Marijuana Leveque: 2008

[Ganjarden]

Some may dislike and shudder at such a name. Marijuana Leveque. I don't. I have been called much worse — Quack, snake oil salesman. In Italy I'm Dr. Pot, here I'm "most dangerous man in Oregon", etc.

After I saw "REEFER MADNESS" six times — I was forced to do so as a pharmacology instructor in medical school - I had to monitor the class to prevent them from laughing out loud or leaving the room.

Even Judge Francis Young of the DEA said it was the safest drug ever found by man. "REEFER MADNESS", my foot!

2008 has been an unusual year for me. Now on Salem-News.com I have about 46 articles and about 26 video segments, and at least 300 on Google.

We get questions and comments/responses by email regarding my articles about the VA (a mess), PTSD, lots about all aspects of Medical Marijuana, with several articles engendering nearly 100 responses each.

One I wrote about "Restless Leg Syndrome" (RLS) produced 75 comments including one about "a poorly written local paper from Oregon". I can only thank that reader for his acerbic comment. CANNABIS WORKS FOR RLS.

I shouldn't be a shrinking violet about this. Cannabis offers help for about 200 diseases with more coming in all the time.

The Ohio Patient Network — ohiopatient.net — posts 270 medical conditions medical marijuana is useful for. Yet, the U.S. Govt. says cannabis has NO legitimate medical use. FUBAR!

Last night I saw Billy Ray Cyrus talking about his home "stomping grounds", Kentucky. He says the cannabis crop is 8 BILLION DOLLARS per year. Kentucky is third after California and Texas for the value of the cannabis crops. The U.S. Govt. still says it is no good.

With Michigan, a very populous state coming in as the 13th medical marijuana state and Obama as an admitted former user of this "Devil Weed", things are looking up.

Even a California Federal Judge says State Laws trump Federal Laws regarding medical marijuana use. YES, things are looking decidedly UP regarding medical marijuana.

Why isn't it just legalized so we can stop making millionaires out of illegal marijuana dealers?


News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Salem-News.com
Author: Dr. Phillip Leveque
Contact: Salem-News.com
Copyright: 2008 Salem-News.com
Website: Marijuana Leveque: 2008

 

[wordsworm]

"Why isn’t it just legalized so we can stop making millionaires out of illegal marijuana dealers?"

And if it *wasn't* for the 'illegal marijuana dealers', where would we get our pot? Let's be grateful for the nonviolent illegal marijuana dealers and give them their first shot at the market and thank them for their sacrifice!

 

[nightsun]

"Why isn’t it just legalized so we can stop making millionaires out of illegal marijuana dealers?"

Until it becomes a national ballot question, and even then there will be resistance, there are a few reasons why it won't be legalized. (not in any particular order)
The government wouldn't be able to control it very well at first.
The alcohol industry would lose some business.
The tobacco industry would lose business, hopefully a lot
Some people are still brainwashed and thnking pot is a gateway drug - they don't realize that the gateway drugs are cigarettes and alcohol and precsription drugs.
Those are just the first few that come to mind.

Peace

 

[DanK Bagman]

"Why isn’t it just legalized so we can stop making millionaires out of illegal marijuana dealers?"

After 12 years of trying to end the prohibition of Cannabis here in Oregon I've come up with the following;

Three reasons why we can't get Cannabis re-legalized
Government Lies
Public Ignorance
Tokers Apathy

The main thing though is the fact there is no money to be made re-legalizing Cannabis.

Dan 'DanK' Koozer

 

[FastLan3]

"Why isn't it just legalized so we can stop making millionaires out of illegal marijuana dealers?"

And if it *wasn't* for the 'illegal marijuana dealers', where would we get our pot? Let's be grateful for the nonviolent illegal marijuana dealers and give them their first shot at the market and thank them for their sacrifice!

Thank You!

 

[musicman1086]

The main thing though is the fact there is no money to be made re-legalizing Cannabis.

Dan 'DanK' Koozer[/QUOTE]

WHAT!?!?!?! I MEAN...... WHAT?!?! that is the oposite of what re-legalizing could do.

Everybody please take the time to at least read some of this report

Economics - MPP

There is some great information in there. The government would benefit greatly and the poeple of the government would benifit greatly. But big businesses that keep key people in office won't benifit, therefor their paper influence will keep legalization at a stand still until they are stopped.

 

[nightsun]

There is money to be made in re-legalizing hemp, not the smokable kind and I'm sure there would be money to be made with cultivation of good smoke too. Think about the outdoors and how many people it takes to care for a large crop that could be sold at the market (if you wanted it to be good and competitive).

Think hemp wine, hemp fuels, hemp clothing and much more...

 

[wordsworm]

I don't need high grade weed. Just something that'll blow my mind is fine.

