Medical marijuana

[Amati]

Did you know that if you use medical marijuana you might be denied a liver transplant? Here is a link to the story about a man who was denied a transplant due to his doctor's approved medical marijuana usage, unless he completed a 60 day addiction treatment. The man died on May 2.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24430630/

Let the patient beware! :mad:

[Ron Whitfield]

All involved otta be sued outta business. This guy was completely iwithn his legal parameters.
Marijuana, like ciggarettes, is not overtly addicting physically. It's a mental addiction, so the 60 day 'treatment' is a bogus excuse.
The outlawing of pot came from special interest groups with $/power, like Raldolph Hearst, wanting thier timber, booze, petroleum and such to be king. Thus millions of lives have been destroyed thru drink, excessive acres of woodlands ravaged by clearcutting, and now we know about the gas... Life in America would have been much better had hemp remained (one of, if not) the nations top crop, and utilized it thru technology to be even more beneficial than it has forever.
Hemp is an amazing thing, and marijauna is a gift from God.

[salmoned]

If it's the hospital that sets the policy, as told in the story, I guess he should have found a hospital that doesn't discriminate on the basis of marijuana use, eh? No one has a right to an organ transplant. For the record, no one implies or even hints there was ever an actual suitable organ for this guy, even if he would have been put on their list.

[Amati]

If it's the hospital that sets the policy, as told in the story, I guess he should have found a hospital that doesn't discriminate on the basis of marijuana use, eh? No one has a right to an organ transplant. For the record, no one implies or even hints there was ever an actual suitable organ for this guy, even if he would have been put on their list.
The point is not whether or not the patient could have moved to another location and a different hospital, nor whether or not an organ was available. The point is that if you use medical marijuana, prescribed by a physician, you might unknowingly be excluding yourself from the option of having a transplant.
THAT does not seem right!

[Ron Whitfield]

Now, not surprisingly, we have Bush's drug czar lying yesterday in a report released by his Office of National Drug Control Policy about pot making depressed kids more depressed, and worse.

When pressed on his statements "Using marijuana can cause depression and other mental illnesses" at a recent news conference, he eventually confessed there was no proof one leads to another.

These are just the greatest people. How lucky we are to have them running our country again, straight into the toilet.

[cynsaligia]

hmm. this presents a lot of food for thought.

personally, i believe marijuana use to be benign in comparison to tobacco use. certainly, i think medical marijuana should be completely legal.

that said, i'm not sure this is a clear case of discriminatory practices by a hospital. all transplants in the US are governed by the united network for organ sharing (http://unos.org/), a non-profit organization mandated by congress to collect data re transplants, facilitate organ matching and placement, as well as develops, maintains, modifies and enforces organ transplant policy.

transplant organs are a valuable resource and UNOS established rules as to who can go on the recipient list. the purpose of these rules is to ensure the sickest patients who are most likely to have post-transplantation success go to the top of the wait list. the screening process to get on the list is quite comprehensive and includes patient interviews for medical history, interviews with a social worker, and intensive patient education. transplant patients various lab results are monitored constantly. in any case, among UNOS' rules is that an active alcohol or illicit drug user cannot be given a liver (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/liver_transplant/article_em.htm). since marijuana is viewed as an illicit drug by the federal government, maybe the hospital had no choice but to tell the patient he's on hold until he goes through the drug program. if they did otherwise, perhaps the hospital would have put itself at risk of having its entire transplant program sanctioned by UNOS, thereby potentially affecting other current and potential transplant list patients at risk as well.

mind you, i don't work in transplant. i am not, in any way, an expert on this subject. i'm not even a clinician. in my opinion, the article is, clearly, missing a lot of information. my first question would be, how long before the patient's death did he and his doctors apply to put him in consideration for a transplant? why didn't his doctors know that marijuana use could delay his being put on the transplant list? additionally, outside of the marijuana use, would the patient have been appropriately placed on the list based on the UNOS guidelines? upon what information did the lawyer base his/her opinion that the patient would not have died had he been put on the transplant list? the patient still would have had to wait his turn, based on how he would have been prioritized. even if he were placed on the list, would it be likely that he would have died prior to receiving a liver, given the scarcity of cadaveric organs as well as the scarcity of willing living donors?

