Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Widdershins

Seanachai wrote: »

I wasn't referring to Youtube or 'Natural news', I think the reluctance for legalisation for recreational use (I'm not a user) stems from false information and hysteria around high THC strains and dubious links to mental illness. The Western world seems to be heading towards legalisation but the inevitable will probably be delayed here to the absolute limit.

The links to mental illness aren't remotely dubious. This article is about new research with very serious conclusions about a connection to psychosis, brain damage, alzheimers and impairment in the memory and learning regions of the brain.
http://neurosciencenews.com/alzheimers-hippocampus-blood-marijuana-5611/

pure.conya

jh79 wrote: »

Is this research published?

You'll find all the info in the link I provided to set you on the path of discovering the decades of Israeli research out there for yourself

nozzferrahhtoo

^ The second comment on that link above is useful:

This study is an example of how not to use statistics. The majority of the cannabis user population used had comorbidities (depression ADHD) well known to be implicated with altered hippocampus function (deficits in general). Rather than be properly compared to equivalent non-cannabis using controls with psychiatric conditions (or use cannabis users without such comorbidities to compare with healthy controls) they compared these individuals to “healthy adult” controls who lack the psychiatric conditions (this was an exclusion criteria!!!). This is called sampling bias and by doing so they created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The more likely but less SEXY conclusion is that the comorbidities are implicated in altered hippocampal perfusion which is consistent with a huge body of literature! You could literally re-do the study using this same psychiatric population with any variable (jelly bean use, taco ingestion) and as long as you found healthy controls who lacked the variable of interest to compare with you would show a statistically significant variation.

The only thing this study should be used for is an example of sampling bias and flawed design.

Also I would have questions of my own. When they say "Low blood flow in the hippocampus in marijuana users reliably distinguished marijuana users from controls" what do they mean? How did they verify their reliable identification? Did they identify them and then ascertain that the users did indeed use it? Well what about the ones where they DID NOT identify? Did they also ask them if they DID NOT use?

And of the ones they identified "reliably" as users.... what LEVEL of use were they engaging in? Were they "reliably identifying" users of all levels? Or was their "reliance" entirely predicated on heavy abuse of the substance?

Too many questions, not enough substance from that link for me I am afraid.

Jayop

Anyone debating this with jh is wasting their time. He'll repeat the same line over and over, try to dismiss any evidence you provide while point blank lying about things thats been said. I'm not sure of the goal but it's the same act in every cannabis thread.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Anyone debating this with jh is wasting their time. He'll repeat the same line over and over, try to dismiss any evidence you provide while point blank lying about things thats been said. I'm not sure of the goal but it's the same act in every cannabis thread.

I was happy to debate it with you but you refused to back up any of your claims.

If you disagree with me you could simply point out why and provide a link to the study that backs your point?

Attack the post not the poster.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ The second comment on that link above is useful:



Also I would have questions of my own. When they say "Low blood flow in the hippocampus in marijuana users reliably distinguished marijuana users from controls" what do they mean? How did they verify their reliable identification? Did they identify them and then ascertain that the users did indeed use it? Well what about the ones where they DID NOT identify? Did they also ask them if they DID NOT use?

And of the ones they identified "reliably" as users.... what LEVEL of use were they engaging in? Were they "reliably identifying" users of all levels? Or was their "reliance" entirely predicated on heavy abuse of the substance?

Too many questions, not enough substance from that link for me I am afraid.

I'm not sure if it's a previous link or mine that you're referring to but as to your last question they refer to daily use and show an image of the affected brain of an 18 year old daily user. Is that a comment below the article on that website or a comment in the article, or a comment here on boards? Where is the majority of users having co morbid conditions mentioned? co morbid to what? Does it say that applies to those in the study?
The research into that should in itself be interesting.

You might be able to find the full information online but it's not usually covered that indepth in articles like this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

You might be able to find the full information online but it's not usually covered that indepth in articles like this.

Indeed. I generally try to cite original studies myself where possible, rather than media articles ABOUT the studies for that very reason.

