Catholic Church and medicinal marajuana?

[Petergee]

Your comparing apples and oranges here. I’m talking about usefulness with in specific regards to creating antivenin and you’re talking about it like I’m saying it to be useful over all. Whether rattlesnake venom causes death is moot, the fact remains that it has a use in making it’s own antivenin. When did I say rattlesnake venom was useful for anything else?

Just try to read what you said as if reading it for the first time and try to make sense of it.

Look at the statement above at the top. When you say probably not, you are discouraging him from using marijuana. If you said, “I think it’s a good idea that I go out and drive, it might help me.” and I responded, “Probably not.” That would indeed be a discouragement from driving. You don’t have to tell someone specifically not to do something for it be a discouragement. Let’s ask him. Little Soldier. when you read the phrase “Probably not, according to every scientific study done so far” do you get the feeling those words are discouraging about using marijuana, encouraging about using marijuana, or indifferent about using marijuana?

It’s not being charitable to give a sick person false hope in a treatment that’s very unlikely to help him. In fact it’s cruel to encourage him to wwaste his time and energy chasing after such.

It is a fallacy that there are people writhing away in unbearable pain that no amount of any legal drug or treatment can combat, and that one particular illegal drug is the only thing that can help them. The same fallacious argument is used to speciously justify euthanasia.

 

[Petergee]

I don’t want to take this thread off-topic, but you laughed at my response to you (as indicated by the “LOL” above), so I am going to provide a bit more information about anecdotal evidence.

Here is a class that anyone who is interested in anecdotal evidence might consider useful:

"A great failing of modern psychology is the laboratory. Over the past century, a great many tests have been conducted on human and animal test subjects with the same flaw. What good does it do us to test the behavior of of a subject within a laboratory or other test facility? What we need to know is how a subject will respond to a stimulus not in a controlled-environment, but in the real world.

Osric University is one of just a handful of pioneering universities world-wide that is pushing the boundaries of psychological research outside of sterile labs and into a the environment where we actually live our lives. Our anecdotal research techniques take observations about real people, in real situations, and analyze the data to arrive at new conclusions that would be impossible to find in the confines of a lab.

In this course, we will look at data collection settings and formats, exploring multimedia data collection, and broad-sample, self-selecting group techniques and methodologies such as Internet-based surveys and interviews. We will address correspondent integrity issues, as well as read-between-the-lines analysis issues. Your grade will be based on 2 quizzes, 1 exam, and 1 anecdotal research project. The project will involve collecting 50+ datasets and then performing text-scan and manoselect analyses."

(osric.com/university/psychology/research.html)

ROFL. Osric “University” (if it still exists; this “alternate” internet degrees-for-sale-mill exists only in a website which hasn’t been updated for 5 years) “psychology students” may think anecdotes are data. Real scientists including those at the FDA and TGA know that a million anecdotes claiming cannabis “works” don’t constitute a fig of proof. At best, anecdotes may give scientists a clue where might be a useful place to START trying to prove a proposition.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Just try to read what you said as if reading it for the first time and try to make sense of it.

It’s not being charitable to give a sick person false hope in a treatment that’s very unlikely to help him. In fact it’s cruel to encourage him to wwaste his time and energy chasing after such.

It is a fallacy that there are people writhing away in unbearable pain that no amount of any legal drug or treatment can combat, and that one particular illegal drug is the only thing that can help them. The same fallacious argument is used to speciously justify euthanasia.

Made enough sense to Little Soldier. Looks fine to me.

So now you’re admitting that you were trying to discourage him for said excuses? lol It’s like were jumping Red herring ships. Excuse me, but are you a doctor, let alone on that has his condition and know this will not help him?

People who are in pain have the right to explore the medical potential of every drug that has some scientific backup. Marijuana has well more than some and I’m sure MM for LLPH can write you a “book” on it. Nobody said this is the all out cure for pain, but that is beside the point.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ROFL. Osric “University” (if it still exists; this “alternate” internet degrees-for-sale-mill exists only in a website which hasn’t been updated for 5 years) “psychology students” may think anecdotes are data. Real scientists including those at the FDA and TGA know that a million anecdotes claiming cannabis “works” don’t constitute a fig of proof. At best, anecdotes may give scientists a clue where might be a useful place to START trying to prove a proposition.

