Bob in Mich

I hope Harris finished that book Here is the hash episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WdEoCLzzU4

Ugh! Exciting game. Didn't care for the ending.

Just happened to stumble upon the Late Night with Seth Meyers show with guest Sanjay Gupta last night. It was a replay of a show from a couple of weeks ago. He talks about a couple of topics we have been discussing in this thread. Check it out. It's only a few minutes long http://www.nbc.com/late-night-with-seth-meyers/video/dr-sanjay-gupta-thinks-denying-patients-medicinal-marijuana-is-immoral/3426451

This link shows a lot of studies but I don't know if it includes all. Use the search capability to save scanning the whole thing http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

In spite of what you say, you MUST care about this issue. You post the same thing in almost every cannabis thread. Why not STFU if it doesn't interest you?

Just so know that Sanjay Gupta and myself are not the only one's who think so... In October 2015 the Brookings Institute put out a report entitled Ending the US Governments' War on Medical Marijuana Research This is from the Conclusion section Marijuana policy has shifted rapidly in the U.S. in the last 10 years. Public demands, especially for increased medical research, have run head on into a system of overlapping and complicated federal law. The scheduling of marijuana under the CSA is one part of this layered system that impedes legitimate medical research on the benefits—and harms—that marijuana can have for a variety of ailments. But rescheduling is by no means the only barrier. Removing the DEA-mandated NIDA monopoly on production of marijuana for research, issuing agency guidance, expanding the compassionate use program, and reforming license and registration requirements would all go a long way to improve the scientific community’s capacity and ability to study marijuana for medical use. Thousands of Americans use marijuana for medical purposes, and many do so legally in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Yet, Congress and federal agencies continue to impede clinical research on the appropriate usage of marijuana. It’s time to stop letting outdated policy prevent the scientific community from advancing knowledge and ensuring that patients and practitioners understand the benefits and risks of medical marijuana. Or try this article from August 2015 if you don't trust the Brookings Institute http://fcir.org/2015/08/19/federal-restrictions-hamper-medical-marijuana-research/

I wouldn't call you stupid doc, but if you want to admit to it, who am I to argue? And there ya go with your assumptions again. Those seem to be where you trip yourself up. Do you have trouble with that in your practice because I would think those types of assumptions would lead to problems assisting your patients? Have you ever noticed when you get pinned down, you hop to a new subject? Are you a woman, Mr WEO? lol

I agree, you should not be a part of this conversation. Thank you for excusing yourself. I, for one, sincerely appreciate that.

Careful Doc, we don't want this to devolve into gibberish....your usual cop out. Why not answer the questions that are asked rather than answering the questions you make up? That would help keep the gibberish away. I appreciate that you are starting to do some research on this subject though. Great idea!! Unfortunately, you are again incorrect. This time regarding NIDA and their role in obstructing cannabis research. Until recently, possibly March 2016, here was NIDA's stance http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/why-its-so-hard-scientists-study-pot From the article If you're going to run a trial to show that marijuana has positive effects, the NIDA essentially is not going to allow it. Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have called for more research into the therapeutic uses of marijuana and for the U.S. government to reconsider its classification as a Schedule I substance. The University of Mississippi grows and harvests cannabis for studies funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, yet because NIDA's congressionally mandated mission is to research the harmful effects of controlled substances and stop drug abuse, the institute isn't interested in helping establish marijuana as a medicine. "If you're going to run a trial to show this is going to have positive effects, they're essentially not going to allow it," Lyle Craker, a professor and horticulturist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, says. ------------- In August of 2016 the DEA agreed to allow cannabis to be grown in multiple locations. They left it as schedule 1 however. This means that it is still extremely difficult to obtain though now there are more places to get it if all agency approvals go through. Sanjay Gupta comments: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/cnn-chief-medical-coorespondent-says-dea-missed-opportunity-with-pot/ from the article The DEA will allow for more pot to be grown for medical research, but Dr. Sanjay Gupta says this is largely symbolic. Scientists will still have a difficult time getting access to study its benefits, Gupta writes in a Thursday CNN article. “While this will be hailed as a victory for research, it will largely be symbolic,” Gupta writes. “ecause no matter how much marijuana is available, if access is still difficult, it hardly matters. Gupta says access to pot for medical reasons remains behind a “locked door.” While the DEA opened up new avenues for potential studies, universities that would study it still remain skeptical of allowing such studies

