Althouse: "When my mother-in-law was in the final, harrowing throes of pancreatic cancer, she had only one good day..."

December 11, 2011

"When my mother-in-law was in the final, harrowing throes of pancreatic cancer, she had only one good day..."

"... and that was the day she smoked pot."

98 comments:

Tregonsee said...: I wonder if it was in fact the pot? It is not unusual for people in such condition to have seemingly miraculous remissions. I saw it happen on two occasions with a relative with cancer, no pot used. We hurried to enjoy the few special hours, whose memories I still treasure.; 12/11/11, 8:27 AM
TWM said...: Anecdotes. The stuff great laws/policy is made of.; 12/11/11, 8:33 AM
madAsHell said...: A little pot with the opiates?

Yeah, I'll bet it was a special day.; 12/11/11, 8:34 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: I'm a little skeptical of all the hype around marijuana as some kind of miracle drug. Have there been any clinical studies on it from places where it's legal, like Holland, or are emotionally satisfying anecdotes all we have to go on?; 12/11/11, 8:35 AM
HT said...: Read the piece, it was the pot. Nice article. But, narcotics should not be flushed down the toidy. I think they can either be taken back to the pharmacy (and the DEA has take-back days every year) or if you must throw them away, bag them first then trash them.; 12/11/11, 8:36 AM
Phil 314 said...: I've become pretty liberal in my views regarding marijuana (not a user) BUT

MUST WE MEDICALIZE IT!; 12/11/11, 8:37 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Anecdotes. The stuff great laws/policy is made of.

You don't even need real anecdotes. They can be completely fictional. For example, "The China Syndrome." That helped us think clearly.; 12/11/11, 8:42 AM
Ann Althouse said...: The problem with medical marijuana is that it's not limited to cancer patients with terrible appetite problems. You have this incredibly sympathetic patient, and of course you want to give this person whatever she needs, but look what you end up with. Everybody with a headache plus everyone who lies about having a headache.

Either make it available with a prescription for cancer patients with appetite problems, or let everyone buy it for whatever private reason they happen to have.; 12/11/11, 8:44 AM
Meade said...: Also, "Dreams From My Father" helped us make clear decisions.; 12/11/11, 8:47 AM
Curious George said...: "Meade said...
Also, "Dreams From My Father" helped us make clear decisions."

As clear as the reason coming out of Althouse. "They can be completely fictional."

Yep.; 12/11/11, 9:12 AM
m stone said...: Meade: Also, "Dreams From My Father" helped us make clear decisions.

Stick to pancakes.; 12/11/11, 9:16 AM
Wince said...: "These leaders have decided to repress this information because of the shock that it would cause to our antiquated systems."

George: Except that their society is more highly evolved. They don't have no wars. They got no monetary system. They don't have any leaders, because each man is a leader. Because of their technology...they're able to feed, clothe, house and transport themselves...equally and with no effort.

Billy: You know something? You want to know what I think? I think this is a crackpot idea. That's what I think. How about that? Think it's a crackpot idea. If they're so smart, why don't they reveal themselves...and get it over with?

George: Why don't they reveal themselves is because if they did...it'd cause a general panic.

Now, we still have leaders...upon whom we rely to release this information. These leaders have decided to repress this information because of the shock that it would cause to our antiquated systems.

Now, the result of this has been that the Venusians...have contacted people at all walks of life...all walks of life.

It would be a devastating blow to our antiquated systems.

Now Venusians are meeting with people in all walks of life...in an advisory capacity. For once, man will have a godlike control... over his own destiny. He'll have a chance to transcend...and to evolve
with some equality for all.

Capt America: How's your joint, George?

George: I believe it went out. I got to talking so much, I clean forgot about...

It went out.

Capt America: Save it and we'll do it tomorrow morning. It gives you a new way of looking at the day.

George: Well, I sure could use that. I sure could use a little of that.; 12/11/11, 9:18 AM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: What I recall about getting loaded is that it intensifies pain, as well as pleasure.; 12/11/11, 9:20 AM
pm317 said...: m stone said...

