Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

No problem. You just caught me on a bad day. As for the rollercoaster, I unfortunately have had idiots for doctors since I was in the Navy the only difference being now, I just have one to deal with. Nice guy, doesn't want to listen.

A prime example. I went to talk about pain management a couple of years ago and the first thing he did was hand me a prescription for Oxy Contin no questions nothing. Then he got all indignant when I asked him if he knew it was one of the most addictive drugs out there?

So now I read every article I can on the problem I'm having, the drugs I can take and the side effects and interactions that are possible. He doesn't like it but who the fek cares. It's my life and he's there to help not dictate.

I don't have a problem with people calling marijuana a cure all I have a problem with the fact that those claims are scientifically unfounded. There are people it helps and people it doesn't and the reasons are unknown because there's not enough research to say exactly why. Curtman even pointed out that they're still working on what compounds in the plant do as far as medicine goes.

We don't let big Pharmaceutical make claims about untested drugs yet when we want to treat marijuana like a medical drug we skip this part. Why? Is there something people are afraid of?

I know a couple of cancer patients who tried the stuff for pain relief because they didn't like the side effects of their store bought pain killers. Unfortunately it didn't do squat so they had to go back on a narcotic and that's after they went through the agonies of hell thinking the marijuana was going to kick in at some point.

So my position is that, if it works for people great use it, don't abuse it. At some point I have no doubt alot of the ingredients in marijuana will be found to be beneficial in the medical sense but, until that time all claims about it's "all encompassing" beneficial properties should be carefully scrutinized and people should know that it doesn't always work as advertised and could in some cases prove to be detrimental.

   

You keep saying that marijuana is an untested drug. That's absolutely false. It may be undertested in terms of its medical use, but it has been tested EXTENSIVELY for potential negative effects with its use as a recreational drug. We may not know what good pot can do, but we have reams and reams of evidence that its use is pretty harmless. I agree with you, lots of research needs to be done on its medical value.


All you can do with any medical treatment is to try it and hope it works as well for you as it has for others. Certainly there are lots of cancer patients who well attest to pot's benefits for them. Melissa Etheridge, for example, credits pot with saving her life. But it seems like you're blaming pot for the "the agonies". That's misplaced blame. Blame the cancer. You don't blame aspirin when someone taking it has a heart-attack, do you?

   

It's because of the way it happened. There was medical marijuana before there was legally available medical marijuana. The courts ruled that it was illegal to force people who used it as medicine to purchase it from the black market. They gave everyone who had approval from their doctor an exemption from the controlled substances act, and they gave Health Canada a timeframe to come up with a plan to license users and to provide for an adequate supply for them.

Typically big pharma produces a drug and applies to bring it to market, in this case the market fought for it in court. That's why I keep asking about acupuncture. There's risk of infection, and what-not. Nobody can prove what exactly the effects are on your body. No corporation had to prove it is worthy before it could be marketed as a treatment. You don't need a doctor's recommendation.

   

Actually, there was medical marijuana before there was illegal marijuana, just not since Reefer Madness...

From the U.S. PHARMACOPOEIA - 1900 (8th Ed) :



But they had no idea why it worked, just that it did.

   

No biggy bad days happen.

Don't blame you for turning down the oxy that stuff is really bad. When I was working down town one of the guys in the hostel use to call them oxy-morons. The name stuck. Not sure if it kills brain cells or just makes them unable to think but you can almost see there IQ drop. Sad the number of ex military you meet at the hostel


Yes I know drs do years and years of study to be a dr but we do know things. It would be really nice if they could listen too.

I have to find a GP seeing as I fired the last one. Not only did she not listen she made stuff up. She actually told me my hand was swelling cause I had fallen wouldn't listen to anything else. If I had fallen I would have know why it was swelling and wouldn't have been in her office. So my new rule if they don't have to listen I don't have to be there!! Not worth the agravation!!

   

Judge has granted medical marijuana patients and producers exception from new laws set to take effect April 1st, until a proper constitutional challenge can be heard.



Medical marijuana users can continue to grow their own pot: court




The Conservative government's plan to move medical marijuana plants out of patients' basements and into commercial facilities was dealt a significant setback Friday, after a Federal Court judge ruled anyone already licensed to grow the drug may continue to do so.

Judge Michael Manson issued an injunction exempting patients who are licensed to possess or grow medical marijuana under the current rules, either for themselves or someone else, from new regulations that would have made the practice illegal.


A group of patients behind a constitutional challenge asked for an injunction to preserve the status quo until their legal case goes to trial.


The federal government announced its plans to overhaul the production of medical pot last year, arguing the current system had grown out of control and was rife with problems ranging from unsafe grow-ops to infiltration by criminals.


The new regulations restrict medical marijuana production to commercial growers, though the court injunction does not affect the new licensing system.


The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued the updated regulations violate their right to access important medicine, because marijuana is expected to initially be more expensive under the new system. They also complained they won't have as much control over which strains of the drug they use.


