Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 30-11-2016 2:11am

They should ban threads about legalising weed.

Arsemageddon · 30-11-2016 2:13am

FortySeven wrote: »

There is no medical evidence that I am aware of that shows cannabis to be a more effective drug than any of the licenced drugs we have already for any condition.

People like getting stoned, it may well have antispadmodic tendencies, it might help appetite it may have pain altering properties but the facts are thin and we have many more clean drugs that don't involve ingesting all the other bits.

I'm sorry about your friend but one personal experience does not make a case. In america, medical marijuana has been used as a backdoor legalization. That's it. Legal high. Everyone got sick.

Like I say, legalise it. I think we should. Just don't do it under pretences. Just do it.

I appreciate the point that you are making that an anecdote does not count as data, and I don't pretend to have any great knowledge in this area other than trial use of cannabis for different ailments has often been inconclusive.

However, if I had not seen the near instantaneous relief that cannabis could give my friend from severe spasms I would not have believed it possible. The lad would go from barely being able to speak and having to be spoon fed to being able to do stuff for himself and being able to move his wheelchair around while talking in the space of 15-20 minutes. The fact that the spasms abated also meant he and his wife were able to sleep at night.

You're certainly right about medical cannabis in the US being a backdoor for legalisation.

Edups2.0 · 30-11-2016 2:15am

God forbid you have an opinion :rolleyes:

Sorry

Yeah weed is great everyone should have some let's all have weed yay

suicide_circus · 30-11-2016 2:19am

I think drugs are a perfectly reasonable response to the human condition. Up until the point when you're hurting other people...at that stage you can cop yourself on

deco nate · 30-11-2016 2:21am

Edups2.0 wrote: »

God forbid you have an opinion :rolleyes:

Sorry

Yeah weed is great everyone should have some let's all have weed yay

Have an opinion yes, but don't sprout BULL****, ie junkies! Ffs

Grayson · 30-11-2016 3:44am

FortySeven wrote: »

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

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

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

Then all the sick folks can get it anyway.

Nearly all the harm can be mitigated by vaping or using a cold water bong (the cold water gets rid of the tar but THC/CBD doesn't dissolve in water).

And weed does have more tar than tobacco. That's something most people, including proponents, ignore or forget. However the amount of weed that people smoke is really small compared to cigarettes. Your average smoker will smoke 10-20 or more cigarettes a day. Weed smokers would never smoke anywhere near that amount of weed a day.
Now, in Ireland it's traditional to mix the two in a joint but you don't have to. As I mentioned you can just bong or vape it. In the US you can buy the oils for vaping and even the pre-made vape pens.

Byt, yeah hopefully it's made legal for all. Thing is that although I consider weed smoking to be a civil rights issue, I think keeping medication, that could help people, illegal is far far worse.

JupiterKid · 30-11-2016 7:39pm

Yes of course it should be legalised for medical use. And it will be eventually but I wont hold my breath. Ireland lags well behind other Western countries in terms of social policy ¬ same sex marriage being a possible exception.

It should also be decriminalised for recreational use but the all too powerful drinks lobby will fight that tooth and nail.

K.Flyer · 01-12-2016 1:09am

YES!

Did we think we would see the day!
New hope for many.

Green light: The medicinal cannabis bill will be passed by the Dáil tomorrow.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT oppose the medicinal cannabis bill due before the Dáil tomorrow, ensuring it will be passed..

RobertKK · 01-12-2016 1:26am

There are many pharma companies researching and producing verifiable results with cannabinoid medicines.
It should be legal.

jh79 · 01-12-2016 10:07am

K.Flyer wrote: »

YES!

Did we think we would see the day!
New hope for many.

Green light: The medicinal cannabis bill will be passed by the Dáil tomorrow.

Long way to go yet;

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/harris-to-support-legalisation-of-medicinal-cannabis-35258899.html

"I met with Deputy Gino Kenny and Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett to discuss areas of agreement and also to express some concerns I have with the Bill.
“In particular it includes removing references to cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act which has the effect of making it legal for anyone to possess cannabis, including for recreational purposes.

So it will still be controlled.

"It also proposes establishing two new agencies but the appropriate agency to oversee any change to the regulatory regime for medicinal cannabis already exists in the form of the HRPA.

This is its biggest obstacle and both Kenny and Barrett must of recognised this when drafting the bill.

I am anxious to proceed as quickly as possible, however, it is important that we have expert advice to underpin decisions on how best to move forward. That is why I have asked the Health Products Regulatory Authority to provide me with the scientific and clinical advice necessary for me to consider amendments to the current statutory controls on medicinal cannabis.

