Quote:

---

Simplepowa said:
Lol.

I hope that you guys realize that the people working on these new molecule, these new meds, they are doctorate and post-doctorate people devoting their life trying to help all the people struck with x or y disease.

They devote their time, their energy to problem resolution surrounding complex molecular and biochemical mechanism.

Yes there are example in the industry of product with no real benefit compared to another one previously already on the market (read here, competition between corporation for a share of the profit that can be made on says, people with acidity problem with their stomach), but this is not the majority of the case, oh fuck no.

I don't understand why you don't cry over to the bread seller and accusing him of selling bread to line his pockets and just make you poor because, shit, you need to eat and food should be free!

Plants, must of the time, have compounds that can be ameliorated for a higher activity and a higher specificity to the target we are aiming. And we need researcher to do that, and corporation to invest in it, make it pass all clinical trial and make it accessible to the general public.

It won't pop out of nowhere in your hand.

People need to work on this issue, and making money is part of the process. Nothing bad here.

---

Quote:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

Quote:

---

Simplepowa said:
Lol.

I hope that you guys realize that the people working on these new molecule, these new meds, they are doctorate and post-doctorate people devoting their life trying to help all the people struck with x or y disease.

They devote their time, their energy to problem resolution surrounding complex molecular and biochemical mechanism.

Yes there are example in the industry of product with no real benefit compared to another one previously already on the market (read here, competition between corporation for a share of the profit that can be made on says, people with acidity problem with their stomach), but this is not the majority of the case, oh fuck no.

I don't understand why you don't cry over to the bread seller and accusing him of selling bread to line his pockets and just make you poor because, shit, you need to eat and food should be free!

Plants, must of the time, have compounds that can be ameliorated for a higher activity and a higher specificity to the target we are aiming. And we need researcher to do that, and corporation to invest in it, make it pass all clinical trial and make it accessible to the general public.

It won't pop out of nowhere in your hand.

People need to work on this issue, and making money is part of the process. Nothing bad here.

---

I can agree with this to a certain extent. However plant alkaloids are a vital starting point to develop more effective medications, although its just a starting point and further development is necessary to create an optimal drug.

In regards to the pharmaceutical industry I don't blame them for making money, I blame them for drug mongering for "diseases" like mild alcoholism and profiting at the expense of public health.

Watch the documentary American Addict and you'll see where I'm coming from, they provide an essential service to society but simultaneously exploit us.

---

Quote:

---

Johnny Depp said:
You have to admit, "War on marijuana unconstitutional, leading researchers testify in court Monday" is a less compelling, yet more accurate title.

---

Quote:

---

Johnny Depp said:

Quote:

---

badchad said:

Quote:

---

Johnny Depp said:
I clicked on this article because it said "doctors" and I thought, oh, hmm, that's interesting, MDs taking the time and putting their reps on the line to support cannabis publicly.  Then I saw it was a retired doctor and a PhD psychologist.  Damn you media!  Hooked me with one of your sensationalist headlines again!

---

You do know that Hart is a faculty member at an ivy league school, and that the department someone holds a faculty position in (e.g., psychology) has almost no bearing on the actual research studies they do.  Hart is well-recognized leader in substance abuse research.  Most of the leading research isn't even done by MD's.  Rather, its the MD's that rely on the researchers to generate the most up to date knowledge.

---

calm down "doctor"

I have full respect for these guys.  I never said MDs do much research.  My point is that the title of the article is misleading.  The wording sort of implies that a group of practicing MDs or DOs got together for this thing.  Because when someone says "doctor" people don't think, doctor of philosophy, doctor of neurophsycology, doctor of law.  They think MD.  You have to admit, "War on marijuana unconstitutional, leading researchers testify in court Monday" is a less compelling, yet more accurate title.  And if that had been the title, I wouldn't have clicked the story, because stories where researchers support marijuana and political stuff are pretty common these days.  The tide of prohibition is turning.  I don't think I need to read every story about every little step.  But normally practicing MDs wouldn't do this sort of thing, because like you said, they aren't privy to all the latest research, and they are busy trying to actually help real people with medical problems, not getting caught up in political BS.  I was curious about what that was about.  So do you understand where I am coming from?  It could have been a story with a misleading title about anything that I thought I would be interested in and then wasn't because the article was not really about what its title was made out to be.  I posted my thought because #1. I thought it was funny and #2. I was taking a #2 and had the time (as I am right now)   and also #3 I thought others could relate.

