I made my son cannabis cookies. They changed his life(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
I made my son cannabis cookies. They changed his life
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-made-my-son-cannabis-cookies-they-changed-his-life/2017/01/06/699b1d20-d1ef-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html
289 comments
The war on drugs is probably one of the biggest crime against humanity since WW2 with millions of deaths, millions in prisons, and trillions of dollars and human resources wasted, mostly affecting the poor and minorities everywhere. This needs to stop. Sadly, it looks like it will go on for a few more decades.
The United States always needs an enemy. Hitler, communism, Russia, Viet Cong, acid rain, drugs, them...
The war on drugs might subside because of the perfect enemy they have now: terrorists. A faceless, ever-present threat that can keep the war drums beating.
What I'd like to see is the military-industrial complex shift their battle to a War on Extinction: space exploration.
The war on drugs might subside because of the perfect enemy they have now: terrorists. A faceless, ever-present threat that can keep the war drums beating.
What I'd like to see is the military-industrial complex shift their battle to a War on Extinction: space exploration.
I don't think needing an enemy is specific to the United States, they are just slightly less shameful than other "modern" countries about it. I quote modern because in many areas of its way to govern, the US seems to be pretty on par with other societies they love to demonize and call "backwards".
I think generally there are people with all sorts of agendas. Unfortunately, in the current state of society, the ones that stick will always be the ones who drive profits the most.
Fear might be the strongest motivator for the average human being. It's not surprising systems fed by conflict and imaginary enemies seem to thrive so much.
It doesn't mean that there aren't bubbles of people who are different, but they are just ripples among the waves.
I think generally there are people with all sorts of agendas. Unfortunately, in the current state of society, the ones that stick will always be the ones who drive profits the most.
Fear might be the strongest motivator for the average human being. It's not surprising systems fed by conflict and imaginary enemies seem to thrive so much.
It doesn't mean that there aren't bubbles of people who are different, but they are just ripples among the waves.
This is not unique to the US and not even unique to the modern era. The "common enemy" is the glue of every civilization. Build a case against a scapegoat and rally public opinion to wage a war - this is essentially the job of every form of government. Let's wage war on poverty, corporations, the 1%, unions, drugs, immigrants, corruption, terrorism... the list goes on and on. You can go back to the Bhagwad Gita, the Bible, the ancient myths... and the story doesn't change very much.
The war on drugs and the war on terror is the same war.
We stage coups in democratic countries, then we install puppet leaders. Then we start growing, harvesting, or selling drugs there. Then we move on to the next country.
Check out the history of Captagon.
We stage coups in democratic countries, then we install puppet leaders. Then we start growing, harvesting, or selling drugs there. Then we move on to the next country.
Check out the history of Captagon.
I'm glad to see someone else come to a similar conclusion. The one thing i would add: this singular enemy tends to be held generationally. As the generations move in and out of the prime voter ages (and the congresspeople they are voting for) US policy changes dramatically around these vilified groups.
My favorite stoner had very cogent thoughts on perceived and real fears[0], marijuana usage[1] and our easily manipulated lizard brains[2]. Carl Sagan corrupted me for life.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_haunted_world
[1] http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dragons_of_Eden
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_haunted_world
[1] http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dragons_of_Eden
Imagine if there was an all-out war on poverty, disease and corruption. The progress we could make.
You mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty?
Good luck.
Good luck.
No, more like: Spend all defense budgets around the world on programs that reduce poverty, increase health and functioning governments.
I don't see that happening. Because someone is going to want to keep their guns, just in case.
Yes. They also want to keep the smallpox, just in case. We could have banished it from the planet entirely but we're keeping some samples of it, just in case.
It's absurd. The absurd part being, if you told me we actually got rid of it, I wouldn't believe it either. So maybe better keep some, just in case. So understandable and so stupid at the same time--absurdity.
It's absurd. The absurd part being, if you told me we actually got rid of it, I wouldn't believe it either. So maybe better keep some, just in case. So understandable and so stupid at the same time--absurdity.
> The United States always needs an enemy. Hitler, communism, Russia, Viet Cong, acid rain, drugs, them...
Not really "the US" per se, but the lobbies behind politics (the police likes the war on drugs because they get massive federal grants for it, and equipment resellers are happy to oblige - and where there is big money, there are influencers to make sure politicians go a certain way) in order to thrive.
Add to that that the public opinion is pretty much against drugs in America, and it's fairly straightforward for politicians to double-down on that kind of topic and enforce rigidity.
Not really "the US" per se, but the lobbies behind politics (the police likes the war on drugs because they get massive federal grants for it, and equipment resellers are happy to oblige - and where there is big money, there are influencers to make sure politicians go a certain way) in order to thrive.
Add to that that the public opinion is pretty much against drugs in America, and it's fairly straightforward for politicians to double-down on that kind of topic and enforce rigidity.
> War on Extinction
This is a really good way to phrase it as a marketing campaign. It could be used for global warming, energy problems and like you mention space exploration.
This is a really good way to phrase it as a marketing campaign. It could be used for global warming, energy problems and like you mention space exploration.
Given our track record when it comes to "Wars on Concepts", initiating an outright "War on Extinction" seems to me like a sure-fire way to guarantee we go extinct within 20 years...
Maybe we ought to instead start a "War on Health" or a "War on Learning" ;)
Maybe we ought to instead start a "War on Health" or a "War on Learning" ;)
The US is held together by our enemies. Without one, our "perfect" union would quickly fall apart due to infighting.
We lack the social cohesion to exist otherwise. Our nation has lost the grand dreams that drove our forefathers... now we huddle together fearing the nightmares and boogeymen.
We lack the social cohesion to exist otherwise. Our nation has lost the grand dreams that drove our forefathers... now we huddle together fearing the nightmares and boogeymen.
Terrorists are an existential threat, but our society doesn't have just one bogeyman: they are around every corner to scare us into doing things we wouldn't normally do. Remember, the terrorists manufacture drugs to sell to us and if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism.
That said, I think it might subside for different reasons.
The demographics of drug addiction are changing. Addictive drug use went from being primarily a poor minority inner city epidemic to something affecting affluent white kids, professionals with bad backs and the elderly. The road from Oxycontin to heroin is a well documented phenomenon[1] that has become all too familiar with the people who pushed for severe punishments for drug crimes.
If your kid could be facing 10 years in jail because he was charged with the intent to distribute a bag of heroin, and that same situation is playing out in towns all over America, suddenly the wheels of change get greased.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/heroin-...
That said, I think it might subside for different reasons.
The demographics of drug addiction are changing. Addictive drug use went from being primarily a poor minority inner city epidemic to something affecting affluent white kids, professionals with bad backs and the elderly. The road from Oxycontin to heroin is a well documented phenomenon[1] that has become all too familiar with the people who pushed for severe punishments for drug crimes.
If your kid could be facing 10 years in jail because he was charged with the intent to distribute a bag of heroin, and that same situation is playing out in towns all over America, suddenly the wheels of change get greased.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/heroin-...
> Terrorists are an existential threat
Give me a break. I've never heard a more hyperbolic statement even from diehard warmongers.
There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security. Even several orders of magnitude more attacks a year would be barely a blip in terms of actual casualties.
Give me a break. I've never heard a more hyperbolic statement even from diehard warmongers.
There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security. Even several orders of magnitude more attacks a year would be barely a blip in terms of actual casualties.
I understand your point but as a New Yorker, an order of magnitude greater would be 20 buildings or a nigh-complete distruction of downtown. Sorry if my comment is emotion driven but the above comment seems very cold.
Edit: just reread your comment and several orders is 200 buildings?
Edit: just reread your comment and several orders is 200 buildings?
I'm not saying that terrorism isn't bad. Obviously it would be upsetting, but to be clear: an order of magnitude more terrorism would be a 9/11-level attack every year. Even with that catastrophic level, NYC would still survive. I understand this is an emotional topic (especially living here) but it's impossible to pretend that terrorism is an "existential" threat.
Realistically, as cold as this sounds, a terrorist attack which managed to level downtown would not even pose an existential threat to the US.
Realistically, as cold as this sounds, a terrorist attack which managed to level downtown would not even pose an existential threat to the US.
I concur with your assessment regarding human lives. That said, I think it's also important to take into account the effects those attacks have had on American society, such as the reduction of civil liberties, the increase in surveillance, and the changes in US foreign policy which have changed the position of the US in the world. These are significant. What would effect would additional attacks have? Yes, these are reactions rather than direct action, but at this point they've been frighteningly predictable. One could argue that this is an existential threat to the US as we know it, even if it isn't existential in terms of human lives, or in the country per se.
That's a fair point, but it's not what people who talk about the "existential threat" of terrorists are talking about. They're usually the ones pushing for more surveillance.
More terrorism might change the nature of US democracy, but it will still be the US.
More terrorism might change the nature of US democracy, but it will still be the US.
> There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security.
This statement surprises me. Especially your talk of casualties. I think you miss something important about "terrorism". It is far more than raw casualty numbers. It is about the "fear and uncertainty" they generate in a populace. And that, to me, is a threat to any modern nation's existence, in a world whose economy depends a lot on things like "confidence" and "optimism".
Perhaps I misunderstand developed nations, but from my point of view, your statement seems alarmingly absurd.
This statement surprises me. Especially your talk of casualties. I think you miss something important about "terrorism". It is far more than raw casualty numbers. It is about the "fear and uncertainty" they generate in a populace. And that, to me, is a threat to any modern nation's existence, in a world whose economy depends a lot on things like "confidence" and "optimism".
Perhaps I misunderstand developed nations, but from my point of view, your statement seems alarmingly absurd.
What's the conceivable scenario where even heightened levels of "fear and uncertainty" lead to the collapse of the USA?
Also keep in mind that people are already extraordinarily pessimistic and unconfident about the country.
Also keep in mind that people are already extraordinarily pessimistic and unconfident about the country.
How do you define "collapse of the USA"? Dissolution? Fall of the government? Effective dictatorship? Widespread police state? Something else?
I'd say the end to constitutional governance would be a good definition. That'd be included in all your scenarios except the police state.
As much as I'd hate to live in a police state, I don't think you can call that the "collapse of the USA." China is very much alive.
As much as I'd hate to live in a police state, I don't think you can call that the "collapse of the USA." China is very much alive.
I think many Americans would no longer consider the USA the same country if it were a police state. It would be the US in name only.
Eh, we're a country that also allowed slavery for decades and only allowed a minority of citizens to vote for most of its history. I'm willing to embrace an expansive definition of the "US."
allowed slavery for decades
And doesn't anymore.
only allowed a minority of citizens to vote for most of its history
And now does.
These are both examples of how the US has improved over time. I would be very surprised to see a reversal on either of these. If there were, people would similarly question whether it was still the US in anything but name, even if this had been the situation in the past.
And doesn't anymore.
only allowed a minority of citizens to vote for most of its history
And now does.
These are both examples of how the US has improved over time. I would be very surprised to see a reversal on either of these. If there were, people would similarly question whether it was still the US in anything but name, even if this had been the situation in the past.
> Give me a break. I've never heard a more hyperbolic statement even from diehard warmongers.
There are sizable portions of the US and Europe that believe muslims are terrorist sympathizers who want to enact Sharia law. To them terrorists, immigrants and muslims are existential threats: they want to blow them up, take their jobs and run their lives and government.
> There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security.
I agree.
There are sizable portions of the US and Europe that believe muslims are terrorist sympathizers who want to enact Sharia law. To them terrorists, immigrants and muslims are existential threats: they want to blow them up, take their jobs and run their lives and government.
> There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security.
I agree.
> There are sizable portions of the US and Europe that believe muslims are terrorist sympathizers who want to enact Sharia law.
Sure, and there are millions of people who believe all sorts of nutty things. Millions of people believe that stars predict the future or that aliens regularly abduct people. That doesn't mean we should legitimize these beliefs.
Sure, and there are millions of people who believe all sorts of nutty things. Millions of people believe that stars predict the future or that aliens regularly abduct people. That doesn't mean we should legitimize these beliefs.
Acknowledging that a bogeyman exists as a bogeyman doesn't legitimize the belief that a bogeyman is real.
It does if you refer to the bogeyman without pointing out that it's false. You said terrorists are an existential threat, not that some (crazy) people think they are.
Terrorists do threaten national security, but very rarely provide an existential threat. It's hard to imagine a terrorist group causing the collapse of the USA.
> It's hard to imagine a terrorist group causing the collapse of the USA.
It's actually not that hard to imagine: dirty bomb set off in midtown Manhattan, kills thousands and sickens tens of thousands. In its hasty reply, the US launches a massive counterstrike against somewhere based on shoddy intel. Putin says, oh hell no, and red buttons are pushed. That's game over folks.
It's actually not that hard to imagine: dirty bomb set off in midtown Manhattan, kills thousands and sickens tens of thousands. In its hasty reply, the US launches a massive counterstrike against somewhere based on shoddy intel. Putin says, oh hell no, and red buttons are pushed. That's game over folks.
> Remember, the terrorists manufacture drugs to sell to us and if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism.
You're being sarcastic, right?
You're being sarcastic, right?
Chasing the Scream is a great book that gives more evidence to this claim, from stories to research, for those who need it.
http://chasingthescream.com/
http://chasingthescream.com/
Mr Nice by Howard Marx is another interesting read. Yes he smuggled drugs, but the super-national efforts by the DEA to catch him were disgusting. The blackmail they used to make him confess (we have little evidence, but if you don't confess we will give your wife 10 years). The pointlessness of his prison life.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Drug-Warriors-Their-Prey-Police/dp/...
This is a good book that shows some of the motivation for a War on Drugs is not in the name of health, safety, security... but the exact opposite. The War on Drugs sorta failed in these aims, so now "terrorists" are the new excuse for a 'soft' police state.
