Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

mulbot

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.[/quote

Obviously since its illegal to grow in Ireland I can't admit to growing cannabis,but those growing conditions you mentioned are easily met,. Some people invest quite alot of money in their systems,and can meet all those requirements you write about. Also it is easy to get oil samples tested for THC/CBD levels!!

mulbot

Gebgbegb wrote: »

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

Thank you

drunkmonkey

Have your gmp rebuttles ready!!

jh79

The FDA are armed in the US and trained how to interogate. They can walk in whenever they want in the US , in Ireland they give notice but that is changing. They can and do speak to anyone they want. Audits are a pain.

A guy in Scotland was found in an audit to be making results up . He got a couple of years.

evolving_doors

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Have your gmp rebuttles ready!!

And there's a few that are using gmp already so that's that I suppose!

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

And there's a few that are using gmp already so that's that I suppose!

I suppose it is wether you think it is necessary ir not.

It is a good thing , GMP. Imagine what we'd get up to if nobody kept a close eye on us!

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

I suppose it is wether you think it is necessary ir not.

It is a good thing , GMP. Imagine what we'd get up to if nobody kept a close eye on us!

Yup GMP is a good thing.

Kurtosis

Jayop wrote: »

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.

As others have already discussed more eloquently than I'd be able to, the factors requiring consideration are quite distinct between legalising medicinal and recreational cannabis. Seeing one as a stepping stone to the other is rather misguided. I also think it's cynical for proponents of recreational use to piggyback on the campaign for medicinal cannabis. And I say that as someone who is pro legalisation and has reservations regarding medicinal use.

Jayop

Kurtosis wrote: »

As others have already discussed more eloquently than I'd be able to, the factors requiring consideration are quite distinct between legalising medicinal and recreational cannabis. Seeing one as a stepping stone to the other is rather misguided. I also think it's cynical for proponents of recreational use to piggyback on the campaign for medicinal cannabis. And I say that as someone who is pro legalisation and has reservations regarding medicinal use.

In Irish politics you have to be cynical if you want to get anything done. Ultimately I want it to be completely legalized and taxed, not decriminalised and still sold by scummers. The only possible way that any of our spineless politicians will ever make any major change is if the demand from the public becomes overwhelming with people like Vera Twomey causing public shaming for them. You can ask for all the scientific proof you want, but if doctors told me my daughter was dying and there was no medicine on the market that could help her you can be damn sure I'd be kicking the door down up in Government buildings to get this approved so she at least has a chance.

As for seeing one as a piggyback being misguided? I simply don't understand how that would be the case at all given the history of medical marijuana opening the gates to recreational in many places already.

kleefarr

Kurtosis wrote: »

As others have already discussed more eloquently than I'd be able to, the factors requiring consideration are quite distinct between legalising medicinal and recreational cannabis. Seeing one as a stepping stone to the other is rather misguided. I also think it's cynical for proponents of recreational use to piggyback on the campaign for medicinal cannabis. And I say that as someone who is pro legalisation and has reservations regarding medicinal use.

And what do you think are the distinctions between medicinal and recreational?

They are really both the same thing, except, one is not as expensive as the other and I would say more natural and has not had the claim to be better than the natural thing that has been around for thousands of years by being manipulated in scientific environment.

Ultimately the choice should be down to the individual to decide which version they wish to use.
Just like which drink they want to drink and alcohol is way more dangerous than Marijuana.

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

I was a bit dismissive of the Israel effortd earlier in the thread but i think it was cause i read about them in leafy.com which i 've learnt rather quickly is a terrible source of info.

And where did you get this information about Leafly.com ?

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

And where did you get this information about Leafly.com ?

That the journalism is poor? From reading it and then reading the studies they are basing their pieces on.

Do you really want examples?

Cannabist.com seems better.

gctest50

In states where medicinal cannabis is legal there's less opiate problems

kleefarr

jh79 wrote: »

That the journalism is poor? From reading it and then reading the studies they are basing their pieces on.

Do you really want examples?

Cannabist.com seems better.

You didn't mention journalism in your original post, you just said it was poor.
And I don't want examples as I visit the site quite a lot and find quite a bit of their info interesting, were as we know you have already made your mind up before you read anything there because it's not 'clinical' enough for you.

cannabist.com run by a pharmaceutical affiliated company by any chance? lol

kleefarr

Now this I would like to see, but think the time trial should be 6 months...

