Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

pure.conya wrote: »

There is a very low risk to using cannabis, compared to the already legal pain meds out there, the damage they do to liver and kidneys, their crazy side effects and the debilitating addictions that come with using them for more than a few days.

I refuse to believe a report that comes out of the same country that has just scheduled cbd as having no apparent medical value while England just officially acknowledged its got medical value.

All the evidence I've ever read has been very positive regarding the immediate pain relief obtained from using cannabis.

Can you link to some of the evidence you have read and explain why it is better than that discussed in the new report?

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's certainly not the harmless wonder drug that it is made out to be. Not by a long stretch. It's considered a carcinogen in smoke form by the British and US lung Foundations.

We all know this of course. Particularly not good for a person who is mentally ill to begin with. Have seen this first hand.

Leagalise it for sure, it's a tax revenue stream which the State needs to avail of. We make good money off tobacco every year, we may as well do the same with weed.

theValheru853

He got a ministerial exemption. There can be no licences granted yet because to bill has yet to pass thru the Seanad.

But to get one you have to jump though hoops as evidenced by the family of the little cork girl

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Are the risks associated with mental health worth the modest effect seen against neuropathic pain?

Can we really say it is a safer alternative?

What metal risks though. The only mental risk I know of is people with a predisposition to schizophrenia could bring on the early onset of the condition if they smoke as a teen. Once they reach adulthood I don't think it's as much of an issue. It's not like it's going to give a person schizophrenia.

learn_more wrote: »

I don't get your problem with that though.

Why would you think I have a problem with it? I'm explaining why it's good.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

What metal risks though. The only mental risk I know of is people with a predisposition to schizophrenia could bring on the early onset of the condition if they smoke as a teen. Once they reach adulthood I don't think it's as much of an issue. It's not like it's going to give a person schizophrenia.

Why would you think I have a problem with it? I'm explaining why it's good.

I have not read the report fully yet but as far as i can tell you don't need a predisposition to schizophrenia and it doesn't say you have to be a teenager.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

What metal risks though. The only mental risk I know of is people with a predisposition to schizophrenia could bring on the early onset of the condition if they smoke as a teen. Once they reach adulthood I don't think it's as much of an issue. It's not like it's going to give a person schizophrenia.

Why would you think I have a problem with it? I'm explaining why it's good.

Read the section on the review by Moore et al, adults who smoke regularly are more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who don't and it seems to be dose dependent.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition so is a modest effect worth an increased risk of schizophrenia?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jh79 wrote: »

Read the section on the review by Moore et al, adults who smoke regularly are more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who don't and it seems to be dose dependent.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition so is a modest effect worth an increased risk of schizophrenia?

Different patients will have different opinions on that I'd say. People with a family history of schizophrenia would probably steer clear, while others might decide that the increased risk of a very rare mental illness developing is a chance they're willing to take. The side effects of traditional pain medication can be debilitating, that has to be taken into account too.

All medication comes with risks and side effects, as long as these are explained to the patient and they make an informed choice, why should cannabis be treated differently?

jh79

Blaire Beautiful Painkiller wrote: »

Different patients will have different opinions on that I'd say. People with a family history of schizophrenia would probably steer clear, while others might decide that the increased risk of a very rare mental illness developing is a chance they're willing to take. The side effects of traditional pain medication can be debilitating, that has to be taken into account too.

All medication comes with risks and side effects, as long as these are explained to the patient and they make an informed choice, why should cannabis be treated differently?

You have it completely backwards i want cannabis treated exactly the same as medicine. So it needs to prove with robust studies that it is effective and what likely side effects there are so a proper judgement can be made.

Studies suggest a modest beneficial effect for 3 illnesses coupled with an increased risk of schizophrenia and suicidal thoughts.

Not exactly the wonder herb people on here claim.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jh79 wrote: »

You have it completely backwards i want cannabis treated exactly the same as medicine. So it needs to prove with robust studies that it is effective and what likely side effects there are so a proper judgement can be made.

Studies suggest a modest beneficial effect for 3 illnesses coupled with an increased risk of schizophrenia and suicidal thoughts.

Not exactly the wonder herb people on here claim.

I was responding to your question

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition so is a modest effect worth an increased risk of schizophrenia?

For some people that modest pain relief will be worth the risk, for others it won't. It having that risk may well be a very good justification for an individual to decide not to take it, but it's not a reason for it not to be a legal option.

jh79

Blaire Beautiful Painkiller wrote: »

I was responding to your question



For some people that modest pain relief will be worth the risk, for others it won't. It having that risk may well be a very good justification for an individual to decide not to take it, but it's not a reason for it not to be a legal option.

The bill before the dail claims it is actual medicine so therefore it needs to be assesed by the HPRA not the patient as for any medicine.

Most seem to fall for the Natural Fallacy when it comes to weed but now it's adverse effects need to be part of the discussion.

Blaire Beautiful Painkiller

Blaire Beautiful Painkiller wrote: »

Different patients will have different opinions on that I'd say. People with a family history of schizophrenia would probably steer clear, while others might decide that the increased risk of a very rare mental illness developing is a chance they're willing to take. The side effects of traditional pain medication can be debilitating, that has to be taken into account too.

