Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Well the "insufficient" evidence is probably in ratio to the amount of funding those bodies have put into testing/trials etc-Now that there seems to be a way for private Pharma companies to patent and profit,we more than likely will see major funding of trials.

There was always a way for the pharma industry to patent cannabis based medicine, the rules around patents have not changed.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

There was always a way for the pharma industry to patent cannabis based medicine, the rules around patents have not changed.

Wasn't practical as the legality issues surrounding cannabis caused stumbling blocks.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

I think you are spot on with this. Most of the trials and studies that I have read about appear to be small scale and relatively low key, more often restricted because of limited funding.
Now that some ground work has been done by those who had some belief in the potential, we see the big pharmas sitting up and paying more attention.

Did the results of the studies you read justify larger scale studies?

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Wasn't practical as the legality issues surrounding cannabis caused stumbling blocks.

What legal issues? Was there a change in patent laws?

Orphan drug status for cannabinoids certainly makes cannabinoids more attractive for the pharma industry.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

What legal issues? Was there a change in patent laws?

Orphan drug status for cannabinoids certainly makes cannabinoids more attractive for the pharma industry.

Cannabis laws,

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Cannabis laws,

I'm pretty certain Sativex was available in the US prior to legalisation.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Did the results of the studies you read justify larger scale studies?

There are many test and research papers available concluding that further research is needed- Here's an extract of one from the ncbi.gov site.

"Cannabinoids should be studied as other drugs are, to determine their efficacy, and when evidence is available, should be prescribed as other drugs are. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana, and 2 have decriminalized all use. This should encourage researchers to continue seeking answers to the benefits of marijuana use in patients who have neurologic illness"

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

There are many test and research papers available concluding that further research is needed- Here's an extract of one from the ncbi.gov site.

"Cannabinoids should be studied as other drugs are, to determine their efficacy, and when evidence is available, should be prescribed as other drugs are. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana, and 2 have decriminalized all use. This should encourage researchers to continue seeking answers to the benefits of marijuana use in patients who have neurologic illness"

I was specifically referring to clinical trials, the claim was that these trials were small due to lack of funding. It could be that the studies were small to see if investing in larger clinical trials would be worth it.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

Did the results of the studies you read justify larger scale studies?

In my "Lay Man's" opinion, yes. Obviously in the Pharma industries opinion, whose opinion I am sure you would give more credibility to than mine, they felt larger scale studies were justified, hence they are running with it and are happy with their current results, as noted above.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

In my "Lay Man's" opinion, yes. Obviously in the Pharma industries opinion, whose opinion I am sure you would give more credibility to than mine, they felt larger scale studies were justified, hence they are running with it and are happy with their current results, as noted above.

So what was your original point then?

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

So what was your original point then?

Maybe go back over the thread if you have forgotten it.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

I was specifically referring to clinical trials, the claim was that these trials were small due to lack of funding. It could be that the studies were small to see if investing in larger clinical trials would be worth it.

Or it could be more probable that the studies were small because the legal aspect(basically it being illegal) of using cannabis as a medicine was keeping major pharma from investing huge money.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

I'm pretty certain Sativex was available in the US prior to legalisation.

Any link? And that's one company out of how many.? Has the same same company not also stated further research is needed on cbd's etc.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Any link? And that's one company out of how many.? Has the same same company not also stated further research is needed on cbd's etc.

Your point was that cannabis laws prevented pharma companies from patenting cannabis based medicine. That is not true, GW pharma was founded in 1998 . They exclusively use natural cannabis.
I'm not sure why you are asking about further research? What has that got to do with patents?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Maybe go back over the thread if you have forgotten it.

You originally suggested lack of funding was the reason for the small scale studies .

Would you agree that it is possible that the studies were small because the researchers wanted to see if larger studies were worth pursuing?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Your point was that cannabis laws prevented pharma companies from patenting cannabis based medicine. That is not true, GW pharma was founded in 1998 . They exclusively use natural cannabis.
I'm not sure why you are asking about further research? What has that got to do with patents?

I didn't say that-I said that it wasn't practical-big difference. I also said now that they can patent and profit(also a big difference) we might see more serious research.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

I didn't say that-I said that it wasn't practical-big difference. I also said now that they can patent and profit(also a big difference) we might see more serious research.

But they could always patent, if your point is that easier access to weed will lead to more research then fair enough and i would be inclined to agree .

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

But they could always patent, if your point is that easier access to weed will lead to more research then fair enough and i would be inclined to agree .

Of course they could,nobody has said different-The point was that now that pharma can patent and profit(such as GW with Sativex) we might see more in-depth research.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Of course they could,nobody has said different-The point was that now that pharma can patent and profit(such as GW with Sativex) we might see more in-depth research.

Can you explain what has changed that now means they can profit? I just don't get what you are saying.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Can you explain what has changed that now means they can profit? I just don't get what you are saying.

:rolleyes:It's becoming accepted as a medicine in more and more countries-It will cost money to use it,people hand over money for the medicine E.G Sativex, the company that produces it receives money and presumably a profit-simple,. That explain it a bit for you?

Kurtosis

jh79 wrote: »

Can you explain what has changed that now means they can profit? I just don't get what you are saying.

Less restrictive laws globally on cannabis and medicinal use is of course going to incentivise pharmaceutical companies to pursue research and marketing of cannabis based medicines. Relaxing the legal status of cannabis reduces the regulatory restrictions on production of the raw ingredients used in any medicine as well as the regulatory burden of carrying out a trial, making research more feasible. Secondly, it widens the potential market for any cannabis based medicine if prescription is no longer restricted to one-off cases based on receiving a dispensation/licence from the Minister for Health.