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/a-writer-s-challenge-to-politicians-over-medical-cannabis-1.2928137

gctest50

This kind of thing :

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303426


Conclusions. Operational medical marijuana laws are associated with reductions in opioid positivity among 21- to 40-year-old fatally injured drivers and may reduce opioid use and overdose



There should be lots more out there on it



.

xckjoo

kleefarr wrote: »

And what do you think are the distinctions between medicinal and recreational?

They are really both the same thing, except, one is not as expensive as the other and I would say more natural and has not had the claim to be better than the natural thing that has been around for thousands of years by being manipulated in scientific environment.

Ultimately the choice should be down to the individual to decide which version they wish to use.
Just like which drink they want to drink and alcohol is way more dangerous than Marijuana.

The distinction is that medicinal products have to go through rigorous testing and provide proof that the product will provide a very specific benefit to the user. They also have to look at potential side effects and how it would interact with other drugs in your system.

Jayop wrote: »

In Irish politics you have to be cynical if you want to get anything done. Ultimately I want it to be completely legalized and taxed, not decriminalised and still sold by scummers. The only possible way that any of our spineless politicians will ever make any major change is if the demand from the public becomes overwhelming with people like Vera Twomey causing public shaming for them. You can ask for all the scientific proof you want, but if doctors told me my daughter was dying and there was no medicine on the market that could help her you can be damn sure I'd be kicking the door down up in Government buildings to get this approved so she at least has a chance.

As for seeing one as a piggyback being misguided? I simply don't understand how that would be the case at all given the history of medical marijuana opening the gates to recreational in many places already.

Flip this around a bit and think about it again. If medicinal marijuana was made legal tomorrow and your adolescent daughter was prescribed it for some minor condition, would you want to know what the potential side affects were before she started taking it? What if there is a link between THC exposure in early life and increased risk of schizophrenia? You'd be the first one (rightly) screaming for the heads of the licensing boards that allowed this to happen.

What you guys are arguing for is a weakening of medical laws and regulations so that people can have a backdoor to getting stoned.

Seanachai

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.

From what I can see the traditional pub scene is fading, except for places with a good rep for food and sports bars maybe I can't see them surviving once the older guys that move between them and bookies have passed on. The younger people in the trade would probably jump at the chance to move into cannabis cafés.

It's a strange crossroads at the moment, there's pressure to legalise completely but then there's also lobbying for medicinal use, it's hard to imagine a situation with most of Europe and the UK legalising and the situation here being unchanged.

The authorities here would just have to issue guidelines to people that they advise to use the prescribed product for medical use and that they cannot ensure the quality or safety of the recreational weed. Some people will inevitably self-medicate and go for the regular stuff if it's cheaper, but that's the best that they can do unless they do refuse to change their position.

Kurtosis

kleefarr wrote: »

And what do you think are the distinctions between medicinal and recreational?

They are really both the same thing, except, one is not as expensive as the other and I would say more natural and has not had the claim to be better than the natural thing that has been around for thousands of years by being manipulated in scientific environment.

Ultimately the choice should be down to the individual to decide which version they wish to use.
Just like which drink they want to drink and alcohol is way more dangerous than Marijuana.

I completely disagree they are both the same. The "natural been around for thousands of years" argument is nonsense, there are several examples of medicines derived from naturally occurring chemicals, cannabis is not unique in this sense so it provides no support for excepting medicinal cannabis from the normal rigours of medical treatments. To be honest, there are enough ineffective treatments on the market (both alternative/woo type ones as well as licensed medicines from pharmaceutical companies) that are being used in place of more effective treatments without adding another one to the mix.

Medicinal use (not just of cannabis, of any medicine) covers taking a treatment, which has been made available based on evidence that it is safe and effective in managing a specific condition or conditions relative to other available treatments, by people with one of those conditions. For the vast majority of medical conditions, the treatments must be prescribed by a doctor overseeing the management of that condition and then for minor, often self-limiting conditions which don't necessitate medical supervision, treatments are available over the counter. Products for medicinal use should be of a known strength and of sufficient quality so that people (both patients and doctors) can be confident that the treatment will provide the same effectiveness and safety as in studies of its use.

As I said, I would be in favour of legalisation, but would have reservations about medicinal use, which for any treatment is subject to requirements to ensure it's a safe and effective treatment, and so of course is going to have more controls on it than recreational use of a substance. Your analogy with alcohol really says a lot, we're talking about using cannabis for serious medical pathologies (epilepsy, MS, vomiting in cancer patients), tell me what conditions do people use alcohol for medicinally? It's disingenuous to push medicinal use if you simply see it as a means to an end being full legalisation. Any campaign for medicinal use I think is actively harmed by being associated with the push for legalisation, it validates the thought that medicinal use is the "thin end of the wedge" among people opposed to legalisation. Availability for medicinal use and recreational use are distinct end points, they should each be fought for on their own merits, not one piggy backing on the other.