[Amati]

why didn't his doctors know that marijuana use could delay his being put on the transplant list?
Yes, exactly, which goes back to my original question, "Did you know that if you use medical marijuana you might be denied a liver transplant". That question needs to be expanded to "Do doctors know that their prescribing medical marijuana might exclude the patient from having a transplant?"

[kani-lehua]

Yes, exactly, which goes back to my original question, "Did you know that if you use medical marijuana you might be denied a liver transplant". That question needs to be expanded to "Do doctors know that their prescribing medical marijuana might exclude the patient from having a transplant?"

i've been wondering the same thing. another question: what if you belong to the hawai'i cannabis ministry http://thc-ministry.org , meaning you are using it as part of your religious practices, does that affect your candidacy, too?

[Amati]

i've been wondering the same thing. another question: what if you belong to the hawai'i cannabis ministry http://thc-ministry.org , meaning you are using it as part of your religious practices, does that affect your candidacy, too?
If I needed a transplant, I'd cancel my membership in the "ministry" and never mention that I'd ever been a member to the doctor/transplant center!!! :eek:

[lensperson]

High there,
This individual , a former member of "Steely Dan" was essentially put to death because he smoked a little to help the pain.
If Jesus could turn water to wine, I think we can turn soil and sunlight into medicine.

[salmoned]

The point is not whether or not the patient could have moved to another location and a different hospital, nor whether or not an organ was available. The point is that if you use medical marijuana, prescribed by a physician, you might unknowingly be excluding yourself from the option of having a transplant.
THAT does not seem right!

Well, if that's the point - so what? I don't live my life worrying about whether what I do may affect my status as a potential organ recipient and I doubt many others have that concern either. As I previously pointed out, no one has a right to be an organ recipient. If you feel the existing policy is somehow wrong, work to change it. In any case, I feel your effort is misplaced.

[Amati]

Well, if that's the point - so what? I don't live my life worrying about whether what I do may affect my status as a potential organ recipient and I doubt many others have that concern either. As I previously pointed out, no one has a right to be an organ recipient. If you feel the existing policy is somehow wrong, work to change it. In any case, I feel your effort is misplaced.
Lucky you, you've obviously never had a major medical problem in your family or you would not be so cavalier with your attitude about not "having a concern".
And, I hardly see how sharing the information in HT that the ramifications of a particular medical therapy could jeopardize your access to treatment (medical marijuana = no transplant) is a misplaced effort.

[sansei]

:confused: hi this is sansei and i have one question,my brother in law is a diabetic and he smoke's cigarette's and the one cigarette he smoke's is the one with a brown wrapper on it and may this be like a Marijuana or may this be an original cigarette is when he smoke's it,it give's me the worst Headache that i endure and then when he's finished,he put's the cigarette in his ash tray which under it is a soda can and may anyone know what type of cigarette with a brown wrapper is is i've seen it in his can and it does have a brown wrapper around it so if anyone may know,it would be truly helpful,please?

Well thank's for your time:confused:

[turtlegirl]

Cloves, maybe? You should ask him.

[lensperson]

Those are probably bidis. The name bidi is a catchall name for many forms of cigarettes rolled with a leaf instead of paper.
The paper used in regular cigarettes is made in France from Hemp. The French government has an exclusive monoply on the seeds sold to the farmers.
There are only trace amounts of active component in the resultant plant.
Oddly enough, in colonial times, failure to grow hemp (to be used for canvas and rope) was a fineable offense. On the Federal Reserve Note, ten dollar denomination, circa 1910 is a picture of a farmer harvesting Hemp.
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
Both vitamin A and D are more toxic than thc.
End of rant...off my soapbox

[Ron Whitfield]

Not just in Colonial times, but until the early 20th century it was a Federal law that farmers had to offer 20% of whatever else they grew as hemp stock for the national good, or be fined the equivilent amount. It was THAT important to the country.

