Legalization of Marijuana

[QUOTE BY= Fred Mallach] Canadian Drug Law Reform 100 Billion Dollars In order to understand the magnitude of prohibition of marijuana a theoretical number is required. What is the total amount of money that prohibition has cost us as a country? Of course for the first while after prohibition came into effect there was very little cost. But as the years went by the costs started to accumulate. If we follow the number of possession offences 1966 was the first year when cannabis offences exceeded 100 per year. By 1970 there were over 5000 offences, and in 1972 there were more than 10,000. It is important to note that in the 1970s our governments started to run deficit budgets, borrowing from the future, in order to operate. The problem was exacerbated when interest rates skyrocketed in the 1980s. So if you borrow the money that was used to enforce prohibition of marijuana and compound it for 40 years the figure of 100 billion dollars is not unrealistic. In fact, if you add the lost income of individuals that were unable to reach their full potential because of prohibition i.e. criminal charges, incarceration, discrimination then the figure of 100 billion dollars is probably low. We as a country have squandered so much money on prohibition I cannot fathom how many hospitals, schools, retirement homes, parks, greenways, affordable housing, and universities we have lost to prohibition. The time has come to put an end to this madness. [/QUOTE] Absolutely! As well think of the money spent on charging so many Canadians for simple possession, when even police officers and court officials behind closed doors say it is a complete waste of both time and money. When it comes to money, it would be better spent fighting the far more harmful drugs such as meth, and crack. There are political parties pushing for legalization or at minimum decriminalization. The NDP, Greens, CAP, and the marijuana party of course, all touch on these points. One last thing - in their rush to get an election both the NDP and Conservatives helped kill the bill before parliament dealing with this issue. Will it be revived in a new sitting? Perhaps, but if the Conservatives lead the way don't count on it.

I pray none of you reading this will ever have to deal or see someone wither away from the ravages of cancer. What gets me however...is that while leftists nonstop/day and night go on and on over how amazing Marijuana is...they'll vote like clockwork for a healthcare system that to this day still BANS/PROHIBITS lifesaving drugs from being used in Canada. I'm all for the legalization of Marijuana. I believe anyone and everyone (of legal age) should be allowed to buy/smoke/grow/sell the stuff. What I don't buy however is that such drugs like THALIDOMIDE is BANNED in Canada, even though Thalidomide has been proven to be effective against blood-type cancers (Like Leukemia/Myeloma). Why is that drug banned in Canada? I can give you the long answer, but the shorter one is better: Fuckheaded stupidity. So yeah, before marijuana get's legalized...why not push for drugs that can DIRECTLY SAVE lives, such as the highly effective Thalidomide. Thalidomide has been proven to be helpful not only for cancers, but H.I.V. and a myriad of other ailments (Leprosy is brutal in developing countries and Thalidomide is the cure). I'm not discounting the medicinal values of Marijuana either, however Weed simply can't hold a candle to Thalidomide. Of course Thalidomide will *NEVER* be sold in Canada because that basically would be promoting the evil 'privatization' argument. So what's it gonna be Marijauan Party of Canada? [QUOTE BY= Roy_Whyte] [QUOTE BY= Fred Mallach] Canadian Drug Law Reform 100 Billion Dollars In order to understand the magnitude of prohibition of marijuana a theoretical number is required. What is the total amount of money that prohibition has cost us as a country? Of course for the first while after prohibition came into effect there was very little cost. But as the years went by the costs started to accumulate. If we follow the number of possession offences 1966 was the first year when cannabis offences exceeded 100 per year. By 1970 there were over 5000 offences, and in 1972 there were more than 10,000. It is important to note that in the 1970s