Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

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?

Would you consider Sativex medicine?

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

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?

If it's smoked or has oils extracted them it's not in its natural state anymore no?
Poppies in their natural state are relatively innocuous... if a tad sour on the taste buds.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Would you consider Sativex medicine?

Yes but that is not the point, you can't change the level of proof needed depending on whether you like the outcome or not.

Links to mental illness have enough research behind them to warrant further investigation.

Without investigating this further how would you weigh up whether the benefits outweigh the risks especially if as some on here like to say this could help 1,000's or some other pretty high number every day?

Jurgen Klopp

Did they ever manage to make that cannabis derived vape juice in France?

I remember it had everything taken out of it bar the pain killing aspects so it was to be legal in France anyway

I have awful trouble with my neck joint at times a safe legal painkiller like that would be great rather than eating paracetamol and ibuprofen

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Yes but that is not the point, you can't change the level of proof needed depending on whether you like the outcome or not.

Links to mental illness have enough research behind them to warrant further investigation.

Without investigating this further how would you weigh up whether the benefits outweigh the risks especially if as some on here like to say this could help 1,000's or some other pretty high number every day?

I wasn't asking in relation to mental illness,only as a medicine in general.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

I wasn't asking in relation to mental illness,only as a medicine in general.

It is an approved medicine so yes.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

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)

you shouldnt but yet you have consistently in this thread.

jh79 wrote: »

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

I take on board the information put out by a professional body that say there is no correlation. information you seem to dismiss quite easily.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you shouldnt but yet you have consistently in this thread.

I take on board the information put out by a professional body that say there is no correlation. information you seem to dismiss quite easily.

Can you provide a link explaining why they are dismissing this correlation? I thought you said it was the APA.

I have been very consistent on this thread , weed should be treated the same as any other medicine.

Your stance requires you to apply varying standards with regards the quality of evidence to suit your view point, mine doesn't. Either it meets the requirement or it doesn't.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Can you provide a link explaining why they are dismissing this correlation? I thought you said it was the APA.

I have been very consistent on this thread , weed should be treated the same as any other medicine.

Your stance requires you to apply varying standards with regards the quality of evidence to suit your view point, mine doesn't. Either it meets the requirement or it doesn't.

I said it was the Royal College of Psychiatrists. More than once.

the evidence that smoking cannabis causes mental illness is tenuous at best yet you seem to have no problem accepting it.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I said it was the Royal College of Psychiatrists. More than once.

the evidence that smoking cannabis causes mental illness is tenuous at best yet you seem to have no problem accepting it.

I don't accept causation but accept the correlation needs investigating as proposed by nunerous reviews it but in the context of my conversation with keeflar it is just as valid effect as he has put forward.

Are you applying the same standards to benefits?

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

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)

Strange as it may seem, their system is not much different to what you would find somewhere on a youtoob video.
They are extracting, testing thc / cbd ratios, blending ratios, using same in trials. They are just doing it on a larger scale.
But it is fundamentally the same thing, cannabis plant converted to an oil extract.
It really is the extracted oil which is the business end of things which is being used in studies and being used elsewhere for treatments. This is where the main focus is now.

jh79

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile

There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.

Seanachai

I think legalisation is coming down the line, it will just be up to people who want to use it medicinally to determine if it is causing them negative mental side effects or not. I'm one of the people that can't use it recreationally, self preservation prevents me from harming myself, the people that continue to use it even when their mental health is affected will do so no matter what. Generally people seeking to use it for health reasons will stop when themselves or those around them notice that it's counterproductive.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile

There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.

that is all in the link that i posted more than 2 months ago now. you forgot this bit

It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis

so if you start young, smoke a LOT and are genetically predisposed to mental illness have an increased risk of developing a psychotic illness. Its a bit of a jump from that to position to saying that cannabis CAUSES mental illness.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile

There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.

But was that study only in relation to just smoking cannabis, particularly stronger strains?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

But was that study only in relation to just smoking cannabis, particularly stronger strains?

The American Academies Review has the most detail on this. There are numerous studues of various quality. I can't remember off the top of my head.

I do remember one study that had adult cohorts.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is all in the link that i posted more than 2 months ago now. you forgot this bit



so if you start young, smoke a LOT and are genetically predisposed to mental illness have an increased risk of developing a psychotic illness. Its a bit of a jump from that to position to saying that cannabis CAUSES mental illness.

Yes an increased risk but the risk is still there albeit lower for healthy adults.

I never said it causes mental illness, as i explained it was a glib comment to keeflar.

Now if this evidence is not acceptable to you can i assume you would not accept similar type evidence for benefits?

jh79

Here is the conclusion from the Academies paper;

CONCLUSION 12-1 There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk among the most frequent users.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Yes but that is not the point, you can't change the level of proof needed depending on whether you like the outcome or not.

Links to mental illness have enough research behind them to warrant further investigation.

Without investigating this further how would you weigh up whether the benefits outweigh the risks especially if as some on here like to say this could help 1,000's or some other pretty high number every day?

They've been saying that for decades now. They make a claim, go to the lab to try and prove it, they can't, so they make another claim, go to the lab to try and prove it, they can't. At this stage it's just delaying tactics.

jh79 wrote: »

Yes an increased risk but the risk is still there albeit lower for healthy adults.

I never said it causes mental illness, as i explained it was a glib comment to keeflar.

Now if this evidence is not acceptable to you can i assume you would not accept similar type evidence for benefits?

