|
 |
|
|---|
DISPELLING THE DIS-INFORMATION
CREATED BY
(OKLAHOMA’S BUREAU OR NARCOTICS)
ADDRESSING THE CONCERN’S OF A FEDERALLY ELECTED OFFICIAL :
At the beginning of each election period, the Oklahoma Voters League is in the habit of sending out various inquiry letters to those running for elected office asking about their views on the issue of Medicinal Cannabis (Medical Marihuana). Usually it is a simple one or two sentence email that runs something as follows:
“We are a pro-Medical Marihuana organization and we would like to know where you stand on the issue of Medical Marihuana? “In response to these inquiry letters, we have received various replies, -- Below is one such letter written back to us from an Oklahoman elected to Federal Office. No doubt there is some sincerity involved, and obviously she or he believes that the use of Medical Cannabis by medical patients is wrong and probably sinful. Of course it is their right to think this way. However (as a pro-Medicinal Cannabis group), we must point out that this elected officials arguments contain numerous inaccuracies. A subject that of and by itself begs the question: Where are these officials getting their facts from?
Obviously one of their major sources is Oklahoma’s own ‘Bureau of Narcotics’, however another culprit might simply be Oklahoma’s group think mentality. Everyone is saying to each other that Medical Cannabis has no medical uses, therefore this must be the case. The fact that this it is and that no one has even bothered to check up on the facts doesn’t seem to occur to anyone. A situation that from experience seems to be all too common here in this part of the country.
And thus the purpose of these website series. We hope to go over various letters written back to us by elected officials, ---sentence by sentence, pointing out the various errors. One might say that we are trying to provide intellectual ammunition needed to counter-act these false rumors about Medicinal Marihuana.
January 4, 2011 |
|---|
The Reply letter starts out by saying:
“January 4, 2011[Ms. . . ] first I wish to thank you for replying to my initial inquiry regarding your stand of the issue of Medical Cannabis(Medical Marihuana). I personally sent out numerous such inquiries to all candidates running for office in [ . . ] and very, very few of them bother to reply. Also, [1] I share your pain when it comes to Cancer, although not from (physical) personal experience, still I know what it is like to see ones friends suffer from the ill affects of chemotherapy. In fact it was when one of my friends lost 60 lbs, in the first 3 weeks of her chemotherapy (and then witnessed the effects of Medical Cannabis first hand) that I turned all my attention to ending the anti-Medical Marihuana laws.
Dear . . . . ..
Thank you for writing to express your support for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. I offer my sincere apology for the delay in my response, and I hope I can still be of service to you. “
However, in reply to your letter, ---- I must first state that I have no medical training, non what-so-ever. However I do have a pretty good dose of (what is generally termed), common horse sense. I see that something works, that it has no ill effects, etc., and I have to wonder about the laws regulating such a medicine.
In fact the very existence of the anti-Medical marihuana laws is a very checkered and dark period in our country’s history. If your office wishes, I can e-mail you a copy of our pamphlet documenting numerous cases of “bestial crimes”, which according to our narcotic police at the time were all committed under the influence and as a direct result of the use of Marihuana -- at the time known as the "Assassin of Youth", and also “The Killer Drug”. [2] However, as your letter limits itself to medical matters, I too will do the same.”
The reply letter goes on to say:
“You may know I am [. . . . . ], and I have looked closely at the question of medical marijuana use. [. . . ], I can also sympathize with the challenges faced due to chemotherapy.”For the average person out on the street, it should be noted that (according to U.S. Federal Government statistics) one in every four American’s dies of Cancer. I’ll repeat – ONE IN EVERY FOUR AMERICAN’S DIES OF CANCER. [3]
The reply letter goes on to say:
“It is important, however, to distinguish between whole marijuana and those chemical substances that are derived from it. Marijuana has a derivative called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that the FDA has approved to treat the nausea and vomiting caused by some cancer treatments. It can also be used to help AIDS patients avoid weight loss. A similar derivative is called nabilone.”[Mr/s. . . ], Note the beginnings of your argument – That because there MIGHT BE an alternative to Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) that we can thus keep the anti-Medical Cannabis laws in place. This is the equivalent of saying that because we have aspirin that it is ok to outlaw all other over the counter painkillers. Something that (when rephrased in that matter) sounds nonsensical at best, yet that is exactly what is being implied here.