our governments started to run deficit budgets, borrowing from the future, in order to operate. The problem was exacerbated when interest rates skyrocketed in the 1980s. So if you borrow the money that was used to enforce prohibition of marijuana and compound it for 40 years the figure of 100 billion dollars is not unrealistic. In fact, if you add the lost income of individuals that were unable to reach their full potential because of prohibition i.e. criminal charges, incarceration, discrimination then the figure of 100 billion dollars is probably low. We as a country have squandered so much money on prohibition I cannot fathom how many hospitals, schools, retirement homes, parks, greenways, affordable housing, and universities we have lost to prohibition. The time has come to put an end to this madness. [/QUOTE] Absolutely! As well think of the money spent on charging so many Canadians for simple possession, when even police officers and court officials behind closed doors say it is a complete waste of both time and money. When it comes to money, it would be better spent fighting the far more harmful drugs such as meth, and crack. There are political parties pushing for legalization or at minimum decriminalization. The NDP, Greens, CAP, and the marijuana party of course, all touch on these points. One last thing - in their rush to get an election both the NDP and Conservatives helped kill the bill before parliament dealing with this issue. Will it be revived in a new sitting? Perhaps, but if the Conservatives lead the way don't count on it.[/QUOTE]

I think the 'Marijuana Party' already has their hands full, contrary to the previous post, which of course COMES from a 'lefty' who dares to think of legalizing the 'evil weed' and 'hippy scourge', check this out: "Thalidomide was withdrawn in 1961 after around 10,000 babies had been born with disabilities such as the characteristic stunted arms or legs. Some babies were born with no limbs at all. But the drug is making a comeback. It is being investigated as a treatment in around 100 illnesses including cancer, Aids, leprosy and arthritis, and 4,000 people are estimated to be currently taking thalidomide in the UK. Freddie Astbury, whose mother took thalidomide, was born with all four limbs affected. He said: "The drug has come back to haunt us. "But if the drug can help people, then so be it." It has very little to do with privatization arguments, Canada's use of drugs have been heavily privatization oriented. There has been a vast increase in the approval rate of drugs, just go look at any province's health spending. The last one I checked was New Brunswick, which had a whopping 40% increase over the past ten years in money it spends on drugs, most of this increase was due to new drugs to treat 'new' conditions-things like ritalin come to mind. Yet that province was raked over the coals for not having the even faster approval rate for new drugs as Nova Scotia and PEI. I did a quick search and found the story of a girl being treated at BC"s childrens hospital with thalidomide for cancer, and that was from 1999, so I would suspect that it has already returned. However, as mentioned, it is up to provincial health boards to approve drugs in their own province. The position of the Thalidomide Victims Group has always been that it should be the 'drug of last resort', and it is the most regulated drug in the US-and i think with very good reason. At the Thalidomide Victims Group, which is Canadian, they have an educational brochure on the risks of thalidomide and when it SHOULD NOT be taken. So I would assume that Thalidomide is back. As for other countries, that isn't up to Canada.

