Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Options
1101113151667

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    Here are some reviews for the use of marijuana in its various forms;

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009270.pub3/full

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

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007204.pub2/full

    "This review finds no evidence that cannabinoids are effective in the improvement of disturbed behaviour in dementia or in the treatment of other symptoms of dementia."

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005175.pub3/full

    "Despite dronabinol being registered by at least some medicines regulatory authorities for the treatment of AIDS-associated anorexia, and some jurisdictions making allowances for the "medical" use of marijuana by patients with HIV/AIDS, evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking."

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.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."

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2/full

    "We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia."

    Here are the Cochrane reviews i found.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    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.

    The reasons you are looking for are in the reviews. That is the whole point of them.

    So what are the proven medicinal benefits of marijuana? Let me quess, you posted millions of links to them already? It's up to me to find them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Cochrane, didn't take much research to see that they can be bought.

    The Cochrane peer reviewers (at least 4 out of 7 of which had undisclosed financial ties to the drug companies that make anticoagulants) delayed four years over releasing this review for publication.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994886/

    From the Dublin corporation website.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    jh79 wrote: »
    The reasons you are looking for are in the reviews. That is the whole point of them.

    So what are the proven medicinal benefits of marijuana? Let me quess, you posted millions of links to them already? It's up to me to find them?

    I posted 4 or 5 the other day. You know the ones you dismissed out of hand exactly like I said you would. No you're back to the old stick of saying they were never posted.

    Fantastic and predictable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    Cochrane, didn't take much research to see that they can be bought.

    The Cochrane peer reviewers (at least 4 out of 7 of which had undisclosed financial ties to the drug companies that make anticoagulants) delayed four years over releasing this review for publication.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994886/

    From the Dublin corporation website.

    So it should be easy for you to point out the flaws in their meta-analysis if this is the case?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    I posted 4 or 5 the other day. You know the ones you dismissed out of hand exactly like I said you would. No you're back to the old stick of saying they were never posted.

    Fantastic and predictable.

    They don't prove anything, they just suggest possible benefits.

    You claim the medicinal benefits are proven.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Ok , pick a single illness and post up a number of pre-clinical and clinical studies that prove it is effective?

    Otherwise all you have is a bunch of maybes.

    If you want a bit of help , pain relief is probably your best bet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Going off personal experience, in Canada it has yet to be made fully legalised but is a) available medicinally with a prescription in shops that are very open and accessible to the public (you don't need anything to go in and look around, you do to purchase), though they have other businesses that are selling it basically without. Essentially you go in, sign up, do a 5 minute Skype interview with a "medical expert" (homeopath I believe) and they give you the go ahead. After that, you are free to purchase as you wish, up to 1oz per day I think it is.

    Source: Errrr... :o

    They're an odd one, having been raided by the police and temporarily shut down on a few occasions the thinking seems to be that they are trying to get the market share before the seemingly imminent full legalisation occurs, as well as Canada's very relaxed attitude towards marijuana meaning the police are not overly bothered. Examples being, in Toronto I have seen police giving directions etc to people while someone else is smoking a joint 10-20 feet away, with the police not paying any attention. Also when I first got there I was staying in a backpacker hostel for a few weeks and someone I knew there was smoking a joint outside after midnight before he went to bed - it was in the middle of winter where the streets go absolutely dead after about 8pm from the cold. Anyway, a cop walked straight past him, noticed, turned to him and said... "now you just be sure to put that in the trash over there when you're finished, I don't want to see litters on the streets, OK?". Also during said raids which made the news, many on-the-ground police officers were not happy at all, saying it was a waste of time and resources that could go into more serious work.