First of all, I would like to point out that in science nobody can prove a proposition. If you understood scientific method you would know this.

In Post 90, you stated the following:

LOL. I would like to meet one scientist who would agree with that claim. As the scientific taw goes, “the plural of anecdote is not data”.

I have shown you that several scientists agree that anecdotal research is useful, both in the post you are responding to here and in Post 102.

I have noticed that you still have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claims. I am beginning to believe that you don’t have any evidence.

Please provide the scientific evidence to back up your claims or discontinue making those claims.

 

[spn82756]

First of all, I would like to point out that in science nobody can prove a proposition. If you understood scientific method you would know this.

In Post 90, you stated the following:

I have shown you that several scientists agree that anecdotal research is useful, both in the post you are responding to here and in Post 102.

I have noticed that you still have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claims. I am beginning to believe that you don’t have any evidence.

Please provide the scientific evidence to back up your claims or discontinue making those claims.

LittleSoldier…I don’t even understand why you take the time even address petergee. You can never change the mind of someone that knows it all. There are lots of them on this entire forum. You know your pain. You’re not using marijuana recreationally but for medical reasons. Just ignore his ill-advised nonsense. LOL…I just realized that he’s living in Oz!!!

peace
Steve

 

[MM_for_LLPH]

…I’m sure MM for LLPH can write you a “book” on it.

Lol - thank you, I think. My basic point here is: ask yourself - do you personally, PERSONALLY know someone that has tried focused treatment with MM and has a personal story that YOU can get from THEM? If not - ask one - find one - hey, I’m here. We need to bring in the frightened sheep and care for them not shun them because they have real issues causing real stress, real pain, and real emotions (or lack thereof). With this ONE natural substance - MM did what nearly a half a MILLION dollars of modern medicine couldn’t. All of my labs were off the chart just two months ago - not anymore after completing the weaning process and having the new found ability to simply live in the moment. I took about 30,000 pills that did real harm to me - all promised to work - all that can and do kill every day - accidentally. Yet we accept these grave risks - yes, because we had to. Looking back - I would have happily sat in a jail cell for life - knowing that it would be a better life then I had. I could at least then still recall each visit from month to month - ask me if I can remember my daughters baptism - no - almost totally missed it but I stopped puking just long enough to take a few forced pictures after it was over. I was also short on my meds the day my daughter was born - I felt so bad I almost missed everything.

 

[MM_for_LLPH]

I agree - lets get rid of the negative intentions here - i wouldn’t think a debate about morality is warranted at this time in this audience. If you would like to start a “Why helping people is bad” thread - feel free - its your God given right!

What I would LOVE to see is an outpouring of experiences - all positive relevant experiences from as many walks of life as possible. If you feel you must post negative fear inducing posts in this thread - please make them a real life experience that we can learn from. If its someone you know used “pot” just to get “stoned” and was overwhelmed by the experience because no one told them what it would do. On the other if we spread knowledge of experience we can all benefit - good and bad experiences alike. If the message is “don’t smoke for no reason and grab something and do something bad to something else.” Fine - make that risk known that if you show willful negligence something bad might happen. It absolutely can increase senses and emotions - but these can be channeled appropriately with guidance. We already have enough knowledge out there - we just need to start sharing it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Just try to read what you said as if reading it for the first time and try to make sense of it.

It’s not being charitable to give a sick person false hope in a treatment that’s very unlikely to help him. In fact it’s cruel to encourage him to wwaste his time and energy chasing after such.

It is a fallacy that there are people writhing away in unbearable pain that no amount of any legal drug or treatment can combat, and that one particular illegal drug is the only thing that can help them. The same fallacious argument is used to speciously justify euthanasia.