Surely you must agree with me that the average logical person out on the street would feel that – If something is safe and it works, that a medical doctor should at least have the option of using it.
NOTE THAT IN another section of this web-site, we will address the issues of “Marinol verses Natural Cannabis”. The comparisons, I sure that you will find are shocking.
The reply letter goes on to say:
“Cancer and AIDS patients do not smoke THC or nabilone. These medications are available as pills, and they require a doctor's prescription. Smoked marijuana has NOT been found to be safe or effective for treating any medical condition.”[Mr/s. . . . ] I am glad (as I am sure most of us are) that some of the ingredients found natural Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) have now been given FDA approval and are now available for medical use. A subject that of and by itself begs a question. If synthetic forms of natural Marihuana are available for medical use, then why is Medical Cannabis itself not approved?
[Again, in another section the issues of “Marinol verses Natural Cannabis” will be address.]
With regards to the smoking issue:
You have stated that; “Smoked marijuana has not been found to be safe or effective for treating any medical condition.”
Our museum has documented well over 2,000 pre-World War II Medical Cannabis medicines [ www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com ] and (excluding some external lotions), almost all of them were ORAL medications. In effect, Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana), before the coming of the anti-Medical Cannabis laws, came in a pill and you bought it at you local drugstore. – And to place emphases on this, out of all those (well over) 2,000 Medical Cannabis medicines that we have been able to document, ONLY TWO (that’s all, just two) of these medicines were smokeable.
Thus without a doubt, once re-legalized, Medical Cannabis will most assuredly make its way back into our drugstore sheaves and in pill form.
The reply letter goes on to say:
“We still do not know all of the long-term effects of marijuana use, “[Ms. . . ], first I must begin by pointing out the fact that it is EFFECTIVELY, against the law to do medical research on Cannabis in this country. As I’m sure you must be aware; under American law in order to do such research one must first obtain a permit (or the go ahead) from the DEA, which simply NEVER-EVER give approval for such studies. Thus making it EFFECTIVELY against the law to do such research, which is why Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) itself lacks FDA (Federal Food and Drug) approval.
A while back the city of Chicago tried to impose gun control by various means. All were shot down in the courts, but the city fathers (and mothers) were not detoured and hit upon a new tactic. They simply passed a law requiring ALL gun owners to obtain a permit in order to obtain a handgun; BUT they conveniently made it impossible to obtain these permits. Thus, while not actually outlawing handguns, they set up the rules in such a way so that in-effect, they did. [B] |
HOWEVER, (now returning back to the subject of Medical Cannabis) as these permits ARE issued out for all sorts of safety research; here one can only presume that the DEA is hoping to find something negative. But be that as it may, IF THERE IS ONE THING WE DO NOT LACK is a lot of safety research on the subject. Research which establishes Medical Cannabis, as one of the safest medicines out there, probably the safest. [C]
As for the “Unknown Long Term Effects” argument, -- It simply doesn’t hold any water. Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) has been in use (literally) since the dawn of human history. For example: The Ebers Papyrus (1500 BC), the oldest “Complete” medical textbook known to the human race makes more than one mention of the plants medical uses. [4] And here in the United States, our museum has documented thousands of Cannabis Medicines, most being pre-Reefer Madness Era but some sold legally in this country up until the early 1970’s. AND YET throughout all that time period, NOT ONE DEATH had every been attributed to the use of Medical Cannabis.
Not a bad “Long Term” track record by anyone’s account. Your reply letter goes on to say:
“. . but we know there is evidence of serious damage to physical and mental health.”No this is totally an incorrect myth, one probably being perpetrated by Oklahoma’s own 'Bureau of Narcotics.' Other then the affects of smoking itself, we know of no solid scientific evidence of any physical or mental health damage done by the use of Medicinal Cannabis. And even these effects can be greatly decreased by the use of a mechanical vaporizer, and as stated elsewhere, “Once Legal” Medical Cannabis will once again, be something that comes in a pill that you buy at your neighborhood drug store.