The judge concluded some patients will not be able to afford marijuana if prices increase as expected.



more


http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/med ... -1.1740201

   

Surprise, surprise. Another judge sticking it to the Conservative Gov't.

My guess is that it'll be a totally different story by the time it reaches the Supreme Court since that Chamber is, as pointed out by the left leaners on this site, full of Gov't appointed Conservative backers.

   

So what you're saying is, I should have taken the narcotic painkillers that were prescribed to me for a broken back instead of smoking weed for the last 22 years? Yeah, I can just imagine the condition my liver and/or kidneys would be in by now, not to mention the potential hard-core addiction.
The thing is, I've had access to medi-weed that had a genuine analgesic effect, not just a distraction.
Even if pot is merely a pain "distracter", it at least allows people to function where the pain would prevent them.

The other idea that doctors don't trust it because it hasn't had any long term testing is hilarious. It's been tested and used for THOUSANDS of years.
By comparison, there's a new big-pharma med out there for people who suffer from psoriasis. Now, the last time I checked psoriasis wasn't a life threatening condition, but one of the potential side-effects of this new medication is...death.

How the FUCK does a regulatory agency approve a medication with a potential side-effect of death to treat a non-life threatening condition? And more importantly, how in all good conscience can a doctor prescribe something like that while waffling on about the lack of studies on using marijuana as a medicine? Particularly when there's no shortage of studies.

   

A lot of the weed being produced now, and being researched has no or little THC so it won't get you high. But I think for pain relief, THC is required. If you've been smoking it for 22 years, it helps you manage your pain and live a productive life, I just don't see what the beef is vs the horror show that narcotics can be for so many people.

   

The other issue I have is that I actually have an extremely high tolerance to most pain-killers. Tylenol 3 with or without codeine are worse than useless to me. Percosets are a 50/50 proposition. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But hey, at least 100% of the time they make me vomit, which is exactly what you want when you have major back pain. Demerol and morphine actually provide less relief than weed unless I get them injected. And I won't go near Oxys.
The non-narcotic alternatives are even more pathetic. The only thing I found that's even remotely useful is Ibuprofin when my whiplash acts up, and even then I have to take 1500mg to actually make a difference. However it's still useless for the back and nerve pain.
Although tbh, the weed isn't all the effective for the nerve pain either.

   

I found Naproxen Sodium to work very well when I wrenched my knee. Only problem is it spiked my blood pressure to 170, doc freaked out. But if it doesn't affect you the same way, maybe try it. Believe the brand name is Aleve.

Have you ever investigated Jon Kabatt Zin using mindfulness for pain management. He's in the states but people seem to be bringing it to Canada as well. Basically Buddhist meditation tailored for pain management. The ultimate take your mind off the pain. Actually if it really is Buddhist mindfulness meditation, it would be place your mind lightly on the pain and observe what happens. I've seen it in action, where my knee was killing me from sitting cross legged all day meditating, and all of a sudden it just dissolved into pure energy and felt really good. Of course the problem is you're not supposed to get attached to it feeling good, so I don't know...

   

This is hilarious.

Why is it the Conservative Governments prerogative to interfere with patients access to medicine?

Sticking it to the Conservative Gov't....

   

I see your time away hasn't made you anymore cognizant of the facts than before.




http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/ ... Injunction

There's your answer about why the Evil Government is allegedly using it's prerogative to interfere with your patients rights to their non approved drug or medicine.

Actually when you think about it, the Government isn't interfering with their access to medical marijuana they're just streamlining the procedure for acquiring it and ensuring a safe, quality controlled product just like Canadians would expect them to do with any other medicine or drug.

So, despite all the bitching and caterwauling the only thing the Government is obliged to provide is a legal source for medical marijuana and they're doing that with Gov't controlled production facilities. Something the Supreme Court is likely to agree with.

   

Here is snippet from R vs Parker:

[10] I have concluded that the trial judge was right in finding that Parker needs marijuana to control the symptoms of his epilepsy. I have also concluded that the prohibition on the cultivation and possession of marijuana is unconstitutional. Based on principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, 31 C.R.R. 1, where the court struck down the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, 17 C.R.R. (2d) 193, where the court upheld the assisted suicide offence in the Criminal Code, I have concluded that forcing Parker to choose between his health and imprisonment violates his right to liberty and security of the person. I have also found that these violations of Parker's rights do not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. In particular, I have concluded that the possibility of an exemption under s. 56 dep endent upon the unfettered and unstructured discretion of the Minister of Health is not consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. I have not dealt with the equality argument raised by the Epilepsy Association because that argument was not raised at trial.

Oh for reference:

Ambrose has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Victoria and a Master of Arts degree in political science from the University of Alberta.

   

There's a whole lot of herbs that are completely legal to grow anywhere, which are not classified as medicines.

The government will lose that fight, just like they lost last time.

It is morally unacceptable to punish someone who is only trying to reduce their own suffering.

Any judge or any rational person can see that clearly.

They'll come up with a bunch of excuses, but at the end of the day they will all sound exactly like municipal zoning issues.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next