A low-THC cannabis strain for treating severe epilepsy(5280.com)
5280.com
A low-THC cannabis strain for treating severe epilepsy
http://www.5280.com/healthandwellness/magazine/2014/04/tangled-web
32 comments
This is a really moving story and not the only of its' kind, but I also worry that a lot of people are being turned onto what we call CBD-only medical marijuana legislation, which is unfortunate. It is possible that some states or municipalities which are / were / will be ready for broader measures will take the half-measure of legalizing CBD-only treatments.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing to legalize CBD-only treatment.
If CBD is the valuable compound here, why combine it with THC?
Personally I think they should make it schedule 2 or 3 instead of 1 and let it be prescribed like all the thousands of other drugs - there is nothing special about marijuana that requires self-prescription.
Edit: Looks like they've done that: http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/02/111641/marijuana-derived-ep...
(Well actually I think people should be able to prescribe themselves anything they want as long as they pass a basic test on it, and take measures to avoid exposing other people - so smoking would be right out, but that's a different world.)
If CBD is the valuable compound here, why combine it with THC?
Personally I think they should make it schedule 2 or 3 instead of 1 and let it be prescribed like all the thousands of other drugs - there is nothing special about marijuana that requires self-prescription.
Edit: Looks like they've done that: http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/02/111641/marijuana-derived-ep...
(Well actually I think people should be able to prescribe themselves anything they want as long as they pass a basic test on it, and take measures to avoid exposing other people - so smoking would be right out, but that's a different world.)
see, you have already misinterpreted an incredibly well written article and gone down the boxed canyon road. I think it's a bad idea to _only_ legalize CBD treatments, because THC is also valuable. There are also hundreds of other unclassified compounds in cannabis which are valuable.
So what I'm concerned is, in some areas of the country where it is more difficult to pass legalization, some activists who probably know better will consider legislation that only allows very narrow compounds and in fact, it may be nearly impossible to create a plant that is not illegal under CBD-only legislation.
Cannabis has countless uses, but speaking as someone who has participated in the authoring and passing of legislation, it's not easily amended or revisited.
A lot of people who don't personally care about cannabis that much are willing to vote for cannabis legislation once in a while, but they just don't want to talk about it all the time. Passing legislation that is overly narrow on any issue that people don't want to talk about makes them feel as if they have accomplished something for another community, but they really don't want to have to go through all the details every year.
Medical Cannabis itself has been described as a box canyon, largely because there are tons of medicinal herbs that just happen to never have had a war waged on them which noone would _think_ of regulating in the slightest. The problem this creates, of course, is that, say, at a free concert in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco if I ask people to sign a petition to put a legalization measure on the ballot, they laugh and say:
That said, even with full legalization, medical cannabis will still be an important fight because it addresses the basic rights of people whose doctor have told them to use this substance. We're still fighting for legislation that prevents employers from being able to terminate a patient for cannabis use, and there are concerns about people on probation for non-drug offenses not being able to use it when in fact, it is often very helpful to them.
Anyway, Charlotte's Web is great, it's really amazing and beautiful that cannabis is able to provide this sort of relief to such young children, and it does need to be available, everywhere, right now, for everyone.
I'm just saying if someone is in a state and they think they can carry legislation across the finish line with stories like this, it's important to at least shoot for the bigger fight, because some children who have epilepsy may have parents, uncles, aunts, or grandparents with cancer or HIV and the munchies don't come from CBD. ;)
So what I'm concerned is, in some areas of the country where it is more difficult to pass legalization, some activists who probably know better will consider legislation that only allows very narrow compounds and in fact, it may be nearly impossible to create a plant that is not illegal under CBD-only legislation.
Cannabis has countless uses, but speaking as someone who has participated in the authoring and passing of legislation, it's not easily amended or revisited.
A lot of people who don't personally care about cannabis that much are willing to vote for cannabis legislation once in a while, but they just don't want to talk about it all the time. Passing legislation that is overly narrow on any issue that people don't want to talk about makes them feel as if they have accomplished something for another community, but they really don't want to have to go through all the details every year.
Medical Cannabis itself has been described as a box canyon, largely because there are tons of medicinal herbs that just happen to never have had a war waged on them which noone would _think_ of regulating in the slightest. The problem this creates, of course, is that, say, at a free concert in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco if I ask people to sign a petition to put a legalization measure on the ballot, they laugh and say:
"Dude, it's already legal!!"
That said, even with full legalization, medical cannabis will still be an important fight because it addresses the basic rights of people whose doctor have told them to use this substance. We're still fighting for legislation that prevents employers from being able to terminate a patient for cannabis use, and there are concerns about people on probation for non-drug offenses not being able to use it when in fact, it is often very helpful to them.