"Some people are still brainwashed and thnking pot is a gateway drug - they don't realize that the gateway drugs are cigarettes and alcohol and precsription drugs."

The truth is that it can lead to harder drugs. I have experience with that. People kept putting t*bacc* in the joints, and before I knew it I was hooked on that terrible drug. But in all seriousness, we have to stop comparing marijuana to bad drugs. It's basically saying, "MJ is a bad thing, fine. But we have all these other bad things legal too. Why can't we have another bad thing legal?" I wish people would fight the association between pot and the other bad, yet legal, drugs.

 

[Keith Lake]

"Some people are still brainwashed and thnking pot is a gateway drug - they don't realize that the gateway drugs are cigarettes and alcohol and precsription drugs."

Agreed...

If only 1 in 150 cannabis smokers move on to C*ke, M*th, or Her*in how can it be a gateway

These people always try to correlate the dependant variable in saying that the vast majority of hard drug users also used cannabis previously

Whether true of not it's not statistically relevent.

These people also all breathed, ate food etc.

Correlation does not equal causation

But in all seriousness, we have to stop comparing marijuana to bad drugs. It's basically saying, "MJ is a bad thing, fine. But we have all these other bad things legal too. Why can't we have another bad thing legal?" I wish people would fight the association between pot and the other bad, yet legal, drugs.

Russ Belville did a great powerpoint on this topic at normlcon. it's still on his website I think. Arguing that we need to change the 'frame' we use during discussion - to rehabilitate public perception

Cannabis is a plant, not pot is a drug

 

[wordsworm]

"it's still on his website I think. Arguing that we need to change the 'frame' we use during discussion - to rehabilitate public perception"

Really, the big issue is nomenclature. And yes, as they say 'framing the issue' has been conducted by the prohibitionists. We can no longer allow them to do this if we wish to win this small freedom. An example would be, we need to stop saying, "It's not as bad as alc*h*l" and start saying that there's nothing wrong with it at all when used by a responsible adult. We have to stop saying that it's carcinogenic when we say it doesn't cause cancer. If it's carcinogenic, it means that it causes cancer. If it doesn't cause cancer, then it's not carcinogenic. So how can we allow that to go through?

One of the biggest reasons the tide has changed in this war against the herb is the fact that MJ is quickly becoming associated with medicinal properties.

I'd love to write scripts for movie shorts covering things like SWAT invasions of peaceful people, marijuana smuggling in the days of Star Trek, and people who struggle to get their medicine and how positively it has affected their lives. You know anyone who wants to buy scripts like that?

 

[FastLan3]

I understand your frustration, and we all need to take better care of the POT issue with some radical changes in view points, which are already occurring; major one being medicinal uses, another breaking ground is industrial hemp. Mind you that those who are pushing for Hemp are not always on the same bandwagon, which could be considered bad or good.

To say there is nothing wrong with it (pot), well is a lie! It can be abused, and children should not be smoking it for recreational use. But I also believe we make a problem out it, causing greater harm to us as a society.

I have seen more people convert from not being sure about the herb to completely condoning it after they have been "taught" about the greater dangers of alcohol vs marijuana.

Carcinogens are created because we BURN the weed, or anything for that matter, whether it food or plastics. Cooking food at high temperatures, for example grilling or barbecuing meats, can lead to the formation of minute quantities of many potent carcinogens that are comparable to those found in cigarette smoke. Carcinogens can be classified as genotoxic or nongenotoxic. Genotoxins cause irreversible genetic damage or mutations by binding to DNA. Genotoxins include chemical agents like N-Nitroso-N-Methylurea (MNU) or non-chemical agents such as ultraviolet light and ionizing radiation. Certain viruses can also act as carcinogens by interacting with DNA.
Huge studies have been conducted to find any relation to marijuana and cancer. Multiple studies have indicated the reduction of cancerous cell developing in marijuana and tobacco users, MD's even saying that tobacco smokers have less of a chance to get cancer if they smoke cannabis too.
Clearly we are not being told the whole story, because they act like they don't know why or how, when they certainly do. Considering a number a new and a few old studies showing directly that concentrations of THC injected into tumors or even rubbed on skin cancers will reduce if not kill the cancer all together. I am sure a good majority of you have knowledge of this and the studies.

The marijuana compassionate scripts you are purposing, is on my mind as well. In fact I was quite disappointed with a show on HBO "Weeds". The show had a great opportunity to raise such issues. But, to my surprise they did not, and really only made the marijuana environment seem dangerous. I guess the writers or produces don't think the real deal is exciting enough.

Society is always gonna find ways to divide us as people, but WE who enjoy the herb need to represent our cause with humility and courage. Giving no reason for the law to attack us or the plant.

