Time For A Change?

[Scully]

I simply find the the establishments consistent habit of criminalising the use of any drug while advocating to the point of advertising, the allure of another, fantastically hypocritical. Bewildering.

[happypig]

Consider that there are medically approved synthetic cannaboids availabe.... same effect no high

 

No one wants these to alleviate the symptoms they are self medicating for....

 

I wonder why

[wandringstar]

davyo nailed it, its impossible to keep the thread on a medical trail, as the two are intrinsically linked.

 

My cousin was in a clinic from a young age because of this poison, he is in his mid 40s and lives day by day in sheltered accommodation, he has nothing, he can barely converse as the dope fried his brain, it was all such a great laugh at the time, its a social disaster.

[Scully]

davyo nailed it, its impossible to keep the thread on a medical trail, as the two are intrinsically linked.

 

My cousin was in a clinic from a young age because of this poison, he is in his mid 40s and lives day by day in sheltered accommodation, he has nothing, he can barely converse as the dope fried his brain, it was all such a great laugh at the time, its a social disaster.

 

Agreed, but your comments can equally apply to legitimate drugs also. The journey to the end amounts to much the same path.

[wandringstar]

I j

Agreed, but your comments can equally apply to legitimate drugs also. The journey to the end amounts to much the same path.

 

but we aren't talking about legitimite drugs, or if you want to, when was the last time you saw a neurofen addict, yeh I know you are going to mention alcohol, but I have been drinking since seventeen, I have never committed violence, never been nicked and never allowed it to affect my responsibilities, its legal because you can do that with booze.

 

If I had been smoking dope since 17 instead of drinking, would things be like they are today for me, I don't think so somehow.

 

Ive always found that a straw man type of argument whenever someone discusses dope versus legal drugs.

[mick miller]

Some horror stories here. You have my sympathy. Clearly it seems some people are affected more severely than others.

[mel b3]

I don't know,all I can tell you as it was cannabis that started it.My son comes from a well formed respectful family.He had everything he ever wanted.F1 every year from a child, best guns and rods I could afford.I surrendered his FAC/SGC the minute I discovered he was using (smell on his clothes).He went from a loving,happy conversive child,to a deep withdrawn angry monster.Nothing happened in his live other than a particular circle of friends.

Do PW members know what it's like to have a loving doting son who would do anything for you,turn into an aggressive,abusive monster.It all seems like an unreal dream,it's like I woke up in the middle of the Jeremy Kyle show.He lost his FAC/SGC which I surrendered state g the reason why and I also sent his driving licence (provisional) back to the DVLA.

I have give him every opportunity to change his way but it's got him by the scruff of the neck.Just waiting for that call out of the blue to say he's lying on some slab in a morg.

this is pretty much my personal experience of it dave , and my heart breaks for you mate. i could tell you a thousand sad stories that involve mj but only a handful of happy ones.

 

as a fun drug i think its pretty pants , but , its quite obvious that it has magnificent medical benefits , i think that these benefits should be thoroughly investigated , and then it could be used in a positive way that will help people in need.

 

i have to agree with one of the earlier posters , most of the people that praise its medical benefits , only seem to want to roll in into a big fat bifta and smoke it.

[Thunderbird]

Well, if we can use opioids to relieve pain (and of course as we all know Heroin is a derivative of one of these) then why on earth can't we use any naturally occurring substance to ease pain or symptoms of often debilitating conditions?

 

I have never taken Herion but I (like many on here will have) been on morphine in various forms a few times for some issues, such as a slipped disc and when I had a hernia op. It didn't make me want to go out and score some herion afterwards.

 

My point is that there is a massive market in the USA for the type of cannabis-derived drugs that don't make you high but from where you get the medical benefits, i.e. they contain CBD in higher quantities and lower or hardly any THC.

 

Contrary to what someone said above people do want the medical stuff in the same way that they want opioids when they're in pain but they don't want to be a smack head.

[Scully]

I j

 

but we aren't talking about legitimite drugs, or if you want to, when was the last time you saw a neurofen addict, yeh I know you are going to mention alcohol, but I have been drinking since seventeen, I have never committed violence, never been nicked and never allowed it to affect my responsibilities, its legal because you can do that with booze.

 

If I had been smoking dope since 17 instead of drinking, would things be like they are today for me, I don't think so somehow.