It’s not being charitable to make scientific claims without bothering to provide links or other references to show evidence for your claims. You still haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence.

Please show scientific evidence for your claims or stop making those claims.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ROFL. Osric “University” (if it still exists; this “alternate” internet degrees-for-sale-mill exists only in a website which hasn’t been updated for 5 years) “psychology students” may think anecdotes are data. Real scientists including those at the FDA and TGA know that a million anecdotes claiming cannabis “works” don’t constitute a fig of proof. At best, anecdotes may give scientists a clue where might be a useful place to START trying to prove a proposition.

Are you saying the FDA doesn’t use anecdotal research? They did here:
fiercebiotech.com/press-releases/fda-statement-ahrq-and-fda-collaborate-largest-study-ever-possible-heart-risks-adhd-m

“In May 2006, based on a review of anecdotal reports of heart attack, stroke and sudden death among patients taking usual doses of ADHD medications, the FDA asked drug manufacturers to revise product labeling to reflect concerns about possible adverse events.”

I can find more examples, but I would like to see you back up your claims with references.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A very few health authories have authorised the very limited experimental therapeutic use of highly purified and standardised extracts of one or two of the dozens of biologically active chemicals in the cannabis plant. The question of whether these preparations do any good at all is still being investigated. No health authority that I know of has endorsed the so-called “therapeutic” use of cannabis as such.

I disagree with your first and second statements.

The following (including subsequent posts) is a summary of 65 research projects. “Studies are listed as ‘Pro,’ ‘Con,’ or ‘Not Clearly Pro or Con,’ based on their conclusion regarding cannabis’ potential medical benefit.” For more info, click on the link:

medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000884

Testing was done using human subjects in a double-blind manner, human subjects, or animal subjects. In the double-blind studies, 47.06% were listed as “Pro,” 41.18% were listed as “Not Clearly Pro or Con,” and 11.76% were listed as “Con.”

In the research using human subjects (not double-blind), 38.64% were listed as “Pro,” 34.09% were listed as “Not Clearly Pro or Con,” and 27.27% were listed as “Con.”

In the research using animals, 100% were listed as “Pro.”

The following studies were conducted with human subjects in a double-blind manner. Seventeen studies were presented; they are in order from most recent to least recent.

1. Conclusion: This study shows that THC:CBD extract is efficacious for relief of pain in patients with advanced cancer pain not fully relieved by strong opioids."
   PRO
2. “In summary, in this model of human experimental pain, smoked cannabis was demonstrated to have a delayed biphasic [two phase] effect on pain scores induced by intradermal capsaicin [chili pepper heat injected into the skin]. The low dose [of marijuana] had no effect, the medium dose significantly reduced the pain and the high dose significantly increased the pain… No conclusions on the analgesic efficacy of smoked cannabis on clinical pain states can be made from this study as the relationship between analgesic effects in experimental pain and clinical pain states is unknown.”
   CON
3. We conclude that this CBM [cannabis-based medicine] may represent a useful new agent for treatment of the symptomatic relief of spasticity in MS."
   PRO
4. Conclusion: Smoked cannabis was well tolerated and effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy The findings are comparable to oral drugs used for chronic neuropathic pain."
   PRO
5. CONCLUSIONS: A single 5 mg sublingual dose of Delta-9-THC reduced the IOP temporarily and was well tolerated by most patients. Sublingual administration of 20 mg CBD did not reduce IOP, whereas 40 mg CBD produced a transient increase IOP rise."
   Not Clearly Pro or Con
6. CONCLUSION: CE at the oral dose administered was well tolerated by these patients with CACS. No differences in patients’ appetite or QOL were found either between CE, THC, and PL or between CE and THC at the dosages investigated."
   Not Clearly Pro or Con
7. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide limited evidence for a longer term treatment effect of cannabinoids. A long term placebo controlled study is now needed to establish whether cannabinoids may have a role beyond symptom amelioration in MS."
   Not Clearly Pro or Con
8. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-based medicine is effective in reducing pain and sleep disturbance in patients with multiple sclerosis related central neuropathic pain and is mostly well tolerated."
   PRO
9. The primary outcome measure was the mean pain severity score during the last 7 days of treatment. Secondary outcome measures included pain related quality of life assessments. The primary outcome measure failed to fall by the two points defined in our hypothesis. However, both this measure and measures of sleep showed statistically significant improvements.
   PRO
10. CONCLUSIONS: Orally administered cannabis extract resulted in no objective or subjective improvement in dyskinesias or parkinsonism."
    Not Clearly Pro or Con
11. Spasticity VAS scores were significantly reduced by CBME (Sativex) in comparison with placebo (P=0.001). There were no significant adverse effects on cognition or mood and intoxication was generally mild."
    PRO
12. CONCLUSION: A standardized Cannabis sativa plant extract might lower spasm frequency and increase mobility with tolerable side effects in MS patients with persistent spasticity not responding to other drugs."
    PRO
13. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis extract does not produce a functionally significant improvement in MS-associated tremor."
    Not Clearly Pro or Con
14. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis medicinal extracts can improve neurogenic symptoms unresponsive to standard treatments. Unwanted effects are predictable and generally well tolerated. Larger scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings."
    PRO
15. Compared with placebo, neither THC nor plant-extract treatment reduced spasticity. Both THC and plant-extract treatment worsened the participant’s global impression."
    CON
16. Marijuana smoking further impairs posture and balance in patients with spastic MS."
    CON
17. In summary, CBD, at an average daily dose of about 700 mg/day for 6 weeks, was neither symptomatically effective nor toxic, relative to placebo, in neuroleptic-free patients with HD."
    CON

