Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

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.

Which study is this? Previous studies were short and had no controls. Is this study any better?

Also previous studies found more adverse effect, some serious, than the standard treatments.

The girl in Cork started on CBD oil in October but the seizures are now returning.

jh79

OSI wrote: »

In a study of cannabis use on sufferers of several severe forms of epilepsy, 10% saw a significant or total reduction in the number of seizures they suffered, 50% saw a moderate decrease in seizures (up to 50%) the rest saw no affect at all. That is moderate.

Which study was this?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Which study is this? Previous studies were short and had no controls. Is this study any better?

Also previous studies found more adverse effect, some serious, than the standard treatments.

The girl in Cork started on CBD oil in October but the seizures are now returning.

Why are you doing your schtick and asking me when it's blatantly obvious I was replying to someone else.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Why are you doing your schtick and asking me when it's blatantly obvious I was replying to someone else.

Don't worry about it, OSI answered my question anyways.

Dunno if i would say it is "harmless" and the study was only 12 weeks in duration.

"Adverse events were reported in 128 (79%) of the 162 patients within the safety group. Adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients were somnolence (n=41 [25%]), decreased appetite (n=31 [19%]), diarrhoea (n=31 [19%]), fatigue (n=21 [13%]), and convulsion (n=18 [11%]). Five (3%) patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in 48 (30%) patients, including one death—a sudden unexpected death in epilepsy regarded as unrelated to study drug. 20 (12%) patients had severe adverse events possibly related to cannabidiol use, the most common of which was status epilepticus (n=9 [6%])."

drunkmonkey

Cannabis boosts risk of stroke and heart attack, independent of tobacco, new study finds http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/09/cannabis-boosts-risk-stroke-heart-attack-independent-tobacco/

Jayop

Causation vs correlation. Doesn't say if it's smoked or what.

Surely common sense would say smoking anything is going to be harmful. Are they saying that using a topical cream causes strokes? If not then I expect jh to be along to rubbish that.

drunkmonkey

THC raises your heart rate and lowers blood pressure. It 100% puts you at higher risk of heart attack/stroke.

kleefarr

drunkmonkey wrote: »

THC raises your heart rate and lowers blood pressure. It 100% puts you at higher risk of heart attack/stroke.

More scaremongering. Smoke it like that mixed with tobacco is more likely to cause health issues.
Taken any other way, even smoked on it's own which is much more preferable to mixing with tobacco, it would be less risky obviously. No more risky than going to a restaurant.

:rolleyes:

Jayop

drunkmonkey wrote: »

THC raises your heart rate and lowers blood pressure. It 100% puts you at higher risk of heart attack/stroke.

So does exercise.

jh79

Jayop, Kleefar and others who support medicinal marijuana , what level of proof do ye personally think is sufficient?

Are you consistent with this standard whether the paper shows beneficial effects or adverse effects?

That research group have a possible mechanism of action based on pre-clinical research and a correlation with a clinical outcome that is related to the pre-clinical data.

Would you accept this level of evidence for therapeutic effects?

Jayop

I'm just amazed you have no criticism of that study showing the harmful effects given the level of evidence you demand. Does it only work one way for you?

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

I'm just amazed you have no criticism of that study showing the harmful effects given the level of evidence you demand. Does it only work one way for you?

I have the exact same question for you, how can you be critical of this study but not of similar quality research that show possible benefits?

I am happy to apply the same standards to this study as I have to previous studies linked on this thread.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

I have the exact same question for you, how can you be critical of this study but not of similar quality research that show possible benefits?

I am happy to apply the same standards to this study as I have to previous studies linked on this thread.

Except you didn't. Unsurprisingly.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Except you didn't. Unsurprisingly.

That research puts you in a difficult situation not me.

What level of proof do you require for the effects of marijuana?

drunkmonkey

Jayop wrote: »

So does exercise.

Not in the same way.

I'm pro legalises but I'm not pro shuffling it through under the guise it's good for your health because quite frankly it's not. Every rose has its thorn.

It's turned from a human rights issue into about a legal prescription for Eva. It's lost direction altogether. Eva and Health benefits have to be parked. There's no judge in the country (exact for that bat **** crazy one from Naas) going to send down her mum for ordering some oil online for her daughter. I presume she is already anyway.
The medical route is a very long one and drugs need to be tested accordingly, there are so many types of pot it will take 100 years.

