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
12467…67

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    jh79 wrote: »
    Here is a recent review for medical marijuana covering pain relief and a few other things.

    http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338251

    Cancer ones to follow.
    Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials.

    Does that, a few lines in not make you think it should be kept criminalized from people that it helps.


  • Options
    #93
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract

    Here is one on glioma. An IC50 this high would normally rule a compond out for further research.


  • Options
    #94
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    jh79 wrote: »
    Are you planning on asking her out or something!

    Yea, so we can smoke crack in a kids playground.


  • Options
    #95
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    VladamirP wrote: »
    Does that, a few lines in not make you think it should be kept criminalized from people that it helps.

    I believe in decriminalisation but I'm also a scientist and the idea of medical marijuana is complete BS based on current research.

    If you couldn't get stoned from it nobody would give a damn.

    How many potential antitumoral agents are ypu campaigning for outside of weed??


  • Options
    #96
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    VladamirP wrote: »
    Thanks I'll have a look now, see if you have time to find more, you mentioned more than one

    Ok so i can stick up another underwhelming study on breast cancer but would it not be easier for you to put up the good studies??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    K.Flyer wrote: »

    While at it, watch the video of Dr. Cristina Sánchez (Spain) speaking in 2015 about the antitumoral effects of cannabinoids. 
    Especially where she talks about the positive outcome of THC on human cancer patients in a trial study.


    It's a long video so is this the study on 9 patients? All of which died within a year with a mean survival of 24 weeks?

    Extremely high concentrations of an extract injected directly in to the tumours.

    http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.full


  • Options
    #98
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    jh79 wrote: »
    I believe in decriminalisation but I'm also a scientist and the idea of medical marijuana is complete BS based on current research.

    If you couldn't get stoned from it nobody would give a damn.

    How many potential antitumoral agents are ypu campaigning for outside of weed??

    Hey theres a whole healthy living economy out there, how many herbs are sold that we can't/couldn't get stoned on?, lot's, how many herbs out there we can get stoned on?, lots.

    Your not a medical scientist (what do you do?, apart from take orders and directions), your a wannabee, you know nothing, won't see the light when a flash light put in your eyes, your problem, not people that this can help.


  • Options
    #99
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328

    Here is a paper showings a proliferative effect in cancer cells.


  • Options
    #100
    SeanieMon
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭SeanieMon


    I smoke it to help with my glaucoma, it's certainly effective and reduces a lot of the unbearable pressure I feel in my eyes, I'll also admit to enjoying the high, but for god sake, this is a very, very tepid "drug" by any stretch of the imagination and I cant understand why it's not legalised completely, never-mind just for medicinal purposes. Just decriminalising it would would just be stupid.


  • Options
    #101
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    VladamirP wrote: »
    Hey theres a whole healthy living economy out there, how many herbs are sold that we can't/couldn't get stoned on?, lot's, how many herbs out there we can get stoned on?, lots.

    Your not a medical scientist (what do you do?, apart from take orders and directions), your a wannabee, you know nothing, won't see the light when a flash light put in your eyes, your problem, not people that this can help.

    Who are you kidding you couldn't give a damn about medical marijuana you just want easier access for getting stoned.

    If you really had an interest these studies wouldn't piss you off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    VladamirP wrote: »
    Hey theres a whole healthy living economy out there, how many herbs are sold that we can't/couldn't get stoned on?, lot's, how many herbs out there we can get stoned on?, lots.

    Your not a medical scientist (what do you do?, apart from take orders and directions), your a wannabee, you know nothing, won't see the light when a flash light put in your eyes, your problem, not people that this can help.

    Why did you thank my link to the proliferative effect study?


  • Options
    #103
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    SeanieMon wrote: »
    I smoke it to help with my glaucoma, it's certainly effective and reduces a lot of the unbearable pressure I feel in my eyes, I'll also admit to enjoying the high, but for god sake, this is a very, very tepid "drug" by any stretch of the imagination and I cant understand why it's not legalised completely, never-mind just for medicinal purposes. Just decriminalising it would would just be stupid.

    Anecdotal evidence while usefull is not enough for something claiming to be medicine. It is the lowset type of evidence.

    Would you take any other drug that wasn't properly tested for effectiveness?

    Marijuana should meet the same criteria as any other medicine.


  • Options
    #104
    dogsavage
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭dogsavage


    they really don't listen to what we say on legalisation, maybe we should shout louder...


  • Options
    #105
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    Alcohol while "legal" has messed up my life more than anything, a few spliffs is great, chill out, relax, forget about the illness that might get you if you think about it too long and help you to forget about it if you already have it.


  • Options
    #106
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    jh79 wrote: »
    Why did you thank my link to the proliferative effect study?

