AGAINST “LEGALIZATION”

[nabraxas]

consider what might result from the legalization of “medical marijuana”—clearly the will of the people in at least six states. The herb would instantly fall under drastic new regulations from “Above” (the AMA, the courts, insurance companies, etc.). Monsanto would probably acquire the DNA patents and “intellectual ownership” of the plant’s genetic structure. Laws would probably be tightened against illegal marijuana for “recreational uses.” Smokers would be defined (by law) as “sick.” As a commodity, Cannabis would soon be denatured like other legal psychotropics such as coffee, tobacco, or chocolate.

Terence McKenna once pointed out that virtually all useful research on psychotropics is carried out illegally and is often largely funded from underground. Legalization would make possible a much tighter control from above over all drug research. The valuable contributions of the entheogenic underground would probably diminish or cease altogether. Terence suggested that we stop wasting time and energy petitioning the authorities for permission to do what we’re doing, and simply get on with it.

\

http://www.hermetic.com/bey/legalization.html

[The Jamanoid]

I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation for medical users - if it will do for you what medication will not, or will not without undesirable side effects then it should be a persons right to choose this as a potential solution - Though actually smoking it somewhat defeats the purpose, because even for terminal patients, it would only make ones lifespan potentially shorter and more fraught with potential (other) health issues.

Though vapourisation, preparation or tinctures and extractions for edibles are easy options and comparatively far healthier than combustion/inhalation of carcinogens.

Of course, having said that I believe if it was legalised for medical users the people to suffer further laws/prohibition would predominately be the recreational users...but of course, what can you expect in this regard?

I would hope in this case though for the sake of the legitimate medical users, that this wouldn't make a difference, eg, if the perception was that every medical user was just someone looking to score weed and get high it may become a pretty arduous process for the legitimately sick/infirm to obtain it for themselves.

Personally - I'm behind overall legalisation...not having to go to a dealer etc would be great, lead less people down the road of trying other chemical illicit substances and so forth (In my personal weed appreciator experience weed is not at all a gateway drug, but many a dealer has opened the gate to whatever other CRAP they're selling), make knowledge and provision more an issue of parental control/discretion than leaving it to someone that would sell stuff to a kid with little to no moral issues about doing that at all.

Not to mention 9 times out of 10 these people are annoying, unreliable, lazy, and then you get to associate with them and others that you'd usually have nothing to do with.

Unfortunately, in most cases obtaining the plant is a matter of a certain amount of immersion in the criminal element, I do not think this should be the case.

I hate, HATE supporting the industry which is why I would encourage those who indulge to consider gardening and self supply as an *alternative/lesser evil* etc, if they were so inclined.

After all, at least then you'd only be a criminal by definition of an unconstitutional law, not by your associations.

[naja naja]

So they need to not legalize it, but reclassify it as un-illegalized. ie, returns to being considered a normal plant like all others. However what about declared weed status. I immagine that even if this plant were not ever made illegal it would still be illegal to grow in many states in Oz and infact many places throughout the world simply do too it's weedy tendencies. Just like in W.A. trich's are a declared noxious weed along the same loines of blackberry. Compelling landowners to attempt to destroy infestations.

Just a thought, but yeah I don't want legalization.

Look how illegal growing ur own tobacco is for example. I'd prefer to get busted under current legislation for growing a commercial MJ crop over commercial tobacco crop anyday.

[Chiral]

Monsanto would probably acquire the DNA patents and “intellectual ownership” of the plant’s genetic structure.

Now that's the part that's fucked up..."ownership"

Goodness me, when will humans learn...?

[ajna]

a fan of hakim bey's writing here

i tend to agree with most his points, although i'd still support medical users' access to government sanctioned, GM'd, denatured cannabis products coz for some it's the only option, and the best medication. legal dispensaries are popping up fast in the US and i imagine it doesn't affect the underground too much. but yes un-illegalisation is probably best for all.

