Cannabis - It must be time for legality.

Potential-Monke

jh79 wrote: »

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30110-5/fulltext

Another study showing weeds lack of effectiveness in treating chronic pain.

Maybe someone who has read all this can tell me the type of cannabis used, the strain, how much, etc. I saw someone else post this on Facebook, and some of the comments mentioned that it was carried out in Australia, where cannabis is still illegal and so uncontrolled, unknown strains were used, ie: the people who took part were buying it illegally. In which case, the study isn't worth anything.

I'm wide open to correction, and if it does show that the cannabis used was controlled, then grand, they're study is worth something.

Edit: Did a bit more reading, and it does appear that cannabis was still illegal for the participants so the use was not controlled. A quote from it:

'The percentage of participants reporting that they would use cannabis if they had access to it increased from 33% at baseline to 60% at 4-year follow-up.'

So it's great that they did this study, but the results are not worth anything as the cannabis being used was not controlled. If it's not controlled, you don't know the dose, strain, side-effects, etc, so the results are not accurate.

Benteke

The results of one of the world's longest in-depth studies examining the relationship between cannabis use and chronic pain is raising doubts over whether cannabis reduces either pain severity or opioid use. The study, recently published in Lancet Public Health, is proving controversial as its findings contradict a growing body of research suggesting exactly the opposite.

The new Australian research, from the National Drug & Alcohol Research Center at UNSW Sydney, tracked over 1,500 subjects for four years. Participants suffered from chronic, non-cancer pain, and were all currently prescribed opioids as their primary pain management tool. Following a baseline interview and a three-month follow up, the subjects were reinterviewed every year for the following four years.

Using questionnaires and interviews all subjects self-reported their pain severity, mental well-being, and opioid and cannabis use. The results found no evidence that cannabis use reduces pain severity, in fact, the study reported that those using cannabis reported higher levels of both pain and anxiety compared to those not using the drug.

"At each assessment, participants who were using cannabis reported greater pain and anxiety, were coping less well with their pain, and reported that pain was interfering more in their life, compared to those not using cannabis," says Gabrielle Campbell, lead author on the study. "There was no clear evidence that cannabis led to reduced pain severity or pain interference or led participants to reduce their opioid use or dose."

The study is proving reasonably controversial in the field of medical marijuana research for its seemingly contradictory results when compared to other recent similar studies. While studies on the effects of cannabis for chronic pain have historically presented rather mixed results this seems to be due to the lack of specificity in many of these studies, as well as an inability to objectively determine a metric for pain severity.

Other research into more specific dosages and administrations of cannabis in relation to the drug's analgesic effects have found that low versus high dosing can make a key difference in the efficacy of its pain-modulating effects.

Another anachronistic element of this new study is the fact that while adjusted longitudinal analyses found no difference in pain severity between cannabis and non-cannabis users, the acute self-reporting of individual cannabis users suggested it was indeed effective for their pain. In fact, the study reports that the mean score for cannabis' efficacy on pain as self-reported by individual cannabis users was seven out of 10. The researchers hypothesize this odd inconsistency could possibly be due to cannabis' effects on other lifestyle aspects, such as improving sleep, which subsequently improves well being.

This data point importantly suggests that the effects of cannabis on the overall wellbeing of a patient suffering from chronic pain cannot be easily measured by simply trying to calculate acute pain severity.

A systematic review of all the current research by the National Academies of Sciences in 2017 concluded there is, "substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults." This review did note, however, that variations in different clinical study conclusions reflected the assortment of different doses and routes of administration, suggesting more specific work needed to be done to accurately find effective consumption methods.

One of the most significant limitations of this new study stems from the fact that for the majority of this Australian study, medicinal cannabis was illegal. This means the study collected no data on how subjects were consuming the cannabis or what form it took. David Caldicott, a researcher from Australian National University, even suggested in an interview with Buzzfeed, that all this study proves is that medical marijuana in an illicit market doesn't work.

"This paper shows that an unregulated market doesn't appear to work, but it certainly doesn't prove that medicinal cannabinoids don't work for pain,' says Caldicott.