Then suddenly...!?!
A total shutdown on hemp, and marijuana was taboo, the Devil's weed.
How odd...

Also...,

ONLY 5% OF THE PUBLIC DONATES THEIR ORGANS (POST DEATH) TO HELP SAVE THE LIVES OF THOSE AROUND THEM, US!

IT'S AN AUTOMATIC OPTION WHEN YOU GET YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE, AND NO KNOWN LEGITIMATE REASONS NOT TO. PLEASE DO IT.

SAME SORRY 5% FOR LIVES SAVED AFTER A HEART ATTACK BECAUSE NOBODY JUMPS INTO ACTION TO SAVE THE PERSONS BRAIN ACTIVITY BY KEEP THE HEART PUMPING. JUST FAIRLY RAPID AND DEEP CHEST COMPRESSIONS DONE PROPERLY (IT'S EASY) WILL KEEP THE BLOOD AND OXYGEN FLOWING TO THE BRAIN AND GIVE THE PATIENT A REAL CHANCE OF TOTAL RECOVERY.

BUT NO, INSTEAD SO FEW DO THE FEW RIGHT AND SIMPLE THINGS.
MILLIONS HAVE DIED UNNECCESSARILY, YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY, BECAUSE OF OUR OWN INACTIONS.

[craigwatanabe]

High there,
This individual , a former member of "Steely Dan" was essentially put to death because he smoked a little to help the pain.
If Jesus could turn water to wine, I think we can turn soil and sunlight into medicine.

If we could do everything Jesus did, we wouldn't be needing transplants because we'd be perfect to the point where we wouldn't have any illnesses. That's why we are having a hard time doing what you propose. \

My thinking on the use if illicit drugs and transplants is that if you're gonna destroy your body then why are we spending the bucks to save it when it can go to another recipient who does cherish good health and deserves to live. Makes good investment sense to me.

But in the case of medical marijuana, if it's legal then it's not illicit is it?

[Ron Whitfield]

Who makes the calls on the "recipient who cherishes good health and deserves to live"?
How is it proved or decided that one is more 'deserving' than another?

To me, all life is precious, and of course some do waste it more than others. But treating some more/better than others just doesn't sound right, even tho that's how it usually ends up.

[Leo Lakio]

some do waste it more than others.Remind me again...how many liver transplants did David Crosby get? :D

[sinjin]

Interesting that pot uses in no way disqualifies your organs from being transplanted into someone else.

[TATTRAT]

if you're gonna destroy your body then why are we spending the bucks to save it when it can go to another recipient who does cherish good health and deserves to live. Makes good investment sense to me.

But in the case of medical marijuana, if it's legal then it's not illicit is it?


It is not a case of we, imo. If you can afford the money for the procedure, then he should have got it.

It is like denying a person a bypass/heart surgery because they have eaten nothing but McDonalds for the past 14years.

medical cheeba is NOT recognized by the federal govt, unfortunately, by just the state in which it is "legal". What a bummer...not like it is crack...or meth.

[craigwatanabe]

Well if organs could be handed out like drive thru hamburgers then yeah I can see your point of having anyone who can afford it to get it, but organs aren't that available and it should go to those who show a willingness to take care of their bodies.

When one of my former co-workers had bypass surgery we all chipped in and donated to his medical costs. His doctor told him he needed to quit smoking, drinking and put him on a restrictive diet.

Within a month of the surgery, there he was smoking, drinking and of course eating his favorite plate lunch...daily.

So it came to no surprize when he went back in to the hospital for more surgery to correct more problems associated with his continued disregard to his doctor's warnings of stopping what he was doing.