    An observation a lot of people who move to Canada make is how they seem to have a good handle on it, on a personal level. Now Canadians are a pretty polite and socially responsible bunch to start with, but a lot of it has to do with education. When you go into one of those clinics, the people behind the counter will give you a full run down of what product does what. So you can get a certain strain that will make you feel quite active and light, kind of an 'upper' buzz I guess you could say. You'd quite regularly in the summer see/smell people smoking this while kicking a football or throwing a frisbee/American football around in the park or down by the beach. On the other hand, they will also let you know of strains that will make you borderline comatose, not good for social or day time activities, but with huge benefits to pain relief (including a stomach in knots from a hangover!) or sleep issues. They can let you know what might last longer, or shorter, or inform you of alternatives drips you can put in any drink or edible forms, as well as the differences (that they take 1-2 hours to kick in, but last a good 5-8 hours long which is obviously very important to know beforehand).

    That type of information is incredibly important to those using marijuana, and to the perception of those around them. For one thing, if you've ever heard someone saying they got "crap" weed that looked/smelled like it would be good over here, there is a huge chance it was just more on the sativa end of things (lighter, more active feeling) while on the other hand, there are people here with an incredibly negative perception of it because they've probably seen people smoking indica (the heavier-feeling stuff) the vast majority of the time, or people who have smoked a LOT of sativa because they're convinced it's just weaker.

    I've had sleep problems since I was a kid (as my posting history/times will attest to :p ) and to me it was hugely, hugely beneficial to me. Marijuana hits me quite hard regardless though, so I wouldn't really smoke it at all otherwise, barring possibly being drunk at the end of a night out. Having tried both, I can comfortably say in my experience that the after-effects the next day are nothing compared to sleeping pills (a pint of water and very strong coffee first thing usually sorted me out) and there is no comparison in terms of addictiveness and such. For me just as much as actually smoking it, was the peace of mind going to bed knowing that I had 1-2g (so about a teapsoon worth) sitting in a tiny smell-proof container at the back of my sock drawer and if I had any worries with sleep I could just hop out on the balcony/out the back real quick and be ready to drift off 15-20 minutes later. The peace of mind got me to sleep 9 times out of 10, to be honest - only needed it for sleep once every two weeks or so.

    Plus their names are funny - when I first went in I just explained to the guy why I wanted to purchase, and that I was looking for something that if needs be, would "just knock me the f*** out". Fella turns around to me, "oh yeah, that'll be the Tyson." :pac:

    I know a lot of people that gained a much, much more favourable attitude towards marijuana in their time there. Not to say they started smoking it themselves in most cases, just that they came around to the fact that it doesn't turn people into zombies by default (only particular strains, recommended for sleep and pain relief, do).

    I actually think it will be legal here possibly sooner than people would expect, by the end of the 2020s almost surely. Might seem far fetched to some, but so would gay marriage within 15 years to people back in 2000 when it was gaining traction in other countries (first to make it legal was the Netherlands funny enough, in 2001) - christ, in 2010 I would have laughed at you if you said gay marriage would be legal in Ireland in the next decade. I think the success US states are having with it which is beginning to lead to some serious bipartisan support (many states that voted Trump voted for legalisation on the same day for recreational and/or medical, including some rural spots like North Dakota) is quite telling, and long gone seem to be the days of the effective us of the "free the weed, it grows in nature maaaaaaan" negative stereotype for those who believe in it - from a cold, hard economic point of view it's hard not to just doing so. That is by far the best angle for the pro-legalisation crowd to take, as well as educating the less informed (see: indica/sativa, health concerns, etc) on how it effects people.

    Sure the government has to worry about voter backlash from the more conservative/religious elements if and when they do legalise it over here, but it's a fast ageing demographic and we're a nation that tends to follow behind what others do not too long after. So my guess is in the next 12 years or so it will likely be legal here too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Hi Biily86,

    In your opinion do people genuinely believe it is medicine or is it a case of don't rock the boat ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    jh79 wrote: »
    Hi Biily86,

    In your opinion do people genuinely believe it is medicine or is it a case of don't rock the boat ?

    A lot of people do use it medicinally - I did for sleep on occasion, and knew a few people in construction who used it for physical conditions they had developed from years of their work. One guy from Galway I knew over there - absolute top guy, gem of a man - would good as never smoke it himself, but joined one of those 'membership clinics' while over there to get some for a work colleague in construction who had a delay getting his prescription renewed, because the guy genuinely couldn't go into work and was seriously physically struggling from knee and back injuries without it.

