No citations at all!?!

Does Mrs. Hong know what a scientific article even is?

She makes wild claims, and let's us guess their source or validity.

The "pro" opinion is loaded with citations, what is Mrs Hong trying to hide?

No links to these claims? No sources to back anything up?

Ok...

"unleashing this substance to the public" <--- what is the concern here? We are not talking about a substance that can kill you (like alcohol and tabacco)... there is no LD50 on marijuana which accounts for the lack of statistics for death due to overdose. "UNLEASHED" conjers up ideas of something dangerous being brought to the public.

Every one of your negative points relates soley to SMOKED marijuana. This is the typical line from the DEA (the agency that gets most of it's funding to eradicate marijuana)because it is the only way to continue to say that marijuana cannot be a medicine. How can it be medicine if it harms you? The problem is that there are studies that actually show cannabis users with a lower risk for cancer than non-users and especially lower than tabacco users. In addition marijuana DOES NOT have to be SMOKED to be injested (which is why the AMA originally recomended that "an alternative rapid onset delivery system be developed". This delivery system is available and does negate the negative side effects that SMOKING potentially causes.

The problem with SMOKING is that you are putting the plant material through a process of combustion. It is through this combustion process that carcinogens are produced (ie. the reason you can say marijuana SMOKE has 70% more carcinogens than tabacco smoke). Vaporizors provide this advantage that the AMA was looking for and could be the reason for the AMA reversal of policy. The active chemical ingrediants in marijuana (THC, Cannabidiol, etc.) vaporize at a temperature lower than the point of combustion for the plant material itself. By using this method the patient is able to injest their medicine without creating the carcinogens that most health professionals have been concerned about.

BTW - the reason that Marinol is not an effective medicine and cannot be considered as an alternative is because of what is it used to treat. As you point out it is used for nausea and vomiting... What are the chances that this patient will be able to swallow (and keep down) a pill? It can't be effective if you can't keep it down.

You talk about being in the middle of Health Care Reform and that we are needing to find the most cost effective medicines. What's more cost effective... using a natural plant... or developing a chemical based prescription drug?

Why is it that people always jump up a high horse and talk about the chance of risks involved with marijuana? what if we looked at everything that way. Would they even get in a car?

1. The DEA is run by the Department of Justice. Why is a Law Enforcement agency allowed to make medical decisions? California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a subsidiary of the California Environmental Protection aren't Doctors either.

2. Cannabis needs to move off the Schedule 1 list so more research can proceed.

3. Who smokes marijuana anymore? Use of a vaporizer rules that argument out.

Not only is this essay full of dubious claims that are without citations, but it completely fails to address Mr. Mirken's basic point -- which is that the politicization of the marijuana issue is preventing legitimate research into the medical utility of cannabis. He's not claiming it's a wonder drug, he's just saying that given the current evidence, the political climate should be altered to allow for more rigorous research. I don't see a single thing in Ms. Hong's opinion to contradict that sentiment.

Also, please stop telling us that synthetic THC (Marinol) is a universally acceptable alternative. Marijuana contains dozens of different cannabinoids not found in marinol. CBD, for example, has shown significant pain relief potential but is not included in Marinol.

"I believe this for many reasons, but mainly, it’s due to the fact that although several research studies exist on both the pros and cons of medical marijuana, more extensive research must be conducted before unleashing this substance to the public"

But yet, Mrs Hong, It is perfectly fine for the FDA and/or Gov't to, unleash to the public as you put it, The chemicals inside microwave popcorn bags that once heated disperse into the popcorn and can cause fertility problems, or all of the lovely pesticides that are allowed by the FDA that have made it impossible for me to eat fresh fruit due to causing my throat to swell closed. You see Mrs Hong, this moralistic crusade that prohibition backers seem to be clinging to in the face of the mounting avalanche of facts, data, and just plain majoral public support, is that you and people like you will not be allowed to puch your beliefs on us anymore, and we are not criminals because the power of the pen is in your favor, "at the moment mind you".

