Uit MS web Contact :
14/02/03 --- op zoek naar marihuana ----reactie MSweb-support
Ik ben op zoek naar een homeopatische arts in Eindhoven die eventueel genegen zou zijn om mij marihuana voor te schrijven. Mijn neuroloog kan ik maar niet overtuigen dat marihuana voor mij beter werkzaam is dan de Neurotin, die hij mij voorschrijft. De bijwerkingen van dat middel zijn voor mij niet te dragen misselijkheid een zwaar gemoed en elke dag 4 van die pillen is me te zwaar (ik heb het middel ruim 8 maanden gebruikt). Ik hoop dat iemand mij verder kan helpen.
Reacties aan: Simon

Mijn reactie :
Moest de bovenvermelde neuroloog ZELF verplicht geweest zijn gedurende 8 maand 4 van die pillen Neurotin te moeten nemen , dan zou dit met grote waarschijnlijkheid al een een zeer louterend effect gehad hebben op zijn voorschrijfgedrag ...

Over canabis is heel wat degelijke info te vinden op de site van Michel en Jacqueline : Hun site
Meerbepaald in hun hoofdstuk :   Canabis

                           The Medical Marijuana issue has made its way to the Supreme Court again
                           in Ashcroft v Raich. The Supreme Court is being asked by the Attorney
                           General to rule that Federal law trumps state law. The Feds say that
                           marijuana has no accepted medical value, while a growing number of States
                           say it does have value and sick people have the right to use it. Will the
                           Supreme Court strike down California's law, passed by an initiative of the
                           people, and currently favored by over 60% of the population? Or will the
                           Court strike down the Federal law, which is, as will be shown below, based
                           on a flimsy technicality?

                           This could be the deciding moment for medical marijuana, one way or the
                           other, although judges like to delay making momentous decisions. They
                           prefer to send it back to the lower court on a technicality without taking up
                           the central issues. This is what the Supreme Court did the last time they
                           were confronted with medical marijuana, in the case of the Oakland
                           Cannabis Buyers Club (OCBC). In that decision, the Court ruled that the
                           medical marijuana argument cannot be used as a defense against charges of
                           criminal possession or cultivation or sales, because "Congress ruled that
                           marijuana has no medical value."

                           The Court avoided the sticky Constitutional issue that, because marijuana in
                           fact has potent medical qualities, the law and regulation saying it does not
                           have accepted medical value is fraudulent, counter to an enormous body of
                           data, clinical, pharmacological, and bio-chemical. It is counter to millions of
                           people who have voted in favor of medical marijuana.

                          A simple honest look at the facts shows that cannabis has been used
                           medically all over the world as far back as memory can take us, and still is
                           today in the east and even in the Arab world. Literally millions of citizens
                           have voted in favor of medical cannabis. There has been extensive research
                           on the pharmacology of cannabis, making its mechanisms-of-action profile
                           one of the best understood of all the drugs (mechanisms of actions of
                           common drugs are often obscure).

                           This is known by the Federal government, as shown by the following quotes
                           from a revue of known science regarding cannabis/marijuana presented to
                           the Supreme Court in the OCBC case*: "...progress in cannabinoid
                           pharmacology. has provided the foundation for the elucidation of the specific
                           effects mediated by cannabinoids and their roles in psychomotor disorders,
                           memory, cognitive functions, analgesia, antiemesis, intraocular and system
                           blood pressure modulation, broncodilation, and inflammation.There is
                           suggestive evidence that marijuana may have beneficial therapeutic effects in
                           relieving spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, as an analgesic, as an
                           antiemetic, as an appetite stimulant and as a bronchodilator."

                           What is the Federal government's response to this avalanche of information
                           in favor of medical cannabis? Legally, technically, the Feds claim that
                           cannabis is a new drug that must go through extensive expensive testing
                           required for approval, testing that has been prohibited by federal law for
                           more than sixty years. It turns out that cannabis is not a new drug. It was
                           "Grandfathered" into the US Pharmacopeia in 1906 and again in 1938, prior
                           to it being yanked (when looked at retrospectively) without honest discussion
                           (the banning of cannabis was opposed by the AMA at the time). Cannabis
                           legitimately qualifies under existing Grandfather laws, as do many drugs in
                           wide use (aspirin, morphine, digitalis, cortisone, just to start a long list).

                           The Federal government claims that until double-blind placebo controlled
                           studies are done within FDA guidelines, they can't approve cannabis.
                           Without having double-blind studies, their current standard for approving
                           new drugs, the huge body of information mentioned above becomes
                           meaningless. This is a misapplication of double-blind studies, which only
                           prove whether the effect of a drug or treatment is more than chance. While
                           such studies are important (if they are done correctly, which all too often
                           they are not), they are only crucial in cases of new drugs where there is not a
                           history of millennia of experience and knowledge, as is the case with
                           cannabis. Double-blind studies with cannabis would be interesting and
                           perhaps enlightening, but they won't "prove" that cannabis works. The proof
                           already exists.

