Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Options
1…3435373940…67

Comments

  • Options
    #1082
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    jh79 wrote: »
    I wish pay would certainly be better.

    It's a revelation alright that a scientist would believe in evidence based medicine!

    Just find it interesting in all of the threads where you've completely dominated by repeating the same lines over and over to the point where you have around 7 or 8 times more posts that the second highest post count and people essentially just give up on bothering to voice an opinion, that you didn't reveal this vested interest before Especially given that I'm certain you've been accused of having a vested interest before.


  • Options
    #1083
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm sure you're right up to a point but I definitely think there's interference that is based on morals over science. Especially when it comes to harm, I'll accept that you're right on medical benefits, it's hard to get a definitive answer, but there's still no reason to deny access to cannabis on the grounds of harm. I don't think it should be taking this long to get an answer, and pro cannabis lobbies are as much to blame for misinformation as anybody else.

    I don't think that's true, now maybe this means cannabis isn't a daily drug for most people but the high could be feeding into the medical benefits, ignoring that side of it could be where science keeps running into walls trying to prove the anecdotal evidence. The relief it can bring shouldn't be overlooked.

    Most science that's been quoted here seem to be actively trying to disprove the effects rather than prove it.


  • Options
    #1084
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Jayop wrote: »
    Most science that's been quoted here seem to be actively trying to disprove the effects rather than prove it.
    Sort of the same thing though isn't it? I understand it shows that there's a certain amount of bias coming into it though.


  • Options
    #1085
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Sort of the same thing though isn't it? I understand it shows that there's a certain amount of bias coming into it though.

    Not really the same at all. If you're setting up a test with the sole aim to disprove something then you are from the off manipulating the result before the test happens. Proving/disproving a hypothesis can be done if you're prepared to do it in this manner, and given the greatest amount of research in this area is done by or funded by big pharma then of course the assumption people will make is that they will attempt to disprove something is effective unless they can make money on it.


  • Options
    #1086
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm sure you're right up to a point but I definitely think there's interference that is based on morals over science. Especially when it comes to harm, I'll accept that you're right on medical benefits, it's hard to get a definitive answer, but there's still no reason to deny access to cannabis on the grounds of harm. I don't think it should be taking this long to get an answer, and pro cannabis lobbies are as much to blame for misinformation as anybody else.

    I don't think that's true, now maybe this means cannabis isn't a daily drug for most people but the high could be feeding into the medical benefits, ignoring that side of it could be where science keeps running into walls trying to prove the anecdotal evidence. The relief it can bring shouldn't be overlooked.

    I agree that it shouldn't be more difficult to research but the fact remaims that there isn't enough research. Your assumimg that this research will be postive.

    Only way to determine that is to compare it to a placebo which isn't possible.

    It would really have to perform well to justify ignoring the influence of the placebo effect.

    To be honest they would be better off lobbying for legalisation , how many poor phase I and II trials ( success rates are notoriously low) could a company like that afford? Would they have a patent to allow them to ensure income for further research?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1087
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    jh79 wrote: »
    Natural weed biggest obstacle isn't adverse effects but proving it is more effective than a placebo unfortunately the high prevents this.

    From where I'm standing the biggest obstacle is the Medicinal cannabis advocates.
    They've turned a natural high into a medicinal drug that requires regulation. They've completely screwed any chance of it becoming legal for the rest of us, they've completely hijacked the cannabis bus.
    The thing that really gets my goat up is that they all think the people who just want to get high should go jump off a cliff as pointed out by posters here.


  • Options
    #1088
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    From where I'm standing the biggest obstacle is the Medicinal cannabis advocates.
    They've turned a natural high into a medicinal drug that requires regulation. They've completely screwed any chance of it becoming legal for the rest of us, they've completely hijacked the cannabis bus.
    The thing that really gets my goat up is that they all think the people who just want to get high should go jump off a cliff as pointed out by posters here.

    In fairness though recreational cannabis and medicinal cannabis is as different as a Sunday drive and formula 1.

    If you want to call it a proper medicine and prescribe it in certain dosages with certain measurable outcomes you gotta go through some type of testing.
    Otherwise you'd turn it into quackery and nutso stuff like in the 19th century where cocaine and opium were prescribed for anything and everything.

    But to my mind I think people who want to engage and try it 'medicinally' are probably at the end of their tether and have exhausted other options.
    Same as folk who have a terminal prognosis and sign up to clinical studies.

    Without the Medicinal aspect I reckon the recreational debate would never be allowed to see the light of day.


  • Options
    #1089
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    In fairness though recreational cannabis and medicinal cannabis is as different as a Sunday drive and formula 1.

    The cannabis is the same it's the user who is different.

    I understand your point I just don't see it making it to boots any time soon. I think there are benefits but the benifits are being overstated and side effects understated.

    Potent THC to kids, I'm not sure anyone besides regular cannabis users actually understand how potent and mind altering that stuff actually is yet they want it for developing brains. I'm just not buying it.


