Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

kleefarr

Just one that passed all the stringent rules laws and regulations...

"A painkiller found to be no better than a placebo for sciatica"..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/22/a-painkiller-found-to-be-no-better-than-placebo-for-sciatica/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.1783613297aa

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

Just one that passed all the stringent rules laws and regulations...

"A painkiller found to be no better than a placebo for sciatica"..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/22/a-painkiller-found-to-be-no-better-than-placebo-for-sciatica/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.1783613297aa

Do you think studies like this are a good thing for patients?

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

Just one that passed all the stringent rules laws and regulations...

"A painkiller found to be no better than a placebo for sciatica"..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/22/a-painkiller-found-to-be-no-better-than-placebo-for-sciatica/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.1783613297aa

"Lyrica is currently approved in more than 130 countries and regions globally. The efficacy and safety of Lyrica for its approved indications has been demonstrated in large-scale, double blind, randomized, placebo controlled pivotal trials."

"Researchers from the Musculoskeletal Division at the George Institute conducted the study because they were concerned about the rising use of Lyrica for sciatica and back pain despite scarce data on its effectiveness and tolerability in this patient group."


So how does this article support your stance re drug regulation? Did you even read it?

Here is what it is approved for;

Lyrica (pregabalin) is a structural derivative of the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma aminobutyric acid indicated for the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia and spinal cord injury; as an adjunctive therapy for partial onset seizures and for the treatment of fibromyalgia

Seanachai

Vera Twomey was on the Vincent Browne show last night, a FG TD on the panel made the point that one of his constituent's children was prescribed cannabis by their consultant and that Simon Harris can't help her if a consultant won't prescribe. Is there crossed wires here about what the consultant is actually prescribing in the case mentioned by the FG TD and are they completely misunderstanding what VT is actually looking for?

big syke

jh79 wrote: »

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

That's probably the biggest lie that gets spouted about Cannabis use.

Levels of schizophrenia have remained relatively stable for the past 100 years.

Use of Cannabis has increased over 10 fold in 40 years.

How come the levels of schizophrenia has not increased in line with increased Cannabis use?

*HINT* Because there is actually no link between the two.*HINT*

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

Vera Twomey was on the Vincent Browne show last night, a FG TD on the panel made the point that one of his constituent's children was prescribed cannabis by their consultant and that Simon Harris can't help her if a consultant won't prescribe. Is there crossed wires here about what the consultant is actually prescribing in the case mentioned by the FG TD and are they completely misunderstanding what VT is actually looking for?

I think the issue is with her consultant not being comfortable signing off on this THC high oil as there is virtually no research available for its safe use. The other consultant was willing to take a chance on it, it would seem.

Can hardly blame the consultant , it is a big ask for a consultant to take responsibility for giving a patient a substance that has not been approved by any regulatory authority in world , has very little research done on it, is not prepared to GMP standards (I presume) and outside of a clinical trial.

jh79

big syke wrote: »

That's probably the biggest lie that gets spouted about Cannabis use.

Levels of schizophrenia have remained relatively stable for the past 100 years.

Use of Cannabis has increased over 10 fold in 40 years.

How come the levels of schizophrenia has not increased in line with increased Cannabis use?

*HINT* Because there is actually no link between the two.*HINT*

Read any of the reviews on this and you will find that there is a strong correlation between the two in both adult and teenage use.

big syke

jh79 wrote: »

Read any of the reviews on this and you will find that there is a strong correlation between the two in both adult and teenage use.

What reviews?

Its illogical to think that if Cannabis use has increased 10 fold and cases of schizophrenia have not increased at all than Cannabis use is to blame.

A correlation between the two is pretty meaningless unless you can isolate the Cannabis use.

For example alcohol use, personal loss, prescription drug use etc. may cause this underlying issue to be exposed in a psychotic episode and manifest into schizophrenia.

I am sure you can link the use of anything to schizophrenia.


http://u-can.site/2016/05/31/study-alcohol-linked-to-psychosis-not-marijuana/

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Read any of the reviews on this and you will find that there is a strong correlation between the two in both adult and teenage use.

