Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/neurologists-to-draw-up-guide-for-safe-use-of-medicinal-cannabis-1.3011306

"Irish neurologists are to draw up guidelines on the safe use of medicinal cannabis for patients with epilepsy."

"Dr Doherty said evidence was emerging for the use of a cannabadiol (CBD) product known as Epidiolex, which is on fast-track designation for the treatment of severe epilepsy in the US. It is expected Epidiolex will be available in Ireland through a Government-sponsored access programme later this year."

"No other cannabis derivatives or products have been adequately studied to a level that they are proven to be effective and safe to use in clinical practice.”

“Specifically, products containing THC [a cannabis derivative with potentially harmful psychoactive effects] remain inadequately tested,” Dr Doherty said."

"He said the main barrier to the prescribing of cannabis derivatives for epilepsy was the lack of clinical evidence of its long-term efficacy, as well as a lack of data on long-term side effects. “Apart from Epidiolex no other cannabis product has been endorsed by any scientific or licensing authority.”"

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/neurologists-to-draw-up-guide-for-safe-use-of-medicinal-cannabis-1.3011306

"Irish neurologists are to draw up guidelines on the safe use of medicinal cannabis for patients with epilepsy."

"Dr Doherty said evidence was emerging for the use of a cannabadiol (CBD) product known as Epidiolex, which is on fast-track designation for the treatment of severe epilepsy in the US. It is expected Epidiolex will be available in Ireland through a Government-sponsored access programme later this year."

"No other cannabis derivatives or products have been adequately studied to a level that they are proven to be effective and safe to use in clinical practice.”

“Specifically, products containing THC [a cannabis derivative with potentially harmful psychoactive effects] remain inadequately tested,” Dr Doherty said."

"He said the main barrier to the prescribing of cannabis derivatives for epilepsy was the lack of clinical evidence of its long-term efficacy, as well as a lack of data on long-term side effects. “Apart from Epidiolex no other cannabis product has been endorsed by any scientific or licensing authority.”"

Isn't this bad new for Eva, she want's the one with THC.
CBD is charlottes web, what exactly is he going studying, something that's already been researched. Seems like a waste of time.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't this bad new for Eva, she want's the one with THC.
CBD is charlottes web, what exactly is he going studying, something that's already been researched. Seems like a waste of time.

Yes it is.

How is getting the correct information out to those expected to sign off on these exemptions a waste of time? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the research doesn't support the claims made by those on the pro side by any chance?

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

Yes it is.

How is getting the correct information out to those expected to sign off on these exemptions a waste of time? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the research doesn't support the claims made by those on the pro side by any chance?

It's a waste of time as it's already being researched, why can't we believe research from other countries. All that'll come of this is what we already know. THC is being ignored as it's the root of all evil I presume.

Medicinal cannabis campaign is a waste of time for people who want access anytime soon. Clinical trials take years and then might not be approved.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's a waste of time as it's already being researched, why can't we believe research from other countries. All that'll come of this is what we already know. THC is being ignored as it's the root of all evil I presume.

Medicinal cannabis campaign is a waste of time for people who want access anytime soon. Clinical trials take years and then might not be approved.

It hasn't been researched in other countries that is the problem. The HPRA report included all available research.

Medical marijuana in the US is just a charade to allow access for recreational use.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's a waste of time as it's already being researched, why can't we believe research from other countries. All that'll come of this is what we already know. THC is being ignored as it's the root of all evil I presume.

Medicinal cannabis campaign is a waste of time for people who want access anytime soon. Clinical trials take years and then might not be approved.

Yes because it might not work?? That is the whole point.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

Yes because it might not work?? That is the whole point.

If it might not work then why is GW investing millions of pounds on infrastructure in anticipation of producing 100 tonnes of cannabis plant for medicinal use?
They are now heavily funding various trials, some at an advanced stage, to get closer to production.
Some people in the medical arena will not accept that there is therapeutic value to be gained from cannabis until it is shoved in their face.
At least GW are running with it and if they when they get the formula right people with start to benefit from a more natural remedy than a harmful synthesized product.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

Medical marijuana in the US is just a charade to allow access for recreational use.

100% agree it is, the problem here is Harris called everybody's bluff now nobody is getting access (except for a select few).
Time to swap tac and push for recreational use while they run clinical trials for the next 50 years.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

Yes because it might not work?? That is the whole point.

It's got potential but it does not work right now, it needs a lot of research. Asking a doctor to make out prescription for children containing cannabis is never going to be a runner here for a long time.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

If it might not work then why is GW investing millions of pounds on infrastructure in anticipation of producing 100 tonnes of cannabis plant for medicinal use?
They are now heavily funding various trials, some at an advanced stage, to get closer to production.
Some people in the medical arena will not accept that there is therapeutic value to be gained from cannabis until it is shoved in their face.
At least GW are running with it and if they when they get the formula right people with start to benefit from a more natural remedy than a harmful synthesized product.

