Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

theValheru853

0ph0rce0 wrote:

Can she not just buy the stuff and save all the hassle? Genuine Question.

Not that simple I'm afraid. While items like charlotte's web are CBD oils, the active compound, THC, is too low for it to be completly effective.
It is the THC that is the bit that's illegal and therefore to have anything containing the required amount of the compound is also illegal.
If she were to bring the required stuff into the country, she would have been arrested and charged for possesion of an illegal substance.

Tigger

theValheru853 wrote: »

Not that simple I'm afraid. While items like charlotte's web are CBD oils, the active compound, THC, is too low for it to be completly effective.
It is the THC that is the bit that's illegal and therefore to have anything containing the required amount of the compound is also illegal.
If she were to bring the required stuff into the country, she would have been arrested and charged for possesion of an illegal substance.

I think you've missed the point

0ph0rce0

theValheru853 wrote: »

Not that simple I'm afraid. While items like charlotte's web are CBD oils, the active compound, THC, is too low for it to be completly effective.
It is the THC that is the bit that's illegal and therefore to have anything containing the required amount of the compound is also illegal.
If she were to bring the required stuff into the country, she would have been arrested and charged for possesion of an illegal substance.

You can get the stuff in from Europe easily, I know plenty who have.

If she really wants the oil it's easily available if you know where to look. Fair enough it's Illegal as you say but if she just forked out the cash and bought it she could save all the hassle which most likley will be all for nothing. Like any parent you'll do what has to be done, Why not do it. They are not going to lock her up over a bit of oil if she did get caught with all the media attention.

Is she going to pay for it or is she looking for it for free?


EDIT: I know it's all about the cause and I'm all for it.

theValheru853

Tigger wrote:

I think you've missed the point

Well if I have, you'll have to explain what I missed. I was giving a genuine answer to what is claimed to be a genuine question.

Tigger

theValheru853 wrote: »

Well if I have, you'll have to explain what I missed. I was giving a genuine answer to what is claimed to be a genuine question.

The post above yours explains it

theValheru853

I understand that, yes, she could have gone that route....this time.

But what about the next time and the time after that.

Once she is caught with it once that's it.

Her daughter's form of epilipsy is extremily dangerous and most with it dont survive to reach going to school.

Isn't it better to go down the route of getting the right stuff legalised and having it administered and monitored by a properly trained doctor/ neurologist.

And I dont think she will be getting any of it for free. She will be paying well for it I think.

theValheru853

Tigger wrote:

The post above yours explains it

Just saw it after replying to your one

Tigger

theValheru853 wrote: »

I understand that, yes, she could have gone that route....this time.

But what about the next time and the time after that.

Once she is caught with it once that's it.

Her daughter's form of epilipsy is extremily dangerous and most with it dont survive to reach going to school.

Isn't it better to go down the route of getting the right stuff legalised and having it administered and monitored by a properly trained doctor/ neurologist.

Do you think they will
Legalise it ?

theValheru853

I hope so.
Even if its on a case by case basis by applications put in by those that need it, that limited form of legalization is better than nothing.

Small steps I suppose.

0ph0rce0

theValheru853 wrote: »

I understand that, yes, she could have gone that route....this time.

But what about the next time and the time after that.

Once she is caught with it once that's it.

Her daughter's form of epilipsy is extremily dangerous and most with it dont survive to reach going to school.

Isn't it better to go down the route of getting the right stuff legalised and having it administered and monitored by a properly trained doctor/ neurologist.

And I dont think she will be getting any of it for free. She will be paying well for it I think.

Of course and I'm all for it if it works. Just saying she can get it if she wants.

theValheru853

0ph0rce0 wrote:

Of course and I'm all for it if it works. Just saying she can get it if she wants.

I think she just doesn't want to take any chances where her daughter's treatments are concerned.
If it was just me, I'd chance what you suggest, but if I had kids and in her situation, I'd take her route.

scamalert

theValheru853 wrote: »

I think she just doesn't want to take any chances where her daughter's treatments are concerned.
If it was just me, I'd chance what you suggest, but if I had kids and in her situation, I'd take her route.

well its a crap route just because she crawlled all the way,issue seems with the law and that its being passed yet no one qualified is there to sign off on it,du to lack of results or research or whatever way government wants to twist that,and while not agree with jc79 about whole wait a decade until someone comes out with recipe how to cook proper oil for sale,she could off easily taken flight to nearest legal country and gotten scripted there granted its expensive and hard to travel and live somewhere else for duration,but again finding someone to treat person when such practice was never made here and saying i need x drug because i think works,one is bound to run into endless law cycle between whats proven and what one wants to try and legalities of it.

kleefarr

More info coming out all the time...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/one-striking-chart-shows-why-pharma-companies-are-fighting-legal-marijuana/?utm_term=.90344bcc42cc

Seanachai

I think it will take a while for the health authority to figure this out, it's new ground for them. They probably don't want to make rash decisions that will backfire on them later.

jh79

Vera said in the Indo that the daughter started CBD oil in October but that the seizures are starting to get worse again, is this the norm with CBD oil? Is it only a short term solution?

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

Vera said in the Indo that the daughter started CBD oil in October but that the seizures are starting to get worse again, is this the norm with CBD oil? Is it only a short term solution?

CBD oil, even the good stuff only provides the mild sedative properties of the plant. I used it for my thing for a while and the only thing it was really good for tbh was as a sleep aid. The other chemicals are needed and they work synergistically in conditions like epilepsy to give the therapeutic effect.

kleefarr

Seanachai wrote: »

I think it will take a while for the health authority to figure this out, it's new ground for them. They probably don't want to make rash decisions that will backfire on them later.

