Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Seanachai · 10-02-2017 1:03pm

jh79 wrote: »

For chronic pain this is what they found;

"The clinical trials of cannabis in chronic pain involved patients with a wide range of causes including neuropathic pain, cancer pain and fibromyalgia. The cannabis products evaluated included authorised medicines, and smoked cannabis. The data generally suggested an improvement in pain associated with cannabis products. When these clinical trials are combined, the overall estimate of benefit is moderate and there is no effect on patient’s self reported quality of life. The symptoms of pain are subjective, and the majority of clinical trials that have been conducted have been shown to be subject to a moderate risk of bias (where repeated errors in data collection have led to incorrect estimates). These biases mean that the treatment effects that have been reported in clinical trials of cannabis for chronic pain should be viewed with caution, and that the evidence-base in terms of benefit remains uncertain. In addition, cannabis products were associated with a greater risk of side effects, including serious side effects, when compared to other pain medicines. No studies have evaluated the long term safety of treatment with cannabis products."

I'm aware of that, I'm very curious to know what strain(s) they used though, because it's a crucial factor. If I was in a trial and I was ignorant about the variations and was given a strain that gets me high but was lousy for pain relief, I wouldn't give the plant a good endorsement as a medicine either.

There's a reason why patients in the legal US states are ditching their medication in favour of cannabis though, I know myself personally that nothing I've ever come across can beat it for the duration of the pain relief vs dosage and also it's properties as an analgesic.

This view is reflected in a lot of others I've spoken to also. Just like any market consumers choose what they find most effective and I'd wager that given the choice a lot of patients here would choose the cannabis.

drunkmonkey · 10-02-2017 1:15pm

How about the regulation bill 2016 is that up for discussion or what happens it now. Isn't the HPRA report just one part of the overall proposal?

jh79 · 10-02-2017 1:21pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How about the regulation bill 2016 is that up for discussion or what happens it now. Isn't the HPRA report just one part of the overall proposal?

No this is it. Harris is going with the recommendations of the HPRA.

drunkmonkey · 10-02-2017 1:28pm

jh79 wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How about the regulation bill 2016 is that up for discussion or what happens it now. Isn't the HPRA report just one part of the overall proposal?

No this is it. Harris is going with the recommendations of the HPRA.

So one in 4 citizens will remain criminals. Beggars belief.

Galway_Old_Man · 10-02-2017 1:30pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So one in 4 citizens will remain criminals. Beggars belief.

If the citizens were bothered by it currently... you know... they could stop?

Jayop · 10-02-2017 1:37pm

Step one of the eventual complete decriminalization done.

jh79 · 10-02-2017 1:39pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So one in 4 citizens will remain criminals. Beggars belief.

The bill had nothing to do with recreational use anyways. Have you any specific criticisms of the HPRA report?

drunkmonkey · 10-02-2017 1:40pm

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So one in 4 citizens will remain criminals. Beggars belief.

If the citizens were bothered by it currently... you know... they could stop?

There bothered it's still illegal, there's no problem getting it, its just stupid it's illegal. There's no benefit of the current legal situation. Just one big cash merry go round for, judges, solicitors, public servants, criminals and gardai.

drunkmonkey · 10-02-2017 1:45pm

jh79 wrote: »

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So one in 4 citizens will remain criminals. Beggars belief.

The bill had nothing to do with recreational use anyways. Have you any specific criticisms of the HPRA report?

The main one would be there is at least 700 illnesses not included in the report that should have been.

A recommendation that doctors could allow access for patients who claim it helped certain conditions and monitor those. Let doctors cut them off if they suspect abuse.

Just picking 3 conditions was 100% politically motivated to stop those screaming the loudest.

Where to next for the rest of us?

jh79 · 10-02-2017 1:52pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The main one would be there is at least 700 illnesses not included in the report that should have been.

A recommendation that doctors could allow access for patients who claim it helped certain conditions and monitor those. Let doctors cut them off if they suspect abuse.