Seanachai

Kurtosis wrote: »

I completely disagree they are both the same. The "natural been around for thousands of years" argument is nonsense, there are several examples of medicines derived from naturally occurring chemicals, cannabis is not unique in this sense so it provides no support for excepting medicinal cannabis from the normal rigours of medical treatments. To be honest, there are enough ineffective treatments on the market (both alternative/woo type ones as well as licensed medicines from pharmaceutical companies) that are being used in place of more effective treatments without adding another one to the mix.

Medicinal use (not just of cannabis, of any medicine) covers taking a treatment, which has been made available based on evidence that it is safe and effective in managing a specific condition or conditions relative to other available treatments, by people with one of those conditions. For the vast majority of medical conditions, the treatments must be prescribed by a doctor overseeing the management of that condition and then for minor, often self-limiting conditions which don't necessitate medical supervision, treatments are available over the counter. Products for medicinal use should be of a known strength and of sufficient quality so that people (both patients and doctors) can be confident that the treatment will provide the same effectiveness and safety as in studies of its use.

As I said, I would be in favour of legalisation, but would have reservations about medicinal use, which for any treatment is subject to requirements to ensure it's a safe and effective treatment, and so of course is going to have more controls on it than recreational use of a substance. Your analogy with alcohol really says a lot, we're talking about using cannabis for serious medical pathologies (epilepsy, MS, vomiting in cancer patients), tell me what conditions do people use alcohol for medicinally? It's disingenuous to push medicinal use if you simply see it as a means to an end being full legalisation. Any campaign for medicinal use I think is actively harmed by being associated with the push for legalisation, it validates the thought that medicinal use is the "thin end of the wedge" among people opposed to legalisation. Availability for medicinal use and recreational use are distinct end points, they should each be fought for on their own merits, not one piggy backing on the other.

If full legalisation does happen it will come down to personal discretion, some will stick to the prescribed cannabis, but some will just go to the dispensary and self-medicate. If issues do arise because of this then they'll just have to cross that bridge when they come to it.

Jayop

xckjoo wrote: »

The distinction is that medicinal products have to go through rigorous testing and provide proof that the product will provide a very specific benefit to the user. They also have to look at potential side effects and how it would interact with other drugs in your system.




Flip this around a bit and think about it again. If medicinal marijuana was made legal tomorrow and your adolescent daughter was prescribed it for some minor condition, would you want to know what the potential side affects were before she started taking it? What if there is a link between THC exposure in early life and increased risk of schizophrenia? You'd be the first one (rightly) screaming for the heads of the licensing boards that allowed this to happen.

What you guys are arguing for is a weakening of medical laws and regulations so that people can have a backdoor to getting stoned.

That's quite insulting and I think I've been clear enough through the thread not to deserve that. I think that the know side effects of a load of licensed pharmaceutical drugs are a he'll of a lot more dangerous than cbd oil ever would. There's lots of evidence (not clinical) that people on loads of different tablets each to counteract the effects of another can drop them for cannabis for conditions like seizures. Personally given the fact that people have been smoking and consuming weed since time immortal I think we have a pretty good idea that the dangers are fairly limited. Unlike many of the tested and licensed pharmaceutical drugs that have been found after their rigorous testing to be causing cancer and other diseases.

If my teenager had a minor ailment she wouldn't be getting cannabis treatment. For me to give it to a child it would want to be something major and when I've ruled out all other therapies. It's an alternative medicine at the moment. I'd try the other options first, but if nothing is working then you should be able to try this and see if you would be one of the many many people who it has helped.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

That's quite insulting and I think I've been clear enough through the thread not to deserve that. I think that the know side effects of a load of licensed pharmaceutical drugs are a he'll of a lot more dangerous than cbd oil ever would. There's lots of evidence (not clinical) that people on loads of different tablets each to counteract the effects of another can drop them for cannabis for conditions like seizures. Personally given the fact that people have been smoking and consuming weed since time immortal I think we have a pretty good idea that the dangers are fairly limited. Unlike many of the tested and licensed pharmaceutical drugs that have been found after their rigorous testing to be causing cancer and other diseases.

If my teenager had a minor ailment she wouldn't be getting cannabis treatment. For me to give it to a child it would want to be something major and when I've ruled out all other therapies. It's an alternative medicine at the moment. I'd try the other options first, but if nothing is working then you should be able to try this and see if you would be one of the many many people who it has helped.

