Forget Immigrants Here, I'm going to Mexico!!!

[Qwikshot]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/28/mexico.drugs.ap/index.html

Mexico set to legalize personal amounts of pot, cocaine, heroin:eek:

Friday, April 28, 2006; Posted: 10:10 p.m. EDT (02:10 GMT)


Excerpts from changes approved Friday by Mexico's Senate to the country's Federal Penal Code:

Article 478: No criminal prosecution will be brought against:

I. Any person in possession of medications which contain substances classified as narcotics ... when these medications, in their nature and amounts, are those necessary for the treatment of the individual or persons in his custody or care.

II. Any drug addict or consumer who is found in possession of a narcotic for personal use.

Article 474: (Defines a "consumer" as):
Any person who consumes or uses psychotropic or narcotic substances, and who does not exhibit any symptoms of addiction.

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico's Congress on Friday approved a bill decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and even heroin for personal use, prompting U.S. criticism that the measure could harm anti-drug efforts.

The only step remaining was the signature of President Vicente Fox, whose office indicated he would sign the bill, which Mexican officials hope will allow police to focus on large-scale trafficking operations rather than minor drug busts.

"This law gives police and prosecutors better legal tools to combat drug crimes that do so much damage to our youth and children," said Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar.

If Fox signs the measure and it becomes law, it could strain the two countries' cooperation in anti-drug efforts -- and increase the vast numbers of vacationing students who visit Mexico.

Oscar Aguilar, a Mexico City political analyst, said Fox appeared almost certain to sign the law -- his office proposed it, and his party supports it -- and that he had apparently been betting that it would not draw much notice.

"That's probably why they (the senators) passed it the way they did, in the closing hours of the final session," Aguilar said. "He's going to sign it. ... He's not going to abandon his party two months before the (presidential) election."

U.S. officials scrambled to come up with a response to the bill. One U.S. diplomat who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly said "we're still studying the legislation, but any effort to decriminalize illegal drugs would not be helpful."

The bill, passed 53-26 with one abstention by Mexico's Senate in the early morning hours, already has been approved in the lower house of Congress. It also stiffens penalties for trafficking and possession of drugs -- even small quantities -- by government employees or near schools, and maintains criminal penalties for drug sales.

The bill says criminal charges will no longer be brought for possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine -- the equivalent of about 4 "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity (though half-size packages are becoming more common).

"No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," according to the Senate bill, which also lays out allowable quantities for an array of other drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and amphetamines.

Some of the amounts are eye-popping: Mexicans would be allowed to possess more than two pounds of peyote, the button-size hallucinogenic cactus used in some native Indian religious ceremonies.

Mexican law now leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they are considered addicts and if "the amount is the quantity necessary for personal use." But the exemption is not automatic. The new bill drops the "addict" requirement -- automatically allowing any "consumers" to have drugs -- and sets out specific allowable quantities.

Mexican officials declined to explain how the law would work -- including whether drug use in public would be tolerated, or discouraged by other means.

The law was defended by Mexican legislators -- and greeted with glee by U.S. legalization advocates.

"We can't close our eyes to this reality," said Sen. Jorge Zermeno, of Fox's conservative National Action Party. "We cannot continue to fill our jails with people who have addictions."

Ethan Nadelmann, director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, said the bill removed "a huge opportunity for low-level police corruption." In Mexico, police often release people detained for minor drug possession, in exchange for bribes.

Selling all these drugs would remain illegal under the proposed law, unlike the Netherlands, where the sale of marijuana for medical use is legal and it can be bought with a prescription in pharmacies. While Dutch authorities look the other way regarding the open sale of cannabis in designated coffee shops -- something Mexican police seem unlikely to do -- the Dutch have zero tolerance for heroin and cocaine. In both countries, commercial growing of marijuana is outlawed.

In Colombia, a 1994 court ruling decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of cocaine, heroin and other drugs.

The effects in Mexico could be significant, given that the country is rapidly becoming a drug-consuming nation as well as a shipment point for traffickers, and given the number of U.S. students who flock to border cities or resorts like Cancun and Acapulco on vacation.

