Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

kleefarr

If you haven't watched it before set aside an hour and a half to watch it properly.
If you have watched it before, watch it again. Then decide who is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA9Q6nDVR3s

xckjoo

kleefarr wrote: »

If you haven't watched it before set aside an hour and a half to watch it properly.
If you have watched it before, watch it again. Then decide who is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA9Q6nDVR3s

Totally agree it should be legalised. Totally disagree it should be done on medical grounds until there's more research into it.

evolving_doors

xckjoo wrote: »

Totally agree it should be legalised. Totally disagree it should be done on medical grounds until there's more research into it.

Look at vaping, suddenly it's OK to inhale chemicals into the lungs in a new fashion! But now the testing begins to see if it cuts down on tobacco consumption (horse before the cart!). The two situations are not totally comparable only in the sense of recreation vs medicine.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

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

IIRC by getting the CBD / THC balance right that the CBD counters the psychotropic effect of the THC allowing the THC to work without the recipient getting stoned.
Haven't got the time atm to dig out a link, but 90% certain this was covered here or elsewhere already.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

IIRC by getting the CBD / THC balance right that the CBD counters the psychotropic effect of the THC allowing the THC to work without the recipient getting stoned.
Haven't got the time atm to dig out a link, but 90% certain this was covered here or elsewhere already.

Just have to wait for big weed to do a study like that so.

jh79

I mentioned a study about weed being sold not containing what was claimed.

Think this is the study. It is based on edibles only, 17% contained the stated thc levels.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338239

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

I mentioned a study about weed being sold not containing what was claimed.

Think this is the study. It is based on edibles only, 17% contained the stated thc levels.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338239

If it was legal then there'd be accountability and you wouldn't have this problem, creating a catch-22 situation.

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If it was legal then there'd be accountability and you wouldn't have this problem, creating a catch-22 situation.

Thought it was legal in the states they got the weed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Thought it was legal in the states they got the weed?

Ah, fair point - thought you meant clsoer to home.

This is relatively simple case then - product information and trade discriptions laws I would imagine.

It is somethign that would need to be tighted up on though, I agree - but certainly not an argument for continued prohibition.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Thought it was legal in the states they got the weed?

The law is all over the place though isn't it. Because it's illegal federally who monitors the products? The fda is federal so they can hardly get involved.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

The law is all over the place though isn't it. Because it's illegal federally who monitors the products? The fda is federal so they can hardly get involved.

I know, medicine has to be regulated and this shows why.

It's the reason why Bedrocan GMP grade weed is better than the unregulated equivalent and also why it costs more.

Another poster questioned why it costs more and then the whole GMP thing came up.

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah, fair point - thought you meant clsoer to home.

This is relatively simple case then - product information and trade discriptions laws I would imagine.

It is somethign that would need to be tighted up on though, I agree - but certainly not an argument for continued prohibition.

It was meant as an explanation as to why GMP grade weed is necessary and also why it is more expensive.

Jayop

Even if it's non medicinal it would fall under the fda.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Even if it's non medicinal it would fall under the fda.

Like an herbal remedy?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Like an herbal remedy?

Like a chocolate bar.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Like a chocolate bar.

Same as fags and booze i suppose .

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Same as fags and booze i suppose .

No, they literally tested edibles like chocolate bars. Even if they were falling under the normal regulations for food like that this kind of inconsistency wouldn't be allowed. If they tested joints and weed alcohol (is there such a thing?) then it would be like fags and booze.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

No, they literally tested edibles like chocolate bars. Even if they were falling under the normal regulations for food like that this kind of inconsistency wouldn't be allowed. If they tested joints and weed alcohol (is there such a thing?) then it would be like fags and booze.

The edibles were being sold as medicine and were obtained by referral from a doctor as set out by law.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

The edibles were being sold as medicine and were obtained by referral from a doctor as set out by law.

And that's not the point I'm making as you we'll know. The point is that because the law is such a farce even if the tester in this study you posted was just testing for a claimed high coco content there would be no one to enforce it because the body whose job it is to do this is a federal one.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

And that's not the point I'm making as you we'll know. The point is that because the law is such a farce even if the tester in this study you posted was just testing for a claimed high coco content there would be no one to enforce it because the body whose job it is to do this is a federal one.

I know the law is a farce it's a charade to allow recreational use as i've said from the begining.

It should be regulated but not as medicine . It falls somewhere between alcohol/tobacco and herbal remedies at the moment.

kleefarr

xckjoo wrote: »

Totally agree it should be legalised. Totally disagree it should be done on medical grounds until there's more research into it.

If people want to use for medicinal purposes they should be able to.
Less likely, if at all, to die compared to the crap that is pushed on people nowadays.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

xckjoo wrote: »

Totally agree it should be legalised. Totally disagree it should be done on medical grounds until there's more research into it.

It should be done on the grounds of indiviudal freedom.

Jayop

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It should be done on the grounds of indiviudal freedom.

Aye if the second amendment of the United States was the right to bear bongs instead of assault rifles there's be a lot less people dead and in jail every year.

xckjoo

kleefarr wrote: »

If people want to use for medicinal purposes they should be able to.
Less likely, if at all, to die compared to the crap that is pushed on people nowadays.

Yes. In as much as I'm free to treat any illness with herbal remedies. It's my choice to do it but shouldn't be recommended by a medical professional unless there's verified proof that it'll be of benefit.

I just don't think we should be pushing for weakening of medical laws so that people can get stoned easier. I don't want to open the door for laxer requirements for pharmaceutical companies.

kleefarr

xckjoo wrote: »

Yes. In as much as I'm free to treat any illness with herbal remedies. It's my choice to do it but shouldn't be recommended by a medical professional unless there's verified proof that it'll be of benefit.

I just don't think we should be pushing for weakening of medical laws so that people can get stoned easier. I don't want to open the door for laxer requirements for pharmaceutical companies.

We'll just let people drink themselves to death instead then, legally.

kleefarr

Cons like this need to be aired and shown for what they are..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1375825/Primodos-causing-deformities-Fresh-challenge-planned-Bayer.html

Stay off the Pharmaceuticals and on the green. You can eat it raw with great benefit and it's not only until it is heated that the THCa turns to the more psychoactive THC.

Seanachai

kleefarr wrote: »

We'll just let people drink themselves to death instead then, legally.

Alcohol is already legal though and prohibition although still feasible would be a nightmare for the authorities at this stage. My feeling is that cannabis and possibly even mdma and other recreational drugs will be re-legalised again in the near future, time will have to pass for people of a certain mindset to either pass away or soften their position though.

kleefarr

Uruguay and now Canada are the only two countries thinking sensibly in my opinion. Less is more in this case. Less prosecutions, less chastisement, less thinking about yourself. Think for the bigger picture. The World will be better place for it.
If there's one left next week.

evolving_doors

kleefarr wrote: »

Cons like this need to be aired and shown for what they are..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1375825/Primodos-causing-deformities-Fresh-challenge-planned-Bayer.html

Stay off the Pharmaceuticals and on the green. You can eat it raw with great benefit and it's not only until it is heated that the THCa turns to the more psychoactive THC.

But don't drive after consumption... or operate heavy machinery etc

kleefarr

Gebgbegb wrote: »

But don't drive after consumption... or operate heavy machinery etc

No reason to stay away from driving or operating heavy machinery, as the is no psychoactive component until heat is applied.

Anyway, if you look, a toking driver is a safer driver.