Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

You're not saying a smoker has to believe in medical marijuana ?

Sure stoned or sober the studies are still the same.

Nah just that they wouldn't give a crap but would argue for the sake of it.

drunkmonkey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un7QiXsnF_Y

drunkmonkey

There we go 25kilos is 500,000 this compares to a price of 100 euro in china for the same amount.

So what happens if it every becomes legal, how would you even tax it especially when it comes to imports, to turn 100 euro into half a million euro through taxation is impossible.

It's a crop at the end of the day it needs to be accepted as one the way it used to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xta09idGy4

One trailer load of this is probably 100 million in Garda values.

ScumLord

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There we go 25kilos is 500,000 this compares to a price of 100 euro in china for the same amount.


One trailer load of this is probably 100 million in Garda values.

Well yeah. Even at the top street prices the price for 25kg would be less than 400,000. Actual prices would be below 200,000. With legal industrial grows the price would likely go down to well below 100,000, probably less than 50,000.

But it's just like that guards to overestimate, we've seen that's not just drug user paranoia anymore.

The thing about industrial grows is they are done indoors, even in hot countries there may be benefits to growing indoors where you can cut the plant's growing season in half to grow more each year.

So that's going to even out costs for most countries, you don't need to many people to run a place like that so it's going to be equipment and energy costs for the most part. I wouldn't really be opposed to restricted importation allowances so that cannabis used in Ireland is produced in Ireland, it could be an EU wide agreement.

If hemp growing is allowed it's going to severely restrict the ability to grow recreational cannabis outdoors too, as the hemp will pollinate the weed and create a mongrel plant that's no good to anyone.

drunkmonkey

It's already grown outside here, https://www.google.ie/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/farming/news/oliver-moorehemp-thrives-in-coastal-north-kerry-414077.html

The Mongral still has seeds and can still get you high.

stevek93

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's already grown outside here, https://www.google.ie/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/farming/news/oliver-moorehemp-thrives-in-coastal-north-kerry-414077.html

The Mongral still has seeds and can still get you high.

How can it it has less than .2 THC?

drunkmonkey

Proposals to legalise medicinal cannabis are madness and verging on the immoral, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health has been told by the Fine Gael TD Kate O Connell.

Ms O Connell, a practising pharmacist in Dublin, said the proposals would undermine existing regulations that are designed to protect the public.
She was responding to the People before Profit TD Gino Kenny, who said his Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill would save lives by reducing overdoses from other drugs.
Ms O Connell said the arguments for legalisation rested on fake facts, anecdote and hearsay, separate from scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of cannabis.
I see this Bill as undermining the current regulatory framework we have with the Health [Products] Regulatory Authority and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who are internationally recognised as the competent authorities, she told the committee.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/plans-to-legalise-medicinal-cannabis-are-madness-says-td-1.3037730

InTheTrees

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ms O Connell, a practising pharmacist in Dublin, said the proposals would undermine existing regulations that are designed to protect the public.
She was responding to the People before Profit TD Gino Kenny, who said his Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill would save lives by reducing overdoses from other drugs.
Ms O Connell said the arguments for legalisation rested on fake facts, anecdote and hearsay, separate from scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of cannabis.

Time to legalise it.

Otherwise the argument between those who feel it has medicinal benefits and those who dont will just continue on endlessly.

Pharma cant deal with plants whether they have medicinal value or not. A pharmacist cant use a dock leaf to ease Nettle sting pain, they have to go and buy a manufactured spray with a controlled regulated dose.

They cant even tell you that dock leaves ease nettle sting pain or they may be breaking their own rules.

Seanachai

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Proposals to legalise medicinal cannabis are madness and verging on the immoral, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health has been told by the Fine Gael TD Kate O Connell.