    ???


  • Options
    #107
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    dogsavage wrote: »
    they really don't listen to what we say on legalisation, maybe we should shout louder...

    dogsave where have you been hiding all this time, hope your post history doesn't give away any hidden secrets.


    edit


    Your cool


  • Options
    #108
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    VladamirP wrote: »
    Alcohol while "legal" has messed up my life more than anything, a few spliffs is great, chill out, relax, forget about the illness that might get you if you think about it too long and help you to forget about it if you already have it.

    So why not stick to that narrative instead of pretending it has amazing medical properties that require a campaign.


  • Options
    #109
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    jh79 wrote: »
    So why not stick to that narrative instead of pretending it has amazing medical properties that require a campaign.

    Ok, when you explain why your set against something when it will never really do you personally any harm, yet want to stop it from doing any good.


  • Options
    #110
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    jh79 wrote: »
    Anecdotal evidence while usefull is not enough for something claiming to be medicine. It is the lowset type of evidence.

    Would you take any other drug that wasn't properly tested for effectiveness?

    Marijuana should meet the same criteria as any other medicine.

    People have been using it for thousands of years. How much more testing do you think is needed?


  • Options
    #111
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    VladamirP wrote: »
    Ok, when you explain why your set against something when it will never really do you personally any harm, yet want to stop it from doing any good.

    I'm not set against it at all.

    Are you saying that people for legalisation should not highlight these studies?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    VladamirP
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 193 ✭✭VladamirP


    jh79 wrote: »

    Does any of this actually require a change in its legal status??
    jh79 wrote: »
    I'm not set against it at all.

    Are you saying that people for legalisation should not highlight these studies?

    I don't know, you tell me.


  • Options
    #113
    byhookorbycrook
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,498 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Like they do with Sativex, a cannabis- based medication that treats M.S symptoms..
    Sativex is quite expensive and doesn't help everyone with MS. Unless it can be made available far more cheaply, most MS-ers who need it won't be able to afford it. Similar thing happened with Fampyra.


  • Options
    #114
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    People have been using it for thousands of years. How much more testing do you think is needed?

    Anecdotal evidence isn't ever enough for any herbal medicine to be officially approved as safe and effective. If it was, we'd have a plethora of popular herbal remedies for sale in the pharmacies.

    I'm a huge fan of some herbal medicines and would love if they were given proper thorough trials and made widely available with a seal of approval.


  • Options
    #115
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Anecdotal evidence isn't ever enough for any herbal medicine to be officially approved as safe and effective. If it was, we'd have a plethora of popular herbal remedies for sale in the pharmacies.


    A group of alt medicine types lobbied the US government to form the following group to try an add legitimacy to claims often made by alt medicine types.

    https://nccih.nih.gov/

    It's an interesting read. Actual proper studies to investigate the claims people often made about herbal remedies. These guys are as biased as can be and still the results are crap. Not surprising really, Bioavailability, variability in concentration of active ingredient etc makes it virtually impossible for them to have any any effect.


  • Options
    #116
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    jh79 wrote: »
    A group of alt medicine types lobbied the US government to form the following group to try an add legitimacy to claims often made by alt medicine types.

    https://nccih.nih.gov/

    It's an interesting read. Actual proper studies to investigate the claims people often made about herbal remedies. These guys are as biased as can be and still the results are crap. Not surprising really, Bioavailability, variability in concentration of active ingredient etc makes it virtually impossible for them to have any any effect.

    Where would I find information about that? I see it's the front page of the nccih, I'm just not sure where to look?


  • Options
    #117
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    WhoWhatWhere wrote: »
    Should we be emphatic towards people who steal to fund their drug habit? It's their lifestyle choice after all

    A crass comparison at best. There is a difference between life style choices, and breaking laws to facilitate life style choices. Why would we treat a cannabis smoker who steals to fund the habit any different to the many people who today steal to fund their alcohol habits, or sex addictions, or gambling addictions?

    What you think your point is therefore is not clear to me and, I suspect, not clear to you either.

    However if we pretend you have a point and consider your position then I think you will find your "argument" actually goes the other way. For a few reasons. For example:

    1) As InTheTrees points out, a legal alternative can often be cheaper than the illegal version, which would mediate slightly the tendency to finance it with crime.

    2) People addicted could be more inclined to seek help if what they were doing was not criminal.

    3) Although the history of the tobacco industry shows there are exceptions to this, in general a legal regulated product is less likely to be "cut" with chemicals specifically designed to promote addiction.

    4) A regulated price would remove the potential for Drug Dealing Middle Men to fluctuate their price to exploit people with addictions.

    5) buying it over the counter means that these people do not ALREADY have a contact in the criminal underworld should they feel at all tempted to make a move to crime.

