|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Cannabis less dangerous, less addictive than Starbucks lattes
Canna Zine
Wednesday 12 Mar 2008 Dr. Phillip Leveque has spent his life as a Combat Infantryman, Physician, Toxicologist and Pharmacologist. The argument for the use of raw cannabis as a medical drug has been rumbling on for literally decades, but successive governments have stuck by their guns, preferring to arrest and incarcerate legitimate cannabis using patients who may be suffering from a multitude of illnesses. Ailments which doctors in other countries such as Holland, the US, Germany, Belgium and Portugal to name only 5, are only to happy to sign a prescription allowing the patient to use cannabis to relieve their condition and symptoms. According to a practicing physician based in Oregon in the US, a state which legalised cannabis use for medicinal purposes over 9 years ago, "marijuana is less dangerous and addictive than a latte from Starbucks". Which flies in the face of so called "medical experts" and their opinions here in the UK. So who's right and who's telling lies? Home Office According to an e-mail the Canna Zine received from the Home Office, ""The Government has no intention of legalising the use of cannabis in its raw form for medicinal purposes. However, it recognises that there are people with chronic pain and debilitating illnesses, such as multiple sclerosis, who are looking to alleviate their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing medication. That is why the Government has said that it would seek Parliament’s agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine for the purposes of relieving pain. But this could not happen without product approval being granted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). In order to protect public health, the Government faces difficulty in making any changes to the law unless, and until, it is satisfied that the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily recognised means. Doctors must be confident about the products they prescribe. This position is supported by the British Medical Association."" Yet Dr Philip Leveque, a long term proponent of cannabis for medical use says, "It has been nine years since medical marijuana was legalized and as of January 1st 2008 we have NOW 16,000 medical permit holders with 7.700 caregiver and growers and 1,700 more pending issuance permit cards." "The Oregon Department of Human Services estimated that only about 500 patients would be eligible for the marijuana permits. (they are not prescriptions) If I remember correctly in the first year we registered one thousand marijuana patients and about 500 were mine. This was my only practice as I have a spinal cord injury which prevents me from running around a regular office. The DHS State Medical Board, the powers that be couldn't figure out where all these patients were coming from but subsequent investigations by the U.S. government estimated that Oregon had about 300 thousand regular users. Most are self-treating for a variety of medical conditions." The worst adverse side effect from a high dose of the pure medicinal agent hashish is maybe sleeping for 24 hours although the pure synthetic THC as prescription Marinol causes severe panic attacks in many people and they avoid it and often use the natural plant instead. There are many disbelievers that marijuana is truly a good medicine through its been used beneficially for at least 5,000 years and never killed anyone. So what do you think? Should cannabis be allowed for medical purposes here in the UK? If so why do you think its not allowed? Is it as the government says? A question of public health? Or is there perhaps another, hidden agenda which the government are working to? http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/content/view/191/1/
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!