    Others use it recreationally, and I don't see any real issue there myself. I'd far rather share a park with some people (particularly college students, as Toronto, especially the area I was in, has a seemingly never ending supply of them) flaking about having smoked a joint or two than knocking back alcohol and getting drunk in the same setting.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Jayop wrote: »
    Cochrane, didn't take much research to see that they can be bought.

    The Cochrane peer reviewers (at least 4 out of 7 of which had undisclosed financial ties to the drug companies that make anticoagulants) delayed four years over releasing this review for publication.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994886/

    From the Dublin corporation website.
    A little bit of research would lead you to discover that sometimes all is not what it seems. The author himself lost his medical license because a patient who he withdrew anticoagulant therapy from subsequently died. That is a fairly massive conflict of interest there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭Vinculus


    Maybe it's because I'm very high but does anybody else think that jh79 and jimoslimos are the same poster.
    *grabs monster munch


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Vinculus wrote: »
    Maybe it's because I'm very high but does anybody else think that jh79 and jimoslimos are the same poster.
    *grabs monster munch

    No, your just very high.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Vinculus wrote: »
    Maybe it's because I'm very high but does anybody else think that jh79 and jimoslimos are the same poster.
    *grabs monster munch

    Maybe jh79 and jimoslimos are re-regs of Jayop! All 3 are me!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Billy86 wrote: »
    When you go into one of those clinics, the people behind the counter will give you a full run down of what product does what. So you can get a certain strain that will make you feel quite active and light, kind of an 'upper' buzz I guess you could say. You'd quite regularly in the summer see/smell people smoking this while kicking a football or throwing a frisbee/American football around in the park or down by the beach. On the other hand, they will also let you know of strains that will make you borderline comatose, not good for social or day time activities, but with huge benefits to pain relief (including a stomach in knots from a hangover!) or sleep issues. They can let you know what might last longer, or shorter, or inform you of alternatives drips you can put in any drink or edible forms, as well as the differences (that they take 1-2 hours to kick in, but last a good 5-8 hours long which is obviously very important to know beforehand).

    That type of information is incredibly important to those using marijuana, and to the perception of those around them. For one thing, if you've ever heard someone saying they got "crap" weed that looked/smelled like it would be good over here, there is a huge chance it was just more on the sativa end of things (lighter, more active feeling) while on the other hand, there are people here with an incredibly negative perception of it because they've probably seen people smoking indica (the heavier-feeling stuff) the vast majority of the time, or people who have smoked a LOT of sativa because they're convinced it's just weaker.

    I've had sleep problems since I was a kid (as my posting history/times will attest to :p ) and to me it was hugely, hugely beneficial to me. Marijuana hits me quite hard regardless though, so I wouldn't really smoke it at all otherwise, barring possibly being drunk at the end of a night out. Having tried both, I can comfortably say in my experience that the after-effects the next day are nothing compared to sleeping pills (a pint of water and very strong coffee first thing usually sorted me out) and there is no comparison in terms of addictiveness and such. For me just as much as actually smoking it, was the peace of mind going to bed knowing that I had 1-2g (so about a teapsoon worth) sitting in a tiny smell-proof container at the back of my sock drawer and if I had any worries with sleep I could just hop out on the balcony/out the back real quick and be ready to drift off 15-20 minutes later. The peace of mind got me to sleep 9 times out of 10, to be honest - only needed it for sleep once every two weeks or so.

    Plus their names are funny - when I first went in I just explained to the guy why I wanted to purchase, and that I was looking for something that if needs be, would "just knock me the f*** out". Fella turns around to me, "oh yeah, that'll be the Tyson." :pac:
    This is what I would be most critical of. Not that it is tolerated or the police turn a blind eye to it, but the people "dispensing" it are mostly quacks or are involved in dubious "alternative medical practises", i.e the sh1t that usually doesn't work.