It is also very significant to note the overall numbers of cannabis users versus non-cannabis users in the study seems to be markedly out of balance. At the final four-year follow up point there were a total of 1,217 subjects still in contact with the researchers. Of that number, only six percent (or 79 subjects) reported daily or near-daily cannabis use, and only 16 percent reported using cannabis at any point over the past 12 months.

In Australia, medical cannabis usage was only approved for a very limited number of conditions in 2016. While the United States and Canada are moving to more broadly allow recreational usages of the drug, Australia is moving much more slowly and conservatively. Despite the disappointing limitations of this study, and its conclusions being somewhat inconsistent with broader international research, it may slow down further medical cannabis legislation in the country over the coming years.

The study was published in the journal The Lancet Public Health.

Hard to take any study seriously when they don't even know how the patients are taking their cannabis or what strain they are using or if the patients were still using it during the study, Looks like a proper waste of 4 years

It seems more like a study with an agenda rather than an unbiased account.

Billy86

Seems odd, especially since the lancet tend to be very reputable. You may as well be testing the use of alcohol as an antiseptic by pouring a can of Dutch gold over someone with the flu.

jh79

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Maybe someone who has read all this can tell me the type of cannabis used, the strain, how much, etc. I saw someone else post this on Facebook, and some of the comments mentioned that it was carried out in Australia, where cannabis is still illegal and so uncontrolled, unknown strains were used, ie: the people who took part were buying it illegally. In which case, the study isn't worth anything.

I'm wide open to correction, and if it does show that the cannabis used was controlled, then grand, they're study is worth something.

Edit: Did a bit more reading, and it does appear that cannabis was still illegal for the participants so the use was not controlled. A quote from it:

'The percentage of participants reporting that they would use cannabis if they had access to it increased from 33% at baseline to 60% at 4-year follow-up.'

So it's great that they did this study, but the results are not worth anything as the cannabis being used was not controlled. If it's not controlled, you don't know the dose, strain, side-effects, etc, so the results are not accurate.

But the claims by many on here that cannabis has benefits for chronic pain are based on illegal use and this study shows there is no evidence for that when properly assessed.

It has performed badly with controlled medical marijuana too for chronic pain.

The idea that the strains are the issue is just a way of the retailers getting you to waste more money on another miracle cure.

Anyone have any evidence that the strains have different medical properties apart from a retailer just saying so?

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

Hard to take any study seriously when they don't even know how the patients are taking their cannabis or what strain they are using or if the patients were still using it during the study, Looks like a proper waste of 4 years

A systematic review of all the current research by the National Academies of Sciences in 2017 concluded there is, "substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults."

That was based on Sativex which doesn't require a change in the law for access. Weed itself was found to have no benefit for chronic pain in the national Academies review.

jh79

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I think at stage it will be legalised with out looking at medical use

The problem in Ireland is that the two most high profile campaigners (Vera T and Gino) want it to have the same legal status as actual medicine in spite of the fact the available evidence doesn't support such a stance. It's not recognised as medicine in the US, Canada or Europe yet still available. Why can't we just do what they did?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

But the claims by many on here that cannabis has benefits for chronic pain are based on illegal use and this study shows there is no evidence for that when properly assessed.

They pretty much admit that it wasn't properly assessed, and then go on to pass judgement. For them to "properly" assess it, wouldn't the people taking cannabis have a regular supply? No effort was made to arrange that. (although having lived in Brisbane, I wonder why the study didn't just focus on the Nimbin area, which would have provided such a steady result.)

The idea that the strains are the issue is just a way of the retailers getting you to waste more money on another miracle cure.

Anyone have any evidence that the strains have different medical properties apart from a retailer just saying so?

A retailer? I would suggest you try a variety of strains and see the actual effects yourself. There's a definite difference in the experience you have while stoned, which would suggest that there would be a difference to its effectiveness against pain. [Different strains definitely affect my shakes while others do nothing. ]

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

They pretty much admit that it wasn't properly assessed, and then go on to pass judgement. For them to "properly" assess it, wouldn't the people taking cannabis have a regular supply? No effort was made to arrange that. (although having lived in Brisbane, I wonder why the study didn't just focus on the Nimbin area, which would have provided such a steady result.)



