Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LTnewsDawg

Cannabis care

Recommended Posts

LTnewsDawg

State lawmakers hear testimony about Senate Bill 1182 which would legalize marijuana in Pennsylvania for medicinal purposes.

 

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

Total bullshit......so how would this work? A issued card to buy a illegal substance from a drug dealer? What dose? Based on unknown purity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

Whatever....we have been down this trail before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Well, a logical approach would be to look at other states that have successful programs and regulations.

 

Regarding the "drug dealer" stuff, look at the Bill--sections 10-13. Pretty strict.

 

Regarding "purity," labeling is required (Cannabinoid content, etc), for consumer safety, as with other states. Most likely, as with other states, the regulations would require licensed growers and processors to test and label their product, at the wholesale level, and care centers would have to display that information, for consumers, at the point of retail sale.

 

Growers, to stay true to a particular strain of Cannabis, use cloning (cuttings), which are an exact replication of the parent plant--a standard practice within Horticulture. That practice significantly increases the likelihood that Cannabinoid content remains constant across a particular crop of plants. Timing of harvesting, makes some difference, as well. All can be tested along the way.

 

What's lacking in the Bill (that other states have made mandatory) is laboratory testing to protect consumers from adulterants like pesticides. I would be surprised (and disappointed) if those requirements were not amended into the Bill. 

 

 Didja ever wonder why Opium is not widely used anymore, Moldy bread is not mentioned in the PDR, and they don't prescribe Foxglove Tea for heart conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Whatever....we have been down this trail before.

 

Indeed. A rather bumpy trail, at that.

 

Out of respect, I won't travel that trail again.

 

 Didja ever wonder why Opium is not widely used anymore, Moldy bread is not mentioned in the PDR, and they don't prescribe Foxglove Tea for heart conditions?

 

You're all over the map: Opium to Foxglove tea.

 

Good point.  Since THC is the compound that, do not prescribe pot, extract the THC put it into pill/capsule form and prescribe it just as other controlled drugs.

 

The drug companies have tried that, with minimal success, because we're finding that a range of Cannabinoids are responsible for therapeutic efficacy.

 

If you only knew what goes on behind the scenes in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry, you'd probably not be so confident in synthesized medicines. I attended a training a couple months ago, regarding the current ethical guidelines on discussing medications with clients. Did you know that, on average, it costs a drug company $2 billion until a drug actually gets to market? That's a shit-load of green. What's worse is that, in order to keep costs down and speed up return on investment, the drug companies routinely take advantage of the government's minimal benchmark standards regarding research outcomes and cut studies short once that minimal benchmark is achieved.

 

In other words, routinely, medications are placed on the market, of which, the side effects from long-term use, are virtually unknown, or, at best, assumed.

 

Not cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

You're all over the map: Opium to Foxglove tea.

 

No, I'm being precise. When a plant is the source of a chemical that has certain therapeutic effects, the best thing to do it identify those chemicals so that you can precisely control the dosage. It might not matter a whole lot if the intent is purely palliative, but if you are treating seizure disorder, you really need to know EXACTLY what you are doing. People DIE from seizures, so it's best not to have to titrate every batch till you get the right response. (Oops. Let's give Suzy a little more bud)

 

The drug companies have tried that, with minimal success, because we're finding that a range of Cannabinoids are responsible for therapeutic efficacy.

 

Nonsense. That work hasn't been done. The main advocates for "whole plant" dosing are folks who just simply want to smoke the stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

No, I'm being precise. When a plant is the source of a chemical that has certain therapeutic effects, the best thing to do it identify those chemicals so that you can precisely control the dosage. It might not matter a whole lot if the intent is purely palliative, but if you are treating seizure disorder, you really need to know EXACTLY what you are doing. People DIE from seizures, so it's best not to have to titrate every batch till you get the right response. (Oops. Let's give Suzy a little more bud)

 

Save it with the hyperbole. I'm not interested.

 

Nonsense. That work hasn't been done. The main advocates for "whole plant" dosing are folks who just simply want to smoke the stuff.

 

Back to the old, prohibitionist stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

Save it with the hyperbole. I'm not interested.

 

It is not hyperbole. People do die from seizures. If 30 mg of drug control Suzy's seizures and 25 do not, then there is a lethal difference.

 

Back to the old, prohibitionist stance.

 

Say what?

 

The lack of success of Marinol in palliative care might have more to do with dosage and titration than the need for a range of cannibinoids. Show me your best study in support of 'whole plant'.

