The BIG medicinal cannabis discussion

Prof.Badass

Btw, Is there any reason THC/CBD based medicine can't be used instead of plant material for most of these medical complaints?

thebigbiffo

penguin88 wrote: »

To be honest, I think there is quite a clear distinction between medical and recreational use. From the above I do not think you see the difference. Unless it's a condition which requires a diagnosis from a doctor, I don't think it's fair to consider it as medicinal use.

i find that instead of hounding my doctor for anti-anxiety meds or drinking too much a spliff works just as well. the distinction is not that clear and especially with borderline emotional issues - any doctor will tell you that.

your original point i commented on was a smug attempt to de-ride the way people in the thread (inevitably - being my point) started discussing recreational use.

am i a recreational user? yes. would i be a 'medicinal user'? yes (it just means i'll be explaining to my doctor that i have panic and anxiety attacks and this particular drug is what keeps me level - if it's legal for medicinal use, i cant see many doctors refusing it to me).

Kurtosis

seensensee wrote: »

From my understanding, taken from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_%28Ireland%29#Schedule_2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_%28Ireland%29#Schedule_3 the primary distinction is that one group is "strictly controlled" and the other is "controlled"
Please understand that I am layman in regards to legal and medical matters, I do not have a complete understanding of regulatory systems but am eager to learn.
what do you think or know the distinctions to be ?

Thank you.

Well in theory, the designations from Schedule 2 to 5 is supposed to be based on the misuse potential of each drug. It is a range of possible classifications, the legislation does not actually give an interpretation of what each schedule means.

There is a specified format that prescriptions for Schedule 2 and 3 drugs must be written in when prescribed by a doctor (reduce the chance of forgeries), both have to be stored in a controlled drugs cabinet in pharmacies, while all incoming/outgoing transactions and a stock balance for Sch2 drugs has to be recorded in each pharmacy in a controlled drugs register. There are also certain record keeping requirements that apply to Sch 3 and 5 drugs, as well as other measures relating to advertising, possession and disposing of such drugs.

Sorry if this isn't clear, let me know if I haven't answered your question.

Herbal Deity

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Btw, Is there any reason THC/CBD based medicine can't be used instead of plant material for most of these medical complaints?

AFAIK, and I'm not an expert on this, but marijuana contains multiple different cannabinoids which work in conjunction with one another, and thus far, pill forms of extracted cannabinoids have not proven to be as effective as ingesting cannabis plant material. Furthermore, cannabinoid extractions/synthesis and pill manufacturing are expensive, and given that there is not really any disadvantage to using plant material, it doesn't really make sense to manufacture pills.

Kurtosis

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i find that instead of hounding my doctor for anti-anxiety meds or drinking too much a spliff works just as well. the distinction is not that clear and especially with borderline emotional issues - any doctor will tell you that.

your original point i commented on was a smug attempt to de-ride the way people in the thread (inevitably - being my point) started discussing recreational use.

am i a recreational user? yes. would i be a 'medicinal user'? yes (it just means i'll be explaining to my doctor that i have panic and anxiety attacks and this particular drug is what keeps me level - if it's legal for medicinal use, i cant see many doctors refusing it to me).

A medicinal product can only be prescribed for conditions it is licensed to treat. If the situation in the UK is anything to go by, any cannabis-based medicines here will probably only be indicated for use in multiple sclerosis or to treat symptoms in cancer. If this was the case, a doctor would be likely to refuse you.

I'm not referring to you when I say this biffo (because you haven't done this), but it can happen that the pro-legalisation side of this debate (with respect to recreational use) tend to hijack this cause and hop on the bandwagon of medicinal use, even though the two final aims are both distinct.

thebigbiffo

Herbal Deity wrote: »

AFAIK, and I'm not an expert on this, but marijuana contains multiple different cannabinoids which work in conjunction with one another, and thus far, pill forms of extracted cannabinoids have not proven to be as effective as ingesting cannabis plant material. Furthermore, cannabinoid extractions/synthesis and pill manufacturing are expensive, and given that there is not really any disadvantage to using plant material, it doesn't really make sense to manufacture pills.

was wondering how to phrase this exact point and ya got in there. booya:D

Elevator

I'm 30 and self medicate for anxiety and mild depression/post traumatic stress

have I emotional issues? yes I have

does good quality smoke help me get through the day? yes it does

hope this happens but to be quite honest I'm gettig out anyway and leaving for Berlin asap. would be nice to know if it didn't work out I wouldn't have to return to a completely backward and devoid of it's own backbone state!

free da weed mon

there, someone had to say it!!

thebigbiffo

penguin88 wrote: »

A medicinal product can only be prescribed for conditions it is licensed to treat. If the situation in the UK is anything to go by, any cannabis-based medicines here will probably only be indicated for use in multiple sclerosis or to treat symptoms in cancer. If this was the case, a doctor would be likely to refuse you.

