-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
DOJ to reschedule cannabis/pot/marijuana to Schedule-III
- Thread starter milktree
- Start date
Frankly, fine. The number of people transitioning to illegal drug use after therapeutic use is pretty damn small. But, the illegal diversion gave states such as MA a great excuse for a shakedown. And, now, people with legitimate needs for opiods (cancer patients, for one) are struggling to get some types.
GeorgeMason
NES Member
Just because you cannot make the logical connections behind these counterpoints, does not make them strawman arguments. You know that right?
For f***s sake. As I’ve been saying, going to schedule III will allow the medical community to do more in depth research to establish viable medical uses. The example I linked was to show you that there are indications of viability for medical uses and that it wasn’t purely “alternative medicine that could not be real medicine”. I clearly stated that research in the U.S. was minimal
You use this term straw man. I do not think it means what you think it means. Everything I’ve discussed is germane to your argument that marijuana shouldn’t be in real medicine.
caboose84
NES Member
Studies of drugs require money.
Since nobody can patent weed, clearly a pharma company isn't going to fund a study on it.
With it on schedule 3, expect the larger medical pot companies (Curaleaf, TruLieve, MUV etc) will fund university studies of it.
Fun fact, in the 70's the under the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program uncle sort of agreed that pot was useful, and supplied pot for patients with glaucoma and undergoing chemo. There were extremely complex and drawn out application processes, leading to a very small number of patients participating. The program was closed to new participants in the early 90's due to not wanting to let AIDS patients in, and a desire to have nothing undercut the war on drugs.
Since nobody can patent weed, clearly a pharma company isn't going to fund a study on it.
With it on schedule 3, expect the larger medical pot companies (Curaleaf, TruLieve, MUV etc) will fund university studies of it.
Fun fact, in the 70's the under the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program uncle sort of agreed that pot was useful, and supplied pot for patients with glaucoma and undergoing chemo. There were extremely complex and drawn out application processes, leading to a very small number of patients participating. The program was closed to new participants in the early 90's due to not wanting to let AIDS patients in, and a desire to have nothing undercut the war on drugs.
You keep talking about the drivers of medical research and trials. I do not think your knowledge of the process is anything close to what you feel it is.
As your purported quote was nowhere close to any point I made, I think 'straw man' was wholly appropriate.
I'd be laughed out of my old office for trying to push a personal use case of MJ. The USA would never take a call from me again.
Are people in on plead down charges that entailed 'personal use' levels of MJ, sure, but those people were big wigs and lawyers talked it all down. I'd like to see the original charge packet on the lady Trump let out, I bet she was a money mover or some kind of shot caller behind the scenes and there was some weed there when they nailed her. The thought of throwing 'everything' at someone sometimes backfires when it comes to sentencing.
If people want to be dumb f***s and abuse opiates, let them.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Almost anyone who wants to use pot or cannabis-derived products can do so without fear of government punishment. Employers can still mandate limitations, but that’s where more research may not break any barriers. At best, studies might find the time/dose relationship between cannabis and reaction time impairment, but it’s not as clean as ounces of alcohol per pound body weight, giving the variation in pot “strength”.
I don’t run across any drunks at the gym, but young men reeking of pot on their 2nd Red Bull are very annoying. That said, I love it when the 3-star hotel clerk is high on pot - I’m good for a free room upgrade to a Junior Suite and an extra bottle of water.
”For 50 years, researchers were allowed to use cannabis from only one source – a facility at the University of Mississippi. Then, in 2021, the DEA started to add a few more companies to that list of approved sources for medical and scientific research.
While she expects more sources to be added in time, she and many of the researchers she knows have yet to benefit from the recently added sources, as most have limited products available.
"And what we haven't seen is any ability for researchers –cannabis researchers, clinical researchers – to have the ability to study products that our patients and our recreational consumers or adult consumers are actually using," she adds. "That remains impossible."
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Training while stoned is a Thing apparently. Hell, FIGHTING while stoned is a Thing:
H O M E | My Site
www.rollingstonerz.net
Supposedly, you're more relaxed and thus not as likely to get hurt as when you're tense.
Not my thing. The only thing I smell like at the gym is
SKumar
NES Member
Pretty good conversation between Joe Rogan and Tulsi Gabbard on DEA's new scheduling of cannabis. Starts at 5 mins. It's a real shame that we haven't taken full advantage of hemp and CBD products because of the federal government's propaganda on cannabis for the last 100 years.
View: https://youtu.be/UQrNRtxvCJc?si=4o-PIh2UqPDMw2KG
View: https://youtu.be/UQrNRtxvCJc?si=4o-PIh2UqPDMw2KG
I totally agree...a good friend of mine is an anesthesiologist and for years worked in pain management. He told me when the FED severely throttled back on dispensing pain meds, those that needed it the worst were going to have to look for it elsewhere. There is some pain that just can't be fixed by giving a cancer patient two Tylenol. My mom is one...89 years old and has a fentanyl patch for her pain management (she has severe pain due to rheumatoid arthritis through her whole body). She told me that the amount of fentanyl in those patches is very minimal and barely touches her pain. She was using opioids and she was doing well on them but they were taken from her. My brother is an PA and he has tried to get the doctors to relax their stand a bit on dispensing what she really needs but they can't for fear they'll have their license to practice yanked...SMH
She's 89 years old for f*** sake! Give her what she needs to live relatively pain free!