All medication comes with risks and side effects, as long as these are explained to the patient and they make an informed choice, why should cannabis be treated differently?

I get what you're saying and I agree that people should have the information to make an informed decision for their own individual case.

Schizophrenia is a relatively common disorder though, and affects about 1/100 people. It's not rare, although of course it varies in it's severity.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Candie wrote: »

I get what you're saying and I agree that people should have the information to make an informed decision for their own individual case.

Schizophrenia is a relatively common disorder though, and affects about 1/100 people. It's not rare, although of course it varies in it's severity.

Oops, for some reason had it in my head it was 1/1000

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jh79 wrote: »

The bill before the dail claims it is actual medicine so therefore it needs to be assesed by the HPRA not the patient as for any medicine.

Most seem to fall for the Natural Fallacy when it comes to weed but now it's adverse effects need to be part of the discussion.

But they very much are part of the discussion. They have always been part of the discussion.

I use cannabis for pain relief occasionally, I don't find it any more or less effective than OTC codeine but it's a matter of picking between side effects. From what I can gather that's what many chronic pain patients who would like to legally access it are arguing - they would like a modestly effective pain reliever that doesn't come with stomach pain, constipation, confusion, insomnia etc.

Is that quality of life question taken into account when assessing a potential medicine?

jh79

Blaire Beautiful Painkiller wrote: »

But they very much are part of the discussion. They have always been part of the discussion.

I use cannabis for pain relief occasionally, I don't find it any more or less effective than OTC codeine but it's a matter of picking between side effects. From what I can gather that's what many chronic pain patients who would like to legally access it are arguing - they would like a modestly effective pain reliever that doesn't come with stomach pain, constipation, confusion, insomnia etc.

Is that quality of life question taken into account when assessing a potential medicine?

Yes, look at Champix for stopping smoking absolutely horrible side effects.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Am I? The latest report seems quite certain there is a link with schizophrenia and suicidal thoughts especially with daily use.

Is that risk worth a "modest" effect on neuropathic pain?

my link suggests a modest risk and even that is for heavy users that start early.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

my link suggests a modest risk and even that is for heavy users that start early.

You could be right i need to read up on what the numbers actually are but at least it is being discussed rather than the flawed adage that people hae been smoking it for years so it must be safe.

Out if interest what do you consider acceptable? For every 1000 patients what increase in schizophrenia would you consider ok for the modest effect seen for neuropathic pain?

K.Flyer

Interesting video..

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2017/Cannabis-Health-Effects/cannabis-chapter-highlights.pdf?_ga=1.145711028.1690590092.1484308624

Above is a link to a summary of the report;

The therapeutic effects of cannabis include;

• Oral cannabinoids reduce chemo induced nausea / vomiting

• Short term use of oral cannabinoids reduces MS symptoms.

• Clinically significant reduction in chronic pain symptoms

The three uses above only show a modest effect.

And that's it.

Is this only showing this "study" to be a review of existing evidence based on only 2 scripts from 1982 and 1999?,Hardly up to date evidence if so!!!!

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Is this only showing this "study" to be a review of existing evidence based on only 2 scripts from 1982 and 1999?,Hardly up to date evidence if so!!!!

It's a review of all research available at the time , studies have to reach a certain standard to be considered.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

It's a review of all research available at the time , studies have to reach a certain standard to be considered.

And that standard is quite low so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Because weed gets you stoned RCT's are not possible , standards are less than for normal pharma drugs the placebo effect adds bias.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

It's a review of all research available at the time , studies have to reach a certain standard to be considered.

What standard?

That is old research and cannot be seriously considered for your argument-Science now has up to date research available,carried out with newer technology and information.

jh79

Could you point me to the relevant section and i'll have a read and reply?

They are number , is it 12-1?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Could you point me to the relevant section and i'll have a read and reply?

They are number , is it 12-1?

Reply if you want yes, I would like to know though,have you any modern up to-date report/research available that has the same conclusions as your 18 year old study?

scamalert

mulbot wrote: »

Reply if you want yes, I would like to know though,have you any modern up to-date report/research available that has the same conclusions as your 18 year old study?

guess you'll need to wait another 20 years for further results to conclude further research needed,since getting funded for 20 years one has to take time,and do it properly before retiring :cool:

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Reply if you want yes, I would like to know though,have you any modern up to-date report/research available that has the same conclusions as your 18 year old study?

Again tell which page of the report you are referring to so i can give a proper reply. Section 12-1 concerns schizophrenia i can't remember the studies being particularly old.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Again tell which page of the report you are referring to so i can give a proper reply. Section 12-1 concerns schizophrenia i can't remember the studies being particularly old.

1999 is when the latest study was done from the link you posted

wotzgoingon

I smoked a blunt this day last week fúcked me up. Cheapest buzz I was ever on as all it took was one single skinner blunt. It was home grown stuff called "The Ultimate" from the seed company Dutch Passion.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

1999 is when the latest study was done from the link you posted

So what is wrong with that study and please link to the studies you feel have not been considered?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

So what is wrong with that study and please link to the studies you feel have not been considered?

Science has advanced since 1999-Have you a recent study showing the same conclusions?

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Science has advanced since 1999-Have you a recent study showing the same conclusions?

Section 12-1