Just picking 3 conditions was 100% politically motivated to stop those screaming the loudest.

Where to next for the rest of us?

You obviously have not read the report. All research was considered. The illnesses mentioned are the only ones with sufficient evidence behind them.

http://www.hpra.ie/docs/default-source/publications-forms/newsletters/cannabis-for-medical-use---a-scientific-review.pdf?sfvrsn=5

jh79 · 10-02-2017 1:59pm

The HPRA findings are similar to those of the Barnes Report. Prof Barnes is to be a speaker at a symposium organised by Gino Kenny. Anyone who read the Barnes report shouldn't be too surprised at today's announcement. Will be interesting to hear what Kenny thinks though.

InTheTrees · 10-02-2017 2:15pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just picking 3 conditions was 100% politically motivated to stop those screaming the loudest.

Where to next for the rest of us?

Its a start and it opens the door.

K.Flyer · 10-02-2017 4:25pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a start and it opens the door.

This was my first reaction as well, at least it was not a solid "Fcuk Off - No!
It does open the door and hopefully it opens further as more studies are concluded, hopefully with favorable results.

ScumLord · 10-02-2017 4:33pm

jh79 wrote: »

The bill had nothing to do with recreational use anyways. Have you any specific criticisms of the HPRA report?

I don't to be honest. It's a cautious step in the right direction for those that need it. Which is fair enough from a medical body.

From a recreational point of view cannabis should be legal and if it was the medical issue would be a separate issue. It might even not be an issue at all.

InTheTrees · 10-02-2017 7:08pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a start and it opens the door.

This was my first reaction as well, at least it was not a solid "Fcuk Off - No!
It does open the door and hopefully it opens further as more studies are concluded, hopefully with favorable results.

It's completely legal now in Boston, anyone who may want to see if it has any benefit for them can now fly to Boston for the weekend and try different types, no prescription necessary.

mulbot · 10-02-2017 7:53pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

It's completely legal now in Boston, anyone who may want to see if it has any benefit for them can now fly to Boston for the weekend and try different types, no prescription necessary.

Do Ryanair fly to Boston?:pac:

Jayop · 10-02-2017 8:21pm

mulbot wrote: »

Do Ryanair fly to Boston?:pac:

There's an Icelandic carrier doing low cost to Boston.

kleefarr · 10-02-2017 10:21pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a start and it opens the door.

Exactly, it's opens the door just a bit to calm the majority, until they find a way to make investors loads of money from it. :mad:

The pain thing is complete and utter rubbish. The trials or evidence they must have got was worthless. I know quite a few people that use it for pain and in all cases it improves the pain and in some it goes completely. These people range from car crash victims to back accidents.

What trials they used I would like to see. Even the Barnes report acknowledged that it gave some pain relief.

ScumLord · 10-02-2017 11:16pm

kleefarr wrote: »

The pain thing is complete and utter rubbish. The trials or evidence they must have got was worthless. I know quite a few people that use it for pain and in all cases it improves the pain and in some it goes completely. These people range from car crash victims to back accidents.

To be fair, not all pain is the same. There are all sorts of different causes. For example, if I broke my leg and they gave me the option of cannabis or morphine to stop the pain in the hospital, I think I'd go for the morphine. There is a certain level of pain that cannabis can't deal with.

As much as I hate to see someone being arrested, or just go through the stress of being criminalised for taking a logical step to use a less addictive painkiller that works for them, I don't expect the health service to rush into this. 5 years is a relatively short amount of time. If cannabis shows it works in this trial it will open the door for pain relief.

It's a positive step, a victory for people that support medical cannabis.

jh79 · 11-02-2017 10:10am

kleefarr wrote: »

Exactly, it's opens the door just a bit to calm the majority, until they find a way to make investors loads of money from it. :mad:

The pain thing is complete and utter rubbish. The trials or evidence they must have got was worthless. I know quite a few people that use it for pain and in all cases it improves the pain and in some it goes completely. These people range from car crash victims to back accidents.