Marijuana 'has their hands full'? If that party actually CARED about people, they'd be pushing SERIOUS CANCER drugs like Thalidomide. Marijuana party as is, is just a stoner-party. Unless they believe that Marijuana is a 'gateway drug' to allow other pharmaceuticals to be sold here, I'm totally put off by that party. I've yet to get anyone here knowing/representing the Marijuana's party stance on banned Pharmaceuticals in Canada so I can only *safely* assume that they DON'T CARE. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] It has very little to do with privatization arguments, Canada's use of drugs have been heavily privatization oriented. [/QUOTE] Can't get Thalidomide in Canada. special interest groups saw to that. Private American Pharmaceuticals have been wanting to bring other variants to Canada for close to a decade and was stuck in Canada's bureaucratic gridlock. The arguments over Thalidomide is stupid. Men with cancer cannot get pregnant. Women with cancer I'm sure won't want to get pregnant if they are taking the drug (and was shown all the warnings). There's a ton of other drugs that women who have cancer ARE NOT ADVISED TO TAKE DURING PREGNANCY. Those who wish to ban Thalidomide simply don't give a shit with those who have cancer. They'd gladly SPIT IN THE FACE of every cancer sufferer in this country before allowing Thalidomide to be sold here. Thalidomide is basically CHEAPER THAN ASPIRIN to make and yet because of our government bullshit, only the VERY RICH can afford this drug. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I did a quick search and found the story of a girl being treated at BC"s childrens hospital with thalidomide for cancer, and that was from 1999, so I would suspect that it has already returned. [/QUOTE] Nice how you and 'Jesse' can simply 'Google' your way to comfort yourself to that 'fact' huh? Why don't you do what I did? Bring my loved one to the hospital at 3am because her insides were falling apart thanks to Cancer, and holding the bedpan for hours as she nonstop threw up blood (and chuncks of her insides rotting away). The fucking nurse was too lazy to do so, and frankly I wouldn't trust anyone to hold the bedpan except for myself. And yeah, when I brought up Thalidomide (This was a few years after 1999), I got the same canned answer from the doctors "Oh, isn't it that drug that pregnant women would give birth to deformed babies?" I argued with Jesse over this and he basically summated that he'd rather have more people die of cancer before allowing even one single life-saving drug come in and help save lives. All in the name of 'preserving' our 'wonderful public healthcare system'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The position of the Thalidomide Victims Group has always been that it should be the 'drug of last resort', and it is the most regulated drug in the US-and i think with very good reason.[/QUOTE] Glad to see that you have a degree in Oncology and you hold all the degrees on Angio-Genetic inhibitors. Did you ever talk to a researcher who actually did trial runs for Thalidomide? Well, I DID. And she basically said that she'd give that drug to EVERYONE. From people with H.I.V. to Cancer to a myriad of other ailments. Thalidomide is fantastic in that it radically reduces inflammation and helps the body heal itself against the cancer. Before you do what Jesse did and Google yourself to blissful ignorance. Maybe you should visit a cancer ward and ask around what people's opinions are on such drugs like Thalidomide/Gleevec and Herceptin. Then come back and say the drug should be made difficult for ONLY THE RICH to purchase for 'with very good reason.' As is, if you have $30,000 you can buy the drug privately. Whereas if government regulations were remouved, you can literally buy a years supply of Thalidomide for under $300 (and I'm talking high-dosages of Thalidomide as well). Since there is no Private healthcare insurance in Canada, nobody can AFFORD this drug unless they mortgage their house. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] At the Thalidomide Victims Group, which is Canadian, they have an educational brochure on the risks of thalidomide and when it SHOULD NOT be taken. So I would assume that Thalidomide is back. As for other countries, that isn't up to Canada.[/QUOTE] Nice to simply 'assume' your way around people fighting for their lives huh? Like I said, until you see someone lose 50 pounds, lose all their hair to the ravages of stone-age treatments like Chemo and Radiation and then listen to doctors 'advise' us that smoking Marijuana to help with appetite is 'too controversial' and that cancer patients shouldn't 'break the law' to help them save their lives. Until you've been woken up at 5am with a phonecall asking you to go down to the hospital to be told what you already know. Then *maybe* you should hold your opinions back and LIVE A LITTLE.

