Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

Scientifc studies to date have found very little benefit for CBD's. If people didn't use it recreationally it would barely be talked about in a medical sense.

CBD by itself has minimal impact, it is the combination of THC / CBD that is gaining traction in the scientific world.
Research is being carried out in Trinity and they are already acknowledging that there is something to it. Whilst they see that it could be beneficial, they want to still work out how exactly it does it.

Like a lot of things in life, some cures are found by chance, who would have though all those years ago that a piece of mould was going to revolutionise the world of medicine.

From PubMed.Gov
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (..antitumor effects of cannabinoids in gliomas.)

These findings indicate that cannabinoids are promising compounds for the treatment of gliomas.

In vitro and in vivo efficacy of non-psychoactive cannabidiol in neuroblastoma.

[...]
CONCLUSIONS:

Our results demonstrate the antitumourigenic action of cbd on nbl (neuroblastoma) cells. Because cbd is a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid that appears to be devoid of side effects, our results support its exploitation as an effective anticancer drug in the management of nbl.

Jayop

Jh79 comes into all of these threads to argue the case for big pharmaceutical companies over and over again. It's quite funny to begin with but the repeatative nature of it does get boring. Despite being given evidence to the contrary over and over again he'll carry on posting his schtick and arguing against strawmen.

VladamirP

Get a few seeds, grow them, make your own oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZXGH6mYr3Y

VladamirP

jh79 wrote: »

Did you ask the same of those claiming it does have benefits?

So you didn't see any studies, you just gave your own biased opinion, your the guy that thinks fluoride is good for the teeth aren't you.


http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

jh79

VladamirP wrote: »

So you didn't see any studies, you just gave your own biased opinion, your the guy that thinks fluoride is good for the teeth aren't you.


http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

I have read studies before it might have benefits as an anti-nausea drug maybe some pain benefits and i can't think of any more.

Most studies suggest a synthetic thc or cbd beimg the most likely to have a clinical effect.

So which illness is marijuana best for?

VladamirP

jh79 wrote: »

I have read studies before it might have benefits as an anti-nausea drug maybe some pain benefits and i can't think of any more.

Most studies suggest a synthetic thc or cbd beimg the most likely to have a clinical effect.

So which illness is marijuana best for?

Which illness is it bad for?

jh79

VladamirP wrote: »

Which illness is it bad for?

No idea very few studies on long term use to say. Sure find a benefit first and worry about adverse effects later.

jh79

http://www.m.webmd.com/pain-management/features/medical-marijuana-research-web

Not very impressive to be fair and hardly worthy of a campaign.

VladamirP

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.m.webmd.com/pain-management/features/medical-marijuana-research-web

Not very impressive to be fair and hardly worthy of a campaign.

It still showed benefits, but from your link it kinda shows why there is bias against marijuana.

In 1970, the federal government classified marijuana as an illegal, highly addictive drug with no medical value, making research harder to do.

jh79

VladamirP wrote: »

It still showed benefits, but from your link it kinda shows why there is bias against marijuana.

Bias?? It told the history of it , it didn't offer an opinion on what happened.

VladamirP

jh79 wrote: »

Bias?? It told the history of it , it didn't offer an opinion on what happened.

I must have worded that wrong, what I said was, "It still showed benefits, but from your link it kinda shows why there is bias against marijuana."

Then I quoted a sentence that says "In 1970, the federal government classified marijuana as an illegal, highly addictive drug with no medical value, making research harder to do."

So what I meant was that people that believe everything the govt says is true would be biased against any mention of benefits from marijuana.

Bongalongherb

jh79 wrote: »

Scientifc studies to date have found very little benefit for CBD's. If people didn't use it recreationally it would barely be talked about in a medical sense.

That is a very backward and blind comment, just like the thinking that goes on about cannabis in government circles. Did you even bother to study the basics ? even the poster that linked to the video on #49 called 'The Scientist' has many details scientifically proven to show the benefits of cannabinoids. Educate yourself.

It should definitely be legalised fully for medicinal purposes. That's a no-brainer imo.

For recreational use I'd be in favour of it gradually being legalised but would be a little cautious of it going straight from the current status to full legalisation. I'd personally lean towards decriminalisation as a first step, seeing how that progresses and then (assuming the sky hasn't fallen in as a result) move from there towards legalisation.

peckerhead

I think it should be incorporated into the Transition Year programme in schools, before being offered as an alternative path to the Leaving Certificate. Yet your poll offers no such option.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

No idea very few studies on long term use to say. Sure find a benefit first and worry about adverse effects later.

