Regarding the lack of scientific data on medical uses of cannabis

[Duer 157099]

Would you believe that, since 2005, there are over 1,000 scientific publications EVERY YEAR that have as keywords either: THC, anandamide or endocannabinoid.

Who came up with this nonsense that there's no "scientific data" about it's medicinal potential?

[Webster Green]

1. Narco pigs came up with the nonsense.

The DEA being the worst and most corrupt of the narco pigs.

Obama is too chicken-shit to call off the thugs, so....no change there. They still claim there are no medicinal benefits from cannabis, and no research to show any.

Reefer madness.

[merqz]

4. But it aint the "narco pigs" that pass these asinine laws

It's our elected politicians - dems and repubs alike. Obama is as bad as any of them, literally laughing at the idea of legalized mj. There are a hell of a lot of people in law enforcement who are all for decrim or legalization, yes... even some DEA agents.

Frankly, whether or not medical mj is effective is largely irrelevant to the legal issue. The legal issue is that somebody growing mj in their own house for their own personal use pursuant to script under medical mj (state law) is in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM a matter of interstate commerce and thus should not be under the purview of the feds. Even if one is against it as a policy issue, it is uncosntitutional (the SCOTUS was wrong) infringement on, dare I use this term... State's rights.

[RedCloud]

23. They would hate to eat their own "philosophical" bullshit.

[KT2000]

2. if it is anything like toxic chemicals

the research must be from an "acceptable" publication and it cannot have criticism. Most "acceptable" publications reject controversial research for publication.
Then, the research must be extremely specific.
At lwast, that is the game that is played with toxic chemicals so the corporations can continue to make money.

[Duer 157099]

5. Well as far as that goes, I'm sure that Science and Nature

are unacceptable publications for some people (those who refuse to accept science, that is).

I'm talking about peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, those found in a PubMed search.

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. A PubMed search like this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17945507?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Enhancement of endocannabinoid signaling and the pharmacotherapy of depression.Mangieri RA, Piomelli D.
Department of Pharmacology and Center for Drug Discovery, The University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

Cannabinoids are well known modulators of mood and emotional behavior. Current research supports a role for endocannabinoid signaling in the treatment of depression. Changes in levels of the cannabinoid CB(1) receptor or the endogenous CB(1) receptor ligands, anandamide and 2-AG, are observed both in humans suffering from depression and in animal models of depression, and experimental manipulation of CB(1) receptor signaling has also been shown to affect emotional reactivity in rodents. Importantly, inhibitors of anandamide inactivation have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing stress-coping and mood-related behavior. This article will review these areas of research, highlighting the potential of endocannabinoid metabolism modulators as therapeutics for the treatment of depression.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. "most 'acceptable' publications reject controversial research"

No, they only reject badly done research.

[RainDog]

3. it's simply progaganda

there is no way that Canada would allow doctors to prescribe Sativex (liquid cannabis) or allow pharmacies to distribute it if there were not compelling studies indicating its value...and there are and have been for more than a decade.

Germany and the UK have also joined Canada in the use of Sativex for MS.

Israel has a nation-wide cannabis medicine program.

This situation is one of those moments of cognitive dissonance... the DEA says there are no medical studies, while thousands of them exist and at least 4 democracies are implementing nation-wide medical use of cannabis.

It would be laughable - except the suffering the DEA insists upon perpetuating here makes it more like a crime.

[Scuba]

6. I can testify regarding my 45 years of cannabis use....

I enjoy excellent health.

[Blue Owl]

7. The final throes of expired propaganda

At that point it all just becomes outright bald-faced lies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. FYI, anandamide and other endocannabinoids have nothing to do with medical marijuana.

[Duer 157099]

9. Really? Nothing? Absolutely NOTHING? Are you sure?

Clearly you don't know how science is done.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Yes.

"Clearly you don't know how science is done."

You wouldn't believe how many pseudoscientific woo woos have told me that while simultaneously demonstrating their own ignorance.

They share a root, and a receptor.

That's it.

[Duer 157099]

11. Endocannabinoids are to cannabis as endorphins are to opium

But then you know that.

I suppose that the research into morphine and other opiates *before the discovery of endorphins* was completely useless information for those who would later study the opiate receptors and endorphins? The fact is they are inextricably connected, whether you want to see it or not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Right.