This is a good book that shows some of the motivation for a War on Drugs is not in the name of health, safety, security... but the exact opposite. The War on Drugs sorta failed in these aims, so now "terrorists" are the new excuse for a 'soft' police state.
and so much needless tension between close individuals on both sides of the 'divide'..
It seems to me that most (not all) people who are truly "addicts" are running away from a traumatic experience in their lives. Wouldn't it be more useful of everyone's time and resources to try to help them cope with their emotional distress rather than pile on more by jailing them?
As for people using drugs recreationally - if they're functioning adults then who cares? It's no different than drinking alcohol for a lot of people. If you do it in excess or irresponsibly you can die. Part of being an adult is taking a little personal responsibility.
As for people using drugs recreationally - if they're functioning adults then who cares? It's no different than drinking alcohol for a lot of people. If you do it in excess or irresponsibly you can die. Part of being an adult is taking a little personal responsibility.
What's funniest, USA created War on Drugs to tackle their internal purposes, but the rest of the world adopted it anyway (including the wrong side of Iron Curtain)
America intentionally exported the War on Drugs. It would sanction and threaten to invade those who didn't want to join. Which is the height of hypocrisy given the CIAs involvement in facilitating the drug trade. A good example is what happened with Noriega in Panama.
A cynical person may think that that the modern war on drugs is intended to increase profits for the CIA for things that they couldn't ask the tax payers for.
An extra cynical person may think that the CIA has found a new and much cleaner way of raising money via the tech startup industry.
But you'd have to be pretty cynical to believe that.
A cynical person may think that that the modern war on drugs is intended to increase profits for the CIA for things that they couldn't ask the tax payers for.
An extra cynical person may think that the CIA has found a new and much cleaner way of raising money via the tech startup industry.
But you'd have to be pretty cynical to believe that.
Cannabis played (plays) a part in Hindu rituals/festivals - Bhaang in holi comes to mind.
Guess which country has rules to bend to the war on terror?
Guess which country has rules to bend to the war on terror?
Yeah, so they could target communists, black panthers and pacifists :/
Just in case anybody doesn't believe you: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
Just in case somebody believes you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Egypt#Ottoman_peri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention
There are also references of the ban in Turkey and Greece in 1890 everywhere but without good sources.
The above should be enough to realize that that different nations made various drugs illegal without the US influence and without intention to oppress black panthers and communists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Egypt#Ottoman_peri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention
There are also references of the ban in Turkey and Greece in 1890 everywhere but without good sources.
The above should be enough to realize that that different nations made various drugs illegal without the US influence and without intention to oppress black panthers and communists.
Afaik, countries are often required to (sometimes "unofficially") comply with a variety of US "customs" before various deals (trade, etc) will be signed.
I completely believe that to control the world, you must control people's minds, and to control people's minds, you must control drugs.
I completely believe that to control the world, you must control people's minds, and to control people's minds, you must control drugs.
Actually drug laws have been used weapons in class warfare before US. While US policies are an obvious example in this continuum, it's not the first example.
The opium trade to China is a good prior example.
[]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
[]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
That's because a "war against $condition" is a useful way to manufacture consent.
All you need is a compliant media and lots of Money to be made to corrupt enough legislators....
All you need is a compliant media and lots of Money to be made to corrupt enough legislators....
There are many other things which are also biggest crime against humanity like human trafficking, terrorism and racism.
Agreed, but the war on drugs has fueled a lot of those things.
"The war on drugs is probably one of the biggest crime against humanity since WW2 "
Spoken by someone who has never known an opioid or cocaine addict, and watched lives crumble, sometimes into death.
Most drugs are quite dangerous and have seriously adverse affects upon populations at large.
Cocaine, Meth, and Opioids create massive social health problems far beyond anything dope or alcohol ever could.
I have no doubt there are 'responsible' users out there, but in general, those things will lay waste to populations at large.
I had a friend who lived in his (wealthy) parents basement, smocking crack all day, every day. Visiting with him - there was gerbil feces everywhere, a divot in the sofa were he sat all day, and a pile of ashes next to him on the sofa. He had every opportunity in life, he now lives in a clinic.
Another 'responsible partier' friend in who died of suffocation 'laughing gas' mask to his face.
Another - a weed addict (yes, despite the fact that pot is not really chemically addictive, there is definitely such a thing as addiction) - who threw himself in front of a subway in despair. Not blaming the drugs, but it's specifically related in this case.
A family member who is point-blank prescription opioid addict - and it's complicated because she gets debilitating migraines that few drugs can help her with, but the 'solution' is poison.
And finally - close family members and friends who are 'chronic' pot smokers, who manage it quite well, but are basically always high. It has dramatically affected their lives, though they are functional - they are entirely different people. I'm not sure if I would call that addiction, but I would say it is problematic.
I live in a mixed neighbourhood of creatives/wealthy/working class, there's a health clinic across the street - and the effect of crack in my neighbourhood is quite visible.
Visit places where the 'war on drugs' is truly being lost, like West Virginia, and you get the picture pretty quickly.
Of course there is no reason to put pot smokers in jail - but this antagonism about the 'war on drugs' is very naive, unsympathetic, and dangerous.
Chewing on coca leaves? Maybe. The occasional LSD/Hyabithsca user? Doesn't matter.
But there is no way we will legalize opioids, coke, meth - it doesn't matter that some can 'handle it' - it just wreaks havoc overall. On the whole they destroy lives, families, social scenes, and this is before the legal framework.
I think that the 'perception' problem of the 'war on drugs' is largely led by people who are recreational users, living in the 'Burning Man' bubble of people who have their act together. Then they read up on 'jailing' because of this and that. Remember that if you're in that club, heck, if you're reading HN, you're probably in the top 5% of Americans, and probably the top 0.1% of global population.
Visit your local Salvation Army :)
Spoken by someone who has never known an opioid or cocaine addict, and watched lives crumble, sometimes into death.
Most drugs are quite dangerous and have seriously adverse affects upon populations at large.
Cocaine, Meth, and Opioids create massive social health problems far beyond anything dope or alcohol ever could.
I have no doubt there are 'responsible' users out there, but in general, those things will lay waste to populations at large.
I had a friend who lived in his (wealthy) parents basement, smocking crack all day, every day. Visiting with him - there was gerbil feces everywhere, a divot in the sofa were he sat all day, and a pile of ashes next to him on the sofa. He had every opportunity in life, he now lives in a clinic.
Another 'responsible partier' friend in who died of suffocation 'laughing gas' mask to his face.
Another - a weed addict (yes, despite the fact that pot is not really chemically addictive, there is definitely such a thing as addiction) - who threw himself in front of a subway in despair. Not blaming the drugs, but it's specifically related in this case.
A family member who is point-blank prescription opioid addict - and it's complicated because she gets debilitating migraines that few drugs can help her with, but the 'solution' is poison.
And finally - close family members and friends who are 'chronic' pot smokers, who manage it quite well, but are basically always high. It has dramatically affected their lives, though they are functional - they are entirely different people. I'm not sure if I would call that addiction, but I would say it is problematic.
I live in a mixed neighbourhood of creatives/wealthy/working class, there's a health clinic across the street - and the effect of crack in my neighbourhood is quite visible.
Visit places where the 'war on drugs' is truly being lost, like West Virginia, and you get the picture pretty quickly.
Of course there is no reason to put pot smokers in jail - but this antagonism about the 'war on drugs' is very naive, unsympathetic, and dangerous.
Chewing on coca leaves? Maybe. The occasional LSD/Hyabithsca user? Doesn't matter.
But there is no way we will legalize opioids, coke, meth - it doesn't matter that some can 'handle it' - it just wreaks havoc overall. On the whole they destroy lives, families, social scenes, and this is before the legal framework.
I think that the 'perception' problem of the 'war on drugs' is largely led by people who are recreational users, living in the 'Burning Man' bubble of people who have their act together. Then they read up on 'jailing' because of this and that. Remember that if you're in that club, heck, if you're reading HN, you're probably in the top 5% of Americans, and probably the top 0.1% of global population.
Visit your local Salvation Army :)
You're sort of attacking a straw man here - just because someone is against the war on drugs doesn't mean they are for indiscriminate legalization. The biggest criticisms of the war on drugs in this thread are that it A) attacks people who are no threat to anyone else or themselves (e.g., cannibas and psychedelic users, "responsible" users in general) because of public misconceptions of these drugs pushed by the powers that be, and that B) it attacks people who are very much in need of help, such as addicts of more dangerous/addictive drugs, by punishing them for what is effectively a disease.
Opinions of HN users may vary on how exactly to fix these problems, but I think it's safe to say that neither the system we have now (villainizing and condemning users) nor complete and total deregulation are solutions.
Opinions of HN users may vary on how exactly to fix these problems, but I think it's safe to say that neither the system we have now (villainizing and condemning users) nor complete and total deregulation are solutions.
> Of course there is no reason to put pot smokers in jail - but this antagonism about the 'war on drugs' is very naive, unsympathetic, and dangerous.
The part of this sentence after the hyphen is where you're fundamentally wrong. You listed a lot of sad facts and stories about drug abuse, but those do not constitute a defense of the war on drugs. It's naive to excuse the war on drugs simply because some drugs cause horrible effects for some people.
The part of this sentence after the hyphen is where you're fundamentally wrong. You listed a lot of sad facts and stories about drug abuse, but those do not constitute a defense of the war on drugs. It's naive to excuse the war on drugs simply because some drugs cause horrible effects for some people.
"some drugs cause horrible effects for some people."
No.
Meth, cocaine and opioids represent the vast majority of illegal use outside of weed (which I think is a different category, and it is treated differently in most places) - and they represent a huge risk to society at large.
Prescription opioid use is becoming a massive problem (and now the #1 source of addiction etc.) in the US - it's systematic - not just a problem for 'some people'.
This not about 'specific examples' - it's widespread and systematic.
No.
Meth, cocaine and opioids represent the vast majority of illegal use outside of weed (which I think is a different category, and it is treated differently in most places) - and they represent a huge risk to society at large.
Prescription opioid use is becoming a massive problem (and now the #1 source of addiction etc.) in the US - it's systematic - not just a problem for 'some people'.
This not about 'specific examples' - it's widespread and systematic.
So rather then funding jails and law enforcement, there should be more money going toward rehabilitation programs.
Making drugs illegal ultimately prevents people from getting the help they need.
Making drugs illegal ultimately prevents people from getting the help they need.
Sorry, what is your dispute with my claim? That is indeed some drugs causing horrible effects for some people.
1) And jailing addicts is supposed to help?
2) the infinitely more dangerous threat,which you accurately described, is opioids...yet ask an average high schooler and they'll tell you they were taught weed is so evil...
3) oh, and lack of health insurance kills more people in the US than cocaine
2) the infinitely more dangerous threat,which you accurately described, is opioids...yet ask an average high schooler and they'll tell you they were taught weed is so evil...
3) oh, and lack of health insurance kills more people in the US than cocaine
1) 'Jail' - I never said they should jail them. But they should jail the dealers, yes. Moreover, 'required rehab' would be beneficial.
In Canada (a prison in Ottawa, specifically) if you 'go in' an opioid addict, the actually give you 3 doses of methodone a day. A friend of mine in there for a few days (small thing) described them as insane zombies, banging on the door to the clinic when it was almost time for their next dose.
The 'short term' harm reduction ideal of 'giving them drugs' might be nice, but in the 'long term' - keeping people jacked on opioids for months at a time has to be one of the most cruel things imaginable.
2) I think that most 'high schoolers' grasp that heroin, meth and coke are far worse than weed.
3) This is a separate issue. In other countries, such as Canada, we still have 'the war on drugs' - and 'free healthcare'.
In Canada (a prison in Ottawa, specifically) if you 'go in' an opioid addict, the actually give you 3 doses of methodone a day. A friend of mine in there for a few days (small thing) described them as insane zombies, banging on the door to the clinic when it was almost time for their next dose.
The 'short term' harm reduction ideal of 'giving them drugs' might be nice, but in the 'long term' - keeping people jacked on opioids for months at a time has to be one of the most cruel things imaginable.
2) I think that most 'high schoolers' grasp that heroin, meth and coke are far worse than weed.
3) This is a separate issue. In other countries, such as Canada, we still have 'the war on drugs' - and 'free healthcare'.
(3) isn't a completely separate issue. Incarceration sucks up a lot of public funds that could go toward treatment programs.
>A family member who is point-blank prescription opioid addict - and it's complicated because she gets debilitating migraines that few drugs can help her with, but the 'solution' is poison.
Paracetamol (is this tylenol in the US) is a pretty effective poison too. Many drugs are poisonous either in large doses or sustained use. It appears cannabis is not one of them btw. What is your solution?
Paracetamol (is this tylenol in the US) is a pretty effective poison too. Many drugs are poisonous either in large doses or sustained use. It appears cannabis is not one of them btw. What is your solution?
We call it acetaminophen; Tylenol is the primary brand name under which it's sold.
I don't think GP advances a blanket solution, which is good, because there isn't one. I do think he's a bit arguing against a blanket legalization policy that no one here is advancing, and that's good too, because that way lies madness.
I don't think GP advances a blanket solution, which is good, because there isn't one. I do think he's a bit arguing against a blanket legalization policy that no one here is advancing, and that's good too, because that way lies madness.
I call hyperbole. Millions of deaths? Do you mean by overdose? Are those the fault of resisting the spread of drugs?
Presumably OP means deaths linked to the production, distribution, and sale of illegal drugs.
Think Mexican drug cartels, gang wars over drug selling operations, etc.
Think Mexican drug cartels, gang wars over drug selling operations, etc.