Have you actually bothered to do any research on the subject at all?
You linked to a web site that actually acknowledged possible benefits, which didnt do your argument any favours.

Instead of point blankly ignoring links being put up by others, at least do the decent thing and read the articles and watch the video and then put up a resonable counter argument.

While at it, watch the video of Dr. Cristina Sánchez (Spain) speaking in 2015 about the antitumoral effects of cannabinoids. 
Especially where she talks about the positive outcome of THC on human cancer patients in a trial study.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Have you actually bothered to do any research on the subject at all?
You linked to a web site that actually acknowledged possible benefits, which didnt do your argument any favours.

Instead of point blankly ignoring links being put up by others, at least do the decent thing and read the articles and watch the video and then put up a resonable counter argument.

While at it, watch the video of Dr. Cristina Sánchez (Spain) speaking in 2015 about the antitumoral effects of cannabinoids. 
Especially where she talks about the positive outcome of THC on human cancer patients in a trial study.

Killing cancer cells in the lab isn't impressive and does not mean that it will do it for real. Every PhD student studing in this field finds new compounds that kill cancer.

Cannabinoids have shown some anti tumour activity but are not very potent. No where near as good as what's already available.

Studies in brain glioma required the equivalent of 100 joints injected directly in the tumour.

Cancer.gov has a good summary .

www.cancer.gov/aboutcancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

CBD by itself has minimal impact, it is the combination of THC / CBD that is gaining traction in the scientific world.
Research is being carried out in Trinity and they are already acknowledging that there is something to it. Whilst they see that it could be beneficial, they want to still work out how exactly it does it.

Like a lot of things in life, some cures are found by chance, who would have though all those years ago that a piece of mould was going to revolutionise the world of medicine.

From PubMed.Gov
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (..antitumor effects of cannabinoids in gliomas.)

In vitro and in vivo efficacy of non-psychoactive cannabidiol in neuroblastoma.

I'm aware of the research. Cannabinoids show some promise but they are not very potent. If, and it is a big if, an actual treatment is developed it will be some sort of concentrated extract or more than likely a synthetic mimic.

Does any of this actually require a change in its legal status??

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

I'm aware of the research. Cannabinoids show some promise but they are not very potent. If, and it is a big if, an actual treatment is developed it will be some sort of concentrated extract or more than likely a synthetic mimic.

The efficacy does look promising, but it still has a bit to go regarding fine tuning dosing. Not sure if you have looked at any videos, but the oil is the very concentrated extract.
It woukd be unlikely to be a synthetic mimic, why attempt to synthetically reproduce something that they already have. I imagine it will be when they work out the formula balance of thc / cbd ratio for different ailments it will prove itself, one way or the other.

Does any of this actually require a change in its legal status??

Yes, as its illegal to produce, have or use any cannabis product. So even if it was found to be successful, the law would have to change if someone was to be granted a licence to produce it here.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

The efficacy does look promising, but it still has a bit to go regarding fine tuning dosing. Not sure if you have looked at any videos, but the oil is the very concentrated extract.
It woukd be unlikely to be a synthetic mimic, why attempt to synthetically reproduce something that they already have. I imagine it will be when they work out the formula balance of thc / cbd ratio for different ailments it will prove itself, one way or the other.



Yes, as its illegal to produce, have or use any cannabis product. So even if it was found to be successful, the law would have to change if someone was to be granted a licence to produce it here.

Synthetic mimics of natural compounds make up about 25% of all medicine. They generally are more potent and have the advantage of ensuring a consistent dose. Natural compounds are rarely potent enough in their natural state. Maybe CBD is the exception to the rule but so far the results say otherwise.

Any research I've read re cancer, the CBD's have not performed as well as the gold standard treatment. Am I correct on this point?

Skyfarm

lets factor in the "placebo" effect on the taking control of a recovery/pass over for the people taking cannabis, the state of mind is an (in my view) major factor in how we overcome illness.

We are constantly told that doctors are the gold measure in treating illness and their word is "God",in Ireland we have the defference still attached to doctors.

The i "cant find anything wrong","its in your head","your looking for painkillers" can destroy a person and indeed do more damage

giving back control and a choice for a person who is ill can be as equally important as a Doctors advice /choice of medicine

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

[..]
Any research I've read re cancer, the CBD's have not performed as well as the gold standard treatment. Am I correct on this point?