I'm not referring to you when I say this biffo (because you haven't done this), but it can happen that the pro-legalisation side of this debate (with respect to recreational use) tend to hijack this cause and hop on the bandwagon of medicinal use, even though the two final aims are both distinct.

it's 'certain cannabinoids' that are permitted in the UK - not medicinal cannabis in the context we are talking about it in - indeed the person who started this campaign needs it for PTSD. as explained above individual cannabinoids - to the best of my knowledge - can be used to treat specific illness like MS etc. it's when we talk about true medicinal cannabis that the multitude of illnesses it can treat really become obvious.

i understand any genuine concerns about the medicinal campaign being highjacked by recreationals - but your must understand that the very very close correlation between the two means it's inevitable. i would hate to see any on the same side of the debate damaging the other.

i'd also like to point something else out: those who are serious about any type of legalisation are long term smokers. most long term smokers feel they need it for many particular reasons that could be explained in a medical context. i've tried to point this out in previous posts. i think if someone told me tomorrow i could never smoke a spliff again - i'd be seeing a lot more of my doctor, even though i'm very healthy both physically and mentally - i do get high levels of stress and anxiety on occasion that i would certainly look for a different med to replace MJ.

the_syco

Sykk wrote: »

Something less damaging than Cigarettes and more helpful than most of the shíte medication you get to cure countless illnesses becoming legal? Never.

Yes and no. Less damaging, yes, but it can cause more damage as people hold in for longer.

seensensee

penguin88 wrote: »

Well in theory, the designations from Schedule 2 to 5 is supposed to be based on the misuse potential of each drug. It is a range of possible classifications, the legislation does not actually give an interpretation of what each schedule means.

There is a specified format that prescriptions for Schedule 2 and 3 drugs must be written in when prescribed by a doctor (reduce the chance of forgeries), both have to be stored in a controlled drugs cabinet in pharmacies, while all incoming/outgoing transactions and a stock balance for Sch2 drugs has to be recorded in each pharmacy in a controlled drugs register. There are also certain record keeping requirements that apply to Sch 3 and 5 drugs, as well as other measures relating to advertising, possession and disposing of such drugs.

Sorry if this isn't clear, let me know if I haven't answered your question.

Thanks, it's looking good from a medical point of view. I've had another consideration though on the distinctions as mentioned, this time it's to do with legal matters and criminal law, after all the Misuse of drugs Act is used when prosecutions occur through breaches of the act. My concern is that no distinction would be made between cannabis misuse and cocaine/opiate misuse. Though to be clear my views stem from previous english and dutch model examples i.e. "Class A Class B(C)" "Hard Drug Soft Drug". Is it reasonable to expect that the Irish model should follow in a similar mode ?
Is it not that Schedule 2 Drugs are "strictly controlled" due to the fact that through abuse of those drugs there have been recorded fatalities (many) and that abusive addiction to those drugs has proven to cause serious detriment to the user (in many cases), families and neighbourhoods... Society?

Prof.Badass

Herbal Deity wrote: »

AFAIK, and I'm not an expert on this, but marijuana contains multiple different cannabinoids which work in conjunction with one another, and thus far, pill forms of extracted cannabinoids have not proven to be as effective as ingesting cannabis plant material.

I am very sceptical of these claims. The problem i think is that previously CBD wasn't used. For some complaints for which cannabis is used, the medicinal benifits might lie outside THC/CBD, but for a lot of them I think THC/CBD would be sufficient (with the ratio tailored to the illness). Now, another problem is that CBD might not survive oral ingestion very well- perhaps an oral/nasal spray or a tincture for sublingual absorbtion...

Furthermore, cannabinoid extractions/synthesis and pill manufacturing are expensive, and given that there is not really any disadvantage to using plant material, it doesn't really make sense to manufacture pills.

