"DEA declines to loosen restrictions on medical marijuana" Really, g+?
"DEA declines to loosen restrictions on medical marijuana" Really, g+? You have to change the headlines and the pictures?
I'm going to start off by saying from a science perspective, I have very little opinion on this. You can't have a lot of science based medical opinion because they won't allow research, which, if you read the blurb, is what this is about.
This is stupid on multiple levels.
1) DEA is neither a science nor a medical organization. They are not qualified to make these determinations. They should not be preventing people from collecting the data that could. For all they know, real research could confirm that there is no genuine medical use. So why prevent controlled research?
2) Allowing controlled research use of or on something in no way abrogates applicable criminal law. For example, certain drugs are straight up criminal if used by humans, but if you do animal research, you have controlled access to them because they are appropriate and efficacious for the critters. I'm specifically thinking of some drugs used for pain and anesthesia.
3) Many if not all of our medications directly or indirectly derive from plant and other natural substances/life forms. If we cannot study and evaluate them properly, we cannot determine anything about their harm or benefit.
4) It is disingenuous to suggest that any medication we use is devoid of harm. Although the paraphrased Paracelsus suggests the dose is the poison, the longer quote is more on point. That is, all things are poison. Even oxygen and water can be poisonous.
5) We have an obsessive fear of addiction. I posit that this is not so much based in rational awareness of effects quantified by science, but in irrational fears stoked by religious threats, judgments, and indoctrination.
I would never suggest that addiction is not real, but one of the reasons we have a problem with it is that it is so stigmatized. We can't do appropriate prevention, intervention, support, and treatment because we live in a society that still is more concerned about pretending only weak, immoral people do those things. Or some horrible doctor or system did them to someone.
There's probably more, but the point is it seems grossly ill-judged and ill-informed to prevent proper scientific research on marijuana. Best case, we find some new helpful therapeutics; worst case, it is proven there are no therapeutic uses and the DEA gets to say I told you so. I really don't see the downside for the DEA.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-fails-to-loosen-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-fails-to-loosen-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana/index.html
I'm going to start off by saying from a science perspective, I have very little opinion on this. You can't have a lot of science based medical opinion because they won't allow research, which, if you read the blurb, is what this is about.
This is stupid on multiple levels.
1) DEA is neither a science nor a medical organization. They are not qualified to make these determinations. They should not be preventing people from collecting the data that could. For all they know, real research could confirm that there is no genuine medical use. So why prevent controlled research?
2) Allowing controlled research use of or on something in no way abrogates applicable criminal law. For example, certain drugs are straight up criminal if used by humans, but if you do animal research, you have controlled access to them because they are appropriate and efficacious for the critters. I'm specifically thinking of some drugs used for pain and anesthesia.
3) Many if not all of our medications directly or indirectly derive from plant and other natural substances/life forms. If we cannot study and evaluate them properly, we cannot determine anything about their harm or benefit.
4) It is disingenuous to suggest that any medication we use is devoid of harm. Although the paraphrased Paracelsus suggests the dose is the poison, the longer quote is more on point. That is, all things are poison. Even oxygen and water can be poisonous.
5) We have an obsessive fear of addiction. I posit that this is not so much based in rational awareness of effects quantified by science, but in irrational fears stoked by religious threats, judgments, and indoctrination.
I would never suggest that addiction is not real, but one of the reasons we have a problem with it is that it is so stigmatized. We can't do appropriate prevention, intervention, support, and treatment because we live in a society that still is more concerned about pretending only weak, immoral people do those things. Or some horrible doctor or system did them to someone.
There's probably more, but the point is it seems grossly ill-judged and ill-informed to prevent proper scientific research on marijuana. Best case, we find some new helpful therapeutics; worst case, it is proven there are no therapeutic uses and the DEA gets to say I told you so. I really don't see the downside for the DEA.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-fails-to-loosen-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-fails-to-loosen-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana/index.html
That best case is a serious downside for the DEA. They wouldn't be able to convince people to find them any more.
ReplyDeleteFind them what?
ReplyDelete*fund
ReplyDelete#dyac
You mean the DEA, or I guess the government or something, wouldn't get to collect money from people convicted of stuff? It's not like there isn't an ever-increasing list of illegal drugs to go after.
ReplyDeleteNah, just flippantly remarking that there seems to be a linear correlation between how scary they can make drugs and appropriations bills funding them. Less scary, less likelihood of anyone passing any more funding for 'em.
ReplyDeleteOh! Well, yeah, and getting people elected for scaring them about the gay (illegal) refugee pedophile drug dealers after their children.
ReplyDelete