We have already had this discussion on this thread more than 2 months ago. The Royal College of Psychiatrists disagree with you. But somehow you seem to know better than they do.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We have already had this discussion on this thread more than 2 months ago. The Royal College of Psychiatrists disagree with you. But somehow you seem to know better than they do.

This is what Prof Barnes, who Gino brought to Dublin for a talk, says;

In conclusion, the majority of the literature gives support for a causal hypothesis between cannabis use and psychosis, particularly if usage starts at an early age (young adolescence) and if the individual has a genetic predisposition to psychosis.

It appears that cannabis is a component cause in the development of symptoms of schizophrenia and the onset of this mental illness depends upon many interacting factors

The correlation can't be ignored.

Anyways , my comment to keeflar was a glib one . The evidence for causing schizophrenia is stronger than for many of the so called therapeutic uses claimed by keeflar and others.

kildare lad

As someone who doesnt drink and enjoys the odd spliff. I think it should be legal. Drink is way worse than cannabis. Go to any A and E at the weekend and see the after affects of alcohol. Ive never seen someone kick the **** out of anyone on weed. As someone who has crohns disease i found it helpful the last time i was in hospital. It helped me sleep, helped with the pain , and gave me an appetite..Ive also seen the clips of people with Parkinsons being able to control there shakes after takin the marijuana drops.It would be nice if Dublin had cafe shops like amsterdam. I guarantee you there would be less violence on the street.

Making it illegal only puts money into the gangsters pockets. If people want to smoke it there gonna do it anyway. But i do also believe that in some people it can bring on mental health issues if they smoke it. But so can alcohol consumption. Everything is fine in moderation for most people. But thats the problem in Ireland a lot of people dont know the meaning of the word.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

This is what Prof Barnes, who Gino brought to Dublin for a talk, says;

In conclusion, the majority of the literature gives support for a causal hypothesis between cannabis use and psychosis, particularly if usage starts at an early age (young adolescence) and if the individual has a genetic predisposition to psychosis.

It appears that cannabis is a component cause in the development of symptoms of schizophrenia and the onset of this mental illness depends upon many interacting factors

The correlation can't be ignored.

Anyways , my comment to keeflar was a glib one . The evidence for causing schizophrenia is stronger than for many of the so called therapeutic uses claimed by keeflar and others.

Take out the two items in bold and the weak correlation disappears. For someone who strongly believes in the scientific method you seem willing to accept that there is a correlation while at the same time acknowledging that we dont really understand mental illness.

pure.conya

jh79 wrote: »

I think the issue is with her consultant not being comfortable signing off on this THC high oil as there is virtually no research available for its safe use.

would ya stop, it was used safely for thousands of years and not one single person has ever died from using cannabis

there is plenty of research out there regarding use of thc, the Israelis are all over that **** and there is even a long term study going on in Jamaica that's going over 30 years at this stage

jh79

pure.conya wrote: »

would ya stop, it was used safely for thousands of years and not one single person has ever died from using cannabis

there is plenty of research out there regarding use of thc, the Israelis are all over that **** and there is even a long term study going on in Jamaica that's going over 30 years at this stage

Who said anything about dying??

How can you ignore evidence of adverse effects but accept similar quality evidence of benefits?

If it is to be used for medicine then possible side effects need to be investigated. Hardly a controversial stance unless of course your worried something might be found.

jh79

big syke wrote: »

What reviews?

Its illogical to think that if Cannabis use has increased 10 fold and cases of schizophrenia have not increased at all than Cannabis use is to blame.

A correlation between the two is pretty meaningless unless you can isolate the Cannabis use.

For example alcohol use, personal loss, prescription drug use etc. may cause this underlying issue to be exposed in a psychotic episode and manifest into schizophrenia.

I am sure you can link the use of anything to schizophrenia.


http://u-can.site/2016/05/31/study-alcohol-linked-to-psychosis-not-marijuana/

The HPRA report, the American Acadamies review or the Barnes Report.

