Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

turnikett1

nice_guy80 wrote: »

talk to someone who lives in California...
they will tell you the damage it does after 2 or 3 generations of use
complete potheads and stoners unable to do anything with their lives

I voted for "Only legalise it for medicinal and industrial use."

Hmm. I wonder what Carl Sagan, Michael Phelps or Bill Gates would have to say about it

(protip: they're all lifelong stoners)

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

You couldn't find something on the last page after being told it was there. I doubt you'll find anything.

Quote: Jayop;
"Cannabis has not been proven to cause psychosis. In kids it may magnify pre existing conditions, but it's not causal and it does much more good than harm."


ME;
"What "good" are you referring to? I haven't come across any for inhaled or consuned cannabis especially if the criteria is "causal"."

The link was cancer.gov

pure.conya

InTheTrees wrote: »

Interesting to note that only one of those medicinal strains (products?) they list is low in THC. All the others are regular strengths which will make a person "high".

"Medicinal" doesnt just mean high CBD and no THC.

Well spotted, it has been reported plenty that the full complement of chemicals are needed to gain relief, despite what big pharma would like us to believe, at the end of the day the plant has been cultivated and used in its full form as a wonderful medicine for many thousands of years

Grayson

pure.conya wrote: »

Well spotted, it has been reported plenty that the full complement of chemicals are needed to gain relief, despite what big pharma would like us to believe, at the end of the day the plant has been cultivated and used in its full form as a wonderful medicine for many thousands of years

And if you take a look at the menu from US dispensaries you'll see loads of different vape pens etc that come with varying levels of each.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Quote: Jayop;
"Cannabis has not been proven to cause psychosis. In kids it may magnify pre existing conditions, but it's not causal and it does much more good than harm."


ME;
"What "good" are you referring to? I haven't come across any for inhaled or consuned cannabis especially if the criteria is "causal"."

The link was cancer.gov

What was the good I referred to? You seem to be presuming I was saying good regarding psychological issues which I wasn't. Good as in pain relief, effectiveness in preventing and controlling seizures,helping with nausea. All good things don't you think


Keep on strawing.

Clockwork Owl

My other half advised today that I could be eligible for medicinal cannabis if the bill passes, as it has been reported to alleviate the symptoms of Crohn's Disease. I've smoked only very rarely, but some of the tests are pretty persuasive. In particular, one saw a 'clinical response' in 10 of 11 participants (compared to only 4 of 10 placebos reporting any change in their symptoms) and 5 of 11 reported 'total remission'.

Considering I'm currently stuck on three rounds of pills per day with only minor changes to the symptoms, I'd be lying if I said that wouldn't be a very, very welcome change.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

What was the good I referred to? You seem to be presuming I was saying good regarding psychological issues which I wasn't. Good as in pain relief, effectiveness in preventing and controlling seizures,helping with nausea. All good things don't you think


Keep on strawing.

Where are the links to those studies?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Where are the links to those studies?

They've been posted countless times as you well know.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

They've been posted countless times as you well know.

So not on the link from the other thread as you claimed?

cancer.gov?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

So not on the link from the other thread as you claimed?

cancer.gov?

The cancer.gov link that said exactly what I said that studies have shown that Cannabis and Cannabinoids have effeciveness in pain relief and anti-nausea?

Yet you still seek to dismiss them.

Amazing!

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Here's cancer.org saying the same thing.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer

Here's NCBI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/

This is the last part of their summery...

Given their multi-modality effects upon various nociceptive pathways, their adjunctive side benefits, the efficacy and safety profiles to date of specific preparations in advanced clinical trials, and the complementary mechanisms and advantages of their combination with opioid therapy, the future for cannabinoid therapeutics appears very bright, indeed.

Peer reviewed study into anti-nausea with smoked cannabis.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000137#answer-id-008929
(the phd link to the original study is at the bottom.)

Control of epileptic seizures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911937/#B15

Marijuana was documented as protective against a first-onset seizure in men.15 Cannabis had therapeutic benefit for both provoked and unprovoked seizures in men.16 Smoking marijuana can precipitate an ictal event and be a proconvulsant.5,17 In a clinical vignette, medical marijuana was administered for control of focal epilepsy in two adult subjects and that reportedly resulted in near complete seizure control.18 Upon discontinuing marijuana, both patients experienced exacerbation of convulsions, documented on video-electroencephalography.

Now go ahead, dismiss, disrespect and otherwise come up with strawmen arguments that I never made so you don't have to admit you were given links to back up the actual claims I made.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

The cancer.gov link that said exactly what I said that studies have shown that Cannabis and Cannabinoids have effeciveness in pain relief and anti-nausea?

