House And Senate Voted To Amend The Act Last Night

[peanutbutter]

Long ago past medical practice combined with modern medical studies and current anecdotal cases?

 

Sorry to be stubborn. I believe there is valuable information we can glean from the past.

 

Perhaps only old medical claims that seem to be supported by our current information?

 

This information is from the absolute apex of medical knowledge about cannabis.

[phaquetoo]

That would make outstanding testimony for the panel, Jim, if Restorium can figure out a way to fill out section 3 of the petition for asthma.

 

Restorium, I think you could fill out this section acknowledging that it already fits the description under section 3(a)(2), but that physicians need direction because of the spurious inclusion of multiple sclerosis in the description of muscle spasms.

 

zap my dr. actualy asked me where i get my mm from, this was a few yrs ago, she said she had an older pt that would probably bennifet like I was, we talked in detail, and its all in my pt records, as far as telling her where her other pts can get mm, I said well I think there is a dispense in pinconning, and there was at the time, she asked me to send her a page or site that sold the kind of vaporizors I was using, she realy was impressed and made sure to check my lung activity every visit, she still does, I asked her why they are not renewing or writing recs any longer, she said they used to just rent an office from st. marys of standish now they are part of st.marrys and they dont want any of there employees participating in the mm program, well we all know how that works eh? but on a good note she still sees me, writes my scripts if I need them and dont p test me, and she said if she did it would not show i had thc in my system!

 

We need real medical records like that! im sure there are many others that get a big benifit from mm. heck Im off of my narcotics! and that is a realy big thing for me, but im not sure if it is totaly from mm or me just getting older and gettting tired of the .b.s you know?

 

Peace

Jim

[t-pain]

peanutbutter: i agree with you about doctors back then having good knowledge.

the problem is that most doctors today dont give a bunny muffin, and are brainwashed/taught in medical school that old medicine was all lobotomies, drinking ethanol and using leeches.

 

theres still some old doctors , like phil leveque http://www.salem-new...0Phil%20Leveque who believe that people 100 years ago knew something. theres also native american doctors / medicine men who practice using cannabis compounds. good luck presenting that as evidence!

 

these new doctors think all of that stuff is 'snake oil' and if you bring them the snake oil bottles... well... they wont think very much of you. from a historical viewpoint, its obvious that cannabis was used to treat many many many symptoms. in many forms, tinctures, hash, oils, and mixed with alcohol and other things. but trying to teach a bunch of grown men history is not going to work. hell, you cant even teach most people about how iraq and afghanistan is just history repeating of the vietnam war. people still think we won vietnam!

 

in my opinion i'd stick with the 'game' the current set of medical 'professionals' are playing.

provide current research from other countries. like israel, canada, spain, etc.

 

that said, it would be interesting to have some native american doctor show up and give his/her testimony and evidence.

has anyone reached out to the native american groups here in michigan? i've seen videos of first nations people in oregon enrolled in the mmj program there.

 

to answer your other question, the prevailing argument from the prohibitionist NIH and just about every medical board ever says that smoked maijuana is not medicine. so i would NOT show them the athsma ciggarettes. but showing them tinctures from the major drug manufacturers may convince them. eli lilly and a bunch of other companies that are still around today used to sell cannabis. thats proof cannabis was tested by millions of people, it sold, and it worked. if you can bring a sativex box/sprayer with your antique cannabis bottle. showing both an old medicine and a new medicine will help convince them that new medicine and old medicine arent all that different

 

by snake oil i mean the 'cure all' labelling. so it would be better to show a bottle that said it was for coughing fits or nausea. not a 'cure all' or 'health revitalizer' or other snake-ish label.

 

i'm not trying to dissuade you. i think it would be a good idea to teach people history and at least have one person show them the old medicine. well, i hope i at least gave you some good ideas for your petition

Edited December 18, 2012 by t-pain

[Chauncy Gardner]

peanutbutter: i agree with you about doctors back then having good knowledge.

the problem is that most doctors today dont give a bunny muffin, and are brainwashed/taught in medical school that old medicine was all lobotomies, drinking ethanol and using leeches.

 

theres still some old doctors , like phil leveque http://www.salem-new...0Phil%20Leveque who believe that people 100 years ago knew something. theres also native american doctors / medicine men who practice using cannabis compounds. good luck presenting that as evidence!

 

these new doctors think all of that stuff is 'snake oil' and if you bring them the snake oil bottles... well... they wont think very much of you. from a historical viewpoint, its obvious that cannabis was used to treat many many many symptoms. in many forms, tinctures, hash, oils, and mixed with alcohol and other things. but trying to teach a bunch of grown men history is not going to work. hell, you cant even teach most people about how iraq and afghanistan is just history repeating of the vietnam war. people still think we won vietnam!

