Post: #1

Quote:Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.

I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.

Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot."

Well, I am here to apologize.

Quote:We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.

Quote:We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence in around 9 to 10% of its adult users. By comparison, cocaine, a schedule 2 substance "with less abuse potential than schedule 1 drugs" hooks 20% of those who use it. Around 25% of heroin users become addicted.

The worst is tobacco, where the number is closer to 30% of smokers, many of whom go on to die because of their addiction.

There is clear evidence that in some people marijuana use can lead to withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea. Even considering this, it is hard to make a case that it has a high potential for abuse. The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like those of the other drugs I've mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from alcohol, and it can be life threatening.

Quote:In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture.

Quote:To do studies on marijuana in the United States today, you need two important things.

First of all, you need marijuana. And marijuana is illegal. You see the problem. Scientists can get research marijuana from a special farm in Mississippi, which is astonishingly located in the middle of the Ole Miss campus, but it is challenging. When I visited this year, there was no marijuana being grown.

The second thing you need is approval, and the scientists I interviewed kept reminding me how tedious that can be. While a cancer study may first be evaluated by the National Cancer Institute, or a pain study may go through the National Institute for Neurological Disorders, there is one more approval required for marijuana: NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It is an organization that has a core mission of studying drug abuse, as opposed to benefit.

Quote:Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United States drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed was neuropathic pain. It is a miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have described it as "lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles." While marijuana has long been documented to be effective for this awful pain, the most common medications prescribed today come from the poppy plant, including morphine, oxycodone and dilaudid.

Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well for this kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem.

Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United States every 19 minutes from a prescription drug overdose, mostly accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana overdose.

It is perhaps no surprise then that 76% of physicians recently surveyed said they would approve the use of marijuana to help ease a woman's pain from breast cancer.

Full article on CNN.com

I find this article very interesting for a variety of reasons. There are the obvious implications of a well-known and respected neurosurgeon going out of his way to publicly support (medical) marijuana legalization.

There are a few things going on slightly below the surface. When Gupta's article against marijuana legalization was released in TIME in 2009, he was one of the leading candidates for the vacant US Surgeon General position. The vast majority of the information that he himself cites in his more recent article was already available at that time yet he claimed that his "research" led him to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. That not only should not be legalized but that it should continue to be classified as a "schedule 1 substance" characterized as having "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse". Essentially, Dr. Gupta was either highly irresponsible and wrote a medical article to be published in a major magazine without having done the proper research OR the more likely scenario that he was simply saying what would coincide with the Administration's stance.

This tarnishes his credibility but also gives you another glimpse at the nature of politics in this country. As the pressure builds, get your popcorn ready to watch how far the federal government will go to protect the interests that would be harmed by the legalization of marijuana/hemp.

Post: #2

I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies are already sending out campaign "donations" to every politician on the hill in response to this documentary.

Post: #3

I don't resent him for his 2009 report; if anything I admire him for having the courage to research the issue further and come to a revised conclusion, and to publicly apologize for his mistake. That's how science works.

(Of course, this is assuming that it really was an honest mistake and not driven by political reasons).

However, it would be foolish to think that the current position shift is not driven by political reasons.

Post: #4

A year ago this wouldn't of got past the producers. But with CNN lagging in ratings and the new shifts with States trying to legalize it it's a perfect climate to come out with a mainstream package like this. CNN will get it of buzz for this- Gupta is a shill but I can always respect a man whom has a awakening and can admit his faults.

Post: #5

I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies are already sending out campaign "donations" to every politician on the hill in response to this documentary.

Post: #6

Quote:Quote:
In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture.

Think about what this means. Almost all of this sort of research are ultimately funded by the government or by the non-profit sector. So, the group of organizations generally referred to as the public interest spends 16 times more time and money trying to prove that this this plant causes harm as as they spend trying to find ways that it might help people. Shows you how much of our society is based on trying to instill fear.

Post: #7

The biggest obstruction to legal weed is the alcohol industry.

Post: #8

(08-09-2013 03:09 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies are already sending out campaign "donations" to every politician on the hill in response to this documentary.

Not just pharmaceutical companies. Hemp can be used to make paper, plastic, clothing, building supplies, and ethanol. It doesn't require many pesticides and grows quickly, making it's production more environmentally safe. It's seeds are high in essential fatty acids, omega 3, and protein. The US government released a documentary titled 'Hemp for Victory' during WWII encouraging farmers to grow it in large amounts because of it's multitude of uses.

Hemp production is technically legal in the US already but you have to go through the DEA. An outright legalization of marijuana could completely change our economy. It would create jobs and potentially help the environment but it would also hurt quite a few companies.

(08-09-2013 03:44 AM)pump_and_romance Wrote:  I don't resent him for his 2009 report; if anything I admire him for having the courage to research the issue further and come to a revised conclusion, and to publicly apologize for his mistake. That's how science works.

(Of course, this is assuming that it really was an honest mistake and not driven by political reasons).

However, it would be foolish to think that the current position shift is not driven by political reasons.

Yeah, it's great that he said he was wrong and apologized. It was also hugely irresponsible to release that article in a major publication completely condoning marijuana without doing his due diligence.

