I'm not against the use of it, if it is TRULY for medical use. But here in CA, where medical use is legal, I know there are more people that use it for it's 'high' benefits than for medical. It's way to easy to get an Rx for it - there are drs who charge around $50-100 to give you an Rx. You don't need much proof, if any, that you need it in a lot of cases. You just walk in, pay the dr, and you've got the Rx.

If products that had only the CBD, and not much THC, were the only ones that were legal, I bet there wouldn't be such a high number of people getting those Rx's.

I know in some places the vets have a term for dogs that get into peoples supplies and apparently its a big problem they call them "stoner" dogs.

Don't know if this has already been mentioned or not, but Marinol is a drug (a pill) used by cystic fibrosis patients, some patients who have nausea that is intractable to anything else, is pretty expensive but seems to do the trick for some people and I'd much rather see the Marinol being prescribed than the smoking stuff. I think if it works and was the only thing that worked for my pet, heck yeah I'd use it.

jodi , i gotta ask , why is it better for some doctor , pharmacist , big pharma corp to get rich off a patients suffering when that patient could treat themselves with a substance they could produce for themselves ?

and lori , you don't need a prescription to get alcohol , and there a lot more folks " medicating " themselves with booze , with all of its' well documented harms to lives and society at large . even if you just look at the recreational use of marijuana vs. alcohol , alcohol is costing society way more than marijuana ever could .

i think if the " medicinal " angle is the thin edge of the wedge towards full legalization , i'm all for it , i'm just embarassed that washington and colorado were able to get there before our government here in canada , specifically british columbia was .

There are so many arguments both ways ...

I understand the POV about pot being a stepping stone to harder drugs, and about pot leading people into the company of questionable (or worse) acquaintances.

But all of this becomes almost nothing in my mind when weighed against what it would do to the giant drug cartels to have no criminal pot enterprise.

I compare illegal pot to what happened when the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were enacted and most alcohol became illegal. Prohibition was probably organized crime's biggest stepping stone ever. The black market flourished while the legal alcohol manufacturers went bankrupt.

It seems to me to be so similar to the criminalization of pot.

I know it's not cut and dried. But it's very hard for me to see past the similarities to Prohibition and the terrible crimes that blossomed under it.



I also pretty much agree with Ian that "alcohol is costing society way more than {legalized} marijuana ever could."



All JMO, of course.

Actually, I guess this might be sidling kind of close to the "politics" that we try not to let loose on this board.

Comparing marijuana to alcohol at this point in time really isn't a fair comparison since one is legal and much more readily available at this point in time. You'd need to have them both illegal or both legal to make a valid comparison re: cost to society.

Yeah, that's a good point too.

Regardless, it seems like a very good thing that research is happening and that there are emerging "non high" alternatives.

Good news for people, good news for dogs.



And I don't at all mean to shut down opposing opinions. Ignore the fact that I was a teenager in the late 60s.

+1 Ian.

I believe that the comparison of alcohol and weed is a very fair comparison: as it impacts society. Prohibition was done for all the right purposes. Alcohol has a detrimental effect on SOME people. Outlawing it for everyone, however, did not work. The majority of people do not have a genetic propensity for alcoholism.

The side effects from the legislation, however resulted in massacres on the street, the mob, crime, and a lot of people put in prison. It drove the industry underground and we paid the price in blood and money.

Marijuana prohibition has done the same. Do not deny our responsibility for the massacres in Mexico and other third world nations by the drug cartels. We have just exported our problem to poor countries. The high rate of incarceration in US prisons are due to a large part for pot busts. Almost 60% of all inmates start their criminal life with a pot bust. We pay roughly $35K/yr/prisoner. I frankly don't want to pay it. Pot heads don't hurt anyone but themselves. Just as alcoholics don't, but even less. Anyone hold up a store for a joint? for a drink? It isn't even addictive. Certainly as compared to alcohol. We don't have Pot Heads Anonymous meetings...

I also agree with Cindy on the use of CBD vs the THC content for medical use. The real argument that we have to have as a country is not over medical use. It is about what it is costing us as a country, and what the harm would be in legalizing it. It certainly does not belong as a schedule 1 narcotic on the feds list.

Frankly I am not surprised that states have led the way. That is where the legislation should come from. The constitution was not written to limit the rights of the people, but rather the rights of the federal government. We need a lot less federal government and more state government. A more localized government addresses the populations needs more appropriately.

As for medicating dogs... I can't even wrap my head around that. For what?

"As for medicating dogs... I can't even wrap my head around that. For what?"

I can tell that you have not had a dog with cancer of a type that has a good prognosis with chemo, but the dog has no appetite because of it.