Ms O Connell, a practising pharmacist in Dublin, said the proposals would undermine existing regulations that are designed to protect the public.
She was responding to the People before Profit TD Gino Kenny, who said his Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill would save lives by reducing overdoses from other drugs.
Ms O Connell said the arguments for legalisation rested on fake facts, anecdote and hearsay, separate from scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of cannabis.
I see this Bill as undermining the current regulatory framework we have with the Health [Products] Regulatory Authority and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who are internationally recognised as the competent authorities, she told the committee.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/plans-to-legalise-medicinal-cannabis-are-madness-says-td-1.3037730

I had to Google her to match the face, this isn't surprising at all, she's a particularly zealous Fine-Gaeler this one, the fact that she brings morality into it says a lot about her attitudes also. She always gives off a 'let them eat cake' impression in any of the interviews or panels I've seen her on. What stance will she and her party take when all drugs except heroin are eventually legalised across Europe. We're constantly drilled about how we have to follow the norms of Europe to progress as a nation when it comes to other policies.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

I had to Google her to match the face, this isn't surprising at all, she's a particularly zealous Fine-Gaeler this one, the fact that she brings morality into it says a lot about her attitudes also. She always gives off a 'let them eat cake' impression in any of the interviews or panels I've seen her on. What stance will she and her party take when all drugs except heroin are eventually legalised across Europe. We're constantly drilled about how we have to follow the norms of Europe to progress as a nation when it comes to other policies.

I took it she meant allowing medicine on the market based on poor research was immoral.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

I took it she meant allowing medicine on the market based on poor research was immoral.

She's right about that, but not allowing someone grow a plant that poses no danger and may help them is even more immoral. It should not be classed as medicine at the moment it also should not be illegal.

I'm getting more annoyed with Barret and Gino the longer this goes one and the more I hear, really thinking they only hijacked the pro cannabis lobby as they thought it was going to be legalised until the got their hands near it.
Good to see some protests coming up that don't have People before Profit all over it.

Kinda missing Ming:(

evolving_doors

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Proposals to legalise medicinal cannabis are madness and verging on the immoral, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health has been told by the Fine Gael TD Kate O Connell.

Ms O Connell, a practising pharmacist in Dublin, said the proposals would undermine existing regulations that are designed to protect the public.
She was responding to the People before Profit TD Gino Kenny, who said his Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill would save lives by reducing overdoses from other drugs.
Ms O Connell said the arguments for legalisation rested on fake facts, anecdote and hearsay, separate from scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of cannabis.
I see this Bill as undermining the current regulatory framework we have with the Health [Products] Regulatory Authority and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, who are internationally recognised as the competent authorities, she told the committee.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/plans-to-legalise-medicinal-cannabis-are-madness-says-td-1.3037730

Protect the public from what?

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Protect the public from what?

From ineffective or dangerous drugs.

InTheTrees

Back to my dock leaf analogy:

A further problem arises when pharmacists, who are unable to say whether dock leaves ease nettle sting pain because there haven't been studies, try and make dock leaves illegal to "protect the public" in case they try and use the leaves to ease pain without there being enough studies.

jh79

InTheTrees wrote: »

Back to my dock leaf analogy:

A further problem arises when pharmacists, who are unable to say whether dock leaves ease nettle sting pain because there haven't been studies, try and make dock leaves illegal to "protect the public" in case they try and use the leaves to ease pain without there being enough studies.

They are not trying to make it illegal they just want it treated the same as all other medicine.

InTheTrees

jh79 wrote:

They are not trying to make it illegal they just want it treated the same as all other medicine.

But what if it isn't a medicine?

It seems to me you are arguing that it should be treated like a medicine while also saying that it isn't a medicine.

jh79

InTheTrees wrote: »

But what if it isn't a medicine?

It seems to me you are arguing that it should be treated like a medicine while also saying that it isn't a medicine.

Because the Bill pit forward by Gino stated it was a medicine and that it should be licenced as one.

InTheTrees

jh79 wrote: »

Because the Bill pit forward by Gino stated it was a medicine and that it should be licenced as one.

But whatever the bill says (god knows politicians aren't the most well informed) it's not a medicine is it?

jh79

InTheTrees wrote: »

But whatever the bill says (god knows politicians aren't the most well informed) it's not a medicine is it?

Not at the moment.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

Not at the moment.

Somebody better tell Vera Twomey that as people before profit seem to have her convinced there going to magic it into a medicine, making a bit
of an edjit out of her at this stage for their own publicity, she needs to go back under the radar and make sure her daughter gets what she needs. If that involves a trip to the states like the other Cork kid start a crowdfunding site and we'll help get her there, she can then return with the prescription she's so badly looking for.

kleefarr

Pharmaceutical Drugs

"There are a number of examples to choose from here, but antidepressants make the top of the list. Irving Kirsch, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, published a study pointing out how “analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.” (source)

Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said: “We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.” (source)

Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.” He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/

But we really should trust the Governments and the Pharmaceutical business, they know what they're doing.

