- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DEA announces that marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 drug - like LSD & heroin
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:58 am to Elephino
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:58 am to Elephino
quote:
Perhaps you should go read my previous posts as well. I never compared it to LSD or denied medical utility. I gave a logical and true explanation as to why things are done the way they are. THC is legal and given in oral form. Sativex has so far failed in clinical trials on an expedited review.
You're trying to apply the FDA regulation argument to something that is already completely safe. There is no reason to synthesize it to control dose or anything else. This is what makes the sativex comparison retarded.
1
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:59 am to AjaxFury
I've already had a rant on the political board. And will probably join in on this thread. But for now, the only thing I have to say is this...
frick THE DEA!!!
frick THE DEA!!!
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:00 pm to ninthward
Unforeseen means that it cannot currently be predicted, but we can speculate. Minimums will certainly be important. Rapid, quantitative detection as well. A number of employers will implement a zero-tolerance policy for the sake of liability concerns - airline pilots, surgeons, city and school bus drivers. The list is endless. There have been a number of reports from Colorado and Washington describing the increase in marijuana detection in fatal car accidents. And yes I know those reports don't include impairment results. There is just no way to know until it actually happens.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:04 pm to Elephino
If it becomes widely legalized and detection for DUI under it becomes a high demand, some smart guy somewhere will figure out how to do it
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:05 pm to Elephino
quote:
There have been a number of reports from Colorado and Washington describing the increase in marijuana detection in fatal car accidents. And yes I know those reports don't include impairment results.
Which is why those studies have been bullshite.
Legalization means more adults have tried it. More often than not, occasional use. But when you smoke weed that's 25%+ thc, it stays in your system for a very long time. Often longer than the claimed 28 days.
Right now, if i were in a fatal wreck, I'd be part of that statistic. But I'm at work, drinking coffee.
Impaired testing is being developed. And while important to have, it shouldn't be am obstacle to legalization. All that does is continue to make many hard working, honest people into criminals.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:09 pm to Elephino
quote:
A number of employers will implement a zero-tolerance policy for the sake of liability concerns - airline pilots, surgeons, city and school bus drivers.
I think this is extremely overblown as well. I'd rather my pilot or doctor have smoked a joint the night before, than have gotten shite faced drunk. Cannabis doesn't give you a hangover. It actually can provide a more restful sleep, because it brings you straight to the deep sleep cycle. A hungover surgeon scares the hell out of me.
Now if people in those hazardous professions are under the influence while at work, them lock those bastards up. But what you do after work is your business if you don't come to work intoxicated.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:09 pm to Barf
You're arguing based on some irrational emotional attachment to the situation. The DEA schedules drugs based on things like FDA approved indication and addiction potential, not whether or not recreational use is safe. The Sativex comparison is completely relevant because it has been argued on this site and elsewhere that marijuana, hash oil, THC and CBD have therapeutic value. THC is proven and approved as dronabinol. So far, the combination of THC/CBD has failed in a trial for cancer pain, which is devastating to the "medicinal use" argument. There are multiple research groups and pharmaceutical companies desperately trying to prove exactly what what is being argued because they want to capitalize on it.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:13 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
but they also have seen reductions in violent crime and DUI's.
Prescription painkiller rate has decreased as well by a large margin which people suggest is a proxy for addict reduction
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:16 pm to CCTider
You might think it's overblown, but it will certainly become an issue for the courts to deal with. You don't think if a surgeon accused of malpractice is found to have detectable levels (even below the established minimum) in his blood that it won't be used against him? You can be found to be impaired even if you are below the legal limit.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:17 pm to Barf
quote:
Ok. You talk like you're clearly on the side of pro legalization and regulation. Yet you say things like you're not pro weed. Which side are you on?
He was talking about the standards that determine the rating. He was talking about the definitions and how marijuana does technically fit the description of schedule 1. He said nothing about thinking it should be illegal. It was actually very informative.
People like you and sabi in these threads get so caught up with parroting a given position that you don't bother to actually read and comprehend what is being said.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:21 pm to Peazey
quote:
People like you and sabi in these threads get so caught up with parroting a given position that you don't bother to actually read and comprehend what is being said.