Yet you still seek to dismiss them.

Amazing!

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Here's cancer.org saying the same thing.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer

Here's NCBI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/

This is the last part of their summery...


Peer reviewed study into anti-nausea with smoked cannabis.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000137#answer-id-008929
(the phd link to the original study is at the bottom.)

Control of epileptic seizures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911937/#B15




Now go ahead, dismiss, disrespect and otherwise come up with strawmen arguments that I never made so you don't have to admit you were given links to back up the actual claims I made.

At least your being more specific now but that's not what you said in the other thread.

Not important so back on topic

Here are what the Cochrane Review said. They have another one on the way for pain relief.

http://onlinelibrary.w...8.CD009270.pub3/full

"No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy"

http://onlinelibrary.w...8.CD009464.pub2/full

"Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions."

bodhrandude

C'mon keep the thread fun and stop being so serious.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

The cancer.gov link that said exactly what I said that studies have shown that Cannabis and Cannabinoids have effeciveness in pain relief and anti-nausea?

Yet you still seek to dismiss them.

Amazing!

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Here's cancer.org saying the same thing.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer

Here's NCBI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/

This is the last part of their summery...


Peer reviewed study into anti-nausea with smoked cannabis.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000137#answer-id-008929
(the phd link to the original study is at the bottom.)

Control of epileptic seizures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911937/#B15




Now go ahead, dismiss, disrespect and otherwise come up with strawmen arguments that I never made so you don't have to admit you were given links to back up the actual claims I made.

Pain is its best bet but even still the evidence is considered poor.

This is an article form "The Cannabist"


"The strongest evidence is for chronic pain and for muscle stiffness in multiple sclerosis; the authors of the review recommend more research"

http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/06/23/medical-marijuana-laws-research-analysis-illnesses-unproven/36604/

drunkmonkey

Seanachai wrote: »

I think it should be 21, but I get where you're coming from

What's the penalties for under 21's?

darkpagandeath

Have we had they will be on Crack by the end of the week yet ?

pure.conya

Grayson wrote: »

And if you take a look at the menu from US dispensaries you'll see loads of different vape pens etc that come with varying levels of each.

Jack herer is/was the no 1 weed in California and its got a healthy thc/cbd ratio going on

pure.conya

bodhrandude wrote: »

C'mon keep the thread fun and stop being so serious.

Thank God for my reefer man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPM85MCgqXo

Grayson

pure.conya wrote: »

Jack herer is/was the no 1 weed in California and its got a healthy thc/cbd ratio going on

For just recreational use I'd love that sort of thing. No smoking and everything is the exact measurement you want. So you can just take a few puffs off something nice and mild and mellow a bit.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

At least your being more specific now but that's not what you said in the other thread.

."

Exactly what I said you'd do. If the mods here had any balls you'd be reprimanded for this ****e. You're a ****ing joke.

deco nate

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Have we had they will be on Crack by the end of the week yet ?

First few page's

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Exactly what I said you'd do. If the mods here had any balls you'd be reprimanded for this ****e. You're a ****ing joke.

Imagine that , i'm backing up my opinions that weed has no proven medicianl benefits with Cochrane reviews, it's terrible i don't know how i get away with it!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Inhaling any type of smoke into the lungs is bad news.

I was never a big weed smoker but was a big cig smoker from the ages of 17 to 27. In the past few months I've discovered vaping and it has changed my life. I haven't smoked a fag since September of this year.

I'm still reliant on Nicotine but I'm tobacco free. :):):):)

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Imagine that , i'm backing up my opinions that weed has no proven medicianl benefits with Cochrane reviews, it's terrible i don't know how i get away with it!

Imagine saying repeatedly that you'd lie and dismiss when given evidence that you don't like and then you do. Shocking stuff.

Anyway, you're clearly a shill of some sort and ice had enough of your bull****.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Imagine saying repeatedly that you'd lie and dismiss when given evidence that you don't like and then you do. Shocking stuff.

Anyway, you're clearly a shill of some sort and ice had enough of your bull****.

What's wrong with the the links i've provided?

If you actually read your own link it does not prove anything.

So the plan is to rant because you can't support your claims?

Jimoslimos

Jayop wrote: »

Imagine saying repeatedly that you'd lie and dismiss when given evidence that you don't like and then you do. Shocking stuff.

Anyway, you're clearly a shill of some sort and ice had enough of your bull****.

So a shill is anyone who disagrees with your opinion and provides reputable evidence to back it up (instead of cherry-picking a few studies that support your argument)?

For what it's worth I don't have that many issues with legalisation or decriminalisation for recreational use (although many of the economical claims are fanciful at best). I do have an issue with it being piggybacked onto supposed medical use - especially since many of those benefits are vague to say the least and no better than current medications. That's not to say that it absolutely won't have a place in medicine (after all a more diverse range of medications - including those for pain relief is a good thing), but there needs to be a mechanism for controlled dosage and release, say pill form.

I'd also take a dim view of any medical practitioner who repeatedly prescribes any drug with the knowledge that it is being used for recreational use.

Jayop

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So a shill is anyone who disagrees with your opinion and provides reputable evidence to back it up (instead of cherry-picking a few studies that support your argument)?

For what it's worth I don't have that many issues with legalisation or decriminalisation for recreational use (although many of the economical claims are fanciful at best). I do have an issue with it being piggybacked onto supposed medical use - especially since many of those benefits are vague to say the least and no better than current medications. That's not to say that it absolutely won't have a place in medicine (after all a more diverse range of medications - including those for pain relief is a good thing), but there needs to be a mechanism for controlled dosage and release, say pill form.

I'd also take a dim view of any medical practitioner who repeatedly prescribes any drug with the knowledge that it is being used for recreational use.

No a shill is someone who disrupts a thread and constructive discussion to ruin any chance of someone else getting their point across. I provided evidence to back my points up. Rather than discuss them or try to provide reasons why they are wrong they were dismissed out of hand exactly like I said they would be repeatedly before hand.

Jimoslimos

Jayop wrote: »

No a shill is someone who disrupts a thread and constructive discussion to ruin any chance of someone else getting their point across. I provided evidence to back my points up. Rather than discuss them or try to provide reasons why they are wrong they were dismissed out of hand exactly like I said they would be repeatedly before hand.

No, you cherry-picked sources that happened to fit your view. That's not evidence. At best it is ignorance, at worst manipulating data.

jh79 provided links to Cochrane reviews, which are highly regarded in evidence based medicine which comprehensively trumps your sources.

By the way quoting "NCBI" as a source is incorrect. They run several databases, some of which are repositories to publicly available abstracts and journals - that is no indicator to their quality. It would be similar to quoting Dublin Corporation for a book you picked up in the library.

Jayop

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, you cherry-picked sources that happened to fit your view. That's not evidence. At best it is ignorance, at worst manipulating data.

jh79 provided links to Cochrane reviews, which are highly regarded in evidence based medicine which comprehensively trumps your sources.

By the way quoting "NCBI" as a source is incorrect. They run several databases, some of which are repositories to publicly available abstracts and journals - that is no indicator to their quality. It would be similar to quoting Dublin Corporation for a book you picked up in the library.

The point isn't the strength or otherwise of my sources. If they're poor then let him explain why rather than simply dismiss them by saying it wasn't what I had claimed when it was.

Of course I pick sources that back up my argument. To do otherwise would be retarded.

And the ncbi fully source and reference everything they say. It's all listed at the bottom of the page if you take a look so it's a strong source.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

The point isn't the strength or otherwise of my sources. If they're poor then let him explain why rather than simply dismiss them by saying it wasn't what I had claimed when it was.

Of course I pick sources that back up my argument. To do otherwise would be retarded.

And the ncbi fully source and reference everything they say. It's all listed at the bottom of the page if you take a look so it's a strong source.

Your aggressive posting style makes having a genuine discussion difficult. Tone it down a bit.

Anyways your link only showed that cannabis might have medicinal benefits.

You claimed the good outweighed the bad and the bad didn't prove causality? Isn't that correct? Well the Cochrane review people decided the studies available were not strong enough and therefore you cannot say weed has medicinal benefits in these particular areas.

So what are the proven benefits of weed? And what is the evidence for these benefits?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Your aggressive posting style makes having a genuine discussion difficult. Tone it down a bit.

Anyways your link only showed that cannabis might have medicinal benefits.

You claimed the good outweighed the bad and the bad didn't prove causality? Isn't that correct? Well the Cochrane review people decided the studies available were not strong enough and therefore you cannot say weed has medicinal benefits in thise particular areas.

So what are the proven benefits of weed? And what is the evidence for these benefits?

I'll post whatever way I like and unless you have moderator under your name don't bother telling me how to post.

You still haven't gone through the links I've given and said where the problems are. I gave links to specific studies that showed the results I claimed.

Carry on dismissing though. Good job.