Speaking as (probably) the only 53 year old in America who’s never smoked pot…
My take on medical marijuana is pretty much the same as my take on agricultural hemp. Yeah… riiiiight. You just want the stuff legalized for MEDICINAL purposes. And you just want to grow hemp because it makes really neat shirts, and it will replenish the soil and save the environment.
Riiiiight.
Look, even though I’ve never smoked pot, practically everybody in my graduating class at high school did. Almost all of them are now doctors, lawyers, and big businessmen. So, I’m aware that, for most people, a little weed doesn’t do any serious or permanent harm. I’d be okay with legalizing it for those who just wanna get stoned. Just so long as it’s restricted to settings where I don’t have to smel it.
I just don’t take stoners seriously when they start claiming weed has millions of other benefits for everything under the sun. Come on, just admit what you REALLY want to use the stuff for.
If it then turns out later that it has a few (probably exaggerated) legit medical uses, so much the better.
Claims for medical marijuana are definitely exaggerated but it’s ridiculous to equate it with agricultural fibre hemp which does in fact have a long history of industrial uses* and does not contain meaningful amounts of THC.
*eta: though many of those uses are probably made obsolete by more modern materials.
Actually, getting stoned is a bit of a nuissance when your focus is on symptom treatment. Whether it’s neck pain working its way into a raging headache, or a severe depressive episode, one dose from the vaporizer and I’m back to normal and functional without becoming intoxicated.
Like most things (beer, exercise, reading, employment, water, sex, sleep, religion)overindulgence can be bad for you, but a moderate bit can improve your life.
So, you don’t use it, but all these people who do, and claim benefits, are what? Liars? And you know this for the gospel because you lack firsthand knowledge of the stuff?
Skepticism should cut both ways. “Definitely exaggerated” is not warranted.
Lots of drugs used recreationally are great for symptomatic treatments - anxiety, pain-killing, etc. Morphine, codeine, heroin (originally), oxycodone…
It would be surprising if marijuana wasn’t useful in some way.
Sorry but some of the claims are just too far reaching and wide ranging for me not to be confident saying “definitely exaggerated”. Not remotely saying there’s no uses for it.
Slight nit-picking sidetrack: Industrial & recreational are two completely different crops. If you grow them in close proximity (within a mile or two), they tend to cross-pollinate and the people growing industrial end up with plants with inferior fibers they can’t make anything out of, and the people growing recreational end up with dope that tastes like rope and won’t get people high. Dope growers are vehemently anti-industrial hemp because if anybody starts growing legal hemp plants for cloth, their illegal operation is busted.
CarnalK: Well, fair enough. I don’t know what claims you’re thinking of, but some loons probably claim it reverses aging and cures cancer. Among the non-loony claims, though (how true Scotsman, I know, but you know what I mean), any might be just as true as claimed. Or not.
While that’s true, every shop I’ve seen specializing in hemp-based products is obviously run by people who want to legalize marijuana for smoking purposes.
I have YET to see anyone arguing vehemently that marijuana smokiung should be banned BUT that hemp is an extremely useful product that was unfairly banned by William Randolph Hearst.
And I haven’t seen anybody arguing FOR marijuana as a medical drug but GAAINST it as a recreational drug.
There has been a case study write up regarding the use of cannabidiol in children with treatment-resistant epilepsy. The cohort included nineteen patients who, on average, had tried 12 medicines which failed to control their seizures.
Parents reported a reduction in number of seizures in 16 of the 19 patients including two reporting being free of seizures entirely and eight reporting more than an 80% reduction in seizures upon treatment with cannabadiaol, a component of marijuana.
Yes, double blind studies are needed to verify anecdotal reports. But these are patients who have failed multiple prior drugs and are seeing remarkable results with cannabadiol treatment. Actually being able to fund and do the studies seems warranted.
At least one of the pot shops selectively bred a strain of marijuana that is low in THC and high in cannabidiol for these patients.
To be fair, those are two completely different approaches to legalization. As I understand it, there are beneficial compounds in pot that do not contribute to intoxication. Your pro-med folks are going to be considering that: “Hey, at least let us do some science on the non-intoxicating compounds.” Very much about science and not about getting high.
The other camp, who admittedly enjoy being filthy hippies, are more inclined to point out the absence of harm in the stuff (impossible to OD to death, fewer problems linked to abuse compared to tobacco or alcohol, ridiculous financial and social costs of keeping it illegal, etc.).
I think both arguments have merit, and even individually they certainly more merit than any argument in support of keeping it illegal. Maybe it’s time our government became brave enough to let this be the land of the free?