# Soon to be EMT-b, But an advocate for Medical Mariujana



## Jperdy (Feb 6, 2010)

Im going to be taking the national reg. soon to be certified EMT. Im excited to be getting into the field, I love the job; in furture pursuing emt-P and firefighter. But I wanna talk on the subject of Medical Marijuana and anyone else who wants to talk on the subject. Ive been using Medicimal Marijuana since age 16 im 23 now. I figure im probably going to have to stop, due to drug testing and such. But im a advocate for it.  

Marijuana helps me study for my tests and concentrate better, sometimes I even go to the gym after smoking; it helps What steps should I take as far as this issue and getting into the field. ?? Latey ive been smoking only once a week. But I need some definate help in figureing out what i should do on this issue. Any suguestions???


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 6, 2010)

You might want to have your physician contact the medical director. I imagine that something as sensitive as medical marijuana (you are, afterall, violating federal law), that a conversation from physician to physician would serve better than physician to you to EMSA staff to medical director or system director.


----------



## terrible one (Feb 6, 2010)

It is highly unlikely you will ever get a job as a FF if you habitually smoke marijuana, regardless of your reason or if it becomes legal.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 6, 2010)

The fallacy of medical marijuana aside, you're not even using it for the most "acceptable" aspect of it.

If you want a job in any sort of public service aspect, be it police, fire or EMS, you'll need to stop the marijuana, period.


----------



## mississippimedic (Feb 6, 2010)

Dude you may want to check into some adderall


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 6, 2010)

Jperdy said:


> Im going to be taking the national reg. soon to be certified EMT. Im excited to be getting into the field, I love the job; in furture pursuing emt-P and firefighter. But I wanna talk on the subject of Medical Marijuana and anyone else who wants to talk on the subject. Ive been using Medicimal Marijuana since age 16 im 23 now. I figure im probably going to have to stop, due to drug testing and such. But im a advocate for it.
> 
> Marijuana helps me study for my tests and concentrate better, sometimes I even go to the gym after smoking; it helps What steps should I take as far as this issue and getting into the field. ?? Latey ive been smoking only once a week. But I need some definate help in figureing out what i should do on this issue. Any suguestions???



Consult your physician about switching to something less controversial like adderall. 

Either way, taking psych meds may negatively affect your employability if not your ability to become certified.

If you are taking this for pain management, EMS is probably not the best career choice.

As for advocacy, there are demonstratable medical benefits of THC. However, the side effects as well as addictive nature (similar to nicotine) all but eliminates the use of THC for potentially productive members of society. If you have a terminal disease or are looking for long term disability, it is probably the best way to go.

As well, if you are not getting synthetic cannabinoid, it becomes difficult to predict the concentration and therefore dose. additionally, there are harmful effects of smoking anything, which makes it an unhealthy route of administration.

Homeopathic remedies in many cultures have a social support component that is often not employed in the modern western world. Causing the treatments to be used out of context and lowering their effectiveness.


----------



## TripsTer (Feb 6, 2010)

Don't expect to become a firefighter anytime soon with regular reefer use.  They'll laugh at you if you say "but it's medical marijuana,". Don't switch to adderall either, or anything that is dependent/addiction prone.

Throw it all away if you want a career with the fire department. Even alcohol is frowned upon these days, and that stuff's legal...


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 6, 2010)

Linuss said:


> The fallacy of medical marijuana aside, you're not even using it for the most "acceptable" aspect of it.



...what fallacy of medical marijuana use? Please cite articles from peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 6, 2010)

The fallacy that you need to use marijuana to get the effects of THC.


----------



## Don Gwinn (Feb 6, 2010)

I'm not really buying the whole medical marijuana movement . . . seems like a pretty transparent ploy to smoke marijuana for fun.

On the other hand, I could not possibly care less whether people want to smoke marijuana for fun. Every time I say that, someone asks whether I smoke it.  The answer is no; I've never tried it.  I also don't drink Tequila or Everclear, but I don't want to live through the second coming of alcohol prohibition, so why would I want to put up with a "war on" a weed that grows in the ditches around here?  Why is it my business at all?

Similarly, I completely believe those of you who are saying a fire department won't hire someone who uses marijuana, even after it's decriminalized (and, folks, that's coming sooner than we think, at least in some states) but it really doesn't make sense.  I can drink all the alcohol I want on my time off, but I'm not drinking tonight because I'm on call in half an hour.  Why couldn't a pot smoker do the same thing?  Just smoke on his day off and put it away when he's going to have to work soon?  Let's face it, there are millions of pot heads doing that right now and excelling at their jobs.

I've also never met a pot smoker who had as much trouble quitting as cigarette smokers, so I'm not buying this idea of marijuana having addictive properties similar to nicotine.  In college, we had a friend who thought he was smoking too much pot and getting absent-minded, so he decided to quit.  He did, cold turkey, and I never saw him high again. It didn't seem like it was all that tough, though he'd reminisce from time to time.  My wife started trying to quit smoking about that time (before she was my wife) and she's still sneaking cigarettes every once in awhile after ten years of marriage.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 6, 2010)

Linuss said:


> The fallacy that you need to use marijuana to get the effects of THC.



I definitely agree that there are better and more appropriate methods to deliver THC.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 6, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> I definitely agree that there are better and more appropriate methods to deliver THC.



See, I had you fooled for a bit, didn't I?


----------



## firetender (Feb 6, 2010)

*Let's Get Real!*

If 25% of you (at least) do not toke on the side, I'll eat a turnout coat! Why is Medical Marijuana taking so much attention? Because it is a response to prohibition, which, when it comes to the vices of human beings, never works. MM laws are a reflection of the fact that marijuana use is mainstream and we're just looking for an excuse to use it without suffering out-of-proportion to the real damage of its use.

Even though the reality is it is a mainstream, recreational drug with far less real danger in its use than alcohol, in EMS it IS and will continue to be a "Don't ask; don't tell" sort of thing. I'd be surprised if middle management and the uppity ups with field experience fail to recognize smoking marijuana is now a part of our culture -- and widespread amongst EMS personnel.

Widespread? How can he say such a thing? Let's face it, Kiddos, avoidance and dulling of the pain of the intense, grueling stuff we go through -- not only EMS but medicine as a whole -- is part of how we do the job; marijuana use is often the LEAST of such regular abuse. 

_*Look around you and you'll honestly see a significant proportion of us have that potential for abuse, many of us slip off the edge periodically (some, permanently), and there is nothing in the system that honestly and directly provides support for those wanting to do otherwise.
*_
Five years from now (because things ARE shifting), maybe we'll be able to start flying ON the radar screen, but I sincerely doubt any EMS system will be ready to condone someone's regular use of pakalolo ("Crazy smoke" in Hawaiian) if there's even an inkling of suspicion that it would or could be used on the job. Our consciousness is altered enough naturally in doing the work, we really don't need to push the issue.

In the meantime; stay in the closet; that's where most everyone else is.


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid (Feb 6, 2010)

*re*

All personal feelings aside on the whole marijuana 
debate as i live within the now famous emerald triangle.
Any employer that accepts payment from the federal government
will be prohibited from employing anyone with a valid 215 card.
This came from the USFS recently when renewing its contract with a local 
employer who employeed 2 individuals with 215 cards here in CA.
The employer was told very bluntly if the employees remained they would no longer receive any contracts that were funded with federal monies.

Now as ambulance fire and police all receive federal dollars you can see why you wont even get an interview with "medical marijuana" listed as a medication.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 6, 2010)

*medical vs recreational use*

Recreational marijuana:
Protecting people from themselves is not my business. Arguing whether cannabis is more dangerous than any other vice is a battle for somebody else. (take your pick, alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, heroin, sex, gambling, etc.)When not at work or when not just prior to going to work, I really don’t care what people do. However, if you work around other people, your vice may put them at risk, and that is simply not fair to make somebody trying to earn a living accept that kind of risk for your pleasure.  

Medical marijuana:
Medicine is my business. According to both of my pharmacology texts, as well as understanding of neurophysiology, and some other applicable medical science knowledge, cannabis is indicated for both cancer patients undergoing Chemotherapy and late stage AIDS patients. (These are people who are largely no longer producers in the producer/consumer scale.) Most terminal cancer and AIDS patients are simply not at work or leading an active life. (I understand there are always outliers, please save your anecdotes) 

Other indications listed for THC include ADD, ADHD, and weight loss. (Did you know you could get a prescription for methamphetamine to treat your shyness until the late ‘80s in the US?)However, the side effects and potential long term complications (not including legal/social implications) Include: Tachycardia, resistant hypertension, hallucinations, abuse potential, irrational thoughts, psychomotor depression, and the potential to cause permanent psychosis. These potentials far outweigh any medical benefit it may confer in these diseases. There are simply better alternatives. Before you ramp up your anecdotes again, I also realize that some people will be resistant to other therapies and may respond to cannabis. But even so, before prescribing THC, there needs to be serious evaluation given to whether or not the cure may be worse than the disease. In other words, will you take a person who can be productive and change them to a dependant consumer? 

Take for example a major sports figure. Would treating Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong with THC increase or decrease the productiveness of their lives? Constant therapy would certainly make them ineligible to continue their careers which do not include “saving peoples’ lives,” or any other job that puts the public at risk.

As I mentioned before, a patient meeting the indications for THC and whom the effects will improve quality of life more than potentially destroy it, should receive it. If anyone is planning to argue the medical benefits of THC for patients not in such extremis, the strength of the argument is so poor I would not care to wager on changing the wide spread opinions on it.


P.S. It should also be administered in a healthier form than as a product of combustion.


----------



## xgpt (Feb 6, 2010)

Linuss said:


> The fallacy of medical marijuana aside, you're not even using it for the most "acceptable" aspect of it.
> 
> If you want a job in any sort of public service aspect, be it police, fire or EMS, you'll need to stop the marijuana, period.