Ok that accounts for maybe 150,000. Staggeringly high. But I still call Hyperbole on 'millions'
Then add people whose life was ruined by addiction, as producers refined their wares to maximize that side-effect, and by getting caught in the prison system - then died of the effects of poverty, homelessness and emargination that result from those conditions. It's hard to keep stats on that, but you'd easily run in the millions.
Are we still talking about drugs? Or obesity? Or internet addiction? We're talking billions by now. An no war was ever waged on those things.
The 'war on drugs' has not been shown responsible for addiction, addiction-related crime and related social ills.
The 'war on drugs' has not been shown responsible for addiction, addiction-related crime and related social ills.
By forcing producers underground rather than regulating their wares, WOD in practice pushed markets towards the worst possible products and the most harmful situations. We have entire bureaucracies dedicated to ensuring the food you eat is not harmful to you, balancing the profit motive with considerations regarding public health (which become more and more precise as science advances); imagine if all that was taken away - how many people would die or suffer from terrible food, even more than they do now? This is what the drug market has been like for more than 40 years. People got damaged by shit product devised by criminals to maximize their profit. And that's the WOD's fault, entirely.
Brazil alone must have had more than 150,000 deaths attributed to drug trafficking in the last 30 years.
Blaming that on the US is absurd. The US does not control Latin America. If it did, the Socialist & Communist movements that have been persistent there for so many decades would have never existed to begin with.
The premise is thus: every nation in North and South America must perfectly legalize all illegal drugs across the board for use, production and distribution (any imperfect law structures could cause illegal behavior), else the nations that do not establish perfect systems are responsible for all ills related to said non-perfect legalization no matter where they occur in the hemisphere. That's what is being proposed in concept if you extrapolate it.
I support the complete legalization of all drugs. However, trying to pin all ills on the US, is nothing more than a political convenience. It occurs with practically every bad thing on the planet. The US does not control the world; take China as one example when it comes to drugs, or broader Asia (most of which frequently shares China's general sentiment on drugs) - the US didn't impose those policies on China. The US doesn't control Latin America any more than it controls China or Asia. The same mentality that has existed in the US regarding the war on drugs, is in fact very common throughout the rest of the planet, including in Latin America.
The premise is thus: every nation in North and South America must perfectly legalize all illegal drugs across the board for use, production and distribution (any imperfect law structures could cause illegal behavior), else the nations that do not establish perfect systems are responsible for all ills related to said non-perfect legalization no matter where they occur in the hemisphere. That's what is being proposed in concept if you extrapolate it.
I support the complete legalization of all drugs. However, trying to pin all ills on the US, is nothing more than a political convenience. It occurs with practically every bad thing on the planet. The US does not control the world; take China as one example when it comes to drugs, or broader Asia (most of which frequently shares China's general sentiment on drugs) - the US didn't impose those policies on China. The US doesn't control Latin America any more than it controls China or Asia. The same mentality that has existed in the US regarding the war on drugs, is in fact very common throughout the rest of the planet, including in Latin America.
The US is not responsable for all, but its absolutely clear that the US is willing to take diplomatic action against countries that try to change direction. This is specially true in Latin America.
The US has active military operation against drug production all over Latin America.
Plus the US is responsable for the massive demand that drives a lot of these activities.
The US has active military operation against drug production all over Latin America.
Plus the US is responsable for the massive demand that drives a lot of these activities.
Your are dramatically underestimating the number of deaths due to drug violence. Mexico alone accounted for over 100k as of several years ago. I suspect millions could be a bit of a reach, but it's probably within the range of reasonable estimates. I can't seem to find any good estimates.
[deleted]
I suggest this Kurzgesagt video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
Deaths might not be in the million range, but the number of ruined life thanks to the war is well beyond millions.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
Deaths might not be in the million range, but the number of ruined life thanks to the war is well beyond millions.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
Really? I have a very deep suspicion that drugs destroy society by making a majority of people lethargic and unmotivated to do anything in real life.
A case could be made for exceptions here and there (like the child in this article) but I don't think it works so well in society.
A case could be made for exceptions here and there (like the child in this article) but I don't think it works so well in society.
It's certainly possible for drugs to destroy society and the war on drugs to destroy society. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact they're often correlated in the more conventional type of wars: saying that the bombing of Dresden was bad for Dresden doesn't imply that Nazi rule was good for it, nor does saying that Nazi rule was bad imply that the bombing was good for the city.
This is why declaring war is traditionally a last-resort approach, appropriate only when you believe the inevitable evils of waging war are worth enduring to eliminate the great evil you're facing. If the evil you're facing is not that great, war is not the right tool.
This is why declaring war is traditionally a last-resort approach, appropriate only when you believe the inevitable evils of waging war are worth enduring to eliminate the great evil you're facing. If the evil you're facing is not that great, war is not the right tool.
By your logic, the states that have legalized recreational marijuana should all be failing right now. Oh and if you were specifically talking about all drugs, Portugal decriminalized possession in 2001 and it was a staggering success. (https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-ye...)
Well, Vancouver is failing. It's a sample of one, but it's something I saw with my own eyes.
I understand the evidence indicates otherwise. Particularly the evidence from nations states or regions therein that have legalised various drugs.
Do you have any evidence to support your "deep suspicion"?
Do you have any evidence to support your "deep suspicion"?
> by making a majority of people lethargic and unmotivated to do anything in real life.
Almost all of the drug users I know are highly motivated and very successful people. Even if you include illegal drugs.
Perhaps this is just selection bias at work, but that knife cuts both ways.
Almost all of the drug users I know are highly motivated and very successful people. Even if you include illegal drugs.
Perhaps this is just selection bias at work, but that knife cuts both ways.
"Almost all of the drug users I know are highly motivated and very successful people. "
It's definitely selection bias.
I too lived in an urban/cool area with 'pro' drug users and (mostly) never saw a problem, though there was one accidental OD in my circle.
But get out into the real world, working class areas where meth and crack in particular have laid waste - it's another story.
Rural areas, working class areas, ghettos - another story - and I think they represent the 'majority' of users by far.
In fact - I think that this bias is the #1 contributor to the misinformation about 'the war on drugs'.
It's definitely selection bias.
I too lived in an urban/cool area with 'pro' drug users and (mostly) never saw a problem, though there was one accidental OD in my circle.
But get out into the real world, working class areas where meth and crack in particular have laid waste - it's another story.
Rural areas, working class areas, ghettos - another story - and I think they represent the 'majority' of users by far.
In fact - I think that this bias is the #1 contributor to the misinformation about 'the war on drugs'.
> It's definitely selection bias.
As I stated in another thread, the "all drug users are lazy" mythos is also a form of selection bias. The only difference is that my selection bias isn't being used as a justification for jailing people. I think that's an important difference.
> Rural areas, working class areas, ghettos - another story - and I think they represent the 'majority' of users by far.
We see similar harms from excessive tobacco and alcohol abuse in those communities, but we don't outlaw those drugs.
So, why do we draw the arbitrary line where we do?
And how, exactly, does jailing these people actually help anything?
Basically, I don't take this argument seriously unless the person advocating it is in favor of marijuana legalization or else supports alcohol prohibition.
As I stated in another thread, the "all drug users are lazy" mythos is also a form of selection bias. The only difference is that my selection bias isn't being used as a justification for jailing people. I think that's an important difference.
> Rural areas, working class areas, ghettos - another story - and I think they represent the 'majority' of users by far.
We see similar harms from excessive tobacco and alcohol abuse in those communities, but we don't outlaw those drugs.
So, why do we draw the arbitrary line where we do?
And how, exactly, does jailing these people actually help anything?
Basically, I don't take this argument seriously unless the person advocating it is in favor of marijuana legalization or else supports alcohol prohibition.
(Not the OP)
There isn't just the selection bias of people you tend to know potentially not being representative of most drug users, but the need for comparing how those same drug users would do without drugs (I'm not sure how this is possible to evaluate). It isn't enough to say that some drug users are highly motivated and successful, which I don't contest.
There isn't just the selection bias of people you tend to know potentially not being representative of most drug users, but the need for comparing how those same drug users would do without drugs (I'm not sure how this is possible to evaluate). It isn't enough to say that some drug users are highly motivated and successful, which I don't contest.
That would be an interesting study, but it's not relevant to the discussion of the war on drugs. The comparison you'd need to make it how those people you know would be doing if they were in prison for using illegal drugs. I'd wager they'd be doing worse.
I agree about that study being more relevant to the war on drugs, but my point was simply in response to the anecdotal claim about the motivation and success of drug users. If it were possible, it may provide more insight into how drugs should be viewed in society, regardless of legality.
In addition to baddox's comment, your comment seems to suggest that extremely productive/intelligent people have a duty to society which extends into their private leisure time. I find that burden to be absurd.
If they were enjoying a light marijuana buzz (or a light alcohol/caffeine buzz!!!) during work hours -- or in a way that directly and visibly effects their work performance -- you might have a point.
But even in those cases, I would still strongly disagree with your rationale. The same line of reasoning also justifies jailing people for obesity, which "Has Been Known To Significantly Decrease Productivity". And it certainly justifies jailing people who drink alcohol, since even mild hang-overs have rather extreme effects on productivity. If you're too over-weight or hung-over or high to work, then you should be fired. Not jailed.
But justifying a law on the basis that individuals should organize their private life choices such that they are optimally productive as members of society? That's quite the burden, and if we're going to impose that burden, I suspect we'd have a compelling justification for jailing literally anyone.
If they were enjoying a light marijuana buzz (or a light alcohol/caffeine buzz!!!) during work hours -- or in a way that directly and visibly effects their work performance -- you might have a point.
But even in those cases, I would still strongly disagree with your rationale. The same line of reasoning also justifies jailing people for obesity, which "Has Been Known To Significantly Decrease Productivity". And it certainly justifies jailing people who drink alcohol, since even mild hang-overs have rather extreme effects on productivity. If you're too over-weight or hung-over or high to work, then you should be fired. Not jailed.
But justifying a law on the basis that individuals should organize their private life choices such that they are optimally productive as members of society? That's quite the burden, and if we're going to impose that burden, I suspect we'd have a compelling justification for jailing literally anyone.
Almost all of the drug users I know are unemployed social outcasts. One of them at least somewhat tries.
Really? Everyone who drinks alcohol and coffee and smokes tobacco? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Conversely, all of the drug users I know are employed and earn between 1x and 3x the national average household income. At jobs where they're highly respected for their contributions.
Again, maybe that's just anecdote. But the "anecdote" criticism cuts both ways. The only real difference is that I'm not justifying jailing people on the basis of personal anecdote.
Conversely, all of the drug users I know are employed and earn between 1x and 3x the national average household income. At jobs where they're highly respected for their contributions.
Again, maybe that's just anecdote. But the "anecdote" criticism cuts both ways. The only real difference is that I'm not justifying jailing people on the basis of personal anecdote.
Anecdotes aren't good for determining truth, but if you vote based on personal anecdotes you get a large statistical sample of the population when they count the votes up.
> but if you vote based on personal anecdotes you get a large statistical sample of the population when they count the votes up.
You're saying that by sampling opinions that are formed in small neighborhoods around voters, we can get a picture of ground truth -- even if reality is distorted in various ways around those small neighborhoods.
This can work, but not in the case where there's something masking a portion of the data set such that personal anecdote isn't indicative of underlying reality, even locally.
In that case, anecdotes aren't even locally accurate, and that effect amortizes over the voting population to result in a globally inaccurate picture of reality.
Which is the case here. Criminalizing and stigmatizing drugs means that grandma doesn't necessarily know successful son-in-law smokes pot on the weekend, for example.
You're saying that by sampling opinions that are formed in small neighborhoods around voters, we can get a picture of ground truth -- even if reality is distorted in various ways around those small neighborhoods.
This can work, but not in the case where there's something masking a portion of the data set such that personal anecdote isn't indicative of underlying reality, even locally.
In that case, anecdotes aren't even locally accurate, and that effect amortizes over the voting population to result in a globally inaccurate picture of reality.
Which is the case here. Criminalizing and stigmatizing drugs means that grandma doesn't necessarily know successful son-in-law smokes pot on the weekend, for example.
[deleted]
Which is why we should make sure they are locked up with violent criminals.
so, based on your suspicion you get to decide what substances I may ingest during my personal time? addiction can ruin lives, but the war on drugs only makes it worse for drug users. addicts need help, not punishment. you may or may not agree with drug use, but it is evident that what we are doing right now is not working.
You want your own personal desires (vice?) to trump what's beneficial or destructive to society as a whole.
[citation needed]
you are positing something that you have no proof of. what we do know is that the war on drugs is damaging to society. we also know that decriminalization worked for Portugal. where is your proof?
i want to be free. i don't want you or anyone else to have the power to dictate my (or anyone's) behavior.
you are positing something that you have no proof of. what we do know is that the war on drugs is damaging to society. we also know that decriminalization worked for Portugal. where is your proof?
i want to be free. i don't want you or anyone else to have the power to dictate my (or anyone's) behavior.
I think your attitude is rather childish.
Your assumptions are not knowledge. Also, your concept of freedom seems rather misplaced. Everyone already does dictate your behavior. If you think otherwise, you are not thinking hard enough.
Your assumptions are not knowledge. Also, your concept of freedom seems rather misplaced. Everyone already does dictate your behavior. If you think otherwise, you are not thinking hard enough.
i know people try to dictate my behavior, but i can always find the courage to rebel. :)
have some data:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_239505_EN_T...
decriminalization works. punishing users doesn't.
if you want to do something about drugs, treat the addiction. fund rehab programs. see them as people with a medical issue, rather than morally corrupt individuals.
have some data:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_239505_EN_T...
decriminalization works. punishing users doesn't.
if you want to do something about drugs, treat the addiction. fund rehab programs. see them as people with a medical issue, rather than morally corrupt individuals.