Barnes report is pro medicinal marijuana, read that one.

There is a link that needs investigating.

Hypocritical to push for medicial marijuana based on poor quality evidence and then dismiss similar quality research because you don't like it.

Potential-Monke

As someone with 10 years experience as a frontline Garda, i can hand on heart say i've never arrested anyone because they done something while high on cannabis alone. I nearly had daily arrests for drink related reasons, and at least weekly for other class A's (going by experience, i can recognise the effects of most drugs).

If i had stayed and somehow managed to get my way up through the ranks (i never would simply because i can't stand Dublin as a city so couldn't work there), i would have made legalisation of cannabis a top priority. It takes away time from the Gardaí to concentrate on real drug issues, and is taking revenue from the state (through loss of revenue for legalising it and through dealers getting the money which is probaly not going back into public spending).

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

I think the issue is with her consultant not being comfortable signing off on this THC high oil as there is virtually no research available for its safe use. The other consultant was willing to take a chance on it, it would seem.

Can hardly blame the consultant , it is a big ask for a consultant to take responsibility for giving a patient a substance that has not been approved by any regulatory authority in world , has very little research done on it, is not prepared to GMP standards (I presume) and outside of a clinical trial.

I'm not being flippant towards Vera Twomey here but I wonder has she tried switching to a consultant that will prescribe the oil for her? I know from my own healthcare experiences that I had to seek out certain doctors and consultants to get results.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm not being flippant towards Vera Twomey here but I wonder has she tried switching to a consultant that will prescribe the oil for her? I know from my own healthcare experiences that I had to seek out certain doctors and consultants to get results.

Another poster said this would be difficult to do, who you get is based on location.

K.Flyer

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm not being flippant towards Vera Twomey here but I wonder has she tried switching to a consultant that will prescribe the oil for her? I know from my own healthcare experiences that I had to seek out certain doctors and consultants to get results.

When it is a small subset of consultants that you are dealing with, especially in neurological disorders, it can be nigh on impossible to get one to go against the advise of the patient's own consultant.

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

Another poster said this would be difficult to do, who you get is based on location.

It might be because I went private, I think if you're relying on the public system they do restrict your access based on your location. I realise that she most likely wants the law changed for the benefit of everybody but even if it is some consultants may still refuse to prescribe. Unless people have the money to go private with their healthcare then they will be back to square one. There seems to be an unexplored issue around the discretion of the consultants here.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

It might be because I went private, I think if you're relying on the public system they do restrict your access based on your location. I realise that she most likely wants the law changed for the benefit of everybody but even if it is some consultants may still refuse to prescribe. Unless people have the money to go private with their healthcare then they will be back to square one. There seems to be an unexplored issue around the discretion of the consultants here.

The consultants should not be put in such a position. It is an untested substance with virtually no evidence (High thc oil) that it will work and some evidence that it might cause adverse effects.

The consultant is in this tricky situation due to politics rather than prudent medical practice.

Normally the consultant would be choosing a drug that was approved in another country or taking part in a clinical trial.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

When it is a small subset of consultants that you are dealing with, especially in neurological disorders, it can be nigh on impossible to get one to go against the advise of the patient's own consultant.

Given the lack of evidence of effect and possible side effects for the oil she wants, it is now a personal choice for each consultant on whether they are willing to risk it and be responsible if it goes wrong.

two wheels good

Interesting article from a few months on the experience of legalisation the US.

A few points I noted from it:
- Big Pharma and Drinks companies are major contributors to the anti-legalisation campaign. They think legalisation will reduce their sales.
- Use of medicinal cannabis by patients reduces the Medicare drugs bill
- "Opiate overdoses dropped by roughly 25% in states that have legalized medical marijuana compared to states that have prohibited sales of the plant"
The study implies that people could be using medical marijuana to treat their pain rather than opioid painkillers, or they’re taking lower doses.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Take out the two items in bold and the weak correlation disappears. For someone who strongly believes in the scientific method you seem willing to accept that there is a correlation while at the same time acknowledging that we dont really understand mental illness.