[Ms. . . ], let me put it to you this way, if there IS ANY evidence to this effect, we have not seen it. However, (here we are quoting our actual reply letter):
“In terms of your arguments against the use of Medical Cannabis, I must point out that you did not mention any specific scientific studies [hopefully something that was published in a peer review journal], which makes it very difficult for me to specifically address your issues.MUSEUM NOTE: The elected official in question was indeed kind enought to send us a second letter addressing the above issue. One to which we also made reply too. [see 2nd Letter reply elsewhere]
If you wish me to reply to your own letter at length, I will need to know the exact sources of information [scientific studies etc.,] that you are quoting. I have personally been amazed by how many myths are being circulated out there. Example, that a scientific study shows that Cannabis causes brain damage in monkeys [while the study itself clearly (shows) that the brain damage was caused by oxygen deprivation] etc. “
The reply letter goes on to say:
“Marijuana decreases short-term memory and decreases a user's ability to handle complex tasks. Some of the stronger varieties of marijuana can make even simple tasks seem challenging.”Granted this is true “IF THE MEDICATION IS IN HEAVY USE”, but those effects wear off after a while, with no LONG-TERM-AFTER effects. As you must know the same can be said of a number of prescription (and even some over the country) medicines in everyday use. But the long and the tall of it all it is that these MINER EFFECTS are quickly adjusted for by the long term Medical user; --- With no significant side effects.
As to the reference about “stronger varieties,” it is nonsensical. That is the same as saying that aspirin (which comes in 80, 160, or 325 mg pills) is taken by the pill instead of by the amount needed. Or putting it another way, I know of no patient who takes aspirin dosages in a certain number of pills per day, but instead in the exact amount of mil-grams needed. The same will be/is true of Medical Cannabis. It’s by the amount needed to accomplice a medical task, not by volume.
The reply letter goes on to say:
“Marijuana users are at increased risk for auto crashes, because their reaction time, concentration, coordination, and perception ability are affected. For example, users can have trouble judging distances or reacting to road signs. Even worse, these effects can last up to twenty-four hours. “[Ms. . . ], first the scientific evidence shows that Medical Cannabis DOES NOT EFFECT YOUR ABILITY to safely drive an automobile. A statement that begs a question: DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE to this effect? And the answer is YES, WE DO. In fact ALL but one of the scientific studies (those published in peer review journals, done by neutral observers with no axe to grin, etc.), clearly show this as being the case.
Let us look at what our own Federal Governments, “Department of Transportation” has to say about the matter. There are two of their studies that I particularly like to quote. One “DOT HS 808-078” entitled "MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE" is important because automobile drivers were actually given Marihuana and monitored.
The end result of the study: While there was some slowing down effects on a driver’s coordination and motor responses, it wasn't enough to prevent safe driving. And just to put the coffin nails on the subject. They actually translated the effects into equivalent blood alcohol levels that we can all understand -- those being between a 0.04 and 0.08. At the time a blood alcohol lever greater than 0.10 in most states was needed to be considered a drunk driver. So it was well within the safety limits. However, at this time the standards are more stringent, a 0.08 or greater is considered a drunk driver. However note that one will never be above a 0.08 (and rarely if ever at .08), at least not when Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) is in use in the quantities needed by Cancer Victims.
No accident then that the first summary sentence from the study reads as follows:
“In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose.NOTE therefore that Cannabis DOES INDEED affect your ability to drive an automobile; IT JUST DOESN’T affect it enough to warrant the title of unsafe driver. And in yet another study “DOT HS 808 065” entitled “The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers,” a background check (in the past tense) Was done on actual traffic accidents to see if Marihuana was involved. There results were, that given all other factors and traffic conditions, Cannabis (Marihuana) users were no more nor more less likely to have been involve in traffic accidents than any other drivers. [5]
And note that these studies have been reproduced by various other private as well as governmental agencies, throughout the planet with similar results. MEDICAL CANNABIS (in doses realistically used by medical patients) simply does NOT affect your ability to safely drive an automobile. Just remember Caffeine (aka coffee) can impair too, but like cannabis, rarely. [A]
WHAT ABOUT NEGATIVE STUDIES?
Now the next question that should be asked is: – Are there any studies that showing that MEDICAL CANNABIS DOES AFFECT your ability to safely drive an automobile?
The answer is yes, BUT, but . . . but . . . but . . . First there is one AND ONLY ONE such study that can be called scientific (done via the scientific method, by neutral observers, published in peer review journals, etc.) and that was the Vancouver B.C. study done some time ago. [6] From what I recalls, it looked scientific enough, very similar to “DOT HS 808 078” mentioned above, except that it reached a different conclusion. AND HERE NOTE, no one is saying that any hanky panky took place, its simply is that no one has been able to duplicate its results. It is possible that it was just an off beat luck of the draw for statistics or a bad day for science etc.