 

Whole plant might be just fine for palliative care, and in any case,  using whole plant won't have to wait until a chemist works out just which 'active ingredient' does what. But if you are going to suggest  that whole plant Cannabis be used broadly for epilepsy, that is a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

I agree with NVH on the " whole plant " thing is just an excuse to get high nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

It is not hyperbole. People do die from seizures. If 30 mg of drug control Suzy's seizures and 25 do not, then there is a lethal difference.

 

No, I'm not disputing that fact. The hyperbole is your dismissal of Cannabis processing.

 

Here's a very good tutorial on making Medical Cannabis Oil. I've never made oil. I know people who do. I have made Cannabis tincture with alcohol.

 

Here are some very good Cannabis test kits.

 

Certain strains will produce particular results. GNC has been utilizing "Fingerprinting" to ensure consistent potency of its products, for years.

 

Did you expect two stoners stomping on pot plants in a wooden barrel?

 

Say what?

 

The lack of success of Marinol in palliative care might have more to do with dosage and titration than the need for a range of cannibinoids. Show me your best study in support of 'whole plant'.

 

Whole plant might be just fine for palliative care, and in any case,  using whole plant won't have to wait until a chemist works out just which 'active ingredient' does what. But if you are going to suggest  that whole plant Cannabis be used broadly for epilepsy, that is a different story.

 

This must wait until tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

No, I'm not disputing that fact. The hyperbole is your dismissal of Cannabis processing.

 

Here's a very good tutorial on making Medical Cannabis Oil. I've never made oil. I know people who do. I have made Cannabis tincture with alcohol.

 

Here are some very good Cannabis test kits.

 

Certain strains will produce particular results. GNC has been utilizing "Fingerprinting" to ensure consistent potency of its products, for years.

 

Did you expect two stoners stomping on pot plants in a wooden barrel?

 

If you are giving someone a "whole plant" or an extract, you are giving them a whole raft of chemicals. Do you know EXACTLY which chemical has anti-seizure activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

If you are giving someone a "whole plant" or an extract, you are giving them a whole raft of chemicals. Do you know EXACTLY which chemical has anti-seizure activity?

 

CBDs hold promise.

 

Now, rather than pointing a finger at legalization proponents, send a letter to your representatives and the President, chiding them for actually standing in the way of controlled clinical trials, by not removing Cannabis from Schedule 1 classification, as a result, making it extraordinarily difficult to conduct those trials using whole-plant applications.

 

The President of the American Epilepsy Society is implying that they do that. However, talk is cheap.

 

Why the foot-dragging? Perhaps, this is the answer: Money

 

The Pharmaceutical Industry has been at odds with the Herbal Industry for a long time, for various reasons. Some of Pharma's complaints are legitimate, regarding the different research-to-market standards placed on the two entities, as discussed in this well-balanced article from Mother Earth News: What you should know about drugs vs herbs.

 

However, it still comes down to money and, as the article reports, a $20 billion slice of the consumer pie, regarding annual herbal purchases, would be an attractive addition to Pharma's $200 billion, that it currently cashes each year. 

 

Bottom line: Cannabis should be designated an herbal product. Distinguish it from pharmaceuticals. Place it solely under FDA guidelines for herbals, while also urging increased research standards and requirements for that Industry, in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

CBDs hold promise.

 

Now, rather than pointing a finger at legalization proponents, send a letter to your representatives and the President, chiding them for actually standing in the way of controlled clinical trials, by not removing Cannabis from Schedule 1 classification, as a result, making it extraordinarily difficult to conduct those trials using whole-plant applications.

 

The President of the American Epilepsy Society is implying that they do that. However, talk is cheap.

 

Why the foot-dragging? Perhaps, this is the answer: Money

 

The Pharmaceutical Industry has been at odds with the Herbal Industry for a long time, for various reasons. Some of Pharma's complaints are legitimate, regarding the different research-to-market standards placed on the two entities, as discussed in this well-balanced article from Mother Earth News: What you should know about drugs vs herbs.

 

However, it still comes down to money and, as the article reports, a $20 billion slice of the consumer pie, regarding annual herbal purchases, would be an attractive addition to Pharma's $200 billion, that it currently cashes each year. 

 

Bottom line: Cannabis should be designated an herbal product. Distinguish it from pharmaceuticals. Place it solely under FDA guidelines for herbals, while also urging increased research standards and requirements for that Industry, in general.