Keep it simple, look at California. Or maybe Cork/Munster should look at calafornia and tell Leinster and it's house to go jump, we'll make our own laws down here boy!

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

That research puts you in a difficult situation not me.

What level of proof do you require for the effects of marijuana?

Backed into a corner about the dishonesty of your approach and you can't answer a criticism without deflection and asking your own questions.

Pathetic.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Backed into a corner about the dishonesty of your approach and you can't answer a criticism without deflection and asking your own questions.

Pathetic.

How have i been dishonest? The paper hasn't even been published yet unlike you i actually like to read these studies.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

How have i been dishonest? The paper hasn't even been published yet unlike you i actually like to read these studies.

Someone here claimed cannabis raised the risk of serious illnesses based on an unpublished study so?

Had someone claimed they cured the same illnesses you'd have been all over them like a rash.

theValheru853

drunkmonkey wrote:

It's turned from a human rights issue into about a legal prescription for Eva. It's lost direction altogether. Eva and Health benefits have to be parked. There's no judge in the country (exact for that bat **** crazy one from Naas) going to send down her mum for ordering some oil online for her daughter. I presume she is already anyway. The medical route is a very long one and drugs need to be tested accordingly, there are so many types of pot it will take 100 years.

It seems that it has lost direction, but not in the way u think. People on here seem to think that medical cannabis is the same thing as rolling a joint.

It's not.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of several active compounds in the cannabis plant.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is another.

It's not a case of giving people who need it, like Ava, the whole plant with all 400 compounds as one commentator here said. Though the figure is appromimatly 113 according to wikipedia.

The plant is processed to get the required compounds that Ava and people like her need, with different conditions requiring different processing.

Parking it up is not the answer when the girl needs it. She needs to get it, but its trial and error finding what is right for her and what is not.

And she does not have a hundred years....she's already beaten the odds so the sooner she can be started on it the better.

But then....thats just my opinion.

jh79

theValheru853 wrote: »

It seems that it has lost direction, but not in the way u think. People on here seem to think that medical cannabis is the same thing as rolling a joint.

It's not.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of several active compounds in the cannabis plant.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is another.

It's not a case of giving people who need it, like Ava, the whole plant with all 400 compounds as one commentator here said. Though the figure is appromimatly 113 according to wikipedia.

The plant is processed to get the required compounds that Ava and people like her need, with different conditions requiring different processing.

Parking it up is not the answer when the girl needs it. She needs to get it, but its trial and error finding what is right for her and what is not.

And she does not have a hundred years....she's already beaten the odds so the sooner she can be started on it the better.

But then....thats just my opinion.

By looking for access to medical marijuana you are looking for regulators to lower the standard of evidence required for medicine without any valid scientifc reason.

You said it yourself it is not just about smoking a joint so safe recreational use is not enough of an indicator of safe medical use.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Someone here claimed cannabis raised the risk of serious illnesses based on an unpublished study so?

Had someone claimed they cured the same illnesses you'd have been all over them like a rash.

Wanted to see how others would react. You already know my stance, it should be held to the same standards as any other medicine.

theValheru853

jh79 wrote:

You said it yourself it is not just about smoking a joint so safe recreational use is not enough of an indicator of safe medical use.

Yes I did, but there have been studies taken to show that when properly proccessed to get what is needed, it does have a benefit for sufferers of epilipsy.

That said, I will admit the studies are not long studies, but a first step has to be taken by someone.

drunkmonkey

theValheru853 wrote: »

Yes I did, but there have been studies taken to show that when properly proccessed to get what is needed, it does have a benefit for sufferers of epilipsy.

That said, I will admit the studies are not long studies, but a first step has to be taken by someone.

It does and they should be allowed buy it by some means while it's going under medical trails. Eva doesn't have that time. What i'm saying is let the medicines board do their thing but in the mean time legalise for recreational use and there's no problem getting Eva access she can even grow it herself.

Trying to guilt the minister of health into easing up on our medical laws based on nothing concrete is messing, they should be hopping off the minster for justice to force change in the law to not make having and growing pot a crime.

theValheru853

drunkmonkey wrote:

It does and they should be allowed buy it by some means while it's going under medical trails. Eva doesn't have that time. What i'm saying is let the medicines board do their thing but in the mean time legalise for recreational use and there's no problem getting Eva access she can even grow it herself.

You can't grow it yourself. It's not a case of growing a crop, squeezing it out and giving it to the child.The proportions of the compounds in the plant are all wrong. It needs to be processed properly for medicinal use.
There is a difference between legalizing it for medicinal use and legalizing it for recreational use. The minister has it in his power to grant a licence for medicinal use, even without the current bill being passed, and the child's doctor's applications keep being rejected, apparently for a different reason each time. Each time they comply with the new reason and put in a fresh application, a new reason to reject it comes to the fore.
Put yourself in Ava's mam's position....would you wait or would you do what she did.

drunkmonkey

It is as easy as growing and squeezing it out. Needs to be done correctly but crafting the oil can be done at home.

No don't think I would have walked the second time, there was nothing to be achieved she done amazing pushing it so far on her first go.

I think she needs the right to grow her own for food, fun, material and natural medicinal purposes or the right to buy it cheap from her neighbour that does grow.
Needs to be a maximum price put in place to avoid dealing. Max retail value of €100 per lb. Something very low maybe even €20. Think it's about a €1 a lb in North Korea. Just a commoditie there, wonder is that the cause of the anxiety?

theValheru853

You say that like it is an everyday occurance. Its not. There is a ratio to the compounds needed and do you really think that its as simple as growing and squeezing?
I actually support what she is doing but I don't believe it should be made for recreational use.
Why?
Because some idiot will try exactly what you proposed. Growing their own and squeezing it out and try to craft it as you said.....and then end up poisoning themselves and the whole thing is back to square one.

drunkmonkey

What ratio of compounds, it requires 1 compound and that's weed. It's not rocket science.
What she's after is an oil that contains cbd and thc, all you need to make that oil is big bags of weed and and a heavy duty press.
It's not something that requires a pharmacy degree. You want to label it as medicine well then you need guys in white coats and pharmacists but keep it recreational and there's no issue, craft away like we've been doing for millennia.

mulbot

theValheru853 wrote: »

You say that like it is an everyday occurance. Its not. There is a ratio to the compounds needed and do you really think that its as simple as growing and squeezing?
I actually support what she is doing but I don't believe it should be made for recreational use.
Why?
Because some idiot will try exactly what you proposed. Growing their own and squeezing it out and try to craft it as you said.....and then end up poisoning themselves and the whole thing is back to square one.

That's more to do with standardization in terms of having a control for the product to be licensed.

theValheru853

drunkmonkey wrote:

What ratio of compounds, it requires 1 compound and that's weed. It's not rocket science. What she's after is an oil that contains cbd and thc, all you need to make that oil is big bags of weed and and a heavy duty press. It's not something that requires a pharmacy degree. You want to label it as medicine well then you need guys in white coats and pharmacists but keep it recreational and there's no issue, craft away like we've been doing for millennia.

You tell me!

You seem to have all the answers. Raw cannabis oil has a THC content of between 8 and 9%. The child only needs between 1 and 2%

Don't be using the need for medicinal cannabis to cover a want of recreational cannabis. People will survive without recreational cannabis. Some people will not survive without medicinal cannabis.

drunkmonkey

theValheru853 wrote: »

You tell me!

You seem to have all the answers. Raw cannabis oil has a THC content of between 8 and 9%. The child only needs between 1 and 2%

Don't be using the need for medicinal cannabis to cover a want of recreational cannabis. People will survive without recreational cannabis. Some people will not survive without medicinal cannabis.

I am telling you, you haven't the slightest idea what your talking about.

If I get some weed to help my back pain then that's medicinal cannabis. If I get some weed for ****s and giggles that's recreational. It's still the same weed it's just the use is different.

Medicinal is harder grow if your going to grade it for medical use as bugs or disease will have your crop rejected. It's still the same weed though.
You play around with strengths with the plant itself, mixing incas and sativas. One is higher in CBD and the other THC.

Where are you getting 1 & 2% THC she requires, 1 and 2% of what, your talking jibberish.

Why are you anti recreational use, it makes me think your about 12 to be honest between your view and lack of knowledge of the subject.