Have Compassionate Use and Marijuana Medicalization laws become moot?
After passing two unenforcable Compassionate Use laws in the 90's, and full cannabis medicalization in 2010, Arizona has failed to open dispensaries, and created extraordinary requirements (such as submitting three years of Arizona Tax Returns, and other irrelevant and illegal financial requirements that would disenfrancise the patient population deriving the most benefit from dispensaries).
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/judge_to_arizona_gov_open_the_marijuana_dispensari.php
In New Jersey, another state with Medicalization and Compassionate Use laws, an M.S. patient appealed his arrest for growing cannabis to the state's Supreme Court, which summarily sentenced him to five years in prison.
http://www.politickernj.com/54244/nj-supreme-court-5-years-prison-ms-patient-growing-marijuana#.Tx7tP3_Bq1g.facebook
Even after Compassionate Use laws have been passed, Medical Marijuana patients are still being arrested and imprisoned with the judicial rational that State administered dispensaries have not been implemented.
Travesties such as this may be expected in the yahoo states that have yet to pass compassionate use laws; but they have become much too common in states who's citizenry has approved and supported the medical use of cannabis. The fact that state-level medical marijuana administrations have failed in developing dispensaries should have no bearing on the impementation of the law, and acceptance of the law by the judicial system.
Advocacy and activist efforts would do well to define and promote medicalization and compassionate use plans that give more than lip service to the voters' wishes. Voters should be encouraged to deny passage of propositions and plans that rely heavily on government organization, are full of loop-holes to stall implementation, that have restrictive and irrelevant application requirements, and (especially) forbid patients to grow their own plants. Medical marijuana laws must be fair, accessible, and consistent, but most of all, they should be implementable.
The Green Association for Sustainability
Showing posts with label dispensaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dispensaries. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
DR. OZ The Truth About Marijuana?
On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, DR. OZ (NBC) addressed the issue of Medical Marijuana. Intending to “tell the truth” about marijuana, the show addressed several issues regarding the scientific, social, and legal issues surrounding medical marijuana. In summing up the show, Dr. Oz called on those states that have passed medical marijuana initiatives to implement them, citing states like New Jersey and Maryland, who have not implemented dispensing regulations.
Although I applaud these efforts, Dr. Oz did not achieve his intent of telling the truth. I found the two statements below especially disturbing.
MARIJUANA:
“…SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIBED FOR ANXIETY, INSOMNIA, PTSD, OR STRESS”
“…IS ADDICTING…”
1. Cannabis Sativa (White Widow, Haze) has a high ratio of THC to CBD, both cannabinoids, that creates a more "cerebral" effect compared to the heavier opiate like effect of Cannabis Indica. Medicalization has bred out much of the "paranoia" associated with Sativas, and most strains found in dispensaries are a blend of Indicas and Sativas, with Indicas being the most prevalent. In addition, Indicas are easier to grow, heartier, and produce more product per plant than the 12-20 foot spindly Sativa plants. Cannabis Indica has been proven efficacious in treating anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and other stress disorders.
2. Cannabis does not cause addiction or create a physical dependence. Addiction is a psychological state in which the object of addiction can be any number of drugs, actions, or substances. Calling cannabis addicting in this context is NOT telling the truth.
Although Cannabis can cause psychological addiction, so can any substance or human action: Prohibiting marijuana for a psychological addiction is like criminalizing dice for gambling disorders.
Unlike opiates (Heroin, Morphine), cocaine (Crack), benzos (Xanax), nicotine, and alcohol, Cannabis carries no risk of physical addiction, and has no substances that create a physical addiction. A psychologically addicted user may report anxiety upon "withdrawal"; any "withdrawal" symptoms are purely psychological. Although many studies have proved this, the argument of addiction is one of semantics and medical terminology, as well as ICD-9/10 (Diagnosis) coding.
Cannabis cannot create the condition of "drug dependence"; however, cannabis can create "drug abuse", as can a can of hairspray and a package of bath salts.
Prohibition has not stopped the use, recreational and medical, of marijuana. The illegal Cartels will make certain that the sick, suffering, and dying will have access to Cannabis; it would be much better if it were available safely and transparently, and provided specific to symptomology.