  • Options
    #1090
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    In fairness ...
    Without the Medicinal aspect I reckon the recreational debate would never be allowed to see the light of day.

    I would say you are quite right with this point.
    Whilst people have been campaigning for decades for full decriminalization and legislation, it was most likely when California introduced the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 which allowed people to have and use cannabis, but only when prescribed by a doctor/physician, that things really started to turn in the favour of the campaigners.
    I would put the recreational use of Cannabis in the same class as Alcohol and Cigarettes. Each harmful in their own way if used in excess, but mainly fine when used in moderation.


  • Options
    #1091
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    The cannabis is the same it's the user who is different.

    I understand your point I just don't see it making it to boots any time soon. I think there are benefits but the benifits are being overstated and side effects understated.

    Potent THC to kids, I'm not sure anyone besides regular cannabis users actually understand how potent and mind altering that stuff actually is yet they want it for developing brains. I'm just not buying it.

    Well no the 'cannabis' isn't the same really that's a bit ambiguous.
    Smoking cannabis and consuming extracted oil are two completely different processes.

    Don't forget heroin is derived from poppies. Calling both 'poppies' is a bit to general.
    Ingesting Castor oil plant is probably innocuous enough bit would you snort ricin which is derived from it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1092
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    Just find it interesting in all of the threads where you've completely dominated by repeating the same lines over and over to the point where you have around 7 or 8 times more posts that the second highest post count and people essentially just give up on bothering to voice an opinion, that you didn't reveal this vested interest before Especially given that I'm certain you've been accused of having a vested interest before.

    I did, i said i was a scientist a while back said a few times "when i was in college"

    Said i worked with controlled substances in college.

    Did i say you had a "vested interest"? Did i say how i can't think of any circumstance in which you would ?


  • Options
    #1093
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Well no the 'cannabis' isn't the same really that's a bit ambiguous.
    Smoking cannabis and consuming extracted oil are two completely different processes.

    It is the same. I'll add to the just the user is different and say the delivery method makes a huge difference as well.

    Consuming oil will get get you super high, but having a bucket as opposed to a spliff will also get you super high.
    If you look at the short video I posted up a few posts you'll see the effect 1/10 of the oil dose has on a regular non medicinal user.

    I think it's a case of stoners think it's all just weed and medicinal users think it medicine and some how different.

    White widow is a popular recreational strain it's also a popular medicinal strain, there the exact same thing. You can make what you want with it whether that's oil, cookies or your plain simple auld spliff.


  • Options
    #1094
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    Not really the same at all. If you're setting up a test with the sole aim to disprove something then you are from the off manipulating the result before the test happens. Proving/disproving a hypothesis can be done if you're prepared to do it in this manner, and given the greatest amount of research in this area is done by or funded by big pharma then of course the assumption people will make is that they will attempt to disprove something is effective unless they can make money on it.

    Could you give examples of this? Most of the papers i've read seem quite positive in their discussions and conclusions.

    A good rveiew paper would highlight any studies with bias.


  • Options
    #1095
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    It is the same. I'll add to the just the user is different and say the delivery method makes a huge difference as well.

    Consuming oil will get get you super high, but having a bucket as opposed to a spliff will also get you super high.
    If you look at the short video I posted up a few posts you'll see the effect 1/10 of the oil dose has on a regular non medicinal user.

    I think it's a case of stoners think it's all just weed and medicinal users think it medicine and some how different.

    White widow is a popular recreational strain it's also a popular medicinal strain, there the exact same thing. You can make what you want with it whether that's oil, cookies or your plain simple auld spliff.

    So you'd be OK with a 4 year old doing hot knives or buckets to ease their seizures?
    Shur tis all the same.

    BTW consuming CBD oil won't get you 'super high'.


  • Options
    #1096
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    So you'd be OK with a 4 year old doing hot knives or buckets to ease their seizures?
    Shur tis all the same.

    BTW consuming CBD oil won't get you 'super high'.

    The videos I posted in relation to children aren't using CBD. It's potent THC.

    I don't think a 4yr old having hot knives would go down to well but either way will stop the seizures if that particular strain works.

    Case in point...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWHYEeDBew


  • Options
    #1097
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    https://www.aesnet.org/meetings_events/annual_meeting_abstracts/view/1868031

    A study showing the placebo in effect.

    Those who move to a state with medical marijuana show a greater reduction in seizures than those already resident in the state.


  • Options
    #1098
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    The GW phase III trial had the following results;

    39% had a reduction in seizures >50%
    Average reduction of 32%
    3/9 which Dravets were seizure free
    1/14 for other types of epilepsy were seizure free

    They are waiting now on the double blind studies to get the true effectiveness minus the placebo effect.

    Another GW study showed that their CBD compund interacted with the traditional treatments increasing serum concentration for those drugs.


  • Options
    #1099
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    https://www.google.ie/search?client=ms-android-h3g-ie&source=android-browser&biw=360&bih=366&ei=dYrfWOmnFqvDgAa2i6KYAw&q=stiripentol+ema+INn&oq=stiripentol+ema+INn&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..33i160k1l2.14622.16133.0.16783.6.5.0.0.0.0.190.656.1j4.5.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..1.5.653...0j41j0i22i30k1j30i10k1.MzEaewO7LIw

    If you click on the first pdf you will see the europena medicne agency assesment of stiripentol use in Dravets Syndrome.