But endorphins don't have a thing to do with poppies.

[Duer 157099]

13. Describe for me, if you will, the chemical structures of

an endorphin and an opiate.

Then tell me how they have nothing to do with one another.

Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Why describe, when I can show you?

Here's morphine:



Here's an endogenous opioid.



Their structures don't have a whole lot to do with each other. Except that they both activate the same receptor (and to radically different degrees).

Research in enkephalins (example shown) has really has nothing to do with Papaver, or the various compounds found within.

[Duer 157099]

19. Reconcile these statements:

1) The structures have nothing to do with each other
2) They both activate the same receptor(s)

edit: for extra credit, describe the process of drug discovery

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. The process of drug discovery:

drug chemists find some lead for a new drug. Something that is active for some receptor, for example, or shows some other pharmacological response. The lead is sometimes from natural products, sometimes it's from some synthetic laboratory.

An effort is made to synthesize the molecule.

There's a series of SAR and QSAR experiments, creating a whole library of synthetic compounds with activity related to and often better than the original lead.

The original lead is very, very rarely the end product of all that synthetic research.

The discoverer gets a patent. There's a long and complicated series of trials to ensure the NCE is safe for human use. Drug enters the market, diseases are cured, inventors reap their just rewards.

"1) The structures have nothing to do with each other
2) They both activate the same receptor(s)"

Why don't you describe the similarities in the structure, besides activating the same receptor.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. The Scientific Facts of Pot

The Studies

Marijuana Fights:

Heart Disease
Cancer
Diabetes
Osteoporosis
Alzheimer's
Liver Disease
Epilepsy
Skin Allergies
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Anxiety and Depression

and is also Neuroprotective and Causes Neurogenesis (brain cell growth)

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

18. The only scientific data that matters is, the "war on" it is a giant fucking $$$ Gravy Train

That's about the only real justification for continuing the idiocy.

[LostInAnomie]

20. It's the same kind of disingenuousness...

... as those that claim to want to legalize pot for medical reasons.

[Duer 157099]

21. That's what I claim. Are you saying I'm a liar?

Frankly, I do not like the "high" part of cannabis and I have to practically force myself to take it when I need it FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES.

[LostInAnomie]

24. I'd say that 95% of those making that claim are liars.

If you are part of the 5% isn't for me to determine.

Honestly, if find the whole "pot is a miracle plant" argument tiresome and loaded with disingenuousness. Sure, it can be used to help with pain and get sick people to eat. But, so can a whole host of other drugs and products. Sure, hemp can be used for and number of uses. But, so can other materials. The grand majority of arguments you see for pot/hemp/THC/etc. are simply thinly disguised backdoor maneuvers from people that want to get high legally. They can dress it up however they want and they can wrap themselves in benevolence but all most of them want is to smoke pot without getting hassled.

[spanone]

26. silly post. surely your sarcasm icon is broken.

[Duer 157099]

27. I disagree. That's a very cynical position.

I won't try to convince you, but I know more people who use it medicinally than recreationally. And, like me, some really don't like the "high" aspect of the drug, so that is not the motive.

[Webster Green]

28. Bullshit!

Cannabis may not be a miracle plant in the strictest sense, but it is perhaps the most useful plant known to man. The fact that it is illegal is absurd.

Your post indicates that you know absolutely nothing about the subject, and you are a lost cause as to paying any attention to actual facts about the plant. Otherwise I would spend some time providing links to convince you that it is as close to a miracle plant as it gets. You would just tell me I was a crazed, dirty hippie, and to put down the bong.

Lamest fucking post of the week. Congratulations!

:hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. A well deserved reply.

:thumbsup:

[RainDog]

30. LOL

People can find there are multiple arguments for legalization that are valid. Your desire to engage in stereotypical thinking seems to indicate narrow mindedness - not any particular knowledge.

Tell me about another plant that has the same profile as hemp for industrial use because I'd really be interested to know about it - can you provide information about a plant that offers the same value as hemp for paper pulp, fiber for clothing, EFAs, nutrition, a replacement for petrol-derived products with a low need for pesticides, an annual crop that provides soil protection, weed suppression - please tell me about these other plants that offer the same level of benefits because I'm interested to know.