A retailer? I would suggest you try a variety of strains and see the actual effects yourself. There's a definite difference in the experience you have while stoned, which would suggest that there would be a difference to its effectiveness against pain. [Different strains definitely affect my shakes while others do nothing. ]

Again the claim that it works for chronic pain comes form illegal use (the evidence with medical marijuana doesn't show a benefit bar Sativex which isn't illegal in Ireland). A sample size of 2000 from illegal use showed no benefit. I'd trust the data from 2000 people more than single reports from users. Those 2000 couldn't of all got bad strains for chronic pain.

I have tried different strains (legally in Amsterdam) . Didn't see much of a difference from about the 7 or 8 types i tried. I just stuck to skunk in the end.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

A systematic review of all the current research by the National Academies of Sciences in 2017 concluded there is, "substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults."

That was based on Sativex which doesn't require a change in the law for access. Weed itself was found to have no benefit for chronic pain in the national Academies review.

I advise you to read the article that you posted, To give you a run down if you don't want to bother is as follows

- The patients were not given cannabis from the study, They had to go to drug dealers

- They do not know the strains that were used

- Most of the patients did not even stay the full term due to them not wanting to deal with drug dealers

If you are going to do a study of this importance then at least give patients the cannabis they need for their pain instead of them going to drug dealers who won't sell them the right strain, 4 years they spent on this study and they did all the important things wrong, Only an idiot would take this study seriously

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Again the claim that it works for chronic pain comes form illegal use (the evidence with medical marijuana doesn't show a benefit bar Sativex which isn't illegal in Ireland). A sample size of 2000 from illegal use showed no benefit. I'd trust the data from 2000 people more than single reports from users. Those 2000 couldn't of all got bad strains for chronic pain.

Of course you would, because you're seeking reasons why cannabis can't be useful. You're against cannabis use for pain relief. Otherwise, you would have acknowledged the weaknesses of this report by using a group of people who were unable to obtain a secure supply.

Any regular user of cannabis has their source, and frankly, is rarely without it. (unless they're in Ireland where options are often quite limited)

EDIT: Let me put it this way. I could have my father agree to taking cannabis regularly to help with his pain... however since he neither grew up at a time when cannabis was common, or had previous experience in obtaining it... he could try for months without obtaining any, no regular supply and no way to compare the quality of what he bought. This study seems to be doing exactly that. Telling normal people to use an illegal drug for pain medication without any consideration of the difficulties involved...

I have tried different strains (legally in Amsterdam) . Didn't see much of a difference from about the 7 or 8 types i tried. I just stuck to skunk in the end.

Fair enough... there is still the individualistic biology to consider in how cannabis affects us.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Of course you would, because you're seeking reasons why cannabis can't be useful. You're against cannabis use for pain relief. Otherwise, you would have acknowledged the weaknesses of this report by using a group of people who were unable to obtain a secure supply.

Any regular user of cannabis has their source, and frankly, is rarely without it. (unless they're in Ireland where options are often quite limited)

EDIT: Let me put it this way. I could have my father agree to taking cannabis regularly to help with his pain... however since he neither grew up at a time when cannabis was common, or had previous experience in obtaining it... he could try for months without obtaining any, no regular supply and no way to compare the quality of what he bought. This study seems to be doing exactly that. Telling normal people to use an illegal drug for pain medication without any consideration of the difficulties involved...



Fair enough... there is still the individualistic biology to consider in how cannabis affects us.

I'm against its use for chronic pain because i've yet to see any evidence that it works for chronic pain. Random testimonials from the internet are worthless.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

I'm against its use for chronic pain because i've yet to see any evidence that it works for chronic pain. Random testimonials from the internet are worthless.