                           Not only are such studies made unnecessary because of the Grandfather
                           clause within the Pure Food and Drug Acts, but the entire argument is
                           disingenuous in light of the enormous body of clinical and pharmacological
                           information. Because of this enormous body of information, it is most
                           appropriate, legal, and compassionate to invoke the Grandfather Clause for
                           medical cannabis, returning it to its original place in the US Pharmacopeia (in
                           what we would today call "over-the-counter."

                           The Federal government claims that other new and better (more expensive) drugs are
                           available. Cannabis, they insist, is not necessary. The government argued
                           this point before the Supreme Court in the (OCBC) case. This argument is
                           bad science and bad medicine. It is totally false. Other medications are not
                           always available, and in cases where they do exist, side effects or allergies
                           may preclude their use. Or side effects, which often require new
                           prescriptions, may be treated by medical cannabis and nothing else.

                           In making their argument against cannabis, the government says that the
                           presumed principle active ingredient, THC, is currently available by
                           prescription, therefore cannabis is unnecessary. Surely, the framers of
                           Constitution never intended for the government to take away a medicinal
                           plant that people could grow themselves and replace it with a synthetic
                           chemical drug they must purchase at a very expensive price and only with a
                           doctor's prescription. They surely never intended people be thrown in prison
                           for growing plants they themselves (framers such as Washington and
                           Jefferson) loved and grew in large quantity on their farms!

                           Finally, the Government argues that cannabis is dangerous. They particularly
                           don't like the smoking aspect of it. The government attorney argued that
                           smoked marijuana was not a legitimate form of medicine, arguing the
                           dangers of smoking. However, in the Fed's own evidence presented at the
                           OCBC case, they were unable to present any scientific evidence that
                           smoking marijuana is dangerous. There is not one documented case of lung
                           cancer caused by marijuana smoking. There is not one case of emphysema
                           documented to be caused by marijuana smoking. The argument that smoking
                           marijuana is too dangerous to allow is not supported by the government's
                           own data.

                           The only source of harm the Feds were able to demonstrate was the harm
                           created by violating marijuana laws. They in fact made the following
                           statements in the same report from where the earlier quote derived*:
                           "Cannabinoids have a remarkably low acute lethal toxicity despite potent
                           psychoactivity and pharmacologic actions on multiple organ
                           systems.Potential for dependence on marijuana has been assessed to be rare
                           among the general population.. Physical dependence on marijuana is a rare
                           phenomenon compared to other psychoactive drugs and if it develops, it is
                           milder when marijuana is the only drug instead of being used in combination
                           with other drugs." The word addiction is never mentioned.

                          The principal harm in using marijuana, for the vast majority of the populace,
                           comes from the laws against it. Strike down the laws, and the 95% of the
                           harm is done. Marijuana is extraordinarily safe when compared to other
                           drugs. The chief danger is the law prohibiting it.

                           In the face of the absolute certainty that marijuana in fact has a wide range
                           of accepted medical benefits with an unsurpassed record of safety, how can
                           Federal law and regulation stand in the light of the Constitution when it states
                           the opposite, that marijuana has no accepted medical value? The Function of
                           the Supreme Court

                           The function of the Supreme Court is to act as a system of checks and
                           balances to the Legislative and the Executive branches of government. It is
                           the Supreme Court's Constitutional obligation to overturn acts of Congress or
                           of the President (or those acting under his direction in the Executive Branch)
                           that violate rights protected by Constitution.

                           The Federal government, through both branches of government, has
                           declared that cannabis has no accepted medical value. Therefore, cannabis
                           users - no matter how sick they are - are targets in the War on Drugs. This
                           war involves guns and violence. In the War on Medical Marijuana, the guns
                           and violence comes from the side of the law enforcement agencies . Sick
                           people go to jail, have their medicine stolen, and/or are punished in other
                           ways. Sick people usually don't have guns, bombs, etc.

                           The War on Drugs is not a war on drugs. It is a war on citizens who use
                           unapproved drugs. This is a fact. It is the truth. The war on drugs is really a
                           war on citizens.

                           Conclusion: The Legislative and Executive Branch have laws and regulations
                           that are not based in fact or truth. They are using these laws and policies to
                           wage war on citizens using cannabis for medical purposes, taking away their
                           medicine, their liberty and property, and occasionally their lives. It is the
                           Constitutional Obligation of the Supreme Court to strike down these laws
                           and regulations.

                           http://www.dreidelman.com/
                           http://www.healingtransformation.com
                           323-463-3295
                           1654 N Cahuenga Blvd
                           Hollywood CA 90028