I feel like you're trying to bait people with the "Marijuana is addictive" bit.
That is not true at all, and I'm living proof. I used to be an avid smoker for a few years, but this year I decided to stop so I could focus on school. I had no problems at all with stopping. I don't have the urge to smoke at all, but I know that it can be a good time.
Stop being ignorant. Another thing, it doesn't do anything to the immune system or the nervous system, so I have no fucking clue where the hell you got that from or what fucked up sources you got that from (unless you're actually believing what the school system tells you)

If you don't think you can develop a dependency/addiction on marijuana you're very wrong.

http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/m...addictive.html
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...uana-addictive

Just because you weren't addicted doesn't mean it's not addictive. That's like if I injected some heroin and didn't get addicted, I could conclude that it's not addictive.
>inb4 heroin is more addictive (I know, it's an analogy. they're both addictive to different extents.)

You just cited a government page and an organization.
You're making yourself seem stupider and stupider.
Not only that, but even if it was "addictive" like you said it is, then why aren't there any physical withdrawals to prove it?

Websites ending with .com are much more susceptible to bias. Calling me stupid doesn't make you right, just ignorant.

https://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/...from-marijuana

Evidence of physical withdrawals.

It seems that there was called to question whether or not anyone should be talking about this without having any sort of medical knowledge or experience. I'm really not "that knowledgeable", but I do work in the medical field and I've studied a relatively significant amount of medicine to do my job.

My partner on the other hand, has 25 years of experience in emergency medicine, including 8 years in the air which is a LOT of experience. So I'll tell you what he thinks on the subject:

If you want to call Marijuana or at least the healing/helping component of the drug (IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong, it's the THC that helps the chronically ill?), that's fine. But let's not use smoking as a source to deliver medicine. We can super concentrate substances into little sublingual drops and give people with chronic nerve problems or what have you WITHOUT getting people "high" and certainly without the use of smoking, and all the associated problems with smoking on the lungs.

Which seems fair and reasonable to me.

THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) is the part of cannabis that gives you the "high" feeling. CBD (Cannabidiol) is the part of cannabis that has a lot of medicinal properties. You can also take THC and CBD orally, if you have a medical cannabis card, or live in a recreationally legal you can get THC pills as well as CBD pills.

Ah thank you, I personally have never smoked Marijuana. There you go, he's for the use of sublingual CBD, not the smoking of weed.

A lot of misinformation being tossed around, which is perfectly normal considering it's the Toribash forum.
Remember to take everything with (more than) a grain of salt.


We really need to be humble enough to understand that the core question will take a lot of time to be answered to.

The standard of care for even the most basic common diseases that you can think of still changes extremely often to this day, and will continue on doing so for a long time.

Making broad claims about it being harmful to x and y system, or better than every medication currently available for w or z indications, is something that you can not possibly be certain of.
People in the medical field won't make that kind of claim, specially because they understand that what is "best" varies wildly with the details from case to case, and the guidelines we follow are updated regularly since so is the scientific knowledge about every drug on the market.

The approval from the FDA and EMA (the agencies that oversee all of this stuff in the USA and Europe respectively) isn't even the end of the line, the "yep, it's safe boys, we did it", as it is sometimes portrayed.
After a drug is approved it is still tightly monitored and studied, and some drugs were actually only deemed "unsafe" after being sold all over the world, years after their introduction on the market.

In my opinion, in the near future we'll see marijuana use legalized (to some extent) in a sizable part of the globe.
This will enable it to be studied to extents far greater than it has been so far for a multitude of reasons.
Only then will we actually be able to have a better grasp on its public health implications on a variety of time-frames, and maybe leading us to revisit the question of legality (a VERY big "maybe" on that last part though).

As for specific medical uses, it's honestly naive to think pharmaceutical companies will crash and burn because of marijuana.
It's a business opportunity and some are investing into it already.
The huge amount of regulations put in place for medical substances mean that these companies even have an hedge into this market, with the infrastructures and know-how already there.

Finally, its active principles (fancy term for the "its important parts") being a medical option is being studied in many different settings individually, and you won't get a proper broad answer (well certainly not now, and certainly not on the "should").
If you're extra curious you can check out the clinical trials that are being hosted right now over here https://clinicaltrials.gov, by typing in the active principles.


PS: Come on guys, it's not a science forum, but remember that using your own anecdotal evidence can't be taken seriously. Not every human is the same, and what happened with you or your friend can't be generalized to the whole mankind.

Also everything that you eat and breath is a "chemical". Nothing is inherently safer/better because it is either produced in an artificial manner or not, and that is unfortunately one of the most dangerous assumptions people make

Sorry if I ran astray sometimes. I'm very tired and tried to cover a bit of everything I felt was important in the thread.

some states vote for it today,anyone living there,
what is the general opinion,any exit polls?

While I'm not sure most people here understand how medicine works and why there are so many different treatments for the same things, I do agree with them that marijuana - or at least the oil - should be at least considered an option for medical use. It's not going to be the treatment that everyone needs, and it will likely have a very niche market, but I don't see the point in excluding it just because it's illegal.

Amphetamines are also against the law, but are put in (noted, very monitored amount) many common prescription drugs for a variety of problems. Is it because they cause less problems, or is it because they actually have a medical usage? I'm willing to assume the latter is the only true point, and thc provides some medical value and is not exactly challenging to handle. So why not, fancy men in coats with doctorates? Try it.