Cannabis - It must be time for legality.

jh79

Brae100 wrote: »

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

Smoking is obviously not a good option the studies i'm talking about used combinations of the above i think. Check out any of the reviews on medical marijuana. While they were not particularly serious they were more of them and more severe than the synthetic approved medicine.

jh79

Brian? wrote: »

Ideally, yes.

What good has prohibiting certain drugs done?

So you'd allow free access to morphine for example or fenatyl?

Brae100

jh79 wrote: »

So you'd allow free access to morphine for example or fenatyl?

Decriminalise Heroin and allow medically supervised administration to addicts and there wouldn't be a fentanyl issue. Most deaths from Fentanyl OD are due to the prohibition of Heroin.

jh79

Brae100 wrote: »

Decriminalise Heroin and allow medically supervised administration to addicts and there wouldn't be a fentanyl issue. Most deaths from Fentanyl OD are due to the prohibition of Heroin.

I agree but that doesn't mean you should be able to get valium or morphine or weed from a chemist to self medicate.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

I agree but that doesn't mean you should be able to get valium or morphine or weed from a chemist to self medicate.

"Weed" unlike the others isn't physically addictive.

Brian?

jh79 wrote: »

So you'd allow free access to morphine for example or fenatyl?

Yes. What don’t you get?

Brian?

jh79 wrote: »

I agree but that doesn't mean you should be able to get valium or morphine or weed from a chemist to self medicate.

Why?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Brae100 wrote: »

Decriminalise Heroin and allow medically supervised administration to addicts and there wouldn't be a fentanyl issue. Most deaths from Fentanyl OD are due to the prohibition of Heroin.

I agree but that doesn't mean you should be able to get valium or morphine or weed from a chemist to self medicate.

You said it wasn't a medicine.

You should be able to buy weed from a store to use as you see fit.

Brae100

jh79 wrote: »

I agree but that doesn't mean you should be able to get valium or morphine or weed from a chemist to self medicate.

There is no one really arguing for that and it is obviously a very complex issue. But decriminalising cannabis is a no brainer at this stage. I am very anti homeopathy and alternative medicine in general, but the medical benefits of cannabis are a real thing. It definitely helps with seizures, as an antiemetic, encourages appetite and helps sleep. It's analgesic properties may not be as effective but the side effects are minimal compared to the very addictive opiates.

I know one person MS who has started using it on the advice of their doctor and has found it very good. This person never smoke or drink before and was scared of the "narcotic" effects. I know two cancer patients on chemo who use it to combat the effects of the chemo and it helps. One had to move on to Oxy as the cannabis alone just couldn't deal with the pain. Personally, I have found it very helpful in dealing with my ulcerative colitis.

I know this is all just anecdotal, but there is a problem with effective research and trials being conducted. The fact that it is illegal really hampers objective research. The "Big Pharma" conspiracy also has an element of truth to it. There is no financial incentive in research that would discover that a plant that you can grow at home could have serious medical benefits.

Brian?

Brae100 wrote: »

There is no one really arguing for that and it is obviously a very complex issue. But decriminalising cannabis is a no brainer at this stage. I am very anti homeopathy and alternative medicine in general, but the medical benefits of cannabis are a real thing. It definitely helps with seizures, as an antiemetic, encourages appetite and helps sleep. It's analgesic properties may not be as effective but the side effects are minimal compared to the very addictive opiates.

I know one person MS who has started using it on the advice of their doctor and has found it very good. This person never smoke or drink before and was scared of the "narcotic" effects. I know two cancer patients on chemo who use it to combat the effects of the chemo and it helps. One had to move on to Oxy as the cannabis alone just couldn't deal with the pain. Personally, I have found it very helpful in dealing with my ulcerative colitis.

I know this is all just anecdotal, but there is a problem with effective research and trials being conducted. The fact that it is illegal really hampers objective research. The "Big Pharma" conspiracy also has an element of truth to it. There is no financial incentive in research that would discover that a plant that you can grow at home could have serious medical benefits.

I’m arguing for the complete legalization of all drugs. Prohibition makes now sense.

Nonoperational

A large issue with Cannabis is the smoking of it, and thats the way a lot of people take it.

Brae100

Brian? wrote: »

I’m arguing for the complete legalization of all drugs. Prohibition makes now sense.