Well first of all there's the smoke issue. Then there's the dosage issue (which is a huge issue). Then you have the needless ingestion of additional chemicals (which occur naturally in cannabis).

Modern medicine relies on isolated compounds, and for good reason.

Herbal Deity

the_syco wrote: »

Yes and no. Less damaging, yes, but it can cause more damage as people hold in for longer.

Yes people may hold it in for longer, but people who smoke weed smoke much less joints than the average tobacco smoker smokes cigarettes.

In any case, medicinal cannabis will be recommended to be vaporized. Doctors aren't gonna tell patients to smoke joints.

Elevator

the_syco wrote: »

Yes and no. Less damaging, yes, but it can cause more damage as people hold in for longer.

you've also got the roach over filter smoking too but isn't cannibas anti-carcinogenic?

if I was allowed like in California to have up to 99 flowering plants per year and up to 8oz of the finest stickiest weed I could possibly grow in my house at any one time then I reckon I'd have enough pot to smoke a vaporisor all year round, it's the necessity of having to mix it here due to high pricing that keeps the tobacco industry ticking along nicey here. I sell so much skins at work it's insane, all with packs of smokes so it's without doubt they're for j's

also not so ago you'd have had to search high and low for king size papers but now they're in almost every single shop I go in lately. goes to show how many are smoking today and they're all hopeless nicotine addicts over cannibas addicts!

the legalisation like what is about to come into effect in california would just make so much sense here! would turn us back into the friendliest nation on the planet and we could be seen as the real Emerald Isle

now for some wise words from the man himself, Bill Hicks everyone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZqYV9KKOZQ

ScumLord

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Btw, Is there any reason THC/CBD based medicine can't be used instead of plant material for most of these medical complaints?

I'm sure some conditions you could but I think when it comes to pain relief it would be hard to separate the high from the medicine.

There are two distinct types of cannabis plants when it comes to recreational stuff though, Sativa and indica one would make you sleepy while the other can have quiet an uplifting effect on you. People are very good at engineering cannabis for specific types of highs and effects other than just getting monged.

Herbal Deity

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I am very sceptical of these claims. The problem i think is that previously CBD wasn't used. For some complaints for which cannabis is used, the medicinal benifits might lie outside THC/CBD, but for a lot of them I think THC/CBD would be sufficient (with the ratio tailored to the illness). Now, another problem is that CBD might not survive oral ingestion very well- perhaps an oral/nasal spray or a tincture for sublingual absorbtion...

Perhaps. I did say "thus far".

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Well first of all there's the smoke issue. Then there's the dosage issue (which is a huge issue). Then you have the needless ingestion of additional chemicals (which occur naturally in cannabis).

Well, vaporization is a healthy alternative to smoking, so that's not really an issue.

As for dosage, it's actually much easier to gauge dosage by smoking/vaporizing plant material than ingesting cannabinoids in pill form because of the much faster onset of effects. From wiki:

Later, in the 1970s, a synthetic version of THC was produced and approved for use in the United States as the drug Marinol. It was delivered as a capsule, to be swallowed. Patients complained that the violent nausea associated with chemotherapy made swallowing capsules difficult. Further, along with ingested cannabis, capsules are harder to dose-titrate accurately than smoked cannabis because their onset of action is so much slower. Smoking has remained the route of choice for many patients because its onset of action provides almost immediate relief from symptoms and because that fast onset greatly simplifies titration. For these reasons, and because of the difficulties arising from the way cannabinoids are metabolized after being ingested, oral dosing is probably the least satisfactory route for cannabis administration.[146] Relatedly, some studies have indicated that at least some of the beneficial effects that cannabis can provide may derive from synergy among the multiplicity of cannabinoids and other chemicals present in the dried plant material.[147] Such synergy is, by definition, impossible with respect to the use of single-cannabinoid drugs like Marinol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Modern_history

It must be remembered that cannabis is quite unique as a drug in that fatal overdoses are virtually impossible, and side effects are minimal. Exact dosages aren't extremely important in this respect.

seensensee

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Well first of all there's the smoke issue. Then there's the dosage issue (which is a huge issue). Then you have the needless ingestion of additional chemicals (which occur naturally in cannabis).

Modern medicine relies on isolated compounds, and for good reason.