I'm interested in the cellulose profile of these other substances that make them comparable to hemp. What are they?

Tell me about the other substances that have the same benefit in carbon neutrality.

Studies that indicate the tumor suppression capacity for cannabis - tell me about another substance that offers this same in peer-reviewed research. Studies about a substance that kills cancer cells without killing noncancerous ones - that's a substance I'd like to know about.

Studies about another substance that binds to endocannabinoid sites to replace this depletion in people with MS - please tell me about these another substances. The same with people who suffer from CP.

Studies about a substance that offers relief from nausea, that makes it possible for cancer patients to maintain weight to fight off the devastation of chemotherapy - tell me about that other substance, please, because I'm sure cancer patients would like to know about it.

Studies about a substance that works to allievate chronic neuropathy that may be an aftereffect of chemo - I'd like to know about that one, too.

What other substance offers the same positive results for treatment of PTSD? I do know of one possible contender - ecstasy. Of course, anyone who thinks it's useful and valid to look into this only wants to use ecstasy, right? (wrong, but see the flaw in your thinking?) Not everyone regards the recreational use of ecstasy as something they're interested in - however, that same person might be interested in the medical value of a substance that can alleviate a particularly difficult problem that does not respond well to other known treatments.

And yet... people who also think it is totally valid to allow adults to use an intoxicating substance when that substance has never resulted in a death, when there is no known level of toxicity - why do you think it's valid to criticize that person? What bothers you about the idea of personal freedom?

maybe you're just a victim of propaganda.

[Romulox]

32. LOL at the Drug Warrior using an Aqua Teen avatar.

You're like the "straight edge" Pink Floyd enthusiast I once met. :silly:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. What makes you think he's a drug warrior?

[Romulox]

34. The fact that you are leaping to his defense is one data point.

But mostly, I was responding to his muddled argument, above (that's how a "threaded" discussion works.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. I'm not a drug warrior. I'm a proud pot smoker.

I have more respect for people who smoke pot then people don't.

That said, I don't think people who should support the recreational use of pot should be making ridiculous claims about its medicinal value. It doesn't help anybody.

[Romulox]

36. Almost inspires me to give the stuff up!

(almost)

[LostInAnomie]

37. LOL at someone that thinks they know shit about me.

People that want to use pot should simply say so. They shouldn't make dumb ass claims about it being a magic cure all or a panacea for all problems.

[Romulox]

38. All we know (or care) about is what you post here.

If you post Drug Warrior propaganda, expect to be called out on it.

"People that want to use pot should simply say so."

Who are you to tell people what to do? Anyway, looks like I got your number. :hi:

[LostInAnomie]

41. Haha...

"Who are you to tell people what to do?"

You're right. Adults that want to do whatever they want with their bodies should just shut up and live in the shadows. :rofl:

And somehow I'm the "Drug Warrior".

[RainDog]

39. So, are you going to list those other plants that have equal benefit?

I'm interested in knowing about them.

[LostInAnomie]

42. Who said anything about plants?

We live in the 21st Century now and aren't limited to what we can harvest from the land. Polymers and carbon fibers are stronger and much more useful than hemp ever could be. Modern pharmaceuticals provide much more powerful and longer lasting pain relief than pot. They can also provide much more effective treatments for diseases like cancer and glaucoma than even the most medicinal marijuana.

Just because a plant has multiple uses doesn't mean that it is the absolute best thing to use, no matter what pot enthusiasts will have you believe.

I really don't care if people smoke pot or not. I just want them to be honest about why they want it legalized.

[RainDog]

43. your pov

- is just that. but where is there any actual evidence - links to research. it's not enough to make a claim and think that is is any way convincing.

You haven't presented any evidence to back up your claims.

If this is such an obvious issue - I'd appreciate the education.

[LostInAnomie]

44. Basic common sense should tell you...

... that polymers and carbon fibers are stronger and have more uses than hemp. Hell, soy (if we are going to stick to plants) is infinitely more useful than hemp.

As far as pain killing goes compare the pain relief you get from smoking a joint to the meds they give you after having your wisdom teeth taken out. I can tell you from experience a simple lortab is a lot more effective.