 

[wordsworm]

"It can be abused, and children should not be smoking it for recreational use." I do believe discussion of children and MJ is banned from discussion, so I'll just leave it as, how does anyone here know for sure what's good and what's not good for children? Naturally parents shouldn't be giving it to them, but the reason for that is a legal one, not medical, not psychological. Forcing anyone to smoke it isn't good, naturally.

As to your assertion that anything burned becomes carcinogenic, that's simply not true. Burning tobacco isn't what makes it carcinogenic. Chewing tobacco, for example, causes cancer though it's not burned. Burning food, isn't what causes the carcinogenic properties. Your mention of how meat can be made carcinogenic doesn't take into account the fact that if you nuke it first, "Pre-cooking meats in a microwave oven for 2-3 minutes before grilling shortens the time on the hot pan, and removes heterocyclic amine (HCA) precursors, which can help minimize the formation of these carcinogens." What this means is that it's not the act of cooking it, but rather that there's something in it which reacts to the cooking that causes it, and that there's a way to remove it before cooking it.

MJ is not carcinogenic. Even nongenotoxins cause cancer. If something is carcinogenic, then it causes cancer. MJ doesn't cause cancer. Therefore, the whole idea that it is carcinogenic is a myth.

I agree with you that Weeds was not an advocate of marijuana. It was a pretty good show though.

 

[Jim Finnel]

Lung Cancer: Antineoplastic Activity Of Cannabinoids

Smoking Cannabis Does Not Cause Cancer Of Lung or Upper Airways

The Myth of Marijuana's Gateway Effect

 

[FastLan3]

Tobacco and cannabis smoke are different in many ways, mainly because tobacco smoke contains nicotine while cannabis smoke contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The cancer-promoting effects of smoke are increased by nicotine, while they are reduced by THC.

Cannabis and tobacco smoke contain the same carcinogenic compounds -- and depending on which part of the plant is smoked, cannabis smoke can contain more of them but, whereas nicotine activates these carcinogenic compounds, THC has been shown to inhibit them. THC is very likely to have protective effects against the carcinogens present in smoke, but cannabis smoke remains nonetheless carcinogenic.

I did not mention how nuking it minimizes the formation of carcinogens because, at the time I thought it was irrelevant? You could also boil the meat before grilling, this releases fats and shortens the final cooking process.

 

[Keith Lake]

Cannabis and tobacco smoke contain the same carcinogenic compounds -- and depending on which part of the plant is smoked, cannabis smoke can contain more of them but, whereas nicotine activates these carcinogenic compounds, THC has been shown to inhibit them. THC is very likely to have protective effects against the carcinogens present in smoke, but cannabis smoke remains nonetheless carcinogenic.

Hi Fastlan,

The study that USER linked to above, seems to be the largest empirical study performed to date. This indicates, at the most optimistic reading, a possible anti-carigenic effect and at worst case, no-carcinagenic effect - Would you agree?

I understand that the byproducts of any combustion are complex and that some of these may have been deemed carcinogenic in other studies; but this doesn't necessarilly address the effect of compound interaction; which is best demonstrated in toto.

Therefore I'd think that the large sample size empirical study would be the best way to demonstrate whether cancer was being caused by smoking MMJ

if you have some data that contradicts this, I would like to have a look,

I'm not trying to be challenging here, I appreciate the healthy debate between members; much peace and respect to you.

regards soniq420

 

[FastLan3]

**Expert Empirical Studies**

Book - THE REPORT. Cannabis: The Facts,
Human Rights & The Law.

LINK - CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW; THE REPORT. Official facts on Cannabis/ Marijuana/ Hemp.

THE REPORT includes a comprehensive collation of the official FINDINGS OF FACT and Conclusions of the medico-scientific clinical empirical studies conducted by world-respected U.S. academic and research institutions into the smoking of cannabis (marihuana).

The expert Empirical Studies [i.e. the clinical monitored research of ‘hands-on’ actual long and short-term use by human test subjects] are DEFINITIVE. These unanimously conclude: firstly, the benign nature of the non-addictive, non-toxic herb; secondly, numerous efficacious applications in curative and preventive medicine (cf. official Pharmacopoeias), replacing lucrative lines of toxic, addictive ineffectual pharmaceutical laboratory-derived chemical drugs; and thirdly, the complete exoneration of cannabis from ‘skill impairment’ (including driving tests) and all allegations of mental or physical ‘harm’, from ‘danger’, ‘carcinosis’, ‘psychosis’, ‘amotivation’, ‘abuse’, and ‘misuse’, etc. Full technical and scientific attribution for these Findings of Fact is given in THE REPORT; see Parts One through Six; and Index & Bibliography.

Everybody needs to read this Report!!!

 

[wordsworm]

The big laugh I get is how people figure it makes people lazy when there are athletes out there who smoke it and are on top of their game (until their pot smoking activities are discovered.) Snowboarding and sumo wrestling are the two examples I'm thinking of.

