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.