Probably easier to attack that question from the other direction. I think he will pardon next year's Thanksgiving turkey and, uh, um, well....hmmm. Guess that's it

not really an answer to either of my questions - what should I as an Independent have done to stop Obama's exec actions? - who will stand up to Trump if his plans are unethical?

amirite? No, you are not. Why would you assume that? You know nothing about my political background but why let that stop your narrative, eh?. Grow up and learn a lesson? lol As I asked before, what should I have done to stop Obama?

Nikki Haley, yup, that is one that didn't support him throughout. Let's see how many more 'outsiders' he ends up appointing. Looks like Romney's getting shown the door. So, Independent voters like me are responsible for Obama using Executive Actions? Interesting conclusion there. Just so I know in case it ever happens again, how should I have stopped him? Will that work for me to stop Trump if he uses Executive Actions? And, now we all need to pay for that Obama 'mistake' by allowing Trump to do anything he chooses - legal or illegal? No? Then who will stand up to him? McCain maybe but I haven't seen anyone else with the necessary integrity. Have you?

WEO, you are a funny guy. I still find it hard to believe you are a doctor. You constantly derive conclusions without the facts to make those conclusions. I would expect my doctor to be much more logical and not spout such gibberish. Are you doctors aware of the restrictions in the US on cannabis research? You keep harping on the fact that there aren't well designed studies definitively proving cannabis' effectiveness when (as you likely know) those studies have not been allowed in our country until very, very recently. So, it is not that it is not effective, researchers have not been able to perform studies on cannabis UNLESS the study was designed to prove the harm of cannabis. NIDA would not approve of studies designed to demonstrate benefits of cannabis. Also, it is maddening to hear you doctors present yourselves as experts on this topic (in several threads) when it is clear, you aren't really very knowledgeable. You seem, generally speaking, to be so concerned with the euphoric effects that you don't look any deeper into possible benefits. You may be medical experts but it is clear you are not experts with respect to the body's endocannabinoid system. Please, stop pretending to be!

Many fearful people believe Trump will do what he said on the campaign. They don't really know which campaign statements were just bluster. Following through on those campaign promises could impact them or their friends and family in a very negative way. You can stand back and say these people are crybabies but if you were in their shoes I suspect you might feel the same fears. His supporters don't really care what was said on the campaign. Many supporters seem to think he will only actually do the things that they want him to do. It's a sort of selective faith, imo. Personally, what I fear about a Trump presidency is that I don't foresee enough checks on his potential actions. He is surrounding himself with his most loyal supporters. If you recall, supporting Trump early on was seen as a bit crazy. Now you may say they were smarter than most because they saw the underlying genius in Trump but I would say, no, they really are a bit crazy. Do you recall seeing those surrogates during the campaign? And, they are loyal, very loyal, maybe, imo, too loyal to stand up to a Trump if he were ever in the wrong. Trump seems to have most Republicans squarely under his thumb. If the Repubs have the (future) court, the Senate, and the House, and his cabinet is comprised of Trump loyalists, who will check Trump if he gets out of line?

OK Doc, let me ask you this since you feel money or employment would have no impact on a person's opinion: Say you need to buy a car, a used car. Say also, you have two sources of information on that car. The used car salesmen tells you that this make and model is super reliable. Consumer Reports says that this is one of the least reliable cars ever. Who ya gonna believe and why? Also, please do a little research to see who actually puts up money to battle legal cannabis. Insys Therapeutics just contributed half a million dollars to the campaign to defeat legal cannabis in Arizona. Can you guess why that might be? That's right, competition. Competition with the cannabinoid based drug that they are putting through clinical trials. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/a-maker-of-deadly-painkillers-is-bankrolling-the-opposition-to-legal-marijuana-in-arizona/ Who else stands to lose - rehab facilities, big alcohol, big pharma, prison guard unions, police unions - all involved financially in the fight against easing cannabis laws. Follow the money, just like so many other things.