That would be up to the GPs to decide not someone who posts on a forum who it does not effect

PS: The article you posted is now getting slated in OZ and further a field for been a shoddy study

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

That would be up to the GPs to decide not someone who posts on a forum who it does not effect

PS: The article you posted is now getting slated in OZ and further a field for been a shoddy study

No , it's up to the HPRA to decide not a GP and they found lots of flaws in the available evidence.

Even if you discount the findings of that study you still have no evidence that it works for chronic pain.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

No , it's up to the HPRA to decide not a GP.

Even if you discount the findings of that study you still have no evidence that it works for chronic pain.

If it was made legal GPs will advise if their patient needs it or not, That should not be up for debate, It's common sense

Why would I discount the findings of a study who does not bother supplying the right strain for their patients individual cases, Telling them to go and get their drugs of street dealers and not knowing what strain they were using and they also did not bother to keep up to date with their patients to see if they were still using cannabis

I would not say I would discount the findings, I would be more obliged to call your article that you posted a complete and utter cluster fcuk

Many people benefit from cannabis, It's beyond question and doubt at this stage, After reading more about your article that you posted, It was so bad their is even people who against cannabis calling it out for it's shoddy way of going about it because it does not help their cause

The only result of this article is that people should not buy medical cannabis of drug dealers... SHOCKER

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

If it was made legal GPs will advise if their patient needs it or not, That should not be up for debate, It's common sense

Why would I discount the findings of a study who does not bother supplying the right strain for their patients individual cases, Telling them to go and get their drugs of street dealers and not knowing what strain they were using and they also did not bother to keep up to date with their patients to see if they were still using cannabis

I would not say I would discount the findings, I would be more obliged to call your article that you posted a complete and utter cluster fcuk

Many people benefit from cannabis, It's beyond question and doubt at this stage, After reading more about your article that you posted, It was so bad their is even people who against cannabis calling it out for it's shoddy way of going about it because it does not help their cause

The only result of this article is that people should not buy medical cannabis of drug dealers... SHOCKER

The HPRA won't allow GP's to dispense it without evidence it works for chronic pain and that evidence doesn't exist at the moment.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

The HPRA won't allow GP's to dispense it without evidence it works for chronic pain and that evidence doesn't exist at the moment.

Why did the doctor advise my GF's niece parents to go to Holland for her seizures? As for saying theirs no evidence for chronic pain, You obviously don't know anyone who has to go through it, The funny part of this is it does not effect you in the slightest, If someone decides they want to use cannabis and it helps them then who gives a toss about studies if it's helping them

You posted an article to back up your point and it has failed miserably and the sad part about it is you didn't even bother reading it before posting, If you did it would never have been posted and this conversation would not be happening, People who benefit from cannabis is not evidence for you but posting cluster fcuk articles are, I think that pretty much sums up your stance on the subject

Hopefully what happened today at least makes you read articles before posting, I find if you do, their is less back tracking to be done

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

Why did the doctor advise my GF's niece parents to go to Holland for her seizures? As for saying theirs no evidence for chronic pain, You obviously don't know anyone who has to go through it, The funny part of this is it does not effect you in the slightest, If someone decides they want to use cannabis and it helps them then who gives a toss about studies if it's helping them

You posted an article to back up your point and it has failed miserably and the sad part about it is you didn't even bother reading it before posting, If you did it would never have been posted and this conversation would not be happening, People who benefit from cannabis is not evidence for you but posting cluster fcuk articles are, I think that pretty much sums up your stance on the subject

Hopefully what happened today at least makes you read articles before posting, I find if you do their is less back tracking to be done

Who said anything about seizures we are talking about chronic pain??

This isn't the only study that shows no benefit for chronic pain just the latest.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

Who said anything about seizures we are talking about chronic pain??

This isn't the only study that shows no benefit for chronic pain just the latest.

I'm just given an example, I know another guy who had one of his balls chopped of due to cancer and the doctor told him to use cannabis for any pain and for him to have a better sex life

You can not call it the latest because it is a cluster of an article and it's getting laughed at from all quarters

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pyr0 wrote: »

I know people who are mentally and physically fried from alcohol abuse or have died from smoking related cancers.

If anything, legalise it to take it away from the dealers and tax the f*ck out of it.