Just because the FAD or Gov't says it's ok does not make it such, and more people are standing up to this. When EVERYTHING that is currently for public consumption with FDA backing is 100% good for you with no ill side effects, then and only then will your quoted arguement above be relevent in the discusion of legalized marijuana, weather it be medical or recreational.

Ms. Hong, if I didn't know better, sounds just like a government official, spouting more of the same nonesense that the DEA has been misinforming the public with for years.

"We need more research," they say. But then they block research, refusing to listen to their own administrative law judges, time and time again.

"It's unsafe to smoke a plant, because of carcinogens," they say. Well, we let people smoke tobacco, don't we? I don't see any tobacco smokers being arrested and sent to jail. And what about the fact that there has never been a single lung cancer case specifically linked with marijuana use. (Quite the opposite of tobacco)

And, finally, if smoking is really such a problem, there are devices called vaporizers that can be used quite safely to avoid the harshness of smoke. But they always seem to forget about the fact that vaporizers even exist.

Indeed, marijuana is a safe medicine. But the government keeps trying to convince us otherwise. In time, there will be no choice but for the truth to prevail, and Americans will finally be given the right to use marijuana as a medicine. It's just frustrating waiting for it to happen.

It's appalling that Ms. Hong appears to be in favor of jail time for someone using marijuana on the advice of their doctor.

Both the American College of Physicians and the American Medical Association have expressed support for investigation of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Marijuana in various forms, not necessarily smoked, has been used therapeutically for centuries in many parts of the world. Marijuana appears to provide relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms, with fewer ill effects and a greater margin of safety than the narcotic drugs commonly administered for pain, and safer even than the non-narcotic drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen and related compounds that are responsible for a few hundred deaths each year (www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm).

The American College of Physicians position can be found at (www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf)

The American Medical Association position is available at www.ama-assn.org/assets/meeting/mm/i-09-ref-comm-k.pdf (the Medical Marijuana section begins on page 12 of the 27 page document).

I hope that anyone who can benefit from the medical use of marijuana is allowed to do so safely, without having to go to a criminal drug dealer and without fear of prison for himself or herself.

It seems to me this writer is against doing research into the efficacy of cannabis as medicine because there hasn't been enough research into the efficacy of cannabis as medicine. Huh?

As far as 'unleashing' cannabis on the public, I've got a newsflash for this alleged person of science: any Tom Dick or Harry that wants cannabis can get it anywhere in the US. This includes children, as unregulated, black market dealers don't have any incentive to not sell to children.

More reseearch before we "unleash this substance to the public"? Obviously the author has some serious delusions in terms of control.

Perhaps someone should point out that marijana has been smoked for tens of thousands of years and that 1 in 3 US citizens over the age of 12 has smoked.

You don't have control over marijuana. You never have and never will. Prohibition makes this even more true. Prohibition isn't control - rather, its the exact opposite. Prohibition is giving up any possibility of control - such as regulation sales via ID verification and taxing sales for revenue.

"Meanwhile, another powerful government entity, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) refuses to crumble under pressure, continuing to classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it has no medicinal purposes."

They're legally required to oppose the legalization of any schedule 1 drug for even medicinal use. It is therefore impossible for the DEA to base its opinion on factual evidence.

Holy Smokes! Don't drink the Kool-Aid. The cat is out of the bag. 25 million Americans have inhaled the smoke of this burning flower ember. I don't see a huge number of satanic jazz musicians raping white girls or super strength latinos going mad on our streets. Prohibition has caused more harm for families then pop's smoking a natural substance.

Alcohol, Tobacco, Pharmaceuticals, Pot, you decide which one is the safer choice for recreational use.

Rev.sLeezy

Universal Life Church of the Holy Smokes

Fail... Your article lacks everything except nothing.

No sources... and taking scientific data out of New Zealand is like taking gun control data from the NRA...

Please look up Dr. Donald Tashkin from UCLA. Regarding his findings on marijuana smoke and cancer relation. You might ignore it, but do yourself a favor.

My two cents: Mrs.Hong is wrong wrong wrong!!

:-)

Stay lifted brothers.