I'd be of the same mindset, but I should perhaps have clarified that that's not really what we are arguing for here. An all out campaign to legalise all drugs at this stage would be ill-advised. Although I actually believe that we will see decriminalisation of most drugs (possibly with cautions or health referalls for class As) next year, with legalization of cannabis within five years. Leo seems fairly determined on this.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

"Weed" unlike the others isn't physically addictive.

Not the point it isn't the purpose of the medical profession to provide recreational drugs .

jh79

Brian? wrote: »

Why?

Because there are lots of gullible people who believe everyrhing they read on the internet and will chose "medicine" that isn't effective for their illness and put their health at risk.

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said it wasn't a medicine.

You should be able to buy weed from a store to use as you see fit.

that's what the other posters want it recognised as, i'm arguing against it.

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said it wasn't a medicine.

You should be able to buy weed from a store to use as you see fit.

So instead of campaigning for medical marijuana campaign against its inclusion in the missue of drugs act.

The amount of time and energy certain people devote to seeking more access to, and cheaper access to, a whole plethora of drugs from alcohol to cannabis - be it in favour of Good Friday and longer pub opening hours, opposition to minimum alcohol pricing and a smoking ban, support for legalising hash or whatever - above all else gives an insight into their socio-economic status.

Grown up adults with grown up responsibilities like keeping up mortgage payments or looking after kids just wouldn't be in that, eh, "relaxed" world.

Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences and don't clog up our health system expecting we'll pay for fixing the healthy life you freely chose to fúck up.

Brae100

jh79 wrote: »

Because there are lots of gullible people who believe everyrhing they read on the internet and will chose "medicine" that isn't effective for their illness and put their health at risk.

That's a fair point, but that happens anyway. If you take all the money that is currently being spent on policing, prosecuting and jailng, and redirect towards education and health that would reduce that issue to below current rates. Probibition just does not work. We have had one excellent example of the effects of probibition and it's subsequent repeal and it really is a no-brainer.

I get that you are coming at this from a purely medical pov and it is a very valid position. But cannabis is a strange one in that it is also a psychoactive substance. People seem to get their knickers in a twist if a substance causes people to enjoy themselves. If St. John's Wort made you giggly it would be banned.

Just legalise it and let adults choose for themselves. Set the age at 21 as there is valid research to show that excessive usage can effect the developing brain. But allow access for children under normal medical prescription.

kuntboy

The fun-police just want to tell everyone else how to live, because they are bullies, essentially. What fukcing business is it of theirs what a person puts in their own body? Fukcing none of their business, that's what.

Now fukc off, you busy-bodying prikcs.

Brae100

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The amount of time and energy certain people devote to seeking more access to, and cheaper access to, a whole plethora of drugs from alcohol to cannabis - be it in favour of Good Friday and longer pub opening hours, opposition to minimum alcohol pricing and a smoking ban, support for legalising hash or whatever - above all else gives an insight into their socio-economic status.

Grown up adults with grown up responsibilities like keeping up mortgage payments or looking after kids just wouldn't be in that, eh, "relaxed" world.

Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences and don't clog up our health system expecting we'll pay for fixing the healthy life you freely chose to fúck up.

90% of people in this country consume psycoactive drugs of one type or another and most manage to hold down jobs and raise families.

DeusVolt

Middle aged stoners just want access to easy weed. Nuttin' to do with treating illnesses or anything like that IMO.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Grown up adults with grown up responsibilities like keeping up mortgage payments or looking after kids just wouldn't be in that, eh, "relaxed" world.

I have a mortgage, pay all my debts on time (perfect credit rating), and I run my own business (a variety of freelancing/online work). Self-employed and generating savings, and I'm writing a trilogy of books. I also previously worked for a variety of international companies and worked professionally as a manager for a rather large team (finance). All during periods of "drug" use.

Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences and don't clog up our health system expecting we'll pay for fixing the healthy life you freely chose to fúck up.

I never have. I've always had private health insurance, and I've always paid for my own treatments. You will find that many stoners lead very productive and financially secure lives.... if you could be bothered to actually check about it. And as for keeping it away from the rest of you... Getting stoned is rarely something someone does near strangers... Even when stoned publicly most stoners will avoid others, keeping very quiet about it.

DeusVolt

DeusVolt wrote: »

Middle aged stoners just want access to easy weed. Nuttin' to do with treating illnesses or anything like that IMO.

Anything wrong with that?

Brae100

DeusVolt wrote: »

Middle aged stoners just want access to easy weed. Nuttin' to do with treating illnesses or anything like that IMO.