The comment in question is just below the article itself. The original study abstract opens with a description that includes " Feature selection with a minimum redundancy maximum relevancy (mRMR) identified predictive regions in a subset of marijuana users (n = 436) with reduced psychiatric co-morbidities. "

It does set a warning bell off for me. In your link they said "involving 26,268 patients who came for evaluation of complex, treatment resistant issues to one of nine outpatient neuropsychiatric clinics across the United States"

So they were comparing patients who showed up with "complex" issues to "healthy controls". That seems a bit odd to me. When you want to test for a factor you try to eliminate AS MANY other factors as you can to isolate your test factor.

So should they not be comparing HEALTHY people using against HEALTHY people not using? Rather than comparing HEALTHY people not using with users who already have happened to show up with "complex issues" of a medical nature? How is this comparing like with like, or am I missing something in my admittedly cursory speed reading of the article and the original study?

The method also said "Persons with a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder by DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria (n = 982) were compared to controls" which also rammifies my fear that the "findings" are based not really on users but ABusers of the drug.

pure.conya

jh79 wrote: »

Is this research published?

Here's a documentary about the Israeli cannabis research

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PWabJ6DS55Q

seamus

Widdershins wrote: »

The links to mental illness aren't remotely dubious.

No, but they are poorly understood. With marijuana being strictly illegal for so long, the body of evidence on it is relatively immature.

So there's a lot of half-truths and potential correlations cited as fact.

Ultimately the focus should not be on "is cannabis 100% safe", rather it should be "How does it stack up in general".

If public health policy was to be based on examining the effects of daily use of chemicals, pretty much everything bar water would be banned or tightly regulated. Everything causes some level of damage under daily consumption. Studies should focus on what that damage is and whether it's sufficient to be a cause for public concern or if it's a reasonable risk to allow the individual to take for themselves, once suitably aware of it.

For example, one commentator on the radio yesterday suggested a 10% dependency rate for it, saying that's "very high". Which one could say it is. But alcohol is at 15% and tobacco at 30%.

The problem with the debate is that the bar for marijuana has been set unreasonably high. For some people, they oppose it unless it can be proven that marijuana is no less than perfect and completely harmless.

Yet they would never say the same about the thousands of chemicals which have and do get approved for medicinal or even general consumption.

Proving that it's harmful doesn't prove that it shouldn't be legalised.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. I generally try to cite original studies myself where possible, rather than media articles ABOUT the studies for that very reason.

The comment in question is just below the article itself. The original study abstract opens with a description that includes " Feature selection with a minimum redundancy maximum relevancy (mRMR) identified predictive regions in a subset of marijuana users (n = 436) with reduced psychiatric co-morbidities. "

It does set a warning bell off for me. In your link they said "involving 26,268 patients who came for evaluation of complex, treatment resistant issues to one of nine outpatient neuropsychiatric clinics across the United States"

So they were comparing patients who showed up with "complex" issues to "healthy controls". That seems a bit odd to me. When you want to test for a factor you try to eliminate AS MANY other factors as you can to isolate your test factor.

So should they not be comparing HEALTHY people using against HEALTHY people not using? Rather than comparing HEALTHY people not using with users who already have happened to show up with "complex issues" of a medical nature? How is this comparing like with like, or am I missing something in my admittedly cursory speed reading of the article and the original study?

The method also said "Persons with a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder by DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria (n = 982) were compared to controls" which also rammifies my fear that the "findings" are based not really on users but ABusers of the drug.

Without the person commenting below the article citing where their additional information is from it's very hard to judge. Another comment further down presumes that 90% of alzheimers sufferers never used cannabis in their life. Again they don't provide any details of the basis on which they're making that statement.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yup, thats why I read what I could of the original report too. It just strikes me as very odd to compare people who have "use disorders" with entirely healthy people. Let alone comparing people who have already shown up with other "complex issues" with normal people. The whole target of such studies is generally to try and compare like with like as much as possible. So I would consider very suspect a study which does the opposite.

Take alcohol for example. If you wanted to consider the effect of average alcohol use with no alcohol use, you would not do so by comparing complete tee-totallers with raging alcoholics.