Ditto. This just isn't going to go away anytime soon.



mississippimedic said:


> Dude you may want to check into some adderall



I agree, but I know the military has restrictions against this sort of drug use too...I would be surprised if your EMS company or FF department has issues with adderall though...

You might want to ask yourself which is more important, pursuing EMS or smoking.


----------



## emtCourt31 (Feb 7, 2010)

When I went to go get my annual EMT physical the Doc told me that even if you quit smoking a year ago the police department, fire, ems still wont accept you. Something about testing your hair particals will show drug use. I've never heard ems doing this but I know for sure PD does this.


----------



## spikestac211 (Feb 7, 2010)

Give it up ASAP dude... millions and millions of people out there with just as much work to do as you get by just fine without it.


But I'm biased, every job I've had since I've been 18 has needed drug tests :blush:


----------



## Griboba (Feb 7, 2010)

Jperdy I feel your pain buddy. I'm basically in the same boat as you but as mentioned in a few posts above you really need to take a step back for a second and ask yourself which is more important.

If you ask me what I would do, I'd cold turkey past your EMT-B class/clinicals. Get certified, get a job, a month later figure out weather you need to resume the weed phase or call it a wrap.

Best advice from someone who understands where you're at would be just get your school work done first and then in the privacy of your own home (while not on call) toke as much as you want. Just don't talk about MJ at work since you wouldn't want anyone to begin doubting you. 

Good luck meng.


----------



## TransportJockey (Feb 7, 2010)

Griboba said:


> Jperdy I feel your pain buddy. I'm basically in the same boat as you but as mentioned in a few posts above you really need to take a step back for a second and ask yourself which is more important.
> 
> If you ask me what I would do, I'd cold turkey past your EMT-B class/clinicals. Get certified, get a job, a month later figure out weather you need to resume the weed phase or call it a wrap.
> 
> ...


If that's the way you feel then I fully hope you never work in any system with patients.


----------



## reaper (Feb 7, 2010)

That's why I like our random drug testing! Anytime, without warning.


----------



## Meursault (Feb 8, 2010)

jtpaintball70 said:


> If that's the way you feel then I fully hope you never work in any system with patients.



Burnett's Law (modified) rears its ugly head!

Okay, so this thread could spark a discussion of cannabis prohibition, which past experience indicates isn't going anywhere beyond ad hominem attacks, or of medical marijuana. The second topic raises all sorts of  problems, including:

Most posters here are too opinionated or too poorly gifted with reasoning skills to differentiate between medical and recreational use.
Nearly everyone isn't prepared to read and comment on the relevant research.
 Even the people that are capable of doing so probably have better ways to spend their time. 

Time for this thread to die.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 8, 2010)

MrConspiracy said:


> Burnett's Law (modified) rears its ugly head!
> 
> Okay, so this thread could spark a discussion of cannabis prohibition, which past experience indicates isn't going anywhere beyond ad hominem attacks, or of medical marijuana. The second topic raises all sorts of  problems, including:
> 
> ...




But if we killed every thead that had poor posts, there'd be nothing left to read.

I think I am capable of having an academic discussion on the topic. If you have some insight or evidence I do not, I would like to take a look at it.


----------



## Meursault (Feb 8, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> But if we killed every thead that had poor posts, there'd be nothing left to read.
> 
> I think I am capable of having an academic discussion on the topic. If you have some insight or evidence I do not, I would like to take a look at it.



Your earlier post about medical use covered it better than I could. I'm not sure about the underlying assumption that regular THC use makes people non-productive, but I can't counter it.

And to address the OP's case, using THC to treat any disorder in relatively young patients seems like a bad idea. The risk of long-term psychological side effects is, I believe, less after adolescence, and when we have other, better-understood medications for ADHD, I don't see the benefit.

Now that I'm writing this, I realize that I forgot a point:

The entire issue is pretty far from EMS-relevant


----------



## CAOX3 (Feb 8, 2010)

Whats the difference between MJ then any other medication? The stigma, if its an accepted mode treatment I dont have a problem, is it any different from me popping a couple vicoden because of back pain. (nobody does that right ) 

I cant take them at work because they have a potential to incapacitate me and he shouldnt be smoking it at work because of its potential. 

I have read some studies, whether I agree with them or not some in the medical field believe its beneficial.  It may be, I just dont have enough information to know either way.  I think the stigma attached to it, could be its biggest downfall but just dismissing it because we may not agree isnt a well thought out option.

And there are side effects to every medication those should be weighed against the benefits. 

Its not like he is smoking a bag a day wearing a tie dye shirt and listening to Peter, Paul and Mary on his eight track in his volkswagon van. :unsure:

At least I hope.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 8, 2010)

MrConspiracy said:


> Your earlier post about medical use covered it better than I could. I'm not sure about the underlying assumption that regular THC use makes people non-productive, but I can't counter it.
> 
> And to address the OP's case, using THC to treat any disorder in relatively young patients seems like a bad idea. The risk of long-term psychological side effects is, I believe, less after adolescence, and when we have other, better-understood medications for ADHD, I don't see the benefit.
> 
> ...



I guess I could have better said that it can move people into a consumer role, or at the very minimum severely restrict their productive capabilities. 

In 2010 America, the use of THC rules out any kind of public service, professional sports, machinery operation, most healthcare, or high value technical skills. (like aviation) You will probably only be able to make 1 financial industry mistake as well if somebody discovers your usage. (Would you let your banker work with your money while taking a hallucinogenic medication?) 

I guess if you are looking for a skilled trade, that could be productive providing you never had to file a workman's comp claim. You would also need some very liberal insurance for your work. Arts and entertainment would be open, but there seems to be a very limited amount of those positions that pay a livable wage. Food service might work out, but there is not a lot of well paying positions there either.

You might be able to get away with an academic job, particularly in teaching, but I still think it severely limits a person's options. 

As we agree, there are better options available.

I also think EMS providers should be healthcare professionals and as such capable of discussing any part of healthcare. (I know I ask a lot)

"To whom much is given, much is expected." 
don't know who said it, but it sounds smart.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 8, 2010)

*You pose a fair question, I hope you find this a fair response*



CAOX3 said:


> Whats the difference between MJ then any other medication? The stigma, if its an accepted mode treatment I dont have a problem, is it any different from me popping a couple vicoden because of back pain. (nobody does that right )
> 
> I cant take them at work because they have a potential to incapacitate me and he shouldnt be smoking it at work because of its potential.



I would say the major difference is the mechanism of action. Vicodin, blocking COX and specific receptors to reduce pain (a response to injurious stimuli) is significantly different than Cannibiods (synthetic or natural) whose primary action is to induce altered perceptual states and inhibit neuroregulatory transmission. (it turns off the brakes in your brain which is why it is classified as a hallucinogen)

The maximum effect/time is also considerably different. The peak effect of THC is in 20 minutes, with dwindling effects lasting up to 4 hours compared with peak 3-4 hours for hydrocodone. However the COX effects of acetaminophen can last up to 8 hours. So pain is controlled in a way similar to a bolus and maintenance with vicodin. Depending on the pharmacokinetics in your body as well as the dose, you may need less of the vicodin less often. The side effects of vicodin are does dependant, the side effects of THC are cumulative and may not revert upon stopping the medication. If you lose opioid receptors you could live with that. Living without GABA stimulation is considerably more debilitating.

Also compare the Dx.(pain med vs. psych med) If you remove a painful stimulus, nociceptive pain goes away. When you take somebody off of a psych med, they usually revert to the premedicated state. THC is suggested prescribed at 4 hour intervals. (That sort of calls into question the idea THC can be used as needed doesn’t it?) You could theoretically use it a short time hoping to achieve a level of permanent "damage" which allows normal function. That would be a gamble.

In cancer patients, THC is used to reduce the side effects of Chemotherapeutics. They likely will need opioid pain control as well. The THC is not the one drug solution unless your only goal is to reduce effects of chemo in a cancer pt. A reasonable possibility if you want a person to have some function and not just sedate them to coma.  In AIDS patients THC is to stimulate hunger centers, to prevent the anorexia and the body reverting to catabolism.

How do you remove the stimulus of pathological neuro transmission without removing the pathology (aka the brain)? Which means you will constantly need a therapeutic level of THC in your body to achieve a more normalized function when taking it for ADD/ADHD or other psych dx.

It seems reasonable to me you could assure your employer you wouldn’t take a debilitating pain medication shortly prior or at work. How do you tell your employer you’re not going to take your psych meds prior to or at work? (Sounds silly doesn’t it?)




CAOX3 said:


> I have read some studies, whether I agree with them or not some in the medical field believe its beneficial.  It may be, I just dont have enough information to know either way.  I think the stigma attached to it, could be its biggest downfall but just dismissing it because we may not agree isnt a well thought out option.
> 
> And there are side effects to every medication those should be weighed against the benefits..




I don't doubt there can be benefits from THC. There are benefits from Barbiturates, but we are extremely selective on who receives those based on the effects and benefits. I doubt you will find a reputable physician who will prescribe them for sleep disorders at this point in time.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 9, 2010)

*OP, use your search engine.*

This horse has been shot stabbed poisoned drug hanged keelhauled defenestrated coup-de-graced strangled and lethally injected.
To death.


----------



## Griboba (Feb 9, 2010)

mycrofft said:


> This horse has been shot stabbed poisoned drug hanged keelhauled defenestrated coup-de-graced strangled and lethally injected.
> To death.



You respond to the scene, evaluate and take accurate vitals but the horse can't fit on the gurney what do you do?!


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 9, 2010)

Griboba said:


> You respond to the scene, evaluate and take accurate vitals but the horse can't fit on the gurney what do you do?!



Shoot it.


.me hopes EmmaSlim doesn't see this post


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

Marijuana use is harmless, especially when compared to alcohol or some of the prescription "meds" commonly doled out by neighborhood docs doing their best to keep Big Pharma rolling in the cash. In my misspent youth I consumed marijuana frequently and never had any probs of any sort - but all that being said - no way on earth would I use it now! What if I'm driving an ambulance and get T-Boned and they (per regs) test my blood? Suddenly the accident is my fault and I'm prob going to jail. It's not worth the risk and liability.

