US Fed Court to US Govt: Stop Spreading Lies About Marijuana

[MustavaMond]

U.S. asked to stop 'false information' on medical pot - Los Angeles Times
U.S. asked to stop 'false information' on medical pot



[COLOR=#333333 ! important]Advocacy group tells the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the government needs to update the official view of marijuana to reflect its use as a pain reliever.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#999999 ! important]By Carol J. Williams and Maura Dolan
8:07 PM PDT, April 14, 2009 [/COLOR]
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- Citing "overwhelming" evidence that marijuana eases pain and anxiety for the chronically ill, medicinal pot advocates told a federal appeals panel Tuesday that the federal government should be stopped from spreading "false information" about marijuana.

As was argued in the debate over whether stem cell research should be resumed, Americans for Safe Access cast the Bush administration's opposition to any legalized use of marijuana as being shaped by conservative sentiments instead of hard facts.

President Obama has signaled to Cabinet members that science should be guiding government judgments in controversial matters of medicine and technology, not the prevailing political mood. On Tuesday, however, a government lawyer told three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the administration wasn't required to explain or retract its statements that marijuana "has no currently accepted medical use."

Marijuana is banned under federal law but is legal for cancer patients and others suffering chronic illnesses in California and a dozen other states. Safe Access sued the federal government under a law that prohibits it from disseminating inaccurate information.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder signaled last month that the administration wouldn't interfere with medical pot dispensing in states where it is legal as long as users abide by state law.


Since California became the first state to partially legalize medical marijuana 13 years ago, the federal government has prevailed in all challenges to the state's practice, including a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal government's right to prosecute offenders.

Safe Access argues that the federal government needs to update its assessment to conform with the reality of marijuana's broadening legal use as a pain reliever.

"The science to support medical marijuana is overwhelming. It's time for the federal government to acknowledge the efficacy of medical marijuana and stop holding science hostage to politics," said Steph Sherer, director of Americans for Safe Access.

The group petitioned for revision of the federal judgment in 2004 but was ignored by Bush officials, who also sought and won federal district court dismissal of a 2007 lawsuit filed by Safe Access.

Justice Department lawyer Alisa Klein told the appeals court panel that the government shouldn't be forced to defend the accuracy of "countless pieces of information" in its massive archives. U.S. Circuit Court Judge Marsha S. Berzon, an appointee of President Clinton, said the law at issue in the case was "amazing" because it did appear to require the government to correct all inaccurate statements, a result she called "troubling."

Despite the positive signals emanating from Washington lately, Alan Morrison, founder of Public Citizen's Litigation Group who argued on behalf of Safe Access, said the plaintiffs hadn't expected a government turnaround just yet.

Amid economic turmoil and global crises, he said, medical marijuana "is well below the radar scope of the Obama administration."

carol.williams[at]latimes.com

maura.dolan[at]latimes.com

[Mid]

studentorgs.utexas.edu

[blackgang]

So Do you think that they will also tell the truth about the bad physical and health effects the same as they have to do with using tobacco today?

Or will they get by with only feel groovy and no pain and no bad effects and kiss lung canser Goodbye.?

[MustavaMond]

So Do you think that they will also tell the truth about the bad physical and health effects the same as they have to do with using tobacco today?

Or will they get by with only feel groovy and no pain and no bad effects and kiss lung canser Goodbye.?

No doubt any smoke in the lungs is harmful, but nicotine gets a free pass and it is far more addictive ..
Cannabis can be ingested in other ways beside lighting it up. There is a neat German appliance that super heats a substance without actually burning it, sort of vaporizes it- just like breathing fog from a humidifier and the buzz is more...infused?

[BugginOut]

Justice Department lawyer Alisa Klein told the appeals court panel that the government shouldn't be forced to defend the accuracy of "countless pieces of information" in its massive archives.

The government should only have accurate information in their massive archives. Shameful manipulation of data to suit political sentiment.

[BugginOut]

Cannabis can be ingested in other ways beside lighting it up.

Not to mention yummy brownies, pasta alfredo, and many other recipes.