Firstly you would not be studying anything useful given the vast majority of alcohol drinkers are periodic and moderate.

Secondly because extreme use of it comes with other factors that would distort your results. For example extreme alcohol use correlates with highly variable, unhealthy and restricted eating and sleeping habits. Both of which would massively color the results you measure from the sample set. So you would be forced to normalize your results for all those variables, even if such a thing could be done.

So a warning bell should go off when you find that for the purposes of this study their study group constitutes people with "cannabis use disorder". Especially if one is citing the study to back up a statement like "The links to mental illness aren't remotely dubious."

Seanachai

Widdershins wrote: »

The links to mental illness aren't remotely dubious. This article is about new research with very serious conclusions about a connection to psychosis, brain damage, alzheimers and impairment in the memory and learning regions of the brain.
http://neurosciencenews.com/alzheimers-hippocampus-blood-marijuana-5611/

I could imagine this being the case if the user still has a young, developing brain, if it were legalised I'd like to see an over 21 age limit. I can't see any studies that show that moderate adult users have a higher incidence of mental illness though.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yup, thats why I read what I could of the original report too. It just strikes me as very odd to compare people who have "use disorders" with entirely healthy people. Let alone comparing people who have already shown up with other "complex issues" with normal people. The whole target of such studies is generally to try and compare like with like as much as possible. So I would consider very suspect a study which does the opposite.

Take alcohol for example. If you wanted to consider the effect of average alcohol use with no alcohol use, you would not do so by comparing complete tee-totallers with raging alcoholics.

Firstly you would not be studying anything useful given the vast majority of alcohol drinkers are periodic and moderate.

Secondly because extreme use of it comes with other factors that would distort your results. For example extreme alcohol use correlates with highly variable, unhealthy and restricted eating and sleeping habits. Both of which would massively color the results you measure from the sample set. So you would be forced to normalize your results for all those variables, even if such a thing could be done.

So a warning bell should go off when you find that for the purposes of this study their study group constitutes people with "cannabis use disorder". Especially if one is citing the study to back up a statement like "The links to mental illness aren't remotely dubious."

Fair enough if you've actually read some of this study. I thought you were only referring the the first comment beneath the article.
I agree that it seems strange if they selected only people who were already mentally unhealthy and perceived to be predisposed to cannabis related disorders. Huge amount of conflicting stuff online.

ScumLord

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Well Mushrooms will take you well out what ever space your head is in pretty quickly. Ecstasy would be a safer option I reckon. You'd be hugging the Luas rather than trying to stop it with one hand.

God no, MDMA is a serious drain on the body. Anyone who's every taken them will know about the after effects, anyone who did them regularly, or knows someone who did them regularly will know they can have really affect your brain's chemistry. It's fine for recreational use every now and again but I wouldn't recommend anyone take them on a regular basis. Psychedelics are magic in the way they end. One minute you're flying high the next it's over, you're just back to normal as if nothing happened. No hangovers, no mid week blues. While the high is extremely intense the after effects are minimal.

InTheTrees wrote: »

As you can see from this thread opinions on medicinal use are divided. The research is only really beginning.

Depp wrote: »

also to anyone championing recreational legalization, just be prepared to pay 8-10 times more for it when taxes on it come into effect

The research isn't as much just beginning as it is just beginning to do serious research. It's why I said science is avoiding the issue earlier in the thread. Politicians have been trying to get science to say cannabis is bad for us since just before prohibition, right up to the 90s. It's only after decades of science being unable to prove cannabis is definitely bad for you that we can now start to do some proper science. It's not we haven't been doing research, it's just been heavily biased towards showing cannabis is bad.

seamus wrote: »

If public health policy was to be based on examining the effects of daily use of chemicals, pretty much everything bar water would be banned or tightly regulated.

Not even water is completely safe, most MDMA related deaths were actually from water intoxication. Drink more than 4 litres of water in 1 sitting and you'll die. Even oxygen is toxic in high amounts.

