Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

ScumLord

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Can we just take Charlotte's web for example. Currently there is only 2 ways to get it in Ireland, either grow it illegally or buy it on the black market.
The black market is expensive but it'll be a lot cheaper than if you say only certain businesses conforming to GMP can make medicinal cannabis or if your of the opinion buying/growing the medicinal cannabis has to be strictly controlled.

In the actual growing of the product the process is identical for both back alley and medicinal growers. They both can replicate then same growing conditions.

The costs will be sky high going the medicinal route or only allowing access through the medical system.

The question isn't can it conform, the question is why should it. Who wants a situation much like we have today with ownership controlled by 1 group, all we're going to end up with is a monopoly with 2 greedy stakeholders. It's currently controlled by just one group.

Why not just legalise the plant to grow at home and bypass all this medicinal argument while there trying to prove it one way or another.

Eva doesn't need the right to access to buy medicinal cannabis, she needs the right to grow a plant at home without fear of prosecution. We're caught up in the wrong argument with Harris at the moment, it's not about Eva it's about everyone's basic human right.

Growing at home is fine for recreational use. But if you want to use it as a medicine you kind of want to process it into a quantifiable medical dose. You really want to make a pill that will give a known effect and last a certain amount of time.

Growing cannabis is straightforward enough, but it requires equipment, time and ability. It's likely an industrial grow can do all that at a much more cost effective price even allowing for a profit and tax.

Then, if you're turning it into a medicine that requires more knowledge and equipment.

I can grow all kinds of thing at home but I don't, it's easier to go to the shop, rather than spend months looking after the plant and then having enough stuff to last a little while.

Allowing home growing isn't going to suit a lot of people, the black market would still be there.

theValheru853

drunkmonkey wrote:

It matters to everyone the patients and the gigglers.

Not according to you! You can grow any kinda **** you want and smoke it for giggles.

I'm after a specific THC content for epilipsy but dont want to get a high out of it.

theValheru853

Actually, Charlottes Web is very legal to get in Ireland because the THC content is so low

kleefarr

theValheru853 wrote: »

Actually, Charlottes Web is very legal to get in Ireland because the THC content is so low

Have you tried that for your epilepsy?

theValheru853

kleefarr wrote:

Have you tried that for your epilepsy?

I'm not the one with epilepsy, but family member is and yes they have

kleefarr

theValheru853 wrote: »

I'm not the one with epilepsy, but family member is and yes they have

No good then?

theValheru853

kleefarr wrote:

No good then?

It has had a good effect, but doesn't stop siezures entirely, which would be ideal.

Seanachai

theValheru853 wrote: »

It has had a good effect, but doesn't stop siezures entirely, which would be ideal.

It's the Rick Simpson oil that is needed from what I've read, the CW just has a mild sedating effect without the broader effects of the THC.

kleefarr

theValheru853 wrote: »

It has had a good effect, but doesn't stop siezures entirely, which would be ideal.

Needs some tweaking then. One with slightly more THC probably.
Good luck anyway.

https://www.leafly.com/explore/sort-alpha#/explore/symptoms-seizures/sort-alpha

theValheru853

Seanachai wrote:

It's the Rick Simpson oil that is needed from what I've read, the CW just has a mild sedating effect without the broader effects of the THC.

Can u give me more details on that?

theValheru853

kleefarr wrote:

Needs some tweaking then. One with slightly more THC probably. Good luck anyway.

Probably does, hence, the problem. Charlottes Web is only legal because of the 0.3% THC content.

Seanachai

theValheru853 wrote: »

Can u give me more details on that?

It's not legal here because of the THC content but the formula is found to be superior to CW based on anecdotal evidence from patients and parents of children who are ill.

https://www.endoca.com/cbd-oil/rick-simpson-oil/

theValheru853

Seanachai wrote:

It's not legal here because of the THC content but the formula is found to be superior to CW based on anecdotal evidence from patients and parents of children who are ill.

I was thinking that might be the case. But I will look into it at the same time. Thanks

kleefarr

theValheru853 wrote: »

I was thinking that might be the case. But I will look into it at the same time. Thanks

This is the official site... http://phoenixtears.ca/

kleefarr

Also a handy Cannabinoid wheel here.. https://homegrownsalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0kDQdUNqR0GCXCMdfgbs_leafly-cannabinoid-wheel-large.jpg

kleefarr

For those of you that wondered how much THC you could get in cannabis..

https://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/peak-thc-cbd-levels-for-cannabis-strains

kleefarr

The Real Life Experience of Jeff Waters

http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/cannabis-oil-works-copd-conventional-medications-fail.html

kleefarr

By now, most people familiar with cannabis have heard of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol) and their effects, but did you know there are many similar compounds in cannabis? A lesser-known cannabinoid called cannabigerol (CBG), while not present in large quantities in most strains, is nonetheless worth learning about for a number of reasons.

