Conquer Club

I thought marijuana has no medical benefits as its a schedule 1 narcotic. The government has a patent using marijuana. Doesn't this government contradict itself?


Publication number US6630507 B1
Publication type Grant
Application number US 09/674,028
PCT number PCT/US1999/008769
Publication date Oct 7, 2003
Filing date Apr 21, 1999
Priority date Apr 21, 1998
Fee status Paid
Also published as CA2329626A1, 4 More »
Inventors Aidan J. Hampson, Julius Axelrod, Maurizio Grimaldi
Original Assignee The United States Of America As Represented By The Department Of Health And Human Services
Export Citation BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (22), Non-Patent Citations (29), Referenced by (41), Classifications (16), Legal Events (5)
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
US 6630507 B1
ABSTRACT
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3.



https://www.google.com/patents/US6630507

Yeah. Our Gov sucks. Back when I was in my 20's, I worked at a pharmacy in Florida. They had THC tablets back then as a script. Yet, aaaaalllllll these years later, they still claim Marijuana has no benefits.

Such BS. It's been used for 100's if not 1000's of years by many cultures for medicinal purposes.

They have a "do as we say, not as we do" mentality. What's funny is all the assholes making those rules, 99% of them have never used it.

Beast Of Burson wrote:Yeah. Our Gov sucks. Back when I was in my 20's, I worked at a pharmacy in Florida. They had THC tablets back then as a script. Yet, aaaaalllllll these years later, they still claim Marijuana has no benefits.

Such BS. It's been used for 100's if not 1000's of years by many cultures for medicinal purposes.

They have a "do as we say, not as we do" mentality. What's funny is all the assholes making those rules, 99% of them have never used it.

Actually, I think it's the opposite. All those assholes making those rules, and 99% of them HAVE used it. They can make rules for everyone else, securely confidant that they're well-connected enough they'll never be subjected to any enforcement.

There's a dude with the name Axelrod? How awesome.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There's a dude with the name Axelrod? How awesome.

-TG

Fairly common in England. Believed by some to be the Yiddish form of "Alexander."

The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Symmetry wrote:The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Freedom of choice? People want to pollute their own bodies, it's their choice not yours.

Decriminalize all drugs and you may reduce the criminal elements and violence associated with it.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DSOIV wrote:The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Freedom of choice? People want to pollute their own bodies, it's their choice not yours.

Decriminalize all drugs and you may reduce the criminal elements and violence associated with it.

Making all substances legal, and controlled would challenge existing monopolies and special interests. Alcohol companies aren't mad on competition, especially when most legalisation models in Westminster style democracies have inherent and free market ideas. For example not allowing media companies to hold more than a certain % of the market in Australia. These type of laws would not allow alcohol companies to buy up too much of any new legal drug companies.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Freedom of choice? People want to pollute their own bodies, it's their choice not yours.

Decriminalize all drugs and you may reduce the criminal elements and violence associated with it.

Sort of depends, though doesn't it? Decriminalisation of users is a fair objective, and worthy of debate. Simply decriminalising sale of all drugs is naive. There's virtually no way of ensuring that a drug is safe without a legal\illegal framework. Even with government oversight, and regulations there are problems.

I doubt that you want to see dodgy thalidomide on sale again, and similar things go for legal highs.

I'm in favour of a structured legalisation of some drugs. A blanket "anything goes- caveat emptor" approach seems to be wishful thinking.

It doesn't have to be a case of prohibition vs anarchy. A middle way is the sensible, but somewhat undramatic, option.

Symmetry wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Freedom of choice? People want to pollute their own bodies, it's their choice not yours.

Decriminalize all drugs and you may reduce the criminal elements and violence associated with it.

Sort of depends, though doesn't it? Decriminalisation of users is a fair objective, and worthy of debate. Simply decriminalising sale of all drugs is naive. There's virtually no way of ensuring that a drug is safe without a legal\illegal framework. Even with government oversight, and regulations there are problems.

I doubt that you want to see dodgy thalidomide on sale again, and similar things go for legal highs.

I'm in favour of a structured legalisation of some drugs. A blanket "anything goes- caveat emptor" approach seems to be wishful thinking.

It doesn't have to be a case of prohibition vs anarchy. A middle way is the sensible, but somewhat undramatic, option.

Most people in favour of decriminalizing drugs are not in favour of anarchy. You're right, a middle way is a sensible and undramatic option.

The model already exists with alcohol. It's not a criminal offense to drink alcohol, or to possess it, or even to make your own. There are, however, a variety of restrictions on who can sell it and whom they can sell to. There are also rules on things you cannot do, such as driving a car or flying a plane, when you're under the influence.

There's no reason why, with sensible rules like that, other drugs could not be made available to those who favour them. Neither prohibition, as you say, nor anarchy.

Dukasaur wrote:The model already exists with alcohol. It's not a criminal offense to drink alcohol, or to possess it, or even to make your own. There are, however, a variety of restrictions on who can sell it and whom they can sell to. There are also rules on things you cannot do, such as driving a car or flying a plane, when you're under the influence.