As for all the other studies his museum has had a chance to look out, the only words that one can use to describe them is JUNK SCIENCE. Almost all of them were paid for by the narcotics police, AND one also presumes that the researchers themselves were also hand chosen for their (ah) lack of objectivity on the matter. ALL of them seem to have one or both of these flaws:
- The test subjects were chosen because they have never used Cannabis before (not even in their teens). Making failure in (whatever driving test used) a certainty. --- As a hypothetical example: Let’s say that you go to a rent-a-car company and somehow end up renting a large car. Let’s also pretend that up until then you are used to driving a small car. Well it is obvious that (at least for the first day or two), you are going to be disorientated. That you are going to be driving slower or in an awkward way (dah!)
Even the Federal Government itself makes this factor very clear: To quote one of their websites: [7]“Effects on Driving: “
“The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® (a synthetic but legal form of Medical Cannabis) should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely.” - Extremely large doses of Cannabis (Marihuana) were administered to the test subjects. Doses much higher than what most Medical Patients can realistically be expected to use under normal conditions.
SUMMARY:
http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence
It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing. Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations. Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.”
“I rarely site this paper [DOT HS 808 065] because there are several more recent analyses that provide conflicting data, showing an association between higher THC blood levels and accident, but not showing an association at lower levels. “Which is another way of saying that ONLY NARC’S and stupid people do stupid things. Yes, true in quantities needed by medical patients, Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) will probably NOT affect your ability to safely drive a car. BUT IT IS STILL possible to be drunk as a skunk on it. Or putting it another way, DON’T USE SCIENCE as an excuse for acting irresponsibly. If you had too many drinks (or whatever), and you know when you have, have respect for others and please DON’T DRIVE. |
LAST MINUTE ADDITIONS:
For driving purposes what IS or IS NOT a safe level of THC? In other words, at what point is ones driving ability impaired enough to prevent one from driving an automobile safely?
Ask a narcotics police official (one whose job depends on maintaining the anti-Medical Cannabis laws in place), and you will probably get a talk about “Zero Tolerance.” However, this ignores the fact that the active ingredients found in Hemp (the Medical Marihuana plant) are also naturally found in the Human Body. Thus the issue is NOT, whether you test positive or not, but what exactly IS AN UNSAFE LEVEL?
As of this write up, an initiative voters petition is being prepared in California, in which much debate is taking place (back and forth) on this subject. Below is the (for now) official wording:
1a) DUI: ---- "Sections 23152 and 23153 of the vehicle code shall not apply to anyone using cannabis unless the individual is committing an act forbidden by law, or neglecting a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, concurrently has a THC content of more than 0.5 milligrams per liter of blood, and cognitive impairment or loss of functional capacity can be proven."Note that this is “per liter of blood” NOT per unit of Urine as everyone agrees that urine testing (for the stated purpose) is all but worthless. Example: Unlike alcohol, cannabis (an oil bases substance) will stay in your body for about 3 weeks or so --- Long after its effects have worn off. In addition (according to the D.E.A.) many commercial foods will also give one a false positive. For instance here in Oklahoma one can buy Hemp Milk and Hemp seed products right off grocery store shelves.
But irrelevant, the point being made is that “despite” the science, it might indeed be possible to be impaired. But again, NOT in the quantities realistically needed by medical patients.
-------- The reply letter goes on to say:
“Marijuana use has also been shown to weaken a user's immune system, and possibly to increase the risk of head and neck cancers.”No it does not -- As per one of our other reply letters:
The original source for this golden wonder came from the "infamous" Gabriel Nahas [8] (Note, this guy became such an embarrassment that after a while not even the narc's wanted to quote him anymore) Quoting the New York Times (obituary section) July 7, 2012:
"Dr. Nahas . . .His research, which he did as a professor at Columbia University and reported in more than 700 articles in scientific journals, suggested that marijuana contributed to cancers of the head and neck, leukemia, infertility, brain damage and a weakening of the immune system."At this point there have been so many scientific studies that contradict Dr. Nahas's original assertions, that I see no point in debating the matter. For those of you interested in the subject, the website -
"His critics in the scientific community sometimes assailed his methodology, questioning the large judgments he made often based on small samples. Organizations promoting the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana painted him as a villain. The New England Journal of Medicine once described his work as “psychopharmacological McCarthyism that compels him to use half-truths, innuendo and unverifiable assertions.”