The Green Association for Sustainability
Although I applaud these efforts, Dr. Oz did not achieve his intent of telling the truth. I found the two statements below especially disturbing.
MARIJUANA:
“…SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIBED FOR ANXIETY, INSOMNIA, PTSD, OR STRESS”
“…IS ADDICTING…”
1. Cannabis Sativa (White Widow, Haze) has a high ratio of THC to CBD, both cannabinoids, that creates a more "cerebral" effect compared to the heavier opiate like effect of Cannabis Indica. Medicalization has bred out much of the "paranoia" associated with Sativas, and most strains found in dispensaries are a blend of Indicas and Sativas, with Indicas being the most prevalent. In addition, Indicas are easier to grow, heartier, and produce more product per plant than the 12-20 foot spindly Sativa plants. Cannabis Indica has been proven efficacious in treating anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and other stress disorders.
MARINOL is the trade name of synthetic THC. It is available in 2.5, 5, and 10 mg. capsules. It was released as a generic in 2009, under the name "Dronabinol". Unfortunately, this did not lower the price much. A dosing schedule of 5 mgs. three times a day, or 90 capsules per month, would cost approximately $600.00. Few insurance companies cover this medication, and even fewer physicians prescribe it.
Marinol can be very effective for intractable nausea and vomiting. It also helps with cachexia, allowing ill patients to maintain their weight. It is ONLY THC, however, whereas Cannabis contains many different cannabinoids. Especially notable is the lack of CBD (Cannabidiol). Depending on the ratio of THC to CBD, CBD alters the THC effects. High CBN levels compared to THC produces the pain relieving and muscle relaxing effects that are looked for in medical strains. High THC with Low CBN levels is what produces the unwelcomed side effect of anxiety or paranoia. Many dispensaries offer "High CBN" strains for patients looking for specific medicinal properties.
By itself, Dronabinol is specifically effective, but does not have the range of medicinal relief found in inhaled marijuana. For those seeking relief for these specific symptoms, a prescription model that combines dronabinol with marijuana, may reduce the amount of inhaled cannabis while increasing appetite and reducing nausea and still offering pain relief. The financial costs, however, make the use of Dronabinol restrictive, especially when plant cannabis is legally available at a much lower cost.
2. Cannabis does not cause addiction or create a physical dependence. Addiction is a psychological state in which the object of addiction can be any number of drugs, actions, or substances. Calling cannabis addicting in this context is NOT telling the truth.
Although Cannabis can cause psychological addiction, so can any substance or human action: Prohibiting marijuana for a psychological addiction is like criminalizing dice for gambling disorders.
Unlike opiates (Heroin, Morphine), cocaine (Crack), benzos (Xanax), nicotine, and alcohol, Cannabis carries no risk of physical addiction, and has no substances that create a physical addiction. A psychologically addicted user may report anxiety upon "withdrawal"; any "withdrawal" symptoms are purely psychological. Although many studies have proved this, the argument of addiction is one of semantics and medical terminology, as well as ICD-9/10 (Diagnosis) coding.
Cannabis cannot create the condition of "drug dependence"; however, cannabis can create "drug abuse", as can a can of hairspray and a package of bath salts.
Prohibition has not stopped the use, recreational and medical, of marijuana. The illegal Cartels will make certain that the sick, suffering, and dying will have access to Cannabis; it would be much better if it were available safely and transparently, and provided specific to symptomology.
The Green Association for Sustainability
Friday, May 20, 2011
MEDICALIZATION IN ARIZONA: Medicinal Marijuana - No Easy High
According to a local newspaper in Pinal County, Arizona, securing medicalization was only part of the battle to bring medical marijuana to Arizona. There are still physicians who are resistant to writing prescriptions for medical marijuana, although the article mentions that physicians can and probably will write for Marinol, the pharmaceutically available THC. Not in any way a substitute for whole plant cannabis, Marinol can be effective for nausea; however as with other oral nausea pharmaceuticals, the difficult task remains of having to ingest medication while vomiting intractably.
