If Marijuana Was To Become Legal

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I suffer from chronic pain and will be on opiates for the rest of my life. But I had heard and read that marijuana works wonders for pain and that the drug isn't as bad for you as opiates.

If marijuana was to become legal, even just for medicinal purposes, would insurance cover the cost?

Right now I pay $3.00 per month for my pain medication, if marijuana isn't covered and is this great drug, I would not be able to pay for it. 

Opiates suck, they mess with your body, your liver, your brain, your hearing, they just suck. I know marijuana isn't good for you but it is better than opiates.

[NATI BENGALS]

If it was legal to grow you could just grow your own. It should be less expensive and more readily available than any pharmaceutical.

That is not an option with addictive opiates. Unless you go to afghanland and take a botany class.

[BFritz21]

(09-09-2017, 04:44 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I suffer from chronic pain and will be on opiates for the rest of my life. But I had heard and read that marijuana works wonders for pain and that the drug isn't as bad for you as opiates.

If marijuana was to become legal, even just for medicinal purposes, would insurance cover the cost?

Right now I pay $3.00 per month for my pain medication, if marijuana isn't covered and is this great drug, I would not be able to pay for it. 

Opiates suck, they mess with your body, your liver, your brain, your hearing, they just suck. I know marijuana isn't good for you but it is better than opiates.

That would be completely false.  

Alcohol is bad for you.  Cigarettes are bad for you.  

Marijuana, if anything, is good for you if you're an adult.  It helps regrow the brain and I'm missing big chunks of mine from the wreck.  The only time that I think clearly is when I'm high.  

It should at least be legal for medical in Kentucky but there's so much money in keeping it illegal that who knows if it will ever happen, even though it's the biggest cash crop in the state and they'd make a fortune from taxing it.

It is dangerous, though, because I've seen where it can damage growth in teenage minds, and making it legal for adults could make it more common for teens, although studies have shown that that's not the case.  Whether it's true or not that it damages growth and development of the brain, I'm not sure.

I'm all for it and you should find a reliable dealer or at least go through someone you trust to find someone reliable if you need it.

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2017, 07:09 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That would be completely false.  

Alcohol is bad for you.  Cigarettes are bad for you.  

Marijuana, if anything, is good for you if you're an adult.  It helps regrow the brain and I'm missing big chunks of mine from the wreck.  The only time that I think clearly is when I'm high.  

It should at least be legal for medical in Kentucky but there's so much money in keeping it illegal that who knows if it will ever happen, even though it's the biggest cash crop in the state and they'd make a fortune from taxing it.

It is dangerous, though, because I've seen where it can damage growth in teenage minds, and making it legal for adults could make it more common for teens, although studies have shown that that's not the case.  Whether it's true or not that it damages growth and development of the brain, I'm not sure.

I'm all for it and you should find a reliable dealer or at least go through someone you trust to find someone reliable if you need it.

I found your claim interesting, and so read a couple of papers I found on Google Scholar about it. Very interesting stuff that cannabinoids have shown evidence of increasing neurogenesis in rats. I think a lot of concerns about marijuana are that in the form it is typically used, it does impact the lungs in a very similar way as cigarette smoking does. Any time vegetable matter burns, it will leave a tar residue. There is also potential that it impacts the heart muscles and potentially weakens them (Bonz, A., Laser, M., Küllmer, S., Kniesch, S., Babin-Ebell, J., Popp, V., ... & Wagner, J. A. (2003). Cannabinoids acting on CB1 receptors decrease contractile performance in human atrial muscle. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 41(4), 657-664.), and that is just the same compound that increases neurogenesis, not the tar.

There is definitely a lot of potential for medical marijuana use, but the issue at hand is that the restrictions on it put in place by the government have really prohibited thorough study on the effects. I think before it is used as a treatment for anything, we need to look further into it. Just my two cents.

[BFritz21]

(09-09-2017, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I found your claim interesting, and so read a couple of papers I found on Google Scholar about it. Very interesting stuff that cannabinoids have shown evidence of increasing neurogenesis in rats. I think a lot of concerns about marijuana are that in the form it is typically used, it does impact the lungs in a very similar way as cigarette smoking does. Any time vegetable matter burns, it will leave a tar residue. There is also potential that it impacts the heart muscles and potentially weakens them (Bonz, A., Laser, M., Küllmer, S., Kniesch, S., Babin-Ebell, J., Popp, V., ... & Wagner, J. A. (2003). Cannabinoids acting on CB1 receptors decrease contractile performance in human atrial muscle. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 41(4), 657-664.), and that is just the same compound that increases neurogenesis, not the tar.