Or who you can give it to, never mind sell it. Giving it to minors or even providing a place for minors to consume it is a class D misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 364 days jail and $2000 in fines.

I largely agree with Duk, but I think the alcohol analogy is potentially misleading. Alcohol in the sense used can cover everything from vinegar and mouthwash through to psychosis inducing old school absinthe and pure ethanol. I'm not disagreeing, but the analogy breaks down with other types of drugs.

Asking the government to use the principles and framework applied to alcohol is virtually an impossible task.

To go back to a previous example, legal highs in the UK, the approach of taking them down once they became known to be dangerous simply failed. The active chemical could be marginally tweaked to avoid the ban.

I think Duk and I broadly agree on the rest, but, yeah, alcohol might not be the right thing to use as an example.

Is this more about social/moral psychology or is it about scientific facts or legal codes? Marijuana has proven scientific benefits. There are many ways to look at this .

warmonger1981 wrote:Is this more about social/moral psychology or is it about scientific facts or legal codes? Marijuana has proven scientific benefits. There are many ways to look at this .

From my point of view, I lean toward the latter two, but it would be daft to ignore the other elements. Like it or not, there's a very well established social structure for alcohol- thousands of years old. There's no doubt in my mind that marijuana should be immediately decriminalised, and, legalised in a proper process, starting first and foremost with medical use.

But an opium den isn't a pub, and a pot dealer isn't a heroin pusher. Different drugs have different cultures and effects. Starbucks' model doesn't easily work if you equate caffeine to crack. Not all drugs are equal, which is where the idea of blanket legalisation breaks down.

There is also the equation of illegal=profits for government through judicial system. Is it about the black hole of the legal system never being able to get out of it unless a person pays the lawyer,probation officer, taxes,fines,fees,drivers license renewal and many other bullshit things? If marijuana is legal then the feds miss out on all the revenue. I

Symmetry wrote:I largely agree with Duk, but I think the alcohol analogy is potentially misleading. Alcohol in the sense used can cover everything from vinegar and mouthwash through to psychosis inducing old school absinthe and pure ethanol. I'm not disagreeing, but the analogy breaks down with other types of drugs.

Asking the government to use the principles and framework applied to alcohol is virtually an impossible task.

To go back to a previous example, legal highs in the UK, the approach of taking them down once they became known to be dangerous simply failed. The active chemical could be marginally tweaked to avoid the ban.

I think Duk and I broadly agree on the rest, but, yeah, alcohol might not be the right thing to use as an example.

Vinegar is a solution of acetic acid, a carboxylic acid. It's not an alcohol.

-TG

Symmetry wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Freedom of choice? People want to pollute their own bodies, it's their choice not yours.

Decriminalize all drugs and you may reduce the criminal elements and violence associated with it.

Sort of depends, though doesn't it? Decriminalisation of users is a fair objective, and worthy of debate. Simply decriminalising sale of all drugs is naive. There's virtually no way of ensuring that a drug is safe without a legal\illegal framework. Even with government oversight, and regulations there are problems.

I doubt that you want to see dodgy thalidomide on sale again, and similar things go for legal highs.

I'm in favour of a structured legalisation of some drugs. A blanket "anything goes- caveat emptor" approach seems to be wishful thinking.

It doesn't have to be a case of prohibition vs anarchy. A middle way is the sensible, but somewhat undramatic, option.

I agree, to an extent. Laws and our Judicial System apply punishment unequally, such as race and most importantly, how WEALTHY you are


They don't send rich white people to jail for small amounts of drugs, but being black or hispanic and not afforded the best justice that money can buy, well you can be stuck in the legal system for a long fucking time.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The UK has already experimented with legal drugs. Turns out that getting people to compete with chemical highs, attempting to outfox legislation was a bad idea. I'd like to see a legalised cannabis trade, but anyone arguing for the legalisation of all drugs is naive.

Freedom of choice? People want to pollute their own bodies, it's their choice not yours.

Decriminalize all drugs and you may reduce the criminal elements and violence associated with it.

Sort of depends, though doesn't it? Decriminalisation of users is a fair objective, and worthy of debate. Simply decriminalising sale of all drugs is naive. There's virtually no way of ensuring that a drug is safe without a legal\illegal framework. Even with government oversight, and regulations there are problems.

I doubt that you want to see dodgy thalidomide on sale again, and similar things go for legal highs.

I'm in favour of a structured legalisation of some drugs. A blanket "anything goes- caveat emptor" approach seems to be wishful thinking.

It doesn't have to be a case of prohibition vs anarchy. A middle way is the sensible, but somewhat undramatic, option.

I agree, to an extent. Laws and our Judicial System apply punishment unequally, such as race and most importantly, how WEALTHY you are


They don't send rich white people to jail for small amounts of drugs, but being black or hispanic and not afforded the best justice that money can buy, well you can be stuck in the legal system for a long fucking time.

That's not an issue about the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs. That's an issue that involves the way the structure of the legal system, perhaps majorly in the US, but also in plenty of other countries, and also internationally works.