What's your deep suspicion based on? Certainly not medical research.
Visiting Vancouver
deep suspicion based on anecdotal data. sounds legit. i think this is a perfectly reasonable basis to violate individual liberty and utilize coercive methods to punish "undesirable behavior".
what happens when you become the target? what if society decides that your behavior is undesirable?
what happens when you become the target? what if society decides that your behavior is undesirable?
When society deems your behavior undesirable, you become a social outcast and live a miserable life. No one would hire you. No one would want to be your friend.
It's not just anecdotal evidence, but also a basic understanding of human psychology and how drugs and addiction influences people.
It's not just anecdotal evidence, but also a basic understanding of human psychology and how drugs and addiction influences people.
[citation needed]
show me your proof.
i use drugs every day. i also have a high-paying job, friends, family. i pay my taxes, and participate in the community. i know lots of other people who live similar lifestyles.
the question is, why aren't drugs destroying us? why hasn't colorado burnt to the ground? or portugal for that matter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-h...
https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decr...
https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-...
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-...
show me your proof.
i use drugs every day. i also have a high-paying job, friends, family. i pay my taxes, and participate in the community. i know lots of other people who live similar lifestyles.
the question is, why aren't drugs destroying us? why hasn't colorado burnt to the ground? or portugal for that matter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-h...
https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decr...
https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-...
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-...
That's not the point. Addiction should be regarded as a disease, and drug problems helped with by communities. Instead they are criminalized and stigmatized.
> Almost 70 percent of Americans take at least one prescription drug, and more than half take two, according to researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center.
https://www.drugwatch.com/2015/07/29/drug-abuse-in-america/
https://www.drugwatch.com/2015/07/29/drug-abuse-in-america/
Also, almost 70% of Americans are obese or overweight.
[deleted]
Is the opposition to cannabis as a therapy at least part rooted in the fact it is not patentable? Large Pharma can't make enough money from something people could grow themselves?
A parallel story is the guy in the UK researching treating depression with 'magic mushrooms' in small doses (too little to be psychoactive). As I recall it took him 10 years to get a license to do the study! These things grow in your lawn in the UK! The results seemed good when compared to the poor outcomes for people on patentable anti-depressants
A parallel story is the guy in the UK researching treating depression with 'magic mushrooms' in small doses (too little to be psychoactive). As I recall it took him 10 years to get a license to do the study! These things grow in your lawn in the UK! The results seemed good when compared to the poor outcomes for people on patentable anti-depressants
> Is the opposition to cannabis as a therapy at least part rooted in the fact it is not patentable?
The IP is certainly fuzzy but that's no argument. If it can be commoditized and involves some form of creative/innovative work, there's pretty much always some way to create legal protection for it. Besides, just because there's potential for competition doesn't mean that people won't try to enter the market.
> Large Pharma can't make enough money from something people could grow themselves?
As the article itself explains, growing weed is not simple. A sophisticated operation requires a lot of resources and dedicated man-hours.
The primary reason that no big, entrenched players are moving on it (or that anyone who does it hasn't gotten too big) is that the fact remains that marijuana is illegal. (This is true in a lot of countries, not just the U.S., but the rest of this comment is going to be U.S.-specific because I don't know the situation in other countries nearly as well.)
No matter what the states say, federal law overrides state law, which means that anyone that grows pot has huge legal exposure. There's also a secondary problem: pot growers have a lot of trouble using the kinds of services that are traditionally available to businesses, because B2B's (1) want clients that are not at risk of getting shut down by a DEA investigation and (2) do not want to expose their own businesses to legal risk, which they would be by working with a pot-growing op.
There's a lot of stories about dispensaries in Colorado who are denied, for example, banking services, because of the litigation it would expose banks to.
The IP is certainly fuzzy but that's no argument. If it can be commoditized and involves some form of creative/innovative work, there's pretty much always some way to create legal protection for it. Besides, just because there's potential for competition doesn't mean that people won't try to enter the market.
> Large Pharma can't make enough money from something people could grow themselves?
As the article itself explains, growing weed is not simple. A sophisticated operation requires a lot of resources and dedicated man-hours.
The primary reason that no big, entrenched players are moving on it (or that anyone who does it hasn't gotten too big) is that the fact remains that marijuana is illegal. (This is true in a lot of countries, not just the U.S., but the rest of this comment is going to be U.S.-specific because I don't know the situation in other countries nearly as well.)
No matter what the states say, federal law overrides state law, which means that anyone that grows pot has huge legal exposure. There's also a secondary problem: pot growers have a lot of trouble using the kinds of services that are traditionally available to businesses, because B2B's (1) want clients that are not at risk of getting shut down by a DEA investigation and (2) do not want to expose their own businesses to legal risk, which they would be by working with a pot-growing op.
There's a lot of stories about dispensaries in Colorado who are denied, for example, banking services, because of the litigation it would expose banks to.
> Is the opposition to cannabis as a therapy at least part rooted in the fact it is not patentable? Large Pharma can't make enough money from something people could grow themselves?
No and no.
Not only is it patentable, the United States Government famously holds one[1] for "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectant."
Additionally, there are already pharmaceutical companies producing, researching, breeding, and selling medical cannabis in other countries like Israel[2].
And if you're looking to see what's happening in the United States, GW Pharmaceuticals is seeing success in their Phase 3 trials for Dravet Syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome[3].
[1] - https://www.google.com/patents/US6630507
[2] - http://www.tikun-olam.info
[3] - https://www.gwpharm.com/about-us/news/gw-announces-new-epidi...
No and no.
Not only is it patentable, the United States Government famously holds one[1] for "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectant."
Additionally, there are already pharmaceutical companies producing, researching, breeding, and selling medical cannabis in other countries like Israel[2].
And if you're looking to see what's happening in the United States, GW Pharmaceuticals is seeing success in their Phase 3 trials for Dravet Syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome[3].
[1] - https://www.google.com/patents/US6630507
[2] - http://www.tikun-olam.info
[3] - https://www.gwpharm.com/about-us/news/gw-announces-new-epidi...
I have no oposition to people doing whatever they want but I wouldn't give my kid THC until the following happened:
* I could obtain it from a trustworthy source
* It's studies to understand it's effects on children (medical)
* Understand any long-term effects it has on children's memory/behavior (psychological)
That argument has never made any sense. There's an extreme amount of money to be made from national legalization. Moralization of pot as an issue is the primary culprit in question. The same type of moralizing, for one example by the Rockefeller Baptists, led to alcohol prohibition despite the incredibly vast amount of money to be made from keeping alcohol legal (which we see today in the truly massive scope of the US alcohol industry).
The argument that certain power interests wanted to keep it illegal, to fund secret wars, has never made much sense either (other than that such activities might occur as a monetary & political convenience while prohibition exists). Marijuana legalization is worth perhaps $30 billion per year nationally, at all levels, via taxation (sales taxes, income taxes, specialty taxes, etc); the industry would generate at least $150 billion in sales nationally were it legalized. There's a vast amount of money that should motivate legalization. Moralization of an issue often trumps monetary concerns (we see this frequently in biotech / pharma as well, the FDA prevents rapid progress in all sorts of ways).
The argument that certain power interests wanted to keep it illegal, to fund secret wars, has never made much sense either (other than that such activities might occur as a monetary & political convenience while prohibition exists). Marijuana legalization is worth perhaps $30 billion per year nationally, at all levels, via taxation (sales taxes, income taxes, specialty taxes, etc); the industry would generate at least $150 billion in sales nationally were it legalized. There's a vast amount of money that should motivate legalization. Moralization of an issue often trumps monetary concerns (we see this frequently in biotech / pharma as well, the FDA prevents rapid progress in all sorts of ways).
I spent the majority of 2012 in hospitals with two family members fighting cancers. I had a lot of conversations with doctors/nurses and often enough MMJ was discussed. "Off the record", of course. The general consensus was CBDs have many apparent benefits, it was even posited they may inhibit malignant cell formations(further study required). The consensus also was that the THC race to get the most 'chronic' high from a strain is actually eroding the medicinal benefits of MMJ by sacrificing the THC:CBD balance for the greater psychoactive effects. This was a year or two before I saw the documentary on these guys who go the other direction for a non-psychoactive strain( more CBD,less THC).
https://www.cwhemp.com/
https://www.cwhemp.com/
What's crazy is CBD is now specially schedule 1, which means it is considered addictive and containing no medical value[1]. So, the THC:CBD ratio appears to be irrelevant from the governments perspective.
[1] www.foxnews.com/health/2016/12/20/now-schedule-1-drug-cbd-hemp-oil.amp.html
[1] www.foxnews.com/health/2016/12/20/now-schedule-1-drug-cbd-hemp-oil.amp.html
Thanks for the link. I know someone too who has greatly benefitted from CBD as well. This is only anecdotal but I've heard that there is a positive relationship between CBD and THC, where for some people/conditions it is helpful to have both
On the other hand, the strain mentioned in this article is famously high in THC.
Here are some strains that are high in CBD:
https://leafist.com/news/2016/12/19/which-cannabis-strains-h...
https://leafist.com/news/2016/12/19/which-cannabis-strains-h...
I noted that irony. The parents should have been informed of low THC strains, they aren't uncommon. One of the NBC news channels broadcast the documentary on CW nationally and repeatedly. Pertinent info can be hard to find amongst the noise.
Wow. The title is click-baity, but the article does make me empathize with the mother's position.
I remember being a young kid in school and seeing the few students that just seemed so mentally imbalanced that they couldn't even exist comfortably, let alone study. My school became a center for "emotionally disturbed" children for the county. For the half-dozen of these students, they had 3 (very strong) teachers.
When there's no respite for a condition that is potentially dangerous to your child as well as others, what do you do? What happens when the medication fails to work or has worse side affects? This sounds like desperation. I'd have an open mind towards about anything if I were in this woman's position.
I remember being a young kid in school and seeing the few students that just seemed so mentally imbalanced that they couldn't even exist comfortably, let alone study. My school became a center for "emotionally disturbed" children for the county. For the half-dozen of these students, they had 3 (very strong) teachers.
When there's no respite for a condition that is potentially dangerous to your child as well as others, what do you do? What happens when the medication fails to work or has worse side affects? This sounds like desperation. I'd have an open mind towards about anything if I were in this woman's position.
I believe it sounds like desperation because of the societal constructs that make it a stigma to use this drug. If one looks at it from a purely medical point of view, I don't see why this should be construed any different from any current treatment that exists out there.
As with most drugs - this would sound true - "The benefits of this treatment outweigh the potential side effects". For the woman's position, she has reached a point to see this truth clearly.
In Singapore and a few other neighbouring SEA countries, there's a death penalty for the possession of cannabis.
Possession. Death. Unbelievable.
Possession. Death. Unbelievable.
AFAIK, In Singapore it's not for possession but for trafficing. The difference being the amount you can have on your person. For possession you only face (severe) prison time and trafficing is a mandatory death sentence.
Well, that is true but would anyone really take that chance of trying to prove it wasn't trafficking when their neck is on the line for a joint? I don't think so. At least from what I've experienced in Singapore.
shiven(2)
How can a society that allows drinking alcohol and caffeine ban a plant you can grow on your window cill?
How can a society that will give Ritalin to a child, dogmatically refuse to give a child cannabis based therapy?
Why is the state so keen to control cannabis? Is it simply that the state associates it with hippies? Still? In 2017?
How can a society that will give Ritalin to a child, dogmatically refuse to give a child cannabis based therapy?
Why is the state so keen to control cannabis? Is it simply that the state associates it with hippies? Still? In 2017?
Currently trying some CBD oil with my moms. Prognosis: groovy. I spend less time anxious, irritable, hyperactive, distant, incapable of eating. It's quite nice. She likes it for going to sleep better and staying asleep longer, and I suspect its helped decrease her allergy/inflammation symptoms that wake her up in the middle of the night, coughing.
CBD is helping my friend get off Percocet addiction.
CBD makes it possible for me to do things that my anxiety used to stop.
The crimininalization of marijuana and classification as illicit substance is such a tremendous stupidity.
Imagine I live in a country where discussing the law is illegal and can send you to jail for years and worth 70000€ of fine. You can criticize any laws but these one... like google did in order to avoid taxes.
Even if the constitution grant the right to discuss and modify the law... and the country claims being the country of the Human Rights.
Vive la France. The country where some animals are more equal than others.
Even if the constitution grant the right to discuss and modify the law... and the country claims being the country of the Human Rights.
Vive la France. The country where some animals are more equal than others.
"We left Rhode Island [and moved to New York, where they cannot get medical cannabis] with almost a liter of cannabis-infused oil, but, even though we measure it out in drops, it won’t last forever. And because my son had to turn in his medical-marijuana license when we moved, we can’t go back to get more."
I hate to point this out, but that one quote nullifies the rest of the article. When they moved, they would have checked the school district. They didn't check their son's medication?
Or is it the case that it's not as bad as it appears?
I hate to point this out, but that one quote nullifies the rest of the article. When they moved, they would have checked the school district. They didn't check their son's medication?
Or is it the case that it's not as bad as it appears?
I wanted to cry, thinking that I could buy bags of White Russian but I wouldn’t be able to take them out of Colorado. If we bring our son’s marijuana when we travel, we worry that we’re committing interstate drug trafficking.
Isn't moving the oil from Rhode Island to New York the same thing?
Isn't moving the oil from Rhode Island to New York the same thing?
I would assume so. And a liter?
I'd advice caution on giving any developing brain cannabis.
Although it seems cannabis is fairly harmless in developed brains– there's some evidence it can interfere with development.
Although it seems cannabis is fairly harmless in developed brains– there's some evidence it can interfere with development.