This is very much the pot calling the kettle black. What makes his specific stance stupid is the FACT that a synthetic version of THC is in trials while the natural version is not because of it's schedule I classification. There was never any need to develop a synthetic version in the first place.
What is the motivation for a pharma company to create a synthetic version of THC and then put it through FDA trials? Why go through all that trouble? If it's not because of the schedule I classification, then what is the reason?
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:22 pm to Elephino
quote:
First, I am not anti- or pro- weed, though I find it incredibly disingenuous the number of people screaming for the legalization of "medicinal" marijuana as a means to recreational use. Just be honest.
First, you don't know what you're talking about. I guess you've never had someone close die of cancer that medicated using cannabis.
My friend who died of leukemia used it medically. He eventually stayed trading his oxycotin for bags of weed. Why? It eased his pain, allowed him to eat and his it down, and kept him lucid enough to hangout and enjoy his remaining time with his friends and family before he died.
I mostly use marijuana recreationally. But have also used it medically. Smoke a bowl with the flu, and try to claim it does't have medical benefits.
Prohibition has actually prevented breeding and creating strains that are heavy on a variety of cannabinoids. Instead, people have focused almost exclusively on high thc strains. It's only been a few years where high CBD strains have been developed. And there hundreds of different cannabinoids.
Google the endocannabinoid system. Your body evolved with cannabinoid receptors. Do you think that a coincidence?
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:24 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
You can a great healthy life and still smoke
Ok pothead
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:28 pm to Elephino
quote:
You might think it's overblown, but it will certainly become an issue for the courts to deal with. You don't think if a surgeon accused of malpractice is found to have detectable levels (even below the established minimum) in his blood that it won't be used against him? You can be found to be impaired even if you are below the legal limit.
I agree with you on this one, and it's a massive problem. Our judicial system has proven itself incapable of utilizing common sense. In the eyes of lawyers I fear they will determine you are impaired as long as THC can be detected.
An over simplified way of explaining it would be, you are impaired for a month after smoking a single bowl.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:31 pm to etm512
I don't remember driving under the influence of marijuana being a problem for me. Alcohol defiantly because of the loss of motor function. I'm sure there is some study somewhere that concludes marijuana has slower reaction times, etc. but I don't remember ever being too stoned to drive.
But then, I haven't had a toke in over 20 years, so perhaps I would be a hazard at this stage of life. (mid 50's)
But then, I haven't had a toke in over 20 years, so perhaps I would be a hazard at this stage of life. (mid 50's)
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:31 pm to Elephino
quote:
The Sativex comparison is completely relevant because it has been argued on this site and elsewhere that marijuana, hash oil, THC and CBD have therapeutic value.
Is sativex a natural or synthetic cannabinoid compound? I saw it was about 2.5% thc and CBD, or close to a 1:1 ratio. That's actually a very low dose. And does it account for the rapid tolerance growth for cannabinoids? If I want to eat am an edible, I'll take about 100 mgs or more. That would be 10-20x the dose most very causal users. would need to get high.
Basically, the equivalent of you needing a six pack to get drunk, but me needing 2-3 cases of beer to get drunk. The tolerance difference is dramatic.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:31 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Since 1968 the University of Mississippi has held the only license issued by the DEA to grow marijuana for research
My buddy had a student worker position there in undergrad. Said they were damn near strip searched every day. Showed me some pictures he took after sneaking in a camera. He wasn't proud of where he had to hide the camera.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:38 pm to Barf
quote:
I agree with you on this one, and it's a massive problem. Our judicial system has proven itself incapable of utilizing common sense. In the eyes of lawyers I fear they will determine you are impaired as long as THC can be detected.
An over simplified way of explaining it would be, you are impaired for a month after smoking a single bowl
Unfortunately, this is true.
Hopefully, urinalysis goes the way if of the dinosaurs. But that's unlikely, because that industry also has a powerful lobby.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:38 pm to CCTider
quote:
Is sativex a natural or synthetic cannabinoid compound?
quote:
1. Sativex is a marijuana extract.
Despite its pharmaceutical sounding name, Sativex is made from the cannabis plant itself. The company behind it, GW Pharmaceuticals, has openly stated that Sativex contains all of the same compounds found in cannabis.