Vaporising is a recommended method for those who use medicinal marijuana herb. I would like to see evidence of your claim regarding needless ingestion.
There is much evidence to suggest that selected herbal cannabis is best for many patients, I like to cite working models, try the link and observe the mailorder menu.
http://www.cannabisdispensary.ca/node/4

Cheers

Kurtosis

seensensee wrote: »

Thanks, it's looking good from a medical point of view. I've had another consideration though on the distinctions as mentioned, this time it's to do with legal matters and criminal law, after all the Misuse of drugs Act is used when prosecutions occur through breaches of the act. My concern is that no distinction would be made between cannabis misuse and cocaine/opiate misuse. Though to be clear my views stem from previous english and dutch model examples i.e. "Class A Class B(C)" "Hard Drug Soft Drug". Is it reasonable to expect that the Irish model should follow in a similar mode ?
Is it not that Schedule 2 Drugs are "strictly controlled" due to the fact that through abuse of those drugs there have been recorded fatalities (many) and that abusive addiction to those drugs has proven to cause serious detriment to the user (in many cases), families and neighbourhoods... Society?

Well considering cannabis is currently Schedule 1, any change in classification of it would mean less stringent penalties than there are currently. It's not necessarily fatal abuse/misuse. The fact that cannabis is one of the most widely used recreational drugs would mean that it is quite liable for cannabis-based medicines to be misused (e.g. being used recreationally).

Kurtosis

thebigbiffo wrote: »

it's 'certain cannabinoids' that are permitted in the UK - not medicinal cannabis in the context we are talking about it in - indeed the person who started this campaign needs it for PTSD. as explained above individual cannabinoids - to the best of my knowledge - can be used to treat specific illness like MS etc. it's when we talk about true medicinal cannabis that the multitude of illnesses it can treat really become obvious.

Well considering that CBD and THC are the most abundant cannabinoids, the effects of the numerous others would be minimal in the context of the overall impact.

i understand any genuine concerns about the medicinal campaign being highjacked by recreationals - but your must understand that the very very close correlation between the two means it's inevitable. i would hate to see any on the same side of the debate damaging the other.

I think you overestimate the correlation. There are plenty of medicines that have been licensed for years that can be used for recreational purposes, doesn't mean that they'll eventually be fully legalised for recreational use.

I do think the association of the legalisation for recreational use campaign with the medicinal use campaign does harm the latter. If cannabis was not used recreationally, I'm sure we would have seen cannabis-based treatment for MS for example a long time ago. The perception that medicinal use will eventually lead to recreational use means that a lot of people would oppose allowing medicinal use of cannabis.

Prof.Badass

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm sure some conditions you could but I think when it comes to pain relief it would be hard to separate the high from the medicine.

I agree! btw, the high from pure THC/CBD would probably be better/cleaner than that from cannabis imo.

There are two distinct types of cannabis plants when it comes to recreational stuff though, Sativa and indica one would make you sleepy while the other can have quiet an uplifting effect on you. People are very good at engineering cannabis for specific types of highs and effects other than just getting monged.

People might have become good at breeding different plants with different THC/CBD ratios (indica traditionally having high CBD, newer hydroponic strains sometimes having virtually none whatsoever*), but imo it would be even better if we could have them worked out precisely in a lab.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Perhaps. I did say "thus far".


Well, vaporization is a healthy alternative to smoking, so that's not really an issue.

As for dosage, it's actually much easier to gauge dosage by smoking/vaporizing plant material than ingesting cannabinoids in pill form because of the much faster onset of effects. From wiki:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Modern_history

It must be remembered that cannabis is quite unique as a drug in that fatal overdoses are virtually impossible, and side effects are minimal. Exact dosages aren't extremely important in this respect.

Yes, non-oral use might be better medicinally (but not recreationally), but THC/CBD doesn't neccesarily have to be in pills. It is still virtually impossible to die from an overdose of THC/CBD.

seensensee wrote: »

Vaporising is a recommended method for those who use medicinal marijuana herb. I would like to see evidence of your claim regarding needless ingestion.
There is much evidence to suggest that selected herbal cannabis is best for many patients, I like to cite working models, try the link and observe the mailorder menu.
http://www.cannabisdispensary.ca/node/4

Cheers

Cannabis contains over 400 chemicals besides THC. Ok, this isn't the end of the world. But it's better to have drugs in pure form (to lessen side-effects).

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed use cannabis medicinally if they want to. I'm just saying this idea that cannabis is this magical uncrackable plant whose effects can't ever be artificially replicated seems like a load of nonsense to me. I'd be inclined to think that THC/CBD in the right ratio and the right dose can be used for most (if not all) of the neurological purposes cannabis is used for.