This what the APA have to say on the matter;

"There is no current scientific evidence that marijuana is in any way beneficial for the treatment of any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, current evidence supports, at minimum, a strong association of cannabis use with the onset of psychiatric disorders. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to harm, given the effects of cannabis on neurological development."

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

This what the APA have to say on the matter;

"There is no current scientific evidence that marijuana is in any way beneficial for the treatment of any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, current evidence supports, at minimum, a strong association of cannabis use with the onset of psychiatric disorders. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to harm, given the effects of cannabis on neurological development."

Just to add that the American Academies Review had a paper with two adult cohorts showing the same association. The correlation is not just restricted to adolescent use.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

How can you ignore evidence of adverse effects but accept similar quality evidence of benefits?

Everything has adverse effects. Oxygen is actively killing you every time you breath, Water can become toxic shockingly quick. But the risks of those are minimal. The same is true of cannabis. They keep trying to associate some sort of deadly risks with it but none of them really seem to stick for your average healthy adult. The best they can do is say that if an adolescent with pre existing conditions use it they are likely to develop issues.

I know plenty of smokers and people that have been using cannabis for decades, in all my years I have never even heard of someone that knows some that developed any health issues in relation to cannabis. You'd think over the course of a decade and a half I'd have encountered at least one account. I know plenty of people that have ended up in treatment for alcohol and harder drugs, even head shop drugs, but not one person for cannabis.

That's anecdotal, but it shows just how rare these issues are. Cannabis simply isn't dangerous enough. It's not risk free, but the risks are easily managed and borderline nonexistent for the vast majority of people that would use the drug recreationally.

If there was something seriously bad about using cannabis we'd have heard about it by now. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to make cannabis out to be as dangerous as possible and kicking the issue down the road to the next TD.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

Everything has adverse effects. Oxygen is actively killing you every time you breath, Water can become toxic shockingly quick. But the risks of those are minimal. The same is true of cannabis. They keep trying to associate some sort of deadly risks with it but none of them really seem to stick for your average healthy adult. The best they can do is say that if an adolescent with pre existing conditions use it they are likely to develop issues.

I know plenty of smokers and people that have been using cannabis for decades, in all my years I have never even heard of someone that knows some that developed any health issues in relation to cannabis. You'd think over the course of a decade and a half I'd have encountered at least one account. I know plenty of people that have ended up in treatment for alcohol and harder drugs, even head shop drugs, but not one person for cannabis.

That's anecdotal, but it shows just how rare these issues are. Cannabis simply isn't dangerous enough. It's not risk free, but the risks are easily managed and borderline nonexistent for the vast majority of people that would use the drug recreationally.

If there was something seriously bad about using cannabis we'd have heard about it by now. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to make cannabis out to be as dangerous as possible and kicking the issue down the road to the next TD.

The evidence for mental disorders is of similar standard to that for many of the oft claimed benefits. Are those citing these studies as evidence "scraping the bottom of the barrel"?

Why should we accept correlation evidence for benefits and ignore correlation evidence for adverse effects?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

The evidence for mental disorders is of similar standard to that for many of the oft claimed benefits. Are those citing these studies as evidence "scraping the bottom of the barrel"?

Why should we accept correlation evidence for benefits and ignore correlation evidence for adverse effects?

Why should we accept correlation evidence for adverse effects and ignore correlation evidence for benefits?

You seem to be quite happy to do that.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Why should we accept correlation evidence for adverse effects and ignore correlation evidence for benefits?

You seem to be quite happy to do that.

You shouldn't , marijuana in its natural state has no proven benefits or significant risks and therefore should not be called medicine.

(I know GW pharma use the natural plant but how i don't know)

Do you accept the above or can you explain why you dismiss one correlation but accept others?

jh79

Might be of interest to some.

The wild west of weed: will legalisation work for Canada?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/29/the-wild-west-of-weed-will-legalisation-work-for-canada?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard