Ooooo ! A sample size of 11 !!!! A whole eleven !!!!
cf: "anecdote"
“Existing studies are too small and limited, so that means the studied drug is worthless and larger studies are pointless.”
- Toast, probably
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Ooooo ! A sample size of 11 !!!! A whole eleven !!!!
cf: "anecdote"
Frankly, fine. The number of people transitioning to illegal drug use after therapeutic use is pretty damn small. But, the illegal diversion gave states such as MA a great excuse for a shakedown. And, now, people with legitimate needs for opiods (cancer patients, for one) are struggling to get some types.How did that opioid based medicine craze work out?
Yet another straw man argument. That said, while a sample size of 11 may be grounds for further resarch, it is pretty thin for evaluation as a treatment option.“Existing studies are too small and limited, so that means the studied drug is worthless and larger studies are pointless.”
- Toast, probably
Yet another straw man argument. That said, while a sample size of 11 may be grounds for further resarch, it is pretty thin for evaluation as a treatment option.
You keep talking about the drivers of medical research and trials. I do not think your knowledge of the process is anything close to what you feel it is.For f***s sake. As I’ve been saying, going to schedule III will allow the medical community to do more in depth research to establish viable medical uses. The example I linked was to show you that there are indications of viability for medical uses and that it wasn’t purely “alternative medicine that could not be real medicine”. I clearly stated that research in the U.S. was minimal
You use this term straw man. I do not think it means what you think it means. Everything I’ve discussed is germane to your argument that marijuana shouldn’t be in real medicine.
I'd be laughed out of my old office for trying to push a personal use case of MJ. The USA would never take a call from me again.Didn't a recent study show nobody is in Federal prison, nor any New England state prison, solely for possession of "personal use" amounts of weed?
Moving to Schedule III still means illicit dealer get prison terms; see for example convictions for anabolic steroids or ketamine.
If people want to be dumb f***s and abuse opiates, let them.How did that opioid based medicine craze work out?
Studies of drugs require money.
Since nobody can patent weed, clearly a pharma company isn't going to fund a study on it.
With it on schedule 3, expect the larger medical pot companies (Curaleaf, TruLieve, MUV etc) will fund university studies of it.
Fun fact, in the 70's the under the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program uncle sort of agreed that pot was useful, and supplied pot for patients with glaucoma and undergoing chemo. There were extremely complex and drawn out application processes, leading to a very small number of patients participating. The program was closed to new participants in the early 90's due to not wanting to let AIDS patients in, and a desire to have nothing undercut the war on drugs.
I don’t run across any drunks at the gym, but young men reeking of pot on their 2nd Red Bull are very annoying.
I like banging heroines, especially good looking ones.......They should just legalize them all. If someone wants to smoke pot or bang heroine
Imho the crackdown on the pills 10+ yrs ago led directly into the " fentanyl phantasm" we see today. Government f***ed that up, badly.Frankly, fine. The number of people transitioning to illegal drug use after therapeutic use is pretty damn small. But, the illegal diversion gave states such as MA a great excuse for a shakedown. And, now, people with legitimate needs for opiods (cancer patients, for one) are struggling to get some types.
Loading…
www.npr.org
Almost anyone who wants to use pot or cannabis-derived products can do so without fear of government punishment. Employers can still mandate limitations, but that’s where more research may not break any barriers. At best, studies might find the time/dose relationship between cannabis and reaction time impairment, but it’s not as clean as ounces of alcohol per pound body weight, giving the variation in pot “strength”.
I don’t run across any drunks at the gym, but young men reeking of pot on their 2nd Red Bull are very annoying. That said, I love it when the 3-star hotel clerk is high on pot - I’m good for a free room upgrade to a Junior Suite and an extra bottle of water.
”For 50 years, researchers were allowed to use cannabis from only one source – a facility at the University of Mississippi. Then, in 2021, the DEA started to add a few more companies to that list of approved sources for medical and scientific research.
While she expects more sources to be added in time, she and many of the researchers she knows have yet to benefit from the recently added sources, as most have limited products available.
"And what we haven't seen is any ability for researchers –cannabis researchers, clinical researchers – to have the ability to study products that our patients and our recreational consumers or adult consumers are actually using," she adds. "That remains impossible."