 

[LittleSoldier]

(Continuation of Last Post)

The following is a partial list of studies which involved human subjects (not double-blind).
Forty four studies were listed; I am going to only post the most recent fifteen (if anyone would like to see the rest, please follow the link in my previous post).

1. RESULTS: Men with a TGCT were more likely to be current marijuana smokers at the reference date compared with controls… We observed a 70% increased risk of TGCT associated with current marijuana use, and the risk was particularly elevated for current use that was at least weekly or that began in adolescence. These associations were independent of known TGCT risk factors."
   CON
2. The study’s demonstration of a strong association between cannabis use and periodontitis experience by age 32 years indicates that long-term smoking of cannabis is detrimental to the periodontal tissues and that public health measures to reduce the prevalence of cannabis smoking may have periodontal benefits for the population
   CON
3. Treatment with cannabinoids had been shown to reduce the invasiveness of cancer cells, but the cellular mechanisms underlying this effect were unclear
   The expression of TIMP-1 was shown to be stimulated by cannabinoid receptor activation and
   PRO
4. Conclusions: These data suggest that for HIV-positive marijuana smokers, both dronabinol (at doses 8 times current recommendations) and marijuana were well tolerated and produced substantial and comparable increases in food intake."
   PRO
5. The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life."
   CON
6. These preliminary data suggest that CBD monotherapy may not be effective for TRS."
   CON
7. The results of the present study add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that regular cannabis use may increase risks of psychosis.
   The present study suggests that:
   (a) the association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms is unlikely to be due to confounding factors; and
   (b) the direction of causality is from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms."
   CON
8. “Our results indicate that cannabinoid receptors are important in the pathology of AD [Alzheimer’s Disease] and that cannabinoids succeed in preventing the neurodegenerative process occurring in the disease.”
   PRO
9. “Findings suggest that regular cannabis users are significantly more prone to cognitive and perceptual distortions as well as disorganization, but not interpersonal deficits, than non-regular users and those who have never used.
   Additionally, the onset of schizotypal symptoms generally precedes the onset of cannabis use. The findings do not support a causal link between cannabis use and schizotypal traits.”
   Not Clearly Pro or Con
10. The late onset of cannabis action is noteworthy. Because most patients reported that improvement occurred approximately two months after the first use of cannabis, it is very unlikely that it could be attributed to a placebo reaction."
    PRO
11. “Urinary urgency, the number and volume of incontinence episodes, frequency and nocturia all decreased significantly following treatment. However, daily total voided, catheterized and urinary incontinence pad weights also decreased significantly on both extracts. Patient self-assessment of pain, spasticity and quality of sleep improved significantly (P <0.05, Wilcoxon’s signed rank test) with pain improvement continuing up to median of 35 weeks.
    There were few troublesome side effects, suggesting that cannabis-based medicinal extracts are a safe and effective treatment for urinary and other problems in patients with advanced MS.”
    PRO
12. No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis."
    Not Clearly Pro or Con
13. “Available evidence does not strongly support an important causal relation between cannabis use by young people and psychosocial harm, but cannot exclude the possibility that such a relation exists.
    The lack of evidence of robust causal relations prevents the attribution of public health detriments to illicit drug use. In view of the extent of illicit drug use, better evidence is needed.”
    Not Clearly Pro or Con
14. Increasing rates of marijuana use disorders among marijuana users in the absence of increased quantity and frequency of use strengthens the argument that the increasing rates may be attributable, in part, to increased potency of marijuana."
    Not Clearly Pro or Con
15. Conclusions: Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought."
    Not Clearly Pro or Con
16. Conclusions: The findings suggest that providers be advised to assess routinely and better understand patients’ indications for self-administration of cannabis. Given the estimated prevalence, more formal characterization of the patterns and impact of cannabis use to alleviate HIV-associated symptoms is warranted. Clinical trials of smoked and noncombustible marijuana are needed to determine the role of cannabinoids as a class of agents with potential to improve quality of life and health care outcomes among patients with HIV/AIDS."
    Not Clearly Pro or Con