Constantly banging your head off an iron bath also interferes with brain development; this is a clear case of trade offs, not only medical but also legal and social. I don't think any reasonable mother, probably including this one, would suggest giving cannabis to an "average" child; but this is far from an average situation and so in all likely hood will require a non average treatment.
That's totally true! In this case the child's brain isn't "healthy".
Hopefully this works for the child's benefit, and clearly it's a case of a desperate parent grasping for anything that may help. However, it does sadly have potential to do further harm as well.
Hopefully this works for the child's benefit, and clearly it's a case of a desperate parent grasping for anything that may help. However, it does sadly have potential to do further harm as well.
> I'd advice caution on giving any developing brain cannabis.
Correct. However this also applies to ADHD and anti-depressive medication that is commonly given to children, sometimes in doses higher than needed.
Correct. However this also applies to ADHD and anti-depressive medication that is commonly given to children, sometimes in doses higher than needed.
In this case it seems more prudent to worry about whether this kid is going to cut his jugular when putting his head through a window.
Yes, obviously, this case appears to be entirely justified. OP likely meant it as a warning to any reader who'd think it harmless to do to a kid with regular but stressful tantrums.
It is interesting how sledgehammers like Risperdal and friends are legal and prescribed by doctors, while Cannabis is/was vilified for decades, in a infantile and ineffective "war on drugs".
Although the relief may be worth it, the drug is not without its potential side effects over long-term use:
On short term memory: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article...
On dopamine levels: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcolleg...
and the development of brains in adolescents: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00...
So the real question is whether it's worth the potential side effects? Perhaps in this case, since it seems the parents have researched their options and hopefully continue to research future options.
A cure should be counterbalanced with its negative side effects. That seems obvious to say, but often I hear the misguided statement or see the attitude that marijuana is not associated with any problems. Sure, it's not lethal and shouldn't be Schedule I, but it's not something that should be taken lightly as a long term treatment.
On short term memory: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article...
On dopamine levels: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcolleg...
and the development of brains in adolescents: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00...
So the real question is whether it's worth the potential side effects? Perhaps in this case, since it seems the parents have researched their options and hopefully continue to research future options.
A cure should be counterbalanced with its negative side effects. That seems obvious to say, but often I hear the misguided statement or see the attitude that marijuana is not associated with any problems. Sure, it's not lethal and shouldn't be Schedule I, but it's not something that should be taken lightly as a long term treatment.
I find it strange in this story that anyone would suggest Risperdal for a child. Risperdal is an antipsychotic which comes with long term neuroleptic damage to the person taking it (flat affect, shuffles, etc..). I had a rather unsuccessful time with Abilify which is prescribed to people with depression but also comes with the same drawbacks. I somehow got a neuroleptic disease from taking it called 'akinesia' which I can only describe as a living hell. I promptly quit taking it and the disease ran its course. Psychiatry is in its dark ages and in a lot of cases does more harm than good. The harm just can't be immediately seen or measured and we tend to write the patients off as hyperbolic.
A great article. There is one thing the author got wrong. Pot IS addictive. My brother can't go more than 3 hours w/o smoking it. If he does, he starts to sweat like crazy. He once went an entire weekend without it and he had a very rough time.
Pot isn't physically addictive, though. Those things are his brain causing the symptoms.
Seriously. I've smoked heavily for years, with sudden breaks, and at most I get a couple days of off appetite and bad sleep. No big deal.
I've met exactly one person that had withdrawals from pot: In his case, he was self-medicating with it. It wasn't that he got withdrawals from pot, but that mental illness simply reared its head more when he stopped.
Seriously. I've smoked heavily for years, with sudden breaks, and at most I get a couple days of off appetite and bad sleep. No big deal.
I've met exactly one person that had withdrawals from pot: In his case, he was self-medicating with it. It wasn't that he got withdrawals from pot, but that mental illness simply reared its head more when he stopped.
TBH I never understood this "it's not physical" subtlety. Last time I checked, the brain was a physical entity with physical processes running around in it.
If it looks like addiction, walks like addiction and quacks like addiction, then it is addiction. And it exists in marijuana users.
If it looks like addiction, walks like addiction and quacks like addiction, then it is addiction. And it exists in marijuana users.
The difference is in the way the body acts - and the treatment is completely different for the two. I'm not a doctor, so do a bad job of explaining the difference between the two, but the general gist is that with physical addiction, your body needs the drug to function correctly.
People who want to live die from physical detox.
It isn't that psycological addiction doesn't have physical symptoms: Indeed, many psychological problems have them - anxiety and an upset stomach, depression and aches. Not to mention panic attacks. But the treatment isn't the same at all. You don't actually have to wean someone off of something psychologically addictive - that's why folks aren't weaned off of gambling, for example. And they won't die if they don't have it (suicidal is a different issue).
Pot generally has mild withdrawal symptoms. I'm pretty sure a few get in a bad situation with it - just like folks do with anything else - but underlying psychological problems kind of mess that stuff up.
Yeah, the sweating? Could be anxiety as well, for example. And to the layperson, it would seem like withdrawal symptoms instead of the anxiety coming back. Before his diagnosis, my ex would use about anything to get the voices inside his head to shut up. Friend of mine? Had a lot of trouble not smoking, but also was a bit... off. Brain damage from a car accident + a few psychological issues to boot. In all my years, I've never seen this sort of stuff from a reasonably balanced person.
People who want to live die from physical detox.
It isn't that psycological addiction doesn't have physical symptoms: Indeed, many psychological problems have them - anxiety and an upset stomach, depression and aches. Not to mention panic attacks. But the treatment isn't the same at all. You don't actually have to wean someone off of something psychologically addictive - that's why folks aren't weaned off of gambling, for example. And they won't die if they don't have it (suicidal is a different issue).
Pot generally has mild withdrawal symptoms. I'm pretty sure a few get in a bad situation with it - just like folks do with anything else - but underlying psychological problems kind of mess that stuff up.
Yeah, the sweating? Could be anxiety as well, for example. And to the layperson, it would seem like withdrawal symptoms instead of the anxiety coming back. Before his diagnosis, my ex would use about anything to get the voices inside his head to shut up. Friend of mine? Had a lot of trouble not smoking, but also was a bit... off. Brain damage from a car accident + a few psychological issues to boot. In all my years, I've never seen this sort of stuff from a reasonably balanced person.
I can't believe no-one in the comments here or the original article suggest growing their own. It takes 10 square feet of space, about $500 one-time investment, a day or two to build and about an hour per week of maintenance. It can be done safely, discreetly and odor-free.
Sure, it would be illegal, but the chances of getting caught are pretty miniscule. Although I don't know how severe penalties are in place where the author lives or are there any secondary repercussions that make it not feasible (such as children taken into custody if caught).
Sure, it would be illegal, but the chances of getting caught are pretty miniscule. Although I don't know how severe penalties are in place where the author lives or are there any secondary repercussions that make it not feasible (such as children taken into custody if caught).
I believe everything except odor free. Got a link to evidence?
No, I have not (only anecdotal evidence) but getting odor free is a matter of getting an active carbon filter (big enough, 3-10 kg) and a good ventilation system (required for cooling anyway). This ensures that the grow space is slightly underpressurized and all the exhaust air is odorless. Without these measures, it will stink.
It needs a bit of investment and some time to get the build right, but it can be done.
It needs a bit of investment and some time to get the build right, but it can be done.
Allowing MJ with other drugs is a no brainer. I also very glad the author found a way to help his son and it should be let alone. However, saying things like that is not very responsible:
> But Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School who has been researching cannabis since the 1960s, reassured me that the worst we could do was make our son fall asleep.
One study had shown that even if there is no long term effect on adults on IQ, teenagers experience on average 10% less IQ than no consumers - even after stopped completely taken it for years. Another study has shown that if you are DNA predisposed - less than 3% of the population - MJ can induce schizophrenia reshaping the brain long term even after years after taking it. I don't fully get this is not common knowledge. Maybe, this is not hype enough and people want to not being perceived as reactionary. But, facts are facts.
> But Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School who has been researching cannabis since the 1960s, reassured me that the worst we could do was make our son fall asleep.
One study had shown that even if there is no long term effect on adults on IQ, teenagers experience on average 10% less IQ than no consumers - even after stopped completely taken it for years. Another study has shown that if you are DNA predisposed - less than 3% of the population - MJ can induce schizophrenia reshaping the brain long term even after years after taking it. I don't fully get this is not common knowledge. Maybe, this is not hype enough and people want to not being perceived as reactionary. But, facts are facts.
Without getting into the debate about the recreational use of marijuana ... we've classified it as a drug so I don't see a reason we can't agree that there might be some legitimate uses for it.
It's classified as schedule 1. A criteria of schedule 1 classification is "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"
So, at least the folks who wrote down those schedules disagree that Marijuana has legitimate uses.
Note that "accepted" here basically means whatever the person in power wants it to mean. There's absolutely no criteria that "accepted medical use" corresponds to doctors' opinions on the matter.
So, at least the folks who wrote down those schedules disagree that Marijuana has legitimate uses.
Note that "accepted" here basically means whatever the person in power wants it to mean. There's absolutely no criteria that "accepted medical use" corresponds to doctors' opinions on the matter.
I think this article is irresponsible. Cannabis might cause permanent damage to cognitive functions in the developing brain: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain.aspx
Fits of rage 300 times a day, and constant pain might cause permanent damage to cognitive functions in the developing brain.
Conventional medicine has no treatment available. What would you do?
Conventional medicine has no treatment available. What would you do?
Would you care to share studies of the known side effects for the proposed alternative drugs?
So, it works like medicine for some cases, and you say now everyone grow in their backyards? Doesn't make sense, though I'm not against it.
I'm for the legalization of marijuana, but I really hate the arguments these articles present in favor of it; I'm sure your raging 9-year-old kid would chill out on a strong dose of heroin, too. We should not falsely elevate marijuana as some wonder drug. Surely, there's a better argument that can be presented for legalization?
> I'm sure your raging 9-year-old kid would chill out on a strong dose of heroin, too
Read what you've said again; do you realize how completely ridiculous this sounds?
A "strong dose" of heroin, to a 9-year-old who is opiate naive, will obviously not cause them to "chill out." It will cause them to horribly itch, turn green in the face, violently vomit, alternate between pouring sweat and feeling freezing cold, moan and cry, and finally lose consciousness and quite plausibly their life.
Cannabis, even at a very "strong dose," will cause none of this.
As plant medicines go, cannabis is something like a wonder drug at least in the limited sense that it is therapeutically active for a wide array of conditions at very, very safe doses.
There may be no other drug which is a candidate for relief for the symptoms described in the article and for which a trial regiment has such a low cost in terms of risk.
Heroin most certainly isn't one.
Read what you've said again; do you realize how completely ridiculous this sounds?
A "strong dose" of heroin, to a 9-year-old who is opiate naive, will obviously not cause them to "chill out." It will cause them to horribly itch, turn green in the face, violently vomit, alternate between pouring sweat and feeling freezing cold, moan and cry, and finally lose consciousness and quite plausibly their life.
Cannabis, even at a very "strong dose," will cause none of this.
As plant medicines go, cannabis is something like a wonder drug at least in the limited sense that it is therapeutically active for a wide array of conditions at very, very safe doses.
There may be no other drug which is a candidate for relief for the symptoms described in the article and for which a trial regiment has such a low cost in terms of risk.
Heroin most certainly isn't one.
> Cannabis, even at a very "strong dose," will cause none of this.
It's ridiculous to compare cannabis to heroin, but it's still worth pointing out that giving a strong dose to someone who is 9 is a very bad idea that would probably be very unpleasant for the kid. There can be a tendency for people to overcompensate to "reefer madness" propaganda and tell people there are no issues with marijuana. It's probably a lot better than alcohol, but it's still a psychoactive substance that needs to be treated with respect.
Fortunately, the mother in this article seems to realize that and has put in a lot of effort into proper dosing:
>After the cookies finished baking, I’d taste a few crumbs and annotate the effects in a notebook. Often, I felt woozy. One variation put me to sleep. When I had convinced myself that a batch was okay, I’d give a cookie to my 9-year-old son.
It's ridiculous to compare cannabis to heroin, but it's still worth pointing out that giving a strong dose to someone who is 9 is a very bad idea that would probably be very unpleasant for the kid. There can be a tendency for people to overcompensate to "reefer madness" propaganda and tell people there are no issues with marijuana. It's probably a lot better than alcohol, but it's still a psychoactive substance that needs to be treated with respect.
Fortunately, the mother in this article seems to realize that and has put in a lot of effort into proper dosing:
>After the cookies finished baking, I’d taste a few crumbs and annotate the effects in a notebook. Often, I felt woozy. One variation put me to sleep. When I had convinced myself that a batch was okay, I’d give a cookie to my 9-year-old son.
It will for sure not be pleasant, but the kid would be back to normal in a day or so. It's not "probably a lot better than alcohol", it is empirically a lot better than alcohol. The amount of alcohol found in an average home could kill a 9 year old a few times over if consumed, the same can not be said for any amount of cannabis.
> giving a strong dose to someone who is 9 is a very bad idea that would probably be very unpleasant for the kid.
Absolutely - I hope my comment didn't read otherwise.
I'm just pointing out that the effects of a strong dose of heroin are nothing less than an urgent medical emergency and possibly a life-or-death situation.
The effects of a strong dose of cannabis are, as you say, likely to be quite unpleasant, but for other, less dramatic reasons.
Additionally, it is much, much easier to find a therapeutically effective dose of cannabis that is not unpleasant (or even otherwise noticeable) than with heroin or, for that matter, most other medical treatments. This is the killer feature of cannabis.
Absolutely - I hope my comment didn't read otherwise.
I'm just pointing out that the effects of a strong dose of heroin are nothing less than an urgent medical emergency and possibly a life-or-death situation.