It will be accepted, by me anyways, once positive clinical trials to a phase IV standard are published.

What do you suggest is the standard of evidence required?

For chronic pain the "natural" product ie weed was the more harmful. Can we stop with the natural fallacy please?

kleefarr

I gave my son cannabis in secret...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqvJOAV7oAc

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

It will be accepted, by me anyways, once positive clinical trials to a phase IV standard are published.

And there, you are exercising your free right to chose, just like you chose to have a drink or not.

Everyone should be free to chose.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

And there, you are exercising your free right to chose, just like you chose to have a drink or not.

Everyone should be free to chose.

For recreational use , yes, for medicine no.

I doubt that you mean medicine should be freely available ie morphine in tesco so I'll assume weed is a special case cause it has the advantage of getting you stoned.

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

For recreational use , yes, for medicine no.

I doubt that you mean medicine should be freely available ie morphine in tesco so I'll assume weed is a special case cause it has the advantage of getting you stoned.

Um, I had originally come back to reply to...

jh79 wrote:

"You are free to pretend it has magical properties. I'll stick to the evidence."

...which I had notification on my phone for.

But I guess you had a change of heart.

Again I feel you are taking it to the extreme, the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine compared to cannabis are much more widely known about, such as the recent revelations that ibruprofen and other anti inflammatory drugs lead to increased risk of heart attack or stroke three fold.

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm453610.htm

You will find, and I am sure you are aware of this, that most pharmaceutical drugs fix one thing but then give you 2-10 different complicating side effects which then require further drugs to counteract, and so the cycle progresses and the money rolls in.

www.drugs.com

What ever way you wish to look at it, there is little doubt that as a herb/medicine, cannabis is not the one that should be under scrutiny.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

Um, I had originally come back to reply to...

...which I had notification on my phone for.

But I guess you had a change of heart.

Again I feel you are taking it to the extreme, the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine compared to cannabis are much more widely known about, such as the recent revelations that ibruprofen and other anti inflammatory drugs lead to increased risk of heart attack or stroke three fold.

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm453610.htm

You will find, and I am sure you are aware of this, that most pharmaceutical drugs fix one thing but then give you 2-10 different complicating side effects which then require further drugs to counteract, and so the cycle progresses and the money rolls in.

www.drugs.com

What ever way you wish to look at it, there is little doubt that as a herb/medicine, cannabis is not the one that should be under scrutiny.

The original post wasn't necessary so i deleted it. Seeing as you brought it up, it is true that you believe that marijuana has certain properties. Without evidence it is something you believe and nothing more.


Again I feel you are taking it to the extreme, the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine compared to cannabis are much more widely known about, such as the recent revelations that ibruprofen and other anti inflammatory drugs lead to increased risk of heart attack or stroke three fold.


So the only logical response to that is a regulated industry in which efficacy and adverse effects are determined and monitored to ensure that pros outweigh the cons.

Yet you want a pass for weed. Can you give a reason why we don't need to determine the actual efficacy and possible adverse effects for weed?

It could possibly cause schizophrenia , why should this be ignored for what studies have shown to be modest benefits (Read the Barnes Report)?

Why should it get a licence for chronic pain when studies show it to be less effective and with more side effects?


Can you give good reasons without resorting to the natural fallacy? Otherwise I think you really don't care whether it has therapeutic properties this is about getting stoned.

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

For recreational use , yes, for medicine no.

I doubt that you mean medicine should be freely available ie morphine in tesco so I'll assume weed is a special case cause it has the advantage of getting you stoned.

There are pretty prominent individuals and bodies who are pushing for 're-legalisation' of certain drugs, with the exception of opiates. They are open to having drugs like mdma & amphetamines, cannabis and possibly even cocaine available from dispensaries at it was before they were banned. I'm still on the fence about this, but if the policy caught on across Europe and the UK, wouldn't it be hard for Ireland to maintain it's current stance?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/war-on-drugs-british-medical-journal-heroin-cannabis-cocaine-a7417171.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/how-to-legalise-drug-use/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/drugs-legalise-richard-branson-kofi-annan-report-global-commission-on-drug-policy-report-a7431676.html

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

There are pretty prominent individuals and bodies who are pushing for 're-legalisation' of certain drugs, with the exception of opiates. They are open to having drugs like mdma & amphetamines, cannabis and possibly even cocaine available from dispensaries at it was before they were banned. I'm still on the fence about this, but if the policy caught on across Europe and the UK, wouldn't it be hard for Ireland to maintain it's current stance?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/war-on-drugs-british-medical-journal-heroin-cannabis-cocaine-a7417171.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/how-to-legalise-drug-use/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/drugs-legalise-richard-branson-kofi-annan-report-global-commission-on-drug-policy-report-a7431676.html

In fairness that is a separate issue to licensing marijuana as a medicine.

kleefarr

Cannabis discussion Norfolk radio...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_norfolk

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

The original post wasn't necessary so i deleted it. Seeing as you brought it up, it is true that you believe that marijuana has certain properties. Without evidence it is something you believe and nothing more.


