Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

From a quick google the genetics tells you the max amount of thc /cbd possible. Doesn't mean you'll get that amount.

mulbot

ScumLord wrote: »

It's just not that simple and straight forward with living things. There's no way you could guarantee potency from one bud to the next, nevermind from one plant to the next. You would need to reduce it all into a different product and your still stuck with a random average of that particular batch. They can get it close but not close enough for medical needs I'd say.

What's the different product?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google the genetics tells you the max amount of thc /cbd possible. Doesn't mean you'll get that amount.

Well tell me how you think GW do it. Do you think they grow some marijuana strain that nobody else can?

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google the genetics tells you the max amount of thc /cbd possible. Doesn't mean you'll get that amount.

Growing in optimum conditions like mulbot suggested will give you there or there abouts. I haven't read of anything requiring a precision amount. Couple of % on the high side won't make much odds to any patients. Doesn't seem to be causing a problem for patients at the moment. It's pretty easy to test THC and CBD content if your a medical patient. They already do it for customers in the states.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google the genetics tells you the max amount of thc /cbd possible. Doesn't mean you'll get that amount.

It's all very dependant on the conditions. Right light, right feed, right water. It's virtually impossible to get the same conditions for every part of the plant. It's an issue with all drugs that come from plants. Mushrooms would have similar issues, one mushroom could be mild the next one could send you to another dimension. That's why most people turn them into tea, it averages them all out into one quantifiable dose.

For recreational use it's not an issue at all for cannabis, you don't need anything specific beyond getting high.

ScumLord

mulbot wrote: »

What's the different product?

I guess it would be called CBD extract.

The bottom line is, from a medical point of view, they need to know exactly what's going in or they can't measure variables. If one helping of cannabis contains 13% THC and the next 15% it's going to be hard for a medical professional to say how much they need to take for it to work.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Well tell me how you think GW do it.

I doubt the process is superfically much different, it has to be temp, uv light and food but i know it is not a dimplex fan heater , uv lights on a timer and a foil lined box.

Climate controlled rooms, light filters and soil that is always the same. I'd imagine they test the plant daily and adjust all of the above as needed.

They would of done process development on it where they purposely vary a single condition to see the affect and from a series of these test know exactly what to change to get what they want.

And because of the paper trail they can't sell any bad crops.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

I doubt the process is superfically much different, it has to be temp, uv light and food but i know it is not a dimplex fan heater , uv lights on a timer and a foil lined box.

Climate controlled rooms, light filters and soil that is always the same. I'd imagine they test the plant daily and adjust all of the above as needed.

They would of done process development on it where they purposely vary a single condition to see the affect and from a series of these test know exactly what to change to get what they want.

And because of the paper trail they can't sell any bad crops.

So like a lot of existing commercial growers already?

xckjoo

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 pop in for a look at this thread from time to time and have to say that jh79 is probably the only reason it's still interesting. He keeps repeating things because they remain true. The evidence for medicinal benefits to marijuana is still not there. It may be found in the future, but so far it hasn't been proven.

I'm firmly in the legalise camp, but to me the biggest driver is that the blackmarket just benefits criminals. It would be great if it could have a life-changing impact on people that are suffering, but until it can pass the same tests as other medicines, it should not be thought of as some kind of wonder drug.

Jayop

xckjoo wrote: »

I pop in for a look at this thread from time to time and have to say that jh79 is probably the only reason it's still interesting. He keeps repeating things because they remain true. The evidence for medicinal benefits to marijuana is still not there. It may be found in the future, but so far it hasn't been proven.

I'm firmly in the legalise camp, but to me the biggest driver is that the blackmarket just benefits criminals. It would be great if it could have a life-changing impact on people that are suffering, but until it can pass the same tests as other medicines, it should not be thought of as some kind of wonder drug.

If you find reading the same point over and over again interesting then more power to you.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Growing in optimum conditions like mulbot suggested will give you there or there abouts. I haven't read of anything requiring a precision amount. Couple of % on the high side won't make much odds to any patients. Doesn't seem to be causing a problem for patients at the moment. It's pretty easy to test THC and CBD content if your a medical patient. They already do it for customers in the states.

So what is a signifcant difference? 5% 20% 50% before it affects its medical use?

Why bother with different strains if % isn't important?

mulbot

ScumLord wrote: »

I guess it would be called CBD extract.

The bottom line is, from a medical point of view, they need to know exactly what's going in or they can't measure variables. If one helping of cannabis contains 13% THC and the next 15% it's going to be hard for a medical professional to say how much they need to take for it to work.

I agree with you,but do we know that produce cannabis grown at home can't be consistent?

ScumLord

mulbot wrote: »

I agree with you,but do we know that produce cannabis grown at home can't be consistent?

It can be consistent within fairly wide tolerances. Even if the monitor the exact amount of feed/water/light that each plant is getting they can't really say how each plant consumed those things until afterwards.

Like I said, it's perfectly fine for recreational use, it's probably perfectly fine for herbal remedy uses. But for the medical industry they need to know exactly what's going on or they can't produce accurate data. For cannabis to become a "medicine" it was to be just the effective bits and no other variables.


The idea that you can grow a plant in your back garden and expect it to be effective medicine just isn't going to work. The next year you grow the exact same plant all the conditions will have changed bar the underlying genetics of the plant. Legalising for recreational use would cover all the people who say cannabis works for them.

To get plants to grow the exact same way every time you need pretty elaborate grow operations.

xckjoo

Jayop wrote: »

If you find reading the same point over and over again interesting then more power to you.

Until the point is no longer valid (and I haven't seen anyone disprove his posts to any significant degree), why does it matter? It offsets all the people spouting the same tired rhetoric about how weed cures every condition under the sun and it's only a big pharma conspiracy that's keeping it from us. Most people don't even grow their own vegetables, never mind medicine. If it was completely legalised tomorrow, the increase in people growing it would be marginal. Pharma companies would just start selling it with all their other products.

Jayop

xckjoo wrote: »

Until the point is no longer valid (and I haven't seen anyone disprove his posts to any significant degree), why does it matter? It offsets all the people spouting the same tired rhetoric about how weed cures every condition under the sun and it's only a big pharma conspiracy that's keeping it from us. Most people don't even grow their own vegetables, never mind medicine. If it was completely legalised tomorrow, the increase in people growing it would be marginal. Pharma companies would just start selling it with all their other products.

Please point "all" the people in this thread who are saying it cures every condition under the sun. I don't think that's even close to being the counter points being made throughout this thread, but well done on drinking the Kool Aid that jh79 is dishing out by repeating the same arguments he makes it look like people are claiming things that the vast majority aren't.

As for it being a big pharma conspiracy, again that's something that he's been arguing against that's really not been said too often. I've repeatedly said that it being shown to be beneficial in it's natural form isn't to the benefit of the bottom line of those companies so naturally they are not going to fund research that would prove that. That's not pointing to a conspiracy, that's simple logic.

As for people growing it themselves, I don't know. Maybe thousands of people won't start growing it, but you can be sure non pharma companies would be set up who would grow and sell the product and it would be easily accessible, thus reducing the need to grow your own. Pretty much the same as vegetables to use your own example.

ScumLord

Jayop wrote: »

As for people growing it themselves, I don't know. Maybe thousands of people won't start growing it, but you can be sure non pharma companies would be set up who would grow and sell the product and it would be easily accessible, thus reducing the need to grow your own. Pretty much the same as vegetables to use your own example.

The problem is "medical cannabis" would have to be grown by companies with fairly strict practices and have high traceability.

I think any company selling into the medicine industry would have to have all sorts of certification.

This is sort of a catch 22 that jh79 has highlighted. I'm very pro legalisation, I was very pro cannabis as a medicine but I can see the issues now and they are legitimate.

Lets say a medical company decides to produce and sell medical cannabis, they go through all the hoops and produce a medicine for the pharmacies. Then 3 years later recreational cannabis get's legalised. Now the consumer has the choice between medical grade cannabis (maybe in pill form) that costs a lot because of all the regulation. Or cannabis grown for the recreational market that is virtually identical but a fraction of the cost. The medical company is screwed. They've invested in a product that doesn't work anymore.


I get that medical science needs a much higher standard than cannabis growers can achieve. It has to be done at an industrial scale to extremely precise tolerances. that's just the way the medical industry operates and it's not going to ever change. They'd rather let people die naturally than accidentally kill them.


I think it's really in Ireland's best interests to go for recreational legalisation, with a real effort to eliminate smoking in cannabis users, encourage the use of edibles and vapour. When it comes to cannabis as a medicine I don't know what to think anymore, I can see the issues. Even if we allow herbal remedy use how does that affect a doctor trying to assess where a patient is at? Is cannabis just making users feel better, rather than actually improving things? Is it basically a more powerful version going for a pint with friends to unwind after high stress?

Beyond that kind of stress relief it's hard to see anything concrete. But when it comes to medicine we have to be cautious. I'll accept that.

xckjoo

Jayop wrote: »

Please point "all" the people in this thread who are saying it cures every condition under the sun. I don't think that's even close to being the counter points being made throughout this thread, but well done on drinking the Kool Aid that jh79 is dishing out by repeating the same arguments he makes it look like people are claiming things that the vast majority aren't.

That was hyperbole for the sake of the point as I'm sure you're aware. It's commonly done. I'm not really claiming that everybody thinks it cures every single medical condition. There is however a prevalent belief that weed has a range of medicinal benefits. So far there is little-to-no scientifically backed research that has found this to be true.

As for it being a big pharma conspiracy, again that's something that he's been arguing against that's really not been said too often. I've repeatedly said that it being shown to be beneficial in it's natural form isn't to the benefit of the bottom line of those companies so naturally they are not going to fund research that would prove that. That's not pointing to a conspiracy, that's simple logic.

But it hasn't been proven to be beneficial in it's natural form, or any other . That's the whole point.

As for people growing it themselves, I don't know. Maybe thousands of people won't start growing it, but you can be sure non pharma companies would be set up who would grow and sell the product and it would be easily accessible, thus reducing the need to grow your own. Pretty much the same as vegetables to use your own example.

The growing it point is tied to the pharma conspiracy point. The common rhetoric is that it would be too hard to prevent people growing their own and cutting out the pharma companies, so big pharma lobbies against legalisation.


Again, I'm all for legalisation. I also think that it will be probably be found to have some medicinal properties. But it should be held to the same standard as any other medicine.

Jayop

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is "medical cannabis" would have to be grown by companies with fairly strict practices and have high traceability.

I think any company selling into the medicine industry would have to have all sorts of certification.

This is sort of a catch 22 that jh79 has highlighted. I'm very pro legalisation, I was very pro cannabis as a medicine but I can see the issues now and they are legitimate.

Lets say a medical company decides to produce and sell medical cannabis, they go through all the hoops and produce a medicine for the pharmacies. Then 3 years later recreational cannabis get's legalised. Now the consumer has the choice between medical grade cannabis (maybe in pill form) that costs a lot because of all the regulation. Or cannabis grown for the recreational market that is virtually identical but a fraction of the cost. The medical company is screwed. They've invested in a product that doesn't work anymore.


I get that medical science needs a much higher standard than cannabis growers can achieve. It has to be done at an industrial scale to extremely precise tolerances. that's just the way the medical industry operates and it's not going to ever change. They'd rather let people die naturally than accidentally kill them.


I think it's really in Ireland's best interests to go for recreational legalisation, with a real effort to eliminate smoking in cannabis users, encourage the use of edibles and vapour. When it comes to cannabis as a medicine I don't know what to think anymore, I can see the issues. Even if we allow herbal remedy use how does that affect a doctor trying to assess where a patient is at? Is cannabis just making users feel better, rather than actually improving things? Is it basically a more powerful version going for a pint with friends to unwind after high stress?

Beyond that kind of stress relief it's hard to see anything concrete. But when it comes to medicine we have to be cautious. I'll accept that.

I was responding to a post about it being "completely legalised" so the part of my post you were quoting was in no referencing just medical cannabis so sorry, but your long response was for nowt in this case.

Jayop

xckjoo wrote: »

That was hyperbole for the sake of the point as I'm sure you're aware. It's commonly done. I'm not really claiming that everybody thinks it cures every single medical condition. There is however a prevalent belief that weed has a range of medicinal benefits. So far there is little-to-no scientifically backed research that has found this to be true.



But it hasn't been proven to be beneficial in it's natural form, or any other . That's the whole point.

The growing it point is tied to the pharma conspiracy point. The common rhetoric is that it would be too hard to prevent people growing their own and cutting out the pharma companies, so big pharma lobbies against legalisation.


Again, I'm all for legalisation. I also think that it will be probably be found to have some medicinal properties. But it should be held to the same standard as any other medicine.

OK, well the conversation would go a lot better if you removed the intentional hyperbole. Would save me the bother of dismissing it.

The whole point I was making and I don't know how I can make it any clearer, is the only people with the resources to prove that it's beneficial in it's natural form is the big pharma industry or governments. Again, why would big pharma invest heavily in proving something that would have no benefit to their bottom line, and could in fact damage it? It makes no sense.

As for governments doing research on this, sadly they are not, but they would be the only ones who could fund something on this scale without hoping to benefit in the end.

This isn't hard to understand. I'm not saying the research to date is false, I'm saying that it's not been looking for the right thing.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

So like a lot of existing commercial growers already?

Here is one producer explaining what GMP means.

https://www.cannimed.ca/blogs/blog/16010520-what-does-gmp-mean-que-sont-les-bpf

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Here is one producer explaining what GMP means.

https://www.cannimed.ca/blogs/blog/16010520-what-does-gmp-mean-que-sont-les-bpf

So like existing commercial growers. Just what I said.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

So like existing commercial growers. Just what I said.