What's funny in this thread is the amount of paramedics (who should know better) who consider marijuana a dangerous drug. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 9, 2010)

Did you read ANY of the replies in here?

Or did you just want to push your pro-MJ beliefs with nothing more than "It isnt bad, they just say it is"


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Did you read ANY of the replies in here?
> 
> Or did you just want to push your pro-MJ beliefs with nothing more than "It isnt bad, they just say it is"



Yeah, did you?


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 9, 2010)

loadngo said:


> Marijuana use is harmless, especially when compared to alcohol or some of the prescription "meds" commonly doled out by neighborhood docs doing their best to keep Big Pharma rolling in the cash. In my *misspent youth I consumed marijuana frequently* and never had any probs of any sort - but all that being said - no way on earth would I use it now! What if I'm driving an ambulance and get T-Boned and they (per regs) test my blood? Suddenly the accident is my fault and I'm prob going to jail. It's not worth the risk and liability.


 
Had you not been consuming marijuana frequently would your youth have been "misspent"? Would you have made better decisions if the marijuana did not have an influence on you?



loadngo said:


> What's funny in this thread is the amount of paramedics (who should know better) who consider marijuana a dangerous drug. It's ridiculous.


 
Any drug can be dangerous when used for the wrong reasons or in doses not prescribed or monitored. The fact that there are warnings listed with medicinal marijuana when it is dispensed, especially when it comes to operating machinery and critical decision making processes would lead on to think more closely about their actions prior to consumption. Those in the medical professions can also be under serious scrutiny for any medication they might take that can alter one's abilities to perform their job safely. 

I am all for medicinal marijuana for the appropriate applications and provided the patient is adequately monitored. However, for those who are not suffering from the commonly listed uses, at what point is it considered a medical necessity or one that the patient perceives to be a necessity out of dependency issues? 

When a patient who has become addicted to massive amounts of pain killers to where it exceeds normal doses, if the person is in health care, they are normally asked to take a medical leave. During that time they are sent to a pain management specialist to determine what part is actually associated with pain and how much is due to a dependency issue. Different techniques and medications are then explored to get the patient back into the workforce with acceptable medication levels. 

I would recommend the OP hook up with a clinic that can determine if there is more appropriate treatment or become part of an official study. Until then, he may have to rethink his career in EMS.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 9, 2010)

loadngo said:


> Yeah, did you?



Yes, actually, I did.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> Had you not been consuming marijuana frequently would your youth have been "misspent"? Would you have made better decisions if the marijuana did not have an influence on you?



That was a turn of phrase - my youth was no more disorderly than any other.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 9, 2010)

The point is; should the screening process and the cautions given to the patient about possible lifestyle and career changes be any different for an EMT? When "responsible" physicians prescribe medicinal marijuana, they do screen their patients and advise them not to work in any field to where safety for themselves or others might be a concern.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 9, 2010)

loadngo said:


> Marijuana use is harmless, especially when compared to alcohol or some of the prescription "meds" commonly doled out by neighborhood docs doing their best to keep Big Pharma rolling in the cash. In my misspent youth I consumed marijuana frequently and never had any probs of any sort - but all that being said - no way on earth would I use it now! What if I'm driving an ambulance and get T-Boned and they (per regs) test my blood? Suddenly the accident is my fault and I'm prob going to jail. It's not worth the risk and liability.
> 
> What's funny in this thread is the amount of paramedics (who should know better) who consider marijuana a dangerous drug. It's ridiculous.



Please if you would share with me what published sources you based your conclusions from. I am sure we could all submit competing anecdotes.

I also like to think I have some idea about pharmacology. I have posted at length the indications and actions of THC as well as many considerations in its prescription. Laudanum was once available without a prescription and used commonly. Was it also harmless compared to some of the "snake oils" also available at the time?


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> When "responsible" physicians prescribe medicinal marijuana, they do screen their patients and advise them not to work in any field to where safety for themselves or others might be a concern.



How often does this happen in reality? Everyone knows their are docs who will write script for xanax, etc. at the drop of a hat...Why should we think "medical marijauna" is any diff?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 9, 2010)

So that makes it right?


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Please if you would share with me what published sources you based your conclusions from. I am sure we could all submit competing anecdotes.
> 
> I also like to think I have some idea about pharmacology. I have posted at length the indications and actions of THC as well as many considerations in its prescription. Laudanum was once available without a prescription and used commonly. Was it also harmless compared to some of the "snake oils" also available at the time?



Show me a thc OD and we can "submit competing anecdotes" from that starting point. I've seen 100s of prescription pill ODs as I'm sure we all have, I've seen alcohol,heroin, meth, coke, etc. ODs. Never seen a thc OD...

Sure marijuana tars up the lungs, etc., in that realm it is not "harmless," but is it dangerous? LOL, at this point 10s of millions know better.

This whole debate is pretty meaningless - I think we all agree EMS "professionals" have no buisness consuming marijuana. I have no prob with drug tests or whatever. I would just like to clear out the hypocrisy. The medic earlier who suggested the kid try aderall to kick his pot habit is way out of line.


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

Linuss said:


> So that makes it right?



Dude I could care less whether medicinal marijauna is legalized or not. It's way out of my pay grade and I have other concerns.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 9, 2010)

*Getting high is juvenile.*

When I was young they tried to justify it as being mind-expanding and all that. The rare hallucinogenic "bad trip" aside, what we newly senior citizens remember about the Sixties (those of us who _can_...) and drug use, and cannabis is a drug, is that it was silly and largely a waste of time folks engaged in because it made them feel daring, or they were habituated, or they figured they could score sex easier*. That's the unvarnished truth.

How does this link in? Some folks basically stood in line at med marijuana clinics and rapped with their line buddies. Over 80 percent admitted they were there to get legally high.

THC by Rx? Sure. License to toke? Come to Sacramento and meet some of the advocates, they hurt their cause more than anything else.

*So now they do the same things at the local bar. Sometimes we never learn, do we?;B)


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 9, 2010)

loadngo said:


> Show me a thc OD and we can "submit competing anecdotes" from that starting point. I've seen 100s of prescription pill ODs as I'm sure we all have, I've seen alcohol,heroin, meth, coke, etc. ODs. Never seen a thc OD...



I have never seen a nicotine OD either. By that logic cigarettes are not dangerous. However, hallucinating as well as reduced cognitive and motor ability is most certainly dangerous. 

It is logical based on mechanism of action that with a high enough dose of THC a person could completely shut down their CNS. It is also quite possible that an incapacitating dose is reached first. However, most people reach an incapacitating dose of many drugs prior to an OD. I think your logic on this is a bit flawed. I still wait for published evidence from any scientific body. 



loadngo said:


> Sure marijuana tars up the lungs, etc., in that realm it is not "harmless," but is it dangerous? LOL, at this point 10s of millions know better.



The respiratory complications are not nearly as significant in the short or longterm as GABA inhibition. Especially since removing THC does not equate with the neurons resuming normal function. I used an example of laudanum in my last post because at one point everyone in the entire known world thought it was harmless. a person didn't even have to go to an apothacary or physician to buy it. Less than 100 years has passed since hundereds of millions if not billions of people figured out smoking was harmful. I am not convinced by the ignorance of tens of millions. How many millions of Americans (or people around the world) think defibrillation "jump starts" a heart?



loadngo said:


> This whole debate is pretty meaningless - I think we all agree EMS "professionals" have no buisness consuming marijuana. I have no prob with drug tests or whatever. I would just like to clear out the hypocrisy. The medic earlier who suggested the kid try aderall to kick his pot habit is way out of line.



The thread is about the medical use of marijuana (and by extension any form of cannabinoid), not the social acceptance.

The body produces cannabinoid endogenously. It is part of neurotransmission. What would happen if you gave a patient too much epinephrine or dopamine. Both of those are endogenous neurotransmitters as well. Are they also not dangerous? How many epinephrine or dopamine ODs have you witnessed?

I am all for intellectual debate on any and all medical treatments, but if all you can provide are positions such as this, I am submit you will need more knowledge to be a productive participant.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 9, 2010)

loadngo said:


> Dude I could care less whether medicinal marijauna is legalized or not.



How much less could you care?


----------



## loadngo (Feb 9, 2010)

Linuss said:


> How much less could you care?



It's about as important to me as the opinion of a paramedic intern.


----------



## mycrofft (Feb 9, 2010)

*"Loadngo"?*

Just kidding, but sounds like you ought to be the med marijuana advocate!  B)


----------



## CARRERA (Feb 10, 2010)

Griboba said:


> You respond to the scene, evaluate and take accurate vitals but the horse can't fit on the gurney what do you do?!



Time for the MX-PRO® Bariatric Transport gurney. 

http://www.ems.stryker.com/detail.jsp?id=9


----------



## Griboba (Feb 10, 2010)

CARRERA said:


> Time for the MX-PRO® Bariatric Transport gurney.
> 
> http://www.ems.stryker.com/detail.jsp?id=9



That'll do the trick! Load and go go go!!! I think this wraps up this thread lol


----------



## meastt (Feb 11, 2010)

Oh how mighty we are with our finger pointed at others....

Everyone is very quick to jump on the bandwagon for MM.....whether that bandwagon is for it.... or against it.....opinions are like a**holes....

Say hello to my A**hole 

In 2006, the Pharmaceutical Industry grossed sales of over 683 BILLION DOLLARS. Pills are highly misused, and misused by the very "model citizens" that love to criticize MM users. When "Soccer Mom Sally" gets a script for 30 xanax a month because she is tired of the stress of being a mom.....she is just as guilty.

Prescription drugs are HIGHLY ABUSED BY ALL CLASSES of SOCIETY.....