Meade: Also, "Dreams From My Father" helped us make clear decisions.

Stick to pancakes.
--------------------
m stone, LOL!

Yeah Meade, get back in the kitchen!; 12/11/11, 9:24 AM
robinintn said...: Probably everyone who's ever known a lawyer has heard this, but it was sort of a revelation to me the first time I heard it in a 1L Property class:

"Hard cases make bad law."

And yet the overwhelming percentage of comments over at the NYT are of the "stupid, evil losers who want people to suffer" variety. I'm hard pressed to refrain from drawing some preliminary, purely anecdotal, conclusions regarding the typical NYT commenter.; 12/11/11, 9:24 AM
Psychedelic George said...: Great article on placebos in the new New Yorker.

"Serious illnesses are affected by aesthetics, by art, and by the moral questions that are negotiated between practitioners and patients."

Just the thought of going to see a doctor makes one feel better. It's all about hope. Maybe if Obama put on a white coat....; 12/11/11, 9:28 AM
Curious George said...: Psychedelic George said...
Great article on placebos in the new New Yorker.

Just the thought of going to see a doctor makes one feel better. It's all about hope. Maybe if Obama put on a white coat....

Hmmm, you might be on to something!; 12/11/11, 9:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: But, narcotics should not be flushed down the toidy.

That's what happened to the morphine that my Mom was using in hospice. It seemed like a waste but I'm sure the fish below the sewage plant were happy.; 12/11/11, 9:38 AM
sakredkow said...: Anecdotes. The stuff great laws/policy is made of.

The law here is marijuana is illegal. Without the law marijuana is legal, for doctors, patients, for you and me.; 12/11/11, 9:58 AM
purplepenquin said...: The current US policy states that marijuana is more dangerous and more addictive than cocaine. Our legal system states that illegal gardeners should be punished more harshly than child molesters and rapists.

One really interesting thing about this issue is how it brings together people from all different political point-of-views...to either support the current policy (like Obama and Newt) or to oppose it (like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.)

What is also interesting is how so many of the people who support the current policy can't explain why it should be illegal for an adult to ingest an all-natural plant. I reckon they simply agree with the original reasons given for when marijuana was first outlawed but are too embarrassed to actually come out and say it...; 12/11/11, 10:02 AM
Irene said...: There are plenty of good prescription drugs on the market already that handle the appetite/nausea problem.

That observation is not anecdotal, and those are not drugs that appeal to fourteen-year olds.; 12/11/11, 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anecdotes. The stuff great laws/policy is made of."

Yes, then we can legalize it and call it "Mom's Law."

Marijuana should be legalized and distributed by doctors like any other drug. Or totally legalized, like alcohol.

But that's not what proponents want. They want to distribute the drug and be legalized drug dealers. One "clinic" owner on O'Reilly recently stated he grosses over $20 million a year. That's quite a living -- and so much safer than standing on street corners hawking nickel bags.; 12/11/11, 10:18 AM
garage mahal said...: Once again big government nanny staters know what's best for us. More than cancer patients and a clear majority of Americans.; 12/11/11, 10:21 AM
edutcher said...: The Blonde will tell you the same effect can be gained from medication administered IV push.

(I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating); 12/11/11, 10:22 AM
Snackeater said...: The thing that makes me question the motives of medical marijuana users is the way they insist it must be smoked.

Pharmaceutical companies can and do produce THC in pill form, but "patients" refuse to take it that way--they want to smoke it.

If it's just about the pain, seems to me taking it in pill form would suffice.; 12/11/11, 10:27 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The current US policy states that marijuana is more dangerous and more addictive than cocaine.

Throw in opioids and amphetamines too.

That is really part of the problem, in my mind. This, somewhat bad thing is banned, while much worse drugs are regulated and available via prescription.

All supposedly because Hearst wanted an advantage over his competitors who were using hemp for their papers.; 12/11/11, 10:30 AM
Tim said...: Ann Althouse said...

"The problem with medical marijuana is that it's not limited to cancer patients with terrible appetite problems. You have this incredibly sympathetic patient, and of course you want to give this person whatever she needs, but look what you end up with. Everybody with a headache plus everyone who lies about having a headache."