---

Quote:

---

Should the Feds reclassify marijuana? US judge holds hearing

The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug was upheld as recently as last year, but now, defense attorneys in a criminal case have the opportunity to argue in a three-day hearing that the status should change.

In a case that some say could change the relationship between the states and the federal government regarding marijuana, a US district judge in Sacramento, Calif., has granted a three-day hearing starting Monday that challenges the federal ban on the substance.

At issue is the classification of marijuana by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a Schedule I drug, established in the early 1970s. That is the same classification given to heroin, LSD, and Ecstasy. The status was reaffirmed in 2011 and upheld in a federal appeals court last year.

The hearing stems from a criminal case involving several men who were charged with growing marijuana on national forest land. The current evidentiary hearing was granted by Judge Kimberly Mueller after two San Francisco attorneys filed a motion last November to dismiss the charges on grounds that the indictment is unconstitutional. The defense attorneys are arguing that "marijuana does not fit the criteria of a Schedule I Controlled Substance" and shouldn't have been used to target their client.

“It’s earth-shattering to even have this hearing,” says Adam Levine, adjunct professor at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla. “The fact that the judge is willing to hear this case means she is willing to question if the DEA’s original classification is constitutional.” He puts the chances of such a finding at “better than even.”

According to Kris Hermes, spokesman for the medical marijuana-related group Americans for Safe Access, the case could affect pending ones in Vermont, Colorado, and Washington – where states filed petitions to reschedule marijuana for medical use in 2011. And it could have bearing on the raids conducted last week at two medical marijuana dispensaries in West Hollywood and Westwood, Calif.: It could remove the legal premise underpinning the raids.

“So far, the DEA has given no explanation for these raids,” says Mr. Hermes, adding that both facilities operate in accordance with local and state laws. But he is encouraged that Judge Mueller is going to look at evidence, which he says courts have refused to do for decades in cases that his organization has been involved with.

Others are more skeptical about the current hearing changing anything, saying the standard that has to be met in court is very high.

“This constitutional challenge to the federal government’s regulation of marijuana is unlikely to succeed,” says Michael Moreland, vice dean of the Villanova University School of Law near Philadelphia, in an e-mail. To win, he says, the defendants have to show that the current classification of marijuana is unreasonable.

“That’s a very high legal standard to meet. Advocates of legalized marijuana have a better chance convincing Congress or the DEA to change the classification of marijuana. There is a process already in place to reclassify a drug, and I think federal courts will be reluctant to interfere with that,” he writes.

Others note that any ruling in this case would relate solely to the specific defendants in the case and could become broader only if appealed to higher courts.

Stanford law professor Robert MacCoun agrees that the case isn’t as strong as some may hope. “If we were starting from scratch, I very much doubt we'd put marijuana in Schedule I. But now that it's there, it isn't easy to move it out,” he writes in an e-mail.

All say that more would be known about the possible medical benefits of marijuana if the federal government had made it easier to study the drug scientifically. Now, they say, the question will be less the real or perceived benefits of marijuana and more its potential for danger.

Professor Levine and others see marijuana as less dangerous than other drugs on the Schedule I list, noting the fatal consequences often attached to heroin, for example. There are arguably greater dangers connected with some non-Schedule I drugs, too, including alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs.

For a change in classification to happen, Professor MacCoun thinks more public acceptance is required, reflected in new lawmakers and laws.

“Perhaps court cases can resolve this,” he says. “But I think it is more likely to happen if and when state legalization spreads far enough to force us to confront the contradictions.”


(http://news.yahoo.com)

---

Quote:

---

“Although more than 30% of current therapeutic drugs are plant-derived, no one currently eats or smokes foxglove plants to treat a heart condition, chews cinchona bark to alleviate malaria symptoms, or eats opium poppies to relieve post-surgical pain,” Madras writes.

---

Guess she never head of opium and belladonna suppositories...


Some expert...  Also, foxglove and cinchona are both unscheduled and people can and do use them legally for medicinal use without even needing a prescription.  The reason there aren't many plant based drugs prescribed has more to do with money than actual effectiveness.  You can't patent a plant (unless you are Monsanto) so pharma companies have little incentive to get plant based drugs approved.