"This is going to increase addictions in Mexico," said Ulisis Bon, a drug treatment expert in Tijuana, where heroin use is rampant. "A lot of Americans already come here to buy medications they can't get up there ... Just imagine, with heroin."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Critch]

You better get there before they build a fence.

[Greyroofoo]

perhaps people will stay in Mexico from now on

[Qwikshot]

Sure ain't gonna help the war on drugs...

[Glengoyne]

Way to partner up in the War against Drugs.

[CamEdwards]

or perhaps we'll see more addicts as immigrants.

[Glengoyne]

or perhaps we'll see more addicts as immigrants.

Nicely done.

[chinaski]

Pot i can understand, but 2 of the most destructive drugs in the world? im not sure why Mexico should piss me off, when Bush invades the largest known producer of poppy and guess what? they are still the largest known producer of poppy. We can bomb wedding parties but not kill the afghan poppy "warlords"? bullshit all around. mexico you suck.

[astrosfan64]

Sure ain't gonna help the war on drugs...

Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum.

The war on drugs is not real. Cigs are legal, alcohol which is the worst drug of them all is legal.

Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal. Some kind of war?

[Qwikshot]

Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum.

The war on drugs is not real. Cigs are legal, alcohol which is the worst drug of them all is legal.

Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal. Some kind of war?

you aren't too smart yourself dickhead...unlike the Netherlands, I highly doubt that Mexico will be as capable of the restraints with such legalization. Go back to watching the Astros.

[Glengoyne]

...

The war on drugs is not real. Cigs are legal, alcohol which is the worst drug of them all is legal.

Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal. Some kind of war?

/cough Bullshit /cough

[timmynausea]

The War on Drugs was so close to finally eradicating drug use and now Mexico does this?!??!

[cartman]

I'd argue that this move will actually help the "war on drugs". The vast majority of time and effort is spent prosecuting people with miniscule amounts of the drugs, which most of the time are in amounts that are clearly for personal use. The zero-tolerance approach has not reduced drug use appreciably. If you divert these resources into fighting the production and distribution, which the Mexicans say was the reasoning behind this, that will go a lot longer way towards the battle, than locking someone away for a few years for possessing a dimebag, or a couple of rocks of crack.

My personal view is that we should also legalize the personal sized amounts, and turn it into a revenue stream via taxes. It makes no sense to me to lock someone away for say, five years, costing taxpayers a minimum of $35K per year, for possessing an amount of a drug that is worth maybe $50 or $100.

[Qwikshot]

Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum.

The war on drugs is not real. Cigs are legal, alcohol which is the worst drug of them all is legal.

Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal. Some kind of war?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i107/qwikshot1975/hippies.gif

[chinaski]

I'd argue that this move will actually help the "war on drugs". The vast majority of time and effort is spent prosecuting people with miniscule amounts of the drugs, which most of the time are in amounts that are clearly for personal use. The zero-tolerance approach has not reduced drug use appreciably. If you divert these resources into fighting the production and distribution, which the Mexicans say was the reasoning behind this, that will go a lot longer way towards the battle, than locking someone away for a few years for possessing a dimebag, or a couple of rocks of crack.

My personal view is that we should also legalize the personal sized amounts, and turn it into a revenue stream via taxes. It makes no sense to me to lock someone away for say, five years, costing taxpayers a minimum of $35K per year, for possessing an amount of a drug that is worth maybe $50 or $100.

Ive always felt that way. But when I see the USA invade Afghanistan and then not do one single thing about heroin production there, i just throw my hands up and say WTF? All heroin inside the united states is imported. Since we invaded Afghanistan, not only have we done nothing about it - the production has DOUBLED. We literally have the ability to destroy heroin abuse in the USA - we do nothing. Its issues like this that just make me hate this administration. hypocrites thru and thru. yea women in a muslim country are supposedly free, but lets go ahead and keep this poison flowing to america. were at the source, weve let it double in size. how is this possible?

