Comments:US Senator Rand Paul blocks synthetic marijuana legislation

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Comments from feedback form - "needs to better outline the la..."017:05, 10 July 2012
Article not neutral, lacking citation002:27, 10 April 2012
Republican Fake Reefer Madness113:40, 5 April 2012
Youth trend001:14, 3 April 2012
Synthetic Marijuana/Cocaine 123:55, 2 April 2012
In full support of Senator Rand Paul122:48, 2 April 2012

Comments from feedback form - "needs to better outline the la..."

needs to better outline the law (talk)17:05, 10 July 2012

Article not neutral, lacking citation

What's the actual bill number? Why aren't we linked to the bill on There could be more to this. Wikinews shouldn't be playing the blame game, that's for the blogs. (talk)02:26, 10 April 2012

Republican Fake Reefer Madness

Funny how the republicans claim they are for less government in people's lives. In reality, this is just one big republican lie. (talk)05:13, 5 April 2012

I like your skepticism! However ... The article explains that both sides in the debate are bipartisan. The US Senate sponsors include a Republican and two Democrats, and Rand, who takes the opposite view, is also a Republican. Democrats also made up support in the House where that legislation passed by a wide margin.

Crtew (talk)13:40, 5 April 2012

Youth trend

What do you think about regulations for youth? The article presents several social and medical research, as well as anecdotal stories that illustrate increased use by teens.

Crtew (talk)01:14, 3 April 2012

Synthetic Marijuana/Cocaine

NO, the feds should not again take away normal State police powers. In a briefing in the House in the fall of 2011 which I attended,the problems associated with synthetics were equal to or LESS than drinking alcohol. Moreover, the federal police already have too much to do & their prisons are at 138% of capacity. Let Texas run Texas! in the area of drugs.

The govt cannot fix stupid. Get my profession (police) out of fixing the Charlie Sheens of the world.

Hiwayhowie (talk)17:52, 31 March 2012

Nobody should be able to tell an adult what they can and can't do to themselves. Medicaly, recreationaly, or otherwise. Someday maybe these monsters will pay for working so hard for the drug czars and cartels while people suffer. These politicians are despicable. (talk)23:55, 2 April 2012

In full support of Senator Rand Paul

Sorry for the long comment, but I wanted to post something that I wrote earlier in the year after the D.E.A. announced their intention to emergency schedule JWH-018/200/250, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclcohexanol.

"At the end of 2010, the D.E.A. moved to emergency schedule five synthetic cannabinoids being used in “Spice”, which is synthetic cannabis. These compounds were JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, cannabicyclohexanol, and CP 47,497. The reason the D.E.A. moved to act was due to reports from all over the United States of teenagers turning up in emergency rooms with seizures after smoking various spice blends. This is true, but the danger of the seizures was drastically overblown. Typically, seizures resulted from highly inexperienced users consuming ultra-high amounts of pure cannabinoids - cannabinoids that typically were either full CB1 or CB2 agonists. Also consider the fact that no synthetic blends contain the compounds cannabis contains to balance out some of the anxiety effects (cannabidiol, a sedative, being a perfect example).

Therefore, because OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN, the D.E.A. moved to ban these 5 compounds for one year (while they “study them closer”), making them schedule one drugs along with marijuana.

Now, what were the effects of this? Well, “spice” did not disappear. John Huffman synthesized hundreds of analogues, therefore the market simply picked up a few more which were not illegal (such as JWH-122). More important in this matter is how the D.E.A.’s move affected science and research. When the D.E.A moved to act, dozens of scientific studies were being conducted with the compounds in question, with dozens more being conducted with other similar compounds. Scheduled drugs are drastically more difficult to do research with than unscheduled drugs. Therefore, the move to outlaw the 5 compounds flashed a big yellow light for cannabinoid research.

Hysteria aside, what has cannabinoid research found? The results are shocking. Here are a few studies showing the enormous potential for cancer treatment:

From a study at Harvard Medical School (

“Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide; however, only limited therapeutic treatments are available. Hence, we investigated the role of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel therapeutic targets against NSCLC. We observed expression of CB1 (24%) and CB2 (55%) in NSCLC patients. Furthermore, we have shown that the treatment of NSCLC cell lines (A549 and SW-1573) with CB1/CB2- and CB2-specific agonists Win55,212-2 and JWH-015, respectively, significantly attenuated random as well as growth factor-directed in vitro chemotaxis and chemoinvasion in these cells. We also observed significant reduction in focal adhesion complex, which plays an important role in migration, upon treatment with both JWH-015 and Win55,212-2. In addition, pretreatment with CB1/CB2 selective antagonists, AM251 and AM630, prior to JWH-015 and Win55,212-2 treatments, attenuated the agonist-mediated inhibition of in vitro chemotaxis and chemoinvasion. In addition, both CB1 and CB2 agonists Win55,212-2 and JWH-133, respectively, significantly inhibited in vivo tumor growth and lung metastasis (∼50%). These effects were receptor mediated, as pretreatment with CB1/CB2 antagonists abrogated CB1/CB2 agonist-mediated effects on tumor growth and metastasis. Reduced proliferation and vascularization, along with increased apoptosis, were observed in tumors obtained from animals treated with JWH-133 and Win55,212-2. Upon further elucidation into the molecular mechanism, we observed that both CB1 and CB2 agonists inhibited phosphorylation of AKT, a key signaling molecule controlling cell survival, migration, and apoptosis, and reduced matrix metalloproteinase 9 expression and activity. These results suggest that CB1 and CB2 could be used as novel therapeutic targets against NSCLC.”

From a study in Madrid, Spain (

“Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third cause of cancer-related death worldwide. We found that Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC, the main active component of Cannabis sativa) and JWH-015 (a cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB(2)) cannabinoid receptor-selective agonist) reduced the viability of the human HCC cell lines HepG2 (human hepatocellular liver carcinoma cell line) and HuH-7 (hepatocellular carcinoma cells), an effect that relied on the stimulation of CB(2) receptor. We also found that Δ(9)-THC- and JWH-015-induced autophagy relies on tribbles homolog 3 (TRB3) upregulation, and subsequent inhibition of the serine-threonine kinase Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin C1 axis and adenosine monophosphate-activated kinase (AMPK) stimulation.”

The study concludes “our findings may contribute to the design of new therapeutic strategies for the management of HCC”.

From another study in Spain:

“Our results show that both Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB2 receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice. Histological analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially, on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway. We also found that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic cannabinoid receptor CB2.

CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive breast cancer.”" (talk)19:22, 31 March 2012

Thank You. Brilliant reply. You've saved me a long winded rant and done a far better job than I would have.

These are synthetic CB1 Agonists, NOT synthetic 'Marijuana' anymore than epsom salts in a fish tank would be synthetic seawater.

We should remember, as mentioned above, that a small number of freak outs by people using extreme doses of a pure chemical rather than properly diluting first does not justify tossing people in prison. If it really did, Aspirin would carry the death penalty not to mention the main killer drugs of the modern world - alcohol and tobacco.

Just consider, if you've never encountered either drug before and you decide to just try a gallon or two of 180 proof vodka and a half pound of tobacco.. well of course you're going to rush to the ER once you start vomiting uncontrollably. Post a few videos on YouTube of kids overdosing on the drugs and there we go, instant legislation.

I don't drink or smoke, but how many of you who do would agree that your drug of choice should carry a prison term? Now consider that there is no evidence to back up any such ban on the cannabinoids and it is quite easy to see how banning a substance you know NOTHING about is sheer idiocy.. particularly when the proven dangerous drugs are available at any convenience store.


I salute you, Sir. (talk)22:48, 2 April 2012