We've established that you CAN get thalidomide in Canada, so that argument is just plain wrong. In fact there are several variations of thalidomide available, however, like all drugs it is only available for the disorders with which it has been tested. Sorry for your experiences, but if you think not sharing all your experiences means people are not allowed to have opinions, let alone RESEARCH their opinions, then you're at the wrong website. We've discussed legality, it ALREADY is available in Canada. If you've got an idiot doctor then I suggest you find another doctor. The treatment at the ER has really nothing to do with thalidomide, those nurses have nothing to do with drug availability. There is an issue in that it seems to depend on the TYPE of cancer. Obviously drugs are marketed for specific applications only after they've been TESTED for those disorders. If the argument is for thalidomide to be as readily available as aspirin, that's another issue entirely. However, in looking at pubmed it shows almost five thousand clinical and first lead trials of thalomid for various types of problems. However, getting more specific on thalidomide is fine, and contrary to belief, 'google' doesn't provide answers, my information comes from the Thalidomide Victims Group, if you have trouble with their information, contact them. So we know the drug IS available, so we can stop discussing that. That the Marijuana Party isn't abandoning trying to legalize pot and instead pushing for 'greater availability' of privately owned corporate drugs is an opinion which I'd believe few in the party would agree with, I certainly don't, but it may be of comfort to know that the party doesn't have a hope in hell of getting a seat so it really is moot. Here is an excellent article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/washtech/daily/july98/071798victims.htm Keep in mind that from my research from the company which markets SEVERAL thalidomide variants, the drug must be orally administered and is used on the treatment , not the symptoms of cancer. So marijuana would appear to be more applicable to reducing vomiting and the 'symptoms' of cancer than would thalidomide or its variants. As for cost, the remarks are confusing because first the argument is made that the drug is not available, then it is argued that it is too expensive. It's highly doubtful that it is cheaper to make than aspirin-a product manufactured in considerable bulk, something a cancer treatment drug certainly wouldn't be. If it is so unavailable I'm surprised you know how much it costs, and that 'it is available only to the rich'. That would indicate to me either a need to make our health care system far more public, ie., cover ALL cancer drugs, or simply a blind belief that somehow 'the market' will make it more affordable-something which US experience shows not to be the case. Cancer treatment there would literally bankrupt you if you didn't have some kind of insurance, and many HMO"s seriously limit drug costs for specific ailments-meaning that there is usually ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy to get through to get a specific drug for a specific problem. As for costs, there are different issues there, but provided you can get the prescription for the drug, Gleevec is available for $2694 a month online (one 400mg tablet per day, or four 100mg tablets four times daily), which is $1000 cheaper than is available in the US (which is why so many americans buy canadian drugs). The idea that government somehow 'taxes' prescription drugs makes no sense-canadian drugs are cheaper: "Why is medicine less expensive in Canada? Because the Canadian provinces, using the incentive of bulk purchasing, negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies to secure a more favorable price — generally one-third to one-half of that charged in the United States. Whenever a similar plan is considered by our Congress, the pharmaceutical industry unleashes its formidable army of lobbyists to beat it back. Fears that the government would be in a strong position to bargain over prescription drug costs is a primary reason for the industry’s opposition to a comprehensive Medicare prescription plan." However, I well know the fights that one gets into with the health care 'system' over cancer drugs. Drugs have to be approved in each province even after they've been approved by the feds-that's a different issue. They are available in some, not in others. And if the province doens't have enough 'sufferers' then they will not benefit from the 'bulk purchasing deals'. This is an instance where federal-provincial wrangling makes things worse. Why duplicate the feds approval process? What is the point of having Health Canada if they just need to be re-approved by provinces? If provinces benefit from bulk pricing, imagine how much benefit NATIONAL drug buying would benefit, drugs would be FAR cheaper. The final retorts simply amplify