 

[LittleSoldier]

I just read a report today that indicates that today’s more powerful marijuana increases the chances of becoming schizophrenic sixfold. If you know anyone with this illness you’ll understand that it is a serious, dreadful mental illness for which there is no cure.

On the other hand, an alcoholic can discontinue drinking.

I think we have enough legal means of poisoning ourselves. Do we need to legalize more?

Well, I have asked for the reference several times, but have been ignored. I can only conclude that OraLabora doesn’t have a reference for his/her claim or doesn’t consider providing a reference important enough for the people participating (even if it’s just reading) in this thread.

That is a shame. Really.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is an uncharitable post. People may sometimes misunderstand a question which is put to them or a point that is being made (not that I believe the poster you are replying to misunderstood what you wrote), but to tell someone “you are confused” and to “please be more careful” is unnecessary and condescending.

How did you post this without appearing… hypocritical?

Dan Grelinger

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

God’s law always takes precedence. Laws written by humans can change on a whim; God’s law is always truth, and as truth, is unchanging.

This only makes sense if there is a CONFLICT between God’s laws and human laws. Concerning marijuana, there is no conflict. The only way that God’s laws and human laws would be in conflict concerning medical marijuana, is if you could not follow both at the same time.

 

[spn82756]

LittleSoldier;6250770:

God’s law always

takes precedence. Laws written by humans can change on a whim; God’s law is always truth, and as truth, is unchanging.

This only makes sense if there is a CONFLICT between God’s laws and human laws. Concerning marijuana, there is no conflict. The only way that God’s laws and human laws would be in conflict concerning medical marijuana, is if you could not follow both at the same time.

Since God’s laws DO NOT require us to use marijuana, then God’s law is not in conflict with human laws that do prevent its use.

We can follow human laws outlawing marijuana use without disobeying God’s laws, since God does not require us to use marijuana.

What it appears you are proposing, is that if God did not create a law against something, then if there is a human law against it, you don’t have to follow it. That is fantasy and falacy.

Dan Grelinger

God doesn’t require us to take aspirin either. I guess you find man’s law supreme. So…today we can drink alcohol and it’s okay. During prohibition it was against the law…therefore a sin.

