Question:Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
What are you going to go to med school for? And are you going to still continue to smoke pot as a medical professional (not on, or near time of duty, of course)?
Printable View
Question:Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
What are you going to go to med school for? And are you going to still continue to smoke pot as a medical professional (not on, or near time of duty, of course)?
I'm just finished with my first year of med school at UT Southwestern in Dallas, and I think I want to go into either emergency medicine or possibly pediatrics with a focus on adolescent medicine. I'm not a cannabis user, to be honest. I'm an advocate. I signed an agreement upon entering med school that I wouldn't use illegal substances, and I've stuck with that. Also, I'm in my 40s and married to a physician, and that'd be risky anyway to use weed. So I'm an advocate but not a user. When I finish school, I'll have to stay that way. Doctors can lose their licenses if they use illegal substances. I know it happens all the time, and it happens even worse with legal substances, which of course they have access to and samples of. But I won't break the law. It's important to me to be above reproach.
Anyway, I'll always be a cannabis advocate. It helped my sister immensely when she was in the last stages of cancer and chemo, and that sold me on it in a big way. It needs to be legalized for medical use in all states. Then decriminalized. Then, if possible, allowed for recreational use. That's a long way off.
It's a little-known fact, but there are several of us here who're advocates and not active cannabis users. I think it puts us in a good place to be persuasive and uniquely objective. I would love to think that by the time I get out of school, my patients in Texas might have access to medical MJ, but I'm not holding my breath.
Have you ever tried marijuana or any other drug of a more power psychedelic nature?
P.S.
I know that it is very risking for anyone in the medical business to be associated with drugs; for example, if your hypothetical child was caught smoking the refer as a minor (bad) or even a adult (worse), you could face repercussions. At least in Kentucky.
I think point I was trying to make in the end was that it is the prohibition that is largely the cause of the negative elements of cannabis, by forcing it underground they are compromising on quality. I still hold true to the idea that ultimately dietary and societal factrors are responsible for causing psychosis, cannabis is simply the catalyst that accelerates the onset of psychosis. If legalised and properly managed, not by the government but by people who know how to grow the stuff, then on the other hand it could be a powerful remedy for some (perhaps not all) people who suffer from mental illness, as well as an all round panacea. Whilst I think this article provides some evidence for this argument, unfortunately it is probably not going to be taken seriously by the government (vote loser) and used as more anti drugs propaganda by the media.
That said, I'm not entirely convinced by some of the methods of research that these institutes use, and its also worth noting that many psychedelic medicines used by shamans and tribes have negative effects in the first application of treatment, its considered part of the healing process, so in a way its possibly not entirely valid to down play the effects of THC in this way. I've read accounts of LSD being used succesfully in the treatment of schitzophrenics. To be cured of illness, it is often the case that the patient must experience some suffering, and this is generally not the approach widely implemented in contemporary allopathic medicines sold by the pharmaceuticals. They tend to go for the quick fix appraoch, worry about the side effects later, where-as the holistic approach tackles the illness by facing it head on. In my view it's a more honest and effective treatment.
Insanity is reaching epidemic levels in the world today, and there is a historical argument to the support the notion that it is a natural aspect of the process of societal evolution. in that respect to attribute blame to a natural plant which has been used for the treatment of many illnesses for thousands of years seems rather absurd to me.
Have I tried grass? Oh, heck yeah. I smoked enthusiastically back in college and loved it. And last summer before I started med school but after I left my corporate job, I toked with my sister when she was using it to alleviate chemo side-effects. Seemed the proper social, supportive thing to do. Loved it then, too except that smoking anything plant-based isn't easy on my asthma or allergies. At the end of the summer when she no longer felt like smoking, I didn't keep it up. School was about to start, and it's just very awkward with cannabis being illiegal and considering my circumstances. I've never done anything stronger than weed and don't plan to, unless you count alcohol, but I was always a lightweight drinker, too. The minute cannabis is legal, I'll definitely be the first one in line. It's so much safer than alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeacockNamethTom
Here in Texas, doctors who are found to use illegal substances can face license sanctions or loss of license, and of course if the illegality (such as large-scale possession or intent to distribute) is bad enough, they can face criminal prosecution, too. I don't know of any laws in our state that might cause problems for docs if their kids were found to smoke, since it's fairly easy to establish drug-free status with lab testing and since most people know kids will be kids, even when their parents are physicians. But I do know that when adults in Texas are found to be involved in illicit drug use, even if it's something benign like grass, the police departments or courts routinely have Child Protective Services review those situations. That's scary--the fact that children can still potentially be removed from their homes and parents for weed and nothing worse.
Dude, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Staurm
Insanity may be increasing, but not to epidemic levels. What is happening, is an increase in mental disorders and illness, which can include depression and mood disorders. Now THAT, is becoming an epidemic.
I must disagree with you. Insanity encompasses a far wider demographic population and is manifest in a variety of human practises. This includes mass delusion (or democracy as I often call it), the needless destruction of the environment (capitalism), the pursuit of wealth over health and the disregard for poverty suffered by others as consequence, supporting the illegal invasion of foreign countries and the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians for a supposed good cause, "office" culture, and the unhealthy dependence of many on reality TV shows, to name but a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePeacockNamethTom
You could argue that the variety of recognised mental health problems suffered by people today are consequent upon these factors and it seems absurd to apportion most of the blame to cannabis.
My question for you, Staurm, is this: Where was anyone, here or anyplace else, attributing the blame for most insanity to cannabis? Certainly not in any of the links here or subsequent conversations. And certainly not in any external sources I've read, either. What the original BBC article and the research reported above said was that THC isolates given to those test groups at King's College and Yale University provoked increased rates of schizophrenia and/or delusional reactions, particularly in people who were prone to those problems to begin with. And the study at the University of Cologne reported that the other active ingredient in cannabis, CBD (cannabadiol), seemed to suppress those reactions in its test subjects. That's it.
What a crock of shit.
That BBC article just gave me a headache. I'm trying to make some real sense of it... and at the moment I don't know whether that means taking notice.. or disregarding parts of it or what.
I'm expected to beleive here that 500,000 people just in the UK are dependant on weed. Okay well as drastic as that claim sounds, I would be prepared to keep an open mind to it.
IF they had some evidence.
Instead we get this:
ermm.. right.Quote:
"Although figures are not kept, it is estimated that as many as 500,000 people in the UK may be dependent on cannabis.
Next thing I noticed:
Well... okay, thanks for telling us, but doesn't that just seem like another excuse to use the word 'heroin' in every fucking weed article you can find. One word: scaremongering.Quote:
In 2005, only heroin users accounted for a greater proportion of patients.
Also... I'm failing to find any part of this 'study' about smoking cannabis that has anything to do with smoking cannabis, know what I mean?
Quote:
The Institute of Psychiatry study gave THC, CBD or placebo capsules to adult male volunteers
And this is what finished it off for me:Quote:
In a second study, a team from Yale University administered THC intravenously.
That one annoyed me. It's a statement that really should be described with swearing but i'm afraid that if I do it'll provide evidence for their claim that cannabis makes you lose control of what comes out of your mouth. What a joke. Even if the street potency has doubled, someone feel free to explain how a glass of wine at the weekend x2 = a bottle of vodka every day.Quote:
It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day.
And so I continue to lose respect for the BBC.