that the poster should be one of the biggest backers of the Marijuana Party. To get down to specifics though, the debate is bordering on a general health care platform. The argument seems to be that providing private insurance will cover drug costs-which isn't true (private insurers in the US are often as bureaucratic as government, and often are just as sticklers on picking WHICH drugs a patient will be getting). That Canada's healthcare system is not ideal is very true, especially now that Martin has gutted it. This means many provinces simply can't afford to buy the drugs. The argument can be made for private insurers, as Quebec has done, first I'd rather see funding costs brought back up to previous levels so we CAN afford them. The scenario above is exactly why drug makers LOVED Paul Martin for cutting health care payments, it would lead to an almost bankrupt system and then people would demand a private one. I'm not going to make it a personal debate, if the poster above thinks he's the only person with experiences in the health care system he's sadly mistaken, and if its thought that only certain interpretations and conclusions of one's life's events justifies an opinion, he should stick to his blog and voicing his own opinions without fear of retort.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] We've established that you CAN get thalidomide in Canada, so that argument is just plain wrong. [/QUOTE] I'll summate: You SERIOUSLY don't know what the fuck you are talking about. >>>NO DOCTOR WILL PRESCRIBE THALIDOMIDE. Still don't believe me? GET CANCER AND THEN TRY AND ASK FOR THALIDOMIDE. I've dealt with TVAC, and they don't give a shit. They simply want the drug banned. DOES THAT NOT COMPUTE??? The only way I can potentially get the drug is by illegally having it shipped into Canada, and the last thing I want to do is to deal with breaking international laws. That's the problem with you jackoffs in your sperm-encrusted bedrooms. You believe that by 'Googling' away towards all the 'official' statements that it's good as gold. Try and actually DEAL with the system and you'll get a sobering picture. Google only offers not even half the picture. If all these drugs are so available in Canada then why are patients flying to the U.S. for treatment? The fact that unless you're willing to basically bankrupt your life...NOBODY CAN AFFORD THE TREATMENTS. AND IF PRIVATE HEALTHCARE EXISTED, THEY COULD AFFORD THE INSURANCE. WHEN YOU CAN TAKE OUT AN INSURANCE POLICY FOR A MILLION DOLLARS ON YOUR CAR, BUT YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO SPEND A DIME ON YOUR OWN FUCKING LIFE...THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THAT. PUBLIC HEALTHCARE IS AN IDEOLOGICAL DEATH-MACHINE. AND THE MARIJUANA PARTY DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HEALTHCARE.

Most of those cancer drugs mentioned above are 'designer drugs', meaning that unless the cancer has a very specific mutation they are useless. So the idea of using a cancer drug for just 'anybody who has cancer' is completely crazy. If you have a bad oncologist that is a problem, and by all means find another one. A friend I have (now deceased) told another friend that "if you get cancer treatment in Kitchener you'll die in Kitchener". The other friend went to Hamilton and his oncologist got him a drug that wasn't even approved in Canada and was only in the clinical trial stage in the states. So health care is a VAST topic and can't be solved simply with ideological statements. The option still always exists that if you want private care-go to the states. But by all means, shop around for your specialist, even under private healthcare you'll still have the same bad doctors, they'll just be much richer.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Most of those cancer drugs mentioned above are 'designer drugs', meaning that unless the cancer has a very specific mutation they are useless. So the idea of using a cancer drug for just 'anybody who has cancer' is completely crazy.[/QUOTE] Again, you not only don't know what you are talking about...you are now playing 'armchair doctor' by MAKING SHIT UP. Do yourself a favour and do some research on cancer. Cancer kills because it grows and cannot be controlled in a system. Cancer grows because it can 'trick' the body into giving it more blood than it needs, hence it can grow. The process is called 'Angiogenesis'. The growth of new blood vessels. Thalidomide STOPS THAT. Without even the most basic understanding of how cancer works, you're making dangerously IGNORANT ASSUMPTIONS, which invariably is influencing your opinion. Jesse is like that too. The guy just makes shit up, and then believes it. Life doesn't work that way. Some people have to read the facts before they can move on. So yeah, do what Jesse does...instead of talking to doctors and Oncologists and patients (like I did). Just GOOGLE away and WIKIPEDIA away your fears/ignorances.