 

[Jim Finnel]

The big laugh I get is how people figure it makes people lazy when there are athletes out there who smoke it and are on top of their game (until their pot smoking activities are discovered.) Snowboarding and sumo wrestling are the two examples I'm thinking of.

DEBUNKING "AMOTIVATIONAL SYNDROME"

"There is no such thing as laziness. Laziness is only lack of incentive."

Norman Reider, MD

A graduate student in the psychology department at the University of Southern California, Sara Smucker Barnwell, has conducted a survey to assess whether or not cannabis use undermines motivation. She emailed a questionnaire to 200 undergraduates who had taken a course on drugs and human behavior, and to 100 acquaintances of a co-author, Mitch Earleywine, PhD, who in turn were asked to forward it to others. She got responses from some 1,300 people. She then analyzed the responses of everyday users ( 244 ) and those who had never used ( 243 ).

Barnwell's questionnaire comprised an "Apathy Evaluation Scale" and a "Satisfaction with Life Scale." Apathy was measured by 12 statements such as "I don't follow through on my plans" to which respondents gave their level of agreement ( "Not At All, Slightly, Somewhat, Very Much" ). Satisfaction was measured by agreement with five statements, including "If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing." The mean age of the participants was 33. They were mostly Caucasian ( 79% ), with a preponderance of them students. One in three frequent cannabis users described their use as medical.

Much of Barnwell et al's paper consists of statistical methodology involving "T-distribution," "heteroscedasticity," "controlling for unequal variances," "outliers ( e.g. data points above/below three standard deviations )," "standard transformations ( e.g. square roots )," "trimmed means," "alternative measures of effect size ( the estimated measure of the degree of separations between two distributions )," "Cohen's delta calculations," "Pearson's correlations," "Welch's heteroscedastic means comparison," "Yuen's comparison of 20% trimmed means," etc. etc ...

The jargon is almost impenetrable, but it appears that statisticians allow themselves to discount "outlier" responses that don't jibe with the "central tendency" of the data. Barnwell et al's "robust statistical analysis" certainly makes their somewhat fuzzy survey seem supremely precise and worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

But why quibble when they're "good on our issue?" Barnwell et al conclude: "Participants who used cannabis seven days a week demonstrated no difference from non-cannabis users on indices of motivation. These findings refute hypothesized associations between heavy cannabis use and low motivation ... Daily users reported slightly lower median subjective well-being scores ( 2 points less on a 28-point scale ) ... Post-hoc tests find that some portion of the differences in subjective wellbeing arose from medical users, whose illnesses may contribute to low subjective wellbeing more than their cannabis use."

The authors acknowledge that their results may have been skewed by not taking into account respondents' use of alcohol and other drugs. They list some other realistic caveats and counter-caveats: "Participant reactivity to questions of motivation may pose an additional confound. Despite a lack of empirical evidence supporting amotivational syndrome, the popular concept is well known among cannabis users. Perhaps cannabis users demonstrate sensitivity to questions regarding motivation, exaggerating their own motivation in an effort to defy stereotypes. In contrast, users tend to attribute low energy and motivation to cannabis even when they use alcohol problematically, so there may also be a bias for cannabis users to report lower motivation. Further, collecting data via the internet may prevent some low education or low income individuals from participating. Others may feel uncomfortable reporting drug use online. Simultaneously, individuals experiencing low motivation may be more likely to participate in internet-based research rather than traveling to a laboratory."

Common sense tells us that the main motivator in this society is the prospect of remuneration. Millions of Americans, young and old, are destined to do unfulfilling work for wages that won't enable them to support a family let alone own a home and retire with a sense of security. To define our condition in terms of amotivational syndrome or apathy is to conflate symptom and cause, to individualize a social phenomenon, to medicalize the political. Anti-prohibitionists should turn the meaning of amotivational syndrome around and peg it for what it obviously is: a manifestation of socioeconomic hopelessness.

MapInc

 

[Keith Lake]

^^

Thanks for this one; interesting read

 

[Keith Lake]

**Expert Empirical Studies**

Book - THE REPORT. Cannabis: The Facts,
Human Rights & The Law.

LINK - CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW. Official facts on Cannabis/ Marijuana/ Hemp.

Everybody needs to read this Report!!!

Mr. Fastlan3,

The link took me to an advertisment to buy the report for $25.

Honestly, I'd rather donate that money to 420mag ;-)

There was nothing on the report's website that discussed cannabis causing lung cancer?

I suggest you read the summary of the Tashkin study that USER linked to above, Smoking Cannabis Does Not Cause Cancer Of Lung or Upper Airways

I've also heard Dr. Mitch Earlywine reference this - it seems to be the definitive work to date.

Regards, soniq420