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/heroin.htm

[Glengoyne]

Ive always felt that way. But when I see the USA invade Afghanistan and then not do one single thing about heroin production there, i just throw my hands up and say WTF? All heroin inside the united states is imported. Since we invaded Afghanistan, not only have we done nothing about it - the production has DOUBLED. We literally have the ability to destroy heroin abuse in the USA - we do nothing. Its issues like this that just make me hate this administration. hypocrites thru and thru. yea women in a muslim country are supposedly free, but lets go ahead and keep this poison flowing to america. were at the source, weve let it double in size. how is this possible?

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/heroin.htm
The Taliban had actually done more to curtail the opium trade than we are doing now. That is really the main thing I regret about Iraq...we should have taken care of business in Afghanistan FIRST.

[Glengoyne]

Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum.

The war on drugs is not real. Cigs are legal, alcohol which is the worst drug of them all is legal.

Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal. Some kind of war?

You know what. I think I misunderstood this post.

That bit with the "Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum." I'm guessing you meant that as sort of like a title for your post. Sort of like the first sentence in a paragraph.

[chinaski]

It is actually worse than that. The Taliban had actually done more to curtail the opium trade than we are doing now.

i know :( We made special concessions to the "warlords" since they control mass areas of Afghanistan. "You guys be good terrorists and we'll ignore your poppy production" about sums it up.

[Qwikshot]

The title was said in jest...

[JonInMiddleGA]

50 foot wall, 15 feet inside the entire length of the border. And that 15 feet gets sown liberally with claymore mines and white phosphorous grenades on trip wires.

Alternately, perhaps there IS a positive in this after all. We simply bus all of the prisoners currently being held on drug posession charges to sites along the border and carefully explain the new legalization laws in Mexico. Give 'em some water & some fake ID's and let nature take its course.

[Qwikshot]

50 foot wall, 15 feet inside the entire length of the border. And that 15 feet gets sown liberally with claymore mines and white phosphorous grenades on trip wires.

Alternately, perhaps there IS a positive in this after all. We simply bus all of the prisoners currently being held on drug posession charges to sites along the border and carefully explain the new legalization laws in Mexico. Give 'em some water & some fake ID's and let nature take its course.

Are you George Carlin?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are you George Carlin?

Nah, more like Michael Savage (except that I don't push the 1 barrel per illegal "tax" simply because it's a great idea that wouldn't fly)

[JW]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/28/mexico.drugs.ap/index.html

Mexico set to legalize personal amounts of pot, cocaine, heroin:eek:

.

You may not want to live in Mexico. Despite its great concern for the treatment of Mexicans in the US, Mexico's treatment of immigrants to Mexico, illegal and legal, leaves much to be desired. There is a great deal of irony there.

A couple of links and excerpts:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_mistreating_migrants;_ylt=A86.I1weCkhE6CsB3BYQr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

, Mexico - Considered felons by the government, these migrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take their money.

While migrants in the United States have held huge demonstrations in recent weeks, the hundreds of thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico suffer mostly in silence.

And though Mexico demands humane treatment for its citizens who migrate to the U.S., regardless of their legal status, Mexico provides few protections for migrants on its own soil....

...The National Human Rights Commission, a government-funded agency, documented the abuses south of the U.S. border in a December report.

"One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues is the contradiction in demanding that the North respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South," commission president Jose Luis Soberanes said.

In the United States, mostly Mexican immigrants have staged rallies pressuring Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants rather than making them felons and deputizing police to deport them. The Mexican government has spoken out in support of the immigrants' cause....

...Although Mexico objects to U.S. authorities detaining Mexican immigrants, police and soldiers usually cause the most trouble for migrants in Mexico, even though they aren't technically authorized to enforce immigration laws.

And while Mexicans denounce the criminalization of their citizens living without papers in the United States, Mexican law classifies undocumented immigration as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico

Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants. Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. In cases of flagrante delicto, such as a person declaring they entered the country illegally, any citzen may make a citzen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. [1]. Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. Foreigners can serve in the military only during wartime [2].