Taxing the **** out of it will put customers straight back into the hands of illegal dealers.

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

I'm just given an example, I know another guy who had one of his balls chopped of due to cancer and the doctor told him to use cannabis for any pain and for him to have a better sex life

You can not call it the latest because it is a cluster of an article and it's getting laughed at from all quarters

The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the authors. So there is no issue with the research.

So, where is the evidence that it works for chronic pain? How can the HPRA allow GP's to dispense without it?

PowerToWait

jh79 wrote: »

I just stuck to skunk in the end.

Was this in the 21st century? I don't think 'skunk', as a stand alone strain, has been sold in coffeeshops in the past 20 years. Maybe closer to 30.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the authors. So there is no issue with the research.

So, where is the evidence that it works for chronic pain? How can the HPRA allow GP's to dispense without it?

The evidence is in the faces of those who suffer from it and if they think it works for them then that is all the evidence I need, Why anyone would not want those who suffer the chance to ease their suffering is beyond me, Especially when it does not effect you in the slightest

Questions that I need answered

Why would you take a study seriously that tells their patients to go to drug dealers?

Why would you believe a study that does not know what strain the patients are taking?

I'm sure you would agree their pretty much straight forward questions you would expect from a study

jh79

PowerToWait wrote: »

Was this in the 21st century? I don't think 'skunk', as a stand alone strain, has been sold in coffeeshops in the past 20 years. Maybe closer to 30.

Pre rolled in the Bulldog. Was in both places they had. Straight off the train went to thw smaller one with the little coffee shop in it. The other pre rolled option was Polm hash. Had Super Silver Haze and OG Lemon to roll myself. Had some Cheese too and Super Polm ( think that was weed). Candy crush was another.

A joint of skunk was 3.50 in some place close to the train station. Dingy enough place that was also an internet cafe.

Went to the Bulldog during the day and Smokey at night. Even had craft beer in the Bulldog.

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

The evidence is in the faces of those who suffer from it and if they think it works for them then that is all the evidence I need, Why anyone would not want those who suffer the chance to ease their suffering is beyond me, Especially when it does not effect you in the slightest

Questions that I need answered

Why would you take a study seriously that tells their patients to go to drug dealers?

Why would you believe a study that does not know what strain the patients are taking?

I'm sure you would agree their pretty much straight forward questions you would expect from a study

We already have an acess program that allows access were all other treatments have failed. The evidence isn't there for its use as a primary treatment option.

With regards the study, they are limited by the data that is available to them

The people that profit from it need to prove its value as a medicine. But they won't pay for clinical trials because a bad result will affect their profits. And the regulators can only judge it on the available evidence which diesn't justify its routine use.

The access program that we have is a fair system based on the available evidence.

Benteke

jh79 wrote: »

We already have an acess program that allows access were all other treatments have failed. The evidence isn't there for its use as a primary treatment option.

With regards the study, they are limited by the data that is available to them

The people that profit from it need to prove its value as a medicine. But they won't pay for clinical trials because a bad result will affect their profits. And the regulators can only judge it on the available evidence which diesn't justify its routine use.

The access program that we have is a fair system based on the available evidence.

They sent their patients to drug dealers not knowing what strain was sold to them, Nothing to do with limited data, It was an all round cluster fcuk, Anyway that's me done for the day on this topic, You have your stance and I have mine, Learn from today and don't post articles without reading first, It will save you a lot of back tracking, G'day

skylight1987

NO

Brian?

skylight1987 wrote: »

NO

What a well reasoned argument.

jh79

Benteke wrote: »

They sent their patients to drug dealers not knowing what strain was sold to them, Nothing to do with limited data, It was an all round cluster fcuk, Anyway that's me done for the day on this topic, You have your stance and I have mine, Learn from today and don't post articles without reading first, It will save you a lot of back tracking, G'day

What are you on about, they didn't send anyone anywhere. The data was from people who used weed and volunteered for the study.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

The limitations of the study are acknowledged by the authors. So there is no issue with the research.