 

Ive always found that a straw man type of argument whenever someone discusses dope versus legal drugs.

Legal or not, they're all capable of becoming extremely addictive. I wouldn't know a neurofen addict if I passed one in the street, and neither would you. People become addictive to legally prescribed drugs just as easily as illegal drugs.

I started drinking around sixteen, often been nicked and often allowed it to affect my actions and responsibilities, so what? I have friends who have been drinking and smoking dope since their teens; they hold down jobs and have families; again, so what?

The point I am trying to make is why do we allow some but not others? Nicotine is an addictive but legal drug, but smoking is socially unacceptable and tobacco products are banned from tv advertising and its products are shielded from public view in shops lest the young and vulnerable are easily enticed, but not alchohol. Why is that? I find that ludicrously hypocritical.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Scully

[Thunderbird]

 

Legal or not, they're all capable of becoming extremely addictive. I wouldn't know a neurofen addict if I passed one in the street, and neither would you. People become addictive to legally prescribed drugs just as easily as illegal drugs.

I started drinking around sixteen, often been nicked and often allowed it to affect my actions and responsibilities, so what? I have friends who have been drinking and smoking dope since their teens; they hold down jobs and have families; again, so what?

The point I am trying to make is why do we allow some but not others? Nicotine is an addictive but legal drug, but smoking is socially unacceptable and tobacco products are banned from tv advertising and its products are shielded from public view in shops lest the young and vulnerable are easily enticed, but not alchohol. Why is that? I find that ludicrously hypocritical.

 

 

Yep. Alcohol must have ruined more lives than all other drugs combined, worldwide.

[wandringstar]

Well, if we can use opioids to relieve pain (and of course as we all know Heroin is a derivative of one of these) then why on earth can't we use any naturally occurring substance to ease pain or symptoms of often debilitating conditions?

 

I have never taken Herion but I (like many on here will have) been on morphine in various forms a few times for some issues, such as a slipped disc and when I had a hernia op. It didn't make me want to go out and score some herion afterwards.

 

My point is that there is a massive market in the USA for the type of cannabis-derived drugs that don't make you high but from where you get the medical benefits, i.e. they contain CBD in higher quantities and lower or hardly any THC.

 

Contrary to what someone said above people do want the medical stuff in the same way that they want opioids when they're in pain but they don't want to be a smack head.

 

its all extremely difficult or impossible to argue with a logical post

[buze]

I think you need to differentiate *strongly* between the plant itself, the 'grass', and the resin that you can buy. I think grass is perfectly fine, and in small doses it probably has many beneficial effects.

 

However, the resin is indeed, evil. I've seen guys who smoked that stuff for years -- I worked with them in some cases, and they are just a shadow of themselves. I remember going to see a colleague at some point at his flat, I had I to go vomit as his place smelled of the resin so strongly it was unbearable. Potheads *never recover* once they've fried their brains with that **** (and it *is* called '****' in french slang)

 

However the /grass/ in very very small dose is quite fun. Again, as many mind altering substances, control is the key. *Tobacco* is also quite nice, in very small doses. I know it's not popular, but before the industry made it into a massively addictive drug it was quite OK. I still puff on the rare cigar if I get the chance (and the time!)

[mick miller]

I used to like the occasional pipe filled with Condor long cut, reminded me of my dear old grandad.

 

Couldn't stomach it these days though and I'm with you on the odour front Buze, although I find that it all smells utterly rank.

[wandringstar]

good post buze

[Danger-Mouse]

I think you need to differentiate *strongly* between the plant itself, the 'grass', and the resin that you can buy. I think grass is perfectly fine, and in small doses it probably has many beneficial effects.

 

However, the resin is indeed, evil. I've seen guys who smoked that stuff for years -- I worked with them in some cases, and they are just a shadow of themselves. I remember going to see a colleague at some point at his flat, I had I to go vomit as his place smelled of the resin so strongly it was unbearable. Potheads *never recover* once they've fried their brains with that **** (and it *is* called '****' in french slang)

 

However the /grass/ in very very small dose is quite fun. Again, as many mind altering substances, control is the key. *Tobacco* is also quite nice, in very small doses. I know it's not popular, but before the industry made it into a massively addictive drug it was quite OK. I still puff on the rare cigar if I get the chance (and the time!)