InTheTrees

kleefarr wrote: »

Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.†He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct."
But we really should trust the Governments and the Pharmaceutical business, they know what they're doing.

In the USA prescription drug advertising is allowed on tv and is very common. Watch for more than an half an hour and you'll get at least a few different ones.

The law says they have to list side effects in the Ad so you get these Ads saying how wonderful their medications are followed by a list of usually scary side effects.

I think people outside the USA think these ads are a joke. Or rare, only on late at night or something. No. They're only all the time, and have been for forty years. Americans are brought up on these ads.

I daresay they probably have some bearing on peoples willingness to accept medicinal cannabis because big Pharma certainly isnt perfect in any way.

Here are a couple of examples. Remember these are NOT a joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu0rXFhsM8w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25fGWKZFLIY

pure.conya

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Somebody better tell Vera Twomey that as people before profit seem to have her convinced there going to magic it into a medicine, making a bit
of an edjit out of her at this stage for their own publicity, she needs to go back under the radar and make sure her daughter gets what she needs. If that involves a trip to the states like the other Cork kid start a crowdfunding site and we'll help get her there, she can then return with the prescription she's so badly looking for.

nobody needs to tell Vera Twomey anything, she knows the medicine works and her daughter will have a signifigantly better life within 5 mins of using 1ml of CBD oil, but the only option available to her right now is to move to any of the states in america that have allowed it's use, do you not see the crazyness of this situation?? if it was simnon harris daughter he'd have it for her not a bother

InTheTrees wrote: »

In the USA prescription drug advertising is allowed on tv and is very common. Watch for more than an half an hour and you'll get at least a few different ones.

The law says they have to list side effects in the Ad so you get these Ads saying how wonderful their medications are followed by a list of usually scary side effects.

I think people outside the USA think these ads are a joke. Or rare, only on late at night or something. No. They're only all the time, and have been for forty years. Americans are brought up on these ads.

I daresay they probably have some bearing on peoples willingness to accept medicinal cannabis because big Pharma certainly isnt perfect in any way.

Here are a couple of examples. Remember these are NOT a joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu0rXFhsM8w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25fGWKZFLIY

as prohibition was ending in the US I remember reading that a judge in Califonria that was legalising it added a clause to the judgement that the pro-cannabis crowd couldn't throw one dollar at lobbying or advertising medical cannabis while big pharama with it's horrible and in some cases fatal side effects can lobby congress, doctors and the likes to the tune of hundreds of millions each year and don't get me started on the money spent on advertising!!

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

Pharmaceutical Drugs

"There are a number of examples to choose from here, but antidepressants make the top of the list. Irving Kirsch, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, published a study pointing out how “analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.†(source)

Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said: “We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.†(source)

Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.†He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/

But we really should trust the Governments and the Pharmaceutical business, they know what they're doing.

So is the point of this post that drugs should be controlled to an even greater extent ?

Medical Marijuana hasn't enough research to satisfy the current standards and the only logical response to the above post is even higher standards.

Jayop

No the point is that pharma companies are not to be trusted and them saying something isn't proven doesn't mean that they don't have a trove of evidence to the contrary that they are keeping hidden. It also means that someone working for that industry really shouldn't be thinking they can take the high ground moralising other peoples choices.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

No the point is that pharma companies are not to be trusted and them saying something isn't proven doesn't mean that they don't have a trove of evidence to the contrary that they are keeping hidden. It also means that someone working for that industry really shouldn't be thinking they can take the high ground moralising other peoples choices.

Fraud in the pharma industry doesn't change the fact that weed has not been proven to be more effective than placebo.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Fraud in the pharma industry doesn't change the fact that weed has not been proven to be more effective than placebo.

According to who? People with huge vested interests who have a track record of only releasing the information that serves them while withholding other information.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

According to who? People with huge vested interests who have a track record of only releasing the information that serves them while withholding other information.

According to the inability to carry out blinding in a study.

Jayop

Sometimes you just type words that have no relevance to what's being said.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Sometimes you just type words that have no relevance to what's being said.

Firstly blinding isn't possible because the high lets you know you haven't taken a placebo.

Secondly it is up to those looking for a licence to provide the evidence.

What a strange idea to think other pharma companies should do the work for the weed industry.