Yes, absolutely. The pain and suffering of people with terrible, painful and often terminal diseases has been leveraged to essentially immunize dopers from the legal consequences of their habit. Most people accessing "medical marijuana" are just losers unable to deal with the responsibilities of adult life.

There's no medication to cure that.; 12/11/11, 10:35 AM
Tim said...: "Once again big government nanny staters know what's best for us. More than cancer patients and a clear majority of Americans."

Ah, yes. So let's do something smart, and get the nanny state out of the way of economic productivity and wealth creation and repeal the Davis-Bacon and the National Labor Relations Acts, and go from there.

Something tells me you love THAT nanny state.; 12/11/11, 10:41 AM
bagoh20 said...: ""Anecdotes. The stuff great laws/policy is made of.

You don't even need real anecdotes. They can be completely fictional. For example, "The China Syndrome." That helped us think clearly."

Yes, which is exactly how we got where we are with pot being illegal - stuff like we saw in "Refer Madness".

Now that we are on the other side of propaganda fueled law, what do we do about it? We have half a century of extensive pot use in the U.S. I think we know exactly how it performs and how dangerous it is or isn't. Unlike when we made it illegal in the first place.; 12/11/11, 10:43 AM
bagoh20 said...: We also have half a century of law enforcement obsession with it. I think has pretty clearly been a waste of money, effort and civil rights.; 12/11/11, 10:45 AM
MayBee said...: The number of kids in my area who discover, on their 18th birthday, that they have glaucoma or migraines is just tragic. Who knew all these teens were in such pain?

There is no prescription option for alcohol.; 12/11/11, 10:50 AM
ndspinelli said...: The Obama administration is waging a war in California on legalized cannabis. The Mexican drug cartels are jumping for joy. There is a very good doc on Discovery Channel called Weed Wars. All fans of Obama should watch it and tell me what is going on.

The reasons for the war is 3 fold, in my opinion. Firstly, the liquor lobby hates pot. People who smoke simply drink less and they know that. The second is the law enforcement culture. legal pot takes away a big % of their biz. But, what I think is the 3rd and maybe most important reason is the assertion of the Federal govt. over state laws. 16 states have legal pot. This administration is doing an Al Haig in Ca, the first state to legalize. "We're in charge here..@ the White House." It's a pissing contest.

Ironically, The Ca. AG, a huge liberal from the Bay area, is outraged @ Holder and Obama. Be careful for whom you vote.; 12/11/11, 11:05 AM
ndspinelli said...: Cannabis works on pain quite well for some people. All people are wired differently. There are strains of cannabis that have low THC[psycohactive agent] but higher pain relief agents. The aforementioned documentary explains this better than I can. Cannaboid receptors in our nervous system are identical to opiate receptors. For some folks, opiates are not as effective as others because of poorly developed opiate receptors. Similarly, some people have cannaboid receptors that aren't as useful as others. So, opiates are indicated for some, cannabis for others.

I am reading the skeptics here. I read ALL comment. All I ask is you read and watch w/ an open mind. many of the comments here are simply uninformed.; 12/11/11, 11:14 AM
ndspinelli said...: Snackeater, you are flat ass wrong on the smoking part. About 30% of sales @ legal dispensaries are for edibles. There are lollipops for chemo patients who can't eat the cannabis cookies, brownies, candies. There are cannabis drinks. There is cannabis honey to put in tea. There are cannabis salves you apply to the pain area. Again, a lot of shooting from the hip here. I guess the professor set that tone on this post.; 12/11/11, 11:19 AM
cubanbob said...: Tim said...
"Once again big government nanny staters know what's best for us. More than cancer patients and a clear majority of Americans."

Ah, yes. So let's do something smart, and get the nanny state out of the way of economic productivity and wealth creation and repeal the Davis-Bacon and the National Labor Relations Acts, and go from there.

Something tells me you love THAT nanny state.