    I'm wary of the oft exaggerated claims for the drug, but then to put that power and responsibility in the hands of people with zero medical knowledge is crazy.

    It's why I think the muddying of the waters between the medicinal and recreational use doesn't help either with respect to legalisation.
    Vinculus wrote: »
    Maybe it's because I'm very high but does anybody else think that jh79 and jimoslimos are the same poster.
    *grabs monster munch
    Usernames begin with the same letter...similar viewpoint on this issue....whoa dude it's like you're frickin Sherlock!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    This is what I would be most critical of. Not that it is tolerated or the police turn a blind eye to it, but the people "dispensing" it are mostly quacks or are involved in dubious "alternative medical practises", i.e the sh1t that usually doesn't work.

    I'm wary of the oft exaggerated claims for the drug, but then to put that power and responsibility in the hands of people with zero medical knowledge is crazy.

    It's why I think the muddying of the waters between the medicinal and recreational use doesn't help either with respect to legalisation.
    It's also why I reckon it should be fully legal for whichever use, to be honest. Just because alcohol has painkilling properties yet can also be taken recreationally isn't nor ever was a good argument for prohibition, for example.

    The homeopath types they use are basically just a justification for people signing up - a loophole. I don't believe in homeopathy at all because much of my family works in medicine, but then again those same family members of mine (as well as the licensed doctors writing prescriptions over in Canada and various other countries) also think legalisation is a positive step for a substance that has for a long time been made/kept illegal for reasons primarily relating to propaganda and bad science.

    Interesting bit of trivia, while I can't find anything concrete for Ireland on the fly, but exactly 100 years ago it was legal both in the UK and the US (it was even legal in the UK to grow or for medical purposes until about 50 years ago).


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Interesting bit of trivia, while I can't find anything concrete for Ireland on the fly, but exactly 100 years ago it was legal both in the UK and the US (it was even legal in the UK to grow or for medical purposes until about 50 years ago).
    Cannabis prohibition kind of snuck in, I've heard that in some parts of Australia they were selling it decades after the law changed because nobody realised the law was there. It was such a non issue that it never occurred to them that it might be made illegal. The whole drug prohibition thing was caught up in classifying drugs because doctors of the time were prescribing the likes of heroin and cocaine for everything and ending up being nothing more than glorified drug pushers. Cannabis was never an issue outside of racial hatred and religious bigotry, Puritan American Christians associated it with Mexicans and demonic possessions. Muslims in Egypt and Turkey wanted it banned for the same reason.

    Hemp was also a problem for the cotton industry which spent money running ad campaigns spreading all sorts of lies. But hemp was essential at the time and when WW2 broke out the US incentified farmers to grow as much of it as they could. When the war was over they went in and destroyed all the crops.

    There was never a good reason to criminalise cannabis use, nobody really wanted it banned in the first place, it just got tacked on to a global agreement to control the misuse of drugs by legitimate businesses and professionals by religious zealots. It's about time that mistake got rectified because we have nearly 100 years of ruination to prove it was one of the dumbest ideas in the history of humanity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


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

    Need to watch parts 2 and 3 as well.

    Seems to help parkinsons, but then again this is not a medical study so it must be false.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    kleefarr wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvPIXGsrHk

    Need to watch parts 2 and 3 as well.

    Seems to help parkinsons, but then again this is not a medical study so it must be false.

    This guy could just be lucky but the medical studies show mixed results according to the Michael J Fox foundation.

    They also say the studies that showed negative results were better designed.

    https://www.michaeljfox.org/mobile/news-detail.php?ask-the-md-medical-marijuana-and-parkinson-disease

    "The trials with negative results should also be interpreted carefully since they too included small numbers of volunteers and used varied doses and formulations of cannabinoids. However, they were placebo-controlled and therefore provide stronger evidence in support of the current prevailing clinical viewpoint, which is that cannabinoids are probably ineffective for Parkinson's motor symptoms and levodopa-induced dyskinesia."


