Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

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 can answer that is you.
Try it. It won't kill you.

InTheTrees

I'm no expert and I could well be wrong but my impression is that "medicinal cannabis" (as the term is used in the USA anyway, which is probably a stretch) isnt just confined to strains that are high in CBD and low in THC.
For instance I think the strains that cancer patients use to enhance their appetites would contain enough to THC to produce some euphoria as well.

Depp

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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.

growing it yourself would probably get away with it but knowing the way tax works here anyone looking to just walk in off the street and buy a bag will be taxed through the hole

Water John

Psilocymin, given as a pill, once only, had positive antidepressive effects for 8 months.
I'd say that would be better than being on Fluxotene.

InTheTrees

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

Here in Seattle prices for bud range from about $8/gram and up. Including tax. Depending on the strain. Since legalisation two years ago the price has come down a few $'s too.

There's also a lot of edibles, drinks, oils, etc etc.

Here's a menu from a local shop:

http://www.ganjagoddessseattle.com/menu/

kleefarr

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here in Seattle prices for bud range from about $8/gram and up. Including tax. Depending on the strain. Since legalisation two years ago the price has come down a few $'s too.

There's also a lot of edibles, drinks, oils, etc etc.

Here's a menu from a local shop:

http://www.ganjagoddessseattle.com/menu/

How bloody hard can it be to follow that. You wonder why they would turn their noses up at a few €M extra in tax once a year. Colorado getting close to $1Bn in tax I think.

From a farking plant. LOL

Depp

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here in Seattle prices for bud range from about $8/gram and up. Including tax. Depending on the strain. Since legalisation two years ago the price has come down a few $'s too.

There's also a lot of edibles, drinks, oils, etc etc.

Here's a menu from a local shop:

http://www.ganjagoddessseattle.com/menu/

how much would that be here? suppose the other end of it is guys selling at the minute can more or less name any price regardless of the price to produce and whatnot!

Yamanoto

None of the reports I've read indicate what form of cannabis is under consideration - I presume it's synthetic cannabinoid sprays or capsules, as opposed to herbal cannabis?

kleefarr

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/drug-policy-portugal-benefits-decriminalizing-drug-use

InTheTrees

Depp wrote: »

how much would that be here? suppose the other end of it is guys selling at the minute can more or less name any price regardless of the price to produce and whatnot!

Its almost equal. $8 is 7.5euros.

wotzgoingon

I didn't read through the thread so was probably posted already but the government are thinking of legalising marijuana for medicinal purposes. I for one cannot wait. Hopefully dedicated weed shops pop up and I can go in and buy all different strains. Sounds like heaven. The doctor will be hearing about all different pains I have, and the only thing that helps me is the weed.

Water John

Whatever floats your boat.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

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

In your opinion...


But not the opinion of others in different countries, and the studies in our own Trinity College...

RobbingBandit

Bad poetry and beatnik hippies will soon envelope us all, you maniacs you blew it up, damn you, damn you all to helllllllllllll.

Ferrari3600

SeanieMon wrote: »

Right, I will admit to smoking cannabis on a regular basis and of course people will expect me to be bias

biased.

Junkyard Tom

People who vote against the medicinal use of cannabis are mean-spirited puritanical cunts.

wotzgoingon

This is my personal opinion on all drugs, for one no drug should be illegal. If someone wants to do drugs that is their choice no one elses. It could be regulated an people would get pure stuff not crap mixed with god knows what to make more money.

Parachutes

I don't see the political will for legalisation in this country at all. We seem more content to just sit back and "wait our turn" so to speak. Namely, after The U.S and Britain legalise it.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

In your opinion...


But not the opinion of others in different countries, and the studies in our own Trinity College...

Obviously my opinion but very little is being done in cancer research and it's understandable given how cannabinoids have performed in lab studies.

Also remember the government has asked the HPRA to have this report ready for the end of January so talking about on going research is pointless, what illnesses has it already been proven to be effective against?

Cupcake_Crisis

Cannabis /weed/whateveryouwanttocallit is all but legal in Canada and we're doing just fine!

I don't see Ireland ever legalising it recreationally (although they should, tax the be jaysus out of it and make a fortune out of it) but you can't deny it medicinally. It may not cure anything, but it can ease the suffering of people.

Seanachai

Parachutes wrote: »

I don't see the political will for legalisation in this country at all. We seem more content to just sit back and "wait our turn" so to speak. Namely, after The U.S and Britain legalise it.

This is how I see it going too, the gay marriage movement was backed by the government as it makes them look good, it was cynical but the outcome was a good thing. Does anybody know if legalisation for medicinal use means that cannabis will be prescribed in it's natural state or in the form of Sativex or similar?

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

This is how I see it going too, the gay marriage movement was backed by the government as it makes them look good, it was cynical but the outcome was a good thing. Does anybody know if legalisation for medicinal use means that cannabis will be prescribed in it's natural state or in the form of Sativex or similar?

The way the bill was written it would of been legal for recreational use in its natural form.

Simon Harris has said that it will be amended for medicinal use only.

He also said the the HPRA will put together a report of the clinical data and that they will decide what form it will take based on the evidence.

I'd imagine it will not be in its natural state. There isn't enough evidence that the plant itself has medicinal properties.

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

The way the bill was written it would of been legal for recreational use in its natural form.

Simon Harris has said that it will be amended for medicinal use only.

He also said the the HPRA will put together a report of the clinical data and that they will decide what form it will take based on the evidence.

I'd imagine it will not be in its natural state. There isn't enough evidence that the plant itself has medicinal properties.