When the pot came to me to donate more money to his medical condition, I called him up and asked him if he was going to listen to his doctor? He said no and I refused to donate my hard earned money to someone who was going to throw his life away again.

If you show a disregard for life to the point of destroying your body, then why should you deserve a transplant when the next person in line is struggling to show their desire to take advantage of a second chance.

I'm not the one choosing his life over death, the drug user already made that decision. At some point we have to be responsible for our own actions and consequences of those actions.

BTW, his second heart bypass went successfully, however after disregarding his doctor's pleas again, his diet and lifestyle remained unchanged...he died as a result. All that medical attention and bills paid to cure him was for nothing. He left his family with his mounting medical bills. He would have done the same thing if it were a heart transplant. If I were the next person in line and found out the guy in front of me wasted his gift of life, I'd be furious.

[Jim75]

I read this man's story as presented in the link posted above. I also read the associated story that is linked to via text part way down the story.

It is not completely clear to me whether Garon had refused to undergo a 60 day drug rehab program or if he was too ill to attend. Or, if he had elected not to achieve 6 months abstinence or he did not have enough time to do that. It does appear clear that he did not achieve 6 months abstinence, whether he tried or not, and did not complete a 60 day rehab. I have to imagine that if the UW Med Staff said he must attend the treatment that they also had some expectation that he could; although, that's not necessarliy the case.

I wonder what the outcome would have been had he been using prescription Marinol rather than smoking medical marijuana. I had hoped one of the two articles would have noted how long before his death he was first told he must undergo treatment, or in the HarborView Center's decision, when was he first told he needed 6 months abstinence. This would have been of interest to me as it would identify if there would have been enough time for him to go through the rehab, or become abstinent for 6 months, and still survive to get the transplant.

If he rejected treatment or chose not to attempt to attain 6 months abstinence, and there was time, it would make me wonder why. Was he too ill? Was he objecting on some moral grounds? Was he seriously addicted?

It seems to me to be irrational to choose not to go through treatment, in order to get put on the organ recipient list, if your goal is to get a new organ and live and that is the only path to that end. If he made that choice, on the grounds that he was morally, legally, or ethically right, then he would appear to have done so at the cost of his own life. Each has to make their own choices, but it seems to me that if getting on the recipient list meant going to rehab, or abstaining, many, including myself, would abstain or participate in rehab in order to live (regardless of whether the system or medical marijuana laws are right or wrong). Dying for your right to smoke medical marijuana would be seen as extreme by most, imo.

At the same time, many people who are addicted choose to continue use in the face of death every day, literally. Addiction is very powerful, certainly powerful enough to contribute to some people's election not to go to rehab (even in the face of dying).

Another item that causes me to question is that the article notes he had been an IV drug user earlier in life, but in recent years he only smoked marijuana. Does that mean that in the last 3 years he only smoked marijuana? Could it be that for the 25 years before that he had been using meth? It doesn't say, but with this limited information it's possible. Neither of these medical centers are at liberty to tell all they know about his situation. In fact, they can't really tell anything due to privacy laws. There may be more to his situation than meets the eye. If he had some significant history of addiction, he and/or his representatives may be, or had been, unwilling to let that be known to the press. Medical marijuana use may only have been one part of the larger picture. We will likely never know.

The second story notes this piece of info also:

"Many doctors agree that using marijuana — smoking it, especially — is out of the question post-transplant. The drugs patients take to help their bodies accept a new organ increase the risk of aspergillosis, a frequently fatal infection caused by a common mold found in marijuana and tobacco."

I know zero about aspergillosis or what the odds are of a person contracting this infection post-transplant (one in 5 million, one in 1000, ???), but according to the story there are more people needing transplants than there are available organs. If you have two people needing a transplant, all things being equal between them, except one of them, for whatever reason, presents a real risk of not being a successful recipient, who gets the organ?