[blackgang]

No doubt any smoke in the lungs is harmful, but nicotine gets a free pass and it is far more addictive

Same with tobacco more or less. and breathing it nto your lungs in any form would be the same as pollution so it is bound to have bad side effects and very seldon a person does and acts weird as does a pot head.

read some medical reports on the side effects of weed, there are some that do tell the truth.
I am not a doper and have never been a junkie and can read and understand the true issues both Pro and Con where a dope head will scoff at any negative things said.
so choose your side of the room where you want to set. Or you can be like Milky and stand agains medical science and set with the dopers.

As you can see tho, where I will set as I am against any mind altering substances.

[HorseDoctor]

No doubt any smoke in the lungs is harmful, but nicotine gets a free pass and it is far more addictive

Same with tobacco more or less. and breathing it nto your lungs in any form would be the same as pollution so it is bound to have bad side effects and very seldon a person does and acts weird as does a pot head.

read some medical reports on the side effects of weed, there are some that do tell the truth.
I am not a doper and have never been a junkie and can read and understand the true issues both Pro and Con where a dope head will scoff at any negative things said.
so choose your side of the room where you want to set. Or you can be like Milky and stand agains medical science and set with the dopers.

As you can see tho, where I will set as I am against any mind altering substances.

(..Nor any mind opening notions.)

[nidhogg]

Personally, I can't see the "Medical establishment" (as a group) backing the use of pot as an accepted medical treatment. For the vast majority of medics the significant problem is in "dosage". Put the same ingredients in a pill, calibrate the amount of active ingredient, and you may get a different result. Until then, I just can't see the medical community broadly accepting a "take two joints and call me in the morning" situation.

[barbaro]

U.S. asked to stop 'false information' on medical pot - Los Angeles Times
U.S. asked to stop 'false information' on medical pot



[COLOR=#333333 ! important]Advocacy group tells the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the government needs to update the official view of marijuana to reflect its use as a pain reliever.[/color]
[COLOR=#999999 ! important]By Carol J.

It's about time. But I wonder is this is just a precursor for the US to limited use of Marijuana and then tax it.

Interesting how government, law enforcement, and mecial opinions and findings can change when it comes to ---> $$$$$

[Mr R Sole]

As for mind altering substances....does this include alcohol Blackgang????? or are you a complete T-totaller?

personally I have a friend in the UK that was suffering terribly with MS...the anti-spamodics he was on were killing his kidneys and liver and the pills weren't helping that much anyway, according to him.

His own Doc' asked him if he could get any Marijuana...he was appaled at first "I'm no druggy" I beg to differ I said, what have you been taking for 5yrs now???

So he tried it, by mixing it in Jam (jello to septics) and came off his prescribed med's within 5mths.... Low and behold he can now walk, no longer stuck in his wheel chair, doesn't piss in a bag anymore and has dignity for the first time in years... So Scoff all you like at so called potheads...

Also Marijuana is the only cure for Glaucoma (a horrible eye problem that can lead to blindness) other than surgery!!!!

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhh the dreaded WEED....So smoke or eat them if ya got em' I say

[barbaro]

As for mind altering substances....does this include alcohol Blackgang????? or are you a complete T-totaller?

I think booze is worse, and yes, BG is a tee-totaller, not that I am trying to speak for him.

[nidhogg]

Also Marijuana is the only cure for Glaucoma (a horrible eye problem that can lead to blindness) other than surgery!!!!

Indeed. Well besides (quick snip from wiki):

Commonly used medications

• Prostaglandin analogs like latanoprost (Xalatan), bimatoprost (Lumigan) and travoprost (Travatan) increase uveoscleral outflow of aqueous humor. Bimatoprost also increases trabecular outflow
• Topical beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists such as timolol, levobunolol (Betagan), and betaxolol decrease aqueous humor production by the ciliary body.
• Alpha2-adrenergic agonists such as brimonidine (Alphagan) work by a dual mechanism, decreasing aqueous production and increasing uveo-scleral outflow.
• Less-selective sympathomimetics like epinephrine and dipivefrin (Propine) increase outflow of aqueous humor through trabecular meshwork and possibly through uveoscleral outflow pathway, probably by a beta2-agonist action.
• Miotic agents (parasympathomimetics) like pilocarpine work by contraction of the ciliary muscle, tightening the trabecular meshwork and allowing increased outflow of the aqueous humour.
• Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors like dorzolamide (Trusopt), brinzolamide (Azopt), acetazolamide (Diamox) lower secretion of aqueous humor by inhibiting carbonic anhydrase in the ciliary body.
• Physostigmine is also used to treat glaucoma and delayed gastric emptying.

Glaucoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But hey, misinformation is a well tried and tested tactic.

BY the way, the next section down (in wiki) is on the use of MJ in glaucoma treatment.

[HorseDoctor]

Also Marijuana is the only cure for Glaucoma (a horrible eye problem that can lead to blindness) other than surgery!!!!

Indeed. Well besides (quick snip from wiki):

Commonly used medications

• Prostaglandin analogs like latanoprost (Xalatan), bimatoprost (Lumigan) and travoprost (Travatan) increase uveoscleral outflow of aqueous humor. Bimatoprost also increases trabecular outflow
• Topical beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists such as timolol, levobunolol (Betagan), and betaxolol decrease aqueous humor production by the ciliary body.
• Alpha2-adrenergic agonists such as brimonidine (Alphagan) work by a dual mechanism, decreasing aqueous production and increasing uveo-scleral outflow.
• Less-selective sympathomimetics like epinephrine and dipivefrin (Propine) increase outflow of aqueous humor through trabecular meshwork and possibly through uveoscleral outflow pathway, probably by a beta2-agonist action.
• Miotic agents (parasympathomimetics) like pilocarpine work by contraction of the ciliary muscle, tightening the trabecular meshwork and allowing increased outflow of the aqueous humour.
• Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors like dorzolamide (Trusopt), brinzolamide (Azopt), acetazolamide (Diamox) lower secretion of aqueous humor by inhibiting carbonic anhydrase in the ciliary body.
• Physostigmine is also used to treat glaucoma and delayed gastric emptying.

Glaucoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But hey, misinformation is a well tried and tested tactic.

BY the way, the next section down (in wiki) is on the use of MJ in glaucoma treatment.

And so is pure propaganda issued by pharmaceutical companies that PROFIT off ill health and spend millions influencing goverments to keep other substances illegal.
And what are the side effects of these wonderful, for profit drugs ?

[nidhogg]

And so is pure propaganda issued by pharmaceutical companies that PROFIT off ill health and spend millions influencing goverments to keep other substances illegal.
And what are the side effects of these wonderful, for profit drugs ?

Well, a well known side effect of those drugs is "retaining your eyesight".

Its always worth remembering that, as far as I am aware, drug companies don't actually CAUSE the diseases they make the drugs to treat.

Also, next time that you think about those "excess profits", its useful to remember two things

1. It can cost up to 400 million US dollars to put a drug through clinical TESTING and
2. there has been a massive winnowing of drug companies over the last decade or so, with amalgamations left right and center as its just too expensive to develop and market drugs nowadays. there used to be dozens of huge drug companies, now very few.

[HorseDoctor]

And so is pure propaganda issued by pharmaceutical companies that PROFIT off ill health and spend millions influencing goverments to keep other substances illegal.
And what are the side effects of these wonderful, for profit drugs ?

Well, a well known side effect of those drugs is "retaining your eyesight".

Its always worth remembering that, as far as I am aware, drug companies don't actually CAUSE the diseases they make the drugs to treat.

Also, next time that you think about those "excess profits", its useful to remember two things

1. It can cost up to 400 million US dollars to put a drug through clinical TESTING and
2. there has been a massive winnowing of drug companies over the last decade or so, with amalgamations left right and center as its just too expensive to develop and market drugs nowadays. there used to be dozens of huge drug companies, now very few.

This doesn't convince me that big Parma isn't as corrupt an establishment as ( legally ) possible and does everything it its power to keep drug prices high, ( and pot illegal.)
Here's a thought to give relief to those poor laboring conglomerates - perhaps we should socialize medicine manufacturing like we've done for failed banks and car manufacturers..

[ItsRobsLife]

One Love Aiiiiiight!

[barbaro]

Who is the fellow on the right?

Photoshop.

[blackgang]

As for mind altering substances....does this include alcohol Blackgang????? or are you a complete T-totaller?

I am an Alcoholic of the worst kind, but at 48 years of age I had my last drink, so for almost 28 years I have not ingested nor injected any mind altering chemicals.

His own Doc' asked him if he could get any Marijuana...he was appaled at first "I'm no druggy" I beg to differ I said, what have you been taking for 5yrs now???

The question is not valid as I do not think he was being given mind altering drugs.

