Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

You are showing your lack of knowledge or research on the subject.
The benefit is obtained by using the concentrate oil extracted from the plant.
Smoking has shown to have some effect treating pain, but in the research regarding the treatment of cancer cells it is the concentrate oil from the plant that is being used.

And if you have done your research you would know that the results to date are not very impressive with the extract or synthetic cannabinoids.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Are you are showing your lack of knowledge or research on the subject.
The benefit is obtained by using the concentrate oil extracted from the plant.
Smoking has shown to have some effect treating pain, but in the research regarding the treatment of cancer cells it is the concentrate oil from the plant that is being used.

Where does the research stand in terms of treating glioma?

ohnonotgmail

FortySeven wrote: »

Cannabis is also a very good way to introduce carcinogens that cause cancer to your body. It's the uncomfortable truth. Nausea and pain v potential serious damage.

Again. I'm a firm believer in fully legalized weed. However. Cannabis just doesn't make sense in any medical way. The risks outweigh the benefits. Doctors will not go for this.

Push for full legalization as a recreational that is safer than alcohol with a potential for an enormous revenue stream for the government and it will be more likely.

Then all the sick folks can get it anyway.

You do realise that medical use of cannabis does not have to involve a few tokes on a spliff? Cannabis oil has been shown to help some patients with epilepsy with little or no side affects. http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy/other-treatment-approaches/medical-marijuana-and-epilepsy

SEPT 23 1989

no i prefer to see people suffer

Stonedpilot

Should be legalised period, it's too expensive paying crooks for it and unless people have very obliging Garda friends they won't get it cheap or for free.

jh79

Here are some reviews for the use of marijuana in its various forms;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009270.pub3/full

"No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007204.pub2/full

"This review finds no evidence that cannabinoids are effective in the improvement of disturbed behaviour in dementia or in the treatment of other symptoms of dementia."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005175.pub3/full

"Despite dronabinol being registered by at least some medicines regulatory authorities for the treatment of AIDS-associated anorexia, and some jurisdictions making allowances for the "medical" use of marijuana by patients with HIV/AIDS, evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009464.pub2/full

"Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2/full

"We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia."

Boom_Bap

Threads Merged.

frag420

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Should be legalised period.

Periods are illegal?

Where do you get yours?

ScumLord

I just heard on the radio the government are going to allow medical use of cannabis from next year.

A few months after they do that it will probably be proven cannabis has zero medical benefits.

jh79 wrote: »

Here are some reviews for the use of marijuana in its various forms;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009270.pub3/full

"No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007204.pub2/full

"This review finds no evidence that cannabinoids are effective in the improvement of disturbed behaviour in dementia or in the treatment of other symptoms of dementia."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005175.pub3/full

"Despite dronabinol being registered by at least some medicines regulatory authorities for the treatment of AIDS-associated anorexia, and some jurisdictions making allowances for the "medical" use of marijuana by patients with HIV/AIDS, evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009464.pub2/full

"Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2/full

"We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia."

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

I just heard on the radio the government are going to allow medical use of cannabis from next year.

A few months after they do that it will probably be proven cannabis has zero medical benefits.

I thought the HPRA had to look at it first?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Here are some reviews for the use of marijuana in its various forms;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009270.pub3/full

"No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007204.pub2/full

"This review finds no evidence that cannabinoids are effective in the improvement of disturbed behaviour in dementia or in the treatment of other symptoms of dementia."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005175.pub3/full

"Despite dronabinol being registered by at least some medicines regulatory authorities for the treatment of AIDS-associated anorexia, and some jurisdictions making allowances for the "medical" use of marijuana by patients with HIV/AIDS, evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009464.pub2/full

"Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2/full

"We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia."

The link i posted earlier seems to show that it is beneficial for patients with epilepsy who dont respond to other epilepsy medications. Lets not dismiss it completely.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The link i posted earlier seems to show that it is beneficial for patients with epilepsy who dont respond to other epilepsy medications. Lets not dismiss it completely.

I'm not, but those who claim this needs to be legalised for medicinal use need to prove the benefits they claim are real.