That's the trouble with 'personal experience', it makes you think that all of reality must conform to your own experiences. You can READ about the Thalidomide Victims Group in the link above by the Washington Post, or you can beleive some raving lunatic blathering on the web who could be a six year old or a fifty year old crack addict (my vote goes to the latter). You can go to the Thalidomide Victims Group's website and read their policy statement where they heartily endorse thalidomide-regulated of course. Every drug is licensed after clinical trials is done for one specific disease. The three drugs mentioned before have been licensed for use on SOME cancer, but anybody who thinks that one cancer drug will work for all cancers is simply mistaken, fortunately most people know that. For anybody actually interested in learning something and not listening to one or two guys opinion then simply go to pubmed.org, that's where all the studies and clinical trials are printed. Type in "Gleevec" and "Herceptin" and you can SEE what clinical trials and studies are going on. These drugs have shown good results-in patients with a specific mutation. They are 'targeted' at very specific pathways and there's a reason why there are so many drugs out there. There's also a reason why many drugs are still experimental or still in clinical trials. The idea that a drug can be given to 'anybody', no matter what the disorder is laughable, and its a good thing your friend is a scientist working on clinical trials and not an oncologist. Nobody here is going to listen or give credit to 'personal experiences' simply because online there is simply no way of validating them. There is plenty of complaints out there about the health care system, nobody is disputing that, but perhaps you should check your facts and people will give more credit to your rants (but doubtful)

When I started this post regarding the legalization of marijuana I was talking about the accumulated cost to the Canadian economy of 100 billion dollars. Since the discussion has strayed off of topic I would like to turn it back towards the legalization of marijuana. Last year in 2005 Health Canada approved the use of a tincture of cannabis called Sativex for use by people suffering from MS. Researchers in Saskatchewan have made exciting discoveries regarding THC and brain chemistry. It seems that there is a wealth of undiscovered derivatives and natural compounds that could be extremely beneficial as medicine. By legalizing marijuana and by regulating it and taxing it and using the money to support harm reduction programs we will be able to turn something that is presently a drain on our economy into an industry which will provide a boost to our economy. Once marijuana is legal then there will be an incentive to find new medicines from cannabis. Fred Mallach Marijuana Party candidate Victoria, BC

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] You can go to the Thalidomide Victims Group's website and read their policy statement where they heartily endorse thalidomide-regulated of course.[/QUOTE] You mean this site? http://www.thalidomide.ca/en/about/position.html "We will never accept a world with thalidomide in it." - Randolph Warren, CEO And this "We of the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada will never accept a world with Thalidomide in it. We demand that resources and energies aggressively be applied to the development of analogues to replace Thalidomide -- analogues with the benefits but without the horrific side effects! The return of Thalidomide must remain a temporary reality with the goal of replacing it being the priority." I mean...that is just the EXACT GROUP you are citing. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Every drug is licensed after clinical trials is done for one specific disease. The three drugs mentioned before have been licensed for use on SOME cancer, but anybody who thinks that one cancer drug will work for all cancers is simply mistaken, fortunately most people know that. [/QUOTE] Glad you're the head expert in oncology on the face of the earth. Thalidomide has shown promise for a myriad of ailments, NOT JUST CANCER. Such things like HIV and LEPROSY Thalidomide has shown effective promise. http://www.atdn.org/simple/thalid.html "Researchers have found that thalidomide can inhibit the growth of HIV in test tubes." http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/8eee2.htm "FDA Clears Thalidomide For Leprosy" [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Nobody here is going to listen or give credit to 'personal experiences' simply because online there is simply no way of validating them. There is plenty of complaints out there about the health care system, nobody is disputing that, but perhaps you should check your facts and people will give more credit to your rants (but doubtful)[/QUOTE] *Please* give me the pharmacy address/number where I can order some Thalidomide in Canada. Gleevec is basically Thalidomide repackaged. Except Gleevec costs $30K a year. Thalidomide costs 9 cents a pill. Here's the facts: http://www.libertarian.ca/english/news/05aug22-thalidomide.html "Thalidomide Cancer Drug Only 9 Cents in Brazil while Canadians Spend their Life Savings" TVAC's support of 'Gleevec' is simple: THEY'VE BEEN BOUGHT AND SOLD. ALL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ARE UP FOR SALE. And for the record: GLEEVEC ALSO CAUSES BIRTH DEFECTS.