Also Marijuana is the only cure for Glaucoma (a horrible eye problem that can lead to blindness) other than surgery!!!!

I nor anyone else has said that it is only to get your head on and has no use for anything else besides tripping.
It may well have other uses and if it works then Medical maryjane should be available for such uses, as should Opiates such as Morphine, but as most of the threads Milky posts is Should dope be lagalizes, and his answer is always "YES and will be when they can make a dollar by taxing it" so this is basicly the same as was run last week and every week for the last few years.

I think booze is worse, and yes, BG is a tee-totaller, not that I am trying to speak for him.

But as you can see, He thinks booze is worse, but he can not quit it, as then he would have "no life worth living" [not direct quote but close]. so what will become of weak willed and addictive persoanlity people like him if drugs are made legal??

[BugginOut]

So he tried it, by mixing it in Jam (jello to septics),...

Listen, gutterhole. We have jam and jelly in the US, and we have fuckin' Jell-O too. Get it right. Jam has chunks of fruit. Jelly has no chunks. Jell-O is a brand of pudding and gelatin-based (aspic to gutterholes) products.

As for the topic, more people die from prescription drugs in the US than all other illegal drugs combined. No one, not one single person has ever died from marijuana overdose. There is no nicotine, which is highly addictive. I'm sure the cigarette smokers here will concur. The lamest argument against legalization is that somehow, people who have never smoked weed, never been interested, will suddenly want to smoke it once it is legalized. Airline pilots will be toking in the cockpit, surgeons will be smoking in pre-op, and all the rest of the total bullshit arguments that you can think of. It's easy enough for anyone to buy right now, so those very same people should already be doing it because it's available.

No one is going to come into anyone else's home and force them to smoke weed, and they're certainly not going to come into mine and tell me I can't. This issue is right out of the prohibition days when church-going women with pinched, bitter faces tried to enforce their moral imperatives on the rest of the country. They lost then and they're going to lose now.

[HorseDoctor]

So he tried it, by mixing it in Jam (jello to septics),...

Listen, gutterhole. We have jam and jelly in the US, and we have fuckin' Jell-O too. Get it right. Jam has chunks of fruit. Jelly has no chunks. Jell-O is a brand of pudding and gelatin-based (aspic to gutterholes) products.

As for the topic, more people die from prescription drugs in the US than all other illegal drugs combined. No one, not one single person has ever died from marijuana overdose. There is no nicotine, which is highly addictive. I'm sure the cigarette smokers here will concur. The lamest argument against legalization is that somehow, people who have never smoked weed, never been interested, will suddenly want to smoke it once it is legalized. Airline pilots will be toking in the cockpit, surgeons will be smoking in pre-op, and all the rest of the total bullshit arguments that you can think of. It's easy enough for anyone to buy right now, so those very same people should already be doing it because it's available.

No one is going to come into anyone else's home and force them to smoke weed, and they're certainly not going to come into mine and tell me I can't. This issue is right out of the prohibition days when church-going women with pinched, bitter faces tried to enforce their moral imperatives on the rest of the country. They lost then and they're going to lose now.

Actually the prohibition era got its start from women's groups because domestic violence was so rampant .

It was an epidemic of women getting beat to death. - yet another reason to legalize pot, no one ever got violent on it but I'd bet 90 % of domestic battery has alcohol as a factor .

[robuzo]

As for the topic, more people die from prescription drugs in the US than all other illegal drugs combined. No one, not one single person has ever died from marijuana overdose. There is no nicotine, which is highly addictive. I'm sure the cigarette smokers here will concur. The lamest argument against legalization is that somehow, people who have never smoked weed, never been interested, will suddenly want to smoke it once it is legalized. Airline pilots will be toking in the cockpit, surgeons will be smoking in pre-op, and all the rest of the total bullshit arguments that you can think of. It's easy enough for anyone to buy right now, so those very same people should already be doing it because it's available.

No one is going to come into anyone else's home and force them to smoke weed, and they're certainly not going to come into mine and tell me I can't. This issue is right out of the prohibition days when church-going women with pinched, bitter faces tried to enforce their moral imperatives on the rest of the country. They lost then and they're going to lose now.

Actually the prohibition era got its start from women's groups because domestic violence was so rampant .