Anyway, Charlotte's Web is great, it's really amazing and beautiful that cannabis is able to provide this sort of relief to such young children, and it does need to be available, everywhere, right now, for everyone.
I'm just saying if someone is in a state and they think they can carry legislation across the finish line with stories like this, it's important to at least shoot for the bigger fight, because some children who have epilepsy may have parents, uncles, aunts, or grandparents with cancer or HIV and the munchies don't come from CBD. ;)
> in some areas of the country where it is more difficult to pass legalization
What do you mean area? Medical drugs are regulated by the FDA, not the states.
Unless you are talking about recreational use which is a different topic.
What do you mean area? Medical drugs are regulated by the FDA, not the states.
Unless you are talking about recreational use which is a different topic.
> Unless you are talking about recreational use which is a different topic.
No, it's still the same plant. Criminalizing its consumption is just flat out wrong.
Where's the FDA on regulating Traditional Chinese Medicine? You know, herbs and stuff?
What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs? Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
No, it's still the same plant. Criminalizing its consumption is just flat out wrong.
Where's the FDA on regulating Traditional Chinese Medicine? You know, herbs and stuff?
What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs? Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
>What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs? Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
Before you say "I can do anything I want/it's my problem/ freedom comes first", please consider the following:
- There is an asymmetric relationship between a customer and a manufacturer with incredible marketing power.
- You live in a society which invested in you, and although you might not value your life, it actually has value for said society.
- You are not alone, the problem isn't the loner consuming <whatever> but the accumulated effect on society when the behavior is widespread.
- When I'm ill I expect the drugs/treatments I take to either replace my symptoms will less unpleasant symptoms or cure me altogether. The purpose of testing and regulations are for people like me. You can call me a square if you want, but I think my expectations are actually widespread.
- "But we know the effect of <whatever>, I use it all the time, and no problem". Allergic reactions, interactions with other drugs, long term effects, interactions with diseases... So many possibilities...
Before you say "I can do anything I want/it's my problem/ freedom comes first", please consider the following:
- There is an asymmetric relationship between a customer and a manufacturer with incredible marketing power.
- You live in a society which invested in you, and although you might not value your life, it actually has value for said society.
- You are not alone, the problem isn't the loner consuming <whatever> but the accumulated effect on society when the behavior is widespread.
- When I'm ill I expect the drugs/treatments I take to either replace my symptoms will less unpleasant symptoms or cure me altogether. The purpose of testing and regulations are for people like me. You can call me a square if you want, but I think my expectations are actually widespread.
- "But we know the effect of <whatever>, I use it all the time, and no problem". Allergic reactions, interactions with other drugs, long term effects, interactions with diseases... So many possibilities...
Do you know how many FDA approved drugs kill people every year due to adverse reactions? How times drug companies have been caught selling FDA approved drugs that they knew to be deadly? How do you justify alcohol and tobacco being legal? Both directly kill millions.
How do you answer the actual question. On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?
Why not outlaw fatty foods like burgers and fries? That's the only thing that directly kills even more people than alcohol and tobacco. Why not arrest people for eating illegally fatty foods? Arrest illicit burger dealers?
If you had grown up in a world where fatty foods were illegal you would tell us all how our desire to eat fatty food is bad for society. You would be right. It is. It's also my right as a human.
How do you answer the actual question. On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?
Why not outlaw fatty foods like burgers and fries? That's the only thing that directly kills even more people than alcohol and tobacco. Why not arrest people for eating illegally fatty foods? Arrest illicit burger dealers?
If you had grown up in a world where fatty foods were illegal you would tell us all how our desire to eat fatty food is bad for society. You would be right. It is. It's also my right as a human.
Do you know how many FDA approved drugs kill people every year due to adverse reactions? [...]
I don't understand your point. You realize that mistakes or corruption happen, whatever system you have in place, it doesn't mean the system is wrong.
On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?
With that kind of argument you could say such things as "On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human because it possesses a piece of metal?" (weapon possession).
The problem is the balance between public interest and individual freedom. My point isn't that outlawing <whatever substance> is the way to go, my point is that you have to put everything in perspective and avoid overly simplistic principles such as "what matters is my individual freedom".
You have to appreciate that your freedom stops where the freedom of others start and that your actions have an impact on society as a whole.
It's not just a childish "I'm free to do whatever you want".
You are. If you live alone in the forest.
I don't understand your point. You realize that mistakes or corruption happen, whatever system you have in place, it doesn't mean the system is wrong.
On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?
With that kind of argument you could say such things as "On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human because it possesses a piece of metal?" (weapon possession).
The problem is the balance between public interest and individual freedom. My point isn't that outlawing <whatever substance> is the way to go, my point is that you have to put everything in perspective and avoid overly simplistic principles such as "what matters is my individual freedom".
You have to appreciate that your freedom stops where the freedom of others start and that your actions have an impact on society as a whole.
