Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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?

It should be available for research and as part of clinical trials but not as a medicine available from your chemist (unless of course it is approved in the same manner-full clinical trials etc- as other prescription drugs).

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

It should be available for research and as part of clinical trials but not as a medicine available from your chemist (unless of course it is approved in the same manner-full clinical trials etc- as other prescription drugs).

Nobody has suggested anything else. Your position so far has been "no trial has shown any benefit so it should be illegal".

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

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

Really? Science as a whole took a bit of a hit this year with a lot of problems and errors popping up when they go back to redo tests, some of the research that was the foundation of the psychology field has been shown to be complete bunkum. I wouldn't have thought that colating a load of studies that mention cannabis for all sorts of different reason could be considered ideal.

I can understand how it would be part of the process but on it's own I wouldn't have thought it would give data all that reliable. How many of the studies were funded by groups that want to highlight the negative side effects of cannabis? That kind of political interference has happened in the past.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

Really? Science as a whole took a bit of a hit this year with a lot of problems and errors popping up when they go back to redo tests, some of the research that was the foundation of the psychology field has been shown to be complete bunkum. I wouldn't have thought that colating a load of studies that mention cannabis for all sorts of different reason could be considered ideal.

I can understand how it would be part of the process but on it's own I wouldn't have thought it would give data all that reliable. How many of the studies were funded by groups that want to highlight the negative side effects of cannabis? That kind of political interference has happened in the past.

The studies were specific to the illness, the criteria is written in the studies.

These reviews are considered the best available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody has suggested anything else. Your position so far has been "no trial has shown any benefit so it should be illegal".

No evidence exist that justifies its use as medicine.

I think it should be treated no different than alcohol.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

No evidence exist that justifies its use as medicine.

I think it should be treated no different than alcohol.

Your position is as clear as mud.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

The studies were specific to the illness, the criteria is written in the studies.

These reviews are considered the best available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)

Ok, I am a lay person here, so bare with me.

They may be considered the best available, but that doesn't mean they're actually good at giving us the information we want, when we want to find out specifically about the benefits and consequences of using cannabis as a medicine.

To put it another way. If you wanted to buy a car and had your eye on the ford mondeo, so you looked for information on the ford mondeo but instead got a comparison chart that said things like the ford mondeo doesn't have fuel economy as good as the VW Golf, or the styling isn't as nice as the new alfa romeo, the chairs are a little bit more comfortable than the Citroen DS4.

It's all information, but it really doesn't tell you what you want to know about the modeo.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

Ok, I am a lay person here, so bare with me.

They may be considered the best available, but that doesn't mean they're actually good at giving us the information we want, when we want to find out specifically about the benefits and consequences of using cannabis as a medicine.

To put it another way. If you wanted to buy a car and had your eye on the ford mondeo, so you looked for information on the ford mondeo but instead got a comparison chart that said things like the ford mondeo doesn't have fuel economy as good as the VW Golf, or the styling isn't as nice as the new alfa romeo, the chairs are a little bit more comfortable than the Citroen DS4.

It's all information, but it really doesn't tell you what you want to know about the modeo.

Yes they aim to put a figure on the % clinical effect of the substance being reviewed.

Read the plain English summary for each of the reviews.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your position is as clear as mud.

I think it should be legalised.

On the other hand research to date doesn't support claims of medicinal benefits.

It is a recreational drug, simple as.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Read the plain English summary for each of the reviews.

I did, that's why I'm asking you these questions, because the full summaries aren't conclusive at all.

The first link ends with

No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy. Further trials are needed.

The second link,

So far, only one small randomized controlled trial has assessed the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of dementia. This study had poorly presented results and did not provide sufficient data to draw any useful conclusions.

The third link,

However, the evidence for positive effects in patients with HIV/AIDS is limited, and some of that which exists may be subject to the effects of bias. Those studies that have been performed have included small numbers of participants and have focused on short-term effects. Longer-term data, and data showing a benefit in terms of survival, are lacking. There are insufficient data available at present to justify wide-ranging changes to the current regulatory status of cannabis or synthetic cannabinoids.