Why though? It has a proven track record in some of the longer using States in America, why should they need to draw their own conclusions when we have seen results it has had before? I think because, as has been said before, they need to make as much money out of it as possible. Just taxing and licencing would not be enough for greedy politicians and pharmaceutical investors. Sickening that a person cannot make a free choice to use a plant that is less destructive than the other two main legal drugs in this day and age.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

CBD oil, even the good stuff only provides the mild sedative properties of the plant. I used it for my thing for a while and the only thing it was really good for tbh was as a sleep aid. The other chemicals are needed and they work synergistically in conditions like epilepsy to give the therapeutic effect.

The studies in this are very short, longest is 6 months with CBD/THC , will be interesting to see if it is effective long term.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

Why though? It has a proven track record in some of the longer using States in America, why should they need to draw their own conclusions when we have seen results it has had before? I think because, as has been said before, they need to make as much money out of it as possible. Just taxing and licencing would not be enough for greedy politicians and pharmaceutical investors. Sickening that a person cannot make a free choice to use a plant that is less destructive than the other two main legal drugs in this day and age.

It doesn't have a proven track record, an article from leafy.com isn't proof. The HPRA assessed all available studies. There is no conspiracy just a lack of evidence.

Tiptoptoe86

jh79 wrote: »

It doesn't have a proven track record, an article from leafy.com isn't proof. The HPRA assessed all available studies. There is no conspiracy just a lack of evidence.

You need a smoke dude chill !

Never mind your reports you must own a pharmaceutical company, you seem so.against cannibas of all forms.

Seanachai

kleefarr wrote: »

Why though? It has a proven track record in some of the longer using States in America, why should they need to draw their own conclusions when we have seen results it has had before? I think because, as has been said before, they need to make as much money out of it as possible. Just taxing and licencing would not be enough for greedy politicians and pharmaceutical investors. Sickening that a person cannot make a free choice to use a plant that is less destructive than the other two main legal drugs in this day and age.

I think our processes are more stringent to be honest, there's opiates and stimulants that are handed out pretty freely in the US that aren't prescribed here. My guess is that they are wary of people presenting with hard to prove pain issues just to get cannabis to use recreationally or sell it on.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

I think our processes are more stringent to be honest, there's opiates and stimulants that are handed out pretty freely in the US that aren't prescribed here. My guess is that they are wary of people presenting with hard to prove pain issues just to get cannabis to use recreationally or sell it on.

The HPRA gave their reasons for not allowing access for chronic pain. The studies were poor and even then the benefit was only modest and the side effects greater than with the alternatives.

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

The HPRA gave their reasons for not allowing access for chronic pain. The studies were poor and even then the benefit was only modest and the side effects greater than with the alternatives.

I know that's the official line, there are usually reasons that aren't divulged to the public also.

theValheru853

Who knows?
The CBD oil she is on at the moment is probably unregulated so different batches probably contain different amounts of THC as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum to be legal.
And the answer to your questions may not be known until her daughter starts on the treatment.

Zebra3

I think this poll shows how out of touch the people are with our visionary political establishment.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Seanachai wrote: »

I think our processes are more stringent to be honest, there's opiates and stimulants that are handed out pretty freely in the US that aren't prescribed here. My guess is that they are wary of people presenting with hard to prove pain issues just to get cannabis to use recreationally or sell it on.

People that wish to use it for therapeutic or recreational purposes should not be criminalised full stop.

It would be common sense to decriminalise the drug and make it available to those who wish to consume it.

There are 100's of thousands of people on anti depressants in Ireland today, even more when you add in people on anti pain or anti anxiety medication. When you add in alcohol, you're talking about the vast majority (90%+) of the adult population who are using some form of psychoactive substance for their own personal reasons. Cannabis is firmly within this classification of drug.

We need to stop the madness of criminalising this drug.

Seanachai

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

People that wish to use it for therapeutic or recreational purposes should not be criminalised full stop.

It would be common sense to decriminalise the drug and make it available to those who wish to consume it.

There are 100's of thousands of people on anti depressants in Ireland today, even more when you add in people on anti pain or anti anxiety medication. When you add in alcohol, you're talking about the vast majority (90%+) of the adult population who are using some form of psychoactive substance for their own personal reasons. Cannabis is firmly within this classification of drug.

We need to stop the madness of criminalising this drug.

I'd tend to agree with you, our deep state are still pretty rigid in this regard though.

mulbot

It's some joke-won't allow access to medical cannabis yet have no problem handing out methadone,free needles and now even a safe place to shoot up heroin!!!

evolving_doors

OSI wrote: »

One of the more common anti-eplieptic drugs Epilim is derived from a plant itself. Has been in wide use since the 1960s and was considered a safe and affective drug. Now it's been show to increase the risk of birth defects in pregnant women to 40%. We can't rush into these things just because I small group of people have shown moderate promise.

What do you mean by 'moderate promise'?. Take a basic case of a child who had 300 seizures a week (whilst exploring regular medication options) reduced to 2-3 seizures a month (HERE) could we put it down to a placebo effect or coincidence. That's a little more than 'moderate promise' (or another Irish case HERE).

Whether or not it's a 'small group' is irrelevant.

Jayop

60 percent saw a moderate to significant improvement by using a pretty harmless 'medicine' with pretty much no side effects and it's called moderate. I'd say that's pretty good.