Why doctors cant prescript there patient with Marijuana?

[blackkush420]

i think its kind of stupid that doctors cant give you prescription for medical marijuana. Doctors suppose to help out there patients, not unless they want us to die from cancer or any other conditions. anyways, i need answers about why doctors cant prescript you with marijuana? please help!

ONE LOVE

 

[Propa Gator]

It's the Federal prohibition. Most doctors care for the welfare of their patients.
They're not allowed to prescribe MMJ. In a few states they're allowed to 'recommend'.

 

[Kash Krop]

Lots of doctors are scared of losing their license to practice medicine for even talking about MMJ to their patients.The federal govt. has made it clear that they are dead set against MMJ.Doctors have been threatened by the gov.with loss of their right to write prescriptions if they advocate MMJ use for the people they treat.I have had dr's tell me they are scared of writing scrips for some legal drugs (oxy,etc.) because of pressure from DEA agents looking for dr's that over-prescribe those powerfull pain killers.People in real pain cannot get the LEGAL drugs they need because of dr's fears of getting busted.

 

[Weed420]

There are a few private practice doctors here in Washington that will write an authorization for it but very few.

 

[mk1903a3]

my doctors reply was "ever ones going to jail" went to cbr

 

[drcannabis]

i think its kind of stupid that doctors cant give you prescription for medical marijuana. Doctors suppose to help out there patients, not unless they want us to die from cancer or any other conditions. anyways, i need answers about why doctors cant prescript you with marijuana? please help!

ONE LOVE

The actual answer to your question is the US federal-level Schedule I classification of Cannabis. All doctors and others with US prescriptive authority can only prescribe medications listed as Schedule II-V. Pharmacies are not allowed to dispense Schedule I drugs, and therefore prescribers have no way to actually "prescribe" a Schedule I drug even if they wanted to.

That has then created the present situation where a doctor other medical provider may only "recommend" but not "prescribe" marijuana as a treatment option to a patient.

Furthermore although there is no way in the present system to "prescribe" cannabis, a synthetic THC can be prescribed and is listed as the mid-level potential for addition and abuse at Schedule III. Major pharmaceutical companies are at present scrambling to come up with a more complete synthetic to "compete" with the many known health benefits of natural Cannabis.

This is a classic example of the craziness of the present system that somehow promotes a synthetic unnatural version of just one of the known 66 active cannabinoid compounds of Cannabis and this is somehow "OK" but that the all natural plant directly from a natural garden is somehow a "bad" drug.

Hope that answers your question!

DrCannabis

 

[Propa Gator]

Re: Why can't doctors prescribe marijuana to their patients?

This is a classic example of the craziness of the present system that somehow promotes a synthetic unnatural version of just one of the known 66 active cannabinoid compounds of Cannabis and this is somehow "OK" but that the all natural plant directly from a natural garden is somehow a "bad" drug.

It's all about the money, Honey
Got nothing to do with health
Big biz out-bids our needs and desires
Polititians cater to wealth

 

[thebabyalex]

This is what I have alluded to when speaking of the Therapeutic state, where the state and medicine figure so prominently in the body politic. In my opinion, the efforts to synthesize, in part or in whole, those pharmacologically active molecules of cannabis, thinly disguises a moral distaste of a plant and its user. Such efforts at synthesizing chemical components of the plant, in effect, do place control of said proprietary drugs squarely in the hands of the Therapeutic state, and its agents.

 

[G-Dog]

Doctors are paid by the big pharmacy companies to act and do things a certain way. Not to mention that if you prefer a holistic approach to healing or feeling well you go against most of the doctors and the AMA in philosophy. Most doctors prefer drugs. It can be compared to the grower that grows organically compared to those that use chemicals.

BTW, cannabis is not a cure for anything. It relieves the suffering, but it is not a cure.

 

[Weed420]

A lot of this has to do with doctor culture too. When they're fresh out of med school and doing intern work they turn to big pharma reps a lot for diagnosing a patients disease and proper medications. The reps certainly are not going to tell the interns that there are natural remedies for some of these diseases or symptoms.

 

[G-Dog]

Look, medicine is a business. A Big Business.

My ex mother in law is a veteran nurse. She told me that they lowered what is considered high blood pressure so that more people would need medication. If you need medication you need a dealer. So if each doctor has hundreds of patients that need a medicine, and every 90 days they are required to be reevaluated by him, that means another $50-$70 from you or the insurance company, and only takes a few minutes. Hell, the nurse is the one that actually takes the reading. So if you lower the numbers for a condition that requires your attention you are increasing your business and the pharmacy companies business.