[astrosfan64]

You know what. I think I misunderstood this post.

That bit with the "Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum." I'm guessing you meant that as sort of like a title for your post. Sort of like the first sentence in a paragraph.

Do you drink?

[Tom E]

This is a CIA led mission, the idea is to get Mexicans addicted to drugs and therefore not wanting to leave Mexico...

Ever try running through the Mexico/Arizona border, dope sick in 105 Degree heat...

[AlexB]

The War on Drugs was so close to finally eradicating drug use and now Mexico does this?!??!

Edit: upon re-reading, no doubt that this is indeed irony - :D. Good work fella!

[M GO BLUE!!!]

or perhaps we'll see more addicts as immigrants.
The legalization of drugs will not create more addicts. It's not like someone who would scoff at the notion of stabbing themself in the arm with a speedball would up and say "Well, it is legal, I might as well give it a go!" In fact, making something illegal tends to attract people more than legalization. Look at how prohibition affected drinking...

[Dutch]

The legalization of drugs will not create more addicts. It's not like someone who would scoff at the notion of stabbing themself in the arm with a speedball would up and say "Well, it is legal, I might as well give it a go!" In fact, making something illegal tends to attract people more than legalization. Look at how prohibition affected drinking...

I'm not sure beer would be more popular if it were illegal.

[Crapshoot]

Way to partner up in the War against Drugs.

Yes, because that's worked real well. Should we ban cigarettes ? They sure as hell kill more people than drugs. (Lung Cancer - perhaps you've heard of it ?)

[Glengoyne]

Do you drink?

Probably less often than you smoke pot.

[MrBigglesworth]

You know what. I think I misunderstood this post.

That bit with the "Dumbest statement ever uttered on this message forum." I'm guessing you meant that as sort of like a title for your post. Sort of like the first sentence in a paragraph.
What do you take issue with?

"Cigs are legal" ~ This is objectively true

"...alcohol which is the worst drug of them all is legal." ~ This depends on what criteria you are using. If you had to be addicted to something, alcohol would be better than cocaine. And cigarettes probably end up killing more people. But alcohol kills more innocent people, and kills more people earlier in their lives, which could potentially make it the worst drug.

"Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal." ~ Pot has been shown to have medicinal purposes, while at the same time not being addicting.

[WVUFAN]

What do you take issue with?

"Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal." ~ Pot has been shown to have medicinal purposes, while at the same time not being addicting.

You can't get drunk when you're just in the same room as someone who drinks. You can, however, get high by being in the same room as someone who smokes pot. That's the big difference, to me.

[chinaski]

You can't get drunk when you're just in the same room as someone who drinks. You can, however, get high by being in the same room as someone who smokes pot. That's the big difference, to me.

thats completely, categorically false. maybe if you were locked into a sealed room and that room was filled with a couple ounces worth of smoke, maybe.

[sabotai]

Completely anacdotal, but the only people i have ever heard claim that they got high just by being in a room of people smoking or just by being around pot smoke are people I knew for a fact had never actually smoked pot.

In my experience, you can't get high just by being in the same room as people smoking pot.

[chinaski]

i think its a wrestling fan thing, theyll believe anything. *zinger*

[ISiddiqui]

Good for Mexico! I hope the US adopts similar measures. Actually I hope we end this utter drain of money call the drug war and actually give a shit about people's liberty instead of coddling them like the nanny state we are.

[MrBigglesworth]

You can't get drunk when you're just in the same room as someone who drinks. You can, however, get high by being in the same room as someone who smokes pot. That's the big difference, to me.
That's not true in my experience, but even if it is, it doesn't argue the point that pot is the most helpful of drugs.

[IwasHere]

"Pot which is probably the most helpful of the banned drugs isn't legal." ~ Pot has been shown to have medicinal purposes, while at the same time not being addicting.
Please show me one Scientific Study that proves Pot has medicinal purposes. Just one medical study that proves Pot can cure Anything at all. Maybe you need to go out back to the woodshed and take a swig of grannies rheumatism medicine before you answer this question.:D

not being addicting
Your kidding right? I have seen many Pot-Heads that would disagree with you here.