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/what-is-cbg-cannabinoid

The diverse capabilities of this plant are what is really scaring the Pharmaceutical business.

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

Your last comment is silly given you are calling for less regulation.

The context here is whether medicinal marijuana can be approved, gmp is a requirement for that. Read up on the purpose of GMP and tell me why that isn't required for weed.

Bedrocan and Cannimed use GMP.

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Bedrocan and Cannimed use GMP.

I know, another poster was questioning why it costs so much more.

kleefarr

Canadian Medical Marijuana Industry Risks Opportunities

Won't go well if the prime reason is money.

https://www.midasletter.com/2014/05/canadian-medical-marijuana-industry-risks-opportunities/

kleefarr

I wonder what makes the Irish Government and Health Service think they know more than people who have been there before?

https://www.leafly.com/news/health

Seanachai

kleefarr wrote: »

I wonder what makes the Irish Government and Health Service think they know more than people who have been there before?

https://www.leafly.com/news/health

I think that the state likes to be seen to be liberal in relation to issues such as gay marriage and multiculturalism etc, but they have a much more cautious approach to cannabis. You have to remember that a lot of their support base would be of the mindset that cannabis is the road to ruin and they don't want to upset them too much. I'd say they're keeping an eye on how the projects are unfolding in other countries and then they'll test public opinion further down the road.

kleefarr

Seanachai wrote: »

I think that the state likes to be seen to be liberal in relation to issues such as gay marriage and multiculturalism etc, but they have a much more cautious approach to cannabis. You have to remember that a lot of their support base would be of the mindset that cannabis is the road to ruin and they don't want to upset them too much. I'd say they're keeping an eye on how the projects are unfolding in other countries and then they'll test public opinion further down the road.

I wouldn't call trying to control people and cannabis use, liberal.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

I think that the state likes to be seen to be liberal in relation to issues such as gay marriage and multiculturalism etc, but they have a much more cautious approach to cannabis. You have to remember that a lot of their support base would be of the mindset that cannabis is the road to ruin and they don't want to upset them too much. I'd say they're keeping an eye on how the projects are unfolding in other countries and then they'll test public opinion further down the road.

The links that keeflar provided don't provide any evidence that medical.marijuana is being treated harshly in this country.

It doesn't meet regualtory requirements anywhere else either that is why other countries invented quangos to facilitate access. It is available in these countries because the public want access not because it has proven itself to be effective and safe medicine. Let's be honest the majority want access for recreational reasons and this charade facilitates this.

Keeflar, unless your links contain randomised controlled trials your not highlighting anything with regards marijuana being licensed as medicine.

If you truly believe in medicial marijuana accept the findings of the various reg authorities. The standards they require are the same for all medicine.

Seanachai

kleefarr wrote: »

I wouldn't call trying to control people and cannabis use, liberal.

That's why I said they were being cautious towards it unlike their stance on social issues. I don't think there will be any radical movement on this for a couple of years.

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

The links that keeflar provided don't provide any evidence that medical.marijuana is being treated harshly in this country.

It doesn't meet regualtory requirements anywhere else either that is why other countries invented quangos to facilitate access. It is available in these countries because the public want access not because it has proven itself to be effective and safe medicine. Let's be honest the majority want access for recreational reasons and this charade facilitates this.

Keeflar, unless your links contain randomised controlled trials your not highlighting anything with regards marijuana being licensed as medicine.

If you truly believe in medicial marijuana accept the findings of the various reg authorities. The standards they require are the same for all medicine.

You may want to put all your trust in the regulatory authorities, but I think I would believe more the peoples reports than those of regulatory authorities. See the comments..

https://www.leafly.com/news/health/cannabis-for-glaucoma-treatment

kleefarr

Seanachai wrote: »

That's why I said they were being cautious towards it unlike their stance on social issues. I don't think there will be any radical movement on this for a couple of years.

Fair enough, but I think they are being over cautious for reasons of control.

Seanachai

kleefarr wrote: »

Fair enough, but I think they are being over cautious for reasons of control.

To be honest mate I lean towards anarchism myself, but I'm also a pragmatist. I try to put myself into the shoes of the guys making the big decisions, they have to think of the whole herd as it were, not just the people that can navigate their own way.

kleefarr

Seanachai wrote: »

To be honest mate I lean towards anarchism myself, but I'm also a pragmatist. I try to put myself into the shoes of the guys making the big decisions, they have to think of the whole herd as it were, not just the people that can navigate their own way.

Yes I agree.
Think of the whole herd, but when the herd wants, as is indicated in the poll results and is clearly obvious form demonstrations by people like Vera Twomey, not to mention the fact that it would create so much extra revenue and is also not as harmful as two of the other legal substances, then it gets a bit ridiculous to try to believe that they are doing it for the good of the herd.