Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

Graces7 wrote: »

I think he was referring to the numbers with MS as you wrongly said it is rare?

Again you have to recognize the context of the discussion.

But from a quick google the numbers do seem to fit the criteria for "rare" by most international definitions.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

In the context of "solving the hospital crisis", yes.

Exaggerating the possible benefits is not doing the pro medicinal cannabis lobby any favors. Easy to make bullsh*t claims on social media but as Gino found out last night at some stage it will bite you in the ass.

Graces7 wrote: »

I think he was referring to the numbers with MS as you wrongly said it is rare?

The part i was responding to was in bold. I thought that was clear. MS is not rare. Even if medicinal cannabis helped only 30% of those that to me is sufficient reason to make it available given the limited side effects. Nobody is saying that it is a universal panacea but for those that it does help it really helps. Just legalise the stuff and stop all this nonsense.

jh79

Water John wrote: »

It's being disingenious of the panellist last night saying it was available, just get a consultant to sign for it.
jh79 don't be making inaccurate claims, like saying MS is rare. I know 4 people in my acquaintances.
Tell Noreen O'Neill it's though on your son Michael but CBD Oil is of no help to him

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/noreen-oneill-cbd-oil-son-4360462-Nov2018/



Watch TABU on TG4 tonight at 9.30pm

12 people legally have medical marijuana in Ireland , that is a fact, ask Vera Twomey. The state even pay for it as part of the long term illness scheme.

CBD Oil AFAIK is working for Noreen O'Neil's son. She is is campaigning for easier access because it is likely that it will cease to work in the future as it did for Ava Barry.

xckjoo

Why is everyone mad to legalise it for medicinal use? Just legalise it fully and be done. The "War of Drugs" is the biggest waste of time and money of our time. They're more available now than they've ever been before and they make some awful people incredibly rich.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The part i was responding to was in bold. I thought that was clear. MS is not rare. Even if medicinal cannabis helped only 30% of those that to me is sufficient reason to make it available given the limited side effects. Nobody is saying that it is a universal panacea but for those that it does help it really helps. Just legalise the stuff and stop all this nonsense.

It is rare by the definitions i found on google.

The incidence rate for MS is about 1 in 10,000 , roughly? That is considered rare by the EU.

The access program is appropriate for the evidence base. The supply problems are outside of the governments control.

jh79

xckjoo wrote: »

Why is everyone mad to legalise it for medicinal use? Just legalise it fully and be done. The "War of Drugs" is the biggest waste of time and money of our time. They're more available now than they've ever been before and they make some awful people incredibly rich.

Most see it as a stepping stone to full legalisation as that is what has happened in the US and it has the added benefit of de facto recreational use in the meantime if the legislation is loose which was the whole point of Gino's Bill.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

It is rare by the definitions i found on google.

The incidence rate for MS is about 1 in 10,000 , roughly? That is considered rare by the EU.

The access program is appropriate for the evidence base. The supply problems are outside of the governments control.

1 in 2000 is the ratio used by the EU which makes MS not rare.



http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/documents/ev20040705_rd05_en.pdf

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

1 in 2000 is the ratio used by the EU which makes MS not rare.



http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/documents/ev20040705_rd05_en.pdf

You have your maths backwards, 1 in 2000 would mean 5 in 10,000 which is greater than 1 in 10,000.

rapul

jh79 wrote: »

You have your maths backwards, 1 in 2000 would mean 5 in 10,000 which is greater than 1 in 10,000.

Edit, got confused long oul nite shift

But still 5 in evry 10000 could benefit going by what your agreeing with above

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

You have your maths backwards, 1 in 2000 would mean 5 in 10,000 which is greater than 1 in 10,000.

At a ratio of 5 in 10000 MS is not rare. At a rate of 1 in 10000 it is even less rare. I thought you were a scientist? the incidence rate is roughly 1 in 1000

xckjoo

jh79 wrote: »

Most see it as a stepping stone to full legalisation as that is what has happened in the US and it has the added benefit of de facto recreational use in the meantime if the legislation is loose which was the whole point of Gino's Bill.