*This is important because CBD is known to have anti-psychotic properties. Just another way in which prohibition causes more harm than good.

bnt

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed use cannabis medicinally if they want to. I'm just saying this idea that cannabis is this magical uncrackable plant whose effects can't ever be artificially replicated seems like a load of nonsense to me.

Well, I don't think that, and I can see drug companies synthesising THC if there's a legal market for it. Just as Bayer did with acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), which was originally a folk remedy extracted from white willow tree bark. But "legal" is the word - it would require a major investment, and a co-ordinated change in the law across Europe at least, before any company will make that kind of investment. I would probably qualify to be prescribed THC if it was legal, but I'd prefer a pill, since I do not smoke anything by choice, and teas etc. make it hard to control how much THC you're getting.

seensensee

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed use cannabis medicinally if they want to. I'm just saying this idea that cannabis is this magical uncrackable plant whose effects can't ever be artificially replicated seems like a load of nonsense to me. I'd be inclined to think that THC/CBD in the right ratio and the right dose can be used for most (if not all) of the neurological purposes cannabis is used for.

*This is important because CBD is known to have anti-psychotic properties. Just another way in which prohibition causes more harm than good.

Good on you Prof, it appears that science is catching up along those lines...

Tetrahydrocannabinol

Bacteria can produce without much effort cannabis drug

17.

17th

August 2010, 17:57

August 2010

THC by fermentation
http://derstandard.at/1281829392202/Tetrahydrocannabinol-Bakterien-koennen-ohne-viel-Aufwand-Cannabis-Wirkstoff-produzieren.

It's a german article so you need Google translate.

wow, I can't get the text to behave as normal, anyway...

TacoFrenzy

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Cannabis contains over 400 chemicals besides THC. Ok, this isn't the end of the world. But it's better to have drugs in pure form (to lessen side-effects).

It is often said and posted in propaganda ads that Marijuana contains over 400 chemicals. In reality, most organic compounds like plants, are composed of hundreds, if not thousands of chemicals. There is nothing unusual about this high number. To the 'average Joe', this makes Marijuana sound like it is some sort of toxic waste.

Jonny7

TPD wrote: »

Hot shít, wouldn't think Ireland would have the balls to consider anything as radical and outlandish as that. Imagine, a helpful substance being allowed to help people.

I'm not so sure its a helpful substance anymore and I used to be quite a smoker. My close relative and his girlfriend are very heavily addicted to the stuff, basically he can't leave the house due to anxiety, panic attack, social issues, paranoia and when he doesn't have any he is almost suicidal. He was a very out-going kid, popular in school all that. Now he has major issues (and knows it too he's not stupid, far from it) His girlfriend, again very nice, actually has a job, but yes suffers from a big addiction.

I am suffer from mild panic attacks and anxiety as well. Plus most of my college cohorts seem to be affected to some degree or another.

A few joints is okay, but smoking the stuff every day will affect most people negatively. There are always a few who are strangely unaffected.

I believe cannabis has medicinal properties, but that its effects on the mind are not fully understood yet.

Prof.Badass

TacoFrenzy wrote: »

It is often said and posted in propaganda ads that Marijuana contains over 400 chemicals. In reality, most organic compounds like plants, are composed of hundreds, if not thousands of chemicals. There is nothing unusual about this high number. To the 'average Joe', this makes Marijuana sound like it is some sort of toxic waste.

I'm presuming they meant chemicals not commonly shared by a large number of oher plants. I was quoting that figure from elsewhere. There definitely are other pharmacologically active chemicals in cannabis (just like in any medicinal plant- which is why we take our drugs in isolated pill form). Most plants deliberately produce chemicals that make them unsuitable for human/animal consumption. It's why we can't go around just eating any old leaf/grass. I don't see any reason to believe cannabis is an exception. While in the tiny amounts taken by recreational users the effects of these chemicals would be miniscule, over time they might have a small but significant effect.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5188/cannabinoids2.jpg

TPD

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not so sure its a helpful substance anymore and I used to be quite a smoker. My close relative and his girlfriend are very heavily addicted to the stuff, basically he can't leave the house due to anxiety, panic attack, social issues, paranoia and when he doesn't have any he is almost suicidal. He was a very out-going kid, popular in school all that. Now he has major issues (and knows it too he's not stupid, far from it) His girlfriend, again very nice, actually has a job, but yes suffers from a big addiction.