There's plenty of evidence, it's just a question of which studies the consultants decide to take heed of. Things move slowly in this country, from what I've read Sativex has all the same constituents as Cannabis, it's just standardized. It also will cost the state possibly up to €18,000 a year to prescribe. Herbal cannabis grown in controlled conditions as it is in the US would cost a fraction of this.

jh79

Seanachai wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence, it's just a question of which studies the consultants decide to take heed of. Things move slowly in this country, from what I've read Sativex has all the same constituents as Cannabis, it's just standardized. It also will cost the state possibly up to €18,000 a year to prescribe. Herbal cannabis grown in controlled conditions as it is in the US would cost a fraction of this.

There isn't though, everybody says there is plenty of evidence but never produce any.

Look at all the Cochrane reviews, they couldn't find enough evidence for about 5 or 6 of the commonly mentioned illnesses and they have a review underway for pain relief.

The HPRA will not consider testimonials on youtube to be evidence.

pure.conya

jh79 wrote: »

There isn't though, everybody says there is plenty of evidence but never produce any.

Look at all the Cochrane reviews, they couldn't find enough evidence for about 5 or 6 of the commonly mentioned illnesses and they have a review underway for pain relief.

The HPRA will not consider testimonials on youtube to be evidence.

https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/israel-making-major-moves-medical-cannabis/

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

[..]

The HPRA will not consider testimonials on youtube to be evidence.

Of course not, and why should they?


However, its the scientific studies being carried out in various parts of the world, including Trinity College, that shows that there is evidence in lab tests that show Cannabinoids have been effective against cancer cells. The are plenty of papers printed in PubMed stating that the lab findings for cannabinoids were positive and effective in treating cancer cells.
You said you don't give much credibility to lab tests, but lab tests are where you start with these things and move on from there.


The problem is the red tape and hoops that those carrying out these studies have to go through to obtain plant in order to carry out their research. Hopefully yesterday will make that process easier and quicker for them to progress quicker and start getting it into human trials.


Personally I know of a cancer patient who was given a very short time frame and was advised to prepare for the inevitable. He was not a user in any way and was reluctant to use it. But he uses the extracted oil now and is still alive with the cancer seriously reduced and benign.


I know others following suit.


Not very scientific I know, but hey, its working for him. (No Rad, or Chemo involved)


I also lost a good friend to Glioblastoma 14 months from diagnosis. He had the ''Gold Standard'' treatment thrown at it, private care with Chemo and Radiation twice to no avail.
So the best treatment in one of the best private centres in the country couldn't save him and I can only imagine the med costs attached to the efforts.

Maybe that is where the big fear is with the naysayers. If cannabis is proven without doubt to be an effective treatment, it will save our health service an absolute fortune as it is cheap to grow and cheap to process.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Of course not, and why should they?


However, its the scientific studies being carried out in various parts of the world, including Trinity College, that shows that there is evidence in lab tests that show Cannabinoids have been effective against cancer cells. The are plenty of papers printed in PubMed stating that the lab findings for cannabinoids were positive and effective in treating cancer cells.
You said you don't give much credibility to lab tests, but lab tests are where you start with these things and move on from there.

The lab tests on cannabinoids might sound impressive but killing cancer cells in the lab is quite easy, detergent for example.

LD50's are used to measure this, how do cannabinoids compare to current treatments? From what I've read they are not very good, generally speaking.

jh79

pure.conya wrote: »

https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/israel-making-major-moves-medical-cannabis/

Is this research published?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Of course not, and why should they?


However, its the scientific studies being carried out in various parts of the world, including Trinity College, that shows that there is evidence in lab tests that show Cannabinoids have been effective against cancer cells. The are plenty of papers printed in PubMed stating that the lab findings for cannabinoids were positive and effective in treating cancer cells.
You said you don't give much credibility to lab tests, but lab tests are where you start with these things and move on from there.

The problem is the red tape and hoops that those carrying out these studies have to go through to obtain plant in order to carry out their research. Hopefully yesterday will make that process easier and quicker for them to progress quicker and start getting it into human trials.


Personally I know of a cancer patient who was given a very short time frame and was advised to prepare for the inevitable. He was not a user in any way and was reluctant to use it. But he uses the extracted oil now and is still alive with the cancer seriously reduced and benign.


I know others following suit.


Not very scientific I know, but hey, its working for him. (No Rad, or Chemo involved)


I also lost a good friend to Glioblastoma 14 months from diagnosis. He had the ''Gold Standard'' treatment thrown at it, private care with Chemo and Radiation twice to no avail.
So the best treatment in one of the best private centres in the country couldn't save him and I can only imagine the med costs attached to the efforts.

Maybe that is where the big fear is with the naysayers. If cannabis is proven without doubt to be an effective treatment, it will save our health service an absolute fortune as it is cheap to grow and cheap to process.

Again this is on-going research and pre-clinical to boot.

What is cannabis proven to be effective against presently that requires a change in the law?

Sativex is avaiable in this country, isn't it? So what exactly is this bill going to achieve assuming that the HPRA apply their usual standards?

Seanachai

jh79 wrote: »

There isn't though, everybody says there is plenty of evidence but never produce any.

Look at all the Cochrane reviews, they couldn't find enough evidence for about 5 or 6 of the commonly mentioned illnesses and they have a review underway for pain relief.

The HPRA will not consider testimonials on youtube to be evidence.

I wasn't referring to Youtube or 'Natural news', I think the reluctance for legalisation for recreational use (I'm not a user) stems from false information and hysteria around high THC strains and dubious links to mental illness. The Western world seems to be heading towards legalisation but the inevitable will probably be delayed here to the absolute limit.