Cannabis - It must be time for legality.

Benteke wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Benteke wrote: »

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

Questions that I need answered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benteke wrote: »

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

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

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

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

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

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope.

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

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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Does it have to?

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

Isn't it down for the user to decide?

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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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



This would indicate that you are.

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

OTC are controlled too.

wexie wrote: »

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

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

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

jh79 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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