The fourth link,

This review of 23 randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) found that fewer people who received cannabis-based medicines experienced nausea and vomiting than people who received placebo (a pretend medicine). The proportion of people who experienced nausea and vomiting who received cannabis-based medicines was similar to conventional anti-nausea medicines. However, more people experienced side effects such as 'feeling high', dizziness, sedation (feeling relaxed or sleepy) and dysphoria (feeling uneasy or dissatisfied) and left the study due to the side effects with cannabis-based medicines, compared with either placebo or other anti-nausea medicines. In trials where people received cannabis-based medicines and conventional medicines in turn, overall people preferred the cannabis-based medicines.

The trials were of generally of low to moderate quality and reflected chemotherapy treatments and anti-sickness medicines that were around in the 1980s and 1990s. Also, the results from combining studies on the whole were of low quality. This means that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the anti-sickness medicines worked, and further research reflecting modern treatment approaches is likely to have an important impact on the results.

The fifth link,

In April 2016 we searched for reports of clinical trials that used cannabis products to treat symptoms in adults with fibromyalgia. We found two small, moderate quality studies, of four and six weeks long, including 72 participants. Both studies tested nabilone, a synthetic (man-made) cannabis product, comparing it with placebo (a dummy pill) or amitriptyline (an antidepressant frequently used in the treatment of fibromyalgia).

Nabilone did not convincingly relieve fibromyalgia symptoms (pain, sleep, fatigue) better than placebo or amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). Compared with placebo and amitriptyline, more people experienced side effects and left the study due to side effects (very low quality evidence). There were no serious side effects reported. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or other synthetic cannabinoids than nabilone in fibromyalgia.

This all sounds to me that they can't say anything one way or the other because they don't have relevant data. The studies were too small, too old, inconclusive, or not actually testing cannabis.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

I did, that's why I'm asking you these questions, because the full summaries aren't conclusive at all.

This all sounds to me that they can't say anything one way or the other because they don't have relevant data. The studies were too small, too old, inconclusive, or not actually testing cannabis.

They reviewed all available research, graded the quality of the study and then excluded studies that were of poor quality and then based on the better quality research came to their conclusions. I'm not sure what your issue is here.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

They reviewed all available research, graded the quality of the study and then excluded studies that were of poor quality and then based on the better quality research came to their conclusions. I'm not sure what your issue is here.

Like I said, I'm a lay person, it's not every day you get an actual scientist to explain these things.


My problem with it is, you say it's the best, but the summaries themselves say the data wasn't really good enough to draw conclusions. They mention the possibility of bias, they mention people pulling out because they didn't like getting high, it's likely they didn't expect that and them pulling out kind of ruins the results a bit.

As I read the summaries they say it's all inconclusive. I support full legalisation like you, I don't really accept that cannabis is the wonder drug some people make it out to be. But I don't think there's any conclusive scientific evidense to prove cannabis is or isn't effective.

Overall I think science as a whole is avoiding the issue.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

Like I said, I'm a lay person, it's not every day you get an actual scientist to explain these things.


My problem with it is, you say it's the best, but the summaries themselves say the data wasn't really good enough to draw conclusions. They mention the possibility of bias, they mention people pulling out because they didn't like getting high, it's likely they didn't expect that and them pulling out kind of ruins the results a bit.

As I read the summaries they say it's all inconclusive. I support full legalisation like you, I don't really accept that cannabis is the wonder drug some people make it out to be. But I don't think there's any conclusive scientific evidense to prove cannabis is or isn't effective.

Overall I think science as a whole is avoiding the issue.

Science isn't avoiding this it is just that the research isn't impressive enoigh to pump money into further research especially for cancer.

kleefarr

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/watchlisten/watchoireachtastv/

percy glendening

Hi
Can Medicinal Cannabis Products be used to treat Migraine.I suffer from
Migraine Aura a lot and the various medications i use while they sometimes work often leave me feeling very sick and tired even days later.I would love to find a product that works without all the side effects.

Depp

percy glendening wrote: »

Hi
Can Medicinal Cannabis Products be used to treat Migraine.I suffer from
Migraine Aura a lot and the various medications i use while they sometimes work often leave me feeling very sick and tired even days later.I would love to find a product that works without all the side effects.

if this goes similarly to how medicinal marejuana is distributed elsewhere you'll be able to get it for just about anything...in california at the minute for example its simple as walking into a doctor and saying you have trouble sleeping then you're good to go.