With respect to opiate addiction, have you folks heard about the 'rat park' study? The original study had rats in a cage with heroin or cocaine water, food, and regular water. The rats got addicted to the drugged water and used it repeatedly and exclusively until they eventually died. The rat park study gave the rats the same food and water choices but also didn't restrict them to their cage - they were free to do other things and allowed to mingle with other rats. The addiction rates were far lower than the original study. The conclusion was that having social interactions and a real life had a huge impact on addiction http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html From the article But in the 1970s, a professor of Psychology in Vancouver called Bruce Alexander noticed something odd about this experiment. The rat is put in the cage all alone. It has nothing to do but take the drugs. What would happen, he wondered, if we tried this differently? So Professor Alexander built Rat Park. It is a lush cage where the rats would have colored balls and the best rat-food and tunnels to scamper down and plenty of friends: everything a rat about town could want. What, Alexander wanted to know, will happen then? In Rat Park, all the rats obviously tried both water bottles, because they didn’t know what was in them. But what happened next was startling. The rats with good lives didn’t like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.

Control of the news, huh? No worries there. You may not like msm but with several agencies with different political slants we have a better chance at getting at the truth than getting a single source from the government.

In this time of opiate epidemic, how can a scientific mind dismiss a 25% decrease in opiate deaths and a 2/3 reduction in opiate use as insignificant? Here is the study http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1898878 That U of Fla expert, Kevin Sabet, is infamous for his anti-cannabis propaganda. He is an addiction specialist and his livelihood depends upon the under educated buying into his BS. Don't be one of them - educate yourself on the endocannabinoid system. Wouldn't a pain patient reducing their opiate intake by 2/3 be better for the patient, even if that meant they were using cannabis? Does it need to replace the opiates 100% to be considered beneficial by you? I know pain patients can manage their pain and often stave off opiate dependence by using cannabis for daily pain levels and reserving their opiates for breakthrough pain. Many pain management doctors continue to urine test for THC in spite of CDC recommendations to stop THC testing pain patients. Also, patients MUST consume opiates the day before their doctor appointment whether they need them or not because testing clean for opiates means they must be selling them. The deck is clearly stacked in favor of opiates over cannabis for pain control. That is backward, imo.

This article cites a study showing 25% fewer opiate overdoses in states that have allowed medical marijuana. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/health/medical-marijuana-overdose-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Also, the earlier study that you discounted in this thread, showed that pain patients with access to both opiates and cannabis reduced their opiate use by 2/3. Certainly nothing to discount given the stigma still attached to cannabis use. Your earlier response too seems to indicate that you think that medical insurance is paying for doctor visits to get cannabis authorization. That is not the case in Michigan or NY. I happened to speak to a NY cannabis doctor's office assistant regarding costs just a month ago. Their policy was two office visits before prescribing. These would NOT be covered by insurance and the cost for the two visits would be $450. Then the patient could buy extremely expensive cannabis extracts (easily $150/month) but these would not be covered by insurance. Then, every 3 months patients would need another uncovered office visit at the cost of $150 each. So, is cost a barrier? You bet it is - a big one. It is pretty clear to me that doctors are generally anti-cannabis despite ever more evidence that cannabis can be medically quite useful. Frankly, it is doctors such as yourself that are standing in the way of relief for at least some of your patients. You are experts in every other medical topic and so, somehow feel you are the expert on this topic too. Most doctors know less than their self medicating patients as they have no more formal education, have done far less research, and have less practical experience. Some learn from their patients but others seem too arrogant to let information flow in that direction.

The problem with bypassing the press is that we will then be given the Trump News, all the news that Trump wants us to know. You may not like the slant put on by mainstream media but without them we will just be fed Trump propaganda.

Go Blue!! Should be fun

Minneapolis gang roughs up Hillary supporter