Would I ever be quailfied to get medical marijuana?

Post Reply New Topic

It would be easier to go to a real psychiatrist and inquire about legal meds that do the same thing and would probably cost less even if you don't have insurance. It sounds like you want a license to enable your stoner lifestyle.

I really do not believe the psychological aspects are proven. It can also create anxiety and reduce motivations. IF this were any other approved substance I'd be saying nothing works for everyone. There is also the possibility that without it after enjoying it increases depression, anxiety and so on and taking it again reduced these psychological factors where applicable. The pot movement is about the feel good high and don't tell me what to do ideas in my opinion. This conversation then can go onto alcoholism is much worse and so is smoking.

sounds to me like the OP is enabaling theirself to feel better, which I cannot blame anyone for.

It would be easier to go to a real psychiatrist and inquire about legal meds that do the same thing and would probably cost less even if you don't have insurance. It sounds like you want a license to enable your stoner lifestyle.

Yes it makes 'some' people anxious and the only way it reduces motivation is if you decide to smoke it excessively all the time and make it the top priority of your life. Thing is a lot of things have been proven.......it can help with anxiety. Hell even anti-depressants can make you more depressed and anxious if you have a bad reaction. Cannabis like any other drug works for some people and does not work for others.

And I think there is more to the various cannabis movements than getting high.

At what cost though?

the highest cost to users is the anti drug campaigns around the world.
without the demonization people that wanted help would be more inclined to get it,


the arguments are excessively onesided on this issue when looked at with a bit of common sense.

At what cost though?

Really and truly, same rules for cannabis as for the legal meds, if it suits you, it suits you, if it doesn't, stay away, and if you abuse it, you only have yourself to blamed.

The downside is that there is no form of controlled delivery, the upside is that there have never been any seriously negative side effects recorded, even if it doesn't suit you, which is more than can be said for a lot of commonly prescribed legal meds...and a few more that were commonly prescribed the day before they were taken of the market as being too dangerous.

But on the other hand, *SOME* of the various cannabis movements *ARE* just about getting high, the trick is to know the difference.

Don't underestimate the downside of a lack of a method of controlled delivery. That might work for you, but we are talking about prescribed medical use now, maybe long term, for a variety of conditions and personality types. That really does need a method of controlled delivery to be effective in all appropriate cases.

...and the smoking thing is really dangerous for some people, for example, with lung conditions, anyone who has a condition for which cigarette smoking would be dangerous. Simply because cigarette smoking is so incredibly addictive that once you have stopped the risk of smoking something else causing you to start again is far too high...and, of course, any smoke drawn into the lungs is just as much of an irritant.

Not to mention political pressures from the anti smoking lobby.

(There is also a problem with making oxcytocin generally available...there is difficulty in developing a controlled method of delivery.)

Not to mention the dangers of smoking... that non-smokers certainly don't want to be a part of. If there were a thc pill or injection I will take this whole idea more seriously, but delivery by blasting your lungs sounds fishy to me whatever one's intentions.

Anyone who insists on using a spliff or whatever you want to call it seems more like an angle at recreational drug use, which as we can see is not why this thread exists. It's to argue for the medical use of marijuana medicinally. And if that's the case then screw the marijuana and the smoking and go straight for the active ingedient and a more efficient delivery system that doesn't fill your lungs with tar, carbon monoxide and thousands of half-combusted shards of lignin. As for causing anxiety or anything the only effect of smoking marijuana besides the usual dangers of smoking I can confirm is blackened teeth. Otherwise I want the charts in front of me before I start drawing conclusions.

What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.

And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.



Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.

There is no adequete controlled method of delivery for medicinal marijuana......the amount that works varies between strains, the individual person and if its an indica or stativa strain, what quality it is ect. This is a natural plant we are dealing with so it varies more than a pharmacutical pill. Now they could have someone who uses medicinal marijuana check up with the doctor about their dosage but in the end they kind of have to do some figuring out of what amount and type works best for them.

Also, cannabis does not have to be smoked, that is why dispensaries have edibles, tinctures ect. so that gets rid of the risk of respitory damage though technically it is safer to smoke cannabis than it is to smoke ciggerettes.

Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.