Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

More rubbish about wasted two years to try and deflect. Can't you even pretend to be a real person with empathy and be happy that regardless a little sick girl will be able to come home now.

I don't know if you have kids but if you were in a similar situation would you ;

A. Get to Amsterdam as soon as possible to gather the required clinical evidence
Or
B: Organise publicity stunts ie Walk from Cork to Dublin / lie abou having a prescription form Spain at Dublin airport etc etc.

I'm glad the child is getting a treatment that works for her but her parents did not put her first.

The Bishop Basher

jh79 wrote: »

I'm glad the child is getting a treatment that works for her but her parents did not put her first.

Out of interest..

What's your qualification for judging them ?

Have you been in the same situation yourself ?

jh79

Swanner wrote: »

Out of interest..

What's your qualification for judging them ?

Have you been in the same situation yourself ?

No i have not been in the same situation and hopefully never will be.

I know i am coming across as harsh but the facts are they delayed getting the clinical evidence required for the licence in order to campaign for medical marijuana.

No matter how you want to spin it that was not in the best interests of their daughter.

Jayop

Excuse me for not listening to the bias opinions of someone with clear vested interests. Aye sure we'll just shoot off and live in Amsterdam and the drop of a hat. That's clearly what ordinary people can do. Maybe if they worked for a big pharma company as a vested interest they could do that.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Excuse me for not listening to the bias opinions of someone with clear vested interests. Aye sure we'll just shoot off and live in Amsterdam and the drop of a hat. That's clearly what ordinary people can do. Maybe if they worked for a big pharma company as a vested interest they could do that.

Ordinary people did it before Vera finally got around to it. This is the 3rd licence granted after all.

kleefarr

It still needs to be the choice of a free person, just like deciding to have an alcoholic drink or not.
Main difference being you know you are less likely to kill yourself with cannabis, real cannabis that is.
The change will come, eventually.

nice_guy80

I don't see the issue

if it helps the person suffering it should be an option
and the person to decide that is a doctor
not the minister for health

Second Yellow

I will never use or fingers crossed, have need to use it, but the sooner it is legalised the better. A complete nonsense that finances gangs.

jh79

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I don't see the issue

if it helps the person suffering it should be an option
and the person to decide that is a doctor
not the minister for health

The minister said in the press that he couldn't make that decision ( a licence for Vera or for anyone else) as he isn't a doctor. Once she finally applied with the support of a consultant and clinical data he signed it.

The delay was on Vera's side.

gctest50

Need to legalise it for the HIV patients :

A chemical found in marijuana, known as tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has been found to potentially slow the process in which mental decline can occur in up to 50 percent of HIV patients, says a new Michigan State University study.

con___manx1

gctest50 wrote: »

Need to legalise it for the HIV patients :

I know one person who has hiv since the 80ths.
He grows his own and swears its what has kept hom alive so long.

gctest50

Send him on this


http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/marijuana-may-help-hiv-patients-keep-mental-stamina-longer/

http://bit.ly/2Aj5MDR



Results:

HIV+MJ+ donors possessed a lower level of circulating CD16+ monocytes and serum IP-10, compared to HIV+MJ- donors.

Further, monocytes from HIV+MJ+ donors were unable to induce CD16 expression when treated with in vitro IFNα, while HIV-MJ- and HIV+MJ- donors displayed pronounced CD16 induction, suggesting anti-inflammatory effects by cannabis.

Lastly, in vitro THC treatment impaired CD16− monocyte transition to CD16+ and monocyte-derived IP-10.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

Why, i have no problen with the compassionate access program.

Only thing i have a problem with is people pretending cannabis has medical properties that are not supported by evidence. Such as curing cancer, take it you haven't found that link yet!

There are more medical tests and papers on cannabis than paracetmol or ibuprofen.

One of the most damning cases for medical marijuana is the effects its legislation has had on opioid addiction and deaths.

There are many prescription and non prescription drugs that have serious side effects. Anything that reduces or replaces any amount of those other drugs that have to taken is a good thing. Big Pharma will not like that though.

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

Need to legalise it for the HIV patients :

Based on that study, seriously?

jh79

STB. wrote: »

There are more medical tests and papers on cannabis than paracetmol or ibuprofen.