If pot was actually as potent as pot enthusiasts say why isn't pot the leading treatment for cancer, glaucoma, or any of the other disease in countries where pot is decriminalized? Surely, doctors would want their patients to have the best medicines.

People can come up with all kinds of ridiculous rationalizations for why pot should be legal, and I'm not saying it shouldn't. But, they are mostly just rationalizations so they don't have to be honest about their motivations. If people want to smoke pot they should just come out and say "I'm an adult and I will do what I please with my body". Quit trying to dress it up as something it's not.

[RainDog]

45. Research is ongoing at this time.

into the use of cannabis as a cancer suppressing drug. there was a big trial in Spain that set out to establish the amt. used - and this is not about smoking a joint - this is about injecting cannabis into the brain at the site of a tumor. But setting this acceptable level for use is the first stage in any such trial.

Cannabis is illegal and classified as a schedule 1 drug which means the U.S. official position is there is no medical value. It is extremely hard to get approval for any studies. That's why most of the research has taken place in other nations and why Colorado, for example, wants to position itself for R&D in this field.

Doctors have been threatened with having their licenses revoked if they recommend cannabis. You are extremely naive if you think this nation gives a shit about its citizens when they have turf to defend.

Soy, btw, is not more useful and does not have the complement of EFAs that hemp does that, it just so happens, is the optimal for humans. Michael Pollan wrote a really interesting book about the interaction of humans and various plants in The Botany of Desire.

I find your claim is still not supported and see that you are also uninformed about some of the most basic issues surrounding medical cannabis but obviously that doesn't stop you from dissing the issue. not surprising, tho.

However, you allow your ignorance to make a claim of rationalization - when, in fact, none is needed. This is actually pretty funny. You don't even know what you're talking about.

[LostInAnomie]

46. Gee, if it's not about smoking a joint...

... maybe someone should tell all the people at the medical marijuana dispensaries. I'm sure if they found out they could get an injection with none of the stimulating effects they would jump at it. Someone should tell all the doctors the prescribed it to them that they might get their license revoked too! :rofl:

Marijuana has been studied to death. Don't believe me? Post a thread stating that there is no evidence that marijuana has any medicinal uses. You'll be beaten over the head by "studies" that "prove" otherwise.

You are dreaming if you think hemp is anywhere near as useful as soy. Soy number of soy uses and soy products is near limitless, including being a great source for Omega 3.

[RainDog]

47. Wow. You're sort of an embarrassment

but, obviously, still don't get it.

some people in the medical mj movement don't want cannabis approved for recreational use b/c they think it detracts from their work.

others, and that includes me, think that marijuana should be legal for recreational use and should not be conflated with medical use.

Hemp can be used for any petrol derived product. The cellulose in hemp is the longest of any fiber, which is why it is superior to soy for a variety of uses. EFAs are not just Omega 3 - the compliment of Omega 3 and 6 is what constitutes the ideal blend.

soy has more need for pesticide and requires better growing conditions than hemp.

anyway, believe whatever you like, because you obvoiusly will.

however, your posts demonstrate that you are pretty ignorant about the whole topic - and don't seem to care about the impact of bad laws on your fellow citizens.

That you laugh that doctors cannot prescribe cannabis (I'm not simply talking about CA, btw - there are 13 other states and DC that have medical mj laws - tho legislatures have tried to deny the will of the citizens who votes for these laws - and one way was to threaten doctors.

and you think it's funny for people with cancer to be unable to legally obtain the best medication for side effects from chemo.

you're a real piece of work.

[Incitatus]

48. People who want to make it legal for recreational use do say so.

I support making it legal for recreational use, and I also believe it does have medical benefits.

I can tell you I feel a hell of a lot better waking up after smoking the night before than drinking.

I won't claim pot cures cancer (and the people that make up ridiculous claims like that are a minority and not 95% like you seem to think), but it can do the same thing that some pills Pfizer would rather sell you can do.

[spanone]

22. 'reefer madness' is still the training movie at DEA

your dentist can use pharmaceutical cocaine on your teeth and gums, but he can't prescribe a joint...pure reefer madness

[cliffordu]

25. Is there a medical use for Cannibals??

......Oh, nevermind......

[Rex]

29. Common sense has no place in politics or making money fighting a weed.