Maximus Alexander

I don't even see why its alleged medical benefits are relevant to the legalisation discussion. What has prohibition achieved? Anyone who wants it still gets it. Except we don't tax them or their suppliers, and on the contrary we spend public money on the wild goose chase of catching and prosecuting them. Pointless, puritanical, misguided waste of time. Coming from a non-user.

jh79

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't even see why its alleged medical benefits are relevant to the legalisation discussion. What has prohibition achieved? Anyone who wants it still gets it. Except we don't tax them or their suppliers, and on the contrary we spend public money on the wild goose chase of catching and prosecuting them. Pointless, puritanical, misguided waste of time. Coming from a non-user.

Pretending it has medicinal benefits is how the US got the conservatives on board.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not, but those who claim this needs to be legalised for medicinal use need to prove the benefits they claim are real.

But it is difficult to even do proper trials because of the hoops that scientists need to jump through just to be allowed to dispense it in trials. It is already legal for medical use in the US and seems to have benefits. I dont see why you would be against medical cannabis being legalised? Or do you think it is just a backdoor to recreational use?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Pretending it has medicinal benefits is how the US got the conservatives on board.

Pretending? Really? You think people are just making it up?

dont bother

jh79 wrote: »

I believe in decriminalisation but I'm also a scientist and the idea of medical marijuana is complete BS based on current research.

If you couldn't get stoned from it nobody would give a damn.

How many potential antitumoral agents are ypu campaigning for outside of weed??

Sorry but you are completely wrong.
you might call yourself a scientist, but that doesnt make you an expert in this field, only in the field of study you are claiming to be a scientist in.

cbd works. it has been proven to work - there are hundreds of thousands of testimonials to this on youtube. look it up.

also - you said that people are only interested in this because you can get stoned off it?

what about the HUGE amount of millions of prescription and non prescription medications that you get stoned off? nobody gives a damn about those either.

you have it wrong.

i would like to see you tell all of your theories to a child suffering a horrible disease who takes cannabis for their pain relief.

you wouldnt say a word.
why do people like you get SO vocal on a subject that you have skewed to be about "people only want it to get stoned"

even if that is the case and it had no medical benefits, what would your problem be exactly?
if it's legal - kids can NOT buy it, so that throws that argument away.
if it's legal - it's tested and controlled by government.
if it's legal - it's bringing in BILLIONS in revenue.
if it's legal - YOU personally will not notice ANY difference in the world - except you might feel burned after having such a backwards stupid selfish minority opinion.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But it is difficult to even do proper trials because of the hoops that scientists need to jump through just to be allowed to dispense it in trials. It is already legal for medical use in the US and seems to have benefits. I dont see why you would be against medical cannabis being legalised? Or do you think it is just a backdoor to recreational use?

I think it should be legalised full stop.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Pretending? Really? You think people are just making it up?

Look at the reviews to date, where are the medicinal benefits?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

I think it such be legalised full stop.

so why the objection to legalising its medicinal use?

jh79 wrote: »

Look at the reviews to date, where are the medicinal benefits?

i already posted this.
http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy/other-treatment-approaches/medical-marijuana-and-epilepsy

still early days but it certainly looks very promising.

jh79

dont bother wrote: »

Sorry but you are completely wrong.
you might call yourself a scientist, but that doesnt make you an expert in this field, only in the field of study you are claiming to be a scientist in.

cbd works. it has been proven to work - there are hundreds of thousands of testimonials to this on youtube. look it up.

also - you said that people are only interested in this because you can get stoned off it?

what about the HUGE amount of millions of prescription and non prescription medications that you get stoned off? nobody gives a damn about those either.

you have it wrong.

i would like to see you tell all of your theories to a child suffering a horrible disease who takes cannabis for their pain relief.

you wouldnt say a word.
why do people like you get SO vocal on a subject that you have skewed to be about "people only want it to get stoned"

even if that is the case and it had no medical benefits, what would your problem be exactly?
if it's legal - kids can NOT buy it, so that throws that argument away.
if it's legal - it's tested and controlled by government.
if it's legal - it's bringing in BILLIONS in revenue.
if it's legal - YOU personally will not notice ANY difference in the world - except you might feel burned after having such a backwards stupid selfish minority opinion.

Testimonials from youtube ffs!

Explain why actual research is failing to find these benefits?

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so why the objection to legalising its medicinal use?



i already posted this.
http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy/other-treatment-approaches/medical-marijuana-and-epilepsy

still early days but it certainly looks very promising.

Because it doesn't have any . At least based on current research.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Because it doesn't have any . At least based on current research.

so you just dismiss the link i sent you that includes results published in a respected medical journal?

