also urges the federal government to consider moving the drug out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in order to facilitate clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medications.
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:
Posted by Bernie Ellis on 23 Nov 09 10:12 AM EST
Thanks to JTO for covering this major shift in AMA policy. That policy shift, coupled with the recent USDOJ decision to stop interfering with lawfully established state-level mmj programs, should help us reverse a 70 year old mistake when we removed cannabis from the medical pharmacopoeia. Hopefully, the Obama administration will now revisit two DEA administrative law judges' recommendations that a) cannabis be removed from Schedule I and b) that the NIDA/Ole Miss monopoly on producing research-grade cannabis be broken (two recommendations that DEA administrators rejected, for obviously self-serving purposes.) BTW, the medical cannabis researchers at both UCSD and UCSF have had difficulty finding patients to participate in mmj research trials because the NIDA-provided cannabis was (is?) of such poor quality. Here's hoping we can now substitute science, common sense and compassion for social control, sooner than later.
Posted by Bill Godshall on 23 Nov 09 11:39 AM EST
Its nice to see that the AMA is finally beginning to respect the Hippocratic oath to "First, do no harm" when it comes to marijuana use. The AMA's previous advocacy of counterproductive War on Drugs zero-tolerance abstinence-only prohibitionism and punitive sanctions demonstrated no respect for human rights of marijuana users. Unfortunately, the AMA (and federal health agencies) still refuses to acknowledge that switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduces smokers health risks nearly as much as if they quit all tobacco/nicotine.
Posted by D. Armstrong on 23 Nov 09 12:50 PM EST
When I was in graduate school, I researched marijuana. I was shocked to discover that the government issued pure propaganda to pass the law against marijuana in the 1920's. They said it led to violence. I thought perhaps it was a multi-cultural issue. The only people using marijuana at the time were southern Blacks, like the jazz musicians of New Orleans, and Mexicans along the border towns. I thought it was a white male government's effort to suppress minorities. Now I think that perhaps the booming pharmaceutical companies were already buying politicians.
Posted by Fred on 23 Nov 09 05:25 PM EST
It seems ironic that smoking mj would be recommended. The level of particulate polution in mj smoke is very high. Would the AMA approve of such a route of delivery for other medicinal substances? The benefits of THC are one issue, the "delivery system" is another and it sounds like a risky trade off. Comments?
Posted by Brinna Nanda on 23 Nov 09 06:23 PM EST
The AMA has the exclusive rights to publish the code books which every physician needs to buy in order to navigate the treacherous waters of insurances claims. The DOJ defended the AMA's copyright on these codes in court. Clearly the AMA did not want to step on the DEA's shoes all these years. However, I believe there are new directives coming down from the DOJ, that have allowed the AMA to bow to science. I commend the Obama administration for doing what it can to end this absurd, mean spirited, failed, utterly incompetent so called War on Drugs. It is time let science and health professionals deal with drug use, and determine what is use vs. abuse, and what to do about the consequences to society.
Posted by John French on 23 Nov 09 06:39 PM EST
I don't remember where it can be found now (perhaps Erowid), but the story of how the Federal government coerced the AMA into taking a stance against marijuana in 1937 makes fascinating reading.
Posted by Ken Wolski, RN on 23 Nov 09 08:59 PM EST
"This shift, coming from America's most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic," and long overdue, I might add. In 2002 the New Jersey State Nurses Association adopted a resolution that recognized the therapeutic value and safety of medically recommended marijuana. NJSNA urged the Governor and the State Legislature to make medical marijuana legally available to New Jersey residents who could benefit from it. The following year the American Nurses Association adopted a resolution in support of medical marijuana. It's no wonder RN's are the most trusted profession in America (according to Gallup polls). We are not afraid to stand up for our patients, to advocate for them, and to try to protect them from legal harm when they are following the recommendations of their physicians. And these same physicians often refused to put in writing their recommendations for marijuana, and refused to try to change the laws to protect the patients for whom they were recommending marijuana. Tsk, tsk. It's about time, AMA. Doing nothing is doing harm, too.
To which I've just submitted this final comment (awaiting moderator approval):
Fred: Sorry no one responded to you earlier re: trade-offs of smoked cannabis.
First, inhaled cannabis has been shown consistently to be more efficacious than Marinol (synthetic THC) or whole-plant cannabis eaten or made into a tea. That is because inhalation is the fastest administration route of any drug and allows titration to be much more precise and with more immediate effects than other routes.
However, there are devices (vaporizers) used by mmj users (and recreational users) that heat the cannabis enough to release the volatile (pharmacologically active) oils without burning the plant material. Thus, patients get the benefits of inhalation without any CO or tars.
Finally, though it is indeed counter-intuitive, several recent longitudinal and case-control studies have demonstrated that even smoked cannabis is associated with less cancer of the head, neck, lung, et al and lower rates of COPD than any of us expected (See Tashkin et al). Those studies also suggest a protective effect for mj smokers who also smoke tobacco.
All very interesting stuff, indeed. I am gratified that, in my lifetime, we might actually be able to conduct scientific research in this country on one of the Goddess' four sacred plant gifts to mankind (according to my Indian elders) and to use the outcomes of that research to benefit all peoples.
Yes we can(nabis). Bless the Goddess.
-----
Peace out.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