These legal changes both reduce the costs of bringing a cannabis based medicine to market and make such a medicine easier to prescribe, so of course it's more likely a company could profit.

jh79

Kurtosis wrote: »

Less restrictive laws globally on cannabis and medicinal use is of course going to incentivise pharmaceutical companies to pursue research and marketing of cannabis based medicines. Relaxing the legal status of cannabis reduces the regulatory restrictions on production of the raw ingredients used in any medicine as well as the regulatory burden of carrying out a trial, making research more feasible. Secondly, it widens the potential market for any cannabis based medicine if prescription is no longer restricted to one-off cases based on receiving a dispensation/licence from the Minister for Health.

These legal changes both reduce the costs of bringing a cannabis based medicine to market and make such a medicine easier to prescribe, so of course it's more likely a company could profit.

I know that is the case in Ireland but in the US ,UK or Europe did drug laws prevent the sale or production of Sativex ? I don't think it did and that is why i disagree with mulbot.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

:rolleyes:It's becoming accepted as a medicine in more and more countries-It will cost money to use it,people hand over money for the medicine E.G Sativex, the company that produces it receives money and presumably a profit-simple,. That explain it a bit for you?

Your missing the point GW pharma were already selling Sativex prior to the relaxation of drug laws. The wording of the Irish law meant it couldn't be sold here even though it was approved by the HPRA . Was that the case in the really big markets of the US, UK and the rest of Europe?

Kurtosis

jh79 wrote: »

I know that is the case in Ireland but in the US ,UK or Europe did drug laws prevent the sale or production of Sativex ? I don't think it did and that is why i disagree with mulbot.

Of course it didn't prevent Sativex being sold or GW Pharma (I assume) profiting. However the move towards more liberal cannabis laws in many countries in recent years makes research and development of cannabis medicines more feasible and more attractive.

jh79

Kurtosis wrote: »

Of course it didn't prevent Sativex being sold or GW Pharma (I assume) profiting. However the move towards more liberal cannabis laws in many countries in recent years makes research and development of cannabis medicines more feasible and more attractive.

Is it that difficult though? I used to make amptheamines during my PhD and we had a usage logbook for the precursor chemicals and that was it.

I'm not doubting that it will make a difference i'm just questioning whether it is a big factor in cannabis R&D.

Kurtosis

Cannabis and cannabinoids were (and possibly still are) more tightly restricted in Ireland than the likes of amphetamines, heroin and cocaine. Cannabis was listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, supposed to be the category for drugs of abuse with no therapeutic/medicinal uses, with a lot of regulatory red-tape and hoops to jump through in order to get a licence to produce/possess/use it for legitimate purposes. Amphetamines etc would not be restricted to the same extent at all.

Multiply that up to industrial scale volumes of production or the huge complexities of conducting a multi-site clinical trial where licences may be required for each healthcare professional and participant who may prescribe or possess the medicine being evaluated...I think it would have a significant impact on facilitating research by reducing barriers and costs involved.

scamalert

jh79 wrote: »

Is it that difficult though? I used to make amptheamines during my PhD and we had a usage logbook for the precursor chemicals and that was it.

I'm not doubting that it will make a difference i'm just questioning whether it is a big factor in cannabis R&D.

why research and development if states and Canada use it everyday to treat people,is there some particular reason why it cant be done here or in EU,using research and knowledge provided form those who have used it well over decade now without relying on single pharma or consortium who want to keep it under their tab,it seems to work fine in western hemisphere,but here its no no,either some pharma has exclusive right or its illegal.

jh79

Kurtosis wrote: »

Cannabis and cannabinoids were (and possibly still are) more tightly restricted in Ireland than the likes of amphetamines, heroin and cocaine. Cannabis was listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, supposed to be the category for drugs of abuse with no therapeutic/medicinal uses, with a lot of regulatory red-tape and hoops to jump through in order to get a licence to produce/possess/use it for legitimate purposes. Amphetamines etc would not be restricted to the same extent at all.

Multiply that up to industrial scale volumes of production or the huge complexities of conducting a multi-site clinical trial where licences may be required for each healthcare professional and participant who may prescribe or possess the medicine being evaluated...I think it would have a significant impact on facilitating research by reducing barriers and costs involved.

Fair enough that's that argument settled.

jh79

Kurtosis wrote: »

Cannabis and cannabinoids were (and possibly still are) more tightly restricted in Ireland than the likes of amphetamines, heroin and cocaine. Cannabis was listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, supposed to be the category for drugs of abuse with no therapeutic/medicinal uses, with a lot of regulatory red-tape and hoops to jump through in order to get a licence to produce/possess/use it for legitimate purposes. Amphetamines etc would not be restricted to the same extent at all.

Multiply that up to industrial scale volumes of production or the huge complexities of conducting a multi-site clinical trial where licences may be required for each healthcare professional and participant who may prescribe or possess the medicine being evaluated...I think it would have a significant impact on facilitating research by reducing barriers and costs involved.

Sorry Kurtosis is it a similar situation in the US /UK / Europe. I have read the DEA are quite strict.

Kurtosis

I'm not as familiar with the legal frameworks in other countries but it seems to be a similar case in the UK. Cannabis is classified in Schedule 1 but Sativex appears to have been licensed/legislated for as a special case in 2006, and then was formally moved out of Schedule 1 in 2013 (some details here.

I assume in the US, this would vary on a state by state basis depending in the federal laws. In states where medicinal cannabis or recreational cannabis has been legalised, it would be significantly more feasible to conduct a study/have a study centre. Clinical trials are highly regulated in any case under EU/FDA rules without the adding complexity of the investigational drug being so highly restricted.