Presently there are, without question, many therapeutic uses for the Marijuana plant from asthma to peripheral neuropathy. The plant has proven it's medical worth tenfold however the FDA still considers it a dangerous plant with no medical potential and a high risk of addiction. This is the label given to Schedule I substances; a title Marijuana shares with Ecstasy, LSD, and Heroin (Coke and PCP are Schedule II, considered safer).

Marinol, however, which is Dronabinol (THC) prepared in a lab and suspended in sesame oil, is a Schedule III drug. Schedule III drugs have a low potential for abuse and addiction, and show accepted medical uses.

Discuss.

Although I've never had marinol, from what I understood it gives you a different high, some how not the same feeling you get when smoking cannabis. Regardless, the real question I have is how in the world can THC be classified as sched. I and III?

I think they get away with it because Dronabinol is only prescribed for AIDS-related anorexia (as in loss of appetite, not anorexia nervosa), but still in order to classify something as Schedule I it HAS to have a high risk for addiction, a high risk for abuse, and no accepted medical uses... which is obviously not true as the scientific community, including 16 US States consider marijuana medically useful, and studies show it to be no more addictive than other schedule III drugs (schedule I suggests it's more addictive than cocaine, and as addictive as heroin). The fact that it's Schedule I prevents a lot of research from being performed on it which could potentially uncover more medical uses.

you have to take into account as to when those laws were also made. considering not 50 years ago marijuana was believed to cause the dreaded 'reefer madness'. It was an age of propaganda, and the public accepted it because of the times. things have since changed and one would hope that the drug laws would adapt as well. however, if you take a look at the narrow minded ultra right-wing conservative side of things, you will see that they are in fact persisting to use same mindset and ideals they've always implemented. of course which we all know as 'drugs are bad, mmk'.

i was reading up on marinol last spring in high times actually, and as drunkship stated, i had also heard that the high was quite different than obtaining thc by traditional means. another side note, i saw a caption on the news no more than 4 months ago that said something about death's caused by artificially manufactured thc. if i (or if you) find any info relating to that, i'll be sure to post it.

What have you heard the difference was?
More of a body high or what?

I would assume the difference is in the method by which the drug is taken, as well as the absence of auxiliary cannabinoids that are present in natural cannabis, but obviously not in dronabinol.

Among the THC there are several other chemicals typically produced by trichomes on weed. Cannabinol is known to cause mild headaches and some confusion, Cannabidiol is not psychoactive per se, but it is an anti-inflammatory in humans and so it dulls pain a bit, and as a result has anxiolytic (stress-reducing) properties. Tetrahydrocannabivarin is the more entheogenic of the cannabinoids and is responsible for any epiphanies or moments of clarity you may feel while high... These chemicals, while less influential than THC in weed do influence the high you feel. A plant high in THCV is going to give you a more mental high, and a plant with more Cannabidiol and Cannabinol is going to be a bit more body.

Smoking something versus taking it in pill form is pretty significant as well... firstly, when you smoke you can self-regulate. So a person smoking is going to stop smoking as soon as they've achieved whatever high/relief they're seeking. A pill is a set amount so where Xmg might not affect me it could overwhelm someone else, as was the case for Peter McWilliams. Likewise some of the therapeutic properties of Marijuana (namely, those in Asthma) are only present when smoked.

dude what is your IQ

i don't know, i'm not really that smart though -- school has required me to take a lot of pharmacology, toxicology, pharmaceutics, all that sort of shit... I just remember what I find interesting, hahaha.

I wish I found that stuff interesting. Aspects of it I do, such as this thread, but nowhere near enough to get educated.

I'm designing my schedule for next year and I'm trying to decide between Medicinal Botany or Drugs & Human Behavior as an elective...

I'd go with drugs and human behaviour, but thats because I take an interest in both, and don't really know what the first one means other than "to do with medicine"

i was leaning towards that one too... medicinal botany would be a study of plants that have supposed medical uses... like valerian for insomnia, chamomile for an upset stomach, and fennel for croup or bronchitis. herbalism has always been one of my guilty pleasures... hahaha.

A friend of mine used to take it. She said it was an amazing suppliment to the pipe.

In reality, though, it's classification is just following the precedent of engineered medicines being "safer" than natural ones. Simply stated, take it's/everything's pidgeonhole with a grain of salt.

it's just unfortunate that a medicine is determined more by it's marketability than its efficacy.