One of the most damning cases for medical marijuana is the effects its legislation has had on opioid addiction and deaths.

There are many prescription and non prescription drugs that have serious side effects. Anything that reduces or replaces any amount of those other drugs that have to taken is a good thing. Big Pharma will not like that though.

That may well be the case but what the studies say is important not the number. Medical Marijuana might have a modest benefit for 3 illnesses and might nave a modest effect on some types of chronic pain. That's where the research stands at the moment and its pretty underwhelming.

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

Based on that study, seriously?

Why what's wrong with the study?

jh79

evolving_doors wrote: »

Why what's wrong with the study?

It doesn't show any clinical benefit. It just shows a change in levels of those bio markers in vitro. The paper warrants further research in this area nothing more.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

That may well be the case but what the studies say is important not the number. Medical Marijuana might have a modest benefit for 3 illnesses and might nave a modest effect on some types of chronic pain. That's where the research stands at the moment and its pretty underwhelming.

It is the case.

The whole attitude of naysayers that there is not enough medical evidence has long since been debunked.

Over 25,000 peer reviewed papers.

There is ample evidence. Especially when compared to OTC legalised drugs for which little has been carried out that have serious side effects and have death figures.

That something you can grow yourself is not as toxic or in any way addictive compartively, is call alone for medically legalistion.

Ireland was very forward thinking when it came to tobacco legislation and recognition of equal sexual status, but not a plant that is proven to eliminate the secondary effects of toxic and addictive legalised drugs like other opiates and painkiller drugs.

Why would that be ?

Is it because the pharmaceutical industry doesnt want it ?

There are clear cases for both its medical and recreational legislation. It must be the numero uno of ridiculously demonised and misunderstood drugs of the 20th Century.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

It is the case.

The whole attitude of naysayers that there is not enough medical evidence has long since been debunked.

Over 25,000 peer reviewed papers.

There is ample evidence. Especially when compared to OTC legalised drugs for which little has been carried out.

That something you can grow yourself is not as toxic or in any addictive compartively, is call alone for medically legalistion.

Ireland was very forward thinking when it came to tobacco legislation and recognition of equal sexual status, but not a plant that has proven to eliminate the secondary effects of toxic and addictive legalised drugs like other opiates and painkiller drugs.

Why would that be ?

Is it because the pharmaceutical industry doesnt want it.

And as I said already based on those 25,000 pieces of research medical marijuana might have a modest benefit in 3 or 4 illnesses.

The issue with marijuana is not its toxicity but it its poor performance in those > 25,000 studies.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

It doesn't show any clinical benefit. It just shows a change in levels of those bio markers in vitro. The paper warrants further research in this area nothing more.

I presume you have read the one on that proves daily cannabis use was associated with significant lower plasma HIV viral loads.

It doesnt have to be on that basis alone. Like I said, there is ample evidence of the use of the beneficial use of cannabinoids.

jh79 wrote: »

And as I said already based on those 25,000 pieces of research medical marijuana might have a modest benefit in 3 or 4 illnesses.

The issue with marijuana is not its toxicity but it its poor performance in those > 25,000 studies.

There are many drugs that have been legalised, some of them OTC, that are quite toxic and have little medical paperwork behind them. That some of those drugs can be eliminated by the medical legalisation of cannabis does not suit your theoretical debunking of its legislation is baffling. I do not know why it would not suit.

Should we just start from scratch with them all.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

I presume you have read the one on that proves daily cannabis use was associated with significant lower plasma HIV viral loads.

It doesnt have to be on that basis alone. Like I said, there is ample evidence of the use of the beneficial use of cannabinoids.



There are many drugs that have been legalised, some of them OTC, that are quite toxic and have little medical paperwork behind them. That some of those drugs can be eliminated by the medical legalisation of cannabis does not suit your theoretical debunking of its legislation is baffling. I do not know why it would not suit.

Should we just start from scratch with them all.

What study showed the reduction in viral load?

Could you give examples of these drugs , the research behind them and how they compare to the current research on medical marijuana?

It is a fact that not a single medical marijuana (thc containing) study meets regulatory requirements.

