David Evans Speaks Out on Fox and Friends
David Evans Speaks Out on Fox and Friends
David Evans, executive director of Drug Free Schools Coalition, speaks out on Fox and Friends about medi-pot being administered at teaching hospitals throughout New Jersey, a proposal currently being considered by the state legislature. Although Evans agrees this would be better than approving pot shops similar to those scattered throughout California, he is skeptical about the efficacy of smoked marijuana as a medicine, as well as the legal ramifications of dispensing a drug that has not been proven safe by the FDA.
Evans points out many reputable studies which found that smoking marijuana for cancer, AIDS or even multiple sclerosis may do you much more harm than good. He also reminds individuals that there are more effective medicines available out there for those with terminal and debilitating conditions. Contrary to the belief that nobody dies from using marijuana, Evans highlights the fact people do die from the drug - deaths that are not only associated with drugged driving, but deaths from pulmonary diseases such as emphysema or even cancer, the same illness marijuana supposedly helps.
Should hospitals administer a non FDA approved drug?
Comments
I wonder why people in the US
I wonder why people in the US claim that there is no roadside test to verify that a person has recently consumed cannabis. The goverments of Australia and New Zealand both use an oral swab which is negative for cannabis about 5 hours after its use. A positive on the oral swab get you a blood test to determine the actual amount of active cannabinoids in the person. I admit to being perplexed of why they have this in Oceania, but no one ever mentions it in the US.
http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugsAD.html
What are you afraid of? That
What are you afraid of? That if it's legal all the arguments for keeping it illegal will be disproven? Can anything be worse than the current situation? Leaving in place a totally unregulated market that generates billions in profits for those most willing to violate the law? The gradual erosion of our civil liberties to the point that our own government has ruined far more lives than drug use ever would have? If it weren't for Amsterdam, Portugal, Colorado, California, Italy, etc I suppose we could continue with the charade that "We don't know that legalization won't make things worse". If you have any doubts that prohibition is the engine that drives the violence, let's do a little experiment. Let's make possession of a Bible illegal, punishable by 5 years in prison for possession and life for production. How long before you'll be writing about the massive explosion in "Bible-related" crime?
cancer?? ha!
Please provide a link to even a single proven case of cancer or emphysema caused by cannabis. This is complete and utter fiction. With a new study coming out every week on cannabis's anti-cancer properties, I know that link won't be coming.
David Evans Won the MJ Debate
The Senator fails to see that MJ kills people's dreams at the very least. Let's set a standard above someone merely having a pulse. That bar is far too low. There is ample evidence that MJ is not just psychologically addictive (as was the case in the 70's when the THC was around 1%), but physically addictive as well. Just go to a treatment center to see how many are there for smoking dope and ask them about how benign MJ is.
Is MJ a gateway drug? Yes. Just ask any addict not stuck in their active phase of addiction. MJ, nicotine and alcohol are all gateway drugs to those with addictive personalities.
Is MJ a medicine? No. Nothing smoked is. As David pointed out, legalizers want to bypass the FDA type of approval required for any medicine. Anecdote does not trump science and medicine. There are medicinal components that have been isolated from crude MJ (sold as Marinol, Sativex), but these are not smoked and can be titrated in exact doses, but alas, no big high, so it's not good enough for legalizers.
Do the personal benefits of MJ use outweigh the harm? Taxes fall way short of covering the carnage caused by current licit drug use. If alcohol and tobacco were given the names 'Drug X' and 'Drug Y' and all of the horrible side effects listed, would they get FDA approval and would we accept them into society? Certainly not, but unfortunately they are grandfathered into our society as we claw back their usage.
Will legalization make grow ops go away, will crime decline, and will drug addiction rise? No, no, yes. Legalizers argue that tobacco and alcohol are legal without serious criminal ramifications (excluding counterfeiting of brands and cross-border smuggling). But how easy is it to make great scotch whiskey or to grow fine tobacco? Pretty difficult. How hard is it to grow MJ? Toss the seeds into a field and watch them grow like the weed it is. Try taxing grow ops supplying cheaper dope (no Gov’t-style overhead costs for criminals who won’t even pay for hydro). As the perception of harm decreases, drug use increases. Current taxes cover only 10% of the harms associated with booze and smokes.
Are there a great many people incarcerated over MJ possession? This is a great myth perpetrated by the legalizers. Rob a convenience store at knife point with pot on you and you will indeed be in jail for pot (...and armed robbery).
Sweden tried the libertine solution in the late 60's but they did a quick reversal. They have a third of the drug use as the rest of Europe because, from the Kindergarten teacher to the CEO of Volvo, they all give the same message that drugs sap your human potential and are not acceptable in a healthy society. If you do drugs, you will be put into treatment. We need to hear more facts and less of the smoke and mirror rhetoric from the pot heads and from Senators trying to win the popular vote at any cost to society.
Here's my rebuttal, please lets get a debate going
There are some negatives to marijuana legalization but here's the bottom line:
The fact of the matter is Marijuana IS LESS harmful that cigarettes and alcohol.
Millions upon millions of people of use it (like alcohol and tobacco... YES there are problem users but there are addictive people for everything: tobacco, alcohol, fast-food, gambling caffeine, etc... fact is, MOST USERS DO NOT BECOME PROBLEM USERS AND LIVE HEALTHY, NORMAL LIVES.
Prohibition of popular substances has never worked, starting with alcohol. It fuels organized crime BECAUSE IT'S POPULAR and therefore there is high demand which these criminals meet (and at a very lucrative rate)
Therefore you need to legalize it, as it cannot be stopped. There is JUST TOO many people to keep it illegal. And this is America. Why can't I use a substance recreationally as equivilent as Alcohol, tobacco or fast food? You can't allow one and not the other, that's not how it works in a free society. Let me enjoy my pleasure.
One argument I've heard is that "children" will have easier access to marijuana if legalized... That's erroneous as who will have control of the substance if it's legalized, DRUG DEALS OR A GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT??..... WHO DOESN'T ASKS FOR ID? WHO SELLS THEIR PRODUCT IN SCHOOL WASHROOMS AND ALLEYWAYS...... DRUG DEALERS....
If it is legalized the price will drop significantly. Contrary to what you claimed, GROWING GOOD connoisseur grade marijuana is hard work, difficult and if you buy it, it's EXPENSIVE..... so no not everyone will just "throw seeds in the ground"
Does everyone grow their own apples, raspberries and grapes???.... NO.... Because someone can do it for them for cheaper. In most cases it's not worth the hassle to get the same quality..
I welcome a debate to anything I have said
PS. I validate only the legalization of marijuana for those reasons.
Medical Pot?
The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9584, Pages 319 - 328, 28 July 2007
Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review
Findings
There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI 1·20—1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09, 1·54—2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately.
Interpretation
The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication. ...We conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.
Um
Radiation causes cancer and radiation is used to treat cancer, so I'm not sure I see the contradiction between using something possibly carcinogenic in a palliative fashion in the short term to make cancer treatment more bearable. I say possibly carcinogenic because while there are lots of animal studies the prohibitionists like to cite, if you google "Donald Tashkin" you'll see that the scientist who's done more to study the pulmonary effects of cannabis IN HUMANS reports null findings for cancer and COPD.