Another issue in the Arizona medicalization law, as well as ALL medicalization laws, is the restriction on growing and harvesting personal use plants. Delaware's medicalization this month saw a complete restriction on private grows, forcing patients into clinics or other state or Big Pharma regulated and run organization. Last year, four other states medicalized without the right to grow in order to pass a medicalization bill. Arizona's law states that a medical marijuana patient can only grow 12 plants IF THEY LIVE MORE THAN 25 MILES FROM THE NEAREST DISPENSARY. Although I understand that some restrictions on growing may be necessary in large urban areas to avoid crime or other undesireable sequelea, such restrictions should be specific and definitively defined so that those who are able to grow safely and securely, can do so. How far they are from a dispensary should be less important than where the grow area is located, i.e., in a school zone or a business district may not be such a good idea. In Rural areas, and those who live on and own larger lots, for example, should have the right to grow.
The issue of growing is an important issue and right that should not be denied. Voters who are over-eager to pass medical marijuana bills are agreeing to let the state control their ability to grow the plant, giving up an inalienable right, and giving control to the government and big Pharma.
A small ray of understanding emerged in the article when it was reported that one interviewed physician, Dr. Hill, admits that because of the existance of cannabis receptors in humans, it is probable that humans evolved with the cannabis plant, and have been using it for thousands of years. Still, Dr. Hill, an oncologist, states he will not prescribe cannabis to his patients, even though he knows through experience that it does help cancer patients, citing possible Federal retribution, and reflecting the fear factor that the Federal Government can retaliate.
Although reformers are frustrated at physician's fear and refusal to prescribe, the doctors have good reason to be afraid: This is not the first time that the government has tricked them when it comes to cannabis. In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act allowed physicians to prescribe cannabis to their patients, provided they submitted the proper tax fees and paperwork. In practice, the requirements were extremely precise and difficult, and even the smallest error would result in large fees, loss of license, and even incarceration. The American Medical Association recommended then that physicians do not prescribe Cannabis, and claiming loudly there after that cannabis was considered to have "no medicinal benefit." They have been perpetuating this lie for nearly 75 years.
To read the article in full go here:
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v11/n264/a02.html
Another issue in the Arizona medicalization law, as well as ALL medicalization laws, is the restriction on growing and harvesting personal use plants. Delaware's medicalization this month saw a complete restriction on private grows, forcing patients into clinics or other state or Big Pharma regulated and run organization. Last year, four other states medicalized without the right to grow in order to pass a medicalization bill. Arizona's law states that a medical marijuana patient can only grow 12 plants IF THEY LIVE MORE THAN 25 MILES FROM THE NEAREST DISPENSARY. Although I understand that some restrictions on growing may be necessary in large urban areas to avoid crime or other undesireable sequelea, such restrictions should be specific and definitively defined so that those who are able to grow safely and securely, can do so. How far they are from a dispensary should be less important than where the grow area is located, i.e., in a school zone or a business district may not be such a good idea. In Rural areas, and those who live on and own larger lots, for example, should have the right to grow.
The issue of growing is an important issue and right that should not be denied. Voters who are over-eager to pass medical marijuana bills are agreeing to let the state control their ability to grow the plant, giving up an inalienable right, and giving control to the government and big Pharma.
A small ray of understanding emerged in the article when it was reported that one interviewed physician, Dr. Hill, admits that because of the existance of cannabis receptors in humans, it is probable that humans evolved with the cannabis plant, and have been using it for thousands of years. Still, Dr. Hill, an oncologist, states he will not prescribe cannabis to his patients, even though he knows through experience that it does help cancer patients, citing possible Federal retribution, and reflecting the fear factor that the Federal Government can retaliate.
Although reformers are frustrated at physician's fear and refusal to prescribe, the doctors have good reason to be afraid: This is not the first time that the government has tricked them when it comes to cannabis. In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act allowed physicians to prescribe cannabis to their patients, provided they submitted the proper tax fees and paperwork. In practice, the requirements were extremely precise and difficult, and even the smallest error would result in large fees, loss of license, and even incarceration. The American Medical Association recommended then that physicians do not prescribe Cannabis, and claiming loudly there after that cannabis was considered to have "no medicinal benefit." They have been perpetuating this lie for nearly 75 years.
To read the article in full go here:
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v11/n264/a02.html
Kimmarie
"...the rport of my death was an exaggeration." -- Mark Twain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)