Press Release from Keep AZ Drug Free

BREAKING NEWS — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sept 28, 2010

The Glaucoma Foundation warns patients of dangers of using marijuana.

In their newsletter released late on Sept 27, 2010, the Glaucoma Foundation
warned patients with glaucoma not to use marijuana. They specifically
criticized efforts by pro-marijuana forces to use incomplete evidence in
their quest to make marijuana acceptable. Although marijuana does decrease
intraocular pressure, it is very short-acting and would have to be smoked
every few hours day and night to be effective. Otherwise, people will suffer
rebound spikes in intraocular pressure which could trigger glaucoma attacks.
Marijuana can also decrease blood supply to the optic nerve, also worsening
glaucoma.

The American Glaucoma Society has already warned against using marijuana to
treat glaucoma, but highlighted their concern in a February editorial in the
Journal of Glaucoma warning patients not to use marijuana. This came after
their position statement of August 2009, also saying that marijuana was not
recommended for glaucoma. However, the warnings are getting stronger as more
evidence comes in.

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society has also warned that marijuana could
be harmful for people with multiple sclerosis. And the American Cancer
Society has said there is not enough evidence to recommend marijuana for
anything.  The Institute of Medicine, an independent agency, did the most
complete review of the research on marijuana and came to the conclusion that
marijuana is not medicine.

Ed Gogek, M.D. is an addiction psychiatrist and steering committee member of
Keep AZ Drug Free, the committee opposing Propositon 203, the so-called
medical marijuana law on November¹s ballot in Arizona.

Dr. Gogek says, “The demand for medical marijuana is not coming from doctors
or patient care organizations. It’s coming entirely from pot-smokers.
They’re running a million dollar ad campaign in our state trying to convince
people that marijuana is medicine, and that is simply not true.  Based on
almost no evidence, they’ve been pushing the idea that marijuana is good for
glaucoma, but now the evidence is coming in that it’s actually dangerous.
That’s one more reason these medical marijuana laws are so harmful. You
don’t prescribe a medicine on one person’s story or wishful thinking; you
have to look at all the research. That’s what the FDA does and that’s why we
should trust the FDA instead of a bunch of pot-smokers.”

From their website: The mission of The Glaucoma Foundation (TGF) is to fund
groundbreaking research and to educate the public about the disease and the
importance of early detection to prevent blindness. Founded in1984 by Dr.
Robert Ritch, TGF is one of the premier not-for-profit organizations
dedicated to eradicating blindness from glaucoma through vital research and
education.

Newsletter release 9-27-10  http://www.glaucomafoundation.org/newsletter.htm

Warning not to use marijuana:
http://www.glaucomafoundation.org/UserFiles/File/TGF_Summer_10_Web.pdf

February 2010 Journal of Glaucoma
http://journals.lww.com/glaucomajournal/toc/2010/02000

American Glaucoma Society Position on Marijuana
http://www.glaucomaweb.org/associations/5224/files/Marijuana%20and%20Glaucom
a%20august%2030_BOD%20Approved%2010.23.09.pdf

Website for Glaucoma Foundation
http://www.glaucomafoundation.org/about_tgf.htm

Here’s the Marijuana Policy Project, still claiming marijuana is good for
glaucoma despite statements from the American Glaucoma Society from over a
year ago. (Also note, they say IOM supports them but they just took one
sentence from the complete report. The IOM’s conclusion is that marijuana is
not medicine.)
http://www.mpp.org/library/research/medical-marijuana-briefing.html

Contacts at Keep AZ Drug Free, a ballot opposition committee registered with the Secretary of State to oppose Prop 203

Ed Gogek, M.D.


Comments

  1. Sonoran Alliance … AZ

  2. This is like saying aleve says what its going to do but you have to take it when it wears off. Or prozac works but you we may have to up or lower the dosage so that you have the right amount.

    Its all well and good the groups want to get the word out about something but if doctors want to prescribe this to a patient who are we to tell them that they can’t have it?