[astrosfan64]

Probably less often than you smoke pot.

You are assuming that I smoke pot. I do not smoke pot because it is illegal and my company drug tests. Do I wish I could? Yes... I would much rather smoke herb then drink...

[ISiddiqui]

Please show me one Scientific Study that proves Pot has medicinal purposes. Just one medical study that proves Pot can cure Anything at all. Maybe you need to go out back to the woodshed and take a swig of grannies rheumatism medicine before you answer this question.:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana

has a list of studies.

not being addicting
Your kidding right? I have seen many Pot-Heads that would disagree with you here.

Marijuana is not physically addictive. It may be psychologically addictive.

[MrBigglesworth]

Please show me one Scientific Study that proves Pot has medicinal purposes. Just one medical study that proves Pot can cure Anything at all. Maybe you need to go out back to the woodshed and take a swig of grannies rheumatism medicine before you answer this question.:D

not being addicting
Your kidding right? I have seen many Pot-Heads that would disagree with you here.
How does it feel to be so arrogant and then have all credibility completely taken away by ISiddiqui? http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[JW]

Although there is debate about the exact nature of marijuana addiction, there is little disagreement among serious researchers that it can be psychologically addictive. There is also growing evidence that some marijuana users experience signs of physical addiction. So it is incorrect to use a blanket phrase such as it is not addictive or not physically addictive. There is also growing evidence of health problems associated with marijuana use. Links below for a range of serious view on marijuana.

Btw, I believe marijuana should be decriminalized and support medicinal use of marijuana and more research into medical uses.

http://www.thecampuschronicle.com/features/articles/030516h.cfm

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp

http://www.nyu.edu/nyuhc/faq-aod.html

http://mothra.uhs.wisc.edu/display_story.jsp?id=736&cat_id=38

http://www.advance.uconn.edu/2006/060424/06042409.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/marijuana.html

[Dutch]

How long are you high after you smoke pot? What are the side-effects of smoking pot?

(Seriously, I haven't smoked pot since high school and not very much and cannot honestly remember if it was okay to drive a car or function in a school/job enviroment well or not.)

[MrBigglesworth]

Although there is debate about the exact nature of marijuana addiction, there is little disagreement among serious researchers that it can be psychologically addictive. There is also growing evidence that some marijuana users experience signs of physical addiction. So it is incorrect to use a blanket phrase such as it is not addictive or not physically addictive. There is also growing evidence of health problems associated with marijuana use. Links below for a range of serious view on marijuana.

Btw, I believe marijuana should be decriminalized and support medicinal use of marijuana and more research into medical uses.

http://www.thecampuschronicle.com/features/articles/030516h.cfm

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/marijuana.asp

http://www.nyu.edu/nyuhc/faq-aod.html

http://mothra.uhs.wisc.edu/display_story.jsp?id=736&cat_id=38

http://www.advance.uconn.edu/2006/060424/06042409.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/marijuana.html
Virtually anything can be psychologically addictive. Gambling, pizza, sex, etc.

[JeeberD]

I thought I heard a blurb on the news the other day that an recent FDA study said that marijuana has no medicinal properties?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought I heard a blurb on the news the other day that an recent FDA study said that marijuana has no medicinal properties?

Here's your linkage (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-0604210148apr21,0,3277926.story?coll=sfla-newsnation-front)

[MrBigglesworth]

I thought I heard a blurb on the news the other day that an recent FDA study said that marijuana has no medicinal properties?
Incorrect, the FDA has approved marijuana's active ingredient, THC. It's known as Marinol, and is prescribed for chemotherapy and AIDS patients. What the FDA said is that they don't recommend smoking marijuana, which makes sense because smoking is just bad in general and not a good medicine delivery system specifically. Marijuana also helps alleviate the symptoms of glaucoma, but I don't know if it has to be smoked or not for that, and obviously has side effects.

[Masked]

Here is an article from some radical publication that discusses medicinal marijuana.