And the Docs that prescribe them are committing crimes by giving out those scripts to people they know honestly don't really need them......


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 11, 2010)

meastt said:


> And the Docs that prescribe them are committing crimes by giving out those scripts to people they know honestly don't really need them......



What crime is that?

Incidentally, people do "doctor shop" by going from physician to  physician untill they find one that will give them what they want for their self dx. I know of a doc you could get some propofol from if that is your thing.   He really needs the money for his legal troubles.

Big Pharm... If I owned a pharm company I would want my drug to be over the counter. Everyone "needs it" everyone can buy it and it would be so cheap I could sell it to billions every day. It would be more "beneficial" than aspirin and more addictive than nicotine.

Selling drugs that have all kinds of barriers for a person to go through to get and are usable by only a small percentage of people (like factor VII) is just not good business. I think I would just rather sell alcohol.

I'm not really a defender of pharm companies, but a spade is a spade. Any business needs to make a profit and unless people decide they want nationalized medicine, those profits are demanded by shareholders. It is quite impossible to have inexpensive medicine, private medicine, and low taxes.

The American people have chosen private medicine. May they receive all that they ask for in abundance. It is a rather old argument to pit the haves vs. the have nots without any responsibility for the have nots. The ignorant mob certainly showed all those intellectuals how much better private medicine is. 

I am quite intrigued by the marijuana issue. Nobody argues for uncontrolled opioids which have far more medical uses. How about amphetamine? More demonstratable medical uses than THC also. 

Arguing against prohibition by promoting the spectre of people not receiving needed "medicine" isn't going to work. It would be easier to hold a tea party and rally around individual rights. You might even find a big sponsor like Phillip Morris to fund the campaign.

As for harmless, recently a very smart person mentioned the effects of alkaloids in marijuana. Most chemotheraputic agents are alkaloids, they kill cells in the billions.  (so super script here for scientific notation 1,000,000,000s)Excellent for cancer, no good for psych. 

At what point is a "cure" worse than the disease? Frontal labotomy will reduce many psychologic and psychiatric symptoms. It is even a one time surgical treatment. (my favorite, instant gratification, no return customers type of medicine)

Perhaps lifestyle modification would be a better treatment? Less worring about having the latest greatest electronic gear, bigger homes, and all the consumer targeted products might reduce many psych issues.

Of course the latest version of the DSM is starting to address many current over dx and prescription issues. Have a look. You can even leave a comment.

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Is anyone going to try and argue the scientific benefits for MJ over current psych therapies? I don't think psychiatry is even real medical science, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a decent argument. Be the Devil's advocate.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 11, 2010)

meastt said:


> Oh how mighty we are with our finger pointed at others....
> 
> Everyone is very quick to jump on the bandwagon for MM.....whether that bandwagon is for it.... or against it.....opinions are like a**holes....
> 
> ...


 
Here's a little more than "opinion". Examples have already been posted from state statutes but feel free to look up those from your own state to find out the "facts". 

You get caught using or possessing an illegal substance, you put your license at risk. 

You get caught abusing perscription drugs to where the safety of your patients and co-workers are at risk, you can also lose your license.

If the soccer mom is working in a medical field and is found to be abusing perscription meds, her license will be in jeopardy. At the very least she will be monitored by the licensing board for many years or until her license is revoked. 

Not all the blame goes to the doctors. Nobody tells patients they have to collect perscriptions from many different doctors except those who have learned to abuse the system. If you or your family who sees you more than the 10 minutes once a month, fail to recognize you have a substance abuse problem, part of the blames also goes there. If your ambulance partner fails to address your substance abuse problem or just turns a blind eye, risking all including the patient, then part of the blame goes there. 

You can preach all you want about your "rights" but if the substance is illegal or you abuse a legal medication, the results are the same when you must answer with your license.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 11, 2010)

meastt said:


> And the Docs that prescribe them are committing crimes by giving out those scripts to people they know honestly don't really need them......



Incidentally, how did you come to that decision doctor?


----------



## TripsTer (Feb 11, 2010)

meastt said:


> When "Soccer Mom Sally" gets a script for 30 xanax a month because she is tired of the stress of being a mom.....she is just as guilty.



I can agree with that.

"You stupid potheads! You all will amount to nothing in life..."

*cracks open a bottle of Adderall and Vicodin and downs both*


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 11, 2010)

TripsTer said:


> I can agree with that.
> 
> "You stupid potheads! You all will amount to nothing in life..."
> 
> *cracks open a bottle of Adderall and Vicodin and downs both*



What if soccer mom sally has post partum depression? Instead of the Xanax she can just kill herself?

Maybe you have heard of women so depressed they have taken the lives of their kids to "save them" from such misery. 

I think you guys fail to realize that prior to high speed media, many incidents simply went unreported. As well, human pathology evolves over time. (there is a whole science of paleopathology) How many 80 year old women had osteoporosis in 1918? Relatively few. They didn't live that long. Prior to cattle domestication Malaria in humans was unheard of. How many American's today die of scurvey or iodine deficency?

If 20% of 300 million Americans are treated for psych issues (not counting the ones that probably could use it) is it a failure of 1/5 the population? Perhaps a pathology of modern society? You know like obesity, hypertension, and PTSD. 

I don't use any medications regularly legal or illegal. (now and again some ibuprofin or some TUMS)But I do advocate using the best medications available for people who might benefit from it. I am all for arguing why a medication should or should not be used. But please make it an informed medical argument.

Do you know what USAF pilots are purposely prescribed to help them remain alert? Did WWII pilots need medication? Ask around.


----------



## TransportJockey (Feb 11, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Do you know what USAF pilots are purposely prescribed to help them remain alert?



I know that one. Dextroamphetamine. IIRC a SII drug. Nasty little bugger too


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 11, 2010)

jtpaintball70 said:


> I know that one. *Dextroamphetamine*. IIRC a SII drug. Nasty little bugger too



Remember to salute and support the amphetamine users defending the country. 

(I didn't think anyone would get the answer so fast, are you a pilot?)


----------



## TransportJockey (Feb 11, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Remember to salute and support the amphetamine users defending the country.
> 
> (I didn't think anyone would get the answer so fast, are you a pilot?)



Nope, just an AF brat. And some of my best friends here in ABQ that aren't EMS are .mil.


----------



## meastt (Feb 12, 2010)

Sorry to respond so late.....but with school and work and all....

So first off yes, i am fully aware of what certain occupational fields in the military are prescribed for combat operations. I was one of them, we were prescribed amphetamines AND ambien for continuous combat operations..... and when i was shot, i was prescribed percocet.....I used for about a week until the pain was manageable and then i stopped. 

Bottom line, my argument was an OPINION as I clearly pointed out in the first post.....

Also long post and emotion driven words do not give you the right to call your post a "informed medical argument".....lengthy words and a fist in in the air do not and HAVE NEVER equated to an "informed" anything...


My only and STILL my only OPINION is........

Some people may benefit from MM use (end stage cancer) and many others will abuse it......just as in the Big Pharm industry.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 12, 2010)

meastt said:


> Also long post and emotion driven words do not give you the right to call your post a "informed medical argument".....lengthy words and a fist in in the air do not and HAVE NEVER equated to an "informed" anything....



Fist in the air and emotionally driven are not really my style. Way too small minded angry mob-ish.

Mordant, sardonic, and satirical I find more appealing.

The Jester in King Lear one of my favorite literary characters.

I would think my knowledge and experience in topics such as medicine, anthropology, world affairs, and economics would equate to an informed opinion. Particularly where disease and theraputic trends are concerned would equate to an informed opinion.

I am curious to know what abuses the pharm industry is perpetrating. How is there alleged abuses different from a medical insurance company? A medical supply manufacturer? A personal injury lawyer? Or even a salesman or tradesman? 

Is it possible to blame part of a dysfunctional system for the ills of the whole system? Is it just the need for a scapegoat to allow some level of mental security? 

I have to say a soldier who opines pharmacological therapy for mothers while taking medications that in society is often attributed (rightly or wrongly inconsequential) to undersirable members burdening society a bit of a double standard. 

What do you think would be the best treatment for PTSD? Would you find THC acceptable? Ambien? Lithium?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 12, 2010)

meastt said:


> In 2006, the Pharmaceutical Industry grossed sales of over 683 BILLION DOLLARS.



You're mistaking sales for profit. They are not the same in the slightest.


----------



## meastt (Feb 12, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> I have to say a soldier who opines pharmacological therapy for mothers while taking medications that in society is often attributed (rightly or wrongly inconsequential) to undersirable members burdening society a bit of a double standard.
> 
> What do you think would be the best treatment for PTSD? Would you find THC acceptable? Ambien? Lithium?



Are you really going to act as if we don't have housewives in america popping pills? Really? (and house husbands)

Your also going to blanket all of those cases into PPD? really?

And as far as PTSD goes, Tx for each individual varies......hmmm imagine that...varies....there are no absolutes in medicine.

Some will use MM and benefit in their own way and many other will abuse.....

Many will benefit from pharms and many will abuse...

I never once said pharms are the "bad guy" but lets call the spade a spade (a wise man/woman once said) Pharms are a huge industry, and many americans are using their doctor as a personal drug dealer....

You might hate it and you might want to argue that all day....but...that my friend is a big, fat spade.


----------



## reaper (Feb 13, 2010)

Biggest difference you are over looking, is one simple small fact.

Medications are legal in all 50 states. MM is illegal in all 50 states, under Federal law.

BINGO!


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 13, 2010)

Medical marijuana might be illegal under federal law, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal under state law. The vast majority of drug enforcement, especially at the user level, is not done by the federal government. Similarly, there's the issue of jury nullification if you have any non-sheeple on a jury (not saying that everyone who would convict is sheeple, but the percent of people in this country who are sheeple are quite high and wouldn't think about nullification even if they ended up voting to convict).

edit:

Similarly, there's been enforcement nullification by Attorney General Eric Holder. 