I'm not taking sides here, just throwing out some ideas. I would add that if marijuana can be demonstrated to be medically useful, then I think physicians should be able to legally prescribe it.

[Amati]

I'll agree that if some currently using street junkie or alcoholic needs a transplant, then the user's habit/addiction should be taken into consideration. But the point, again, about the medical marijuana, is that even if you "never smoked pot or drank or used any illegal drugs" in your life before your illness, then had a doctor prescribe medical marijuana, you could be denied a transplant. That blanket denial is where I have the problem.

[craigwatanabe]

I'm not taking sides either in this particular case. I do find it interesting however that if the medical marijuana was legal to take as a prescribed medicine, how can it be considered illicit?

I'm thinking it's not the medical marijuana that is in question but perhaps the possibility of him being a drug abuser.

Medically speaking, if his body's immune system is weakened by illicit drugs will the body reject any transplanted organ? If so then why in the world would anyone waste it on that person?

[Amati]

I
"Many doctors agree that using marijuana — smoking it, especially — is out of the question post-transplant. The drugs patients take to help their bodies accept a new organ increase the risk of aspergillosis, a frequently fatal infection caused by a common mold found in marijuana and tobacco."


Gee, if that is a reason to not get a transplant, does it mean if you've smoked tobacco you cannot get a transplant because you might have aspergillosis lurking in your body?

Anybody ever know anyone who had "aspergillosis"?? I might have to google that word.

[craigwatanabe]

Gee, if that is a reason to not get a transplant, does it mean if you've smoked tobacco you cannot get a transplant because you might have aspergillosis lurking in your body?

Anybody ever know anyone who had "aspergillosis"?? I might have to google that word.

And what about second-hand smoke? We're all doomed :(

[Jim75]

Gee, if that is a reason to not get a transplant, does it mean if you've smoked tobacco you cannot get a transplant because you might have aspergillosis lurking in your body?

Anybody ever know anyone who had "aspergillosis"?? I might have to google that word.A quick look reveals this much:

"The frequency of invasive aspergillosis reflects disease states and treatments that result in prolonged neutropenia and immunosuppression. Invasive aspergillosis is estimated to occur in 5-13% of recipients of bone marrow transplants, 5-25% of patients who have received heart or lung transplants, and 10-20% of patients who are receiving intensive chemotherapy for leukemia. Although it has been described in individuals who are immunocompetent, invasive aspergillosis is exceedingly uncommon in this population.

Invasive aspergillosis is associated with significant mortality, with a rate of 30-95%."

Found at http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic174.htm

Not exactly minimal odds. If you look at the higher end of the stats, as many as one in four heart and lung transplant patients get it and 30 to 95% of those die from it. So at the most dramatic end of the stats around one if four gets it and dies from it. It's apparently a serious consideration, even if it was only one tenth that amount.

[cynsaligia]

I wonder what the outcome would have been had he been using prescription Marinol rather than smoking medical marijuana.

i am glad you brought this up.

according to a liver transplant nurse i spoke to the other day, marinol (http://www.marinol.com/aboutmarinol/index.html) has all the therapeutic benefit of medical marijuana but none of the negative side-issues.

she said they won't put a patient on the list who uses regular marijuana bcs there is nothing that assures the transplant folks that the patient is taking the dose he or she needs, or that the quality of the drug they are getting is where it needs to be. some patients get their medical marijuana on the street--and we know how reliable that can be! a pharmaceutical drug, however, is controlled in terms of the actual dosage of the therapeutic drug.

if a patient is on marinol, my liver transplant nurse said, assuming all other factors are okay, they will put that patient on the transplant wait list with no problems.

my view is the MD of the patient in the original story had no excuse not to know that medical marijuana use might, down the line, put the patient at risk of not being accepted as a possible liver transplant recipient. in addition, said MD should have made marinol an option.