I totally agree...a good friend of mine is an anesthesiologist and for years worked in pain management. He told me when the FED severely throttled back on dispensing pain meds, those that needed it the worst were going to have to look for it elsewhere. There is some pain that just can't be fixed by giving a cancer patient two Tylenol. My mom is one...89 years old and has a fentanyl patch for her pain management (she has severe pain due to rheumatoid arthritis through her whole body). She told me that the amount of fentanyl in those patches is very minimal and barely touches her pain. She was using opioids and she was doing well on them but they were taken from her. My brother is an PA and he has tried to get the doctors to relax their stand a bit on dispensing what she really needs but they can't for fear they'll have their license to practice yanked...SMHImho the crackdown on the pills 10+ yrs ago led directly into the " fentanyl phantasm" we see today. Government f***ed that up, badly.
I had a surgery with a huge resulting infection requiring a 2nd surgery. Pain was 10/10 for about a week.I totally agree...a good friend of mine is an anesthesiologist and for years worked in pain management. He told me when the FED severely throttled back on dispensing pain meds, those that needed it the worst were going to have to look for it elsewhere. There is some pain that just can't be fixed by giving a cancer patient two Tylenol. My mom is one...89 years old and has a fentanyl patch for her pain management (she has severe pain due to rheumatoid arthritis through her whole body). She told me that the amount of fentanyl in those patches is very minimal and barely touches her pain. She was using opioids and she was doing well on them but they were taken from her, My brother is an PA and he has tried to get the doctors to relax their stand a bit on dispensing what she really need but they can't for fear they'll have their license to practice yanked...SMH
She's 89 years old for f*** sake! Give her what she needs to live relatively pain free!
Damn! That sucks! I have chronic severe back pain and my Dr. will prescribe 40 Tramadol every 3 months and they work but I don't really like taking them as they make me feel really wonky. I still have some from the previous prescription he wrote for me. I have other ways of dealing with the pain. Tylenol and Naproxen helps with one anti-spasm pill a day. I don't like taking the Tylenol (arthritis strength) and Naproxen every day as it's not real good for the ol' liver and kidneys. Every three or four days seems to work OK for me.I had a surgery with a huge resulting infection requiring a 2nd surgery. Pain was 10/10 for about a week.
They refused to give me more than 10 percs. Turns out they had me incorrectly flagged as an opioid addict in the system (or something similar). You'd figure they'd bring that up.
Took me like 7 years to figure out that was in my file.
Loading…
www.npr.org
Almost anyone who wants to use pot or cannabis-derived products can do so without fear of government punishment. …
Damn! That sucks! I have chronic severe back pain and my Dr. will prescribe 40 Tramadol every 3 months and they work but I don't really like taking them as they make me feel really wonky. I still have some from the previous prescription he wrote for me. I have other ways of dealing with the pain. Tylenol and Naproxen helps with one anti-spasm pill a day. I don't like taking the Tylenol (arthritis strength) and Naproxen every day as it's not real good for the ol' liver and kidneys. Every three or four days seems to work OK for me.
It does help my pain and helps me sleep when pain is keeping me awake but you're right. It is highly addictive. That's why even when I'm in moderate pain, I take Tylenol/Naproxen/Spasm meds. I don't like taking Tramadol except and only when pain is nearing 10/10. Fortunately, for some reason, those days are becoming further and further apart...knock on wood.Tramadol sucks, it has more adverse interactions than any other pharmaceutical. It's terribly addictive, and many people say it doesn't work for pain, it just makes them high. Shouldn't even be a thing.
I'm not an expert on the law, but my thoughts on it would be that you would need a prescription, not a MMC, specifying the type (Indica/Sativa and THC/CBD potencies) and amount you were supposed to take for it to be legal. It's more of a "let's make it look like we're doing something" instead of "we're actually doing something" type thing. Going from Schedule I to Schedule III doesn't change anything if it isn't FDA approved to be prescribed for anything. Doctors will be less likely to prescribe it without clear guidelines on what it is intended to treat/prevent/cure, especially without the kickbacks from Big Pharma, and even worse, Big Pharma cutting off the kickbacks if they prescribe marijuana over their products. This change is just another "all show, no go" type law. It makes it look like they did something, but in the end, they just made the situation worse.But wouldn't a medical MJ card go from being proof of use of an unlawful drug to being proof of legal use of MJ?