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you just dismiss the link i sent you that includes results published in a respected medical journal?

No, but it has no placebo control. It wouldn't satisfy the FDA or HPRA and if it is truly medicine that is the standard that needs to be met.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

No, but it has no placebo control. It wouldn't satisfy the FDA or HPRA and if it is truly medicine that is the standard that needs to be met.

a controlled study is currently under way. and the patients had an average age of 11. Does the placebo effect work on kids? You are being unnecessarily negative for some reason.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Look at the reviews to date, where are the medicinal benefits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the links you posted before aren't any actual research into the effects or effectiveness of cannabis? They seem to be searches into existing research that included cannabis but wasn't specifically studies on cannabis. All they really seem to say is "we had a quick look at what's available and can't find anything conclusive".

I think the effectiveness of cannabis is hard to judge, I'm leaning towards it's effects been overblown.

I think when it comes to pain relief and as a knock on effect the ability to eat and put on weight in certain conditions, it works. It's not like other pain relief though. The pain doesn't go away, it's there you just don't register it as much. Which I think makes it a much better pain reliever. Removing the pain entirely means the patient could injure themselves again without realising, and the pain coming back can encourage addiction. When you can still feel the pain it just doesn't bother you you can take advantage of your pain defense and know when it's getting better.


But over all cannabis as sold on the street isn't a proper medical drug. I don't know how the government intend to let people use it, sell them bud? That spray on stuff that's been doctored to remove the high?

I think the high of cannabis is an integral part of any effectiveness the drug might have.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a controlled study is currently under way. and the patients had an average age of 11. Does the placebo effect work on kids? You are being unnecessarily negative for some reason.

So presently what are the medicinal benefits of marijuana?

Not being negative just honest.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

So presently what are the medicinal benefits of marijuana?

Not being negative just honest.

Certainly enough to justify further study. and certainly enough reason to take it off the completely illegal list so that it is easier to actually do studies. how the hell can you do proper studies on a substance that is completely illegal?

• Seizures decreased by an average of 54% in 137 people who completed 12 weeks on Epidiolex.
• Patients who had DS responded more positively with a 63% decrease in seizures over 3 months.
• This improvement in seizures lasted through 24 weeks on the Epidiolex, more often for people with DS than without DS.
• In 27 patients with atonic seizures (which are commonly seen in people with LGS as well as other types of epilepsy), the atonic seizures decreased by 66.7% on average.
• The responder rate (the number of people whose seizures decreased by at least 50%) was also slightly better in patients with DS (about 55% at 3 months) as compared to patients without DS (50%).
• People who were also taking the anti-seizure medication Clobazam (Onfi) seemed to respond more favorably to the Epidiolex with a greater improvement in convulsive seizures than in patients who were not taking Clobazam. The authors suggested that an interaction between Clobazam and Epidiolex may play a part in the differences seen.
• 14 people withdrew from the study because the drug was not effective for them.

InTheTrees

Well both Massachusetts and California have full recreational legalisation now so that market is set to explode in size.

Im not sure when the law allows for the shops to open but If people are curious about CBD you can always pop over to Boston for a few days and see if it works for you.

There's a vast array of products, edibles, tinctures, oils, waxes, etc. That don't require smoking.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the links you posted before aren't any actual research into the effects or effectiveness of cannabis? They seem to be searches into existing research that included cannabis but wasn't specifically studies on cannabis. All they really seem to say is "we had a quick look at what's available and can't find anything conclusive".

I think the effectiveness of cannabis is hard to judge, I'm leaning towards it's effects been overblown.

I think when it comes to pain relief and as a knock on effect the ability to eat and put on weight in certain conditions, it works. It's not like other pain relief though. The pain doesn't go away, it's there you just don't register it as much. Which I think makes it a much better pain reliever. Removing the pain entirely means the patient could injure themselves again without realising, and the pain coming back can encourage addiction. When you can still feel the pain it just doesn't bother you you can take advantage of your pain defense and know when it's getting better.


But over all cannabis as sold on the street isn't a proper medical drug. I don't know how the government intend to let people use it, sell them bud? That spray on stuff that's been doctored to remove the high?

I think the high of cannabis is an integral part of any effectiveness the drug might have.

I stuck up Cochrane reviews / meta-analysis. They look at all the available research. These are considered the best indicators of effectiveness.

Cochrane are doing a review for pain relief so we'll just have to wait and see.