 

Absolute bullshit it is either medicine or it is just another intoxicant. Your real agenda is just getting high. If it is legit , then let it go through the proper and established procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Absolute bullshit it is either medicine or it is just another intoxicant. Your real agenda is just getting high. If it is legit , then let it go through the proper and established procedure.

 

I lean Libertarian. I'm also in good company regarding my perspective on medical and recreational legalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

CBDs hold promise.

 

Now, rather than pointing a finger at legalization proponents, send a letter to your representatives and the President, chiding them for actually standing in the way of controlled clinical trials, by not removing Cannabis from Schedule 1 classification, as a result, making it extraordinarily difficult to conduct those trials using whole-plant applications.

 

The President of the American Epilepsy Society is implying that they do that. However, talk is cheap.

 

Why the foot-dragging? Perhaps, this is the answer: Money

 

The Pharmaceutical Industry has been at odds with the Herbal Industry for a long time, for various reasons. Some of Pharma's complaints are legitimate, regarding the different research-to-market standards placed on the two entities, as discussed in this well-balanced article from Mother Earth News: What you should know about drugs vs herbs.

 

However, it still comes down to money and, as the article reports, a $20 billion slice of the consumer pie, regarding annual herbal purchases, would be an attractive addition to Pharma's $200 billion, that it currently cashes each year. 

 

Bottom line: Cannabis should be designated an herbal product. Distinguish it from pharmaceuticals. Place it solely under FDA guidelines for herbals, while also urging increased research standards and requirements for that Industry, in general.

 

i divested pharmaceutical stock from my portfolio when Rohrer stopped making Quaaludes, so I have no conflict of interest.

 

The problem I have with the "Herbal Industry" is that most of their products DO NOT WORK, but thanks to Orrin Hatch, 'dietary supplements' are not subject to the same burden of proof as the drug industry, and they are permitted to peddle their snake oil, even after it is proven ineffective. Though you are right in one sense. Money is behind it all.

 

Although you can no doubt find reams of anecdotal evidence, and many who will swear by it's use, when subjected to the gold standard of double blind tests, Echinacea DOES NOT WORK. Ditto with Saw Palmento and Milk Thistle. Supplementation with mega-vitamins DOES NOT WORK, and may even be dangerous. And don't even get me started with Homeopathy.

 

Putting marijuana in the same category as an "herbal product" is an enormous cop-out that sidesteps any need to PROVE that it works. And if people sidestep medical science and  start using marijuana to treat disease based on speculation and anecdotal reports, very real harm will result.

 

Yes, remove marijuana from Schedule I, and encourage research. But marijuana, if it indeed effective to treat disease, should not need to be removed from scrutiny by calling it an herbal medicine. That's the route taken by charlatans and frauds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

i divested pharmaceutical stock from my portfolio when Rohrer stopped making Quaaludes, so I have no conflict of interest.

 

The problem I have with the "Herbal Industry" is that most of their products DO NOT WORK, but thanks to Orrin Hatch, 'dietary supplements' are not subject to the same burden of proof as the drug industry, and they are permitted to peddle their snake oil, even after it is proven ineffective. Though you are right in one sense. Money is behind it all.

 

Although you can no doubt find reams of anecdotal evidence, and many who will swear by it's use, when subjected to the gold standard of double blind tests, Echinacea DOES NOT WORK. Ditto with Saw Palmento and Milk Thistle. Supplementation with mega-vitamins DOES NOT WORK, and may even be dangerous. And don't even get me started with Homeopathy.

 

Putting marijuana in the same category as an "herbal product" is an enormous cop-out that sidesteps any need to PROVE that it works. And if people sidestep medical science and  start using marijuana to treat disease based on speculation and anecdotal reports, very real harm will result.

 

Yes, remove marijuana from Schedule I, and encourage research. But marijuana, if it indeed effective to treat disease, should not need to be removed from scrutiny by calling it an herbal medicine. That's the route taken by charlatans and frauds.

 

I agree that herbal products should be held to a higher, research standard, beyond simply stating on the bottle that the FDA does not support product claims.

 

Yet, what bothers me about medical Cannabis is when language sneaks into a bill stating that it can only be dispensed when "all other treatments have been exhausted." In other words, it comes back to patients not actually having a choice in their mode of treatment, even if a licensed healthcare provider believes that prescribing Cannabis, from the start, could be a better option for them (based upon efficacy, side effects that typically develop with other modes of treatment, etc).