I know two people with cancer, one person with MS, one person with hip joint pain (who is allergic to opiates) who would disagree. None of these people are middle aged and none were in the slightest bit interested in the recreactional effects - in fact, that aspect scared them. On the other hand, I am middle aged and use it mainly recreationally but also benefit from the relief it gives me. It's not one size fits all.

Brae100

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/07/06/high-noon-4/

Brian?

jh79 wrote: »

Because there are lots of gullible people who believe everyrhing they read on the internet and will chose "medicine" that isn't effective for their illness and put their health at risk.

And that’s what information is for. Inform and educate, allow people to exercise personal responsibility around all drugs.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The amount of time and energy certain people devote to seeking more access to, and cheaper access to, a whole plethora of drugs from alcohol to cannabis - be it in favour of Good Friday and longer pub opening hours, opposition to minimum alcohol pricing and a smoking ban, support for legalising hash or whatever - above all else gives an insight into their socio-economic status.

Their socio-economic status? That’s a fine leap.

Grown up adults with grown up responsibilities like keeping up mortgage payments or looking after kids just wouldn't be in that, eh, "relaxed" world.

Hah? I’m a grown up adult. With zero interest in taking cocaine, weed, heroin and a plethora of other drugs. Genuinely no interest. I still believe they should be legal. Stick that in your generalisation pipe and smoke it.

Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences and don't clog up our health system expecting we'll pay for fixing the healthy life you freely chose to fúck up.

Thanks for nominating yourself the spokesperson of the middle classes. Very big of you.

Doctor Jimbob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The amount of time and energy certain people devote to seeking more access to, and cheaper access to, a whole plethora of drugs from alcohol to cannabis - be it in favour of Good Friday and longer pub opening hours, opposition to minimum alcohol pricing and a smoking ban, support for legalising hash or whatever - above all else gives an insight into their socio-economic status.

Grown up adults with grown up responsibilities like keeping up mortgage payments or looking after kids just wouldn't be in that, eh, "relaxed" world.

Take all the drugs you want. Just do it at home away from threatening the rest of us with the consequences and don't clog up our health system expecting we'll pay for fixing the healthy life you freely chose to fúck up.

Go on then, how is easier access to weed going to clog up the health system?

How does the amount of wealthy people regularly off their box on cocaine tie into your socioeconomic theory?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

mulbot wrote: »

"Weed" unlike the others isn't physically addictive.

Not the point it isn't the purpose of the medical profession to provide recreational drugs .

Again - it's not a medicine, remember? - where do the medical profession come until this?

Either STOP bringing up medical organisations and professionals, or STOP saying it's not a medicine!!

deco nate

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Go on then, how is easier access to weed going to clog up the health system?

How does the amount of wealthy people regularly off their box on cocaine tie into your socioeconomic theory?

Cos they can afford private health care, just jumping in before that poster and the high(see what I did) and mighty will reply with...

(I don't agree with him/her)

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Because there are lots of gullible people who believe everyrhing they read on the internet and will chose "medicine" that isn't effective for their illness and put their health at risk.

You know, I find this interesting because that's exactly what doctors do. Oh, sure, for a variety of common illnesses they have an exact medicine to recommend, but for anything remotely uncommon, everything requires testing. Testing the medicine, and then testing the dosages. I've had doctors who hadn't read the side-effects for the drugs, sorry medicine, that they were recommending to treat an illness. And then there's all those times that the medicine reacts badly to the persons biology, or simply doesn't work at all.

The really interesting thing is that western medicine while basing itself in science is still very much a try and see routine.

And as for putting their health at risk... i did point out my experience of beta blockers.. but then there were all those doctors I went to as a teen (before being passed on to the "specialists") when the doctors tried all manner of medicines in the "hope" of curing my shaking disorder.. because in spite of all their education they didn't have a clue how to treat it. And they recommended heaps of drugs to me as a teenager, which had side-effects and we weren't warned before taking them...

So.. the Internet, and self-medication, while not the best way of going about things... isn't always worse than going to a doctor.. :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said it wasn't a medicine.

You should be able to buy weed from a store to use as you see fit.

that's what the other posters want it recognised as, i'm arguing against it.

Hang on - you said you believed it should be available to use recreationally?!

deco nate

Medicine prescribed by a doctor they are ok and safe to use....sure they have been tested for years before going to market....


http://www.hpra.ie/homepage/medicines/news-events/item?t=/precautionary-recall-of-some-valsartan-blood-pressure-and-heart-medicines&id=10de0a26-9782-6eee-9b55-ff00008c97d0

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hang on - you said you believed it should be available to use recreationally?!