[Maurice]

Are you after decrimalization then? (for stoners)

Cannabis medicine is already legal in Australia,

and so it should be, after all, whats more important,

the relief of suffering, or a stoners narcissitic wish to get high?

[cisumevil]

Are you after decrimalization then? (for stoners)

Cannabis medicine is already legal in Australia,

and so it should be, after all, whats more important,

the relief of suffering, or a stoners narcissitic wish to get high?

 

Where in Australia is Cannabis legal for medical use?

Marinol was trialed but was droped as it cost something like $2000 per script, and you had to be dying of Aids or cancer to qualify.

Would LOVE some details please as I dont think the TGA has ever allowed any cannabis or any parts of cannabis to be used in Australia.

Edited January 11, 2010 by cisumevil

[MindExpansion]

Seems like a sort of backward argument that legalisation will result in less research... the very little ligitimate research they give into the illegal drugs is piss poor and one of the reasons for continued poor legislation.

I think legalisation means they will be researching more because its now a 'medicine'.

Maurice I'd also like to hear where in this country you think ingesting the stuff is legal for...anything?

Also as far as being defined as 'sick' to get it is concerned if you watch a doco called 'cannabis: the evil weed' or some such they interview one of the prescribers and he admits that he would prescribe it for writer's block if that was your primary complaint...

To me this seems like America realising that they are losing the battle, at least with weed, and can make some killer cash by regulating the distribution (probably with incredible prejudice but I say that with no evidence... I can just imagine it being easier for a middle-upper class white american to get a script than his lower socioeconomically positioned minority group brother).

Peace

[stiched up]

So they need to not legalize it, but reclassify it as un-illegalized. ie, returns to being considered a normal plant like all others. However what about declared weed status. I immagine that even if this plant were not ever made illegal it would still be illegal to grow in many states in Oz and infact many places throughout the world simply do too it's weedy tendencies. Just like in W.A. trich's are a declared noxious weed along the same loines of blackberry. Compelling landowners to attempt to destroy infestations.

Just a thought, but yeah I don't want legalization.

Look how illegal growing ur own tobacco is for example. I'd prefer to get busted under current legislation for growing a commercial MJ crop over commercial tobacco crop anyday.

 

i definately agree naja,

take that plant off the restricted list or atleast make it legal to grow a certain amount of plants ,

if we could supply ourselves id be happy if it were illegal to sell. or smoke in public

i dont really think its their buisness whether someone is sick or just getting high hypocrytical pricks

you dont have to be sick/in the body!!! to go and get served alchohol and get pissed blind do you??

[Maurice]

Article here (2nd article) http://www.hempembassy.net/hempe/medical.html

"Sativex is available now in 22 countries including Australia via what is known as named patient

supply. GW Pharmaceuticals are not allowed to promote this, so you are not going to see any advertisements or read about it in newspapers.

Under this procedure, a patient's doctor writes a prescription for Sativex that is sent to GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK. In countries that allow this, the material is then sent directly to the patient. The process begins with the doctor sending an enquiry to:

[email protected]

GW Pharmaceuticals has published two new press releases:

20/05/2009

- Interim Results For The Six Months Ended 31 March 2009

- GW Files Sativex® Regulatory Submission

To read the press releases, go to:

http://www.gwpharm.co.uk/news_press_releases.asp

Sativex Information

Sativex Neurology 2005 PDF

Nurmiko Sativex Allodynia Pain 2007 PDF

Cannabinoids in the management of difficult to treat pain PDF

Named Patient SATIVEX® Physician Product Information"

[Teotzlcoatl]

Personally I believe the plant should be legal to grow but beyond that it'd be subject to restrictions (you couldn't sell it/smoke it in public, etc.) but the live plant and seeds would ALWAYS be legal to grow and possess!

[reptyle]

Punishing people for being alive is a joke...

people should be left to their devices without threats of imposition, unless they are physically threatening the peace.