With MMJ you are do not need a doctor that often and you sure don't need big pharma.

One of my friends is a doctor. He told me that pharmacy companies give doctors all kinds of perks up to expensive vacations. Anyone in the MJ business giving doctors that kind of thing?

My friend the doctor also said that MMJ is better and more effective than prosac, for instance, and with none of the side effects (including sexual dysfunction). Guess what happens if you get sexual dysfunction? Yep, they get you to be a patient for another reason.

Treating with MMJ is a holistic approach. Very few doctors work that way.

 

[thebabyalex]

Doctors are paid by the big pharmacy companies to act and do things a certain way. Not to mention that if you prefer a holistic approach to healing or feeling well you go against most of the doctors and the AMA in philosophy. Most doctors prefer drugs. It can be compared to the grower that grows organically compared to those that use chemicals.

BTW, cannabis is not a cure for anything. It relieves the suffering, but it is not a cure.

Not quite. Yes, big pharma does flourish in this "rarified" and heavily regulated environment; so, it is really a hand-in-glove relationship, or, more accurately, a sort of trifecta: The state regulatory presence; the doctor who is licensed and controlled by the respective state regulating body; and, of course, the "big pharma", who are all too eager to oblige, its interests protected by govt bureaucracy, as in the form of the FDA and the DEA. So, in effect, looking to blame the pharmaceutical industry is well in keeping with the "anti-corporatist" sentiment of the lefties, but it is not altogether an accurate rendering of an overmedicalized culture. Only recently has the "new-left" critique shifted its focus, from that of touting the wonders of medicines, to that of apportioning the medicalizing of everyday life as the blame in making America even sicker; again, this dovetails nicely with the general anti-corporatist cant of the left. However, this leveled critique has conspicuously left out the entity of the state as complicit.
The physician is not all to blame, as he is, as a licensed agent of the state, foremost, beholden to the will of the state, rather than that of the accrediting medical school and one's respective, regulating professional body. As it has come to pass, such "regulating bodies, as the AMA, have only a nominal role to play in professional accountability, and that is how the Therapeutic state has come to be: the alligning of medicine and state. The latter does confound the doctor-patient relationship, such as in matters of pain management-I know this from personal experience. Two good books to read on the present state of medicine would be T. Szasz' "Pharmacracy: Medicine and politics in America", and, "Our daily meds", by Melody Peterson.

 

[thebabyalex]

A lot of this has to do with doctor culture too. When they're fresh out of med school and doing intern work they turn to big pharma reps a lot for diagnosing a patients disease and proper medications. The reps certainly are not going to tell the interns that there are natural remedies for some of these diseases or symptoms.

Uh, duh! The pharmaceutical reps are doing society's bidding. There is no way to tease out any one element, in this, the medicalizing of everyday life, without loosing sight of the "big picture". There are the disease-mongerers, i.e., medical clinicians, who, over the span of the last few decades, have managed to inflate the notion of what constitutes "disease". The medical practitioner, prompted by economic and medical considerations, no doubt, has come to treat from the standpoint of patient symptoms (discomforts, complaints, disposition), and not just that of treating disease signs, which has traditionally been the concern of the medical sciences (the study of cellular and tissue pathologies). However, the latter, despite our culture's great strides in the respective medical disciplines, does have its limits in treatments and cures. Treating symptoms-a real goldmine for drug makers-as one would disease, informs, and in turn, is informed by, our culture's faith in medicine and science in this present Therapeutic age. The latter, in large part, explains how such diagnostic inflations, professional prestige and profit, have come to inform current medical practice.
It is certainly ironic ,that in our day and age, with more diseases being manageable and even curable, that more people than ever are concerned about health; that is where our culture of sickness has come to inform our society, and where the big pharma got its toehold. The rest of the story, of this ever-inflating notion of disease, has been a synergy, between the state-licensed doctor, and of the market response of the pharmaceuticals, filling a veritable need for more treatments (cure is so seldom part of the medical rubric), and most importantly, more of us filling the "sick" role.
A good example is of my sis-in-law, who, after giving birth, was prescribed Zoloft for "Post partum depression"; that was eight years ago, and she still has that monkey on her back, and is strung out. Her cholesterol is quite high for her age, and she has meanwhile ballooned to nearly 230 lbs. Surely, the Zoloft has contributed to her state of health. She is now on a statin for her cholesterol!