  3. It reads very clearly that DOCTORS do NOT want to prescribe this to their patients. As for “who are we to tell” … we tell doctors ALL the time they CAN’T prescribe drugs. Protocols are mean to limit unintentional harm to patients.

    The only people who want this are addicted users who have already demonstrated they are in the hbait of not obeying even reasonable laws.

  4. Why do I have a feeling 75% of the ‘conservatives’ on this site would be in favor of re-enacting Prohibition?

  5. Wanumba,

    If doctors do not want to prescribe it then why does it matter if we pass this? People can only get it by prescription so they wouldn’t be getting it anyway…

    Why are you in favor of such over-regulation?

  6. Abyssidion says:

    @JB & Johnny,
    No, we’re not in favor of prohibition. We understand it’s what made the mob powerful and rich. Similarly, making narcotics illegal makes drug lords rich and powerful. If we’re going to make pot legal, we need to deregulate it entirely. This proposition does the opposite, it adds SEVERAL layers of bureaucracy. This is a big government proposition and that’s why I oppose it.

  7. Bill Montgomery says:

    Point of clarification: Prop. 203 does not call for a “prescription” of anything. It permits a “recommendation” for a substance that is better delivered in a controlled form – not a random strain of weed from someone’s backyard.

  8. ………………..
    JB Says:
    October 1st, 2010 at 11:52 am
    Why do I have a feeling 75% of the ‘conservatives’ on this site would be in favor of re-enacting Prohibition?
    ……………………

    Better have a doctor look at that “feeling.” It’s very strange, indicates a fail of normal reasoning processes, and probably not good for you.

  9. ……………………
    johnny Says:
    October 1st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    Wanumba,
    Why are you in favor of such over-regulation
    ………………

    Because I shared a house rental for a semester at college with three students who in less than THREE months, turned into shoplifting, lying, dope-dazed drop-outs on “harmless marijuana.”

    One of the potted out guys after failing out of school got himself a job on a lobster boat. That crew shortly thereafter had to be rescued by the Coast Guard because SOMEONE on the crew FORGOT to close an open valve after leaving the dock. Half-way to the lobster grounds, the captain discovered they were sinking.

    The captain salvaged his boat, called all but ONE of the crew back to work within a few weeks. Wonder who THAT was.

    I quit that lease at the end of the semester, before those wasted pothead fools burned the house down on my head.

    Harmless, my ass. Regulate it MORE. It’s TOO EASY TO OBTAIN.

  10. The point is that the medical societies which advocate for the exact conditions mentioned by the Marijuana Policy Project as “needing” this “medicine” say that not only is marijuana NOT medicine, it is HARMFUL to the patients! The Marijuana Policy Project is not a medical society. The Marijuana Policy Project not only is USING sick people to get this bad initiative passed, the MPP is putting sick people at risk by telling them marijuana is medicine.

  11. California in a classic spineless capitulation to idiocy is now allowing for possession of an ounce of less.

    Rather motivates users to QUICKLY SMOKE that three ounces down to one JUST IN CASE.

    Avoid California like the plague.

  12. ……………..
    Bill Montgomery Says:
    October 1st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    Point of clarification: Prop. 203 does not call for a “prescription” of anything. It permits a “recommendation” for a substance that is better delivered in a controlled form
    …………..

    That begs some questions. The drug companies don’t need a voter proposition for any other drugs they test. WHy this one? So far, the drug companies haven’t found anything worthy enough in marijuana to pill it, or they would have already … and YEARS ago, and been happily making piles of legal prescription profits that the ‘legalize marijuana’ proponents have been suggesting. Nothing. Nada, Zilch.

    This is all about getting high, not healthy.

  13. Scores of thanks to your first-rate blog website. I surely love it and will likely be coming back to take a look at much more.

  14. I extremely love it and will likely be coming back to look at alot more.A lot thanks with your magnificent web site.

  15. I really enjoy it and will likely be re-visting to scan through a great deal more.A good number of thanks with your outstanding web log.

Speak Your Mind