The_Mac

Depp wrote: »

if this goes similarly to how medicinal marejuana is distributed elsewhere you'll be able to get it for just about anything...in california at the minute for example its simple as walking into a doctor and saying you have trouble sleeping then you're good to go.

I believe in the initial bill they're introducing it will only be CBD-based strains that can be sold medicinally. In other words there's no point in a recreational user trying to get them because there's no THC high. However idiots will of course, still try, and probably end up confused.

drunkmonkey

The_Mac wrote: »

I believe in the initial bill they're introducing it will only be CBD-based strains that can be sold medicinally.

Is that in the bill, read it while back but can't remember. I don't remember it saying CBD only.

InTheTrees

Depp wrote: »

if this goes similarly to how medicinal marejuana is distributed elsewhere you'll be able to get it for just about anything...in california at the minute for example its simple as walking into a doctor and saying you have trouble sleeping then you're good to go.

About three weeks ago California voted for full legalisation so you dont even need a doctor now.

Depp

The_Mac wrote: »

I believe in the initial bill they're introducing it will only be CBD-based strains that can be sold medicinally. In other words there's no point in a recreational user trying to get them because there's no THC high. However idiots will of course, still try, and probably end up confused.

yeah all things considered it'll probably be a fairly restrictive introduction but its good to see people it might actually help will be able to get it

Depp

InTheTrees wrote: »

About three weeks ago California voted for full legalisation so you dont even need a doctor now.

aye i saw that alright i was just using it as an example as I know someone who went through the process not too long ago

Water John

Just because it has the word cannibas in its name doesn't mean we have to be paranoid.
Medicinal use, one doc who is a TD won't hear of it because it might open the door, lunacy.

Psilocymin, seems may have a remarkable potential in relation to depression.
Lets follow the results.

drunkmonkey

Well Mushrooms will take you well out what ever space your head is in pretty quickly. Ecstasy would be a safer option I reckon. You'd be hugging the Luas rather than trying to stop it with one hand.

InTheTrees

percy glendening wrote: »

Hi
Can Medicinal Cannabis Products be used to treat Migraine.I suffer from
Migraine Aura a lot and the various medications i use while they sometimes work often leave me feeling very sick and tired even days later.I would love to find a product that works without all the side effects.

As you can see from this thread opinions on medicinal use are divided. The research is only really beginning. There are those who think it can help with migraines though.
There are many many different strains of cannabis, so its really a matter of finding which strain would be helpful.

Here's a link to an article which I would treat with skepticism but it might start you on the path to finding which strains (if any) may help.

https://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/new-study-confirms-that-cannabis-can-help-migraine-sufferers

drunkmonkey

Were nearly there, it passed tonight http://www.newstalk.com/Medicinal-cannabis-bill-to-be-debated-in-the-Dil-

kleefarr

percy glendening wrote: »

Hi
Can Medicinal Cannabis Products be used to treat Migraine.I suffer from
Migraine Aura a lot and the various medications i use while they sometimes work often leave me feeling very sick and tired even days later.I would love to find a product that works without all the side effects.

The only person that would know that would be you.
Try it. It won't kill you.

Depp

also to anyone championing recreational legalization, just be prepared to pay 8-10 times more for it when taxes on it come into effect

kleefarr

Depp wrote: »

also to anyone championing recreational legalization, just be prepared to pay 8-10 times more for it when taxes on it come into effect

They would be very silly to make it more expensive than the street price. Dealers will laugh at them.

drunkmonkey

Depp wrote: »

also to anyone championing recreational legalization, just be prepared to pay 8-10 times more for it when taxes on it come into effect

Going to have to pay a tax on my garden now? It's going to drive the price way down for recreational users as they won't be to worried about grade. Surely you'd be allowed a grow your own allowance.

Depp

kleefarr wrote: »

They would be very silly to make it more expensive than the street price. Dealers will laugh at them.

Id say if it is introduced it will have a similar tax structure to tobacco products. lot will still pay for it all to be above board, worked in denver!