 

in my opinion i'd stick with the 'game' the current set of medical 'professionals' are playing.

provide current research from other countries. like israel, canada, spain, etc.

 

that said, it would be interesting to have some native american doctor show up and give his/her testimony and evidence.

has anyone reached out to the native american groups here in michigan? i've seen videos of first nations people in oregon enrolled in the mmj program there.

 

to answer your other question, the prevailing argument from the prohibitionist NIH and just about every medical board ever says that smoked maijuana is not medicine. so i would NOT show them the athsma ciggarettes. but showing them tinctures from the major drug manufacturers may convince them. eli lilly and a bunch of other companies that are still around today used to sell cannabis. thats proof cannabis was tested by millions of people, it sold, and it worked. if you can bring a sativex box/sprayer with your antique cannabis bottle. showing both an old medicine and a new medicine will help convince them that new medicine and old medicine arent all that different

 

by snake oil i mean the 'cure all' labelling. so it would be better to show a bottle that said it was for coughing fits or nausea. not a 'cure all' or 'health revitalizer' or other snake-ish label.

 

i'm not trying to dissuade you. i think it would be a good idea to teach people history and at least have one person show them the old medicine. well, i hope i at least gave you some good ideas for your petition

 

 

Your idea of placing Sativex (modern medicine) alongside antique medicine to compare the two is a brilliant idea. Sativex seems to be just an old medicine in a new bottle!

 

Jack Herer was right. The Emperor has no clothes when it comes to marijuana prohibition. The prohibitionists rely on anecdotal evidence to make cannabis "The Forbidden Fruit", yet when it comes to permitting people to use the substance, they want only empirical evidence which, by the way, doesn't exist because research on marijuana is forbidden!

 

Jesus H. Effin Christ you glue brained, prohibitionist morons! I can't wait until the citizens of this country, tired of all the bullshiit being fed to them, rise up and smear your anecdotal evidence in your slimy, lying faces and legalize this plant once and for all for anyone to use anytime they want to use it. Then we will see what kind of people you really are. And I, for one, can't wait.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Chauncy Gardner

[CaveatLector]

The documentation from before 1937 shows common medical usage before being made illegal. Specific conditions. That should qualify under the anecdotal heading, I would think.

 

If there were anecdotal stories from those dates, it would seem logical the medical literature of the time would be of at least equal value.

What you are failing to understand is that the medical profession operates on facts. Proven facts. Thus the use of blind and double-blind and controlled experimentations conducted with rigorous and sound methodology. I don't think you understand proper research methods. Be assured that those on the board will. I would think that they will be loathe to consider not only anecdotal evidence but anecdotal evidence that is a century old. Ever hear of an old wives' tale? That's the ground you are treading on. Remember when there was anecdotal evidence that you would catch pneumonia if you had wet feet and were out in the cold?

 

As a previous poster indicated you seem disconnected. Going in front of a bunch of docs and asking them to consider anecdotal evidence is tantamount to asking a judge to consider hearsay. It is unreliable.

[TheHarvester]

Zap makes a great point above and I would like to add to it. When it comes to interacting with policy makers, shaping the future of this movement, and even being involved in real time steering, we need to always have the patients at the forefront of our actions and thoughts.

Our movement, as well as many others, has suffered from individual agendas that preclude the greater good and serve to cause strife amongst all of us. There's been great conversation here, people working together as was pointed out, this is what's powerful to us and terrifying to our opposition.

Incredibly encouraging conversation here. To see us all getting along and having healthy debate is amazing considering where we all were just a few years ago. All of us in this community being able to unify is the best thing for all patients, we have to challenge ourselves to keep this going.

This panel project could be just the begging.

[tooldini]

Gotta say for the most part these will not affect me and anyone I personally know. They seem pretty easy to follow I agree with SFC on this one

[peanutbutter]

What you are failing to understand is that the medical profession operates on facts. Proven facts. Thus the use of blind and double-blind and controlled experimentations conducted with rigorous and sound methodology. I don't think you understand proper research methods. Be assured that those on the board will. I would think that they will be loathe to consider not only anecdotal evidence but anecdotal evidence that is a century old. Ever hear of an old wives' tale? That's the ground you are treading on. Remember when there was anecdotal evidence that you would catch pneumonia if you had wet feet and were out in the cold?

 

As a previous poster indicated you seem disconnected. Going in front of a bunch of docs and asking them to consider anecdotal evidence is tantamount to asking a judge to consider hearsay. It is unreliable.