 

 

good post buze

 

Well, if wrong is good, then yes it's a good post.

 

The only difference between hash and weed is that hash can sometimes, but not always, contain a higher concentration of THC. However, where that is the case there is also often an increased amount of CBDs which generally subdue or change the effects of the THC.

[Danger-Mouse]

Cbd does seem to have some benefits whether they are real or placebo is another thing.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, modern cannabis is more about thc.

 

In the video the doctor mentions a trail done at a Jerusalem hospital. It was treating children who had cancer, and who, as a result of the strong anti-cancer medications they were taking, were suffering from vomiting and nausea.

 

The test began as a double blind, half the children received a dose of THC suspended in olive oil and the others only received the olive oil.

 

After one week the doctor running the study stated that she no longer wished to run it as a double blind test because she could clearly tell which children were recieving the real oil and which were on the placebo. Those treated with the real thing were no longer suffering from vomiting and nausea, those on the placebo still were.

 

The levels of THC delivered to the children were extremely low, far too low to cause any psychoactive effects.

 

The report was published but despite it's success was never followed up on.

[7daysinaweek]

Just watched the video and some interesting results.

 

Under the misuse of drugs act 1971 in relation to controlled drugs: cannabis is a class b drug, classification relates to the legal framework of the drug which relates to certain activities in relation to the drug. "The penalties applicable to the offences involving different drugs are graded broadly to the harmfulness attributed to a drug when it is misused and for this purpose drugs are defined in three classes. A,B&C". "Further more in relation to controlled drugs the of classes of person who are authorised to supply and possess controlled drugs whilst acting within their professional capacity. In regulation to the controlled drugs they are subdivided into 5 schedules each specifying the requiremets governing the import,export,production,supply, possession, prescribing and recording keeping which applies to them". Misuse of drugs act (BNF 2017 p:7)

 

Just to lob some examples at you in relation to classes of drug and certainly not exhausted:

 

class A:

cocaine, diamorphine hydrochloride (heroin) lysergide (lsd) methadone, MDMA (ectasy) morphine, pethedine, opium

 

class B:

codeine, cannabis, cannabiss resin, amfetamines, barbiturates, ketamine (some class b drugs become class A when prepared for injection, codeine phosphate is one of these)

 

class C:

includes certain drugs related to amfetamines, most benzodiazapines, tramadol, zopliclone for example. anabolic steroids

 

Currently through the MHRA (Medicines regulatory health authority) at present in its current form cannabis (indian hemp) cannot be prescribed at present as it has no approved medicinal use. (BNF 2017 P:7) However cannabis extract is licensed as a medicinal product. Cannabis extract is currently a pom (prescription only medicine) and is licensed for use as an addition in the management of moderate to specific muscle contortion in multiple sclerosis ( specialist use only, this means specialist in that area should prescribe or consulted before another prescriber initiates) Cost: £375 per spray vial under tongue. This drug is a direct formulation of TCH and CBD derived from cannibis (see video)ad is currently the only liscensed drug of its type in the uk.

 

Nabilone is a synthetic canniniboid which mimics THC and is used for the licensed management of chemotherapy induced nausea and vommiting unresponsive to conventional anti sickness medication. Also a pom. Cost: £196 per 20 capsules. 2-4, 1mg capsules per day for duration of treatment.

 

I regularly come across individuals who are having active chemotherapy for curative treatment and also at acute end of life who use cannabis in its raw and semi raw formats (smoked, oil under tongue, baked into cakes and oil rectally) i would say approx 15-16 years ago until about 2010-2011 saw maybe one or two people in a hundred., now a lot more, increasingly seeing people use it whilst having chemotherapy. Individuals tell me they seek its use for several reasons, pain, nausea, anxiety and psychological and coping strategy outside of current mainstream treatments both before and after current licensed and off licence evidence based treatments have been considered by themselves . Some individuals tell me they get benefit for some symptoms such as nausea, some say they have tried it and did not feel any benefit at all and some say had some increase of worsening symptoms. Others told me that taking their cannibis preparation for themself per rectally worked well for nausea given rectally. However did not help with self pain management by own admission was "very hit and miss" and made it more complex for for us to make accurate assessment and management of their pain.( just to throw in was told about three, four years ago that 1 months worth of oil treatment cost approx £1300 not just the drug companies making money) This is something that is well documented that use of use and abuse of both prescription and illicit medication can have impact on producing symptoms and also increasing them. I have experienced this many times.