[WindwardOahuRN]

i am glad you brought this up.

according to a liver transplant nurse i spoke to the other day, marinol (http://www.marinol.com/aboutmarinol/index.html) has all the therapeutic benefit of medical marijuana but none of the negative side-issues.

she said they won't put a patient on the list who uses regular marijuana bcs there is nothing that assures the transplant folks that the patient is taking the dose he or she needs, or that the quality of the drug they are getting is where it needs to be. some patients get their medical marijuana on the street--and we know how reliable that can be! a pharmaceutical drug, however, is controlled in terms of the actual dosage of the therapeutic drug.

if a patient is on marinol, my liver transplant nurse said, assuming all other factors are okay, they will put that patient on the transplant wait list with no problems.

my view is the MD of the patient in the original story had no excuse not to know that medical marijuana use might, down the line, put the patient at risk of not being accepted as a possible liver transplant recipient. in addition, said MD should have made marinol an option.

According to the many patients I have had who have experienced dronabinol (Marinol) as compared to marijuana there simply is no comparison as far as relief of symptoms goes. Marijuana wins.
Marinol is prescribed most often to increase appetites in anorexic cancer and AIDS patients with varying success. Sometimes also prescribed to relieve nausea but there are many more effective alternatives.
Marinol is a synthetic compound and is most certainly lacking some of the more obcure components of the real tamale. Marinol certainly can have negative side effects. Just not politically incorrect negative side "issues." :rolleyes:
I suppose it is relatively easy to stand by the sidelines and declare that the patient or MD should have made "wiser" choices. But when you are vomiting, wasting away to the point of cachexia or just plain damn hurting, miserable, and losing hope something that makes you even a bit more comfortable is a welcome friend.
Most people who are lucky enough to be placed on an organ transplant list die waiting for transplants. It is a nasty reality. So should those who are waiting give up a chance for immediate relief while hoping for the nebulous possibility of a transplant?
Those who use medical marijuana to ease the distress of their illnesses are not street junkies. They are seeking relief, FINDING relief, all perfectly legal.
The Organ Donor Network better get their act together or I'll get that red lettering on my driver's license deleted. Oh, not really, but it does piss me off royally.
No disrespect meant but the average lay person has no idea what a terrible toll unrelenting pain can have on a person unless they have experienced it themselves, seen a loved one go through such pain or worked with people suffering in such situations. Your heart goes out to them and you wish nothing except to relieve that pain and suffering. If a joint does the trick, well, so be it. Hallelujah. High fives all around.
How cruel to judge otherwise. :mad:

[Frankie's Market]

No disrespect meant but the average lay person has no idea what a terrible toll unrelenting pain can have on a person unless they have experienced it themselves, seen a loved one go through such pain or worked with people suffering in such situations. Your heart goes out to them and you wish nothing except to relieve that pain and suffering. If a joint does the trick, well, so be it. Hallelujah. High fives all around.
How cruel to judge otherwise. :mad:

If anything that relieves "pain and suffering" is justified, then would you be in favor of physician-assisted suicide for terminally-ill patients for whom even the strongest pain killers bring no relief?

[WindwardOahuRN]

If anything that relieves "pain and suffering" is justified, then would you be in favor of physician-assisted suicide for terminally-ill patients for whom even the strongest pain killers bring no relief?

In the final stages of life we routinely administer massive doses of narcotics and sedatives to relieve discomfort. Sometimes this hastens death. No question. We explain this to families and loved ones who are at the bedside of those who are in the process of dying and, overwhelmingly, they choose the comfort of their loved ones over extension of life.
The death is inevitable. The ease of death is facilitated by narcotics and sedatives.
It is not euthanasia but the easing of discomfort during the dying process. To the uninitiated it my look like euthanasia but it is definitely not.
In cases of intractable pain and a terminal diagnosis, where a person has expressed the desire not to continue living, would I be in favor of physician-assisted termination of life?
To put it simply---if it came to that for ME I would like physician-assisted termination to be an option.
When life is over, it is over. When there is no hope, there is no hope. Life is fiinite. As painful as it is to accept for those we may leave behind it is a time-honored and very awful reality.