Reefer madness: Marijuana is medically useful, whether politicians like it or not

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915p

The bottom line is that numerous scientific studies has shown that marijuana has legitimate medicinal uses that have not been successfully replicated with other compounds. Numerous currently approved medications are far more addictive than marijuana.

[Masked]

To me, this is just another example of politcs intruding upon science. The use of marijuana for medical purposes is being decided not by the medical community but by politicians who frequently demonstrate complete ignorance when it comes to science and medicine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The use of marijuana for medical purposes is being decided not by the medical community ...

The pot advocates really don't want that to happen either, given that the AMA has said that there is not enough evidence to support the use of so-called "medical marijuana".

(Same thing that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has said too.)

[MrBigglesworth]

The pot advocates really don't want that to happen either, given that the AMA has said that there is not enough evidence to support the use of so-called "medical marijuana".
That's one way to say it. Another way would be that they advocate more research on the topic and want penalties on marijuana possession lowered.

(1) The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease. (2) the AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies. (3) The AMA urges the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana. This effort should include: a) disseminating specific information for researchers on the development of safeguards for marijuana clinical research protocols and the development of a model informed consent on marijuana for institutional review board evaluation; b) sufficient funding to support such clinical research and access for qualified investigators to adequate supplies of marijuana for clinical research purposes; c) confirming that marijuana of various and consistent strengths and/or placebo will be supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to investigators registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency who are conducting bona fide clinical research studies that receive Food and Drug Administration approval, regardless of whether or not the NIH is the primary source of grant support. (4) The AMA believes that the NIH should use its resources and influence to support the development of a smoke-free inhaled delivery system for marijuana or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to reduce the health hazards associated with the combustion and inhalation of marijuana. (5) The AMA believes that effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives and that discussion of these alternatives between physicians and patients should not subject either party to criminal sanctions
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13651.html

What we do know is that THC helps a lot of patients with a lot of things. In most cases it looks like other forms of the drug are more potent than smoking it, but more reasearch needs to be done. That's the AMA's stance, anyway. JiMG's informed opinion is probably different.

[Glengoyne]

You are assuming that I smoke pot. I do not smoke pot because it is illegal and my company drug tests. Do I wish I could? Yes... I would much rather smoke herb then drink...

I thought I responded to this yesterday, but perhaps I just never hit submit.

In any case. I think it was a pretty safe bet that you either smoked currently or had done so in sigificant amounts in the past. Most people who pull out the "Pot is safer than alcohol" card are current or former users/abusers. I respect the opinion of folks who say that drugs should be legalized because we waste a huge amount of money in the war on drugs. I don't feel the same way about the people in your camp.

As for pot not being harmful or addictive, I've seen more than a few people waste away on pot.

[Qwikshot]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i107/qwikshot1975/images.jpg

[JonInMiddleGA]

What we do know is that THC helps a lot of patients with a lot of things.

What you're omitting is that the preferred delivery of THC is the synthetic form of the chemical, not smoking pot.

[MrBigglesworth]

What you're omitting is that the preferred delivery of THC is the synthetic form of the chemical, not smoking pot.
What the FDA said is that they don't recommend smoking marijuana, which makes sense because smoking is just bad in general and not a good medicine delivery system specifically.
I think some applications of the drug need it to be inhaled to be effective (glaucoma maybe?), or at the very least more research needs to be done to determine if the synthetic or tablet forms of THC produce better results. I know that Marinol has been found to be more effective in AIDS and chemotherapy patients.

[IwasHere]

Bad news for the Druggies of the world....

The President of Mexico changed his mind at the last minute and did NOT sign the bill. Sorry, you can't get your legal drugs in mexico.

[lungs]

Bad news for the Druggies of the world....

The President of Mexico changed his mind at the last minute and did NOT sign the bill. Sorry, you can't get your legal drugs in mexico.

Good thing law enforcement can be bought off down there.

[MrBigglesworth]

Interesting...

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

THC apparently helps nurture cell death of aging cells, so that they do not become cancerous.