I have to stress the importance of receiving the recommendations of the HPRA before the Bill would move on to the legislative scrutiny stage at Committee.

If the HPRA treat it the same as any other medicine it hasn't a hope.

K.Flyer · 01-12-2016 10:49am

jh79 wrote: »

Long way to go yet [...]
If the HPRA treat it the same as any other medicine it hasn't a hope.

It has a bit to go, but its a start.
There are so many people who could benefit from medicinal legislation that the debate will bring it to the attention of more people around the counyry who may have never heard or considered the potential benefits. But as you said, HPRA could easily throw a spanner in the works, St.Johns Wort a primary example.
Hopefully they might follow the Spanish example.
Fingers crossed.

Wanderer78 · 01-12-2016 11:04am

Legalise everything, job done! Well done to the lobbyist for persistence

jh79 · 01-12-2016 11:19am

K.Flyer wrote: »

It has a bit to go, but its a start.
There are so many people who could benefit from medicinal legislation that the debate will bring it to the attention of more people around the counyry who may have never heard or considered the potential benefits. But as you said, HPRA could easily throw a spanner in the works, St.Johns Wort a primary example.
Hopefully they might follow the Spanish example.
Fingers crossed.

This will also highlight how little evidence there is for the many claims of medicinal benefits.

Can anyone think of illnesses that the HPRA might decide it has uses for and the studies that would convince them?

Pain relief and anti-nausea are about it and the evidence for these isn't particularly good. I think pain relief might even be gender specific?

K.Flyer · 01-12-2016 11:36am

There is quite a lot of scientific evidence showing potential benefits and promising results. There is also swathes of anecdotal stories of people having used it and it helping to treat their condition. Unfortunately these people would greatly help the scientific studies achieve clearer evidence as to how well, or not, the cannabinoids have helped them. But because of the illegalities, most of these people will not step forward.

jh79 wrote: »

[..]Can anyone think of illnesses that the HPRA might decide it has uses for and the studies that would convince them?

There are ongoing studies in Madrid which have shown cannabinoids to greatly stem the growth of Glioblastoma, a deadly brain cancer.

jh79 · 01-12-2016 11:50am

K.Flyer wrote: »

There is quite a lot of scientific evidence showing potential benefits and promising results. There is also swathes of anecdotal stories of people having used it and it helping to treat their condition. Unfortunately these people would greatly help the scientific studies achieve clearer evidence as to how well, or not, the cannabinoids have helped them. But because of the illegalities, most of these people will not step forward.

The HPRA job is to asses the evidence and at the moment there are no proven benefits. If its wants to be treated as medicine then it needs to prove it is medicine.

Progress in this area is not only slow because of the legal obstacles but also because studies to date have not shown much promise.

jh79 · 01-12-2016 11:52am

K.Flyer wrote: »

There are ongoing studies in Madrid which have shown cannabinoids to greatly stem the growth of Glioblastoma, a deadly brain cancer.

Not true, they are prinicipally investigating a delivery method.

A stent is placed in the tumour and the equivalent of a 100 joints injected directly into the tumour!!

All on the clinical trial (9) died and the average was 24 weeks. Not a hope it will treat this illness.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-12-2016 11:52am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Legalise everything, job done! Well done to the lobbyist for persistence

Who's job is done exactly? As I am not aware of TOO many people who have made "legalize everything" their agenda.

That said though I do wonder if "consider everything for legalization and then work through the arguments on the exceptions that should not be" would IN GENERAL be a better general mindset approach than "Make it all illegal, then work through the arguments on the exceptions that should not be".

Wanderer78 · 01-12-2016 11:56am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Who's job is done exactly? As I am not aware of TOO many people who have made "legalize everything" their agenda.

That said though I do wonder if "consider everything for legalization and then work through the arguments on the exceptions that should not be" would IN GENERAL be a better general mindset approach than "Make it all illegal, then work through the arguments on the exceptions that should not be".

legalize everything is my own agenda, very unlikely we ll ever get a politician to go down that road as it would probably be political suicide.

the war on drugs is a bust in my eyes, but like a lot of fundamental issues our political leaders have been failing to accept, we continue to fumble around with these failed ideas.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-12-2016 12:06pm

Yeah I would probably meet you half way on that. Or at least 95% of the way

But I would simply be of the mindset not so much "legalize everything" but "legalize everything except those things, after due consideration, it makes sense not to". I am sure there are likely to be SOME few exceptions that would not be useful to legalize. Or at least sure enough to warrant being cautious. Some drugs ARE much more pernicious and addiction forming than others for example.