Recreational and medicinal are two seperate issues and you're confusing a person using as "medicine" and it being approved as a medicine by a regulator.

jh79

deco nate wrote: »

Medicine prescribed by a doctor they are ok and safe to use....sure they have been tested for years before going to market....


http://www.hpra.ie/homepage/medicines/news-events/item?t=/precautionary-recall-of-some-valsartan-blood-pressure-and-heart-medicines&id=10de0a26-9782-6eee-9b55-ff00008c97d0

You could of picked a better example than that. Its a contaminated batch nothing wrong with thw drug normally.

deco nate

jh79 wrote: »

You could of picked a better example than that. Its a contaminated batch nothing wrong with thw drug normally.

Yet its contaminated, from a reliable and trusted source. That's the point. People pointing out that doctors prescribed drugs have gone through rigorous testing and are safe and then this happens.

And there has been numerous drugs over the years that have been proven to cause deformities and other health issues and death that have been taken off the market.

How many deaths have been attributed to the use of cannabis?
Plenty of evidence that cannabis does help people with cancer, getting over its treatments no more sickness vomiting from radiotherapy. joint pain. glaucoma, back pain and seizures.to name but a few.

jh79

deco nate wrote: »

Yet its contaminated, from a reliable and trusted source. That's the point. People pointing out that doctors prescribed drugs have gone through rigorous testing and are safe and then this happens.

And there has been numerous drugs over the years that have been proven to cause deformities and other health issues and death that have been taken off the market.

How many deaths have been attributed to the use of cannabis?
Plenty of evidence that cannabis does help people with cancer, getting over its treatments no more sickness vomiting from radiotherapy. joint pain. glaucoma, back pain and seizures.to name but a few.

The issue with weed was never its safety but its effectiveness. It's pretty poor with nausea for cancer with one frequent side effect being nausea!

Problem is people want to believe it works and are happy to believe the fake news websites withouting looking at the actual research papers themselves.

The National Acadamies review found 3 or 4 uses for it and even for those uses the benefit was only modest.

Brian?

jh79 wrote: »

The issue with weed was never its safety but its effectiveness. It's pretty poor with nausea for cancer with one frequent side effect being nausea!

Problem is people want to believe it works and are happy to believe the fake news websites withouting looking at the actual research papers themselves.

The National Acadamies review found 3 or 4 uses for it and even for those uses the benefit was only modest.

If the issue isn’t safety, why do you care?

I think homeopathy is a load of bollocks. But there is no safety issue. Should I be asking for it to be banned?

Realistically I have a stronger moral case to ban homeopathy than I do to ban marijuana. At least a bit of weed might do something.

wexie

Brian? wrote: »

I think homeopathy is a load of bollocks. But there is no safety issue. Should I be asking for it to be banned? .

Well, that seems to be hotly debated, plenty of people arguing that it should be banned considering there seems to be no scientific evidence whatsoever corroborating any benefits in homeopathy and there are still people who would promote it as 'medicine'. So while there's not a safety issue with homeopathy in and of itself there is a safety issue insofar people might see it as a replacement for actual medicine.

I guess you could argue the same about weed, although there is plenty more actual evidence to suggest that it does have some benefits, the last thing I would want to happen is for a similar scenario where people will be going around saying 'here take a toke on this, clear that cancer right up'.

But the only way that's going to happen (whether or not weed is legalized 'recreationally' or medicinally) is with education.

If it were up to me I guess I'd prefer to see it legalized as a recreational drug first. That would open up the way to plenty of scientifically sound studies and then if the results warrant it (I strongly suspect they would) it can be regulated as a medicine.

jh79

Brian? wrote: »

If the issue isn’t safety, why do you care?

I think homeopathy is a load of bollocks. But there is no safety issue. Should I be asking for it to be banned?

Realistically I have a stronger moral case to ban homeopathy than I do to ban marijuana. At least a bit of weed might do something.

Homeopathy should be banned but is legal as long as the sellers don't claim a medical benefit.

Might do something isn't good enough, people are foolish enough to chose the fad cure of the day over medicine proven to work.

Look at Kenny Tynan he is refusing chemo and demanding medical marijuana.

Wanderer78

jh79 wrote:

Might do something isn't good enough, people are foolish enough to chose the fad cure of the day over medicine proven to work.