[Jim75]

I suppose it is relatively easy to stand by the sidelines and declare that the patient or MD should have made "wiser" choices. But when you are vomiting, wasting away to the point of cachexia or just plain damn hurting, miserable, and losing hope something that makes you even a bit more comfortable is a welcome friend.

Most people who are lucky enough to be placed on an organ transplant list die waiting for transplants. It is a nasty reality. So should those who are waiting give up a chance for immediate relief while hoping for the nebulous possibility of a transplant?

So, would you say it is unlikely this man could have been medicated as successfully with some other combination of drugs? If not, and there is a limited chance of getting a transplant anyway, then maybe marijuana was the reasonable choice. But if he could have been medicated with other drugs, and that decision precluded him from getting on the transplant list, then I think it's reasonable to question the prescription of marijuana and/or the man's choice to use marijuana.

Hep C typically develops over the course of decades to the point where liver failure is the outcome for some. Would it be likely that the physician became aware that a transplant might be the only hope for the patient well before the transplant would be needed? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to wonder whether the physician knew that medical marijuana use would preclude the patient from getting a transplant. If he didn't know, it does seem reasonable to me to expect that he should have known. It seems to me that as soon as a transplant was identified as the likely required, or only, option, then some kind of review of the requirements, process, and/or criteria would have been addressed. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask these questions. It is, after all, a discussion. Without going back and re-reading, I suppose it's possible the physician and patient were both aware that the use of marijuana would prevent inclusion on the transplant list and that they elected the marijuana treatment anyway. It's entirely possible that the physician and the patient did what any of us would have done, had we been in their shoes. It's also entirely possible that they did not make the best choices.

Those who use medical marijuana to ease the distress of their illnesses are not street junkies.This statement seems like a cruel judgement to me. Are not people addicted to illicit drugs frequently struggling to find relief from emotional pain, to ease their distress, like dealing with the aftermath of childhood abuse, for example? The use of the phrase "street junkies" appears to suggest that you don't see them as being equal or as deserving of consideration. I wouldn't have even made this point, but the angry face you added at the end felt like you were chastising.

I would add that not every person who is using "medical marijuana" is necessarily in "need" of it. In California, the abuse of the prescription of medical marijuana is apparently very widespread. It is my understanding that Los Angeles, for example, is loaded with cannabis cooperatives where you can buy every manner of marijuana preparation. Physicians sometimes charge a flat rate specifically to give out prescriptions. Sometimes patients are only seen for brief, superficial evaluations. In some measure, it has become, in part, an alternate avenue for recreational users to obtain high quality cannabis.

My personal opinion is that marijuana should be made legal, taxed and distributed under government control, like alcohol. This would immediately eliminate an entire sector of criminal behavior. All the resources currently allocated to this issue could be re-directed, along with the resulting tax revenues, to education about, prevention of, and treatment for substance abuse and dependence. I really don't think the outcome could be worse than the current situation and the potential for decreasing substance abuse and it's related problems, such as crime and subsequent incarceration, could be a major benefit. I also think that all tax revenues from the sale of alcohol should support education, prevention, and treatment.

It's probably unwise to openly state this position, but I'm growing very tired of the proscription against public debate of important issues. It's not entirely different than the days before and after going to war in Iraq. Anyone who had an opposing view was subject to having their patriotism questioned.

They are seeking relief, FINDING relief, all perfectly legal.I don't think this is necessarily true. Isn't it a violation of federal law?

Your heart goes out to them and you wish nothing except to relieve that pain and suffering. If a joint does the trick, well, so be it. Hallelujah. High fives all around.I certainly agree with that. The fact that the government can interfere with the practice of medicine seems out of order to me. I do think that the medical establishment needs to agree, within itself, that marijuana is an acceptable treatment (if it hasn't already).