 

In other words, this is another example of the Pharma Industry protecting its interests. Like I mentioned to Grieker a while back, I attended a pharmaceutical training several months ago, regarding the ethical limitations of discussing medications with clients, where I learned that, on average, a drug costs $2 billion to bring it to market and the FDA has a certain threshold for data that researchers must meet. So, routinely, to reduce costs and speed-up the drug getting to market, drug companies stop research at the low end of that threshold, cutting longitudinal studies short and leaving at least a portion of side effect information as an "educated guess" employing the legally defensible word "may." This, along with the fact that the Pharmaceutical industry pours tons of money into lobbying and campaign contributions, as opposed to the herbal industry.

 

So, who is the greater offender, here?

 

Bottom line: My suggestion that Cannabis be designated an herbal medicine, is not an attempt to avoid research scrutiny. Quite the contrary. Herbals should be held to a higher research standard, than they are today...and Cannabis, given its properties, should be held to research standards, even beyond what should be employed for herbals.

 

What I'm suggesting is that money talks and bullshit walks....and that anyone who thinks that big Pharma doesn't have a significant influence on the direction of whole-plant Cannabis research, is simply naive, at best. (Ever wonder why so much research is conducted on synthesized cannabinoids, already on the market, under the guise of "Cannabis research?" Just another notch in Pharma's bed post.)

 

So, the medical Cannabis industry shouldn't get its undies in such a bunch about the foot-dragging regarding approving research studies. It should, instead, primarily rely on well-designed research done by private interests or within other countries, like Israel, for example.

 

Screw big Pharma and its government lap dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

Deleted by author. Duplicate post.

Edited by finchfeeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

I lean Libertarian. I'm also in good company regarding my perspective on medical and recreational legalization.

" good company " doesn't mean good policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

" good company " doesn't mean good policy.

 

Agreed. Yet, it significantly increases the likelihood.

 

Is it rational for an animal to chase its tail? Or, put differently, is it good policy for Uncle Sam to routinely verify Einstein's definition of insanity? 

 

Let the States determine their own Marijuana laws, without federal interference. Or, as Rick Perry stated recently:

 

 

AUSTIN, TX — Texas Governor Rick Perry said Thursday that he believes states should be allowed to legalize marijuana and that, as governor, he has helped move Texas in the direction of decriminalizing marijuana.

 

U.S. News and World Report reported:

 

“‘I am a staunch promoter of the 10th Amendment,’ Perry said. ‘States should be able to set their own policies on abortion, same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization,’ he said, ‘then people will decide where they want to live.’†“On marijuana legalization, he said twice, ‘States should be allowed to make those decisions.’â€

 

According to a report by the Austin American-Statesman, Perry said:

 

“[A]fter 40 years of the war on drugs, I can’t change what happened in the past. What I can do as the governor of the second largest state in the nation is to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization and keeps people from going to prison and destroying their lives, and that’s what we’ve done over the last decade.â€

 

Link found here (the insert-link option doesn't work): http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/27347/texas-gov-rick-perry-states-allowed-legalize-marijuana/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

I agree that herbal products should be held to a higher, research standard, beyond simply stating on the bottle that the FDA does not support product claims.

 

Yet, what bothers me about medical Cannabis is when language sneaks into a bill stating that it can only be dispensed when "all other treatments have been exhausted." In other words, it comes back to patients not actually having a choice in their mode of treatment, even if a licensed healthcare provider believes that prescribing Cannabis, from the start, could be a better option for them (based upon efficacy, side effects that typically develop with other modes of treatment, etc).

 

In other words, this is another example of the Pharma Industry protecting its interests. Like I mentioned to Grieker a while back, I attended a pharmaceutical training several months ago, regarding the ethical limitations of discussing medications with clients, where I learned that, on average, a drug costs $2 billion to bring it to market and the FDA has a certain threshold for data that researchers must meet. So, routinely, to reduce costs and speed-up the drug getting to market, drug companies stop research at the low end of that threshold, cutting longitudinal studies short and leaving at least a portion of side effect information as an "educated guess" employing the legally defensible word "may." This, along with the fact that the Pharmaceutical industry pours tons of money into lobbying and campaign contributions, as opposed to the herbal industry.

 

So, who is the greater offender, here?