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    jh79 wrote: »
    This guy could just be lucky but the medical studies show mixed results according to the Michael J Fox foundation.

    They also say the studies that showed negative results were better designed.

    https://www.michaeljfox.org/mobile/news-detail.php?ask-the-md-medical-marijuana-and-parkinson-disease

    "The trials with negative results should also be interpreted carefully since they too included small numbers of volunteers and used varied doses and formulations of cannabinoids. However, they were placebo-controlled and therefore provide stronger evidence in support of the current prevailing clinical viewpoint, which is that cannabinoids are probably ineffective for Parkinson's motor symptoms and levodopa-induced dyskinesia."

    No doubt it will not work for everyone but to not allow people to find out if it helps them or not is wrong.

    'probably' ?? Not very conclusive eh.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    kleefarr wrote: »
    No doubt it will not work for everyone but to not allow people to find out if it helps them or not is wrong.

    'probably' ?? Not very conclusive eh.

    Would you apply the same standards to a synthetic medicine by a pharma company?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,351 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Just like Thailidamoid, for example?
    Or that controversial antimalaria drug, whose name escapes me?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    jh79 wrote: »
    Would you apply the same standards to a synthetic medicine by a pharma company?

    Didn't they try synthetic cannabis on trial not long ago and it actually killed people.

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/two-dead-from-synthetic-cannabis-what-new-drugs-are-doing-to-our-bodies/news-story/fa55e87d01eb9801f2222cf235a5bebd

    I am all for people trying what ever they like if they want to try and improve quality of life. Unfortunately modern medicine rarely does that now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Water John wrote: »
    Just like Thailidamoid, for example?
    Or that controversial antimalaria drug, whose name escapes me?
    Larium?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    kleefarr wrote: »
    Didn't they try synthetic cannabis on trial not long ago and it actually killed people.

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/two-dead-from-synthetic-cannabis-what-new-drugs-are-doing-to-our-bodies/news-story/fa55e87d01eb9801f2222cf235a5bebd

    I am all for people trying what ever they like if they want to try and improve quality of life. Unfortunately modern medicine rarely does that now.

    Certain mushrooms can kill too and they are natural, nobody has taken high CBD'S on a long term basis , cannabinoids might cause tumours to grow according to some studies.

    Better not to assume, whether it's natural or synthetic doesn't matter..


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    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.

    Is this evidence enough for ya ?




    Legalize this tomorrow


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Is this evidence enough for ya ?




    Legalize this tomorrow

    No of course not, would it be sufficient evidence for you if it was a pharma drug?

    You often post about pharma conspiracies surely you would agree that tight regulations are a good thing when it comes to medicine??

    If it's medicine you'll need clinical trials to prove it.

    GW Pharma posted positive phase 3 trials recently for epilepsy. They hope to submit to the FDA next year.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    It wasnt a double blind triple placebo test published in a certain journal on the first Tuesday of the new moon so it proves nothing to him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    No of course not, would it be sufficient evidence for you if it was a pharma drug?

    You often post about pharma conspiracies surely you would agree that tight regulations are a good thing when it comes to medicine??

    If it's medicine you'll need clinical trials to prove it.

    GW Pharma posted positive phase 3 trials recently for epilepsy. They hope to submit to the FDA next year.

    With cannabis and parkinsons ... let people who suffer from it try it .... No Big pharma involment needed ..... As you can see the results can be visible in minutes .... If that is not evidence enough for you i dont know what will convince you


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    kleefarr wrote: »
    What?? Your "link" doesn't back up your ludicrous claims.

    Firstly the deaths were linked to recreational use and not in a clinical trial.

    Secondly the drugs were mimics of methamphetamine and LSD, not cannabis.
    weisses wrote: »
    Is this evidence enough for ya ?




    Legalize this tomorrow
    Youtube testimonials? No that isn't evidence.

    Regardless, that isn't an argument for legalisation, it's an argument for it to be a controlled medicinal product.


Advertisement