There is definitely a lot of potential for medical marijuana use, but the issue at hand is that the restrictions on it put in place by the government have really prohibited thorough study on the effects. I think before it is used as a treatment for anything, we need to look further into it. Just my two cents.

That's why I use a vaporizer 

I really don't drink much anymore because I typically just vape which gives a better feeling, doesn't make my ass HUGE, and the overall impact it has on improving brain function.

As far as the lungs go, vaping doesn't harm them and the THC can actually prevent cancer from forming.

There are many worse things for people than weed that are completely legal.

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2017, 07:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's why I use a vaporizer 

I really don't drink much anymore because I typically just vape which gives a better feeling, doesn't make my ass HUGE, and the overall impact it has on improving brain function.

As far as the lungs go, vaping doesn't harm them and the THC can actually prevent cancer from forming.

There are many worse things for people than weed that are completely legal.

Vaping is thought to be safer, but there haven't been comprehensive studies done to say for certain. A small study did show it is safer for lung function, but that also doesn't negate other potential negative impacts (like the heart issue). I don't disagree that there are things out there that are completely legal that are worse for us, and I think marijuana should be 100% legal. I just think that for actually prescribing it, we need to study the effects more and how it interacts with other substances.

[BFritz21]

(09-09-2017, 08:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Vaping is thought to be safer, but there haven't been comprehensive studies done to say for certain. A small study did show it is safer for lung function, but that also doesn't negate other potential negative impacts (like the heart issue). I don't disagree that there are things out there that are completely legal that are worse for us, and I think marijuana should be 100% legal. I just think that for actually prescribing it, we need to study the effects more and how it interacts with other substances.

Fair enough.

[NATI BENGALS]

A lot of noise is made about DUI for weed. No way to test for it etc... I would rather have somebody actively smoking a joint driving next to me than someone who just shot up heroin at their local dealers house and proceeded to hit the road or someone who decided it was a good day to load up on their pain killers and xanax then go out grocery shopping.

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2017, 08:25 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: A lot of noise is made about DUI for weed. No way to test for it etc... I would rather have somebody actively smoking a joint driving next to me than someone who just shot up heroin at their local dealers house and proceeded to hit the road or someone who decided it was a good day to load up on their pain killers and xanax then go out grocery shopping.

I'd rather have none of them on the road. The impairment of executive cognitive functions is something that there is substantial evidence of occurring with marijuana use, and that is not something one should mix with driving.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-09-2017, 08:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd rather have none of them on the road. The impairment of executive cognitive functions is something that there is substantial evidence of occurring with marijuana use, and that is not something one should mix with driving.

Some people cant drive stone cold sober so. ..

Id rather have someone that is stoned who is actually paying attention to the road driving next to me than someone on their phone. To add to that.

We had a semi driver a couple weeks back in cincinnati od on heroin while on the highway. A week or so before that. Dude driving a tanker full of flammable was found at the gas station while fueling up for the long haul passed out ODed in the cab.

I just saying denying legal use of marijuana because of that particular scare tactic is not legit.

[Yojimbo]

Self driving cars are going to be great.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-09-2017, 10:51 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Self driving cars are going to be great.

Especially once Trump gets that cybersecurity unit with russia up and running. Cant think of a single thing that could go wrong there.

Its 2017. Our cars should resemble upscaled drones and we should be flying around like the jetsons. Instead fred flintstone is prez and barney is AG.

[*michaelsean*]

Marijuana not being legal for medicinal purposes at least is quite stunning. Is it because it hasn't passed the FDA?

[Benton]

(09-11-2017, 09:09 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Marijuana not being legal for medicinal purposes at least is quite stunning.  Is it because it hasn't passed the FDA?

It's considered to have no medical purposes as per the Controlled Substances Act of 1972. There have been multiple challenges to this, but it will take an act of Congress to have it removed from the CSA, which would (depending on legislation) allow the FDA to regulate it. The FDA can't do much more than tell the DEA 'hey, it's good stuff, let us have control over it and we'll let you have a hit.'