 

Bottom line: My suggestion that Cannabis be designated an herbal medicine, is not an attempt to avoid research scrutiny. Quite the contrary. Herbals should be held to a higher research standard, than they are today...and Cannabis, given its properties, should be held to research standards, even beyond what should be employed for herbals.

 

What I'm suggesting is that money talks and bullshit walks....and that anyone who thinks that big Pharma doesn't have a significant influence on the direction of whole-plant Cannabis research, is simply naive, at best. (Ever wonder why so much research is conducted on synthesized cannabinoids, already on the market, under the guise of "Cannabis research?" Just another notch in Pharma's bed post.)

 

So, the medical Cannabis industry shouldn't get its undies in such a bunch about the foot-dragging regarding approving research studies. It should, instead, primarily rely on well-designed research done by private interests or within other countries, like Israel, for example.

 

Screw big Pharma and its government lap dogs.

 

I've got a long list of gripes with the pharmaceutical industry, but assuming that drug money is the driving force behind opposition to this whole plant nonsense is absurd. And if the same standards as apply to Celebrex of Crestor were applied to "whole plant" marijuana, it WOULD NOT be on the market.

 

For palliative care, I don't think we need to apply such scrutiny. It seems relatively safe, and a real comfort to some very sick people. But when you start talking about treating disease, and using "whole plant" for mental illness or epilepsy, that's just nuts. "First, do no harm" is the ethical standard, and how the hell do you know you are doing no harm if you are giving someone a couple hundred different chemicals, none of which have been extensively tested. So for treating disease, when "all other treatments have been exhausted." seems a prudent precaution.

 

Like I said before, people die from seizures. No doubt, without that standard, some providers could be found that will trot out marijuana as a first line treatment, and people might die. Not hyperbole, not exaggeration, people might die.

 

For treating disease, you NEED TO KNOW what the hell you are giving someone, and with a whole range of chemicals in marijuana,even if the whole plant is useful,  you need to know which chemical is doing what. How else do you figure dosage? How else do you know if one constituent is doing the opposite of what you desire? They don't put moldy bread in capsules to treat "the clap".

 

"Sticking it to the man" doesn't seem like a very good argument for abandoning science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer

How about just changing the classification of pot to let the studies begin? Seems the logical thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelsa Doom

How about just changing the classification of pot to let the studies begin? Seems the logical thing to do.

That is reasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

I've got a long list of gripes with the pharmaceutical industry, but assuming that drug money is the driving force behind opposition to this whole plant nonsense is absurd. And if the same standards as apply to Celebrex of Crestor were applied to "whole plant" marijuana, it WOULD NOT be on the market.

 

For palliative care, I don't think we need to apply such scrutiny. It seems relatively safe, and a real comfort to some very sick people. But when you start talking about treating disease, and using "whole plant" for mental illness or epilepsy, that's just nuts. "First, do no harm" is the ethical standard, and how the hell do you know you are doing no harm if you are giving someone a couple hundred different chemicals, none of which have been extensively tested. So for treating disease, when "all other treatments have been exhausted." seems a prudent precaution.

 

Like I said before, people die from seizures. No doubt, without that standard, some providers could be found that will trot out marijuana as a first line treatment, and people might die. Not hyperbole, not exaggeration, people might die.

 

For treating disease, you NEED TO KNOW what the hell you are giving someone, and with a whole range of chemicals in marijuana,even if the whole plant is useful,  you need to know which chemical is doing what. How else do you figure dosage? How else do you know if one constituent is doing the opposite of what you desire? They don't put moldy bread in capsules to treat "the clap".

 

"Sticking it to the man" doesn't seem like a very good argument for abandoning science.

.....

How about just changing the classification of pot to let the studies begin? Seems the logical thing to do.

.....

That is reasonable

 

This is very interesting.

 

We end up with 4 people, from across the legalization spectrum, all saying the same thing: "Open up more whole-plant research!" 

 

So, the onus rests with the feds--the foot-dragger--to open that door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

.....

.....

 

This is very interesting.

 

We end up with 4 people, from across the legalization spectrum, all saying the same thing: "Open up more whole-plant research!" 

 

So, the onus rests with the feds--the foot-dragger--to open that door.

 

No. I think there should be more research on the chemicals found in marijuana. To work with "whole plant" in research makes no more sense than doing research using ground Pacific Yew to try to cure cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simpleton

.....

.....

 

This is very interesting.