Of course there are issues with the research. The researchers make assumptions about the effectiveness of cannabis, in spite of admitting that their selection was extremely limited in the end and flawed due to the selection not having any substantial access to the drug.

You keep wanting to ignore the key problems with this study, and simply accept their assumptions as being valid. You really don't see anything suspicious about the lack of quality research on the subject over 4 years, and then making assumptions without effectively proving them? Seriously?

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Of course there are issues with the research. The researchers make assumptions about the effectiveness of cannabis, in spite of admitting that their selection was extremely limited in the end and flawed due to the selection not having any substantial access to the drug.

You keep wanting to ignore the key problems with this study, and simply accept their assumptions as being valid. You really don't see anything suspicious about the lack of quality research on the subject over 4 years, and then making assumptions without effectively proving them? Seriously?

Ok so show me a good quality study looking at weed and chronic pain?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so show me a good quality study looking at weed and chronic pain?

Nope.

I'm happy to take apart your contributions. I'm not in the mood to go trawling through research papers, so that you can dismiss them as being irrelevant.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope.

I'm happy to take apart your contributions. I'm not in the mood to go trawling through research papers, so that you can dismiss them as being irrelevant.

But surely you have already read them given that you support its use for chronic pain?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so show me a good quality study looking at weed and chronic pain?

Does it have to?

In a (supposedly) free society where far more dangerous drugs are legal, who cares what benefits the user gets? Whether it's an analgesic or simply recreational?

Isn't it down for the user to decide?

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Does it have to?

In a (supposedly) free society where far more dangerous drugs are legal, who cares what benefits the user gets? Whether it's an analgesic or simply recreational?

Isn't it down for the user to decide?

Do you get to decide to use any other medicine as you wish?

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope.

I'm happy to take apart your contributions. I'm not in the mood to go trawling through research papers, so that you can dismiss them as being irrelevant.

Here is the conclusion

Cannabis use was common in people with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, but we found no evidence that cannabis use improved patient outcomes. People who used cannabis had greater pain and lower self-efficacy in managing pain, and there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference or exerted an opioid-sparing effect. As cannabis use for medicinal purposes increases globally, it is important that large well designed clinical trials, which include people with complex comorbidities, are conducted to determine the efficacy of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain.

Seems ok to me

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Do you get to decide to use any other medicine as you wish?

Are you suggesting every medicine should be legally controlled?

On what grounds are you classing it "medicine" in the first place?

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are you suggesting every medicine should be legally controlled?

On what grounds are you classing it "medicine" in the first place?

Every medicine is legally controlled. That's what the HPRA / FDA etc do.

I'm not classing it as medicine .

wexie

jh79 wrote: »

Every medicine is legally controlled. That's what the HPRA / FDA etc do.

I'm not classing it as medicine .

Well then there shouldn't be a need for it to be legally controlled then no?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Every medicine is legally controlled. That's what the HPRA / FDA etc do.

There are plenty of over-the-counter medicines available in your local chemist.

I'm not classing it as medicine .

This would indicate that you are.

jh79 wrote: »

Do you get to decide to use any other medicine as you wish?

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There are plenty of over-the-counter medicines available in your local chemist.



This would indicate that you are.

I am saying it isn't medicine thought that was pretty clear, so you agree it isn't medicine too?

OTC are controlled too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

I am saying it isn't medicine thought that was pretty clear, so you agree it isn't medicine too?

OTC are controlled too.

Then why the hell did you even mention the word medicine...!?

Let's reboot. Here's my initial post again.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Does it have to?

In a (supposedly) free society where far more dangerous drugs are legal, who cares what benefits the user gets? Whether it's an analgesic or simply recreational?

Isn't it down for the user to decide?

jh79

wexie wrote: »

Well then there shouldn't be a need for it to be legally controlled then no?

As long as those selling don't claim it has medical benefits then no. But people want to get stoned and see medicsl marijuana as the path of least resistance as opposed to changing the misuse of drugs act.

Standards in medicine are there for good reason diluting those standards for a tiny number that might possibly benefit is plain wrong especially when the real agenda for the majority who want this is recreational use.