What trials they used I would like to see. Even the Barnes report acknowledged that it gave some pain relief.

Maybe you should try reading the HPRA report and the Barnes report, both agree that the effect is modest compared to current treatments with a greater risk of side effects, some serious.

jh79 · 11-02-2017 10:15am

Anyone going to the Symposium today at the Rotunda?

Curious to hear Gino Kenny's take on this he has been very quiet on twitter and facebook since the report came out.

drunkmonkey · 11-02-2017 11:52am

I'd say he's not finished, lot of people in his community affected by the war on pot more than the medical side of it.

"People Before Profit's Gino Kenny welcomes the trial, but says his bill will go further, and today's conference will explain why."

Wish one of the main party's would help him out.

jh79 · 11-02-2017 12:41pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd say he's not finished, lot of people in his community affected by the war on pot more than the medical side of it.

"People Before Profit's Gino Kenny welcomes the trial, but says his bill will go further, and today's conference will explain why."

Wish one of the main party's would help him out.

Waste of time none of the major parties will go against the HPRA and rightly so. Their report is a fair reflection of the research available.

He knew well the evidence for medical marijuana is poor that's why he wanted a new qunago set up because he already knew the research wouldn't meet the standards set by the HPRA for medicine.

Seanachai · 11-02-2017 3:26pm

jh79 wrote: »

Waste of time none of the major parties will go against the HPRA and rightly so. Their report is a fair reflection of the research available.

He knew well the evidence for medical marijuana is poor that's why he wanted a new qunago set up because he already knew the research wouldn't meet the standards set by the HPRA for medicine.

Maybe George Soros will pull some strings like he did in the US

, I think we tend to be a bit more methodical and cautious here, which is a good thing in some respects. I can see other conditions being included after a couple of years though.

jh79 · 11-02-2017 3:34pm

Seanachai wrote: »

Maybe George Soros will pull some strings like he did in the US , I think we tend to be a bit more methodical and cautious here, which is a good thing in some respects. I can see other conditions being included after a couple of years though.

I'm curious as to why you think other conditions will be added? Surely the HPRA report highlights how little potential the cannabis plant has as a medicine.

Synthetic cannabinoids are a more likely to be the focus of future research.

Kurtosis · 11-02-2017 4:17pm

I don't necessarily think the report suggests cannabis has little potential, more so that evidence of its effectiveness is lacking or of poor quality.

jh79 · 11-02-2017 4:36pm

Kurtosis wrote: »

I don't necessarily think the report suggests cannabis has little potential, more so that evidence of its effectiveness is lacking or of poor quality.

Fair point, lack of evidence of effect does not mean lack of effect but in my opinion it wouldn't be an area worthy of investment unless the aim was a synthetic analogue.

Do you think the plant has shown potential in its natural state outside of spasticity, nausea and epilepsy?

mulbot · 11-02-2017 6:02pm

jh79 wrote: »

Fair point, lack of evidence of effect does not mean lack of effect but in my opinion it wouldn't be an area worthy of investment unless the aim was a synthetic analogue.

Do you think the plant has shown potential in its natural state outside of spasticity, nausea and epilepsy?

Are the results for treatment of these not enough to consider that cannabis should be regarded as having medicinal value? Maybe now with the door open,further research and testing will show positive results in treating other conditions.

jh79 · 11-02-2017 6:34pm

mulbot wrote: »

Are the results for treatment of these not enough to consider that cannabis should be regarded as having medicinal value? Maybe now with the door open,further research and testing will show positive results in treating other conditions.

Maybe but given that the low hanging fruit only showed modest effects i wouldn't be that hopefull.

Synthetic derivatives that increase potency is probably were it's at.

mulbot · 11-02-2017 6:40pm

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe but given that the low hanging fruit only showed modest effects i wouldn't be that hopefull.

Synthetic derivatives that increase potency is probably were it's at.

I would.

Synthetics may be created,really only to create profit in The Pharma Industry

Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Comments