The effects of a strong dose of cannabis are, as you say, likely to be quite unpleasant, but for other, less dramatic reasons.
Additionally, it is much, much easier to find a therapeutically effective dose of cannabis that is not unpleasant (or even otherwise noticeable) than with heroin or, for that matter, most other medical treatments. This is the killer feature of cannabis.
One could properly dose this 9-year-old and make him "chill out." I have no doubt that it is possible.
That said, I really agree with your argument. You make a great case for legalization that isn't merely "oh hur dur look how my child mellows out on weed." Thank you.
That said, I really agree with your argument. You make a great case for legalization that isn't merely "oh hur dur look how my child mellows out on weed." Thank you.
The case isn't "my kid mellows out on weed" it's "my kid has behavioral problems that prevent him from functioning at home & in school that are alleviated by weed".
The point, though, as I take it, is, would you be satisfied if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form?
> if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form
What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?
What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?
"What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?"
To a point, consistency. It might not even be pill form: vaporizers, inhalers, and other such things might work as well. It might be that the best way to do it is via hash instead of the unprocessed plant.
All that said, there is some concern with the synthetic. I have a feeling the very reason the plant works better is because of the high. For example, MS patients have problems with muscles. Patients report better mobility and less pain, yet the muscles don't actually improve. It seems it just doesn't bother them - and I imagine some of the synthetics wouldn't produce this effect.
It doesn't mean that synthetics won't work for some folks, though, and might be better for kids.
To a point, consistency. It might not even be pill form: vaporizers, inhalers, and other such things might work as well. It might be that the best way to do it is via hash instead of the unprocessed plant.
All that said, there is some concern with the synthetic. I have a feeling the very reason the plant works better is because of the high. For example, MS patients have problems with muscles. Patients report better mobility and less pain, yet the muscles don't actually improve. It seems it just doesn't bother them - and I imagine some of the synthetics wouldn't produce this effect.
It doesn't mean that synthetics won't work for some folks, though, and might be better for kids.
> What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?
Consistency.
Consistency.
In my experience (which is ample), consistency over the precise dosage != consistency over the effects. There's no doubt that consistency over dosage and precision is easier with isolated compounds.
However, if consistent effect is the goal, I want to suggest that oral administration is not ideal in the first place, and that oral administration of isolated chemicals even less so.
Achieving the latter is more accessible via slow, careful titration via vaporization or smoking of high-quality plant matter.
This is the case at least for me and people I know, including several patients with otherwise debilitating illnesses.
Additionally, I think that the ability to garden and grow medicines (not just cannabis, but plant medicines generally) is a great way for patients to gain some control (or at least the sense of control) over their illness. It also is often more economically viable as well.
However, if consistent effect is the goal, I want to suggest that oral administration is not ideal in the first place, and that oral administration of isolated chemicals even less so.
Achieving the latter is more accessible via slow, careful titration via vaporization or smoking of high-quality plant matter.
This is the case at least for me and people I know, including several patients with otherwise debilitating illnesses.
Additionally, I think that the ability to garden and grow medicines (not just cannabis, but plant medicines generally) is a great way for patients to gain some control (or at least the sense of control) over their illness. It also is often more economically viable as well.
It's been done already. The consensus, IIRC, is that it sucks compared to 'natural' forms, is too strong, lacks the 'secondary' active ingredients that many need/seek, and exists as a profit source and a source of control.
https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
etc.
https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
etc.
Yes and in fact we do basically give stimulants to roudy kids in the form of Adderall and Vyvance.
Adderall and Vyvanse are basically the same thing, it's just that Vyvanse is the prodrug form that can't be insufflated for quicker delivery. It'll be the same as it is orally.
Methylphenidate is a different beast altogether and not neurotoxic like the amphetamines are even though in therapeutic doses amphetamines are also extremely safe. The difference is that amphetamines are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and dopaminergic releasing agents while methylphenidate only inhibits dopamine reuptake alongside its effect as a CNS stimulant.
Methylphenidate is a different beast altogether and not neurotoxic like the amphetamines are even though in therapeutic doses amphetamines are also extremely safe. The difference is that amphetamines are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and dopaminergic releasing agents while methylphenidate only inhibits dopamine reuptake alongside its effect as a CNS stimulant.
I agree with your main point but cannabis does make people vomit for sure. i saw it myself in college multiple times. Especially with large amounts of edibles and people's first time.
Heroin is not really a fair comparison. If you take away the pot, the kid won't get seriously ill from withdrawal symptoms. If you give too much pot, the kid won't forget to breathe and die. If it works for them, let them do what they think is best for their kid. The argument is basically there's an option that works for them, and causes little health complications. That it's "looked down on" means nothing. I'm sure talk therapy for mental illness was looked down on for quite a long time, and yet now it's a first line treatment with broad acceptance in popular culture.
I completely agree with you. Your argument stands much better than the one presented in this article.
The mother saw something in literature that made her think it could be useful, researched by going to a marijuana support group, talking to a Harvard professor/psychiatrist, and got clearance from her son's neurologist, then did methodical experimentation to find the right strain.
She didn't just wake up one day and say "hey! Let's give him a joint and see what happens!"
Which, I should add is pretty much how my sister came to use marijuana as medicine -- except she didn't live in a state where medical marijuana was legal, her teenaged son had a source. She was on treatment for an autoimmune disorder and on the days she took her meds, she was so nauseous that she couldn't get out of bed. Pharmaceutical anti-nausea meds (including $20/day Marinol) worked poorly or had unwanted side effects. Finally her doctor pointed her at a website and told her that he couldn't recommend it, but other patients had gotten relief from medical marijuana. And indeed, it made a huge difference for her.
Due to her illness, she had access to pretty much any narcotic painkiller she wanted, yet to gain access to marijuana, she had to ask her son to risk prosecution to buy it from a guy he knew from school.
She didn't just wake up one day and say "hey! Let's give him a joint and see what happens!"
Which, I should add is pretty much how my sister came to use marijuana as medicine -- except she didn't live in a state where medical marijuana was legal, her teenaged son had a source. She was on treatment for an autoimmune disorder and on the days she took her meds, she was so nauseous that she couldn't get out of bed. Pharmaceutical anti-nausea meds (including $20/day Marinol) worked poorly or had unwanted side effects. Finally her doctor pointed her at a website and told her that he couldn't recommend it, but other patients had gotten relief from medical marijuana. And indeed, it made a huge difference for her.
Due to her illness, she had access to pretty much any narcotic painkiller she wanted, yet to gain access to marijuana, she had to ask her son to risk prosecution to buy it from a guy he knew from school.
Xanax would do the trick, but detox is horrible. I'm not sure about pot, obviously nothing close.
This article is propaganda. It doesn't contain any interesting data, just a rehash of the policy landscape and a single, heart string-tugging anecdote.
The data that backs this story up has been replicated and published for a long time. This is one family's experience, a transformative one for every member of the family. It's written not to provide scientific evidence but to communicate to those people who may still oppose marijuana liberalization and who don't even care about the data, which is clear cut and unmistakeable at this point.
Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.
Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.
Yet none of that data is presented in the article. That it exists doesn't improve the journalism here.
> Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.
You must have a poor imagination. There are cookies for that though.
> Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.
You must have a poor imagination. There are cookies for that though.
This is published under opinions. Empirical evidence is usually more than enough for this section of 'journalism'.
I know it is fashionable to label articles propaganda, but the term gets thrown around lightly.
propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
In what way is the article biased or misleading? It is clearly labeled 'Opinion'.
Not every article in a newspaper needs to meet the standards for an article in a peer-reviewed journal. There is a place for human-interest stories too.
propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
In what way is the article biased or misleading? It is clearly labeled 'Opinion'.
Not every article in a newspaper needs to meet the standards for an article in a peer-reviewed journal. There is a place for human-interest stories too.
Unfortunately, it's the heart string-tugging anecdotes that make policies happen in the US, not data.
After 80 years of ignoring the data, I do not know how else one would effect change other than employing the same tactics. Empirical data is available, anecdotal data is available, historical harm has accrued for non-violent "offenders". The rarely spoken facets of the hemp plant's superiority to pulp derived paper and cotton fabrics have been ignored for almost a century. Before "reefer madness" was invented, the aforementioned products couldn't compete, hemp was common and priduced superior products. The reasons for demonizing hemp, not marijuana, were economic forces and lobbyists pushing their agendas at any cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...
Storytelling probably wins over data everywhere there are people, and that probably can't be changed, barring genetic modification.
You might fight wars with data, but you win or lose them with propaganda. If the defenders wish to win the war on drugs, they must be willing to use at least as much propaganda as the attackers have used.
What data would this woman's experiment have produced that would improve this article in a meaningful way?
Propaganda is kind of a strong word.
I think your dismissal of the article as "propaganda" is nothing but trolling. Why do you think Cannabis should be illegal? Countless anecdotes have shown that cannabis works where other medicines don't. At what point should we drop this charade of a "war on drugs" and just accept that this plant has medicinal properties like no other?
Plainly I don't think it should be illegal, I was a medicinal marijuana patient for many years, as I said elsewhere in these comments. I don't think that a mother making cannabis cookies and eating bits of them to observe the effects, determine strain and dosage for her child is appropriate. Frankly that's embarrassing behavior for a college professor, somebody who ought to know better. If you're going to give a 9 year-old an MMJ recommendation/prescription, everything besides dose delivery should be managed exclusively by a doctor.
Outright prohibition isn't the answer, but the scatter shot of substitutes aren't correct either. Don't look for me to recommend the solution, I simply took issue with the Washington Post carrying this opinion piece which, frankly, glamorizes dangerous behavior.
And it's bullshit that you put words in my mouth. I never said cannabis should be illegal. "Trolling", really? Is that a byword for disagreement now? Please go harangue your DEA strawman somewhere else.
Outright prohibition isn't the answer, but the scatter shot of substitutes aren't correct either. Don't look for me to recommend the solution, I simply took issue with the Washington Post carrying this opinion piece which, frankly, glamorizes dangerous behavior.
And it's bullshit that you put words in my mouth. I never said cannabis should be illegal. "Trolling", really? Is that a byword for disagreement now? Please go harangue your DEA strawman somewhere else.
Perhaps you ought to reread the definition of the word you're confusing this opinion article with.
this is a false equivalency for two reasons: marijuana is not physically addictive, and THC doesn't have near the same capability to incapacitate people that heroin does.
"marijuana is not physically addictive"
As a lifetime medical patient, this is not entirely true. There are plenty of physical withdrawal effects. The primary one being headache and hypertension. Another one is lack of dreaming/REM sleep (as cannabis usage depletes your melatonin/serotonin levels, which effects your REM sleep.)
"THC doesn't have near the same capability to incapacitate people"
THC-Vivarin will hit you so hard I'd be surprised if you could remain standing despite the fact it only lasts for about 15 minutes.
As a lifetime medical patient, this is not entirely true. There are plenty of physical withdrawal effects. The primary one being headache and hypertension. Another one is lack of dreaming/REM sleep (as cannabis usage depletes your melatonin/serotonin levels, which effects your REM sleep.)
"THC doesn't have near the same capability to incapacitate people"
THC-Vivarin will hit you so hard I'd be surprised if you could remain standing despite the fact it only lasts for about 15 minutes.
"There are plenty of physical withdrawal effects. The primary one being headache and hypertension."
i don't know what you've been smoking, but as a daily "practically 24/7" smoker myself, i've never experienced any of these when i leave the country and go without cannabis for weeks (or months) at a time. for background: i smoke first thing when i wake up, and i pretty much take a hit from the bong every 30 mins as i work from home. my work and lifestyle allows for such frequent consumption. point i'm making is, i'm a very heavy smoker so i'm a reasonably good gauge for addictive potential.
every 6 months, i take a tolerance break by visiting family in another country. guess what happens when i go cold turkey during these visits? absolutely nothing. no shaking, no foaming at the mouth, no physical withdrawal whatsoever. do i get a little bit irritated if i think about how i can't get weed? sure. but if i choose not to think about it? i don't even notice anything different at all.
regarding the lack of dreaming, yes that may be true. however, as someone who also works out every day at the gym, i felt absolutely no difference in physical recovery nor mental recovery at all.
i think the point i'm making is: whatever "withdrawal" you're experiencing is entirely in your own head. you want to believe it's there, so it's there.
i don't know what you've been smoking, but as a daily "practically 24/7" smoker myself, i've never experienced any of these when i leave the country and go without cannabis for weeks (or months) at a time. for background: i smoke first thing when i wake up, and i pretty much take a hit from the bong every 30 mins as i work from home. my work and lifestyle allows for such frequent consumption. point i'm making is, i'm a very heavy smoker so i'm a reasonably good gauge for addictive potential.
every 6 months, i take a tolerance break by visiting family in another country. guess what happens when i go cold turkey during these visits? absolutely nothing. no shaking, no foaming at the mouth, no physical withdrawal whatsoever. do i get a little bit irritated if i think about how i can't get weed? sure. but if i choose not to think about it? i don't even notice anything different at all.
regarding the lack of dreaming, yes that may be true. however, as someone who also works out every day at the gym, i felt absolutely no difference in physical recovery nor mental recovery at all.
i think the point i'm making is: whatever "withdrawal" you're experiencing is entirely in your own head. you want to believe it's there, so it's there.
"i'm a very heavy smoker so i'm a reasonably good gauge for addictive potential"
Every human's body chemistry is different, so no, you are not a good gauge. To boot, I consume WAY MORE than you - I go through about 5-6 grams of concentrate a day. Get your leg replaced with titanium and plastic composites and see if your consumption doesn't jump up to really high levels due to chronic post-operative pain.
"every 6 months, i take a tolerance break by visiting family in another country."