I understand that but it's an approach that's only likely to weaken our medical regulations with people scrambling to assign all kinds of unproven benefits to it. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's really the approach that was followed in the US. Beside California, I can't think of any states which had a medicinal exemption before Colorado fully legalized (there's probably a few I'm not thinking of). The Californian approach was a well known sham for years that had unexpected side-effects of causing a lot of young people to suddenly develop health issues like glaucoma . It's also still illegal at a federal level so again I don't think it's the model to be pursuing since it's so fractured and patchy. If we need a stepping stone, follow the Portuguese model of decriminalization, but that still leaves plenty space for criminals to profit. I'd rather see the Canadian model adopted though. That also has the benefit of feeding money back to the economy through taxes and local business/entrepreneurs

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

At a ratio of 5 in 10000 MS is not rare. At a rate of 1 in 10000 it is even less rare. I thought you were a scientist? the incidence rate is roughly 1 in 1000

Check your maths again.

MS is 1 in 10000
Threshold is 1 in 2000 or 5 in 10000
MS is therefore rarer by a factor of 5.

1 in million is rarer than 1 in 100,000 which is rarer than 1 in 10000 which is rarer than 1 in 2000.

jh79

xckjoo wrote: »

I understand that but it's an approach that's only likely to weaken our medical regulations with people scrambling to assign all kinds of unproven benefits to it. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's really the approach that was followed in the US. Beside California, I can't think of any states which had a medicinal exemption before Colorado fully legalized (there's probably a few I'm not thinking of). The Californian approach was a well known sham for years that had unexpected side-effects of causing a lot of young people to suddenly develop health issues like glaucoma . It's also still illegal at a federal level so again I don't think it's the model to be pursuing since it's so fractured and patchy. If we need a stepping stone, follow the Portuguese model of decriminalization, but that still leaves plenty space for criminals to profit. I'd rather see the Canadian model adopted though. That also has the benefit of feeding money back to the economy through taxes and local business/entrepreneurs

The lobby here are clueless . It is not recognised as medicine in the US, Canada or the whole of the EU yet our lot insist that is how it should be recognised here.

Most of them don't care what the evidence actually says and what drug regulation involves they have just incorrectly decided that a bit of faux concern for sick people will be enough to get it over the line.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Check your maths again.

MS is 1 in 10000
Threshold is 1 in 2000 or 5 in 10000
MS is therefore rarer by a factor of 5.

1 in million is rarer than 1 in 100,000 which is rarer than 1 in 10000 which is rarer than 1 in 2000.

There are 6000 MS patients in ireland. Our population is roughly 6m. 6m / 6000 = 1000. So the incidence rate of MS in ireland is 1 in 1000. To be rare an illness has to have an incidence rate of less than 1 in 2000. 1 in 2000 people in ireland is 3000 people. 6000 is more than 3000 so MS is not rare.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There are 6000 MS patients in ireland. Our population is roughly 6m. 6m / 6000 = 1000. So the incidence rate of MS in ireland is 1 in 1000. To be rare an illness has to have an incidence rate of less than 1 in 2000. 1 in 2000 people in ireland is 3000 people. 6000 is more than 3000 so MS is not rare.

Are you sure that's right ? That would mean we have 5 times the levels of the uk where i got my figure from (first on google).

Sure if that's the case, is that enough to solve the trolley / hospital crisis in Ireland?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Are you sure that's right ? That would mean we have 5 times the levels of the uk where i got my figure from (first on google).