12/11/11 10:41 AM

Throw in the repeal of the Wagner Act and a National Right To Work Act and I would vote to legalize heroin.; 12/11/11, 11:33 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "The Obama administration is waging a war in California on legalized cannabis."

California does not that the power to "legalize" pot. The federal Controlled Substances Act applies and supervenes any efforts by California to adopt a contrary policy. Read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. It's pretty simple.; 12/11/11, 11:42 AM
TWM said...: "Anecdotes. The stuff great laws/policy is made of."

A few of you seem to be assuming I am against medical marijuana because of this statement. You're wrong.

Others seem to assume I'm against the total legalization of pot because of it. You're right.

What I am against is passing any law or creating any policy because one granny had one nice wasted day before she died.; 12/11/11, 11:52 AM
TWM said...: "Firstly, the liquor lobby hates pot. People who smoke simply drink less and they know that."

Are there statistics on this because back in my crazy college days I never lit one up without a beer. In fact, a party wasn't a party without both.; 12/11/11, 11:53 AM
Alex said...: The current US policy states that marijuana is more dangerous and more addictive than cocaine.

Indeed. The drug warriors justify it as somehow being a "gateway drug" to the harder stuff. A pot gardener is deserving of Gestapo tactics. The biggest political sub-group in support of the insane drug wars - Christian evangelicals.; 12/11/11, 11:55 AM
ndspinelli said...: Professor, I am well aware of the federal Controlled Substance Act. My bride and myself dealt w/ it in the real world. And, I learned in civics calls about the federal govt. having sway over state laws. I don't need a hissy professor to lecture me on that.

This is unrighteous. If it were a righteous assertion of constitutional authority then the Obama administration would be using the resources of the IRS and Justice Dept in the other 15 states. They are not. Last year Eric Holder sent a memo saying they would not apply the Federal Controlled Substance Act. Now they are, w/ avengance.

When you have unrighteous leaders, be they Presidents, Attorney Generals, bloggers, etc. then the rules change simply because "they're in charge." For people like me, I see the unrighteousness and try to deduce the motivation. It's never altruistic.

Your shoot from the hip comments about medical cannabis use was uninformed. Step up your game.; 12/11/11, 11:57 AM
Alex said...: I think Christians get some perverse sexual thrill from seeing people suffer when pot could alleviate the pain.; 12/11/11, 11:57 AM
TWM said...: "Firstly, the liquor lobby hates pot. People who smoke simply drink less and they know that."

Also, I'm pretty sure most people drink beer, wine,and various hard liquors for the taste as well as the buzz. Smoke gives just the latter so I don't see legal pot being a threat to the alcohol industry.; 12/11/11, 11:59 AM
Alex said...: I wish I could smoke pot. People say it has none of the nasty side effects of drinking liquor. It isn't addictive and you can't OD on it.; 12/11/11, 12:00 PM
ndspinelli said...: TWM, When you blow weed you often drink, but you drink less. That's not rocket science. The liquor lobby is painfully aware of this basic truth.

Diane Feinstein passed a law under unanimous consent last year doubling the penalties for edible cannabis. It was under the guise of "protecting the children." You see some kids might see a cannabis sucker, cookie and eat it. So..the kids then eats a few Twinkies and sleeps for 5 hours. Better than eating a bottle of vicodin.

One of Feinstein's biggest contributors is the wine lobby. As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money."; 12/11/11, 12:03 PM
TWM said...: "TWM, When you blow weed you often drink, but you drink less. That's not rocket science. The liquor lobby is painfully aware of this basic truth."

Seriously. There's been a study on this? You've polled every guy and gal who's smoked a joint and they said they drink less?

What about the guy who has a toke or two before the big beer bash? Or the retired couple who have one on the way to the wine tasting party? I could go on and on.

You're right, it's not rocket science, it's even less of an anecdote than granny buzzing out to the Grateful Dead on her deathbed.; 12/11/11, 12:08 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I thought my dad could have benefited from marijuana in his last few months, but he didn't pursue it.