> As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.


http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192


----------



## meastt (Feb 13, 2010)

Bingo!


----------



## reaper (Feb 13, 2010)

Yes, the Feds choose not to prosecute. That does not make it legal by Federal law.
Guess what, Even in Cali a 911 company that gets federal funding, could lose it for hiring someone that admittedly uses.

Will it happen? I doubt it, but that risk is always there.

Then put the Insurance companies in the mix. No one will cover someone driving or treating Pt's while using MM.

Sorry, I believe that it should be legal for use by those that need it. Like cancer Pt's. I do not believe in all the made up excuses to use it. If you have ADD, there are already proven drugs for that and MM is not one of them.

California ruined it for the rest of the country, because they let it get out of hand and anyone can claim medical reasons for it.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 13, 2010)

Oh, I'm not saying that a company will hire someone who smokes marijuana. The likelyhood of being hired and the legality of use are two different issues. Heck, legal vs enforcement is it's own separate issue (how many people speed? Now be honest). There are so many laws in USC that the federal government can't even keep track. You could be strung out completely legally on schedule 2s or 3s because of a chronic issue and probably not be hired because of it for the same reasons.


----------



## Griboba (Feb 13, 2010)

reaper said:


> ...driving or treating Pt's while using MM.
> 
> Sorry, I believe that it should be legal for use by those that need it. Like cancer Pt's. I do not believe in all the made up excuses to use it. If you have ADD, there are already proven drugs for that and MM is not one of them.
> 
> California ruined it for the rest of the country, because they let it get out of hand and anyone can claim medical reasons for it.



a) Ofc driving and treating pts while under the effects will never be tolerated (same as alcohol [don't really understand why you even brought it up]).

b) Adderall might work for little Jimmy but Susy finds that the best way to treat her ADHD is with MM. Just because adderall is available does that mean that Susy should be limited to just that? Like mentioned about 300 times in the past couple pages different medication has different effects on different people. It's as simple as that, and to say MM is unnecessary b/c there are already available medications is false.

c) California happens to have a lot of potheads. Should those California residents be denied of the plant that they want? Even though, they hurt no one other then themselves. Why should those who choose to experiment with their OWN consciousness be punished for possessing a harmless (to those not consuming) plant?

I tried not to include any of my opinions and kept it very simple. 

Bottom line, there should NEVER be anyone under the effects of MM taking care of patients or operating machinery. But those who wish to have their own experience with this "DRUG" during their free time should have all the right to without having big brother government telling them they can't - imo.


----------



## notmeofficer (Feb 15, 2010)

no thanks to anyone who smokes dope in public safety... its hard enough to work with people who have all their faculties.. I cant imagine working with anyone who was high.. drunk..or under the influence of anything..

I WANT to know my partners are sober.. I am an avid supporter of stricter testing and less liberal policies... and ems directors who let people slide or put them on probation can kiss my butookie

the line is clear

nope to dope


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

Why is the assumption made that anyone who uses MM automatically will come in under the influence any more than someone who uses perscription pain medications or alcohol? I agree that no one should work while under the influence of medications or drugs that alter their thinking ability, however I can't make the jump that use=abuse.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 15, 2010)

Easy:  If you use it for it's non-legal, non-intended use, it's abuse.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

Non-intended use? So anyone who gets a rx for an off label use is abusing a drug? Since the FDA has not approved marketing for the King LTD for emergency use, is every EMS agency that uses a King as a backup airway now abusing an intervention?

As far as legal, there are plenty of things that are only illegal because of the Puritian heritage of this country. Besides, prohibition worked so well, especially with all of the people abusing alcohol at the time (read: anyone who drank alcohol).


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Non-intended use? So anyone who gets a rx for an off label use is abusing a drug? Since the FDA has not approved marketing for the King LTD for emergency use, is every EMS agency that uses a King as a backup airway now abusing an intervention?




Think you missed the spot where I said "non-legal".


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Why is the assumption made that anyone who uses MM automatically will come in under the influence any more than someone who uses perscription pain medications or alcohol? I agree that no one should work while under the influence of medications or drugs that alter their thinking ability, however I can't make the jump that use=abuse.


 
You don't have to "abuse" alcohol but if you show positve at work during a random test, you will be severely disciplined. 

If you exceed an unacceptable amount of legal pain meds, you employer has the right to ask for an evaluation. If you are using someone else's script for pain meds or are using multiple doctors to obtain pain medications, your employer and licensing board may ask for further evaluation. If you file a workmen's comp claim even for a needle stick evaluation, a drug test will be done and your medical information will be in question.

While CA offers protection for MM, the Feds do not. And, by CA law this statement is made:

_Patients diagnosed with any *debilitating illness* where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician"_

Will the OP qualify as having a debilitating illness and if so, should he be working in EMS?

There are medical conditions and medications that do disqualify a person from holding a cert/license in the medical professions.  

One must consider legalities of the laws as well as disability from the med (MM) and the disease before advocating a person gets an EMT cert just because you think MM is getting a bad rap.  Any state licensing agency and employer would come under scrutiny if they did not follow the laws and ensure someone is fit to provide patient care.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

So that's supposed to be an "and" not an "or" implied there? So what is the intended use of marijuana? Is the intended use any different than, say, alcohol? You could have just left it at "legal," so "intended" use must count for something.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Non-intended use? So anyone who gets a rx for an off label use is abusing a drug? Since the FDA has not approved marketing for the King LTD for emergency use, is every EMS agency that uses a King as a backup airway now abusing an intervention?


 
The King had approval with the FDA as an airway device.  This did not file the paperwork with the word 'emergency' used. However, it is still an approved airway device.  Atrovent is not listed as an emergency med either but is still treatment for COPD as a frontline med if used with Albuterol or similar bronchodilator. 

There is a difference between a trial and something that has been proven effective that already has established FDA approval.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> So that's supposed to be an "and" not an "or" implied there? So what is the intended use of marijuana? Is the intended use any different than, say, alcohol? You could have just left it at "legal," so "intended" use must count for something.


 
Are you allowed to drink alcohol at work? Do illegal drugs at work? Can you take narcotics without a script? Have you tried telling your employer that bottle of vodka in your bag is "intended for medicinal" purposes? 

Is marijuana any more legal than heroin if not used for the conditions described by the law? 

A licensing agency and employer also have some say in what they do and do not want. Guns may be legal carry but if an employer says no on their property, that must be respected. A FD and hospital can also say NO smokers hired and that also within their right.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> You don't have to "abuse" alcohol but if you show positve at work during a random test, you will be severely disciplined.
> 
> If you exceed an unacceptable amount of legal pain meds, you employer has the right to ask for an evaluation. If you are using someone else's script for pain meds or are using multiple doctors to obtain pain medications, your employer and licensing board may ask for further evaluation. If you file a workmen's comp claim even for a needle stick evaluation, a drug test will be done and your medical information will be in question.


Which I'm not arguing with. 



> While CA offers protection for MM, the Feds do not. And, by CA law this statement is made:
> 
> _Patients diagnosed with any *debilitating illness* where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician"_
> 
> ...


While it is true that it is technically illegal (by "technically" I mean by the letter yes, but just because it's illegal doesn't mean that it's enforced), the current US attorney general has explicitly said that enforcement of marijuana laws against people with valid prescriptions in states where it is legal under state law is not a priority. Additionally, while SCOTUS has ruled that the federal marijuana laws do fall under interstate commerce clause, there has been plenty of rulings in the past 15 years clarifying exactly what that clause can be used for. It would not surprise me if in the next 10 years the issue comes up again, especially as states rights issues continue to be pushed.

Similarly, the question over what debilitating illness is disqualifying for medical work or EMS work is blurry when on the line. Sure, there are plenty of things that are so far from the line as to not be questioned, but not everything in black and white. Regardless, without knowing what illness the OP has, we don't know if he's on the line or so far past it that virtually everyone will agree that he is too debilitated to work in EMS. 




> One must consider legalities of the laws as well as disability from the med (MM) and the disease before advocating a person gets an EMT cert just because you think MM is getting a bad rap.  Any state licensing agency and employer would come under scrutiny if they did not follow the laws and ensure someone is fit to provide patient care.



I agree that the entire purpose of any licensing agency is to protect the public. What I do find interesting is that the standards applied to MM isn't applied to anything else. Could you imagine the outcry if a licensing agency refused to license someone because they drank alcohol, even if they allowed enough time for their body to clear all of the alcohol from their blood stream before returning to work? How about violations of Blue Laws in states that still have them? Sorry Bob, but someone reported you drinking a beer while grilling dinner in your back yard on Sunday. We have to revoke your license. 

How about pain medication? Oh, sorry you just had wisdom teeth removed, but we see that you've been prescribed Vicodin. As such, we have to pull your license until you can show that you're clean for 3 months. After all, we can't let you work while you have any detectable levels of Vicodin in your system. 

I don't think it's too radical, revolutionary, or anything else to try to apply the same mindset being set forth for one mind altering substance as to all mind altering substances.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> A licensing agency and employer also have some say in what they do and do not want. Guns may be legal carry but if an employer says no on their property, that must be respected. A FD and hospital can also say NO smokers hired and that also within their right.



True, however I'd love to see a licensing agency revoke or refuse a license because someone drank alcohol while off duty (to clarify, use does not equal abuse before the concept of alcoholism is brought up), used tobacco, or held a CCW permit.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Why is the assumption made that anyone who uses MM automatically will come in under the influence any more than someone who uses perscription pain medications or alcohol?


 
Does the person meet the legal criteria for use of MM in CA?  If no, then there may be a prescribing breech and the doctor should be investigated as well.  If the patient meets the criteria for MM, should they be working in a physically and mentally challenging profession?   Until MM is widely accepted as being legal in the U.S. and the criteria for use investigated, one can not advocate for its use in by those working in the health care professions at this time.