I am suffer from mild panic attacks and anxiety as well. Plus most of my college cohorts seem to be affected to some degree or another.

A few joints is okay, but smoking the stuff every day will affect most people negatively. There are always a few who are strangely unaffected.

I believe cannabis has medicinal properties, but that its effects on the mind are not fully understood yet.

Stop the press folks; turns out that drug abuse is bad! Who'da thunk it?

Aspirin is helpful, taking too much is bad.

mikom

Jonny7 wrote: »

A few joints is okay, but smoking the stuff every day will affect most people negatively.

A few chips are okay, but eating chips every day will affect most people negatively.

seensensee

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not so sure its a helpful substance anymore and I used to be quite a smoker. My close relative and his girlfriend are very heavily addicted to the stuff, basically he can't leave the house due to anxiety, panic attack, social issues, paranoia and when he doesn't have any he is almost suicidal. He was a very out-going kid, popular in school all that. Now he has major issues (and knows it too he's not stupid, far from it) His girlfriend, again very nice, actually has a job, but yes suffers from a big addiction.

I am suffer from mild panic attacks and anxiety as well. Plus most of my college cohorts seem to be affected to some degree or another.

A few joints is okay, but smoking the stuff every day will affect most people negatively. There are always a few who are strangely unaffected.

I believe cannabis has medicinal properties, but that its effects on the mind are not fully understood yet.

Well said Jonny 7, as a cannabis devotee I can back you up there and say that cannabis does not suit everybodys mind, I have seen a few friends collapse and fare badly on it, I have seen people get anxious and express a distaste for the effect in general. Part of educating the public is informing them that the drug does'nt suit everyones make up.

In contrast I am aware that millions fare very well on it, countries provide freedom of choice so that their citizens make an informed decision with a better quality product, not just any unknown quantity that a dealer produces, more and more we are becoming aware that the adulterants used in illegal cannabis are causing serious health problems.

But in a medical context you should be aware that some patients are consuming 3-4g per day so as to provide relief for their illnesses, there are no hard and fast rules to what is the correct dose, each to their own.

Cheers.

TacoFrenzy

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I'm presuming they meant chemicals not commonly shared by a large number of oher plants. I was quoting that figure from elsewhere.

First off let me say that presuming they meant something that hasnt been stated in your source is not a good way to learn your facts.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

There definitely are other pharmacologically active chemicals in cannabis (just like in any medicinal plant- which is why we take our drugs in isolated pill form).

We take medicine in pill form because pharmaceuticals are synthesised in labratories and are in powder form which is pressed into pills or filled into capsules.

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Most plants deliberately produce chemicals that make them unsuitable for human/animal consumption. It's why we can't go around just eating any old leaf/grass. I don't see any reason to believe cannabis is an exception. While in the tiny amounts taken by recreational users the effects of these chemicals would be miniscule, over time they might have a small but significant effect.

Yes plants have defence mechanisms to deter human/animal consumption but it is not because the plant is worried that it might harm the human/animal. It is there to prevent something from eating it so that said plant can survive.
Its not as if cannabis is some newly discovered plant that everyone has started ingesting and no one knows if it is toxic or not. Cannabis has been used by humans for thousands of years both for medical and recreational purposes.

Dont you think if there was anything really worth worrying about it would already be known?

Prof.Badass

TacoFrenzy wrote: »

We take medicine in pill form because pharmaceuticals are synthesised in labratories and are in powder form which is pressed into pills or filled into capsules.

Yes, and why do you think that is?
Why do we take aspirin, why don't we just drink willow bark tea?

It's not a pharmaceutical conspiracy.

Yes plants have defence mechanisms to deter human/animal consumption but it is not because the plant is worried that it might harm the human/animal. It is there to prevent something from eating it so that said plant can survive.
Its not as if cannabis is some newly discovered plant that everyone has started ingesting and no one knows if it is toxic or not. Cannabis has been used by humans for thousands of years both for medical and recreational purposes.

Dont you think if there was anything really worth worrying about it would already be known?

It depends how you define "worried about". I'd think you'd be pretty silly to not use cannabis purely because it is plant material, but i still think isolated THC/CBD would be the better option as it has a lower potential for side effects.

travelguru

dunno will it happen