 

This isn't the FDA.

 

Anecdotal evidence has been determined to be acceptable. As I understand it.

 

If double blind testing is the only acceptable information to hand to then, there is a strong strict limit on the conditions being applied for. The requirement may, in fact, eliminate any application entirely.

 

In other words, if that is the only acceptable information they will accept, it alters those conditions that are worthy of attempting to apply for.

Edited December 18, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

This isn't the FDA.

 

Anecdotal evidence has been determined to be acceptable. As I understand it.

 

If double blind testing is the only acceptable information to hand to then, there is a strong strict limit on the conditions being applied for. The requirement may, in fact, eliminate any application entirely.

 

It would be VERY interesting to compare the list of common medical uses back then to Grannys list today.

[peanutbutter]

What you are failing to understand is that the medical profession operates on facts. Proven facts. Thus the use of blind and double-blind and controlled experimentations conducted with rigorous and sound methodology. I don't think you understand proper research methods. Be assured that those on the board will. I would think that they will be loathe to consider not only anecdotal evidence but anecdotal evidence that is a century old. Ever hear of an old wives' tale? That's the ground you are treading on. Remember when there was anecdotal evidence that you would catch pneumonia if you had wet feet and were out in the cold?

 

As a previous poster indicated you seem disconnected. Going in front of a bunch of docs and asking them to consider anecdotal evidence is tantamount to asking a judge to consider hearsay. It is unreliable.

 

The panel is asking for more anecdotal testimony.

 

If they are going to reject this testimony, why are they asking for more of it?

[mibrains]

Gosh, it's almost as if everyone here is working toward a common goal, while being respectful of others.

 

Not sure I believe it, but it's nice to see.

 

agreed...

amazing...

[mibrains]

Zap makes a great point above and I would like to add to it. When it comes to interacting with policy makers, shaping the future of this movement, and even being involved in real time steering, we need to always have the patients at the forefront of our actions and thoughts.

Our movement, as well as many others, has suffered from individual agendas that preclude the greater good and serve to cause strife amongst all of us. There's been great conversation here, people working together as was pointed out, this is what's powerful to us and terrifying to our opposition.

Incredibly encouraging conversation here. To see us all getting along and having healthy debate is amazing considering where we all were just a few years ago. All of us in this community being able to unify is the best thing for all patients, we have to challenge ourselves to keep this going.

This panel project could be just the begging.

 

excellent beginning to what could become a whole new era.

[bobandtorey]

What you are failing to understand is that the medical profession operates on facts. Proven facts. Thus the use of blind and double-blind and controlled experimentations conducted with rigorous and sound methodology. I don't think you understand proper research methods. Be assured that those on the board will. I would think that they will be loathe to consider not only anecdotal evidence but anecdotal evidence that is a century old. Ever hear of an old wives' tale? That's the ground you are treading on. Remember when there was anecdotal evidence that you would catch pneumonia if you had wet feet and were out in the cold?

 

As a previous poster indicated you seem disconnected. Going in front of a bunch of docs and asking them to consider anecdotal evidence is tantamount to asking a judge to consider hearsay. It is unreliable.

 

He is saying you have no hard facts and i agree its hard to come up with someting they can understand they are Doctors they are like Lawyers maybe Doctore Bob can help you should talk to him it may give you some insite to your Approach

[t-pain]

now i'm wondering how to get a spent sativex bottle.

 

also, i think getting one of irv's federal cannisters would help , if someone wants to make a petition for TUMORS...

some tumor studies:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Edited December 18, 2012 by t-pain

[SFC]

Thanks Tooldini. We did everything we possibly could bro. But that chapter has passed , right now we have the conditions panel in front of us and no more pending legislation at this time. Until that changes ,as a community new conditions needs to be our laser beam focus.

[Herb Cannabis]

Your idea of placing Sativex (modern medicine) alongside antique medicine to compare the two is a brilliant idea. Sativex seems to be just an old medicine in a new bottle!

 

Jack Herer was right. The Emperor has no clothes when it comes to marijuana prohibition. The prohibitionists rely on anecdotal evidence to make cannabis "The Forbidden Fruit", yet when it comes to permitting people to use the substance, they want only empirical evidence which, by the way, doesn't exist because research on marijuana is forbidden!

 

Jesus H. Effin Christ you glue brained, prohibitionist morons! I can't wait until the citizens of this country, tired of all the bullshiit being fed to them, rise up and smear your anecdotal evidence in your slimy, lying faces and legalize this plant once and for all for anyone to use anytime they want to use it. Then we will see what kind of people you really are. And I, for one, can't wait.