Some good info there, also some big inconsistencies. IF Gleevec were Thalidomide repackaged then you're claims against the TV group would be completely invalidated. Then it would become a money issue, where you WOULD have some credence IF the above were true (it isn't, so you're right about some inconsistencies at the TV group). THere is also this: No wonder Americans are going to Canada ... My mom got Multiple myleloma and the docter gave thalidomid for treadment with zomita ... " And this: http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/providers/ThalidomidestimulatesTcell.pdf Clearly thalidomide IS being used in HIV and multiple myloma, however every cancer is unique, and every TYPE of cancer is unique. Some cancers are virtually the OPPOSITE of other ones, which is why a drug won't work with all of them, and in every patient. That thalidomide and Gleevec are the same is completely wrong, just because a designer cancer drug is 'close' does not mean they are equal. As stated, designer drugs can be very close, but small differences make a BIG difference. So we know thalidomide IS available, the problem was you couldn't get hold of it. That could be due to a) a lousy oncologist, or b) we might be talking about several years ago. It could very well be a specific case though, with cancer at a certain stage it becomes one of getting into a clinical study. Brazil is far from being a free market utopia, so the idea that Canadians will see 9 cent pills is pretty bleak. The question I have then is, why is Brazil paying 9 cents a pill? Obviously it isn't 'government red tape' because Brazil has twice as much of that as Canada. Could it be that that is all they can afford, since they are poorer? Whether Cygene or whatever they are called will make thalidomide available for that price is questionable.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Some good info there, also some big inconsistencies. IF Gleevec were Thalidomide repackaged then you're claims against the TV group would be completely invalidated. Then it would become a money issue, where you WOULD have some credence IF the above were true (it isn't, so you're right about some inconsistencies at the TV group). [/QUOTE] TVAC has been bought and sold by the Celgene corporation. This is an 'advertisement' where TVAC 'endorses' Thalomid. This would be like getting GREENPEACE to endorse an SUV. http://www.thalidomide.ca/en/information/educational_video.html What Celgene did was smart...they did a 'Do as the Romans do' and simply bought out TVAC do endorse their product. What product is that? THALIDOMIDE http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2006/01/09/celgene-thalomid-cancer-cx_mh_0109celgene.html "A new study shows that Thalomid, from Celgene, can triple the amount of time patients with the blood cancer multiple myeloma can live without their disease worsening. " Hmmm...I *WONDER* What is this amazing new drug 'THALOMID' that basically had to get endorsed by the THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS ASSOCIATION. Here's the basic price breakdown. A Years supply of THALOMID: $30,000 A Years supply of THALIDOMIDE: $500 "THALOMID" is basically THALIDOMIDE repackaged and with a $29,500 'markup' tapped onto it. Also, because Celgene got the 'approval' of TVAC, it eventually will be able to be sold in Canada (to the RICH of course). Thalidomide of course will still REMAIN BANNED, since it would fuck up Celgene's CORPORATE AGENDA AND PROFITS! It's a brilliant idea! By playing with Canada's laws, you can basically get a virtual MONOPOLY of the health market. Conclusion: THALIDOMIDE will remain illegal, while the brutally expensive SAME DRUG will be sold...but be BRUTALLY EXPENSIVE. Get it? Unless of course you are totally for big corporations doing scumbag shit like this. TVAC are nothing more than SCUMBAGS.

I wonder what the Marijuana's Party's stance is on this? Probably against legalizing Thalidomide, since it would open the doors towards two-tiered private healthcare. Hypocritical cvnts

[QUOTE]When I started this post regarding the legalization of marijuana I was talking about the accumulated cost to the Canadian economy of 100 billion dollars. [/QUOTE] That's a hell of a cost and one I regret being forced to pay. [QUOTE]Last year in 2005 Health Canada approved the use of a tincture of cannabis called Sativex for use by people suffering from MS.[/QUOTE] Can you imagine being forced to pay prescription prices for something that you can grow in your basement for the price of a couple of light bulbs? Me either.