I agree with this:

Either make it available with a prescription for cancer patients with appetite problems, or let everyone buy it for whatever private reason they happen to have.; 12/11/11, 12:21 PM
ndspinelli said...: TWM, A study @ the University of Colorado, conducted prior to medical cannabis being legalized in that state, found that cannabis use lowered alcohol consumption and subsequently lowered the # of accidents caused by DUI.

Then there's still that common sense thing. I guess when they were passing that out you were doing a doobie and missed it!; 12/11/11, 12:28 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 12:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: There are reasons to oppose things and they usually have competing reason to be supported. We can weight those and decide, but if one of your main reason is that you just hate people enjoying themselves in any way you don't share, then bite me. You may not know who you are, but it's not all that invisible to the rest of us.; 12/11/11, 12:31 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: On a much smaller scale, here's a conversation I had the other day:

"Hi, do you carry Sudafed?"
"Yes, we do."
"Okay, great. I need to buy a box of it."
"You have to have a prescription."
"For Sudafed?"
"Yes. We only sell it with a prescription."
"Okay. It's Sunday, so I don't think I can get a prescription today. What would you recommend instead of Sudafed for a pregnant woman?"
"Nothing."
"Nothing?"
"Nothing. You can only have Sudafed."
"Oh."

The drug war is annoying even at low, less controversial levels.; 12/11/11, 12:31 PM
ndspinelli said...: Freeman, Does your dad live in one of the 16 enlightened states? And, it works for more than just chemo patients. My prayers this morning for your father, and your family.

Freeman, my sister was 1 week short of having her first child when our dad had a massive stroke. It was horrible. But, a real peace came upon her through those tough times. An angel, The Good Lord, just that mother instinct, I don't know. She had a beautiful daughter during those dark days. Dad died 2 weeks later. My prayers go to Saint Gerard for you, girl.; 12/11/11, 12:35 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Freeman, Does your dad live in one of the 16 enlightened states? And, it works for more than just chemo patients. My prayers this morning for your father, and your family.

He's been dead for a bit over a year, but thank you all the same.

No, he would not have been able to get it with a prescription, but he could have gotten it anyway.; 12/11/11, 12:43 PM
MayBee said...: Either make it available with a prescription for cancer patients with appetite problems, or let everyone buy it for whatever private reason they happen to have.

Agreed.

The drug war is annoying even at low, less controversial levels.

Amen.
The war on making meth also pushes people toward buying OTC drugs that don't even do anything. You go into the store and buy Claritin and think it's going to help, only to find out the real Claritin is now Claritin-D (or something) and you have to show ID to get it.; 12/11/11, 12:45 PM
ndspinelli said...: Freeman, I know your frustration but here's some background. It may not help you today, but knowledge is power.

You're probably too young to remember quaaludes. They were a barbituate prescribed in the 1970's. Well..they were quite good recreationally. When a supply would hit a campus it was called a "Quaalude Front" sweeping in and taking over the climate. Lots of folks locked on the sofa watching Mr. Rogers.

It became an epidemic. The DEA went to the manufacturer[Rorer] and said, listen there are plenty of other effective barbituates that aren't abused can you take this off the market. Now..it was believed by many that the DEA said to Rorer, "If you do this one for us we'll owe you one." A quid pro quo as it were. That is just conjecture. But, Rorer stopped making it.

Fast forward to about 8 years ago or so. The ephedrine in over the counter drugs is used for meth, as you know. Meth cookers would go into drug stors and buy evry Sudafed on the shelf. Again the DEA went to the drug companies using ephedrine and asked the same favor. The DEA was told to go shit in their hat..this is a billion $ product. They did agree to have it behind the counter rather than over the counter.

NONE of this is going to help you this day, prego. Try some saline nasal spray.; 12/11/11, 12:47 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 1:10 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 1:14 PM
mariner said...: Maguro,
I'm a little skeptical of all the hype around marijuana as some kind of miracle drug.

I'm even more skeptical of the hype around marijuana as an evil gateway drug, yet we have SWAT teams kicking in doors and murdering people because there MAY be a little of it in the house.; 12/11/11, 1:22 PM
TWM said...: "TWM, A study @ the University of Colorado, conducted prior to medical cannabis being legalized in that state, found that cannabis use lowered alcohol consumption and subsequently lowered the # of accidents caused by DUI."