Vincent Vega

A World Health Organization (WHO) report has found no adverse health outcomes but rather several medical applications for cannabidiol

:rolleyes: shocked. whoever would have thunk it.

the paper [PDF]

jh79

Vincent Vega wrote: »

A World Health Organization (WHO) report has found no adverse health outcomes but rather several medical applications for cannabidiol

:rolleyes: shocked. whoever would have thunk it.

the paper [PDF]

"CBD has been demonstrated as an effective treatment of epilepsy in several clinical trials, with one pure CBD product (Epidiolex®) currently in Phase III trials. There is also preliminary evidence that CBD may be a useful treatment for a number of other medical conditions."

As i said pretty underwhelming. Only one use so far.

The future of medical marijuana is synthetic CBD or GM weed.

jh79

Here is a link to the full National Academies Review of Medical Marijuana.

https://www.nap.edu/read/24625/chapter/1

saneman

jh79 wrote: »

...
The future of medical marijuana is synthetic CBD or GM weed.

I don't understand that stance given that CBD extracted from hemp is already widely available and there are already strains of cannabis that have different ratios of THC/CBD that could meet the requirements of the user.

Synthetic cannabinoids have already been developed and co-opted by designer drug market (e.g. Spice) and have enough horror stories of their own. If there's a future to medical marijuana it should be for exactly that, the plant, or particular strains of the plant.

jh79

saneman wrote: »

I don't understand that stance given that CBD extracted from hemp is already widely available and there are already strains of cannabis that have different ratios of THC/CBD that could meet the requirements of the user.

Synthetic cannabinoids have already been developed and co-opted by designer drug market (e.g. Spice) and have enough horror stories of their own. If there's a future to medical marijuana it should be for exactly that, the plant, or particular strains of the plant.

Synthetic cannabinoids are already approved by the FDA etc and are perfectly safe. That's the point of clinical trials, to find out which cannabinoids are safe and also which are effective. Spice obviously would not get approval due to its side effects.

Weed has shown only modest benefits in a few illnesses. Why would anybody be against improving on this ? It defies logic. Making effective medicine is a bad thing in your eyes??

saneman

It's a bad thing if it ignores what has the potential to already be effective medicine. You see when you say "Weed has shown only modest benefits in a few illnesses" you're not talking about particular strains, or specific THC/CBD content, or a specific form of ingestion (eating/vaping/smoking) because (from what I can assess) that information isn't available.

Those are areas of study/research that are lacking and I think it's foolish to ignore the whole plant and focus solely on any particular compound in isolation. But then where would the financial return be if a strain was found to be effective for a particular condition and the sufferer could then just grow it at home?

jh79

saneman wrote: »

It's a bad thing if it ignores what has the potential to already be effective medicine. You see when you say "Weed has shown only modest benefits in a few illnesses" you're not talking about particular strains, or specific THC/CBD content, or a specific form of ingestion (eating/vaping/smoking) because (from what I can assess) that information isn't available.

Those are areas of study/research that are lacking and I think it's foolish to ignore the whole plant and focus solely on any particular compound in isolation. But then where would the financial return be if a strain was found to be effective for a particular condition and the sufferer could then just grow it at home?

You can't approve something based only on potential sure that's just crazy.

Either you believe medicine should be regulated to a high standard to ensure that it is effective and the benefits out weigh the risk or you don't but apply that same standard to all potential medicines. You can't apply a lower standard of proof to weed just because it gets you stoned.

I'd rather buy it than grow myself even if it was legal simply because i'm lazy and to be fair if your gonna smoke a lot you'r e gonna get even lazier so i'd say the market would still be huge.

jh79

According to Gino, the government have put a "money matter" on the Bill. This means the bill can't progress without the approval of the taoiseach .

Looks like the article in the Sun was right and FG are determined not let this bill go anywhere.

PowerToWait

Of course FG have no intention of letting this bill get out of the traps. No chance.

Unfortunately for the ultra conservative nanny staters, medical marijuana is coming. The critical mass is building in the UK, a referendum would almost certainly see it through.

When that inevitably comes to pass over there it will be all hands on deck to keep it locked down over here.

I don't think the majority of LEO have the motivation not to mind the resources to go chasing people down for what is, let's face it, basically harmless.

Of course there are many, many more valid and convincing arguments for legalisation and regulation than for prohibition. But they'll be ignored. It will simply happen.