In 1974, he announced that he had discovered a link between the drug and the body’s immune system. “The findings represent the first direct evidence of cellular damage from marijuana in man,” he said in a statement.
But scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studied the chromosomes of volunteers who smoked marijuana, found no deficiency in immune responses and no chromosome abnormalities, which Dr. Nahas had also predicted."
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth5.shtml ---- does a good job of documenting these studies, all of which can be easily obtained on line.
The reply letter goes on to say:
Marijuana use has also been shown to . . . . and possibly to increase the risk of head and neck cancers.As for the “head and Neck cancers, you might be interested in one of our web sites dealing with the matter. It’s a bit humorous (in a sick sort of way). [Note: the web link below takes you to another of our web sites, so make sure you can get back to this site.]
The reply letter goes on to say:THE U.C.L.A. HEAD AND NECK CANCER STUDY
This study conducted by a U.C.L.A. researcher was anything but censored, ---Instead it was Front Page News. It seems that the D.E.A. couldn’t wait to tell the world that something negative . . . And the main stream news media took the bait . . . It’s what happened afterwards that is of interest to us here. . . . [MORE]
“Users are more likely to experience psychosis, and they are at increased risk for depression, anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia, and suicidal thoughts.”
[Ms. . . . ], Once again, without looking over the actual studies being reference, it is hard to specifically address the above issues. However, simply put, to my knowledge, Cannabis of and by itself DOES NOT PRODUCE any of the above ailments. AND historically speaking Medical Cannabis IS AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT for the above. Has it not occurred to you that maybe they are using Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) as a treatment for? After all, there is a reason WHY it is termed, Medical Cannabis or Medical Marihuana.
[Ms. . .], a while back, NORML (a pro-Medical Cannabis group) ran a billboard which reads; “With over 700,000 Marihuana arrests last year, users have a right to feel paranoid”. Amen to that, and in fact, given the present day situation, I would wonder about the mental status of any medical patient WHO wasn’t paranoid. (aka) Take away the anti-Medical Marihuana laws and fear of arrest will also go away.
To close this subject, let me say that a few years ago the Lancet (probably the most respected medical journal in the English language) published an article, detailing ALL known medical safety issues associated with the use of Cannabis. And just for clarification also run an editorial basically stating: That medical Cannabis was safe, and that if any government, for whatever reason chose to outlaw its use, DON’T USE SAFETY as one of those reasons.
The reply letter goes on to say:
“One of the most dangerous aspects of marijuana use is its role in leading users to try other illegal drugs. Contact with the drug subculture and decreased inhibition caused by marijuana smoking are both risk factors in this regard. Marijuana users are more than 104 times more likely to use cocaine than are those who have never used marijuana. In fact, very few individuals who have refrained from marijuana will use other illegal drugs.Marijuana the starter drug myth:
[Ms. . . . ], I don’t know where you got this, “Marijuana users are more than 104 times more likely to use cocaine”, argument, but it goes against every statistic that I’ve been able to see (except of course, those from the DEA who seem to be masters of manipulating statistics). Here just use your head, between ¼ to ½ of all Americans admit to having used Marihuana in their teens, YET only roughly 20% of those are still using it as adults – meaning that 80% stopped. And of those who are using Marihuana as adults, how many of them are using it for Medical purposes? In my opinion, given the number of medical uses that it has been shown affective in treating, ---- just about all of them, is my guess.
Now let’s look at that statement, “Marijuana users are more than 104 times more likely to use cocaine” and play around with the statistics. According to OFFICIAL NIDA (“National Institute on Drug Abuse) government statistics, 33% of the population has used Marihuana sometime during their lifetimes. While the number of cocaine users is about (between 0.5 to 0.7% of the population). Just for the sake of argument, let us use the high-end number. That would mean that a grand total of less than 2.2 percent of ALL marihuana users at some future time became cocaine users. Not exactly mathematical proof of anything by any means.