Last edited:
I had a surgery with a huge resulting infection requiring a 2nd surgery. Pain was 10/10 for about a week.I totally agree...a good friend of mine is an anesthesiologist and for years worked in pain management. He told me when the FED severely throttled back on dispensing pain meds, those that needed it the worst were going to have to look for it elsewhere. There is some pain that just can't be fixed by giving a cancer patient two Tylenol. My mom is one...89 years old and has a fentanyl patch for her pain management (she has severe pain due to rheumatoid arthritis through her whole body). She told me that the amount of fentanyl in those patches is very minimal and barely touches her pain. She was using opioids and she was doing well on them but they were taken from her, My brother is an PA and he has tried to get the doctors to relax their stand a bit on dispensing what she really need but they can't for fear they'll have their license to practice yanked...SMH
She's 89 years old for f*** sake! Give her what she needs to live relatively pain free!
They refused to give me more than 10 percs. Turns out they had me incorrectly flagged as an opioid addict in the system (or something similar). You'd figure they'd bring that up.
Took me like 7 years to figure out that was in my file.
Damn! That sucks! I have chronic severe back pain and my Dr. will prescribe 40 Tramadol every 3 months and they work but I don't really like taking them as they make me feel really wonky. I still have some from the previous prescription he wrote for me. I have other ways of dealing with the pain. Tylenol and Naproxen helps with one anti-spasm pill a day. I don't like taking the Tylenol (arthritis strength) and Naproxen every day as it's not real good for the ol' liver and kidneys. Every three or four days seems to work OK for me.
Tramadol sucks, it has more adverse interactions than any other pharmaceutical. It's terribly addictive, and many people say it doesn't work for pain, it just makes them high. Shouldn't even be a thing.
It does help my pain and helps me sleep when pain is keeping me awake but you're right. It is highly addictive. That's why even when I'm in moderate pain, I take Tylenol/Naproxen/Spasm meds. I don't like taking Tramadol except and only when pain is nearing 10/10. Fortunately, for some reason, those days are becoming further and further apart...knock on wood.
I'm not an expert on the law, but my thoughts on it would be that you would need a prescription, not a MMC, specifying the type (Indica/Sativa and THC/CBD potencies) and amount you were supposed to take for it to be legal. It's more of a "let's make it look like we're doing something" instead of "we're actually doing something" type thing. Going from Schedule I to Schedule III doesn't change anything if it isn't FDA approved to be prescribed for anything. Doctors will be less likely to prescribe it without clear guidelines on what it is intended to treat/prevent/cure, especially without the kickbacks from Big Pharma, and even worse, Big Pharma cutting off the kickbacks if they prescribe marijuana over their products. This change is just another "all show, no go" type law. It makes it look like they did something, but in the end, they just made the situation worse.
It being Schedule I is a big reason for the lack of studies, and often times the studies that are done are carried out by Big Pharma. It's no secret though that every pharma company is trying to be the first to create synthetic marijuana compounds that they can patent to exclusively profit from. I personally know someone who was in a severe car accident and suffered from really bad back spasms even after recovering from most of his injuries. The cocktail of pills they put him on (half a dozen different meds, some 3 or 4 times per day) would leave him barely able to take care of himself, let alone work. After doing some research, he found a particular strain of marijuana (a gummy in the morning and one at night) that relieved his problems and allowed him to work. I wouldn't call it anecdotal, since when he traveled somewhere that he couldn't bring the gummies, his back spasms returned, and went away after he returned home and was able to resume use. You can call it placebo effect if you want to, but that's far more anecdotal than the several real life cases of marijuana helping people.
Sitting here with an unopened bottle from this morning after a small procedure, but I'm not planning on taking any if I can avoid it. My wife was dealing with some intractable pain issues last year (fortunately resolved after they finally got a handle on the cause) and it didn't do a thing for her.
You do realize that there's a big, wide world of pharmaceutical development outside of the US, right?
Those are the definition of anecdotal.
Buddy you can’t smell the edibles and you can hardly tell if a vape is the evil weeds anymore
Like I said your arms would be jello from swinging cause you don’t have a clue how many people are stoned around you every day
Now I do agree with you on smoking in public, I personally don’t mind the smell but I don’t need my kids to smell it or be exposed to it on the regular and I’m sure there’s people with legit reactions to it.
Maybe it’s dealing with people like you every day people find the need to partake
Weed smells terrible.
That said IDC if people want to smoke the Peruvian parsley.
How to proclaim that you don't understand the global pharmaceutical market without explicitly saying so.
Now do synthetic opioid development, mescaline research, GHB, and others, which clearly must have no research underway at all because they are on Schedule 1.
First of all, synthetic opioids are not all schedule 1. Hydrocodone, methadone, hydromorphone, meperidine, oxycodone/OxyContin, and fentanyl are all Schedule 2.
Hell, cocaine and meth are schedule 2.
As for GHB, the DEA authorized Xyrem, which contains GHB, to be prescribed as a Schedule III. But they strictly control its distribution. Edit to add, clinical research into it happened decades before it was made a schedule 1 drug. It wasn’t made a schedule 1 until 2000. That is why there were carve-outs for GHB-containing pharmaceuticals.
As for mescaline, the only international studies I’m aware of are funded independent research institutes or universities. Please inform us of which pharma companies are dumping money into?
Last edited:
The hazards of editing. I had originally written "not doing synthetic opioids because heroin is schedule 1", then dropped the heroin reference because it didn't flow with the rest of the sentence. I assumed the reader would be smart enough to get the inference. It seems that I was mistaken.
None, because, you know, the whole "pharmaceutical use" bit is a dodge. However, as you admit there is research going on with mescaline, it would seem to render your "you can't do research on schedule 1 drugs" theme moot. The existence of legitimate, reproducible medical benefits would create a market for legal synthetic cannabinoids analogous to the market for synthetic opioids. The lack of real benefits is why big Pharma isn't pushing it.
