Do you think patients should have the right to use medical marijuana?

OC85 · Jan 9, 2009

Heroin, then morphine, all come from the Poppy plant and except when misused are very therapeutic.
Digoxin except when misused is very therapeutic as we all know
Atropine poves the Night shade plant is also therapeutic except when misused.
Cocaine has very valid therapeutic uses also. It even put the Coca in Coca Cola originally until the drug companies got miffed.

Not to detract from hypocaffeinemia's point, which is valid, but all of the substances listed above are refined/altered derivatives of a naturally occurring plant. Marijuana may be smoked simply by selecting certain parts of the plant and drying them out, no refining/alteration necessary.

Iam46yearsold · Jan 9, 2009

Actually I have seen where one guy is taking the oils from the marijuana plant and making a butter that you can spread on toast.

Its not Parkay

OC85 · Jan 9, 2009

Actually I have seen where one guy is taking the oils from the marijuana plant and making a butter that you can spread on toast.
Its not Parkay

Actually, this can be a huge benefit to people who use marijuana for legitimate medical purposes, as edibles deliver all of the benefits, but without doing any harm to the lungs.

Even when you make marijuana butter, this is still not altering the active chemical compound. You are simply extracting the THC and infusing it into an edible substance.

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Jan 9, 2009

Heroin, then morphine, all come from the Poppy plant and except when misused are very therapeutic.
Digoxin except when misused is very therapeutic as we all know
Atropine poves the Night shade plant is also therapeutic except when misused.
Cocaine has very valid therapeutic uses also. It even put the Coca in Coca Cola originally until the drug companies got miffed.

You missed my point. I wasn't arguing whether or not marijuana or other substances are therapeutic. I was stating it's a fallacy to say something is good, safe, and should be legalized because it's comes from a natural plant source.

This is the naturalistic fallacy.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Jan 10, 2009

Not to detract from hypocaffeinemia's point, which is valid, but all of the substances listed above are refined/altered derivatives of a naturally occurring plant. Marijuana may be smoked simply by selecting certain parts of the plant and drying them out, no refining/alteration necessary.

This is totally off-topic from my point, but very few of the things I listed are altered. You can go to the source to receive identical effects as the pharmacologized form.

The only different is refinement, which is the removal of impurities to create exact dosages. For drugs that are extremely potent like atropine and digoxin, this is clearly a good thing for patient safety.

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Jan 10, 2009

Actually, this can be a huge benefit to people who use marijuana for legitimate medical purposes, as edibles deliver all of the benefits, but without doing any harm to the lungs.
Even when you make marijuana butter, this is still not altering the active chemical compound. You are simply extracting the THC and infusing it into an edible substance.

How big of a role does the first pass effect play when taken enterally?

OC85 · Jan 10, 2009

How big of a role does the first pass effect play when taken enterally?

Actually, I'm not really sure....It may not be a significant issue, though. Lets say first pass metabolism is significant and the concentration of THC is largely reduced before it enters systemic circulation. As cannabis has no known lethal/toxic dose, it would be possible to simple ingest more THC than one would typically smoke, without any real safety concerns.

Iam46yearsold · Jan 11, 2009

except the munchies followed by a nap.

with resulting weight gain

familychick, BSN · Jan 16, 2009

Absolutely YES! It has such good medicinal ues...glaucoma, appititate inhancement, and antiemetic. What I want to know is, if it does become legal, does a patient have to roll one with the pharmacist when he/she goes to pick up the 'script?:roll

gewdahbear · Jan 22, 2009

Yes! By all means. That is, if you are over the age of 18. The health benefits of cannabis far out weigh the cons IMHO. We all have cannabinoid receptors in our brains for a reason. Man has been using cannabis medicinally for thousands of years. The stigmatization of this profoundly powerful flower has only occured in the last century. If cannabis were just discovered today it would be hailed as a miracle drug.

dannyc12 · Oct 4, 2009

Medical marijuana should undergo the same examination as other drugs.

I think the real barrier to the use of medical marijuana is the stoners. The vast majority of the time I hear someone advocating for it - it is a person who uses the drug recreationally. Further, when medical marijuana has been legalized, just about anyone who wants to use it is given access to it regardless of medicinal need.

That isn't medicinal use, that is just handing out the chronic.

Since stoners are such vocal advocates and primary users of the drug, they are the ones standing in the way of it being used for therapeutic purposes.

tewdles, RN · Oct 4, 2009

I am a hospice case nurse and I have some, but not enough, experience with cannabis/marijuana use by terminal patients. In my estimation, the patients received observable, reportable improvement of symptom burden when they smoked a joint as compared to use of marinol. I saw improved nausea control with actual increase in desire to eat with a debilitated post chemo patient. This gentleman did not get the same result with marinol that he experienced after he decided to try the joint offered by his adult son. I discovered this when I noticed that he was not using the marinol and yet he was obviously feeling better. He was a bit reluctant to share with me, mostly because he didn't want to get his son in trouble. In another case a young MS patient uses pot for its muscle relaxing abilities. I do believe that he experiences substantial relief of that symptom with cannabis. I suspect that it is at minimum a good adjuvant to traditional pharmaceutical muscle relaxants. Given that this particular patient is bedbound and totally dependent in many ways I can imagine that the psychotropic effects he experiences are not unwelcome either.

I am hoping that since Michigan legalized "medicinal marijuana" I will gain more, valuable, information about how to effectively use this homeopathic agent to help people manage their symptoms. I am disappointed, however, in the Michigan law. I see it as a law which allows, but discourages, use of cannabis medicinally. I find the requirements unnecessarily harsh with annual "fees", Rx from 2 MDs, etc. I think that it will be some time before we can have comprehensive legislation that is based in intelligent appraisal of facts/cost/benefit rather than based in fear.

About stoners...I firmly believe that there are recreational users of pot who are not stoners...People who hold responsible, accountable, sometimes public positions; who prefer to smoke a joint rather than drink a pint. I believe this because I know some, there are some in my family, and I work with some. A stoner is something different altogether. The problem is, the general american public is not able to make that differentiation because the responsible recreational user is hiding. So I think of it like this...there are many, many more responsible alcohol drinkers than there are drunks...and there are far more responsible pot smokers than there are stoners.