The difference is that Sativex is manufactured using modern processes that allow the medicine to be standardized – meaning that each bottle of the spray contains the same concentration of active ingredients. The formula for Sativex includes a 1:1 equal ratio of THC to CBD.
A lack of standardization happens to be one of the main sticking points for doctors who hesitate to support medical marijuana.
2. Sativex is made in a country where cannabis is illegal.
Sativex is developed and manufactured in the UK, where GW Pharmaceuticals is based.
Despite the fact that marijuana remains illegal in the UK, even for medical purposes, the government issued a license to GW Pharmaceuticals in 1998 allowing the company to grow cannabis for research and development.
Currently, Sativex is an approved treatment in the UK. At the same time, advocacy groups are still fighting to have medical marijuana legalized in the country.
3. Sativex has all the same side effects as marijuana.
Since Sativex is made from cannabis, it also produces a high. While the ratio of THC to CBD may be less than that of more potent cannabis strains, Health Canada’s Fact Sheet warns that Sativex can still cause “symptoms of cannabinoid intoxication.”
Like cannabis, dizziness and fatigue are the most commonly reported side effects of taking Sativex. Sativex has also been confirmed to have no permanent effect on cognitive function.
On the other hand, Sativex is administered as a mouth spray and has been found to cause oral discomfort in 20-25% of patients. Medical marijuana users do not typically experience this problem and often rely on vaporizers to avoid the negative effects of smoking.
4. Sativex could hit pharmacies as early as this year.
Sativex has been gradually making its way through the FDA approval process. It is currently in Phase III trials, the final phase of clinical trials, as a treatment for cancer-related pain.
In early 2014, Sativex was granted Fast Track designation by the FDA in order to accelerate the drug’s approval.
GW Pharmaceuticals says it expects to receive final FDA approval within this year or the next. Once approved, the drug could be prescribed by doctors and sold in pharmacies across the United States.
5. Sativex is expensive.
The cost of Sativex in countries where it is approved has already proven to be a barrier.
In New Zealand, an average annual prescription of Sativex costs about $16,000 (US). Likewise, according to Professor Gavin Giovannoni of The London School of Medicine, Sativex has “not been proven to be cost-effective” in the UK, which has led a large number of MS patients to continue using illegal forms of cannabis.
The main problem for most patients seems to be a lack of insurance coverage. Still, companies face significant costs associated with obtaining clinical data that will satisfy health authorities. These costs often factor into the price that patients end up paying.
6. Sativex is not considered cannabis under federal law.
While some might think that FDA approval of Sativex would make it impossible for the U.S. government to continue defending its classification of cannabis as a Schedule I drug, it may not be that difficult after all.
As it turns out, Sativex has been given its own scientific name: nabiximols. Like other marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, such as Marinol (dronabinol) and Cesamet (nabilone), this allows Sativex to be scheduled separately from cannabis.
Most countries where Sativex is sold have used this approach in order to maintain a ban on medical marijuana.
7. Sativex may be useful for more than multiple sclerosis.
While Sativex is currently approved solely for the treatment of MS-related muscle spasticity, the drug is also being trialed for a number of other conditions.
Besides the company’s cancer pain trials in the U.S., Sativex is being studied in the UK as an add-on treatment for brain cancer. Previous studies have also suggested benefits in treating arthritis and neuropathic pain.
edit for quotes
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:39 pm to CCTider
quote:
First, you don't know what you're talking about.
There it is, the standard OT can't refute anything you've posted so you're stupid post. I do enjoy this place. You give an anecdotal account with an N of 1 vs a phase III clinical trial that showed no benefit over placebo and worse outcomes vs opioids in cancer pain. BTW, I am a medicinal chemists who also happens to be a professor in a school of pharmacy. I also am part of an article under review demonstrating the effects of a selective CB2 agonist in cytokine secretion during wound healing. But, I have no idea what I am talking about, especially with regards to CBs or the system in which they function.
Page 9 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News