Or is there an element of 'profit maximisation' to our current 'scientific methods'?

wexie

jh79 wrote: »

Might do something isn't good enough, people are foolish enough to chose the fad cure of the day over medicine proven to work.

Yeah but neither banning nor legalizing anything is going to change that.

Perhaps legalizing and properly and extensively studying something and then educating people on the results of those studies might.

Look at all the nonsense out there, fad diets, coffee enema's and so on and so forth.

Lots of people are morons, even lots of clever people will end up desperate to try anything, no amount of banning anything is ever going to change that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jh79 wrote: »

Recreational and medicinal are two seperate issues and you're confusing a person using as "medicine" and it being approved as a medicine by a regulator.

No, I'm not - you are.

It doesn't need any sort of approval if it's available recreationally. Medicine regulators only come into it if someone makes unsubstantiated claims about what they sell. Not before. AS I said before: seller can only make accurate claims; buyer beware. Simple.

Look at Kenny Tynan he is refusing chemo and demanding medical marijuana.

As is his right. There's no law saying cancer patients MUST submit to chemotherapy. From his gofundme page:

The chemo made her sick, and the radiation left her afraid and confused. Ive heard all the horror stories. I dont want this for me, Id rather die quickly than poison myself with chemo and radiation.

Brian?

jh79 wrote: »

Homeopathy should be banned but is legal as long as the sellers don't claim a medical benefit.

Watch out, that slope looks wet. Anything else you’d like to ban?

Might do something isn't good enough, people are foolish enough to chose the fad cure of the day over medicine proven to work.

Look at Kenny Tynan he is refusing chemo and demanding medical marijuana.

So you’re only objection to marijuana being legalized is the claim of medical benefits? Grand. Let’s drop that and legalize it? Happy?

FYI, I don’t give a monkeys if weed has medical benefits. I object to all forms of prohibition.

jh79

Brian? wrote: »

Watch out, that slope looks wet. Anything else you’d like to ban?



So you’re only objection to marijuana being legalized is the claim of medical benefits? Grand. Let’s drop that and legalize it? Happy?

FYI, I don’t give a monkeys if weed has medical benefits. I object to all forms of prohibition.

Yes i'm pro legalisation for recreational use.

Ultimanemo

The worst thing about cannabis is they make people addicted to smoking tobacco, they initiate the desire to inhale, if you are none smoker and you smoke cannabis you inhale deeply, then you will try an ordinary cigarette, you get the nicotine kick and there we go.

jh79

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or is there an element of 'profit maximisation' to our current 'scientific methods'?

Sure lighter regulation would be great for the pharma industry. Imagine only having to provide the same sh*t evidence that is available for so called medical marijuana.

jh79

wexie wrote: »

Yeah but neither banning nor legalizing anything is going to change that.

Perhaps legalizing and properly and extensively studying something and then educating people on the results of those studies might.

Look at all the nonsense out there, fad diets, coffee enema's and so on and so forth.

Lots of people are morons, even lots of clever people will end up desperate to try anything, no amount of banning anything is ever going to change that.

The HPRA have not banned it, they just won't approve it for medical use.

It's banned due to the misuse of drugs act. People think pretending it has all these magical properties is the easiest way of getting around this.

jh79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, I'm not - you are.

It doesn't need any sort of approval if it's available recreationally. Medicine regulators only come into it if someone makes unsubstantiated claims about what they sell. Not before. AS I said before: seller can only make accurate claims; buyer beware. Simple.



As is his right. There's no law saying cancer patients MUST submit to chemotherapy. From his gofundme page:

Yes, it his right to refuse treatment but he has no right to demand weed be licenced as a treatment for cancer.

Even legal substances can not be sold as medicine it is against the law and the HPRA can prosecute you for doing that.

If you sell kale juice as a cure for anything then you are breaking the law. It essentially becomes medicine and therefore under the remit of the HPRA under Irish law.

Wanderer78

jh79 wrote:

Sure lighter regulation would be great for the pharma industry. Imagine only having to provide the same sh*t evidence that is available for so called medical marijuana.

Unfortunately the murky world of large corporate pharma always must be questioned, are their products truly helping us, or is it truly just a profit maximising exercise, it's very difficult to tell at times, it's probably time to legalise this issue, to try deal with it, but it's probably a good idea to realise, there's actually no real solutions to some of its problems, no matter what approach is taken