The side effects of other drugs is only relevant if they are being used to treat the same thing.

xckjoo

Jayop wrote: »

That's quite insulting and I think I've been clear enough through the thread not to deserve that. I think that the know side effects of a load of licensed pharmaceutical drugs are a he'll of a lot more dangerous than cbd oil ever would. There's lots of evidence (not clinical) that people on loads of different tablets each to counteract the effects of another can drop them for cannabis for conditions like seizures. Personally given the fact that people have been smoking and consuming weed since time immortal I think we have a pretty good idea that the dangers are fairly limited. Unlike many of the tested and licensed pharmaceutical drugs that have been found after their rigorous testing to be causing cancer and other diseases.

If my teenager had a minor ailment she wouldn't be getting cannabis treatment. For me to give it to a child it would want to be something major and when I've ruled out all other therapies. It's an alternative medicine at the moment. I'd try the other options first, but if nothing is working then you should be able to try this and see if you would be one of the many many people who it has helped.

I really don't know what you took from my post that you found insulting but my apologies for causing insult. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

I take your point that you're only talking about situations where all else has failed, but what you're describing is snake oil. There's no proven evidence that it would provide any medicinal benefits above a placebo. Your points about it being around and consumed forever doesn't make it a useful medication. It suggests that there's potential there but so far we haven't seen proper research that shows that it can live up to this potential.

Also remember that just because you wouldn't give cannabis to a child for a minor ailment doesn't mean that everyone else would do the same. Opening the door allows everyone through, not just those with common sense.

Jayop

xckjoo wrote: »

I really don't know what you took from my post that you found insulting but my apologies for causing insult. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

I take your point that you're only talking about situations where all else has failed, but what you're describing is snake oil. There's no proven evidence that it would provide any medicinal benefits above a placebo. Your points about it being around and consumed forever doesn't make it a useful medication. It suggests that there's potential there but so far we haven't seen proper research that shows that it can live up to this potential.

Also remember that just because you wouldn't give cannabis to a child for a minor ailment doesn't mean that everyone else would do the same. Opening the door allows everyone through, not just those with common sense.

It's not snake oil now though is it. You know that regardless if whether there's been proven scientific tests to show effect there's an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence to show in some instances it has real meaningful effects.

gctest50

This answers some of it

9000 pills is a lot of money to lose out on


http://m.imgur.com/gallery/fvAkv

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

It's not snake oil now though is it. You know that regardless if whether there's been proven scientific tests to show effect there's an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence to show in some instances it has real meaningful effects.

Snake oil is based on anecdotal evidence too and really it depends on what the claim is and how the claim is worded.

drunkmonkey

When you say there is no evidence why are a few of you completely ignoring non western medicine. Is all other medicine or any tests before Nixon completely irrelevant?

To say there is no medical benifit is completely untrue. There's a written timeline of it's use going back thousands of years.

Seanachai

drunkmonkey wrote: »

When you say there is no evidence why are a few of you completely ignoring non western medicine. Is all other medicine or any tests before Nixon completely irrelevant?

To say there is no medical benifit is completely untrue. There's a written timeline of it's use going back thousands of years.

They've made herbs I used to order online illegal here through EU law in the last few years, I got benefit from them but they were banned for the same lack of evidence reason. With that in mind it's not surprising that they are not just going to cave in to the argument about it's long history as a traditional medicine. If they're not going to legalise fully they will have to have rigorous scientific proof of efficacy as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

ScumLord

Gebgbegb wrote: »

'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.

The americas seem to have taken a different approach though. They seem to have just stepped back and said "if you want to use cannabis fine" but I don't think they've declared cannabis is medicine. Here in Europe we seem to be trying to identify if it is medicine and how we can introduce it to the traditional medical industry.

I don't know if the European medical industry will ever accept cannabis, so we'll be stuck in limbo for another decade. The process seems to be dragged out until it becomes someone elses problem, then that guy drags it out until it's the next guys problem.

Seanachai wrote: »

From what I can see the traditional pub scene is fading, except for places with a good rep for food and sports bars maybe I can't see them surviving once the older guys that move between them and bookies have passed on. The younger people in the trade would probably jump at the chance to move into cannabis cafés.

I don't know what it's like for the younger adults but every time I go to a pub I wonder what the big deal is. How are they fun? Cannabis cafes would become an instant hit in Ireland.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

When you say there is no evidence why are a few of you completely ignoring non western medicine. Is all other medicine or any tests before Nixon completely irrelevant?

To say there is no medical benifit is completely untrue. There's a written timeline of it's use going back thousands of years.

Because that is the lowest form of evidence, old wives tales is not what i want my doctor to be basing decisions on.