 

For example if i have a person who has had a long term use of prescription pain killers or benzodiazepines then that person is not naive to that type of drug or sometimes biosimlar drugs (drugs that act in the same way and bind to the same receptors) and sometimes previous use of prescription drugs long term or recreational drugs can have a large impact upon how that persons symptoms are managed. For example a individual who uses illicit intravenous drugs off the street, or old Betty who has been on tramadol or codiene for years may require a lot higher doses of pain management more quickly than another individual who has not. Higher concentrations of drug increase risk of greater side effects which can result in increase risks of symptoms. Recreational drug use in many forms does blight lives and feel for those affected, all drugs both prescription and illicit if misused can have devastating affects, personally, socially and economically.

 

Whenever i prescribe anything, part of the process is to ask the person are they using any illicit substances both for recreational or self medicating, some individuals are reluctant to share true use of drugs both illicit and prescription, i ask them to trust me and be honest so that it may allow best possible assessment and management of their symptoms to take into account.

 

Some choose to take cannabis because they have read about its benefits online or from other relatives or friends, even before they have sought any advice for symptoms they may be experiencing and that can throw up problems in treatment and can produce additional or increased symptoms as i have given examples of. Sometimes taken when they have no physical symptoms but use for psychological and emotional support and have been told "it helps me to cope" Lot's of variables here and so many things to take into account that the scope of this thread could run for years. That said, i have seen prescription cannibiss extract used several time by individuals for specific symptoms which all current gold standard pathway medications had failed thus increasing quality of life for the individual which has to be a good thing!

 

Getting back to the video and the thread does medicinal cannabiss have a place in medicine ?, well i would think so if current research and development increases and derivatives can be proven to give pharmacological benefits which could appear so to an extent . We have opiod pain receptors all over our body and organs, we use the opium from the black poppy(Heroin) to make diamorphine and morphine (synthetic diamorphine) the most common used pain relief in the world. As the video shows there is now a developing understanding of the canniboid pathway and the benefits that canniboid proteins may bring in relation to management of disease and immune process in the body. Re the lack of progress surrounding it's research and development i wonder could big pharma has something to do with it? The big 5 so they are called are the top 5 drug companies in the world and have billions invested in R&D, wonder why they have not explored its benefits. Maybe some have and at present it is cost prohibitive, how would it be patented? Might be off track but here is an example, management of nausea and vommiting in patients having active chemotherapy Domperidone one months dose £9 if fails, Ondansetron approx 5 day dose to attempt to bring symptoms under control £75, if cost of the canniboid drug was, £200 a week would the nhs buy it?, this is something drug companies factor in.

 

 

 

It's use may appear to be controversial to some. Us who work closely with individuals who have to face many dreadful symptoms and uncertainty , don't we owe it to humanity if something shows possible demonstrative benefits that will increase quality of life that we should promote its research. If it led to drugs which had better efficacy and lower side effects and could be prescribed safely then why not.

 

Re the above: i am i no way supporting the use of illicit drugs in any way for anyone should they wish to use them for self medicating or recreational purposes.

 

Apologies for waffle, just had a glass of red!

 

atb

7diaw

Edited April 16, 2017 by 7daysinaweek

[Danger-Mouse]

Thanks for that 7diaw, interesting to hear a professional opinion on it, I take it you're a doctor?

 

You touched upon something I've heard before. That the lack of interest in research could be something to do with the difficulty in trademarking a particular strain of a plant. Even if that were possible I would presume that creating a similar strain would not be too difficult and therefore it would make cannabis related medicinal products a very competitive market, something that is probably not that appealing to big pharma?

 

I must say that I wasn't aware of the synthetic cannabinoids in medicine, so that's very interesting to me. Do you have any opinion on whether they are more or less effective than the naturally occurring cannabinoids?

 

"It's use may appear to be controversial to some. Us who work closely with individuals who have to face many dreadful symptoms and uncertainty , don't we owe it to humanity if something shows possible demonstrative benefits that will increase quality of life that we should promote its research. If it led to drugs which had better efficacy and lower side effects and could be prescribed safely then why not."