Being positive for alcohol is not allowed where I have worked and scripts for narcotics may have to be filed with one's employers occupational health office.  Health information is also disclosed to determine an employee's fitness for duty.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> True, however I'd love to see a licensing agency revoke or refuse a license because someone drank alcohol while off duty (to clarify, use does not equal abuse before the concept of alcoholism is brought up), used tobacco, or held a CCW permit.


 
But if you test positive for drugs and alcohol at work, you may be terminated. If you carry a weapon at work, you may be terminated. If you test positive in a "no smoking" job such as a hospital or FD, you may be terminated. 

If you test positive for drugs and alcohol in a pre-employment physical, you will not be hired. 

If a drug stays in your system long enough to be detected, tough for you.

If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.


----------



## ah2388 (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> But if you test positive for drugs and alcohol at work, you may be terminated. *If you carry a weapon at work, you may be terminated.* If you test positive in a "no smoking" job such as a hospital or FD, you may be terminated.
> 
> If you test positive for drugs and alcohol in a pre-employment physical, you will not be hired.
> 
> ...




i dont know where you work at, but at my place they encourage us to sculpt our guns.

/cheeseball


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.




There are a lot of things that I support, but don't advocate for. Personally, I'm more concerned over McDonald v Chicago (SCOTUS case being heard in March that could result in incorporation of the 2nd amendment) than MM.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

ah2388 said:


> i dont know where you work at, but at my place they encourage us to sculpt our guns.
> 
> /cheeseball



Just watch out for the guns, they'll getcha


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> There are a lot of things that I support, but don't advocate for.


 
As I have stated already many times, I also support MM. But, for those working in the medical professions, I am not supportive of them in patient care areas if they meet the criteria for use.  If they do not meet the criteria, then I would have to question why they are using marijuana.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> If you do not have enough sense to obey the laws, you should not be working with patients. If the drugs you consume are illegal, change the laws. You could be one of those fine examples petitioning for MM in Sacramento.



Does this statement also hold true for physicians who performed abortions prior to legalization?

When the laws of the state and the good of the patient come into conflict, who should win out? Most laws are made by a majority of people who have no first hand medical knowledge. In the US a professional politician cannot  be counted on to pass laws based on the interest of the patient if they come into conflict with a political action group. 

Look at states like Florida that confine a pregnant woman to a hospital or need a supreme court case to pull the plug on somebody in order to appease a political constituency.

The thread is about medical marijuana, but it could hold true for any medical intervention.

What if a group of people with limited knowledge decide that moms shouldn't have psych meds because they are whiners and lobby a law? Should we investigate every psychiatrist in the country to make sure the script was proper? How about for pain management patients? There is already a considerable culture of conservative pain management.

I think we'd waste a lot of money and time with no conclusions based on peoples' ability to get on the internet and show up at the doctor with a self dx and complaining of all the signs and symptoms of a disease. Especially if you could level a lawsuit if your doctor didn't "treat" you for such "obvious" complaints when you brought them to his/her attention. 

I have no doubt that most of the people claiming medical necessity for THC are using medicine as an excuse. But a blind reliance on an imperfect bureaucracy to look out for the best interest of society doesn't seem overly intelligent. In fact it seems like wishful thinking at best and downright ignorant on the other end of the scale.

What if a group lobbied a law for female circumcision or something else westerners find objectionable? In the US there is nothing that effectively stops the rule of the mob. Even SCOTUS can take decades to sort through something. What about the patients suffering in the meanwhile? How about a law that requires physicians to notify parents if their teenage female child doesn't exhibit evidence of being a virgin? How about outlawing the treatment of homosexual males for rectal cancer or AIDS? You think there aren't people in the US who wouldn't rally behind such things with possibly enough political leverage to pass a bill?

Allowing a largely uneducated society like the US to decide what is medically acceptable with no reliable checks and balances is not a very slippery slope, It is outright dangerous.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Does this statement also hold true for physicians who performed abortions prior to legalization?
> 
> When the laws of the state and the good of the patient come into conflict, who should win out? Most laws are made by a majority of people who have no first hand medical knowledge. In the US a professional politician cannot be counted on to pass laws based on the interest of the patient if they come into conflict with a political action group.
> 
> ...


 

So your message is that EMT wannabes should just say the hell with any laws and smoke all the pot or do all the drugs they want because our system is a joke?

While the many systems the govern this country may have several faults, without rules and regulations protecting patients from providers who should not hold a license, it would be a lot worse.

The messege should be: know your Federal, state and local laws. Know the regulations for licensing in your state. Know what employers will accept.  If you can not abide by the laws and rules in place, look for a different job in another profession. 

Do not tell someone to do something found to be illegal in their country, state or licensing agency just because of YOUR opinion that the United States sucks.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> So your message is that EMT wannabes should just say the hell with any laws and smoke all the pot or do all the drugs they want because our system is a joke?



No they should be able to discuss medical ethics and philosophy without the thought police berating them



VentMedic said:


> While the many systems the govern this country may have several faults, without rules and regulations protecting patients from providers who should not hold a license, it would be a lot worse..


 
That is pure speculation, what is to say that a professional organization would not assume the role of policing providers?



VentMedic said:


> The messege should be: know your Federal, state and local laws. Know the regulations for licensing in your state. Know what employers will accept.  If you can not abide by the laws and rules in place, look for a different job in another profession.
> 
> Do not tell someone to do something found to be illegal in their country, state or licensing agency just because of YOUR opinion that the United States sucks.




You could have just said you could not answer the questions or not posted. 

My point was for people to always consider the ramifications of blindly following a mob mentality. Apparently too complex an issue for a discussion here.

*Everyone do as you are told, follow the rules and nobody will get hurt, everything will be ok. Go back to being a sheep and do not stress yourself with such burdons like independant thinking. Everything will be fine, the government will take good care of you and your loved ones and make sure you are protected from yourselves. You are not smart enough to be introduced to anything outside the prescribed sound bites*

Is that better?

I have to say it sounds like your position is people here are not smart enough to think or entertain arguments that you can't sum up in the least common denominator of one liners.

Perhaps it is fortunate you are here to protect the poor helpless masses from evil independant thinkers like me.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

So... I'm guessing that there were no gay EMTs in states where all forms of sodomy (including consensual) is illegal prior to Lawerence v Texas? After all, I'd hate to have seen someone before 2003 suggest that someone say 'hell with the laws, have as much sex as you want because the system is a joke.' How about people who commit adultery in states where that's illegal? 

Interesting tidbit about case law (including the Supreme Court). Unless something goes to trial, the appeals courts can't invalidate a law.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> That is pure speculation, what is to say that a professional organization would not assume the role of policing providers?



Interesting point. Look at the success of United Underwriters Laboratory.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> I have to say it sounds like your position is people here are not smart enough to think or entertain arguments that you can't sum up in the least common denominator of one liners.
> 
> Perhaps it is fortunate you are here to protect the poor helpless masses from evil independant thinkers like me.


 
Did you read the OP?

There is someone wanting to be an EMT claiming to have a condition that HE feels should justify his pot smoking. 




JPINFV said:


> So... I'm guessing that there were no gay EMTs in states where all forms of sodomy (including consensual) is illegal prior to Lawerence v Texas? After all, I'd hate to have seen someone before 2003 suggest that someone say 'hell with the laws, have as much sex as you want because the system is a joke.' How about people who commit adultery in states where that's illegal?
> 
> Interesting tidbit about case law (including the Supreme Court). Unless something goes to trial, the appeals courts can't invalidate a law.


 
Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged? 

Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights.



I'm sorry, someone's laughing? I wasn't joking around with my comment about homosexual acts and the fact that some states criminalized such acts. However, if the "law is the law" and should be followed regardless and only changed through the legislature, then there shouldn't have been any homosexuals in the health care fields in places like Texas prior to 2003. After all, if they act on their impulses (even if between two consenting adults) then they are criminals and their licenses should have been pulled. 

I could have just as easily gone with civil rights, but I felt that this was more contemporary. Since referencing homosexuals is a little too uncouth apparently, I'll make another analogy. If Rosa Parks held a health care license, should it have been pulled because she refused to sit in the back of the bus? 



> Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?


There's a big difference between workplace culture and the moral views of those involved in that field and government backed bigotry. There's a reason why I referenced an actual SCOTUS case since we're talking about laws and the legal system instead of societal (and sub group) feelings on a specific group and/or action. SCOTUS, and the appeals system, can't change society's views. They can, however, change how the law is implemented, and in the case of SCOTUS, invalidate laws. 




> Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.


Are you seriously suggesting that a licensing agency will pull someone's license because they sleep around? Additionally, in states that do criminalize sleeping around, you support such licensure action because it's in the law? After all, in Michigan, adulteriers are felons. 

http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes/mcl-chap750/mcl-328-1931-v.html


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> Did you read the OP?
> 
> There is someone wanting to be an EMT claiming to have a condition that HE feels should justify his pot smoking. .



Of course you have to result to rhetoric. How could I possibly know what the OP said? I have only typed pages on medical THC indications and complications on both sides of the argument. 

So what if he thinks his use is justified? Neither a government agency nor a professional one would back the use of a hallucinagenic substance while working in a patient care arena. Sounds like there is no problem. What are you trying to save us all from?  

You seem to have a very simple veiw of the world and contempt for anyone who dares invoke any thought that disturbs it. I am not impressed by the straw man arguments in a medical or philosophical discussion. Perhaps it is my blind trust in human evolution that people smart enough to get on the internet can have meaningful debate on issues that confront modern society.

If your argument is that the rule of law for the protection of society trumps the needs of patients, I question your dedication to both the art of medicine and your patients. No title or degree is going to vindicate that. What's next, not treating criminals to protect society?  



VentMedic said:


> Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?
> 
> Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.



That is exactly the point. It is certainly not a joke. An ignorant mob legislating its values which causes harm to people. 

Yes or No question. (in other words simple) Would you knowingly and willingly perform or not perform medical intervention that would cause meaningful harm to your patient in order to live by the rule of law?