Apparently there are 7000 patients with MS in ireland not 6000. https://irelandms.com/2014/09/12/numbers/


What about my number is it you are disputing? you asked me to check my maths but apparently you didnt even do any maths yourself you just took the first number you seen on google. How very scientific of you.

jh79 wrote: »

Sure if that's the case, is that enough to solve the trolley / hospital crisis in Ireland?

so instead of just admitting you are wrong you get sarcastic instead? I never claimed it would solve the hospital. i suppose your response really sums you up.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Apparently there are 7000 patients with MS in ireland not 6000. https://irelandms.com/2014/09/12/numbers/


What about my number is it you are disputing? you asked me to check my maths but apparently you didnt even do any maths yourself you just took the first number you seen on google. How very scientific of you.








so instead of just admitting you are wrong you get sarcastic instead? I never claimed it would solve the hospital. i suppose your response really sums you up.

Sure the access program allows access for those with MS anyways so a change in the current law isn't necessary. It's in the HPRA report. You should read it, very informative.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Sure the access program allows access for those with MS anyways so a change in the current law isn't necessary. It's in the HPRA report. You should read it, very informative.

and that has **** all to do with my post. You have really shown this morning the type of poster you are.

Graces7

Right now if I had access? In so much pain would not hesitate.

Bring it on ...

Which is the real point surely?

jh79

Graces7 wrote: »

Right now if I had access? In so much pain would not hesitate.

Bring it on ...

Which is the real point surely?

Did you apply for access?

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that has **** all to do with my post. You have really shown this morning the type of poster you are.

So pointing out my error helps your argument in what way?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

So pointing out my error helps your argument in what way?

My argument was that you were wrong when you said that MS as rare. At least you finally admit you are in error. Like pulling teeth.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

My argument was that you were wrong when you said that MS as rare. At least you finally admit you are in error. Like pulling teeth.

Yes i was wrong, did my error justify you questioning my credentials as a scientist? I don't have any particular history with you as a poster so it seemed somewhat unnecessary.

xckjoo

Graces7 wrote: »

Right now if I had access? In so much pain would not hesitate.

Bring it on ...

Which is the real point surely?

Respectfully disagree. Keep the medical side of things separate. While it might be just the thing for someone in pain like yourself, we don't want the doctors offices clogged with lads & lassies with all kinds of non-specific pains and we don't want to see a rise in prescription mill GPs. I think it should be fully legalised so it can be bought for recreational use, while people using it for pain management like yourself would be able to avail of it subsidized through prescription.

But ya you shouldn't need to break the law to try out a pain management approach that doesn't involve opiates.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Yes i was wrong, did my error justify you questioning my credentials as a scientist? I don't have any particular history with you as a poster so it seemed somewhat unnecessary.

I think it does. You threw up the first number you googled. No checking at all. You then asked me to check my math even though you had done no maths of your own at all. Not only incredibly arrogant but not very scientific. If you dont act in a scientific way how can you claim to be a scientist? and then to top it all off you decided to resort to sarcasm. So i stand over what i said.

xckjoo

Graces7 wrote: »

Opiates are grand. My heroes

The US Emergency Services might disagree with you on that opinion.

Graces7 wrote: »

the royal "we"? Interesting

Regarding the clogging up of doctors offices and prescription mills?

jh79

Any idea what went down between Gino and Leo in the dail today over this?

magic_murph

correct - the dosage becomes 4-5 times stronger but in knowing this you can easily control the dosage but just eating as much as you need to get buzzed.
Plus you have to take into account the time it takes to kick in.
smoking is almost instant. Eating can come in waves with an initial hit after 30mins but the effects can keep coming.
Plus I find the effects last longer that just smoking.

Eating definitely needs a bit of practice and will effect everybody differently.

If you were able edibles that clearly had the quantity of THC you could manage the dosage much easier then say maing home made brownies

kleefarr

https://www.marijuanabreak.com/studies-on-marijuana-and-pain?fbclid=IwAR3nHAqvV5IQZOH-E4Nu6HQRAsLtxYfV4ug6Mb8qkr3EV1L6ZcYUWUsG6mU

jh79

Leo produced the infamous PBP "cannabis kills cancer" poster in the Dail yesterday. Poster in the link below.

Bad few days for Gino with his poor performance on Primetime too.

https://extra.ie/2017/03/06/featured/cannabis-kills-cancers-posters