    So in general you might find that if financing the drug through crime is your concern.... that your concern would be mediated, not exacerbated, in the light of a legal and regulated product.
    Hugh Mungus wrote: »
    Voted legalise for medicinal uses. Only because I've seen the bad side of smoking too much. Absolutely it's not as bad as alcohol and that's legal BUT that shouldn't be a reason to totally legalise.

    I do not think people pointing out it is not as bad as alcohol are doing it as a reason to legalize, so much as they are doing so to rebut some of the reasons NOT to.

    The point being that many of the "arguments" people put on the table against cannabis are arguments that apply just as readily, often more so, to alcohol.

    And since we are not banning alcohol on the basis of those reasons..... it becomes a warning flag of bias. Bias can be suspected whenever you see someone arbitrarily apply an argument in one case, but just as arbitrarily withholding it in another.

    I think "I have seen the effects of taking too much" is a monumentally bad argument for similar reason. It is an argument that can apply to ANYTHING, but tends to only be selectively applied.

    I too have seen the effects of too much alcohol, computer gaming, gambling, sex, eating, sport, television. The list goes on. And on. And. On.

    Moderation is key in just about everything, even water the very basis of life is a poison in too high a quantity (which is why drugs that make you very thirsty are a problem sometimes).

    So being against something, just because too much of it is a bad thing, is rather arbitrary, selectively applied, and often indicative of a bias.
    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Its been like this for a couple of years now and has certainly been a positive for Washington state. Its all highly regulated, all grown within the state.

    Do you know off hand if similar has occurred in Colorado? I am related through the marriage of a close relative to State Governor John Hickenlooper and he campaigned HEAVILY in term of time and resources and personal commitment against its legalization.

    He took his defeat honestly and openly when the public voted for legalization, not that he had much choice, but I have not since taken the time to see what has actually changed in his State since then. Crime statistics, revenue streams, addiction issues. I must check what has changed.
    jh79 wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe "big pharma" agents sneak into university labs at night and mess with the experiments??

    I have read the users post 10 times now and I do not even see a REMOTE suggestion of that. Yours appears to be something of a hostile knee jerk response to a genuine request. A knee jerk response more usually found in people bluffing the existence of studies that do not actually exist. Which I doubt is your intention.

    In general it is ALWAYS a good idea to know who funded any study, as our medical science is alas heavily punctuated by studies financed by people invested in a particular result.


  • Options
    #118
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Do you know off hand if similar has occurred in Colorado? I am related through the marriage of a close relative to State Governor John Hickenlooper and he campaigned HEAVILY in term of time and resources and personal commitment against its legalization.

    I think the Colorado experience is pretty similar to Washington's.

    Here's some news stories. Obviously just news rather than any kind of studies. I tried to find some negative ones, but there arent that many.

    I haven't looked at the debate thats going on in California, but they're voting on it today so Id imagine there must be a of of discussion of pro's and con's

    http://www.denverpost.com/2015/12/26/after-two-years-debate-remains-over-marijuana-legalizations-impacts/

    http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_One_Year_Status_Report.pdf

    http://reason.com/archives/2016/04/25/early-lessons-from-marijuana-legalizatio


  • Options
    #119
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Where would I find information about that? I see it's the front page of the nccih, I'm just not sure where to look?

    This is the A-Z section

    https://nccih.nih.gov/health/atoz.htm#linkG

    Remember these guys are biased towards alt medicine so this is the best spin on the research.


  • Options
    #120
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    jh79 wrote: »
    This is the A-Z section

    https://nccih.nih.gov/health/atoz.htm#linkG

    Remember these guys are biased towards alt medicine so this is the best spin on the research.

    I went straight to one that I'm keen on myself (Hawthorn) and the information is no better than the ususual. ''There is not enough evidence'' and ''the results are conflicting''. A bit of a disappointment.
    Another one was Garlic, which I expected to have more research behind it at this stage, and a better outcome. Again, it is all very lukewarm. On the other hand the focus wasn't on any antibacterial effect, which is what I know garlic best for, (other than the mention of the common cold), it was about lowering cholesterol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭jh79


    Widdershins wrote: »
    I went straight to one that I'm keen on myself (Hawthorn) and the information is no better than the ususual. ''There is not enough evidence'' and ''the results are conflicting''. A bit of a disappointment.
    Another one was Garlic, which I expected to have more research behind it at this stage, and a better outcome. Again, it is all very lukewarm. On the other hand the focus wasn't on any antibacterial effect, which is what I know garlic best for, (other than the mention of the common cold), it was about lowering cholesterol.

    How do you know garlic has an antibacterial effect?


Advertisement