It's not just a childish "I'm free to do whatever you want".
You are. If you live alone in the forest.
Thanks for admitting that you "don't understand." I'll try a bit more, but you completely failed to refute or even adequately respond to anything I said so I'm not inclined.
How can you not understand that my freedom implies your freedom? How can I be free to live my life if society allows bad people to harm me? The world is not an abstract concept. Your attempt at speaking in riddles may convince you that you're right but it has no bearing on reality.
Calling freedom "childish" does not diminish it. Kings have been telling their subjects for millennia that they're not responsible enough to rule themselves. The fact that you feel this way is not surprising. It's a pessimistic and wrong viewpoint that is hard for many to even see let alone change their thinking on.
Your intellectually dishonest attempt at comparing an actual "simple flower" and a manufactured weapon (not "metal" as you pretend) is entirely specious. Deciding what should be regulated by society is not trivial, the question is how you make your decisions. Do you make your decisions based on maximizing personal freedom or someone's perception of what's beneficial for "society"?
...and this is where I realize this is probably an argument between a Constitutionalist American and a Chinese communist. We will probably have to agree to disagree.
How can you not understand that my freedom implies your freedom? How can I be free to live my life if society allows bad people to harm me? The world is not an abstract concept. Your attempt at speaking in riddles may convince you that you're right but it has no bearing on reality.
Calling freedom "childish" does not diminish it. Kings have been telling their subjects for millennia that they're not responsible enough to rule themselves. The fact that you feel this way is not surprising. It's a pessimistic and wrong viewpoint that is hard for many to even see let alone change their thinking on.
Your intellectually dishonest attempt at comparing an actual "simple flower" and a manufactured weapon (not "metal" as you pretend) is entirely specious. Deciding what should be regulated by society is not trivial, the question is how you make your decisions. Do you make your decisions based on maximizing personal freedom or someone's perception of what's beneficial for "society"?
...and this is where I realize this is probably an argument between a Constitutionalist American and a Chinese communist. We will probably have to agree to disagree.
So your point is that because it's a plant, it's not a drug and not under the purvey of the FDA?
If that's the case then it's still a federal matter and not a local one.
> What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs?
A test of knowledge of what they do, and in what situations they can harm. Not a morality test since I think that's what you are scared of, but a test to make sure you know what you are doing.
> Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
Because most people are idiots and will take anything without thinking if it's a good idea or not.
I don't want to tell people what to do, but at least demonstrate that you are doing it with knowledge and not with randomness.
If that's the case then it's still a federal matter and not a local one.
> What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs?
A test of knowledge of what they do, and in what situations they can harm. Not a morality test since I think that's what you are scared of, but a test to make sure you know what you are doing.
> Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
Because most people are idiots and will take anything without thinking if it's a good idea or not.
I don't want to tell people what to do, but at least demonstrate that you are doing it with knowledge and not with randomness.
> I don't want to tell people what to do <snip>
Bullshit. That's exactly what you want.
Bullshit. That's exactly what you want.
And with this the discussion is over.
I was expecting better, although I guess I shouldn't have been since you almost never responded to any of my points except to attack.
It's an effective tactic I guess - the NRA does it to, they attack any law about guns no matter how reasonable - and it works!
I guess that's how politics works these days, so, keep it up???
PS. If you could humor me, just one question: From all I wrote, am I for or against legalization?
I was expecting better, although I guess I shouldn't have been since you almost never responded to any of my points except to attack.
It's an effective tactic I guess - the NRA does it to, they attack any law about guns no matter how reasonable - and it works!
I guess that's how politics works these days, so, keep it up???
PS. If you could humor me, just one question: From all I wrote, am I for or against legalization?
You appear to be for legalization as long as the participants pass your test for "valid consumption".
I could also argue with a "new earther" or holocaust denier and try to give them a chance to make the nuances of their argument be known. But I choose not to because I know that they're wrong. As with you.
You have no grasp of the damage that has been done to society by the illegality of cannabis or the reasons that it's been done. Hint: it was never about the safety of those consuming it.
I could also argue with a "new earther" or holocaust denier and try to give them a chance to make the nuances of their argument be known. But I choose not to because I know that they're wrong. As with you.
You have no grasp of the damage that has been done to society by the illegality of cannabis or the reasons that it's been done. Hint: it was never about the safety of those consuming it.
that's simply an ignorant response, you clearly have not read the news for twenty years.
these laws exist, they are being passed every year, congress is currently working on legislation to de-fund the DEA in medical marijuana states, but some states actually have completely broken laws that won't be revisited because the voting populace says, "we already did this!". See: New Mexico.
these laws exist, they are being passed every year, congress is currently working on legislation to de-fund the DEA in medical marijuana states, but some states actually have completely broken laws that won't be revisited because the voting populace says, "we already did this!". See: New Mexico.