Best thing to do? Start getting people to write your local congressman. Drug companies are writing/faxing/emailing form letters to them constantly to make sure THC/marijuana stays restricted. If your congressman doesn't hear any other claims, he's not going to support legislation that gets him booted out.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(09-11-2017, 10:48 AM)Benton Wrote: It's considered to have no medical purposes as per the Controlled Substances Act of 1972. There have been multiple challenges to this, but it will take an act of Congress to have it removed from the CSA, which would (depending on legislation) allow the FDA to regulate it. The FDA can't do much more than tell the DEA 'hey, it's good stuff, let us have control over it and we'll let you have a hit.'

Best thing to do? Start getting people to write your local congressman. Drug companies are writing/faxing/emailing form letters to them constantly to make sure THC/marijuana stays restricted. If your congressman doesn't hear any other claims, he's not going to support legislation that gets him booted out.

With marijuana legal in a few states and those selling it are making money hand over fist that there would be a "Pot Lobby" by now with a lot of money to buy legislation to get marijuana legal.

[GMDino]

(09-11-2017, 11:29 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: With marijuana legal in a few states and those selling it are making money hand over fist that there would be a "Pot Lobby" by now with a lot of money to buy legislation to get marijuana legal.

Nothing compared to the Pharmacy lobbyists.

MJ is cheap and easy to produce.  The hard part is removing the stuff that get's you high to make it usable as a medicine from what I understand.  That's not good for the pill makers.

[Millhouse]

I would have smoked an ounce of it yesterday.. :giggle:

[Benton]

(09-11-2017, 11:29 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: With marijuana legal in a few states and those selling it are making money hand over fist that there would be a "Pot Lobby" by now with a lot of money to buy legislation to get marijuana legal.

Couple quick numbers (quick as in quick Google search, didn't research how accurate they are, but gives you an idea)/

In 2016, the marijuana industry had about $6.7 billion in sales.

Lot of money? Not compared to pharma.

In 2016, Humira alone had $16 billion in worldwide sales. One drug, about three times the entire North American legal marijuana market.

US spending in 2016 was about $450 billion on pharmaceuticals. Best i could tell, that doesn't include OTC drugs like aspirin (which presumably would take a hit — pun intended — also). Two of your biggest drug companies made more than $100 billion in revenue (not sales, revenue). Pfizer raked in $52 billion after expenses and taxes (lol, like they paid any). Same year, Johnson & Johnson made $72 billion in revenue (granted, I think the bulk of their money is OTC). 

The marijuana industry last year had about the same amount in total sales as the tobacco industry paid in taxes during its peak (around $9 billion IIRC). Not taxes paid, just sales; so the tax impact of pot is (right now) much smaller. Tobacco was able to hang on as long as it did without a lot of government intervention because it could massively bribe lawmakers, and many southern lawmakers needed its tax revenue. Marijuana isn't big enough to bribe yet, or factor too much into tax budgets. And it's a long way from being able to even bribe as effectively as a single pharma company like Pfizer or Merck. 

One pro-marijuana advocate I did a story with 5-6 years ago estimated it would be 15-20 years before federal intervention. Mainly because — according to her — the economy was only going to get worse and people won't be able to afford $20 a pill to not be depressed about not having enough money to spend $20 on a pill.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-09-2017, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I found your claim interesting, and so read a couple of papers I found on Google Scholar about it. Very interesting stuff that cannabinoids have shown evidence of increasing neurogenesis in rats. I think a lot of concerns about marijuana are that in the form it is typically used, it does impact the lungs in a very similar way as cigarette smoking does. Any time vegetable matter burns, it will leave a tar residue. There is also potential that it impacts the heart muscles and potentially weakens them (Bonz, A., Laser, M., Küllmer, S., Kniesch, S., Babin-Ebell, J., Popp, V., ... & Wagner, J. A. (2003). Cannabinoids acting on CB1 receptors decrease contractile performance in human atrial muscle. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 41(4), 657-664.), and that is just the same compound that increases neurogenesis, not the tar.

There is definitely a lot of potential for medical marijuana use, but the issue at hand is that the restrictions on it put in place by the government have really prohibited thorough study on the effects. I think before it is used as a treatment for anything, we need to look further into it. Just my two cents.

The government effectively restricts medical marijuana research by giving marijuana a schedule I rating. The hoops researchers need to jump through make it more trouble than it's worth which is the goal. Also, we have idiots like Sessions who actively promote marijuana propaganda which is another barrier to marijuana ever becoming legal.

[*PhilHos*]

I've honestly never understood how tabacoo and alcohol are legal, yet marijuana isn't. I mean, I know the reasons, it just doesn't really make sense to me how the former are legal (with some restrictions - i.e. age) and yet the latter isn't.