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 15, 2010)

Typically, laws ARE moral codes, written by a governing body to be enforced.





Veneficus said:


> Yes or No question. (in other words simple) Would you knowingly and willingly perform or not perform medical intervention that would cause meaningful harm to your patient in order to live by the rule of law?





So you're willing to not prosecute an EMT who starts an IV on someone when they are dehydrated?


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

Except it's not quite that easy to say, "Well... it's all morality." While set of morals are you going for? Religious code? Philosophical code? Which one?

Similarly, I think it's a bit disingenuous to put, say, property crimes (e.g. theft, burglary, vandalism) or assault based crimes (e.g. assault and battery, rape, murder) on the same grounds as vice crimes (prostitution, drugs, gambling) simply because all three groups are based on "morals." Laws regarding assault or property crimes comes from natural rights. On the other hand, I've always found a hard time trying to figure out what prostitution is trying to protect someone from (considering that prostitution is at it's base, a business transaction).  Similarly, who was being protected from alcohol during prohibition?


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 15, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Yes or No question. (in other words simple) Would you knowingly and willingly perform or not perform medical intervention that would cause meaningful harm to your patient in order to live by the rule of law?


 
Why would I willingly cause meaningful harm to a patient if I know that is what the procedure will do?

If you have any medical experience you should know there are checks and balances to prevent this from happening if one *knows* the procedure is harmful. If you *know* the procedure is harmful to the patient and you do it anyway without questioning it, then yes you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and/or your licensing board. 

If the licensing board clearly states no illegal drug use, then that should be obeyed and you should not lie on your application because of advice or opinion given on an anonymous internet forum in belief that it is your right regardless of what the requirements state.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> Why would I willingly cause meaningful harm to a patient if I know that is what the procedure will do?



...because in the hypothetical situation the law requires it. This isn't about checks in providing medical care. It's a hypothetical situation where the law is obviously wrong and the choice is to do the right thing or break the law.


----------



## TripsTer (Feb 16, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> What if soccer mom sally has post partum depression? Instead of the Xanax she can just kill herself?
> 
> Maybe you have heard of women so depressed they have taken the lives of their kids to "save them" from such misery.



Her taking perfectly legal prescription drugs is not the problem. It's when she becomes dependent and starts to abuse the medication.

So she takes her anti-depression meds every day and then runs out. She's unable to get another prescription and then she commits suicide or god forbid harms her children. So it's not her fault, it's her doc's because he didn't give her that scrip?

What I'm trying to say is that we need to take responsibility and not be so dependent on this crap whether it be pot or prescription drugs. There are other ways to cope with traumatic events. There are many people out there everyday that deal with stress without anti-depressants.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 16, 2010)

TripsTer said:


> What I'm trying to say is that we need to take responsibility and not be so dependent on this crap whether it be pot or prescription drugs. There are other ways to cope with traumatic events. There are many people out there everyday that deal with stress without anti-depressants.



...and everyone is different. Should a patient be denied pain control because one patient has a different pain threshold than another?


----------



## CAOX3 (Feb 16, 2010)

TripsTer said:


> Her taking perfectly legal prescription drugs is not the problem. It's when she becomes dependent and starts to abuse the medication.
> 
> So she takes her anti-depression meds every day and then runs out. She's unable to get another prescription and then she commits suicide or god forbid harms her children. So it's not her fault, it's her doc's because he didn't give her that scrip?
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that we need to take responsibility and not be so dependent on this crap whether it be pot or prescription drugs. There are other ways to cope with traumatic events. There are many people out there everyday that deal with stress without anti-depressants.



Yes, mental illness and cognitive disorders are just a figment of our imagination.  :wacko:


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 16, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...because in the hypothetical situation the law requires it. This isn't about checks in providing medical care. It's a hypothetical situation where the law is obviously wrong and the choice is to do the right thing or break the law.


 
Give an example of that hypothetical situation. In 30 years, I have not been forced *by law* to harm a patient.

However, how is allowing someone, who may be taking a medication that is not legally accepted with a possible medical condition that could be classified as debillitating by the laws that pertain to MM, have an EMT license not setting a patient up for harm


----------



## TripsTer (Feb 16, 2010)

What I, and the person I quoted before are trying to say that we are against the people who go to doctor's offices, and falsely claim they feel a certain way just so they can get their "feel good meds". 

Compare it to those who abuse your local EMS system. A guy calls 911, says he's hurting bad from that wreck with no-visible damage upon arrival, even though you can see the reflection of the guy that hit him who drives a bentley in his eyes. He gets what he wants, screaming with every bounce down the road, vowing that he'll have your license as well as the other guy's money when he's out. And when you see him again at the hospital after running that late call, he's walking out with a copy of a refusal in hand.

With that being said, there is of course plenty of people who need EMS everyday, but there is also a good number who you as well as I know, do not.

Same applies to the scrip drugs.

I agree with you that some people need it, but you don't agree with me that it's wrong to abuse them...let's reach a middle ground or a mutual understanding here...


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 16, 2010)

Ok, I am sort of tired and have a long day ahead, but let me see if I can wrap this all up in one post. 

Linuss,

If you look at the examples I posed about abortion I was thinking a little bigger and more morally complex than a simple IV start. In the event of a patient dehydrated to such extremis as to be in mortal peril, in the absence of another capable provider, I would not only support the starting of an IV by somebody trained in starting IVs (credentialed or not) but I would actively stand in their defense.

Tripster,

I think we agree in principle but not on the specifics of the example.  As I am sure you are aware, in today’s society, people self dx and abuse all kinds of drugs. In fact I was discussing about a Munchausen patients today abusing insulin. Part of the problem is if the physician fails to act on made up symptoms, it could be considered nonfeasance. It is not right, but it is what it is.

If you would like I can repost about the paleopathology of modern psychiatric and psychological diseases. But in a nut shell these disorders have not been around that long. Similar in example to AIDS, I also mentioned malaria in an earlier post.

Vent, 
You are starting to sound like an over educated EMT that can only fully immobilize all patients because that is what the rules say. Your focused knowledge set and scope has not put you in position to even consider when your medical skills might come into conflict with laws of society in 30 years. It is a reality JP and I will have to consider, particularly as medical science advances. I specifically cited abortion. It is not a hypothetical situation; it occurred in the US before, could occur there again, and is occurring in many nations around the world.  But there are other examples, like using embryonic stem cells to “farm” replacement organs, alternative affordable treatments to people who cannot afford conventional medicine or in conventional facilities in the coming years, as well as a developing world market of selling donated organs for cash. In Turkey I am told by a native physician there is nothing to prevent paying for kidneys from perfectly healthy people. Moreover, the sale of a kidney can economically provide for an extended family for a life time. Once this transaction takes place, moral or not, it is a viable organ for transplantation. Currently In many nations this is prohibited by law. My opinion on its morality irrelevant.  But like African diamonds, does a third party provider reject an already donated and available matched organ that could save a life or just toss it in the trash because it was procured in a questionable and possibly illegal manner? (I know it is difficult but try to just answer the question or admit it is beyond you instead of twisting the wording or creating a stawman to fit your point and avoid the topic)Better still maybe don’t reply at all and just think about it for a while. Some of you replies make it look like you can't comprehend the topic.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 16, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Vent,
> You are starting to sound like an over educated EMT that can only fully immobilize all patients because that is what the rules say. Your focused knowledge set and scope has not put you in position to even consider when your medical skills might come into conflict with laws of society in 30 years. It is a reality JP and I will have to consider, particularly as medical science advances. I specifically cited abortion. It is not a hypothetical situation; it occurred in the US before, could occur there again, and is occurring in many nations around the world. But there are other examples, like using embryonic stem cells to “farm” replacement organs, alternative affordable treatments to people who cannot afford conventional medicine or in conventional facilities in the coming years, as well as a developing world market of selling donated organs for cash. In Turkey I am told by a native physician there is nothing to prevent paying for kidneys from perfectly healthy people. Moreover, the sale of a kidney can economically provide for an extended family for a life time. Once this transaction takes place, moral or not, it is a viable organ for transplantation. Currently In many nations this is prohibited by law. My opinion on its morality irrelevant. But like African diamonds, does a third party provider reject an already donated and available matched organ that could save a life or just toss it in the trash because it was procured in a questionable and possibly illegal manner? (I know it is difficult but try to just answer the question or admit it is beyond you instead of twisting the wording or creating a stawman to fit your point and avoid the topic)Better still maybe don’t reply at all and just think about it for a while. Some of you replies make it look like you can't comprehend the topic.


 
Are you on the California EMSA board? Do you have the authority to tell the OP his MM is acceptable? As I have stated over and over I support MM. What part of that do you not get? However, I am not this guy's doctor. I do NOT know his true medical condition. I know absolutely NOTHING about him except he states he has been able to get MM in California. *AND, you dont either. Are you advising him to break the rules and ruin any chance he has for a career in EMS just because of your opinion. *

Would his doctor be okay with fighting for him at the state level to be the exception? Maybe and maybe not since this guy is asking his question on an anonymous forum and not directing it at the people dispensing and do the scripts for his MM. Are they flying just under the wire in CA as some dispensaries and doctors have been doing without legal or medical justification? 

As far as your examples of AIDS, if a healthcare provider has made the transition to the diagnosis of AIDS, there is a good chance they will not be working in a patient care area. Their HIV status may also exclude them from working in a patient care area. 

Thus, a state board should have some authority over who obtains a license in patient care for the safety of the patient. Whether you like it or not the safety of the public and the patients are still a concern. Right now this discussion is still about obtaining an EMS cert in the U.S. and not the black market for organs in Turkey or Africa.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 16, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> Are you on the California EMSA board? Do you have the authority to tell the OP his MM is acceptable? As I have stated over and over I support MM. What part of that do you not get? However, I am not this guy's doctor. I do NOT know his true medical condition. I know absolutely NOTHING about him except he states he has been able to get MM in California. *AND, you dont either. Are you advising him to break the rules and ruin any chance he has for a career in EMS just because of your opinion. *
> 
> Would his doctor be okay with fighting for him at the state level to be the exception? Maybe and maybe not since this guy is asking his question on an anonymous forum and not directing it at the people dispensing and do the scripts for his MM. Are they flying just under the wire in CA as some dispensaries and doctors have been doing without legal or medical justification?
> 
> ...



