Text 2313, 166 rader
Skriven 2006-06-10 14:18:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2759.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <dm8m82l3e6u7b61ifhaj15tajl9d95r2ba@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <1149655241.242676.183940@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:29 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <1e3k82t95gon9vlqafru3d8bdt62fp7nus@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Haven't heard that one. I thought states were passing laws that didn't
>> recognize gay marriage in other states.
>    They might be. But just because they pass it doesn't mean it is 
>constitutional. And since the Constitution gives the Fed courts the 
>right to referee disputes between the states, this would be a slam dunk 
>that they would have jurisdiction and not be a states right issue. 

True. (Not, I think, that in practice it would make one jot of
difference . . . )

>> >           Medical MJ is pretty much the same since the Feds (through 
>> >FDA) has LONG pre-empted the field of deciding what medication can or 
>> >cannot be used in the US.
>> 
>> Doesn't make it even remotely constitutional, because the Federal
>> authority to regulate drugs is presumably based on the commerce
>> clause. Marijuana grown and consumed within a state isn't subject to
>> Federal oversight because it doesn't constitute interstate commerce.
>> 
>       The courts seem to disagree. Feds have been given authority by 
>the courts to regulate the sale, manufacture of medications through the 
>FDA. The Commerce Clause has been cited as the reason in other attempts 
>to end run the FDA. This is well-settled case law from WAY back. 

>     I am conflicted on this, because I have some of the same qualms as 
>you. But the guys in the black robes and not the two of us get to decide 
>what is or is not constitutional, so there you are.

Again, true.

>> >I find it at least as amusing that the 
>> >liberals want Pfizer et al to go through MORE hoops for their 
>> >medications, but want MMJ to be approved with MUCH less information on 
>> >efficacy, let alone safety. If you want internal consistency in the 
>> >conservatives, it only fair to ask the same for the liberals (g).  
>> 
>> Well, yeah, except that the effects and liabilities of marijuana have
>> at this point been studied to death, and to the extent that they
>> haven't, it's because the government makes it practically impossible
>> to conduct research. I for one think that medical marijuana is a
>> crock, in that there have to be safer and more controllable means of
>> delivering the active substances. But until the research is done to
>> find those means, I'll be damned if I'm going to put the opinions of
>> some overzealous drug czar or pandering politician ahead of the
>> testimony of cancer victims, doubly so since I learned long ago that
>> the establishment (been many years since I reached for /that/ word!)
>> frequently lies through its teeth when it comes to the hazards of
>> recreational narcotics.

>     So, you are okay with using anecdotal information to approve 
>medication use. The safety is not all that well established. For example:
>: Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2005 Jun;63(2):93-100.
>Related Articles, Links
>
>Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury.
>
>Tashkin DP.
>
>Whereas THC causes modest short-term bronchodilation, regular marijuana 
>smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including 
>chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway 
>inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated 
>growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung 
>cancer. The THC in marijuana could contribute to some of these injurious 
>changes through its ability to augment oxidative stress, cause 
>mitochondrial dysfunction, and inhibit apoptosis. On the other hand, 
>physiologic, clinical or epidemiologic evidence that marijuana smoking 
>may lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory cancer 
>is limited and inconsistent. Habitual use of marijuana is also 
>associated with abnormalities in the structure and function of alveolar 
>macrophages, including impairment in microbial phagocytosis and killing 
>that is associated with defective production of immunostimulatory 
>cytokines and nitric oxide, thereby potentially predisposing to 
>pulmonary infection. In view of the growing interest in medicinal 
>marijuana, further epidemiologic studies are needed to clarify the true 
>risks of regular marijuana smoking on respiratory health.
>
>   There are currently a couple of duelling articles on maternal use 
>during pregnancy and some forms of cancer in the kids (one each way). 
>
>A review article from France:
>Alcohol. 2005 Apr;35(3):265-75.
>Related Articles, Links
>
>Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk.
>
>Hashibe M, Straif K, Tashkin DP, Morgenstern H, Greenland S, Zhang ZF.
>
>International Agency for Research on Cancer, 69008 Lyon, France.
>      They noted conflicting studies on a number of cancers, both in the 
>adult and passed on the offspring. 
>   "In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately 
>evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk."

Saw something the other day about a new study that found that it did
/not/ contribute to lung cancer. Which I find surprising.

But my point wasn't that marijuana was completely safe, but that the
risks are pretty well known. By way of contrast, few if any could have
been expected to know that Vioxx elevated cardiovascular risk. Once
that information was known, it became a matter of risk vs. benefit, or
should have (my stepmother for one was pretty damn upset that they
took it off the market because it's the only drug she's found that
eliminates the terrible headaches she's had since she was a child, and
for her, the elevated risk is outweighed by the pain relief).

>> So until it's shown otherwise, from my perspective, the liberal
>> position is of not wanting unscrupulous businessmen to sell
>> ineffectual or dangerous remedies to sick people who don't know
>> better, while the conservative position is not wanting sick people to
>> have access to a drug that can help them. Which would be pretty
>> typical.
>
>       But you are more than willing to let scrupulous liberals sell 
>ineffectual or dangerous remedies to sick people who don't know better 
>because the liberals are willing to let certain drugs they like go on 
>the market based on anecdotal studies. 

Huh? First of all, who says the people who grow and sell these drugs
are necessarily liberals? And who says the people who are profiting
off the sales? As I understand it, medical marijuana is typically
grown by the state.

Besides, there's no realistic doubt that medical marijuana is
effective. Forex, anyone who's ever use it can tell you about the
munchies, which are beneficial to AIDS and cancer patients who have
lost their appetites (albeit I can see lung damage in some cases
offsetting that benefit). That notwithstanding, I favor controlled
double-blind studies to test both the efficacy of medical marijuana
and less harmful vehicles for the active agents; the problem is that
the government makes it virtually impossible to conduct such studies.

There are of course safe and relatively effective herbal remedies as
well, but there's also Riso- well, there's snake oil and crap.

>> You're telling me that not wanting to encourage the consumption of PCP
>> is the same as not wanting anyone to make any money? Just how /do/ you
>> make your money, anyway? And are our children so unimportant to you by
>> comparison to profit that you would want to add billboard ads for
>> ecstasy and LSD to the already harmful ads for cigarettes and alcohol?

>    You really like to chew up the scenery on these things doncha.

Seems to me you haven't answered my questions . . .

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)