 

We end up with 4 people, from across the legalization spectrum, all saying the same thing: "Open up more whole-plant research!" 

 

So, the onus rests with the feds--the foot-dragger--to open that door.

At least we know there won't be any politicizing of research like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

No. I think there should be more research on the chemicals found in marijuana. To work with "whole plant" in research makes no more sense than doing research using ground Pacific Yew to try to cure cancer.

 

So, let's keep doing the research on the chemicals. (Just to be clear, we're talking curative properties.)

 

Then, to test your whole-plant hypothesis, I want to see comparison studies, using vaporizing, oils, and tinctures.

 

At least we know there won't be any politicizing of research like that.

 

Kinda like the government-funded, chronic-abuse studies, that are used to justify prohibition of all use.

 

As one commentator on FOX put it, "We can't childproof America."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

I like this NVH.

 

That's right, most "legalize weed" folks are those that just want to smoke.

Washington taxpayers love legalization... DUIs have gone up, yippee.

 

So, think about it: Cannabis prohibition has created the pot black market. The pot black market has killed a lot of people. What we're doing isn't fulfilling the promise that Nixon touted about the war on Cannabis. I doubt that a logical person would disagree with those points. Legalization is the only reasonable alternative. (Decriminalization isn't because there's no legal market.) Legalize the supply and demand. License shop owners, processors, and growers. Take billions from the underground. Even a small hole will drain a bucket, eventually. 

 

So what? DUIs went up. Who didn't expect that to happen?

 

Are you suggesting that it's possible to idiot-proof America? Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nvh

So, let's keep doing the research on the chemicals. (Just to be clear, we're talking curative properties.)

 

Then, to test your whole-plant hypothesis, I want to see comparison studies, using vaporizing, oils, and tinctures.

 

What does marijuana CURE?

 

When you are looking for something to lower interocular pressure in Glaucoma or serve as an anti-seizure agent,  getting stoned would be considered a side effect. So if you found a cannibanoid that is effective, why the hell would you want to give someone all the cannibanoids that aren't, and causing that side effect, and quite possibly others?

 

And if you have a belief that there is some magic involved in giving a whole range of molecules, then it would certainly be up to the believers to prove it. It's not true for any other organic source of a drug, so it's very unlikely that marijuana is any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finchfeeder

What does marijuana CURE?

 

When you are looking for something to lower interocular pressure in Glaucoma or serve as an anti-seizure agent,  getting stoned would be considered a side effect. So if you found a cannibanoid that is effective, why the hell would you want to give someone all the cannibanoids that aren't, and causing that side effect, and quite possibly others?

 

Yea, let's talk about cures and side effects.

 

1. No medications cure Glaucoma (notice the blurb at the end, with no supporting evidence) or Epileptic seizures (for example). So, placing such an expectation on medical Cannabis treatments is not only unfair and unrealistic, but, it begins to look like a strawman argument, because I haven't seen any reputable sources making that claim.

 

2. Medications used for Glaucoma have a slew of negative side effects (found here). My favorites are these for Osmotic agents--"Nausea, fluid accumulation in the heart and/or lungs (congestive heart failure and/or pulmonary edema), bleeding in the brain, and kidney problems" and this list of side effects for Trusopt. Just lovely.

 

3. Medications used for Epileptic seizures have plenty of negative side effects, as well (found here). My favorites are these: "Decreased appetite, weight loss, inability to sleep, headache, and depression....irritability, anxiety, and confusion....dizziness, sleepiness (somnolence), dry mouth, peripheral edema, blurred vision, weight gain, and difficulty with concentration/attention....fatigue, slurred speech, acne, rash, and increased hair (hirsutism). Over the long term, the drug can cause bone thinning." Just lovely.

 

4. The modes of administration for medical Cannabis that I mentioned previously (vaporizing, oils, and tinctures) significantly reduce harmful chemicals (like carcinogens), reduce the negative side effects, and helps to isolate the cannabinoids. For example, this study, funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, found that vaporizing, as a mode of administration, produced "virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device" and was superior to medications available in pill form because they "tend to provide patients with more THC than they need for optimal therapeutic effect and increase side effects." (If you have a beef with the research structure, take it up with the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, which published the research.)

 

And if you have a belief that there is some magic involved in giving a whole range of molecules, then it would certainly be up to the believers to prove it. It's not true for any other organic source of a drug, so it's very unlikely that marijuana is any different.

 

Again, the "magic" stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...