IT'S MEDICAL SUPERIORITY
IS Medical Cannabis Effective?
AND Superior to Other Anti-Nausea Drugs?
AND to What Degree?
The author will neither debate nor argue about what by now has become so obvious. Here I simply state it as an established fact, with the only issues left to be resolved involving the exact extent of its superiority.
However, before going into the subject, this author wants to clarify one point as best he can. That being that we should not allow ourselves TO FALL into the old, "Medical Cannabis MUST BE SUPERIOR" or else it legal (medical) use should NOT BE ALLOWED. Hey, wait a minute here, STOP. If I may use an analogy, isn't Aspirin inferior to other, much more expensive drugs? And if so, does this mean that Aspirin of-and-by itself, should be outlawed? Sound silly, maybe, but then why should Medical Marihuana be held to other standards?
One could name numerous drugs in used today that are, "NOT AS EFFECTIVE" as others, yet consumers freely choose to use them because they are far cheaper, or more widely accessible, or easier to use, or just come with more readable instructions etc. I know that if I had a choice of using a less effective drug, but one that didn't come with a lot of undesirable side-effects, that I would look closely into it. Point being made, well maybe Thomas Jefferson worded it best:
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what Medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."Which maybe is another way of saying that when I look up in the sky, I don't see Fidel Castro's commie flag, or an Islamic crescent up there, I see the Stars and Stripes. Ok, enough said on that matter.
SOME BASIC FACTS:
QUESTION: Exactly, how MUCH MORE effective is Medical Cannabis (as opposed to other alternative anti-nausea agents), in combating the weakening effects of Chemotherapy?
ANSWER: Data taken from various old studies and foreign research seem to put the answer at about 20%.
QUESTION: So why isn't Medical Marihuana FDA approved?
ANSWER: The answer is simple: Because it's been effectively  against the law to do medical research on Marihuana for the last 30 years. NO medical research, NO FDA approval. This fact alone should raise a red flag within the reader. Why should the Federal Government want to outlaw medical research period. I mean, I could see it if Medical Marihuana was a new bacteria from Mars that may endanger the whole of the planet, but with Medical marihuana, something smells rotten in Denmark, I say. And indeed it does, proof is now coming out that the Fed's have known for years (and have even gone so far as to censor a studies), that showed Cannabis of-and-by-itself seems to have the power to fight and reduce Cancer tumors. 
QUESTION: If it's effectively against the law to do medical research on Cannabis, where did the 20% (superior performance) figure come from?
ANSWER: The figure comes from various sources, granted the exact numbers are debatable, but not the basic premises:
ANSWER: I always begin this subject, by asking the following question, "Does anyone out there have any evidence of Medical Marihuana inferiority?" Almost always the silence of the tomb follows, no one (not the narc's, not no one), seems to be able to point to any independent clinical studies confirming their position. [Note, here we are talking about independent scientific studies, NOT something that has been paid for and run by the narc's  ]
I also want to point out, that there exists the testimonials of so many thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands (possible even millions) of our fellow American citizens. And their testimonial must be taken into account, or does the reader think that they are all faking it, just so many sons and daughters of the Unwashed Hippie.
These are people that come from all walks of life and from every part of our country. People of different economic and social groups, of different races, ages, etc. People with only one thing in common - they've all decided to vote against the anti-Medical Marihuana laws with their feet. As one ex-law enforcement official (who used to imprison Marihuana users before developing cancer) so well put it - "I've tried the other (anti-chemo therapy) stuff and it didn't work."
Are the testimonials of so many thousands of our fellow (other wise law abiding) American citizens to be ignored. What is proof (of Medical Marihuana's benefits) if not the testimony of so many thousands of our fellow American citizens. These are people that are risking everything just for the chance to live (to survive cancer) or just to improve the quality of life.
-- Effectively against the law meaning that, if one wants to do medical research on (say) aspirin, one simply gets some off the shelf and starts in. If you want to do medical research of Marihuana however, where is one going to get the Marihuana? You have to get permits from (drug) law enforcement officials in Washington. These permits are seldom (very, very) seldom ever given. Thus making it "EFFECTIVELY" against the law to do medical research on the subject. It should also be pointed out that other federal agencies, such as the National Cancer Institute have bitterly opposed this policy, but at this time the policy is still in place.
-- NOTE; Some brakes in that policy are now taking place, with some very limited medical studies taking place. However, this happened only after the passage of numerous State Medical Marihuana Initiatives (and the ensuing publicity), re-legalizing its medical uses -- at least at the State level.
-- Mention of this study is referenced to elsewhere, here however, we must limit our ourselves ONLY to the subject of Medical Cannabis as an anti-Nausea agent.
-- For many years there has been a study that is used by the medical marijuana prohibitionists about marijuana killing brain cells. It is the Heath/Tulane University study, in which Rhesus monkeys had been strapped into chairs and pumped the equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in five minutes, through gas masks , loosing no air and having none provided. Doctor Heath correctly identified that the monkeys died from dead brain cells. What he did not identify was that the monkeys dead brain cells were due to suffocation. Three to five minutes of oxygen deprivation causes brain damage - dead brain cells courtesy of the Red Cross Lifesaving and Water Safety Manual.
WANT TO KNOW MORE:
Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed. If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum. All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.