11 ms·
FDA says marijuana has a legitimate medicinal purpose
- 2600guy 3y ago[flagged]
- foreverobama 3y agoLegalize.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- inference-lord 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mc32 3y agoWe could just follow the lead from Central Asia where only older people are free to do whatever in terms of drugs but it's very much frowned upon if younger productive people do so. 'Course that is changing with western influence and people just getting addicted with very addictive substances.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- inference-lord 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- starttoaster 3y agoI can only speak anecdotally, but recreational cannabis product has all but cured my insomnia sleep issues. While off prescribed medication, I will stay up all night exhaustedly writing code and watching TV. While on prescribed medication, I will stay up all night exhaustedly watching TV without the bare minimum amount of focus to write code. If I take some edibles around 8PM, I'm out like a light by 11PM. The final straw for me was being awake for 2 days straight a few years ago. I would lay down and close my eyes and just be exhausted while doing nothing.
- cj 3y agoWeed does miracles for people truly suffering from insomnia. (At least for me) However, there is still a risk/reward equation. If I take too much, there’s a noticeable difference in next day cognitive performance. Like anything, weed is only an effective medical tool when used in extreme moderation. The same as diphenhydramine, ambien, etc.
- starttoaster 3y agoAgree about the moderation. The downside of the edibles is that after a month or two, I start needing more. When this happens I abstain and go back to my prescribed medicine for 2-3 weeks, and then continue back with the dosage that I allow myself. It's a bit of a cycle to watch over and maintain, but at least for me, the miracle of decent sleep far outweighs the cons.
- olyjohn 3y agoThis happens to me with my prescription meds too. Always have to go back to the doctor and get a higher dose. Then the higher dose causes side effects, it sucks.
- 2devnull 3y agoWhat sort of edibles and how much does such a regimen cost? I assume it’s not covered by insurance? Is your prescribed med one of the z drugs (ambien, lunesta, sonata)?
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoGood, but not good enough. Marijuana should be treated like kratom, kava, and salvia.
- dymk 3y agoIt's not really like those
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoIt should be treated the same legally as those other plants. I'm not saying the effects of consuming any of those plants are similar to each other.
- dymk 3y agoThen I have truly no idea by what method you categorize drugs
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoKava, kratom, salvia are all federally legal and basically unregulated.some states have laws about these plants. I think marijuana should fall into the same category as these other plants in regards to how the government is involved. What is hard to understand about that?
- devwastaken 3y agoKratom is not similar or in the same category. It may not be classified as an opioid but it has similar addictive and side effects. It's an easy way to see if a head shop is honest or out to make quick money off the poorly thought out legalization measures. The reason THC should be generally legal is because evidence shows it generally has minimal harm and other significant benefits. Kratom needs more research and is best used if all in a clinical setting.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago"marijuana is currently in the same category as some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD" Drugs should not be illegal period, but "some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD" is a very funny (dark) sentence to me.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoYeah what the heck is “hard”. Destructive on the human body? Acid and heroin have about as much in common as beer and psilocybin
- collegeburner 3y agodegree of effect. marijuana and ecstacy are "soft" because, in common recreational doses, they have less radical effects on one's personality and coherence. heroin, acid, and psilocybin all have more significant effects, microdoses aside.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI would argue that MDMA in common recreational doses has about the same level of radical effects as psilocybin. Different effects, but similar "level" or intensity of effect. And MDMA is much more dangerous for your body.
- loeg 3y agoOpioids including heroin have moderate effects at moderate doses, much like marijuana or alcohol.
- cyberax 3y agoEase of addiction combined with difficulty of quitting.
- loeg 3y agoIf that is the criteria, it is clearly wrong to include LSD in that bucket.
- primax 3y agoThis hopefully is the precursor the DEA needs (plus a political push) to reschedule cannabis.
- michaelsshaw 3y agoThe DEA is a law enforcement agency of the US government. I wouldn't get my hopes up.
- resoluteteeth 3y agoNow that the FDA has recommended it there's a good chance the DEA will reschedule it as Schedule 3, but I think that would only make medical marijuana legal on the federal level so it won't actually have that much effect. None of these agencies are going to want to push for it to be fully descheduled.
- cthalupa 3y ago> As a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana is in the same category as some of the hardest drugs like heroin and LSD, which means it’s classified as being more dangerous than fentanyl and methamphetamine. LSD is another drug where it is absurd it is on Schedule 1, and reporters likening it specifically to heroin as one of the hardest drugs is equally absurd. Psilocybin/Psilocin also fall in this category. Obviously not to the extent that marijuana does, but we are seeing real medical research showing promising results around mushrooms, lsd, and similar substances in treating depression, ptsd, alcohol dependency, etc. as well as just general mental wellbeing. Plainly, these do not match the criteria of 'having no recognized medical use.' Fix our drug laws.
- inference-lord 3y agoIt's because taking these drugs give people "other ideas" about their life which don't sit well with maintaining the status quo in society we have today. People might start to become radicalized, see themselves as more connected to things like "the natural world" and then start to demand spooky changes which aren't all about economics. It's far too much of a risky experiment to run, so it's easier to put it all on some type of banned substances list.
- Retric 3y agoFelonies disenfranchise voters. That's the root of a lot of this stuff, social control is mostly irrelevant by comparison.