Tolerance breaks simply aren't on the menu for me.
"i think the point i'm making is: whatever "withdrawal" you're experiencing is entirely in your own head"
Except I go to a doctor and they can physically measure everything, right down to my blood pressure, when I'm in withdrawal, and then watch everything change after I take a hit, so no, it's REAL.
Again, licensed MEDICAL patient. State card-carrying. I go to real doctors while you rely upon your own anecdotes.
Every human's body chemistry is different, so no, you are not a good gauge. To boot, I consume WAY MORE than you - I go through about 5-6 grams of concentrate a day. Get your leg replaced with titanium and plastic composites and see if your consumption doesn't jump up to really high levels due to chronic post-operative pain.
"every 6 months, i take a tolerance break by visiting family in another country."
Tolerance breaks simply aren't on the menu for me.
"i think the point i'm making is: whatever "withdrawal" you're experiencing is entirely in your own head"
Except I go to a doctor and they can physically measure everything, right down to my blood pressure, when I'm in withdrawal, and then watch everything change after I take a hit, so no, it's REAL.
Again, licensed MEDICAL patient. State card-carrying. I go to real doctors while you rely upon your own anecdotes.
>THC-Vivarin
Huh?
Huh?
THC-Varin (stupid autocorrect on my phone from prior post) (AKA THC-V)is a highly-psychoative, hard-hitting THC homologue that is highly stimulating with very short duration of effect. High levels of this are present in African and Asian sativa strains. If you've ever taken a hit of stuff that got you high immediately, chances are you just had a quick THC-V dose from the strain. It lasts about 15 minutes, then fades away, leaving the normal delta-9 THC to do its thing for the next few hours.
Vivarin is brand of caffeine pill (haven't heard the name since the Nineties), I've not heard of combining it with THC.
Most good studies on THC are on adults/ developed brains. I'm not sure it's established yet that marijuana wouldn't cause a "physical" addiction if used in adolescence.
It might be / hopefully is fine, but people shouldn't assume that just because cannabis is fairly harmless in adults it is also established to be safe for youth.
This. It is incredibly irresponsible to run the equivalent of clinical trials on your child. She pointed out a single medical study of cannabis for children that was a bust. Clinical trials are highly controlled and dosage is tiered for safety. Cowboy drug trials are dangerous and stupid. I don't care if it's cannabis, crack or aspirin. And she tested the cookies on herself to see if they were ok? Did she realize she was giving her child the equivalent of multiple times the dose?
I hope for her sake and her sons the long term effects on children are ok and that she isn't giving 10x the required therapeutic dose because she whipped it up in her kitchen.
I hope for her sake and her sons the long term effects on children are ok and that she isn't giving 10x the required therapeutic dose because she whipped it up in her kitchen.
All very easy to say, safely in your house away from your loved child in pain with 600+ violent outbursts a day.
Every parent has only one subject; every child raising is a trial. You only have one chance and have to choose one approach.
This drug is used worldwide by maybe a billion people. Scaremongering is unhelpful.
Every parent has only one subject; every child raising is a trial. You only have one chance and have to choose one approach.
This drug is used worldwide by maybe a billion people. Scaremongering is unhelpful.
Cowboy drug trials on children are scary. No need for scaremongering.
Aspirin is used by billions of people and it's dangerous to give to children.
She obviously has no clue how to manage safe dosing for a trial and that is ignorant and dangerous.
Just because it's natural and everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's safe: hemlock is natural, "everyone" used to smoke cigarettes.
Aspirin is used by billions of people and it's dangerous to give to children.
She obviously has no clue how to manage safe dosing for a trial and that is ignorant and dangerous.
Just because it's natural and everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's safe: hemlock is natural, "everyone" used to smoke cigarettes.
>Just because it's natural and everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's safe: hemlock is natural, "everyone" used to smoke cigarettes
But nobody is actually arguing that it's safe because it's natural. You don't have to, the data is conclusive: it is nigh on impossible to die of marijuana usage no matter what your age is. There are few other substances in a home that that can be said of.
Whatever you think the long term side effects would be it would seem pretty damn hard for them to outweigh the unceasing agony of this child's existence without marijuana. And as has been said numerous times before, everything major has already been ruled out so long term effects are not going to be catastrophic on the level of regret when you consider how much this child's quality of life has been improved.
Marijuana is used by millions of people and is probably safer than aspirin. Granted if you're breathing weed smoke instead of air 24/7 you probably won't fare too well but that's not what's happening here: small amounts, carefully tested on adults, of a substance scientifically believed to be safe. (which cigarettes never were on this order)
But nobody is actually arguing that it's safe because it's natural. You don't have to, the data is conclusive: it is nigh on impossible to die of marijuana usage no matter what your age is. There are few other substances in a home that that can be said of.
Whatever you think the long term side effects would be it would seem pretty damn hard for them to outweigh the unceasing agony of this child's existence without marijuana. And as has been said numerous times before, everything major has already been ruled out so long term effects are not going to be catastrophic on the level of regret when you consider how much this child's quality of life has been improved.
Marijuana is used by millions of people and is probably safer than aspirin. Granted if you're breathing weed smoke instead of air 24/7 you probably won't fare too well but that's not what's happening here: small amounts, carefully tested on adults, of a substance scientifically believed to be safe. (which cigarettes never were on this order)
How about the 7 years of benefit? How about a child with a chance to grow up, who didn't have one before?
This was a desperate act, by a desperate parent who had been abandoned by a medical industry that's happy to lose a generation of sick children because hey! process.
This was a desperate act, by a desperate parent who had been abandoned by a medical industry that's happy to lose a generation of sick children because hey! process.
The problem is that this drug is used worldwide as excuse to put in jail a lot of people also. Health issues aren't the only issues here to adress. This boy has now a bullseye painted publicly on his back and will be targeted in a few years by several kind of predators.
On the other hand, this "just put them to sleep all day" is a particularly outrageous "solution" for autistic children, that often are very smart and sensitive people and deserve to be respected and loved, as any other children.
On the other hand, this "just put them to sleep all day" is a particularly outrageous "solution" for autistic children, that often are very smart and sensitive people and deserve to be respected and loved, as any other children.
>marijuana is not physically addictive,
One of my friends complained for months about headaches, loss of libido, tummy cramps while getting off of it after years of use.
One of my friends complained for months about headaches, loss of libido, tummy cramps while getting off of it after years of use.
On the other hand, marijuana has been used to treat those symptoms. It may be your friend had some other problem that was being masked by the prolonged marijuana use.
Or one of the other many reasons why there can be correlation without causation.
Or one of the other many reasons why there can be correlation without causation.
The headaches are caused by the brain not producing its own canabinoids due to the influx of outside cannabinoid sources.
Source - lifelong medical cannabis patient.
Source - lifelong medical cannabis patient.
I've been physically addicted to alcohol and opiates, and also a long term daily marijuana user (currently over a year of sobriety from all drugs). THC has no physical withdrawal symptoms.
And I've been drinking alcohol every weekend the last 15 years. Your alcoholism is a myth because otherwise I would need alcohol right now. It doesn't really work that way.
There's a difference between physical and psychological addiction.
Currently we think cannabis is not physically addictive, and we think it might be psychologically addictive for some people.
People de-toxing from alcohol addiction can literally die if they do it wrong. That's never going to happen with cannabis.
Currently we think cannabis is not physically addictive, and we think it might be psychologically addictive for some people.
People de-toxing from alcohol addiction can literally die if they do it wrong. That's never going to happen with cannabis.
I was drinking at least a fifth (750ml) of 40% abv spirits every day, doing at least 250mg+ oxy or equivalent in heroin, or smoking a gram or more of weed a day. Alcohol and opiates are physically addictive with very real withdrawal symptoms. Falling asleep was somewhat difficult for a couple days when I ran out of weed. Marijuana is not physically addictive.
Which is why the only drug I do is meth, since it's not physically addictive and actually makes me function better.
I love all these fallacious arguments by analogy. Just name the side effect of weed that you think is problematic, don't try to use some elaborate bait and switch to equivocate.
You mean Adderall? Millions of others do too.
No, methamphetamine is a legal treatment for ADHD and available at local grocery stores in the US: https://m.goodrx.com/methamphetamine
Tens of millions of dollars of meth are sold by pharma companies in the US each year.
Tens of millions of dollars of meth are sold by pharma companies in the US each year.
But you do need a prescription?
You know heroin is a bit more addicting than marijuana and argument is that you can feed 9-yo with it and in case his other issues are solved he can stop with eating cookies. It is more like you have choice. Where with heroin you are robbed of that choice. Taking heroine is artificial choice by changed chemistry of your body not your free will or your comfort.
I understood from the article that the root cause of the problem was that the kid had pains. Due to his autism, he had problems communicating about his feelings and therefore the main manifested as rage. With small doses of cannabis the parents then managed to reduce the pain which then reduced the anger.
Technically, this isn't an argument for legalization, but an argument for medical use of synthetic cannabinoids. If research were not so difficult, you could treat this with a pill, which does nothing for all the other problems of the war on drugs.
"Technically, this isn't an argument for legalization, but an argument for medical use of synthetic cannabinoids."
Except synthetic cannabinoids have killed people. Marinol/Dronabinol has cost people their lives.
Except synthetic cannabinoids have killed people. Marinol/Dronabinol has cost people their lives.
Is the article asking for legalization, of for proper controls of it to be used as a medicine? It is illegal for me to buy Heroine, but my doctor can prescribe me dia-Morphine which amounts to the same thing. Why stop something being used as a medicine because you don't want recreational use?
I prefer the moral argument that the government shouldn't tell you what you can do to your own body. I also prefer the ideology that states you shouldn't force your own opinions on others.
Whatever the argument is, I expect it to work as such: argmax substance: E[sum P(symptoms_i improves | substance, ailment)]. Heroin works great for burn victims, for instance..
spraak(1)
You know, I'm not at all opposed to weed (I smoke weed myself on occasion) but I don't think we should encourage experimenting with drugs on 9 year old kids by people who are not medical professionals...
Article says it was a last resort option suggested and approved by medical professionals.
So the child had temper tantrums and the parents drugged him? Wait what? I hope I am mistaken.
You're getting downvoted because you didn't read the article.
I was a little brat as well. Lot's of tantrums. My parents punished me (probably not enough). My grandma once said: "how old are you?" This works.
Nobody ever gave me drugs. I don't think it is ideal to give kids weed (I'm an adult who can barely handle weed). It is linked with psychiatric problems. That's not anti-drug propaganda, that's a fact. All that said, I don't think this is any worse than giving a kid ritalin.
Nobody ever gave me drugs. I don't think it is ideal to give kids weed (I'm an adult who can barely handle weed). It is linked with psychiatric problems. That's not anti-drug propaganda, that's a fact. All that said, I don't think this is any worse than giving a kid ritalin.
Did you also undergo multiple surgeries on your spinal cord as an infant, have a chronic pain condition and severe autism like the child in the article?
No, and in fact I did not really read the article. Point taken.
> It is linked with psychiatric problems.
Causation or correlation? Are people with psychiatric problems more likely to self-medicate with MJ? The conclusions drawn from the facts you mention are dubious at best.
Causation or correlation? Are people with psychiatric problems more likely to self-medicate with MJ? The conclusions drawn from the facts you mention are dubious at best.
> Then, a couple of years later, the medication stopped working. And his aggressions exploded.
> Once, when my son was late getting his cannabis oil after school, he put his head through a window and cut his face in a frenzy of pain. We gave him his medication, and he calmed down enough that we could bring him to the ER.
Any reason to believe history won't repeat itself here?
> Once, when my son was late getting his cannabis oil after school, he put his head through a window and cut his face in a frenzy of pain. We gave him his medication, and he calmed down enough that we could bring him to the ER.
Any reason to believe history won't repeat itself here?
EDIT: OP was edited to add another quote and a question, which gave me the clarification I needed.
It doesn't seem like tolerance is an issue here:
> And seven years later, it’s still working.
I still don't really get what your underlying point is.
-----------
I'm curious why you shared this piece of the article? Are you attempting to say his fits of rage were due to cannabis withdrawals? I thought it was pretty clear from the article that this was the issue that was being treated.
Some clarification would be nice.
> At the time he was consumed by violent rages. He would bang his head, scream for hours and literally eat his shirts. At dinnertime, he threw his plates so forcefully that there was food stuck on the ceiling. He would punch and scratch himself and others, such that people would look at the red streaks on our bodies and ask us, gingerly, if we had cats.
But when I got the cookies right, he calmed down. His aggressions became less ferocious and less frequent. Mealtimes became less fraught. He was able to maintain enough self-composure that he even learned to ride a bike — despite every expert telling us it would never happen.
> Since he was an infant, I’d watched my son struggle. At 18 months, he underwent two major spinal-cord tumor surgeries, only weeks apart, and was immobilized in a cast for a year. After that, the violent rages began — sometimes as many as 300 in a day.
It doesn't seem like tolerance is an issue here:
> And seven years later, it’s still working.
I still don't really get what your underlying point is.
-----------
I'm curious why you shared this piece of the article? Are you attempting to say his fits of rage were due to cannabis withdrawals? I thought it was pretty clear from the article that this was the issue that was being treated.
Some clarification would be nice.
> At the time he was consumed by violent rages. He would bang his head, scream for hours and literally eat his shirts. At dinnertime, he threw his plates so forcefully that there was food stuck on the ceiling. He would punch and scratch himself and others, such that people would look at the red streaks on our bodies and ask us, gingerly, if we had cats.
But when I got the cookies right, he calmed down. His aggressions became less ferocious and less frequent. Mealtimes became less fraught. He was able to maintain enough self-composure that he even learned to ride a bike — despite every expert telling us it would never happen.