How ingenious. 
The thread starts talking about morality of various substances and having nothing inteliligent to say or contribute you revert to the only stance you even remotely have the capability to participate in.

Spare me your simpleminded replies, I discovered the ignore feature. 
good riddence to bad rubish.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 16, 2010)

VentMedic said:


> Are you on the California EMSA board? Do you have the authority to tell the OP his MM is acceptable? As I have stated over and over I support MM. What part of that do you not get? However, I am not this guy's doctor. I do NOT know his true medical condition. I know absolutely NOTHING about him except he states he has been able to get MM in California. *AND, you dont either. Are you advising him to break the rules and ruin any chance he has for a career in EMS just because of your opinion. *



I must have missed the part where anyone was advising him to break the rules. I see a lot of people casting doubt on his chance in the fire service and a lot of people advising him to talk to his physician, including Veneficus and I in the first page of the thread. Following that, I see a discussion about the moral, legal, and societal views on medical marijuana. However, discussing those topics is hardly in the least slapping him on the back and telling him to take on the world while using marijuana. 

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. Since apparently homosexuality and adultery laws are a joke, I'll go back to the civil rights era. If Rosa Parks was a licensed health care provider, should she have had her license revoked for breaking the law? ...and no, I'm not laughing with this question.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 16, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> How ingenious.
> The thread starts talking about morality of various substances and having nothing inteliligent to say or contribute you revert to the only stance you even remotely have the capability to participate in.
> 
> Spare me your simpleminded replies, I discovered the ignore feature.
> good riddence to bad rubish.


 

How is the black market organ program in Turkey going to help this guy get an EMT cert?

You again have a smoke screen based on what you have read on the internet that doesn't really pertain to the discussion.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 16, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. *Since apparently homosexuality and adultery laws are a joke,* I'll go back to the civil rights era. If Rosa Parks was a licensed health care provider, should she have had her license revoked for breaking the law? ...and no, I'm not laughing with this question.


 


VentMedic said:


> Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged?
> 
> Adultery? Ask those who have been through a divorce if that can not come to play a role.


 
What part of my previous post do you find funny?  Do you get a laugh when gays are denied employment, housing and the right to marry?  Is that funny do you?   Does that really sound like a laughable joke? Maybe it is to you but to those of us who do know gay people that have had their rights denied it is not.   However, they were not using drugs or disabled to where they could not do their jobs either. 

Screw around with someone else while married to your wife (or husband if you managed to marry in SF a couple years ago or where it might be legal) and you will discover how funny the adultery laws can be in court. 

There was also a time when a black person would never have considered even applying for a license.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 16, 2010)

I'll state again. Apparently the only person who found that funny was you because I am dead serious. If the 'law is the law and should always be followed,' then it stands to believe that people who broke those laws shouldn't be in health care. Since you think that it's so funny, maybe you could enlighten us as to which laws licensing boards should take seriously and which ones they shouldn't.


----------



## Veneficus (Feb 16, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> I'll state again. Apparently the only person who found that funny was you because I am dead serious. If the 'law is the law and should always be followed,' then it stands to believe that people who broke those laws shouldn't be in health care. Since you think that it's so funny, maybe you could enlighten us as to which laws licensing boards should take seriously and which ones they shouldn't.



I am printing this out to show to my classmates and professors tomorrow in school as a classic example of the type of ancillary providers the US has. 

I'll PM you the summary of the opinions.


----------



## Meursault (Feb 16, 2010)

*sage*



Veneficus said:


> How ingenious.
> The thread starts talking about morality of various substances and having nothing inteliligent to say or contribute you revert to the only stance you even remotely have the capability to participate in.
> 
> Spare me your simpleminded replies, I discovered the ignore feature.
> good riddence to bad rubish.



I figured it was an ethics discussion, actually. I hate it when people muddy the water with morality. 
Looking at the OP, it turns out it was largely a thread for practical advice and legal/employment issues.

Regardless of what it started as, it's since drifted off-topic. Now make up, children, and can we let the thread die _now_?

Actually, I'm surprised that it got so little pro-prohibition FUD. Normally a thread like this would have a lot more CRUISE CONTROL and a lot less productive discussion.


----------



## BruceD (Feb 16, 2010)

I can't believe no one has brought this up.

A person registers 2-6-10, posts THIS topic and is never seen again.

-*TROLL*-

That is all.


----------



## VentMedic (Feb 17, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> I'll state again. Apparently the only person who found that funny was you because I am dead serious. If the 'law is the law and should always be followed,' then it stands to believe that people who broke those laws shouldn't be in health care. Since you think *that it's so funny,* maybe you could enlighten us as to which laws licensing boards should take seriously and which ones they shouldn't.


 
Would you like to show where in any of my posts that I stated gay people have no place in health care professions? Are you the one what is saying gay people have no place in health care? Point out in any of my posts where I stated gays are funny and have no place in EMS or any profession. There are still laws in place that do not allow gays into certain occupations. Let me again repeat my previous post for you.



> Originally Posted by *VentMedic*
> 
> 
> 
> _Unfortunately, some states do take those laws seriously and not all states have the same opinion of gays as CA does. But, even that state voted out gay marriage due to the definition "between a man and a woman". To the gay people this is not a joke for you to laugh at because they do know there are still statutes on the books that can take away what they believe were their rights. Gay EMTs who wanted to be FFs just a few years ago in some places and even today know they better not be open. Yes, you could be actively discriminated against if you were gay for both employment and housing. What about our military? Is that law not enforced by the numbers that have been discharged? _


 
Highlight the funny part. What do you find so funny about any of my statements in that post? Laws have been changed to allow gays entry into different professions as attitudes have changed.  

Do you understand the stance pertaining to the EMS licensing board and illegal drugs? Are you upset that some states do have restrictions when it comes to the use of illegal drugs? Do you believe there should be absolutely NO restrictions on who can be an EMT? Anybody using drugs or convicted of raping a child should be allowed into the profession because you have a problem with "laws"? Are you stating it is your right to be stoned on the job that pertains to patient care? Like it or not there are certain laws that do exist for safety.


----------



## SuperJew (May 17, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> As for advocacy, there are demonstratable medical benefits of THC. However, the side effects as well as addictive nature (similar to nicotine)
> .



It is not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive, much like anything else.....As for the use, I advocate making it legal for those who are NOT in public service such as EMS.....better yet, it should have the same regulations as alcohol, escpecially because it is way less dangerous than alcohol.  if an EMT is on his off days, and decides to have a moderate amount of beer, or a moderate amount of weed socially, I feel it's ok.


----------



## Pneumothorax (May 17, 2010)

dude admit it, youre a pothead.


----------



## bstone (May 17, 2010)

SuperJew said:


> It is not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive, much like anything else.....As for the use, I advocate making it legal for those who are NOT in public service such as EMS.....better yet, it should have the same regulations as alcohol, escpecially because it is way less dangerous than alcohol.  if an EMT is on his off days, and decides to have a moderate amount of beer, or a moderate amount of weed socially, I feel it's ok.



SuperJew? First post was of an old thread. I agree with the content but can't help but be mildly confused by the username.


----------



## thatJeffguy (May 17, 2010)

SuperJew said:


> It is not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive, much like anything else.....As for the use, I advocate making it legal for those who are NOT in public service such as EMS.....better yet, it should have the same regulations as alcohol, escpecially because it is way less dangerous than alcohol.  if an EMT is on his off days, and decides to have a moderate amount of beer, or a moderate amount of weed socially, I feel it's ok.



I agree.

It's so funny how many EMS providers try to set arbitary standards for who should and shouldn't be a provider.

I'd say that a decent percentage of EMS providers I know half-*** almost everything they do, never bother to do continuing education unless it's some bull:censored::censored::censored::censored: online "class" (usually on such powerhouse subjects as "handwashing"), are in horrible physical condition and drink frequently to excess.  They don't expose trauma patients, they have their "own way" of doing things in the field (that contradict those ways thought up by doctors and other professionals), they break MV codes frequently and treat most patients with a disgusted attitude of "How quickly can I determine that this call is bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:, the patient doesnt' REALLY need my care and, once I've made that determination, how rude and condescending can I be to the patient, their family and any other providers that might show up?". If I meet someone that doesn't fit this description then I'll be pleased with their performance I really couldn't care less if they're going to go home (after work) and enjoy a joint while I go home and enjoy a beer.  We've got so many real issues to deal with in EMS I see no reason to create more.  Let's deal with the providers that aren't capable of caring for a cat first, then we'll see what other groups of people we can categorically deny membership to.


----------



## MonkeySquasher (May 17, 2010)

I'll be the next troll...

I don't think marijuana should be legal, because there is no legal, scientifically reliable test for THC levels in the body, equating that to levels of "THC intoxication".  Alcohol can be measured in the blood, and therefore a "legal" limit of alcohol intoxication is set.  As far as I'm aware, you can't do that for marijuana.

If we really cared about the health of the human body, we'd make any kind of smoking (including/especially nicotine) illegal.  And probably alcohol, too.

Then again, opinions are like rectal orafices...


----------



## JPINFV (May 17, 2010)

MonkeySquasher said:


> If we really cared about the health of the human body, we'd make any kind of smoking (including/especially nicotine) illegal.  And probably alcohol, too.
> 
> Then again, opinions are like rectal orafices...



See... here's the problem, and what honestly boggles my mind over the war on drugs. A long time ago (ok... not really that long...) we made alcohol illegal. Yea... it didn't work out too well...


----------