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then why the hell did you even mention the word medicine...!?

Let's reboot. Here's my initial post again.

I think it should be legal for recreational use i'm against medical marijuana where it is sold as medicine without the required clinical evidence.

evolving_doors

I suppose for 'the user to decide' is a bit wishy washy.
Don't get me wrong... Fine if it works for whatever you want it to do, with no adverse effects.
But if you're a doctor wanting to administer it to a patient (like a child who can't speek for themselves) then you're into the area of dosage and clinical trials. So I'd presume that's what jh79 means by proper medicine.

jh79

evolving_doors wrote: »

I suppose for 'the user to decide' is a bit wishy washy.
Don't get me wrong... Fine if it works for whatever you want it to do, with no adverse effects.
But if you're a doctor wanting to administer it to a patient (like a child who can't speek for themselves) then you're into the area of dosage and clinical trials. So I'd presume that's what jh79 means by proper medicine.

It has plenty of adverse effects more than the synthetic chronic pain medicine that people claim it should be used instead of.

It's only medicine if it is more effective than a placebo.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

I think it should be legal for recreational use i'm against medical marijuana where it is sold as medicine without the required clinical evidence.

Fair enough, I'd agree with you here but it's an advertising issue then. Every producer of every product is legally required to make accurate claims about what their product does, producers and sellers of legalised cannabis should be no different.

From the buyer's point of view, it's their business and their business alone what they use it for. If someone has heard it eases pain and wants to try it out, power to them. If not, they'll just say it's for recreational purposes and carry on regardless.

Caveat Emptor.

Brae100

jh79 wrote: »

It has plenty of adverse effects more than the synthetic chronic pain medicine that people claim it should be used instead of.

It's only medicine if it is more effective than a placebo.

What are the adverse effects of oil, vaping or edibles?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

But surely you have already read them given that you support its use for chronic pain?

Actually, no... I'm not terribly concerned about it's use for chronic pain. I haven't stated anywhere in this thread that it was an effective answer to such pain, or any other illness. I objected to your study because of the weaknesses of it's research... which I find annoying considering the assumptions they've provided... would have been better had they been honest and said their sample wasn't big enough to determine any definite conclusions. As it is, many people will simply read the assumption... assuming that the research backs up what they're talking about. After all, aren't we supposed to trust scientists/researchers?

I'm interested in legality for personal use. I have a condition called "essential tremor" which is one of those conditions which isn't life-threatening so it doesn't get much in the way of funding for researching cures. There's also a huge difference between the severity of the tremors that people experience so, it's a big issue for some people, and not so much for others.

There are two common methods of dealing with it. A) Beta blockers, which essentially stop the shakes but turn you into a drooling vegetable unable to do anything without other peoples help, and Surgery close to the brain and spinal column. Neither appeals to me in the slightest. Also neither have very high chances of success and both bring a host of side-effects. The Beta blockers would actually damage my liver, heart and immune system, but that's generally an after-thought in western medicine, considering it's the most widely suggested "treatment" for this condition. (Yes, I took beta blockers when I visited specialist doctors in my early 20s, and experienced various side effects including internal bleeding.. all of which the specialists failed to mention. Go team 'Responsible Medicine'!)

My shakes are constant, and affect my whole body, and based on what little research has been done in the area, I can look forward to it becoming worse as time goes by. Joy. Putting milk in my coffee tends to be a challenge, lifting a bowl of hot soup incredibly dangerous to myself and others around me, etc.

I do, however, know that cannabis (grass rather than the other more impure varieties) can reduce the shakes considerably. So, that's my interest.... but if you're looking for studies to prove the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness for my condition... you're going to find extremely little on the subject.. except that it was once called "benign essential tremor" but felt that benign might be inaccurate. Although 20 years of self-medication through the use of grass when i have it available, I can attest to it's usefulness. (I've been living in China, and drugs carry the death penalty)

Brian?

jh79 wrote: »

Do you get to decide to use any other medicine as you wish?

Ideally, yes.

What good has prohibiting certain drugs done?