[cynsaligia]

According to the many patients I have had who have experienced dronabinol (Marinol) as compared to marijuana there simply is no comparison as far as relief of symptoms goes. Marijuana wins.
Marinol is prescribed most often to increase appetites in anorexic cancer and AIDS patients with varying success. Sometimes also prescribed to relieve nausea but there are many more effective alternatives.
Marinol is a synthetic compound and is most certainly lacking some of the more obcure components of the real tamale. Marinol certainly can have negative side effects. Just not politically incorrect negative side "issues." :rolleyes:

notwithstanding the eye-rolling, thank you for the additional information. as i made clear, neither am i a clinician or any kind of expert re transplant.


I suppose it is relatively easy to stand by the sidelines and declare that the patient or MD should have made "wiser" choices. But when you are vomiting, wasting away to the point of cachexia or just plain damn hurting, miserable, and losing hope something that makes you even a bit more comfortable is a welcome friend.
Most people who are lucky enough to be placed on an organ transplant list die waiting for transplants. It is a nasty reality. So should those who are waiting give up a chance for immediate relief while hoping for the nebulous possibility of a transplant?
Those who use medical marijuana to ease the distress of their illnesses are not street junkies. They are seeking relief, FINDING relief, all perfectly legal.
The Organ Donor Network better get their act together or I'll get that red lettering on my driver's license deleted. Oh, not really, but it does piss me off royally.
No disrespect meant but the average lay person has no idea what a terrible toll unrelenting pain can have on a person unless they have experienced it themselves, seen a loved one go through such pain or worked with people suffering in such situations. Your heart goes out to them and you wish nothing except to relieve that pain and suffering. If a joint does the trick, well, so be it. Hallelujah. High fives all around.
How cruel to judge otherwise. :mad:

never did i lay blame on the patient. i believe i rightfully questioned why the MD didn't know that med mari would possibly make the pt ineligible for the transplant list. patients rely on their doctors to know that kind of stuff. i don't know what specialty the MD in the story was, but if he commonly treated cirrhosis pts, i would think that he would at least have some sort of relationship with the transplant dept at the hospital. so why didn't he know? we don't have that answer, but if we did, it would be quite enlightening, don't you think?

if marinol was an option for the pt, we don't know that, based on the little info available in the article.

part of the point of my original post and the follow up was to say that i don't think it's necessarily a case of discrimination on the hospital's part. if a hospital says a patient who uses or has used medi mari is ineligible for the list or use of med mari puts pts in a position where placement on the list requires a delay and additional therapy, etc. based on what UNOS says, then to me, it's not the hospital's fault.

as i alluded to in my original post, i believe, like jim75 does, that marijuana should be made legal and controlled by the government. i believe, as jim75 does, that government control can standardize marijuana dosages for best therapeutic effect. that's certainly a better use of government control versus the way things are done now in terms of marijuana, "medical" or not.

[turtlegirl]

"In California, the abuse of the prescription of medical marijuana is apparently very widespread. It is my understanding that Los Angeles, for example, is loaded with cannabis cooperatives where you can buy every manner of marijuana preparation. Physicians sometimes charge a flat rate specifically to give out prescriptions. Sometimes patients are only seen for brief, superficial evaluations. In some measure, it has become, in part, an alternate avenue for recreational users to obtain high quality cannabis."

Yep, Jim, you are absolutely right!
It has become a convenient way for some people,without any medical issues at all, to skirt the law. Cannabis clubs in CA sell their product at street prices. It seems to be just like buying coffee.
Decriminalization, of a sort. For now.

[sansei]

:( hi this is sansei and im now smelling my bil's stinky cigarette and he switches back and forth with his cigarette's once he smoked one with the white wrapper which is mild and now he smoke's the one with the brown wrapper and that's not a nice smell and i dislike when he smoke's.he just went in so he stopped smoking which will make me smile:O)

well thank's for your time:(