Hard to think of a government agency with less credibility than the DEA.
$5 says the average DEA agent uses more drugs than the average American.
DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
21–30 of 96 posts
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#22appetite stimulant?
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#23I'm curious as to why did they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, but they didn't need to amend it for the war on drugs
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#24What bullshit. I have a prescription for a cream containing CBD and THC that has almost totally removed arthritis pain in my hands. Really life changing for me.
Would you mind sharing the brand/product name?
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#25What bullshit. I have a prescription for a cream containing CBD and THC that has almost totally removed arthritis pain in my hands. Really life changing for me.
Do you find (or know) that the THC is contributing to this effect on top of the CBD?
not saying you're claiming otherwise, but both THC and CBD are derived from marijuana!
edit: this comment is wrong.
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#26Yet another artifact of our gerontocracy
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#27Marijuana as schedule 1 is one of the dumbest things we have ever done. The fact that it remains in the modern era speaks to how incompetent the US has become.
Right. Here's another branch of the same government that holds a patent for "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" from 2003 (filed in '99).
Abstract: Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH 3 , and COCH 3.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6630507-B1
Patent showing medical value in one hand, "no accepted medical use" in the other.
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#28I'm curious as to why did they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, but they didn't need to amend it for the war on drugs
If I understand correctly, the answer is "they probably did need to, but didn't bother".
You'll sometimes see articles say "these states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal at the federal level". If the DEA did choose to try and enforce marijuana prohibition in one of these states, the state would be able to sue, making the argument that the US constitution does not give this power to the federal government. The federal government would probably argue that it did have this power under the Commerce Clause.
My understanding is that the DEA has avoided putting itself in a position where this could be litigated.
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#29Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
You took the words from my mouth. Isn't this obvious?
Re: DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'
#30I think it's OK say that Marijuana should be legal but acknowledge that the concrete proven medical benefits attributed to it are pretty marginal.
It's better for certain types of pain management than opioids (and way less risky than them), seems to be at least fairly effective as an anti-anxiety drug (look into stats on the percentage of Americans who are on prescription anti-anxiety meds—it's probably more than you expect), and, from my own experience, is vastly better than any of the prescription or OTC sleep aids I've tried, with less-scary common side effects as a bonus on top of the greater efficacy and better results the next morning (zero extra grogginess/hangover, provided I get the dose right).
[EDIT] I may be understating the sleep-aid thing—just knowing that I've got a bag of gummies and that if I pop one a couple hours before bed I will fall asleep quickly that night, with minimal ill effects, does wonders for my state of mind throughout the day. Even having prescription pills for it before didn't, both because their effects felt more like "being drugged", so, seemed scarier/more-harmful, and because I knew I'd wake up the next morning feeling like shit, even if I got a full night's sleep.
Actually, here's another thing: it's almost certainly less harmful to your health to get high semi-regularly than to get drunk semi-regularly. Even if all cannabis did was replace a measurable percentage of alcohol use, I'd be very surprised if that didn't improve population-wide health markers, and that's just from its recreational use. Not a medicinal use, but still an improvement to population health.