Wanderer78 · 01-12-2016 12:15pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah I would probably meet you half way on that. Or at least 95% of the way But I would simply be of the mindset not so much "legalize everything" but "legalize everything except those things, after due consideration, it makes sense not to". I am sure there are likely to be SOME few exceptions that would not be useful to legalize. Or at least sure enough to warrant being cautious. Some drugs ARE much more pernicious and addiction forming than others for example.

its an extremely risky move to legalise everything, and im sure it would have some negative aspects on society, some quiet serious, but i believe we could be moving into the era of having no option but to take such risky moves not just on this subject matter. id rather see the drug trade taken away from extremely dangerous and volatile gangs, and taken under control of some public body such as the hse. we would have a better idea of our drug problems and some way of managing it. its a complicated subject matter but it is clear to me, whatever we re doing now, clearly isnt working, and in fact is getting worse.

K.Flyer · 01-12-2016 12:34pm

jh79 wrote: »

Not true, they are prinicipally investigating a delivery method.

Take a look back over the thread and take the time to watch the video with Cristina Sanchez giving her talk.
She clearly explains the tests they have carried out in lab conditions showing positive results against Glioblastoma. (GBM)

A stent is placed in the tumour and the equivalent of a 100 joints injected directly into the tumour!!

This was only one of several methods looked at, there are other much less invasive methods considered to be as effective.

All on the clinical trial (9) died and the average was 24 weeks. Not a hope it will treat this illness.

For everyone's sake, lets Please put this into context.
The patients were at "Stage 4", with little to no hope of survival.
On average, the life expectancy for someone diagnosed with Stage 4 Glioblastoma is approximately 12 months, or 52 weeks.
So they may have held it back for an extra 4 - 6 months. (24 weeks)
More often Resection, Radiation and Chemo will do little for GBM other than to put people through hell for the last part of their life, but doctors are still happy to inflict the harsh treatment on these patients with little to no hope of it working.
GBM was chosen by the team for the initial trial due to it being one of the least treatable of the nuero cancers.

jh79 · 01-12-2016 12:40pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

Take a look back over the thread and take the time to watch the video with Cristina Sanchez giving her talk.
She clearly explains the tests they have carried out in lab conditions showing positive results against Glioblastoma.

This was only one of several methods looked at, there are other much less invasive methods considered to be as effective.

For everyone's sake, lets Please put this into context.
The patients were at "Stage 4", with little to no hope of survival.
On average, the life expectancy for someone diagnosed with Stage 4 Glioblastoma is approximately 12 months, or 52 weeks.
So they may have held it back for an extra 4 - 6 months. (24 weeks)
More often Resection, Radiation and Chemo will do little for GBM other than to put people through hell for the last part of their life, but doctors are still happy to inflict the harsh treatment on these patients with little to no hope of it working.
GBM was chosen by the team for the initial trial due to it being one of the least treatable of the nuero cancers.

They all died within the expected time frame for this disease there was no significant improvement.

Positive results in the lab are easy to obtain.

Have you a link to her published results so we can see how "positive" her results were?

The HPRA report is due the end of January, a clinical trial of 9 people is nowhere near enough evidence even if the results were more impressive but in this case they weren't even good. Do you think a pharma company would get away with such a paucity of evidence?

jh79 · 01-12-2016 12:50pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

Take a look back over the thread and take the time to watch the video with Cristina Sanchez giving her talk.
She clearly explains the tests they have carried out in lab conditions showing positive results against Glioblastoma. (GBM)

This was only one of several methods looked at, there are other much less invasive methods considered to be as effective.

For everyone's sake, lets Please put this into context.
The patients were at "Stage 4", with little to no hope of survival.
On average, the life expectancy for someone diagnosed with Stage 4 Glioblastoma is approximately 12 months, or 52 weeks.
So they may have held it back for an extra 4 - 6 months. (24 weeks)
More often Resection, Radiation and Chemo will do little for GBM other than to put people through hell for the last part of their life, but doctors are still happy to inflict the harsh treatment on these patients with little to no hope of it working.
GBM was chosen by the team for the initial trial due to it being one of the least treatable of the nuero cancers.

I haven't access to full papers anymore but her research hasn't convinced authors of the many reviews out there.

How does this treatment compare to others? What's the LD50 in micro or milli molars for her cannabinoids?

jh79 · 01-12-2016 1:00pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

Take a look back over the thread and take the time to watch the video with Cristina Sanchez giving her talk.
She clearly explains the tests they have carried out in lab conditions showing positive results against Glioblastoma. (GBM)

This was only one of several methods looked at, there are other much less invasive methods considered to be as effective.