Think you need to read it again.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

So like existing commercial growers. Just what I said.

Which ones?

Jayop

Did it require 2 posts?

gctest50

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is "medical cannabis" would have to be grown by companies with fairly strict practices and have high traceability.

I think any company selling into the medicine industry would have to have all sorts of certification. ................

They manage with opium poppies in the UK, there's > 6,000 acres of them - but of course they are processed ..... so it's only v. vaguely related


http://bit.ly/2nZiEvj

ScumLord

gctest50 wrote: »

They manage with opium poppies in the UK, there's > 6,000 acres of them - but of course they are processed ..... so it's only v. vaguely related

Like you say it's processed into something else so the potency of each plant is relevant. They'll process those plants into just the chemical they want.

They actually grow hemp in the UK too, but it's highly regulated even though hemp plants don't contain enough THC to get high even if you smoked the entire field of them. They have to do things like burn the flowering head and jump through all sorts of hoops that drive the price of the hemp much higher than it needs to be. All those kind of costs will be dropped at the consumer's door. Medical cannabis would likely cost a lot more than street cannabis, simply because of the certification and regulation. Recreational cannabis of almost the same grade would be less than street cannabis because they could grow without a whole load of regulation. Regulation is expensive.

This is something that people need to bare in mind, medical cannabis will cost a lot of money compared to street cannabis. Industrial recreational cannabis would be a much cheaper option for everybody and if the medical regulation is a problem maybe the focus should be switched to full legalisation.

Jayop

My focus is and always has been on recreational use first. However in this backwards country the only path to that is via medicinal use first to break the seal.

evolving_doors

ScumLord wrote: »

It's just not that simple and straight forward with living things. There's no way you could guarantee potency from one bud to the next, nevermind from one plant to the next. You would need to reduce it all into a different product and your still stuck with a random average of that particular batch. They can get it close but not close enough for medical needs I'd say.

I think I terms of F1 breeds and percentages they're pretty consistent. Not too hard to test and mix as you go!

evolving_doors

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is "medical cannabis" would have to be grown by companies with fairly strict practices and have high traceability.

I think any company selling into the medicine industry would have to have all sorts of certification.

This is sort of a catch 22 that jh79 has highlighted. I'm very pro legalisation, I was very pro cannabis as a medicine but I can see the issues now and they are legitimate.

Lets say a medical company decides to produce and sell medical cannabis, they go through all the hoops and produce a medicine for the pharmacies. Then 3 years later recreational cannabis get's legalised. Now the consumer has the choice between medical grade cannabis (maybe in pill form) that costs a lot because of all the regulation. Or cannabis grown for the recreational market that is virtually identical but a fraction of the cost. The medical company is screwed. They've invested in a product that doesn't work anymore.


I get that medical science needs a much higher standard than cannabis growers can achieve. It has to be done at an industrial scale to extremely precise tolerances. that's just the way the medical industry operates and it's not going to ever change. They'd rather let people die naturally than accidentally kill them.


I think it's really in Ireland's best interests to go for recreational legalisation, with a real effort to eliminate smoking in cannabis users, encourage the use of edibles and vapour. When it comes to cannabis as a medicine I don't know what to think anymore, I can see the issues. Even if we allow herbal remedy use how does that affect a doctor trying to assess where a patient is at? Is cannabis just making users feel better, rather than actually improving things? Is it basically a more powerful version going for a pint with friends to unwind after high stress?

Beyond that kind of stress relief it's hard to see anything concrete. But when it comes to medicine we have to be cautious. I'll accept that.

'Medical' cannabis companies in canada are lining up to provide for the recreational market also (when/if it becomes legalised). So the two aren't necessarily separate.

I think that there's a certain cohort of people who wouldn't want to smoke it recreationally if it were available in measured amounts for medicinal purposes (like oils with x% thc thcv cbd etc). They'll just take a few drops under the tongue and carry on with their day.

gctest50

ScumLord wrote: »

Like you say it's processed into something else so the potency of each plant is relevant. They'll process those plants into just the chemical they want.........

They have a fine selection of them, they even make Bitrex - stops kittens n kids from drinking antifreeze n stuff


http://www.jmfinechemicals.com/products/controlled-substances/opioid-portfolio/

Poppy Growing

In April 2006, Johnson Matthey acquired the only UK poppy growing business, followed by expansion of our growing operation into Portugal.
We can now manage our morphine supply from both UK and Portuguese soil, giving a geographical spread, thereby increasing our security of supply. Our supply chain is further protected by having long established relationships with the best narcotic raw material suppliers in the industry.