It was an epidemic of women getting beat to death. - yet another reason to legalize pot, no one ever got violent on it but I'd bet 90 % of domestic battery has alcohol as a factor .

Women's groups were certainly at the forefront of the US Prohibition movement. It also reflected a strong element of prejudice against Italian and Irish immigrants, both drinking cultures. Similarly, marijuana smoking was associated with Mexican immigrants, while cocaine was considered to turn blacks in crazed rapists of white women.

[HorseDoctor]

As for the topic, more people die from prescription drugs in the US than all other illegal drugs combined. No one, not one single person has ever died from marijuana overdose. There is no nicotine, which is highly addictive. I'm sure the cigarette smokers here will concur. The lamest argument against legalization is that somehow, people who have never smoked weed, never been interested, will suddenly want to smoke it once it is legalized. Airline pilots will be toking in the cockpit, surgeons will be smoking in pre-op, and all the rest of the total bullshit arguments that you can think of. It's easy enough for anyone to buy right now, so those very same people should already be doing it because it's available.

No one is going to come into anyone else's home and force them to smoke weed, and they're certainly not going to come into mine and tell me I can't. This issue is right out of the prohibition days when church-going women with pinched, bitter faces tried to enforce their moral imperatives on the rest of the country. They lost then and they're going to lose now.

Actually the prohibition era got its start from women's groups because domestic violence was so rampant .

It was an epidemic of women getting beat to death. - yet another reason to legalize pot, no one ever got violent on it but I'd bet 90 % of domestic battery has alcohol as a factor .

Women's groups were certainly at the forefront of the US Prohibition movement. It also reflected a strong element of prejudice against Italian and Irish immigrants, both drinking cultures. Similarly, marijuana smoking was associated with Mexican immigrants, while cocaine was considered to turn blacks in crazed rapists of white women.

please....

The below is my quote, the portion above it regarding "...pinched faced, bitter...women .." , is not .


HD " Actually the prohibition era got its start from women's groups because domestic violence was so rampant .

It was an epidemic of women getting beat to death. - yet another reason to legalize pot, no one ever got violent on it but I'd bet 90 % of domestic battery has alcohol as a factor."

[robuzo]

As for the topic, more people die from prescription drugs in the US than all other illegal drugs combined. No one, not one single person has ever died from marijuana overdose. There is no nicotine, which is highly addictive. I'm sure the cigarette smokers here will concur. The lamest argument against legalization is that somehow, people who have never smoked weed, never been interested, will suddenly want to smoke it once it is legalized. Airline pilots will be toking in the cockpit, surgeons will be smoking in pre-op, and all the rest of the total bullshit arguments that you can think of. It's easy enough for anyone to buy right now, so those very same people should already be doing it because it's available.

No one is going to come into anyone else's home and force them to smoke weed, and they're certainly not going to come into mine and tell me I can't. This issue is right out of the prohibition days when church-going women with pinched, bitter faces tried to enforce their moral imperatives on the rest of the country. They lost then and they're going to lose now.

Actually the prohibition era got its start from women's groups because domestic violence was so rampant .

It was an epidemic of women getting beat to death. - yet another reason to legalize pot, no one ever got violent on it but I'd bet 90 % of domestic battery has alcohol as a factor .

Women's groups were certainly at the forefront of the US Prohibition movement. It also reflected a strong element of prejudice against Italian and Irish immigrants, both drinking cultures. Similarly, marijuana smoking was associated with Mexican immigrants, while cocaine was considered to turn blacks in crazed rapists of white women.

please....

The below is my quote, the portion above it regarding "...pinched faced, bitter...women .." , is not .


HD " Actually the prohibition era got its start from women's groups because domestic violence was so rampant .

It was an epidemic of women getting beat to death. - yet another reason to legalize pot, no one ever got violent on it but I'd bet 90 % of domestic battery has alcohol as a factor."

Sorry, fucked up the quote/unquote thing. Blaming it on the jet lag and not substance abuse. . .

[BugginOut]

In 2008 testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Medical Epidemiologist Dr. Leonard J. Paulozzi[7] of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that in 2005 (the most recent year for which data was available) more than 22,000 American lives were lost due to overdoses, and the number is growing rapidly. Dr. Paulozzi also testified that all available evidence suggests that unintentional overdose deaths are related to the increasing use of prescription drugs, especially opiod painkillers. [8]

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.