 

Irrespective of views on the recreational use of marijuana that sums up very well how I feel about it's medical use. It's a terrible situation when a naturally occuring substance, that could prove an immense benefit to society, in a medicinal way, is ignored because of the fear and negative image attributed to it.

[7daysinaweek]

Hi dm

 

yes i would think it would be a competitive market but also could be huge. I look at it like a cake mix and that the ingredients are out in the pharma supermarket, just a bit of red tape to get to buy some and all the prospective sellers of the cake could be competing to get everyone to taste theirs. What would be your unique selling proposition (usp ) How do you trademark lemon drizzle cake? If you can demonstrate that the particular active compound you have packaged into your drug has a benefit for symptom or symptoms then you can apply for the patent if not already patented. Patent you apply for the the drug last approx 20 years and can be extended in order for them to recoup r&d costs and profit sometimes up to a billion pound.

 

Take sildenafil citrate, many of you won't recognise it but if i tell you the brand name Viagra you will all know what it is. So when a company makes a drug it usually patents the brand and sells it under the brand name for approx 20 years, no one else can produce this drug through that period. When the patent expires, a commitee gives the drug a generic name ad then this can be produced by other drug companies. So now as the patent is off viagra the generic brand is sildenafil citrate. So what i suspect is happening is that drug company somewhere has filed for patents in the r&d stages, their always looking at everything. One of me mates brothers is a botanical scientist boffin and spends half his life in the amazon picking up stuff for drug companies that would frighten the pants off you in pharmacological and biological terms!

 

In relation to synthetic drugs in industry, some drugs are altered in the lab so that they mimic naturally occuring drugs found in their purest form. Take for example prescribed Diamorphine derived from the black poppy it is not far from its purest form, gives very good pain relief, however if the patient has a certain degree of renal dysfunction (kidney disfunction) may swap the drug to a synthetic form such as Alfentanil gives biosimlar properties as the waste products from the drug are much more readily excreted by the kidney thus reducing the risk of toxicity for the person.

 

Mostly in my experience patients have given good reports on using synthetic nabilone and cannbiss extract spray in managing symptoms versus when they took illicit cannabis by self medicating. As the patient symptoms had been not fully controlled to an extent with previous medication and patients self medicating. It's informed benefits could be for some of the following reasons and are by no means exhausted. Some of this could be placebo, if patient informs the prescriber that they felt no benefit from it they may be fearful that it may not be offered in the future when they feel they may really benefit from it. Because it is prescribed it must surely be better than just smoking it, so it must be working? or actually because it is taken in the format which it has been synthetically modified to enter the body in the best formulation, at the correct route, at the correct dose, at the correct time which is crucial to produce the optimal desired pharmacological result.

 

Patients have told me that smoking a big fat one can be hit and miss as the dosing and quality is not an exact science and some have felt wiped out. Very difficult to give a definitive answer and i know there is research going on around the use of illicit cannibis for management of symptoms, and there is a plethora of research on the net. As always it needs to be evidence based and peer reviewed. And again i would not advocate its use in any way.

 

Off to bed , just finished me bottle of red!

 

atb

7diaw

Edited April 17, 2017 by 7daysinaweek

[Wb123]

In the video the doctor mentions a trail done at a Jerusalem hospital. It was treating children who had cancer, and who, as a result of the strong anti-cancer medications they were taking, were suffering from vomiting and nausea.

 

The test began as a double blind, half the children received a dose of THC suspended in olive oil and the others only received the olive oil.

 

After one week the doctor running the study stated that she no longer wished to run it as a double blind test because she could clearly tell which children were recieving the real oil and which were on the placebo. Those treated with the real thing were no longer suffering from vomiting and nausea, those on the placebo still were.

 

The levels of THC delivered to the children were extremely low, far too low to cause any psychoactive effects.

 

The report was published but despite it's success was never followed up on.

 

nabilone, sativex, there are a few licenced cannabinoids and have been for ages.

 

If you want to do the research required to match the level of evidence needed for efficacy and safety it will take a good deal of cash which there is no model to get a return on investment for with the 'herbal' form.

 

By all means stump up the cash to do the work charitably, but the level the bar has been set at for drug licencing is such that the sums required are huge. It would take the biggest fundme of all time to run the trials required for even a very simple and straightforward licence application.