Got a link?

Actually, I was thinking of qualifying my earlier posts (but got busy) by saying that I can see how someone who is smoking pot to extreme, might indeed not drink much alcohol as they are so stoned not much else matters but a McDonald's double cheeseburger. I don't however believe that a couple of tokes on a joint is going to have any measurable affect on casual users who enjoy alcohol.

That said, again, got a link?; 12/11/11, 1:41 PM
TWM said...: "It's generally a good idea not to enact legislation on account of anecdotes.

So just how did we get Federal prohibition of marijuana?

And before that, Federal prohibition of opiates?

Was all manner of deep science conducted first?"

Haven't a clue. But even if it was, much time has passed so new studies may or may not be different from what they came up with back then.; 12/11/11, 1:42 PM
bagoh20 said...: "What I am against is passing any law or creating any policy because one granny had one nice wasted day before she died."

Sorry, but that's just willfully stupid. I don't think the successful uses are limited to just that one lady. So how about if millions could get relief?

"marijuana as some kind of miracle drug"

Most drugs, even those considered miracle drugs have pretty limited effectiveness, yet still help millions most of the time enough to be worth spending your hard earned money on - assuming someone else who does not need it hasn't made the decision for you because they know better what you need to relieve your suffering. They're experts, so you're just supposed to shut up and suffer.; 12/11/11, 1:47 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: "I 'm even more skeptical of the hype around marijuana as an evil gateway drug, yet we have SWAT teams kicking in doors and murdering people because there MAY be a little of it in the house."

I don't disagree with you there, but that's an argument that should be able to stand on its own merit - there's no need for legalization proponents to hide behind the skirts of terminal cancer patients.; 12/11/11, 1:51 PM
Ralph L said...: Maybe the title speaker thought it was a good day from the second hand smoke.

I tried that Ensure stuff once years ago. It was like drinking plastic. Not as bad as the colon lavage poison, however.; 12/11/11, 1:52 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 1:53 PM
Ralph L said...: Obama can go after California potheads because he knows they'll vote for him anyway.; 12/11/11, 1:55 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 2:00 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, but look what the Drug War has done for the Texas economy.

Our feral gummit ships military grade small arms to Mexico. The soldiers defect to the cartels, bringing their weaponry. The cartels take over whole neighborhoods and small cities (e.g. Miguel Aleman, Tamps.).

Law abiding Mexicans who can afford it flee to the US for safety.

That, and drug money being parked by the cartels, has kept the price of real estate here on the border from crashing like most of the rest of the country.; 12/11/11, 2:02 PM
ndspinelli said...: TWM, The Study is titled: Medical Marijuana, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption. It was conducted by Mark Anderson and Daniel Rees. It was conducted in conjunction w/ IZA an institute for the study of labor. You can find the study @ www.iza.org.

In the 1990's the Labor Dept., I believe in conjunction w/ the NIH conducted an extensive study of drug and alcohol consumption. They hired a lot of people and looked for intreviewers w/ skills to get folks to open up honestly. A woman PI who worked for me for ~10 years did some contract work for the labor Dept. doing these studies. It was very good because it wasn't just an interview. There were follow-up interviews over several years. She said it was fascinating. I never sat in on any of these w/ her but knowing her skills I'm certain she got people to really open up.

It's my recollection the study by Anderson and Rees used some of the data from this aformentioned Labor Dept. study. But, it's available online, you can read it.