Nothing is safe, everything comes with it's own dangers, and the fact about cannabis is, it's not 100% safe. But it's not nearly harmful enough that we should make it illegal, because organised crime is far worse for everybody than cannabis abuse ever could be.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

I was happy to debate it with you but you refused to back up any of your claims.

If you disagree with me you could simply point out why and provide a link to the study that backs your point?

Attack the post not the poster.

I and others backed up the claims we actually made plenty. However you continue to ignore evidence provided, dismiss it without looking at it, or as on most cases argue that claims were made by posters that they simply never said.

Impossible to attack the post when the poster who made it will ignore your rebuttal and continue to post the same rubbish over and over.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

Huge amount of conflicting stuff online.

There is. It bothers me actually that given the important of data in the modern age, that a module of some kind is not on our school curriculum training students in the fundamentals of parsing reports they read online.

I do not mean a powerful indepth grounding in epidemiology and statistics and the language of science that would be required to read, as I often do, entire science studies and understand every bit.

But the basics of being able to spot blatant biases, poor methodologies and selection criteria, what the concept of controls, normalization and "n" values actually are, and so on.

Hell even a module based solely and entirely on Ben Goldacres book "Bad Science" would, with a little work, produce a student population with cursory skills far beyond what even most "science writers" in broad and small sheet news papers appear to have.

But when first reading a study, let alone citing a study to back up an argument, it should be as second nature as merely BREATHING is to first ask yourself "What is this study comparing to what, is it like with like, and what were the selection criteria of the test group and the control group".

Because I file probably 60 to 75% of studies I read under "dubious" on that criteria alone.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is. It bothers me actually that given the important of data in the modern age, that a module of some kind is not on our school curriculum training students in the fundamentals of parsing reports they read online.

I do not mean a powerful indepth grounding in epidemiology and statistics and the language of science that would be required to read, as I often do, entire science studies and understand every bit.

But the basics of being able to spot blatant biases, poor methodologies and selection criteria, what the concept of controls, normalization and "n" values actually are, and so on.

Hell even a module based solely and entirely on Ben Goldacres book "Bad Science" would, with a little work, produce a student population with cursory skills far beyond what even most "science writers" in broad and small sheet news papers appear to have.

But when first reading a study, let alone citing a study to back up an argument, it should be as second nature as merely BREATHING is to first ask yourself "What is this study comparing to what, is it like with like, and what were the selection criteria of the test group and the control group".

Because I file probably 60 to 75% of studies I read under "dubious" on that criteria alone.

It's a good idea but to be honest with you all the training in he world goes out the window when you're too tired to bother
I know too many people who are worse off for smoking cannabis regularly to be satisfied yet, but I'll admit I wasn't at all thorough about what I posted.

jh79

pure.conya wrote: »

You'll find all the info in the link I provided to set you on the path of discovering the decades of Israeli research out there for yourself

The study using the high CBD clone (Avidekel) was only on mice and published in a low impact journal.

The study on Crohn's was too short so further research needed.

I don't see much else of interest.

https://medreleaf.com/research-overview

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea its the "regularly" bit that gets me I guess. Just about every friend of mine that drinks alcohol for example does so AT MOST once a week. Sometimes once every two weeks.

The medical impact is likely to be different to someone who is drinking daily.

Both of those are "regular" so what "regularly" even means for me is a little vague. And even if it was not vague "regularly" does not say a thing about QUANTITY. A glass of wine a day is "regular" drinking. So too is getting blottoed every day on a bottle of whisky. I would call both of those people "regular" drinkers, but clearly the differences between them are immense.

So for a study to be interesting, to ME at least, on cannabis or alcohol or anything else..... it would have to FIRST establish what the average consumption rate AND quantity of the majority of users is or would be........ and then compare HEALTHY groups of users at THAT rate (or slightly higher for sakes of arguments and fairness and averages)..... with HEALTHY control groups of people not using it at all.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

I and others backed up the claims we actually made plenty. However you continue to ignore evidence provided, dismiss it without looking at it, or as on most cases argue that claims were made by posters that they simply never said.