    The drug was approved but only for use in combination with other drugs and on the condition that a number of extra studies were carried out.

    It is an interesting read and gives an insight into regulatory requirements . And how they judge the risk / benefit ratio.

    There are question marks on whether this drug actually produces a response or if it just increases bioavaiability of the other drugs. Some believe that the same results could be achieved by just increasing doses of the other drugs.

    GW pharma reported higher blood plasma levels of the other drugs too. It will be interesting to see if GW cbd oil gives a similar outcome.


  • Options
    #1100
    kleefarr
    Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    Pharm will never give the real results,only ones that suit them..

    Dublin Fibro have plenty to back up the effects they get from the real thing.

    https://www.facebook.com/NorthsideFibroDublin

    A damning reality check from a Doctor..

    https://www.facebook.com/NorthsideFibroDublin/videos/1270656912971495/


  • Options
    #1101
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    kleefarr wrote: »
    Pharm will never give the real results,only ones that suit them..

    Dublin Fibro have plenty to back up the effects they get from the real thing.

    https://www.facebook.com/NorthsideFibroDublin

    Are you honestly suggesting that testimonials are better than clincial trials?? Seriously?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1102
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    jh79 wrote: »
    I did, i said i was a scientist a while back said a few times "when i was in college"

    Said i worked with controlled substances in college.

    Did i say you had a "vested interest"? Did i say how i can't think of any circumstance in which you would ?

    Well I'm not spamming every related thread to try to force my view down everyone's throat.


  • Options
    #1103
    kleefarr
    Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    Gets the vote from Fibfomyalgia suffers..

    http://nationalpainreport.com/marijuana-rated-most-effective-for-treating-fibromyalgia-8823638.html


  • Options
    #1104
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    Well I'm not spamming every related thread to try to force my view down everyone's throat.

    You post a lot in certain threads too, does that make you a spammer?

    I'm open about my background. I'm proud of what i do for a living and i believe in evidence based medicine. I wanted to be a scientist since I was a child and have an interest beyond 9 to 5. Why wouldn't i post in science based theards

    In the other threads you take umbrage over accusations of what political party you support and say it is possible to hold those beliefs and support other parties.

    Am i not allowed have personal beliefs that match my profession without my opinons being automatically tarnished ? Sound familar?


  • Options
    #1105
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    I don't take umbrage of that at all and I don't have a post count 7 or 8 times more than anyone else in many threads on the same subject to stifle conversation or opinions. How could anyone coming into this thread get a balanced view on people's opinion when your posts are the only ones that can be seen due to this spamming. It's ridiculous that you're allowed to do it tbh.


  • Options
    #1106
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    Jayop wrote: »
    I don't take umbrage of that at all and I don't have a post count 7 or 8 times more than anyone else in many threads on the same subject to stifle conversation or opinions. How could anyone coming into this thread get a balanced view on people's opinion when your posts are the only ones that can be seen due to this spamming. It's ridiculous that you're allowed to do it tbh.

    Report the posts so.


  • Options
    #1107
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    jh79 wrote: »
    Report the posts so.

    I can do without your backseat moderation thanks all the same.


  • Options
    #1108
    kleefarr
    Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    jh79 wrote: »
    Are you honestly suggesting that testimonials are better than clincial trials?? Seriously?

    Yes I am!! More truthful that's for sure!!
    The clinical trials are always going to be biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. All they are interested in is money and profit. Not people.
    Sickness is a money business.


  • Options
    #1109
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,262 ✭✭✭jh79


    kleefarr wrote: »
    Yes I am!! More truthful that's for sure!!
    The clinical trials are always going to be biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. All they are interested in is money and profit. Not people.
    Sickness is a money business.

    The whole point of a trial is tto remove as much bias as possible.

    Do you accept the results of GW pharma trials?


  • Options
    #1110
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Well no the 'cannabis' isn't the same really that's a bit ambiguous.
    Smoking cannabis and consuming extracted oil are two completely different processes.
    That achieve the same result. Cannabis oil is exactly the same as weed it's just had more plant material removed. It's just a really strong version of weed. All these cannabis oils and edibles and pills weren't medical inventions, they were invented by stoners to get more stoned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1111
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    ScumLord wrote: »
    That achieve the same result. Cannabis oil is exactly the same as weed it's just had more plant material removed. It's just a really strong version of weed. All these cannabis oils and edibles and pills weren't medical inventions, they were invented by stoners to get more stoned.

    consuming CBD doesn't have the same result as smoking a joint. I.e. the high.
    Also smoking or heating to high temps creates other by-products (have look at acrylamide and carcinogenic food risks). So not quite the same as comparing smoking to extracting and ingesting oils without burning.
    But ya I know what you mean about coming up with various ways to get stoned.


Advertisement