> Since he was an infant, I’d watched my son struggle. At 18 months, he underwent two major spinal-cord tumor surgeries, only weeks apart, and was immobilized in a cast for a year. After that, the violent rages began — sometimes as many as 300 in a day.
Different medicine with completely different bodily interactions. Different age of the child.
Any reason to believe it will, other than it being a cliche?
Any reason to believe it will, other than it being a cliche?
I used medical marijuana heavily for many, many years. Tolerance builds and it ain't the same, trust me. There, now we have an anecdote against the one in the story. See where this sort of journalism gets us? At some point there are demons you have to tackle head-on, or cope with otherwise. Anecdotally, for me, cannabis was a quick fix and a mistake.
How much research have you done into the science involved here, do you have a strong understanding of the fundamentals?
No, hence the argument for the destigmatized, regular use of the drug to alleviate the symptoms.
Why is it unthinkable that as the child's tolerance builds to THC and CBD, these events will repeat themselves? The underlying problem (pain from gut disease leading to rages) is unresolved.
"seven years later, it’s still working."
Seems like tolerance isn't really an actual problem here.
Are you suggesting these parents have some course of action to cure their child's problems? The child could relapse, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
Seems like tolerance isn't really an actual problem here.
Are you suggesting these parents have some course of action to cure their child's problems? The child could relapse, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
That's fair. While it's possible that changes as the child becomes a man will nullify the medicine, maybe this is a permanent fix. But it's clear that the parents are forced to overmedicate for fear that the child will act out when "coming down."
What rubs me the wrong way about this article is that it's written in such a way that any parent whose kid has a problem with tantrums might think, "hm, what if I just drugged up Johnny?"
What rubs me the wrong way about this article is that it's written in such a way that any parent whose kid has a problem with tantrums might think, "hm, what if I just drugged up Johnny?"
>But it's clear that the parents are forced to overmedicate for fear that the child will act out when "coming down."
That is not at all clear from the article. There is no talk of withdrawal. If you take away pain meds and the pain comes back, that is not withdrawal!
That is not at all clear from the article. There is no talk of withdrawal. If you take away pain meds and the pain comes back, that is not withdrawal!
Overmedicating children is an actual problem. Would be interesting to talk about ways to fix that problem.
OTOH, these specific parents, I can't even imagine what they're going through. My heart goes out to them. A child like this would be so difficult to raise & to help, and obviously they have so much love & dedication just for their willingness to stick it out, I'm so glad a little THC works for them, as opposed to having nothing that works, or some other pharma cocktail that "solves" the problem through vegitating the kid's brain. Anything that gives them a semi-normal existence has to be a Godsend.
OTOH, these specific parents, I can't even imagine what they're going through. My heart goes out to them. A child like this would be so difficult to raise & to help, and obviously they have so much love & dedication just for their willingness to stick it out, I'm so glad a little THC works for them, as opposed to having nothing that works, or some other pharma cocktail that "solves" the problem through vegitating the kid's brain. Anything that gives them a semi-normal existence has to be a Godsend.
Apart from the fact that medicinal marijuana requires a prescription; so this would require a documented medical diagnosis from a qualified professional at the least.
That's a half-day detour en route to the shop
https://www.google.com/?#q=weed+card
https://www.google.com/?#q=weed+card
If you're ok with this, ask yourself if you'd be ok wih a parent giving a kid bourbon to put it asleep. This used to be a common household trick before people decided it was probably not a good idea.
Granted I think the war on drugs is stupid but I also think a failed parent shouldn't be the one championing the anti-war-on-drugs movement as that's only going to give the opposition ammunition.
I'm also not a developmental psychologist or a medical professional but I don't think this is the best thing for a young developing mind. I'm probably wrong because I've done limited reading on it but giving a young kid any drugs that haven't been exceedingly studied by the medical community doesn't sound like a smart idea.
Edit: I read the article a little further and I don't think the parent is "failed" anymore. It's sad that the kid had such an already tramatic upbringing and I understand why you'd do this but I don't think that it's the best of ideas for most people alive.
Granted I think the war on drugs is stupid but I also think a failed parent shouldn't be the one championing the anti-war-on-drugs movement as that's only going to give the opposition ammunition.
I'm also not a developmental psychologist or a medical professional but I don't think this is the best thing for a young developing mind. I'm probably wrong because I've done limited reading on it but giving a young kid any drugs that haven't been exceedingly studied by the medical community doesn't sound like a smart idea.
Edit: I read the article a little further and I don't think the parent is "failed" anymore. It's sad that the kid had such an already tramatic upbringing and I understand why you'd do this but I don't think that it's the best of ideas for most people alive.
> I'm also not a developmental psychologist or a medical professional but I don't think this is the best thing for a young developing mind.
TBF the parents did talk with a neurologist and medical experts at Brown, which is hardly a backwater.
I understand what you're saying, but I also think that this is a tough parenting decision that should be left to the parent and their family doctor.
Experimenting with dosage and type in a home pharma lab is pretty terrible. The people refusing to reschedule marijuana despite widespread medical support really are terribly evil for putting a parent in that situation...
TBF the parents did talk with a neurologist and medical experts at Brown, which is hardly a backwater.
I understand what you're saying, but I also think that this is a tough parenting decision that should be left to the parent and their family doctor.
Experimenting with dosage and type in a home pharma lab is pretty terrible. The people refusing to reschedule marijuana despite widespread medical support really are terribly evil for putting a parent in that situation...
> Experimenting with dosage and type in a home pharma lab is pretty terrible. The people refusing to reschedule marijuana despite widespread medical support really are terribly evil for putting a parent in that situation...
I agree on all accounts.
> TBF the parents did talk with a neurologist and medical experts at Brown, which is hardly a backwater.
> I understand what you're saying, but I also think that this is a tough parenting decision that should be left to the parent and their family doctor.
I did see that and I didn't read that until after I wrote the post. I mainly kept my post up in whole (despite my edit at the end) because I don't belive in covering up my mistakes.
My position given the new information isn't exactly as hardline. I don't think they are moraly or ethically at fault but I think their methods are very flawed. Just trying random things at home isn't a good idea.
I'd rather have seen them contact, and I know this is going to sound really stupid, but someone who is an expert at creation these confections. Going to someone who works with canabis every day at a medical dispencary (or even writing them and CCing your doctor who talked with you) would have probably lead to better results. It's still very irresponcible to just mix and match with a person's life.
I wouldn't want someone who couldn't consent entering drug trials so I wouldn't want someone doing it to their kid. But then again it ended up going well.... this time that is. If it happens again and someone mentally scars their kid then I think people won't be too happy with it then.
All that being said (and I think this needs to be spelled out) I don't think what I think should influence the parent in this case. I don't belive in interference unless directly requested by an effected party. That's just butting your nose into some place you don't belong.
I agree on all accounts.
> TBF the parents did talk with a neurologist and medical experts at Brown, which is hardly a backwater.
> I understand what you're saying, but I also think that this is a tough parenting decision that should be left to the parent and their family doctor.
I did see that and I didn't read that until after I wrote the post. I mainly kept my post up in whole (despite my edit at the end) because I don't belive in covering up my mistakes.
My position given the new information isn't exactly as hardline. I don't think they are moraly or ethically at fault but I think their methods are very flawed. Just trying random things at home isn't a good idea.
I'd rather have seen them contact, and I know this is going to sound really stupid, but someone who is an expert at creation these confections. Going to someone who works with canabis every day at a medical dispencary (or even writing them and CCing your doctor who talked with you) would have probably lead to better results. It's still very irresponcible to just mix and match with a person's life.
I wouldn't want someone who couldn't consent entering drug trials so I wouldn't want someone doing it to their kid. But then again it ended up going well.... this time that is. If it happens again and someone mentally scars their kid then I think people won't be too happy with it then.
All that being said (and I think this needs to be spelled out) I don't think what I think should influence the parent in this case. I don't belive in interference unless directly requested by an effected party. That's just butting your nose into some place you don't belong.
Obviously you have no kids and no interest in persuading anyone who does, to be throwing around this "failed parent" talk for anyone raising a child with special needs.
Man, i remember your name, and thought you'd be a little smarter than to attack the parent before even having read the article.
I don't think it's not smart to have a misunderstanding or an assumption. I was wrong and definetly will own up to that but from the first 2 paragraphs I assumed this was going the "I just assumed this would be a good thing". The article really takes a turn after the first few paragraphs and morally muddles the situation to where there isn't a right answer.
But yea, you're right. Was bad to jump to a conclusion.
But yea, you're right. Was bad to jump to a conclusion.
I appreciate the owning up. That's a good thing.
As for the "smart": I consider the ability to recognize when one does not have sufficient information to have a useful opinion to be smartness. :)
As for the "smart": I consider the ability to recognize when one does not have sufficient information to have a useful opinion to be smartness. :)
I recall in 70s/80s Denmark and Netherlands made pot legal in parts of Amsterdam and Copenhagen. The areas quickly turned into dumps. I'm fine with Slab City but do we wan't this for all of US?
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. Cannabis is decriminalized in the Netherlands. The Netherlands like all countries has its good and bad parts.
Amsterdam is very far from being a dump. Sure, the (very small) red light district might not be the kind of place you take your mother-in-law, but outside that it's a wonderful, picturesque, friendly, vibrant city.
Such a ridiculously gorgeous city. And besides, it's not even legal in Amsterdam anyways...
Have you ever been to Amsterdam or Copenhagen to make such a ludicrous assertion?
Yes, yes we do. We want to be able to fund our schools, or fix our roads, or simply avoid the cost of incarcerating people who possess it while hurting no one but themselves (if you demand to buy into reefer madness).
Colorado has has it legal for a couple of years now. Is it a dump?
You're leaving out that most of Colorado has prohibited dispensaries or greatly marginalized them. Legalization is mostly in Denver. This is anecdote, but I've heard both from Denver-area residents and visitors that burnouts with few prospects have been drawn to Denver like moths to a flame, and that it has in no uncertain terms had a deleterious effect on the city.
You can see for yourself: shops are everywhere in Colorado (except for sparsely populated areas, obviously). https://www.coloradopotguide.com/where-to-buy-marijuana/
Before making assertions, at least do some basic fact-checking. It doesn't help the discourse to manufacture facts.
Before making assertions, at least do some basic fact-checking. It doesn't help the discourse to manufacture facts.
Given that you put words in my mouth elsewhere in these comments, I don't think you should be one to give advice on "discourse" and "assertions."
You wrote,
> You're leaving out that most of Colorado has prohibited dispensaries or greatly marginalized them. Legalization is mostly in Denver.
The site I linked to clearly shows that there are cannabis shops all over Colorado, not just in Denver: Boulder, Durango, Pagosa Springs, etc. etc. So I'm not putting any words in your mouth, just quoting you directly and then showing that the data contradicts your statements.
> You're leaving out that most of Colorado has prohibited dispensaries or greatly marginalized them. Legalization is mostly in Denver.
The site I linked to clearly shows that there are cannabis shops all over Colorado, not just in Denver: Boulder, Durango, Pagosa Springs, etc. etc. So I'm not putting any words in your mouth, just quoting you directly and then showing that the data contradicts your statements.
Elsewhere in these comments you blindly accused me of being in favor of prohibition. You can't set the rules and then flaunt them. Which is why I rolled my eyes at your talk of "discourse" and "assertions." Give me a break. That you couldn't even connect those dots speaks for itself.
[deleted]
I guess you never went to Amsterdam?
Last december I spent a week in Amsterdam.
Smoking weed appears to be completely legalized there and it's a non issue.
Last december I spent a week in Amsterdam.
Smoking weed appears to be completely legalized there and it's a non issue.
You already have far worse (and much more dangerous) neighborhoods in the US.
Mildly disturbed that she medicates him against his knowledge with something that we think may be harmful for young brains (although we don't know, because drug laws make research impossible).
We excuse this because she's in a desperate situation and there's a lack of support. But other people in her situation resort to more harmful forms of quackery.
The answer shouldn't be "quackery is fine so long as it doesn't result in terrible harm", but "we as a society fail people with autism and learning disability, and we need to do better".
We excuse this because she's in a desperate situation and there's a lack of support. But other people in her situation resort to more harmful forms of quackery.
The answer shouldn't be "quackery is fine so long as it doesn't result in terrible harm", but "we as a society fail people with autism and learning disability, and we need to do better".
Constantly banging your head off an iron bath also interferes with brain development, and any other drug that could treat this
>against his knowledge
He is a child, they are his parents. They have every right to choose his treatment
>quackery
If medical science had an alternative you may have a point. These parents ran out of options
He is a child, they are his parents. They have every right to choose his treatment
>quackery
If medical science had an alternative you may have a point. These parents ran out of options
No, parents don't have the right to do what they like to their children.
> If medical science had an alternative you may have a point. These parents ran out of options
Exactly the point I made above. Lack of options does not mean parents can just try anything else. Some parents with no options chose bleach to treat autism. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
This mother has no idea what harm might come to the child as a result of her experimental treatment. If she's doing it to herself that's one thing, but she's inflicting it on a child.
> If medical science had an alternative you may have a point. These parents ran out of options
Exactly the point I made above. Lack of options does not mean parents can just try anything else. Some parents with no options chose bleach to treat autism. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
This mother has no idea what harm might come to the child as a result of her experimental treatment. If she's doing it to herself that's one thing, but she's inflicting it on a child.
That is not what I said, I said choose treatment not experiment. The mother states that she consulted with various medical professionals in the article. Once you have consulted you have the right to choose treatment.
The article says She consulted with people specifically about the risks involved and was advised they were extremely low. How is that equivalent in any way to experimenting on children????
The article says She consulted with people specifically about the risks involved and was advised they were extremely low. How is that equivalent in any way to experimenting on children????