There is a method of controlling people that doesnt use force or laws...it is peaceful and it is known as culture...culture is far superior to law. infact law is a product of culture...

a wise culture rarely needs to punish its citizens.

as for the research and its confusion by organisation and megapharma...that wouldnt change anything...and not only that...they have the right to do what they want...

better methods of investigation would grow out of the understanding of the inherent value in the individual learning process, and maturation of citizens, as opposed to attempting to draw generalizations and limiting the experience to only that which is interpersonal.

punishment is bad, that's why its punishment.

[cisumevil]

Thanks for that info Maurice but my "quick" research indicates that for one months supply would cost more that $1000 aust. Not really practical for most people

[cisumevil]

Also I just found out that there are only 4 pescriptions currently in Australia for Sativex as most Dr's are to scared of the AMA!

It seems some very brave Dr's are trying to change that.......

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/victorian-doctors-want-approval-to-use-marijuana-for-ms-sufferers/story-e6frg12c-1225819848932

DOCTORS want approval to use marijuana to help treat Victorian patients suffering multiple sclerosis.

If successful it would be the first time permission has been given for the drug's legal use in prescription medicine in Australia.

The push to trial a liquid marijuana-based mouth spray to ease the symptoms and pain of MS sufferers is being led by a doctor from the Royal Melbourne Hospital's neurology department.

The doctor is expected to lodge a formal request with the hospital's ethics committee when it next meets.

He wants to be able to prescribe Sativex, a drug developed in the UK by GW Pharmaceuticals, a company established specifically to develop cannabis-based prescription medicines.

According to the company's website there is no evidence that patients obtain a high such as those experienced by marijuana smokers.

The most common side-effects of Sativex are sleepiness, nausea, and dizziness.

The drug is widely used in the UK, Canada and Spain, and is being tested in the US.

It is claimed Sativex helps alleviate pain and other debilitating symptoms associated with advanced MS, including tremors and loss of movement control and bladder control.

It is also being prescribed to cancer patients in some countries for pain relief and has been tested on patients suffering rheumatoid arthritis and neuropathic pain.

It is understood the doctor from the Royal Melbourne contacted Victoria's Health Department late last year seeking advice on making an application to use the drug to treat MS patients.

"The prescribing medical practitioner is currently going through the process of applying for approval from the hospital's Human Research Ethics Committee," she said.

"For approval to be given for the prescription of this medicine in this trial, both state and Commonwealth approval is required

"However the state can give its approval prior to the drug receiving Commonwealth consent and TGA approval."

The process requires doctors to provide their qualifications as well as patients' details, including diagnosis and intended dosage of the medicine.

A Royal Melbourne Hospital spokesman said it would not be unexpected for a doctor to seek permission to use a drug that has been successful in other countries.

The Herald Sun also reveals the Therapeutic Goods Administration recently approved four applications by a Victorian doctor to use the same drug to treat a rare neurological condition.

The "special access scheme" enables unregistered drugs to be used in very limited circumstances for a specific patient with their consent.

"There are no others applications current and Sativex is not registered in Australia," a TGA spokesman said.

MS Australia's Dr Bill Carroll said any drug that gave sufferers relief was worth a try.

"We are looking forward to the results of rigorous testing that must take place in order to determine whether this drug will be effective in helping people living with this disease," he said.

MS sufferer Robert Pask said he was encouraged by the possibility of any new drugs that could help manage his disease.

"I'll be waiting to see the results of the trials to determine whether this drug may help relieve pain, which is one of my most debilitating symptoms," he said.

Sativex uses cannabinoids and other pharmacologically active components taken from cannabis plants grown in secure glasshouses at a secret location in the UK.

The cannabis-based substances are classified as Schedule 9 under the Victorian drugs and poisons schedule.

By law, medical practitioners must apply to the Secretary of the Health Department for a permit to administer them.