[7daysinaweek]

nabilone, sativex, there are a few licenced cannabinoids and have been for ages.

 

If you want to do the research required to match the level of evidence needed for efficacy and safety it will take a good deal of cash which there is no model to get a return on investment for with the 'herbal' form.

 

By all means stump up the cash to do the work charitably, but the level the bar has been set at for drug licencing is such that the sums required are huge. It would take the biggest fundme of all time to run the trials required for even a very simple and straightforward licence application.

 

Thanks for that wb, would have estimated the license runs into tens of millions, food for thought. What would be the barriers to research, can you eloborate on the model, are you saying the cost for liscensing is cost prohibiitive against the possible profit within the patent time?. I know from your previous posts you have some knowledge of the process of drug trials.

 

atb

7diaw

[Wb123]

Thanks for that wb, would have estimated the license runs into tens of millions, food for thought. What would be the barriers to research, can you eloborate on the model, are you saying the cost for liscensing is cost prohibiitive against the possible profit within the patent time?. I know from your previous posts you have some knowledge of the process of drug trials.

 

atb

7diaw

Hello

 

patentable cannabinoids have been tested and licenced without issue, and seem to work well for their licenced indications.

 

This debate however seems to be more akin to 'herbal cannabis has anecdotal evidence of effect in all manner of conditions, why cant it be prescribed for them?'

 

Where an indication appears well founded and a viable market for a drug exists that will allow adequate return on investment we all trust the free market to embrace development and produce adequate supporting evidence of safety and efficacy.

 

The problem is we dont seem to be looking at a clear indication with a viable market. People seem to be asking why we do not use a readily available substance not open to commercial protection as a licenced medication, to do so cannabis should be subject to the same scrutiny of safety and efficacy as any other medication.

 

The unstated assumption from many contributors seems to be that the large part of the costs involved in drug development are in finding a suitable chemical or group of chemicals, which in this case is already done. The problem comes that actually 90-95% of the development cost comes in the clinical trials and licencing applications process.

 

For a single indication one would expect costs of the order of a few hundereds of millions. Once licenced for one indication much of the phase one data would likely be transferrable but phase two and three (the really expensive bits) would need doing again.

 

Clearly industry funding is a nonstarter if there is no potential return. Charitable or goverment level funding could be an option but such work is not without risk of harm. We know drugs of potential abuse with licences are regarded by the 'unprescribed users' as safe, and unregulated consumption becomes an issue (in part due to availability of supply as well as perceptions).

 

personally i strongly suspect from tales my patients relate cannabis in one form or another (tea seems to be most commonly reported where i have worked), can be a useful agent for some people with some symptoms. Some of the compounds likely to be responsible have been licenced accordingly, although costs are such that they are not widely prescribed. When these drugs come off patent they are likely to become much more widely used, new compounds may be licenced for new indications and patents may be extended.

 

Nobody will be able to support the financial cost of producing licenced medication level data about cannabis as a street drug. To do so would also come with significant risks of harm to the greater fabric of society which would have to be measured against the potential gains.

 

The big issues with encouraging recreational cannabis use for me are lung disease (you see some spectacular cannabis related damage, the last rough estimate i heard was that it is about 50 times more destructive than an equivalent amount of tobacco), mental illness (chicken and egg issues here), and perhaps most profoundly it takes so long to metabolise to a level of impact on reaction time comparable with the drink drive limit that after a dose one should not be driving for several days. This is a huge issue where driving is so central to how our society functions.

 

Watch this space for when the current medications come off patent and become cheap enough to use for unlicenced indications, but until then cannabinoids are not going to fly clinically for the myriad of untested applications the popular press advocate.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Wb123

[Danger-Mouse]

Many thanks 7diaw and wb123, some really interesting stuff there.

 

wb123, as regards the lung damage caused by smoking cannabis you might want to take a look at this video. It's worth watching the entire thing but the relevent section on this topic is about 15 minutes in.

 

[buze]

Nicely relevant here. I personally like the idea, especially for the edible kind:

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/in-defense-of-weak-dad-weed-weedweek2017

[martyn2233]

http://news.sky.com/story/campaigners-call-for-digital-cannabis-market-for-the-uk-10849915