Impossible to attack the post when the poster who made it will ignore your rebuttal and continue to post the same rubbish over and over.

No you didn't, you claimed to have provided links alright but they were no where to be found.

Again if you disagree , make your point and back it up and i'll respond to it.

ScumLord

Jayop wrote: »

I and others backed up the claims we actually made plenty. However you continue to ignore evidence provided, dismiss it without looking at it, or as on most cases argue that claims were made by posters that they simply never said.

Impossible to attack the post when the poster who made it will ignore your rebuttal and continue to post the same rubbish over and over.

To be fair to jh79 he's saying there's no proof that cannabis has real medical value outside of mild pain relief, and he has a point, there isn't really anything. I don't think there has been anything definitive, but I don't think the research to date is capable of telling us anything definitive. We need some real research that isn't biased by trying to prove cannabis should remain a restricted substance.

I also think science may show that cannabis isn't the wonder drug we'd like it to be. Especially not when you're smoking it. If it does become a medicine it will probably be a pill with no high.

seamus

ScumLord wrote: »

If it does become a medicine it will probably be a pill with no high.

The two often aren't separable. "Do not operate heavy machinery", etc.

Many medicines at present induce a high or an altered state of mind. I don't think they'll go to any great effort to remove this from a cannabis-based medicine, and instead list it as a side-effect.

jh79

seamus wrote: »

The two often aren't separable. "Do not operate heavy machinery", etc.

Many medicines at present induce a high or an altered state of mind. I don't think they'll go to any great effort to remove this from a cannabis-based medicine, and instead list it as a side-effect.

It will be a pill because it is not particularly potent so concentrations higher than those present in the plant will probably be required or a synthetic analogue will prove to be more potent.

Again just my opinion but this tends to be the case with plant based medicine and why the vast majority of herbal remedies don't work.

ScumLord

seamus wrote: »

The two often aren't separable. "Do not operate heavy machinery", etc.

Many medicines at present induce a high or an altered state of mind. I don't think they'll go to any great effort to remove this from a cannabis-based medicine, and instead list it as a side-effect.

I think the high is an integral part of it's usefulness as a pain reliever.

jh79 wrote: »

It will be a pill because it is not particularly potent so concentrations higher than those present in the plant will probably be required or a synthetic analogue will prove to be more potent.

I'd be surprised if you'd need more than a plants worth. 0.3g of plant material is enough to get the average person really high. Plus modern strains can be made to be really potent.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the high is an integral part of it's usefulness as a pain reliever.

I'd be surprised if you'd need more than a plants worth. 0.3g of plant material is enough to get the average person really high. Plus modern strains can be made to be really potent.

It could be i was just making a general comment.

Water John

79, where do come up with the generalisation, that 'the vast majority of herbal remedies don't work'?
You look for scientific proof, on the one hand, but lob this in at the end of your post.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

It could be i was just making a general comment.

Well now that you know that cannabis plants are very potent you can be less general.

meeeeh

I don't really care if marihuana becomes legal but is there any more proof about it's medical benefits than it's for homeopathy?

Jayop

ScumLord wrote: »

To be fair to jh79 he's saying there's no proof that cannabis has real medical value outside of mild pain relief, and he has a point, there isn't really anything. I don't think there has been anything definitive, but I don't think the research to date is capable of telling us anything definitive. We need some real research that isn't biased by trying to prove cannabis should remain a restricted substance.

I also think science may show that cannabis isn't the wonder drug we'd like it to be. Especially not when you're smoking it. If it does become a medicine it will probably be a pill with no high.

To be fair to him nothing. I've posted multiple links backing up claims I've made. Many time and what he does is ignore them and then later as in the post above ask you to post them again. In the other thread we went at it he was the same rubbish asking me to repost a link that he said I'd never posted and he couldn't find it. It was on the previous page and I told him this over and over. His only function in these discussions is to try to cause havoc in them.

ScumLord

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't really care if marihuana becomes legal but is there any more proof about it's medical benefits than it's for homeopathy?

Yes. Homeopathy is complete nonsense. At the very least cannabis has pain relief, other than that we have to wait and see.