It being Schedule I is a big reason for the lack of studies, and often times the studies that are done are carried out by Big Pharma. It's no secret though that every pharma company is trying to be the first to create synthetic marijuana compounds that they can patent to exclusively profit from. I personally know someone who was in a severe car accident and suffered from really bad back spasms even after recovering from most of his injuries. The cocktail of pills they put him on (half a dozen different meds, some 3 or 4 times per day) would leave him barely able to take care of himself, let alone work. After doing some research, he found a particular strain of marijuana (a gummy in the morning and one at night) that relieved his problems and allowed him to work. I wouldn't call it anecdotal, since when he traveled somewhere that he couldn't bring the gummies, his back spasms returned, and went away after he returned home and was able to resume use. You can call it placebo effect if you want to, but that's far more anecdotal than the several real life cases of marijuana helping people.The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". There is a stunning lack of valid studies showing either medical benefts or safety.
Sitting here with an unopened bottle from this morning after a small procedure, but I'm not planning on taking any if I can avoid it. My wife was dealing with some intractable pain issues last year (fortunately resolved after they finally got a handle on the cause) and it didn't do a thing for her.Tramadol sucks, it has more adverse interactions than any other pharmaceutical. It's terribly addictive, and many people say it doesn't work for pain, it just makes them high. Shouldn't even be a thing.
You do realize that there's a big, wide world of pharmaceutical development outside of the US, right?It being Schedule I is a big reason for the lack of studies, and often times the studies that are done are carried out by Big Pharma.
Those are the definition of anecdotal.I personally know someone who was in a severe car accident and suffered from really bad back spasms even after recovering from most of his injuries. The cocktail of pills they put him on (half a dozen different meds, some 3 or 4 times per day) would leave him barely able to take care of himself, let alone work. After doing some research, he found a particular strain of marijuana (a gummy in the morning and one at night) that relieved his problems and allowed him to work. I wouldn't call it anecdotal, since when he traveled somewhere that he couldn't bring the gummies, his back spasms returned, and went away after he returned home and was able to resume use. You can call it placebo effect if you want to, but that's far more anecdotal than the several real life cases of marijuana helping people.
You do realize that there's a big, wide world of pharmaceutical development outside of the US, right?
Buddy you can’t smell the edibles and you can hardly tell if a vape is the evil weeds anymore
Like I said your arms would be jello from swinging cause you don’t have a clue how many people are stoned around you every day
Now I do agree with you on smoking in public, I personally don’t mind the smell but I don’t need my kids to smell it or be exposed to it on the regular and I’m sure there’s people with legit reactions to it.
Maybe it’s dealing with people like you every day people find the need to partake
How to proclaim that you don't understand the global pharmaceutical market without explicitly saying so.And without a U.S. market available, they’re doing nothing.
How to proclaim that you don't understand the global pharmaceutical market without explicitly saying so.
Now do synthetic opioid development, mescaline research, GHB, and others, which clearly must have no research underway at all because they are on Schedule 1.
The hazards of editing. I had originally written "not doing synthetic opioids because heroin is schedule 1", then dropped the heroin reference because it didn't flow with the rest of the sentence. I assumed the reader would be smart enough to get the inference. It seems that I was mistaken.First of all, synthetic opioids are not all schedule 1. Hydrocodone, methadone, hydromorphone, meperidine, oxycodone/OxyContin, and fentanyl are all Schedule 2.
None, because, you know, the whole "pharmaceutical use" bit is a dodge. However, as you admit there is research going on with mescaline, it would seem to render your "you can't do research on schedule 1 drugs" theme moot. The existence of legitimate, reproducible medical benefits would create a market for legal synthetic cannabinoids analogous to the market for synthetic opioids. The lack of real benefits is why big Pharma isn't pushing it.As for mescaline, the only international studies I’m aware of are funded independent research institutes or universities. Please inform us of which pharma companies are dumping money into?