The sources he cited in this new article were research from pre-1930 and the testimonies of current/potential medical marijuana users. This same information was available in 2009. You may agree or disagree with marijuana legalization but it would be obvious for anyone who did even a few hours of research that it shouldn't be a schedule 1 substance.

The original article was all political.

(08-09-2013 06:09 AM)j r Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:
In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture.

Think about what this means. Almost all of this sort of research are ultimately funded by the government or by the non-profit sector. So, the group of organizations generally referred to as the public interest spends 16 times more time and money trying to prove that this this plant causes harm as as they spend trying to find ways that it might help people. Shows you how much of our society is based on trying to instill fear.

If you read the whole article, it also says that even if you wanted to fund your own research into the benefits of marijuana you have to go through the government and get approval to actually use the plant in your study. They are releasing their own information and censoring the rest.

Post: #9

Welcome to the dark ages. Science is so politicized it has become useless.

Post: #10

I just saw this documentary. Its was very interesting but seemed like it was propoganda. I do have Chrohns and will talk to my doctor about it, but I'm worried about the side effects and if I have to go off it. I would only need to use it during a flare up or when I get older and can't tolerate the pain as well. A relative of mine has seizures and doesn't do well with the seizure meds. I was told of this documentary of a close family friend whose daughter is now using it and has made impressive improvements in behavior. She is special needs and has seizures as well.

Post: #11

What a terrible documentary title...clearly it should have been called something like "Gupta loves Ganja"

Post: #12

But if we legalize drugs, we won't get to slaughter innocent people in no-knock raids, clean up butchered bodies off the streets, finance completely psycotic bloodthirsty tyrant psychopaths, and throw thousands of innocent black people into rape dungeons for decades, any more! What a shameful suggestion!

Post: #13

Post: #14

(10-09-2015 11:37 PM)kbell Wrote:  I just saw this documentary. Its was very interesting but seemed like it was propoganda. I do have Chrohns and will talk to my doctor about it, but I'm worried about the side effects and if I have to go off it. I would only need to use it during a flare up or when I get older and can't tolerate the pain as well. A relative of mine has seizures and doesn't do well with the seizure meds. I was told of this documentary of a close family friend whose daughter is now using it and has made impressive improvements in behavior. She is special needs and has seizures as well.

Kbell, the amount of cannabis you need for medical benefits is way lower than the amount needed for actually "getting high".

If anything, you could get one of those pen vaporizers, load it up with a small amount of your strain of choice (and fill it halfway or even less), and hit it. You will get the medicinal benefits while also using minute amounts of drug.

Level of dependency is similar to coffee withdrawal if you drink one to two cups a day. When you don't have your cup of coffee, your day is bleh but certainly not like a cocaine withdrawal.

Post: #15

The minute I heard the name Sanjay Gupta, I tuned out everything he had to say.

This guy looks like the quintessential ass-kissing lackey of the establishment.

Some TV "doctor" who doesn't practice medicine in real life, but struts around and postures like some kind of "expert."

He's not a real doctor out there practicing medicine. He's a faux-doctor.

Post: #16

The type that is recommend is usually low THC, high CBD. THe oil or pills would probably be better since they are longer lasting and I would think directly hit the area.

Post: #17

(10-10-2015 12:41 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Level of dependency is similar to coffee withdrawal if you drink one to two cups a day. When you don't have your cup of coffee, your day is bleh but certainly not like a cocaine withdrawal.

I actually had an easier time getting off pot than attempting to get off coffee.

While I think legalization makes sense from a libertarian perspective, if all these media doctors are going to go around and start promoting pot that's disingenuous as well. Even if pot is less harmful than alcohol it still isn't particularly good for you, given the dry eye, coughing all the time, and propensity to overeat. Plus the tendency to become associated with insufferable "pot culture" people.

Frankly, I think the shift in attitude is that the government realized they actually had the equivalent of soma from Brave New World, and they would be idiots to deny the unemployed masses such an effective pacifier.

Post: #18

Marijuana can be a nice, mildly liminal drug that is good for helping one to stop and smell the roses. Unfortunately, everything about it – from its marketing to the aspects of the plant that are being fortified by the popular strains – seems linked to a culture of stupidity and consumption.

It is as if an interesting little day-buzz of a plant is being transformed into a dullard's fantasy of stupefaction by our toxic culture.

It is nice to have a little puff and then jump from a high pier into a warm ocean in late July, feeling your body slice through the air and then change realms altogether, laughing in a languorous backstroke as you watch the birds dive down for their dinners. Plants and animals and currents of air and water – the world.

Inhaling lungfuls of some custom high-THC strain through your storebought vaporizer while queuing up a Netflix marathon is, to my eyes, a greedy and tedious distortion of the plant's effects. No, it's not evil or addictive or sinister, and yes, all of those claims are laughable drug war propaganda. But it's not beautiful, either.

It's not liminal or thoughtful and it doesn't have much potential to expose new aspects of truth.

The plant is fine: it's a nice and kindhearted little detail of this planet. But the culture – our culture – is sluggish and dim.