How Many MARIHUANA SMOKERS Started Out On COCAINE (the starter drug)? ANSWER: About 100%. SAY WHAT???? Remember "NOVOCAIN" that stuff you got in the dentist chair that numbed you up. Novocain, Cocaine, Novocain, Cocaine . . . yep, one and the same thing. --- Well actually there is one molecule that’s a little off, but assuming we’re not too picky, that would mean that (in one form or another), virtually ALL-future marihuana users, first started out on cocaine. Thus absolute proof that Cocaine (the starter drug) leads to Marihuana use . . . . . and if you believe that one, I’ve got some great swampland in Florida, I would love to sell you. |
“Marijuana abuse also increases the likelihood that a person will participate in other criminal activity.”[Ms. . . .], These are not my words, but someone else put it this way, in Nazi German, being a Jew was against the law, thus being a Jew led to criminal activity, thus proof that Jews were the cause of crime. ---- I think we all get the point, --- what would happen to your argument if Cancer victims were allowed doctor prescribe Cannabis, and thus didn’t have to go to the criminal subculture to fill their prescriptions there? And while our museum seeks only legal medical use, still the argument, I feel, holds true for our teens as well. Legal Cannabis puts an end to the underworld and related crime.
The reply letter ends with:
“I would certainly welcome any additional thoughts or question you have in this regard. I wish you the best, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
United States . . . . “
===========
FOOTNOTES:
[1]- Here referencing some personal info not shown in the original reply letter]
[2]- If any one out there want’s a copy of the pamphlet, feel free to ask for it, we can email you an electronic copy of it. And no it don’t cost anything.
[3]- For those more interested in the subject – go to out sister website: http://antiquecannabisbook.com/Dedication/Dedication.htm But warning, the situation (medically speaking) gets a bit ugly.
[4]- http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap2B/Egypt/Egyptian.htm
[5]- “DOT HS 808 078”, is readily available via the internet. “DOT HS 808 065”, is a bit harder to locate so let me know if you need a copy of it. For now these studies can be located at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25867/DOT-HS-808-078.pdf
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26600/26685/DOT_HS_808_065.pdf
[6]- This is very embarrassing but for this write up, we have NOT been able to obtain a copy of the actual study. We believe it was published in Science 25 October 1974: Vol. 186 no. 4161 pp. 317-324 DOI: 10.1126/science.186.4161.317 Marijuana and Driving in Real-Life Situations
[7]- http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
[8]- Nahas, Gabriel.G. et al, "Inhibition of Cellular Mediated Immunity in Marijuana Smokers," Science 183:419-20 (1974).
[A]- ACUTE EFFECTS: CAFFEINE’S EFFECTS ARE MORE SERIOUS
Acute effects are immediate health problems that may result from misuse – including impairment.
Caffeine "significantly increases the blood pressure in subjects who have been without the drug for some days", causes "palpitations" in those who have had such heart conditions in the past, can lead to "digestive upset" and "ulcers". Larger doses can lead to "hyperventilation", "rapid heartbeat", "convulsions", "rapid, uncoordinated twitching of the heart". (Richard J. Gilbert Ph.D., "Caffeine - The Most Popular Stimulant", from the Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs, 1986, Burke Publishing Company Limited, pp. 86-95)
Cannabis "acute toxicity is low compared with that of any other drugs" (1977 Commission of the Australian Government, from Zimmer and Morgan, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts, pp pre-1 and 150)
Cognitive impairment, psycho-motor impairment, anxiety, dysphoria, panic and paranoia, chronic bronchitis, and a "dependence syndrome" (1994 Australian National Drug Strategy Report) http://www.cannabisculture.com/node/19473
[B]- A situation that went all the way through the courts system and became known as “McDonald v. Chicago”.
[C]-
For those interested in more on the subject, the following web-site contains a listing of over 200 peer-reviewed published studies demonstrating marihuana’s efficacy for various medical uses. http://www.cannabis-med.org/index.php?tpl=page&id=39&lng=en Should their website ever go down, feel free to contact the museum for a copy, it can be emailed to you. |
A SPECIAL SECTION ON MARINOL VERSES NATURAL CANNABIS (THE PLANT) IS BEING PLANED TO ADDRESS THE VAST AMOUNT OF DIS-INFORMATION BEING CIRCULATED ON THE SUBJECT.
 PAST PAGE |
BACK TO THE MAIN SECTION |
 NEXT PAGE |
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.
CONTACT PAGE
|
BACK TO SERIES INDEX PAGE |
|
Put yourself on our email mailing list
Our Motto - We're pro-Medical Cannabis and we Vote!