CBD is more effective when combined with THC. The effective range is about 1:5 to 1:40.
Pass a basic test? Written? Fill-in the blank? Multiple-choice? What would it test? The potential user's conformance to your ignorance about the effects of cannabis?
Your idea is basic as hell, that's for sure.
Your idea is basic as hell, that's for sure.
A test demonstrating knowledge of the proper time to use a drug, common side effects, and warning signs.
I thought it was obvious. What would you test for?
> The potential user's conformance to your ignorance about the effects of cannabis?
A bit obsessed with cannabis are you? The test is before being able to self-prescribe ANY drug.
I thought it was obvious. What would you test for?
> The potential user's conformance to your ignorance about the effects of cannabis?
A bit obsessed with cannabis are you? The test is before being able to self-prescribe ANY drug.
What test do you insist people pass before consuming alcohol or tobacco? What about sugar?
> What test do you insist people pass before consuming alcohol or tobacco?
The same test, and lower the legal age too. Or given current realities, leave the age alone with no test, and with a test a lower age.
But as far as smoking goes you have to make sure to filter the smoke by some method and don't expose others.
> What about sugar?
Yes, sugar can be harmful, but it's hardly in the same class.
The same test, and lower the legal age too. Or given current realities, leave the age alone with no test, and with a test a lower age.
But as far as smoking goes you have to make sure to filter the smoke by some method and don't expose others.
> What about sugar?
Yes, sugar can be harmful, but it's hardly in the same class.
> Yes, sugar can be harmful, but it's hardly in the same class.
It is certainly more addictive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
It is certainly more addictive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
European society thought of sugar as a drug for hundreds of years and it was traded in the British empire mostly by opium traders.
My school required all fraternities, sororities, and independent living groups to have something like 50% (or was it 80%?) of their members TIPS certified (alcohol training) in order to hold events with alcohol present. I actually found the training fairly useful.
It would be interesting to have an alcohol license marker on your state-issued photo ID, similar to how most states make a motorcycle license an extra indication on an automobile license. It would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the US, but it would be interesting.
It would be interesting to have an alcohol license marker on your state-issued photo ID, similar to how most states make a motorcycle license an extra indication on an automobile license. It would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the US, but it would be interesting.
There is no fucking test, and no reason for one. You think you're trying to protect people but this kind of thinking is dangerous and you're too arrogant to understand that. Or a troll.
1. cannabis doesn't cause impairment of motor skills in those who are accustomed to it's effects
2. cannabis smoke doesn't cause cancer because it's not radioactive like tobacco smoke.
2. cannabis smoke doesn't cause cancer because it's not radioactive like tobacco smoke.
what? all smoke is carcinogenic
Nowadays when people smoke cannabis they don't actually combust the flowers instead what they do is heat them gently until the point where the water which is contained in the plant material turns into vapor so that the medicine can be inhaled. This way you don't get any of the trace toxins that are created when you burn carbon and you don't waste medicine by incinerating it.
Just ask anyone who lives in a medical cannabis state and they will attest that this is how it's done, the same applies for concentrates.
Just ask anyone who lives in a medical cannabis state and they will attest that this is how it's done, the same applies for concentrates.
It does nothing to counteract the most harmful effects of prohibition: law enforcement resources squandered on crime associated with production/distribution, loss of goodwill between law enforcement and "criminals" involved with drugs, convicted offenders losing basic rights and access to resources that would help them to come clean and contribute to society, artificially inflated prices that also lead to crime and divert commerce from other sectors of the economy, users ingesting tainted drugs or switching to more harmful but more accessible drugs, ...
depends on the illness. cbd helps with seizures, but not e.g. ptsd
[deleted]
Cannabinoids are very interesting. They're naturally occurring in both plants and animals and researches believe the Endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays a very large role in homeostasis. Cannabinoids have even been shown to induce apoptosis (essentially reversing cancer cell growth).
Within different strains of marijuana you get different ratios of different cannabinoids (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.) and the self-medicators have discovered that these different ratios are good for treating different ailments.
I'm a firm believer that all cannabinoids need to be fully legal (and the cannabis plant material) so they can be studied in greater detail. I believe one day we'll see cannabinoids in our daily vitamin and mineral supplements (probably not the intoxicating kind though).
Within different strains of marijuana you get different ratios of different cannabinoids (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.) and the self-medicators have discovered that these different ratios are good for treating different ailments.
I'm a firm believer that all cannabinoids need to be fully legal (and the cannabis plant material) so they can be studied in greater detail. I believe one day we'll see cannabinoids in our daily vitamin and mineral supplements (probably not the intoxicating kind though).
Epilepsy is not the only condition this plant cures, far from it, it's just the most dramatic because you can measure the decrease in seizures so rapidly.
Fantastic writing.