 

Jesus H. Effin Christ you glue brained, prohibitionist morons! I can't wait until the citizens of this country, tired of all the bullshiit being fed to them, rise up and smear your anecdotal evidence in your slimy, lying faces and legalize this plant once and for all for anyone to use anytime they want to use it. Then we will see what kind of people you really are. And I, for one, can't wait. I am with you on this one and one more thought. Who will be using this medicine? My money says they will.

[bobandtorey]

Keep the faith Brother keep the faith

[GanjaWarrior]

Gotta say for the most part these will not affect me and anyone I personally know. They seem pretty easy to follow I agree with SFC on this one

 

 

thats a swell attitude to have.... not that I would call it compassionate or caring. when you needed grow help, should folks have said. "i dont have that problem who cares". When the politicians go gunning for you next you would ask for help right, and hope people didnt just say, "screw it doesn't effect me" ?When they say glaucoma isnt a real issue, we should just stand by, then it will be only a few types of cancer are good enough. dont worry one day they will get to tying to weaseling you out of the program too, and ill still be fighting for you, even if you cant fight for my family.

[Restorium2]

Exactly GW. The changes didn't effect me either. But it doesn't take much of an imagination to see that the changes will effect a boat load of people negatively. This isn't some sort of an attack on those that want to take credit for softening the bills, hurray and thanks to them. The point is that these bills were not bills written to help patients and the bills will not ever be seen that way in most of our eyes, those eyes that look for harm to people we don't even know.

[SFC]

Look who must have just got their internet turned back on, lol. And Resto... ah nevermind...

Edited December 18, 2012 by SFC

[GanjaWarrior]

Look who must have just got their internet turned back on, lol. And Resto... ah nevermind...

 

look who has nothing intelligent to add. shooting for par today i see...

[CaveatLector]

thats a swell attitude to have.... not that I would call it compassionate or caring. when you needed grow help, should folks have said. "i dont have that problem who cares". When the politicians go gunning for you next you would ask for help right, and hope people didnt just say, "screw it doesn't effect me" ?When they say glaucoma isnt a real issue, we should just stand by, then it will be only a few types of cancer are good enough. dont worry one day they will get to tying to weaseling you out of the program too, and ill still be fighting for you, even if you cant fight for my family.

You thrive on putting a negative spin on this don't you? Who here said, "screw it it doesn't effect (sic) me?"

 

I tend to see it as people seeing the glass as half full. In other words, this is what we have and I can live with it. If you cannot then that's cool too. But raining on everyone's parade and trying to get them to see the glass as half empty isn't likely to work. I think most people tend to be optimists. Evolution tended to weed out the pessimists by lowering their immune systems for them . . . or cutting off their internet for a while.

Edited December 18, 2012 by CaveatLector

[GanjaWarrior]

You thrive on putting a negative spin on this don't you? Who here said, "screw it it doesn't effect (sic) me?"

 

I tend to see it as people seeing the glass as half full. In other words, this is what we have and I can live with it. If you cannot then that's cool too. But raining on everyone's parade and trying to get them to see the glass as half empty isn't likely to work. I think most people tend to be optimists. Evolution tended to weed out the pessimists by lowering their immune systems for them . . . or cutting off their internet for a while.

Yes i know the optimist you speak of, there were jews is Germany that said "its ok hes only rounding up the gypsies". many a sheep thought themselves having a grand day right before the wolves ate them. Your far tot pompous to take such glee in childish insults and petty jabs.

[Restorium2]

I still feel that some don't understand our point of view here, maybe this will help;

 

Remember when MDCH came out with those proposed rules? And we kicked them to the curb? Did you have a whole bunch of love all ready for MDCH when the rules were dropped? No? OK Maybe now you get it. Just because some of the bad went away doesn't change the feeling that they were NOT trying to help us. I feel the same way about these politicians as I did about the people at MDCH that came up with those proposed rules back at the beginning. Heck, maybe I'm mad at the same folks both times? Seems that way now that I think about it. The same type of minds that thought up those proposed rules thought up these bills. I'm up for a change of minds, how about you?

[peanutbutter]

Correct. It is our job to make sure any evidence we produce for the panel is persuasive and easy for them to understand.

 

So what do they want? Confessions of criminal activity?

 

We file a signed document where we demonstrate that a person is clearly not covered by the law. Next we bring people in to confess that they are violating the MMMA?

 

Not to mention, every one of those confessions will be irrelevant to the approval? (double blind evidence only)

 

Please note that BS was involved in the design of the application. Most likely all proposed conditions will likely be handed to him for his approval.

Edited December 18, 2012 by peanutbutter