And, as you might imagine, the addition of cannabis to the Controlled Substance Act was because of wierd science and racial prejudice. You know those Negroes, like Crack, were smoking it...so you know it's satan weed!; 12/11/11, 2:04 PM
Dante said...: If someone is dying, who cares what they do? And for that matter, this monopoly on drugs by Doctors is a shame. I'd like to walk around with an ampule of morphine for the inevitable day I have a heart attack, and experience pain like I've never imagined.; 12/11/11, 2:07 PM
ndspinelli said...: RalphL, You may be right. This may be a way to get the social conservative independents. However, if that's their thinking, what might happen is the potheads just light up a blunt on election day and play video games and say "fuck you" instead of voting. They're playing w/ fire here.; 12/11/11, 2:08 PM
Levi Starks said...: Once the government decides that it has the obligation to care for its' citizens health from cradle to grave, then it has an obligation to control behaviors which it deems to be negative.
Not that anyone is ever going to actually die in the future; 12/11/11, 2:14 PM
ndspinelli said...: Dante, You may also want that ampule[or 5] w/ you in case you ever get a kidney stone. I was struck down like St. Paul in an Einstein bagels w/ one. A paramedic who happened to know me diagnosed it immediately. He radioed the hospital and got the ok for morphine. But, he said to me, "Dude, this will just take the edge off, they'll give you the real stuff in the ER." He was right. When men get a kidney stone they have a bonding experience w/ female nurses. A couple said to me, "You now know how your wife felt giving birth." I'm told the only pain worse is 2nd and 3rd degree burns.; 12/11/11, 2:19 PM
Revenant said...: Have there been any clinical studies on it from places where it's legal, like Holland

Marijuana isn't legal in Holland. It is decriminalized for private use.

That being said... do we actually NEED a study to establish that smoking pot makes you feel good and stimulates appetite? Maybe when we're done with that one we can do a study on whether chocolate tastes better than rice crackers.; 12/11/11, 2:29 PM
Revenant said...: Pharmaceutical companies can and do produce THC in pill form, but "patients" refuse to take it that way--they want to smoke it.

If it's just about the pain, seems to me taking it in pill form would suffice.

I was going to list the reasons why Marinol is generally an inferior alternative, but this page at NORML's site pretty much covers it.

The major factors are cost, no dose control, difficulty in nauseous people swallowing pills, and lack of the other analgesic compounds found in marijuana.

Ironically, Marinol is much better than pot if you want to get really high. It just isn't as useful for other purposes.; 12/11/11, 2:40 PM
Ralph L said...: St. Paul in an Einstein bagels
That's taking transubstantiation too far.

I thought 3rd degree burns don't hurt because the nerve ending is killed. The area around it may be terrible, I would think.; 12/11/11, 3:03 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 3:21 PM
ndspinelli said...: RalphL, I had to look up transsubstantiation then it was lol.

Here's a seredipitious benefit. The cannabis used to stimulate appetite for chemo, AIDS patients is sativa. The cannabis used for pain is indica, which does not stimulate your appetite nearly as much. There are also hybrids that work for different diseases. There is so new encouraging resarch on hybrids helping Parkinson's patients. It is inconclusive so far.; 12/11/11, 3:29 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 3:37 PM
ndspinelli said...: sorepaw, Absolutely correct. Good job using your head and not just quoting the law like a legal robot.; 12/11/11, 4:11 PM
jamboree said...: Steve Jobs was a fairly well known weed user from way back. I'm wondering if that helped or hurt (by building up a tolerance).

I'm not really a weed person - nor was I ever. I think if I were, I'd still get weed illegally because the idea of having to go whine to a doctor about anxiety or trouble sleeping to get my weed semi-legally at a collective offends me.

The idea that it has to be verifiably medicinal, rather than pleasurable, for people to have access to it offends me.

But then, the Starbucks variety and potency of the legal weed apparently blew away the competition so I'm not sure.; 12/11/11, 4:14 PM
Psychedelic George said...: This year, Harvard created an institute dedicated wholly to the study of placebos, the Program in Placebo Studies and the Therapeutic Encounter.

For those who don't remember or are high, Placebo Street won the gold medal for alpine skiing at the 1988 Olympics; 12/11/11, 4:58 PM
Ralph L said...: There's also the great tenor, Placebo Domingo.; 12/11/11, 6:19 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: There is a negative side effect to smoking pot, and I present this anecdotal evidence to support my argument. I have never seen this discussed anywhere. When I was nineteen we ran out of weed. My buddy handed me something and said, "Here, smoke this, it will get you off," so I did, and it did. It was a cigarette. I had avoided smoking them up to that point, but afterwards I was hooked. Pot is a gateway drug to a known carcinogen.; 12/11/11, 8:16 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/11, 8:48 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: That being said... do we actually NEED a study to establish that smoking pot makes you feel good and stimulates appetite? Maybe when we're done with that one we can do a study on whether chocolate tastes better than rice crackers.