"more extensive research must be conducted before unleashing this substance to the public"

"there is no reason why our nation needs to partake in a medical experiment"

Does she realize that:

Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found as far back as the 3rd millennium B.C., (source wikipedia). It is only at the beginning of the 20th century that it became illegal (and not for health reasons).

How long has Marinol been available, used, and studied?

Who is experimenting on who?

It's very telling that Hong cites the extremely questionable tiny study in New Zealand that involved 79 patients, and ignores the U.S. study, funded by NIDA (Tashkin, UCLA), of over 2,000 patients, that definitively found absolutely no risk of head, neck or lung cancer from marijuana smoking (in fact, a slight reverse correlation).

Why would she do that?

"I believe" Does not cut it. Where did she get trained for her job? She should be fired :) Does she know how many people have dies because of MJ? How about oxecotin? and all these other safe drugs that do so much good. I hope her boss is really watching her pro. skills. Fire Her!

Mrs. Hong? Any comments as to your blatant misrepresentation and/or ignorance of the facts at hand? :)

If this person worked for the german propaganda department during WW2 we would have lost the war. The last time I came in contact with so much BS was when I visited my friends farm.

Mrs. Hong, what you and our lawmakers have to understand is that you HAVE unleashed marijuana on the public: you did that when you made it illegal. Prohibition is not control: it leaves the illegal substance entirely unregulated in an immoral market.

Furthermore, I'm disgusted by your blatant endorsement of the pharmaceutical industry, supporting "alternatives to medical marijuana" due to "smoked marijuana's" inadequacy and danger, when you know full well there are much safer methods of delivery for natural marijuana that are much less expensive than anything pharmaceuticals can cough up.

Just because a substance may be more harmful than tobacco doesn't mean people should be thrown in prison for using it, or be forced, in their otherwise imperturbable pain, to go to the streets for relief. Surely you can understand the clear injustice here.

The author clearly does not know what she is talking about. Time and time again, cannabis has been shown to NOT cause lung cancer and in fact is associated with a lower risk of the disease.

If you look at the real world, cannabis does not cause any problems. All of those studies are flawed in some way, but empirical studies show it is 100% safe. It pains me that such outdated material still exists in this age.

Ms. Hong is a "medical abstractor." This is basically a transcriptionist who "researches medical records regarding specific disease studies." Why is this person even pretending to debate this issue, which is a matter of life and death for many suffering, who would be well served by the legalization of medical cannabis nationwide? It is a profound issue for the tens of thousands of non-violent drug offenders that are rotting behind bars. It is a crucial issue for parents who believe the best way to protect their children from drugs is to take the distribution of drugs out of the hands of criminals, then highly regulate and tax accountable vendors. Instead, Pain.com puts up a lame reading of DEA cliff notes to promote continued prohibition of medical cannabis. Come one! You can do better. Let's have a real debate! There must be someone who can present intelligent, science-based rationale for continuing this anti-medical cannabis policy. Oh, ...there isn't? Well, then, that explains it.

where the hell did you get this yenta? can i write counter-opinion pieces on topics i have no reason to also? a medical abstracter is a fancy name for someone who maintains medical records and has an associates degree. this woman was allowed to write this piece with no references or citations like its fact and you ignorant fuckos @ "pain.com" went ahead and posted it as a legitimate "counter opinion".

the crux of her entire argument against medical marijuana is fundamentally flawed because she is simply too ignorant to realize that the perceived "risks" involved with marijuana all have to do with the SMOKE and not actually the plant itself. i know its a tough job being a medical abstracter and all but this cunt could have done some research and realized that THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO INGEST MARIJUANA NOT JUST SMOKING!

vaporizers, food, tincture, etc etc.. are all ways to safely ingest MMJ without ever encountering the smoke or carcinogens.

this whole piece sounds it was written from word of mouth, if the "geniuses" at pain.com want to be viewed as even a quasi-reliable source for medical information then they should seriously consider it next time before allowing a secretary from a doctors office to write a false, uncited article attempting to rebut legitimate science.