Again I feel you are taking it to the extreme, the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine compared to cannabis are much more widely known about, such as the recent revelations that ibruprofen and other anti inflammatory drugs lead to increased risk of heart attack or stroke three fold.


So the only logical response to that is a regulated industry in which efficacy and adverse effects are determined and monitored to ensure that pros outweigh the cons.

Yet you want a pass for weed. Can you give a reason why we don't need to determine the actual efficacy and possible adverse effects for weed?

It could possibly cause schizophrenia , why should this be ignored for what studies have shown to be modest benefits (Read the Barnes Report)?

Why should it get a licence for chronic pain when studies show it to be less effective and with more side effects?


Can you give good reasons without resorting to the natural fallacy? Otherwise I think you really don't care whether it has therapeutic properties this is about getting stoned.

There is evidence which you seem to think does not exist.

Loads here... http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

There is evidence which you seem to think does not exist.

Loads here... http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/

Sorry you'll need to be more specific.

Which studies prove what?

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

Sorry you'll need to be more specific.

Which studies prove what?

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php/2015-11-20-20-52-15/completed-studies

jh79

http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/low-success-rates-persist-clinical-trials

"The report shows that more than 40% of Phase III studies do not result in applications filed with FDA. A majority of Phase 1 studies lead to the next phase, while the lowest success rates (31%) occur in Phase II research, where difficulties in obtaining proof-of-concept data fail to support large Phase III studies. "

"The analysis using Informa’s Biomedtracker service covers 7,455 programs involving 14 major disease areas and 9,985 transitions from Phase 1 to II to III. Likelihood of approval from Phase 1 ranged from only 5% for oncology therapies to 26% for hematology, where new therapies for hemophilia have done well."

kleefarr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=63&v=58X5KhW80pw

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/low-success-rates-persist-clinical-trials

"The report shows that more than 40% of Phase III studies do not result in applications filed with FDA. A majority of Phase 1 studies lead to the next phase, while the lowest success rates (31%) occur in Phase II research, where difficulties in obtaining proof-of-concept data fail to support large Phase III studies. "

"The analysis using Informa’s Biomedtracker service covers 7,455 programs involving 14 major disease areas and 9,985 transitions from Phase 1 to II to III. Likelihood of approval from Phase 1 ranged from only 5% for oncology therapies to 26% for hematology, where new therapies for hemophilia have done well."

"Likelihood of approval".

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php/2015-11-20-20-52-15/completed-studies

These studies were already assessed by Cochrane and more recently by Prof Barnes, the HPRA and the American Academies.

The recent reviews are pretty much in agreement for modest effects in 4 illnesses with only Chronic Pain being contentious. The evidence still wasn't up to standards normally required for medicine.

Barnes or Gino still have not given a valid scientific reason for their stance on Chronic pain.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

"Likelihood of approval".

What's your point?

kleefarr

kleefarr wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=63&v=58X5KhW80pw

Is it any wonder the Pharmaceutical business does not want this legalised.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

Is it any wonder the Pharmaceutical business does not want this legalised.

Increased levels of schizophrenia means increased anti-psychotic drugs sales so every cloud...

kleefarr

kleefarr wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=63&v=58X5KhW80pw

22nd Minute. Powerful point.

1:30:10 Sad.but it shows that it doesn't work for everyone, but is still more effective as an aid to well being and likely more successful than traditional methods.

1:40:45 Money is the root of all evil.

1:42 The con.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

22nd Minute. Powerful point.

1:30:10 Sad.but it shows that it doesn't work for everyone, but is still more effective as an aid to well being and likely more successful than traditional methods.

1:40:45 Money is the root of all evil.

1:42 The con.

1.42 "The Con"

Well the reason Sativex is schedule 4 but the oil he has is 1 is because Sativex has proven that it has therapeutic uses that outweigh its risk and that it it can be produced to a standard (GMP) that ensures efficacy.

The unknown oil in the vial has none of this.

22nd Minute. Powerful point.
They are not buying medicine they are buying what they believe is medicine. Self medicating is not a good thing and they are responsible for their own actions.

1:30:10 Sad.but it shows that it doesn't work for everyone, but is still more effective as an aid to well being and likely more successful than traditional methods.

Can you back any of this statement up with scientific studies ? A Cochrane review found no benefit in pallative care and the pre-clinical data for cannabinoids in cancer isn't great.