The following article has only one statement on MM and the Catholic Church. Second to last paragraph.

mapinc.org/tlcnews/v04/n915/a04.html?94560

 

[spn82756]

LittleSoldier;6250770:

God’s law always

takes precedence. Laws written by humans can change on a whim; God’s law is always truth, and as truth, is unchanging.

This only makes sense if there is a CONFLICT between God’s laws and human laws. Concerning marijuana, there is no conflict. The only way that God’s laws and human laws would be in conflict concerning medical marijuana, is if you could not follow both at the same time.

Since God’s laws DO NOT require us to use marijuana, then God’s law is not in conflict with human laws that do prevent its use.

We can follow human laws outlawing marijuana use without disobeying God’s laws, since God does not require us to use marijuana.

What it appears you are proposing, is that if God did not create a law against something, then if there is a human law against it, you don’t have to follow it. That is fantasy and falacy.

Dan Grelinger

God’s laws don’t require us to take showers either. As a matter of fact…God’s laws DO NOT on a specific basis require us to eat.

God’s laws do not require us to wear warm clothing in the winter.

BTW…referring back to early medicine (and aspirin)…there’s a place where people were put to death for using herbal cures several hundred years ago. Very close to where I live in MA. It’s called Salem. They were accused of making pacts with the devil. Were any of your relatives in control of the town back then?

 

[MM_for_LLPH]

This only makes sense if there is a CONFLICT between God’s laws and human laws. Concerning marijuana, there is no conflict. The only way that God’s laws and human laws would be in conflict concerning medical marijuana, is if you could not follow both at the same time.

Since God’s laws DO NOT require us to use marijuana, then God’s law is not in conflict with human laws that do prevent its use.

This issue is not who already has access - but those that do not. There are over 50 million people in the country alone that consider their condition "unmanageable by conventional means“. . I was one of both and I had to have faith that my “unlawful” actions would be rewarded because as the readings from this weekend teach us - we must let Grace enter our lives and let us be a guiding motivation. They say that once this grace hits you - you wont be able to stop the positive change in your life. God won’t intercede and help us on our path when he has already given us the answer and the knowledge - we just have a greedy law preventing real understanding of what the plant could do for us. If we had just discovered this “NEW” plant in a forest or back yard we would approach the plant like we approach any new discovery - and once we started making observations about the plants effect on people - that this is the plant to help a lot of things - more naturally. And if we were able to do this - the nations medical professions and big pharma can start researching with more focus on the conditions that we don’t have a grasp on - Cancer, AIDS, and so on - we could impact real change if we could simply focus on solving real problems verses creating drugs that treat the simple symptoms of life.

 

[LittleSoldier]

How did you post this without appearing… hypocritical?

Dan Grelinger

Uh, I used the “Quote” function.

 

[LittleSoldier]

How did you post this without appearing… hypocritical?

Dan Grelinger

Edit to Prior Response:

Uh, I used the “Submit Reply” function.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier;6250770:

God’s law always

takes precedence. Laws written by humans can change on a whim; God’s law is always truth, and as truth, is unchanging.

This only makes sense if there is a CONFLICT between God’s laws and human laws. Concerning marijuana, there is no conflict. The only way that God’s laws and human laws would be in conflict concerning medical marijuana, is if you could not follow both at the same time.

Since God’s laws DO NOT require us to use marijuana, then God’s law is not in conflict with human laws that do prevent its use.

We can follow human laws outlawing marijuana use without disobeying God’s laws, since God does not require us to use marijuana.

What it appears you are proposing, is that if God did not create a law against something, then if there is a human law against it, you don’t have to follow it. That is fantasy and falacy.

Dan Grelinger

God’s law requires us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to show mercy to those who are suffering. There is a difference between requiring the use of medical marijuana and allowing the use of medical marijuana.

God’s law does not require us to use marijuana. I have never said that. God’s law requires us to show mercy to those who are suffering from medical conditions and can possibly be helped by marijuana. Federal laws are unjust. We are not required to comply with them; however, we are required to comply with God’s law.

Do you mean a fallacy in logic? If so, please tell me which fallacy it is.