For everyone's sake, lets Please put this into context.
The patients were at "Stage 4", with little to no hope of survival.
On average, the life expectancy for someone diagnosed with Stage 4 Glioblastoma is approximately 12 months, or 52 weeks.
So they may have held it back for an extra 4 - 6 months. (24 weeks)
More often Resection, Radiation and Chemo will do little for GBM other than to put people through hell for the last part of their life, but doctors are still happy to inflict the harsh treatment on these patients with little to no hope of it working.
GBM was chosen by the team for the initial trial due to it being one of the least treatable of the nuero cancers.

Don't forget that this required high concentrations of cannabinoids that are impossible to achieve through smoking so these studies do no support the idea that smoking cannabis has medicinal benefits

Rory28 · 01-12-2016 1:23pm

jh79 wrote: »

Don't forget that this required high concentrations of cannabinoids that are impossible to achieve through smoking so these studies do no support the idea that smoking cannabis has medicinal benefits

I don't think you are wrong when you say the studies are not detailed enough to get a clear picture. If it were legal these studies could be done far more easily and without the red tape of studying a controlled substance.

I agree with you 100% on the motives of people tho. I don't really care one way or the other about the medical benefits. I just want to get stoned without having to deal rather unscrupulous characters (drug dealers).

vmb · 01-12-2016 2:14pm

I'm a little bit lost here.

Are they trying to legalise just the CBD part? That is something, but the THC part is also helping people under heavy pain. There is a company who commercializes
a product called Sativex. It is really expensive and less powerful than regular cannabis.

I am directly interested (I suffer MS) and regular painkillers are useless. I have prescription for Lyrica, but side effects of that are terrible. I am abandoned to a regular pain

I laugh a lot when some people explains that medical cannabis has bad side effects. They don't understand that regulated and USED medications are way more dangerous.

K.Flyer · 01-12-2016 3:11pm

jh79 wrote: »

[...]
How does this treatment compare to others? What's the LD50 in micro or milli molars for her cannabinoids?

If you are referring to Lethal Dose, there is no clear evidence what the human lethal dose is.
Moreover it is considered that you would need to consume kilos of cannabis in a short sitting to reach any dangerous levels, but you would probably end up affected by the psychotropic effects long before you reach any critical levels.

jh79 · 01-12-2016 3:14pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

If you are referring to Lethal Dose, there is no clear evidence what the human lethal dose is.
Moreover it is considered that you would need to consume kilos of cannabis in a short sitting to reach any dangerous levels, but you would probably end up affected by the psychotropic effects long before you reach any critical levels.

For cancer cells specifically gliomas.

K.Flyer · 01-12-2016 3:16pm

jh79 wrote: »

Don't forget that this required high concentrations of cannabinoids that are impossible to achieve through smoking so these studies do no support the idea that smoking cannabis has medicinal benefits

jh79 wrote: »

For cancer cells specifically gliomas.

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

Maximus Alexander · 01-12-2016 3:19pm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This is just from what I've experienced. I've seen people have trouble with alcohol and do fairly stupid things but in generally they've gotten their lives back on track. However the people I've known who's had issues with weed generally didn't fair as well!

But cannabis is illegal, how could you know anybody who uses it and has problems caused by it?

jh79 · 01-12-2016 3:21pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

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

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

jh79 · 01-12-2016 3:21pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

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

Where does the research stand in terms of treating glioma?

ohnonotgmail · 01-12-2016 3:46pm

FortySeven wrote: »

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

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

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

Then all the sick folks can get it anyway.

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

SEPT 23 1989 · 01-12-2016 3:53pm

no i prefer to see people suffer

Stonedpilot · 01-12-2016 3:54pm

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

jh79 · 01-12-2016 3:54pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boom_Bap · 01-12-2016 3:57pm

Threads Merged.

frag420 · 01-12-2016 3:58pm

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Should be legalised period.

Periods are illegal?

Where do you get yours?

ScumLord · 01-12-2016 4:05pm

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

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

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jh79 · 01-12-2016 4:08pm

ScumLord wrote: »

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

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

I thought the HPRA had to look at it first?

ohnonotgmail · 01-12-2016 4:11pm

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jh79 · 01-12-2016 4:20pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

Maximus Alexander · 01-12-2016 4:24pm

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

jh79 · 01-12-2016 4:25pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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

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

ohnonotgmail · 01-12-2016 4:26pm

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

ohnonotgmail · 01-12-2016 4:27pm

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

dont bother · 01-12-2016 4:31pm

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you have it wrong.

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

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

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

jh79 · 01-12-2016 4:36pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

I think it should be legalised full stop.

jh79 · 01-12-2016 4:38pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

ohnonotgmail · 01-12-2016 4:40pm

jh79 wrote: »

I think it such be legalised full stop.

so why the objection to legalising its medicinal use?

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

still early days but it certainly looks very promising.

Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Comments