There's nothing wrong with the evidence. But it's like saying some people have nut allergies, ban peanuts. The risk is tiny. It's not getting any bigger, no matter how hard they try to find something. The fact is cannabis users don't drop down dead from cannabis use, they never have. Cannabis use to too widespread for there to be some side effect killing off loads of users. It's not a new drug, it's been used and abused for millennia and I haven't even seen historical accounts of people suffering ill health over cannabis use.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

They've been saying that for decades now. They make a claim, go to the lab to try and prove it, they can't, so they make another claim, go to the lab to try and prove it, they can't. At this stage it's just delaying tactics.

There's nothing wrong with the evidence. But it's like saying some people have nut allergies, ban peanuts. The risk is tiny. It's not getting any bigger, no matter how hard they try to find something. The fact is cannabis users don't drop down dead from cannabis use, they never have. Cannabis use to too widespread for there to be some side effect killing off loads of users. It's not a new drug, it's been used and abused for millennia and I haven't even seen historical accounts of people suffering ill health over cannabis use.

It is up to those selling weed as medicine to produce the evidence that proves the benefits outweigh the risks and it is the regulators job to asses that evidence. If they can't do this then it won't get approval. The same applies to all medicine.

Cannabis research to date has only shown modest benefits so the risk profile must be modest too.

If the proposed use is for a short term illness or if the amount needed is small them obviously the link with schizophrenia is not an issue as the association observed is dose dependent.

But for something like chronic pain where long term use is required then the risk of mental illness is a factor that needs to be considered .

evolving_doors

What also needs to be considered is the difference between the studies which involve smoking cannabis as opposed to 'solely' talking doses of CBD, THC, THCV..

We're those studies on the schizophrenia correlation concerned with smoking cannabis only, or did they assess a correlation between say CBD use and schizophrenia?

Also... I'd presume the more cannabis consumed then the stronger the correlation. Was there any usage amounts given?

I think it's important not to muddy the waters with lumping measured CBD (or whatever) dosage together with some dude who wakes and bakes about a half ounce a day.

ScumLord

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What also needs to be considered is the difference between the studies which involve smoking cannabis as opposed to 'solely' talking doses of CBD, THC, THCV..

I don't consider smoking cannabis to be taking medicine. Any benefits must be eroded by the damage the smoke is doing.

I think part of the problem with cannabis research is they keep trying to separate the high from the medical side. The high may be a major contributor to the medical benefits just from a stress relief perspective. Removing the stress may allow your body to start repairing itself on top of any medical benefits from the drug.

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What also needs to be considered is the difference between the studies which involve smoking cannabis as opposed to 'solely' talking doses of CBD, THC, THCV..

We're those studies on the schizophrenia correlation concerned with smoking cannabis only, or did they assess a correlation between say CBD use and schizophrenia?

Also... I'd presume the more cannabis consumed then the stronger the correlation. Was there any usage amounts given?

I think it's important not to muddy the waters with lumping measured CBD (or whatever) dosage together with some dude who wakes and bakes about a half ounce a day.

Remember it is not the regulators job but the sellers job to figure this out.

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

Remember it is not the regulators job but the sellers job to figure this out.

Indeed, how have they managed to figure out dosage amounts in other countries?

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Indeed, how have they managed to figure out dosage amounts in other countries?

Feedback from users i suppose, why?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Feedback from users i suppose, why?

Is that how GW did it?

scamalert

how come this thread is still alive ? jh79 must of posted 1000 times now on single thread, someone says why not, he says research needed,back and forth useless discussion.

theres like million's people online selling weed ,and yet seems only those in real need have trouble getting it ,one would swear those using it would be dead in millions reading some nonsense here ,and somehow no one actually can tell how they figured this crap out in Canada and other countries and manage to use it as medical application, but here they need to reinvent the wheel even thou other countries have no issue with giving it to patients even as young as few years old.

K.Flyer

I doubt if the boss of GW woke up one morning and thought to himself about investing millions of pounds for new facilities, infrastructure, R & D and trials for the production of Cannabis extract just for giggles.
They obviously see huge potential for medicinal cannabis products which is why they plan to soon be producing 100 tonnes of cannabis plant annually, with varying THC /CBD levels and ratios.
I doubt very much that they are gearing up based on a few anecdotal youtoob videos, or maybe they are, who knows.
Either way, they are not sceptical about the merits or medicinal value of Cannabis extract, its a pity others are not as optimistic as they are.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

I doubt if the boss of GW woke up one morning and thought to himself about investing millions of pounds for new facilities, infrastructure, R & D and trials for the production of Cannabis extract just for giggles.
They obviously see huge potential for medicinal cannabis products which is why they plan to soon be producing 100 tonnes of cannabis plant annually, with varying THC /CBD levels and ratios.
I doubt very much that they are gearing up based on a few anecdotal youtoob videos, or maybe they are, who knows.
Either way, they are not sceptical about the merits or medicinal value of Cannabis extract, its a pity others are not as optimistic as they are.

But it is not GW products but weed you want available.

The success of GW 's products does not strenghten the argument for other varients of natural cannabis.

K.Flyer

scamalert wrote: »

...

but here they need to reinvent the wheel even thou other countries have no issue with giving it to patients even as young as few years old.

Nail on head..
Not only regarding this matter, but almost anything huge where it has been done successfully elsewhere, the Irish powers that be try to do it their own way and invariably go and royally fcuk it up.
Examples include;
Irish Water.
Port Tunnel.
M 50.
Luas.
etc.