But what is the gold standard and really how effective is it, long term in some cancers. A lot of cancers are very treatable with satisfactory long term prognosis. But there are still some cancers, typically brain cancers, which elude treatment even after the kitchen sink has been thrown at it, it will still creep back and patients succumb.
What they are finding in lab conditions is these hard to treat cells are reacting well to being treated with a higher THC to CBD ratio formula.

Skyfarm

I am stepping back from the conversation's re the science aspect,I'm following the links keenly as i wasn't aware of the levels of reports taking place over the last few years.

i really hope that you guys are going to input into the conversation taking place at national level,people who are ill need salient clear concise support in making this a reality, it was done in America..

if anybody needs a front person,lets talk

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

But what is the gold standard and really how effective is it, long term in some cancers. A lot of cancers are very treatable with satisfactory long term prognosis. But there are still some cancers, typically brain cancers, which elude treatment even after the kitchen sink has been thrown at it, it will still creep back and patients succumb.
What they are finding in lab conditions is these hard to treat cells are reacting well to being treated with a higher THC to CBD ratio formula.

The gold standard is whatever is considered the best treatment at the time. You would generally test this along with your sample for a comparison and to test that the assay went ok. Any research i've read CBD's have failed to out perform the gold standard.

Kidchameleon

jh79 wrote: »

The gold standard is whatever is considered the best treatment at the time. You would generally test this along with your sample for a comparison and to test that the assay went ok. Any research i've read CBD's have failed to out perform the gold standard.

Can you link to any of that research please

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

The gold standard is whatever is considered the best treatment at the time. You would generally test this along with your sample for a comparison and to test that the assay went ok. Any research i've read CBD's have failed to out perform the gold standard.

All treatments commonly used today have had their infancy, lab testing and trials before becoming a norm. Some of these treatments are not great, bit like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, but still used due to no alternative available.
It really has to be acknowledged that there is something worth considering, seeing as cannabinoids are now being researched and tested in so many different countries, including Ireland. And the pace is picking up.
You keep referencing "CBD" can I presume you are including the research using THC / CBD or are you only discussing / researching / referencing CBD, because there is a difference.
While I am happy to reference different studies showing encouraging results, and there are many, do you have any links to tests saying this does not work at all and inferring that the studies are a waste of time?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

All treatments commonly used today have had their infancy, lab testing and trials before becoming a norm. Some of these treatments are not great, bit like killing a fly with a sledgehammer, but still used due to no alternative available.
It really has to be acknowledged that there is something worth considering, seeing as cannabinoids are now being researched and tested in so many different countries, including Ireland. And the pace is picking up.
You keep referencing "CBD" can I presume you are including the research using THC / CBD or are you only discussing / researching / referencing CBD, because there is a difference.
While I am happy to reference different studies showing encouraging results, and there are many, do you have any links to tests saying this does not work at all and inferring that the studies are a waste of time?

Sorry when I say CBD i mean anything derived from weed.

I never said they do not work , I said the results are not impressive. I'll have a look for references later when I've time.

The studies you are referring to that show promise, are they as potent as what's already available or is the promise based on the big assumption that the side effects would be less so potency isn't as important?

VladamirP

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There's never enough time in the day, but don't panic, just one link at a time, it won't even take as much time as one of your posts, but yea please make your studies the priority now, I'm very interested in them also.

jh79

VladamirP wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There's never enough time in the day, but don't panic, just one link at a time, it won't even take as much time as one of your posts, but yea please make your studies the priority now, I'm very interested in them also.

Here is a recent review for medical marijuana covering pain relief and a few other things.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338251

Cancer ones to follow.

VladamirP

jh79 wrote: »

Here is a recent review for medical marijuana covering pain relief and a few other things.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338251

Cancer ones to follow.

Thanks I'll have a look now, see if you have time to find more, you mentioned more than 1.


edit
First things first.




Name...............Teresa Herrera
Organization..............American Medical Association
Address..............330 N. Wabash Avenue
City...........................Chicago
State / Province..............Illinois
Postal Code...............60611
CountryUS
Phone+1.3124645293
Fax+1.2246900

jh79

VladamirP wrote: »

Thanks I'll have a look now, see if you have time to find more, you mentioned more than 1.


edit
First things first.




Name...............Teresa Herrera
Organization..............American Medical Association
Address..............330 N. Wabash Avenue
City...........................Chicago
State / Province..............Illinois
Postal Code...............60611
CountryUS
Phone+1.3124645293
Fax+1.2246900

Are you planning on asking her out or something!