Right...no one doubts that pot "makes you feel good" - it is, after all, a recreational drug - but the point of the article is that pot isn't just another feel-good drug, it's an amazing palliative for the terminally ill. That it's clearly superior to traditional anti-pain meds like percocet. I merely wondered if anyone had empirical evidence to back up that up, perhaps from someplace where pot is more accepted like Holland.

If you thought the message of the article was "Legalize pot because it feels good", I don't know what to say.; 12/11/11, 8:50 PM
Revenant said...: but the point of the article is that pot isn't just another feel-good drug, it's an amazing palliative for the terminally ill

I don't know what "just another feel-good drug" is supposed to mean.

What are the other safe drugs that cancer patients can take to feel good and recover their appetites?; 12/11/11, 8:51 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: I don't know, dude, I'm not an oncologist or a hospice nurse. Normally some kind of clinical evidence is required, though, before a drug is prescribed to treat a given condition, right?; 12/11/11, 8:58 PM
wild chicken said...: If it's just about the pain, seems to me taking it in pill form would suffice.

It's about the nausea, you know like when you can't keep anything down that might help the pain.

The govt was opposed to the whole idea of smoking a drug, because was so hinky and hippie-like, even though that very mechanism was its key advantage.; 12/11/11, 9:23 PM
Revenant said...: Normally some kind of clinical evidence is required, though, before a drug is prescribed to treat a given condition, right?

Like I said -- you need "clinical evidence" that marijuana stimulates appetite and makes users feel good? Heh.; 12/11/11, 9:46 PM
gerry said...: What is also interesting is how so many of the people who support the current policy can't explain why it should be illegal for an adult to ingest an all-natural plant.

Try eating daffodil bulbs. They'll kill you, but they ARE all-natural.; 12/12/11, 7:31 AM
ndspinelli said...: For those who choose to smoke there is a very safe option, the vaporizer. The cannabis is vaporized and there are no carcinogens in the vapor. Good ones cost ~$600, but if that's a concern it can be eliminated..for $600.

You can actually get the Volcano vaporizer on Amazon for $539. That's as good a price you'll find. It is the Cadillac..err Prius Deluxe, of vaporizers. Don't go cheap on this purchase, you want a good one if you are concerned about health. Sounds like a great Christmas gift!

Am I violating The federal Controlled Substance Act w/ these comments?; 12/12/11, 8:16 AM
The Unknown Pundit said...: Try eating daffodil bulbs. They'll kill you, but they ARE all-natural.

That would be an incredibly important point if our discussion here were about daffodils.
Non sequitor much, Gerry?; 12/12/11, 8:53 AM
SGT Ted said...: The Federal pot laws were passed back in the 1930s and signed due to anecdote, racist demogoggery and in defiance of the AMAs clear statements that cannabis had a medicinal use. Pot was portrayed as evil because dirty Mexicans and negros smoked it and those blacks would look at white women with lust and would stare white men in the eye while smoking pot.

Go ahead and defend those laws by whining about "anecdotal evidence". The AMA considered cannabis to be a
medicine, until racists demonized pot use by minorities.

It's the anti-pot folks here that are ignoring the truth about medical pot and using anecdote to dismiss it.; 12/12/11, 9:07 AM
SGT Ted said...: To be specific, if you are concerned about sound science being used to guide drug policies and laws, them you shouldn't be supporting marijuana prohibition.; 12/12/11, 9:18 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/12/11, 9:19 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/12/11, 9:24 AM
ndspinelli said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12/12/11, 9:34 AM
A. Shmendrik said...: We found ourselves in a head shop in one of the seedier neighborhoods in New Haven...

What part of New Haven are we talking about? I found all of it seedy.; 12/12/11, 9:30 PM