Discussion»Questions»Health and Wellness» If the federal government says pot has no medical value(schedule 1) , why do they buy a patent for medical marijuana?
My idea is that it's to continue the war on pot if pot happens to become legal. If becomes legal on a federal level they can still arrest people for a patent violation.
One part of the gov doesn't know what the other part is. Which branch filed for the patent? I found it doubtful the FDA did.
With that said, can you imagine what would happen if a drug company owned an exclusive patent to cannabis? It would be a nightmare worse than Monsanto and the other idiot who raised a drug price fro $13 a pill to over $700 earlier this year or last. We should be glad someone in the government had the foresight to file a patent.
Ah, the mother to the FDA. Huh. Not surprising, I guess. I still stand by my answer. The government needs to be the one with that patent. It shouldn't be in the hands of a private company.
Good research, Bozette. I looked, but didn't find it.
I know that. Sometimes when I try to do it though it says my title is over 64 characters, even when I remove words and have less that I originally posted.
Well, the Federal Government (or a bit of it) is clearly lying.
My own view is that 'government' has long suspected that weed consumption makes people less susceptible to BS. That's why it's not viewed kindly by any western government.
Why do we allow ourselves to be distracted by an endless succession of red herrings? Whether marijuana has legitimate medical applications (it does) is irrelevant. The question is whether government has any constitutional right to say what you put into or take out of YOUR body (it doesn't).
How many medical devices and drugs get recalled for causing damage? How many don't make the cut to begin with? How many supplements land on shelves and cause damage or do nothing because they're ineffective? I want government oversight on drugs. I don't think marijuana should be part of this battle, but the FDA plays an important role in keeping us safe. They biff it, but overall, I think the agency does more good than harm.
And, if you disagree with me, I blame your color choices. They have seared my eyeballs.
In this context the government's principal (if not only) job is to protect consumers from fraudulent claims, acts, etc. Going strictly by the Constitution (the putative 'supreme law of the land') it has NO other function.
If people want to ingest, smoke or inject pig poop in an attempt to rid themselves of some disease, it's NONE of the government's business.
I own my body. You own yours. Provided that we are harming no one else but ourselves, ANY 'regulation' of what we do with our bodies is called slavery. Government oversight of 'drugs' is synonymous with government oversight of human beings. I definitely do NOT want such oversight.
(Edit: for general edification, I'm still suffering the aftereffects of a bad reaction to a 'government approved' antibiotic I took three years ago. It would seem as if government oversight doesn't always, if ever, achieve the intended result.)
This post was edited by Transquesta at October 9, 2016 2:43 AM MDT
Right, but let's say you have to go into the hospital for a hip implant. How can you trust that you're getting one that's been tested? How can you trust that the doctor isn't using some lead-laden cheap parts from China? Is that the right you're fighting for? The freedom to have unsafe treatments used as part of your care? I find it hard to believe that you genuinely want no oversight at all. Shoot, heroin used to be sold as a painkiller. People didn't know what it was. They didn't know it was addictive and deadly. No oversight and that's what we're looking at again. We have deaths from crap being slipped into diet supplements and from overdoses on energy drinks. No oversight would be mass carnage.
"...but let's say you have to go into the hospital for a hip implant. How can you trust that you're getting one that's been tested?"
Personal research. Incidentally, given the number of lawsuits being brought against the manufacturers of 'government approved' hip implants these days, that might have been a bad example. :-)
"How can you trust that the doctor isn't using some lead-laden cheap parts from China?"
I can't--not even with the government's 'assistance.' That's why I look online for patient reviews, malpractice awards, etc. (Granted that, with "no government oversight," people would suddenly have to take responsibility for...gasp!...themselves! :-))
"Is that the right you're fighting for? The freedom to have unsafe treatments used as part of your care?"
No. The right I'm fighting for is the same right which the framers/founders of what WAS the government of the United States were fighting for: the simple right to self determination. Again, I start from a simple premise: that you/I/we own our own persons. We are NOT the property of the state.
"I find it hard to believe that you genuinely want no oversight at all."
As well you should! I never said I wanted no oversight. I intimated that I wanted the oversight with which the government has been constitutionally empowered to provide: protection against acts of force/fraud.
"No oversight would be mass carnage."
How do you know? We've never lived in a climate of 'no oversight.' Moreover, the current 'carnage' we see all around us is occurring at a time of maximum government 'oversight.'
Heroin being a schedule 1 instead of 2 is purely out of panic. Diamorphine is no more or less dangerous as a pain killer than morphine(it actually just breaks down into morphine in your system), oxycontin, dilaudid., or any of the other heroin substitutes.
Bozette 