- reactordev 3y agoAnd are disproportionately given to minorities to keep the white man (or orange man, or skeleton man) in office preventing them from voting. It’s systemic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TeaBrain 3y agoDrugs aren't classified schedule 1 based on the idea that these drugs are more dangerous than schedule 2. Both schedule 1 and schedule 2 are considered to be drugs with high abuse potential. What delineates the two is the notion that schedule 1 have no accepted medical use, while schedule 2 are accepted to have a medical use. Schedule 3, 4 and 5 are also considered to have medical use. If it is concluded that marijuana should be reclassified as having a medical use, then it could be put in category 3,4 or 5. I doubt it would be reclassified as schedule 2.
- xqcgrek2 3y agoWell, of course. It's an election year and the incumbent is polling poorly with young people.
- kyleee 3y agoCue the student loan headlines as well… quite the theatre
- JackMorgan 3y agoSo elected officials are actually following the will of the people? Isn't that their job? Last I checked, cannabis legalization had over 70% approval in this country. Hardly a grand conspiracy.
- oblib 3y agoI turned 65 this year. I've been using weed for over 50 years now. I have never had any serious health issues at all. My hips are started to tell me I'm getting old but otherwise I'm still doing pretty good. It's not for everyone but it has certainly been good for me.
- xavierlint 3y agoCan anybody explain me (or recommend any resources that explains) what benefit does it have to make it illegal to have these substances? From my point of view, it does not fix the problem of having people consume them, and it does harm the time it takes for us to have serious scientific tests that assess if they have any good benefits at all.
- swman 3y agoWe need to envelope the planet in weed smoke and put shrooms into the water supply instead of whatever they’re putting in right now!!.!!!! Whose with me
- cyberax 3y agoNot me. I hate cannabis smoke. PSA: please make sure your second hand smoke does not affect others.
- sevagh 3y agoCurious if any users here have had experience with Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome [1]. I enjoy partaking but after several years of consistent use I believe I started suffering from constant nausea and had to stop. 1: https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-conditions/c/cannabinoid-hyperemesis-syndrome.html https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...
- nick__m 3y agoI miss weed but I miss it less than the nausea and extreme gastric reflux that started after more 20 years of heavy use. It was a part of my identity I was a Pothead an a Nerd, now I am just an old nerd...
- ugh123 3y agoIf the FDA truly believed this (like, followed science, did studies, etc), they would have pushed for rescheduling decades ago. Instead, they've finally bowed to political pressure that has built up in the country over the last 10 years. Thats all it is to them, politics. This FDA does not believe in true science. It will also likely be politics that moves them to start banning food products that contain high levels of plastics, pesticides, etc. It won't be the science (thats already known), it will be politics again, but not until it's really bothered enough people again.
- anatnom 3y agoI've been hunting for the related source for this (and similar) article today. I cannot find any FDA press releases[1] which point to any documents like this being released. From a YouTube video from the same source as this article, there is a brief image of a document, which is the August 29, 2023 letter from HHS to the FDA [3-redacted]. Has anyone found a more definitive source that the FDA has recently released a "report" with this content? I wonder if this is just slow news day recap of old information. [1] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-newsroom/press-announcements https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-newsroom/press-announcem... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULoaz3E7o&t=20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULoaz3E7o&t=20s [3-redacted] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/signed-ash-to-dea-letter-marijuana.pdf https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/signed-ash-to-dea-le...
- resoluteteeth 3y agoMaybe wait a day or two to see if the report appears on their website before assuming that the article is wrong?
- anatnom 3y agoInstead, I will assume that the FDA has not reversed a decades-long policy without evidence stronger than a local news station which uses a local weed doctor as their quotable source. The change in _stated_ FDA policy is a huge shift. This explainable-by-a-simple-mistake news article seems much more likely to me. This article header says "Posted at 5:43 AM, Mar 21, 2024 and last updated 2024-03-21 20:13:30-04". That's a 100% full business day where _no other mainstream media_ picked up the story? Possible, but not likely.
- darig 3y ago[dead]
- blake1 3y agoI found this. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fda-says-marijuana-legitimate-medicinal-230340570.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/fda-says-marijuana-legitimate-med...
- throwitaway222 3y agoThe future smells bad
- loeg 3y agoI don't really care if it has medicinal purpose or not, but it shouldn't be a crime to grow or possess it. Neither alcohol nor tobacco is held to this standard. Nor hyper-palatable foods.
- Projectiboga 3y agoI did a deep literature dive about it in the spring of 1986 and was amazed about how little negatives there was at that time. The biggest positive was that THC protected neurons from hypoxia, almost the opposite of damage. The other interesting finding was the Jamaican study, near zero negative effect for the heaviest use cohort. 5 or more fat joints per day for 35 or more years had basically zero negative vs the other groups. No real positives but zero negatives beyond a slightly larger percent of phlegmy lungs, like a few percent more.
- galdosdi 3y ago1986? I am guessing even the heavy users were light -- perhaps even by an order or more of magnitude! -- compared to what today's concentrate user can easily get into with stuff bought at the state legal store. Maybe the same findings would still hold to a great degree, but I wonder and worry, if we are going to find out in 20 years that this ultraconcentrated high dose cannabis that never existed before is going to cause long term effects that were unanticipated by generations who were familiar with the proverbial weak 1970s "ditch weed." After all, it happened with alcohol in the 19th century, when cheap distilled spirits were introduced, wreaking havoc on society accustomed to coping with the mild intoxication of beer, not yet accustomed to how to treat something radically different in concenctration. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]