Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

Feel free to come along to one of the PTSD groups we support and tell them that cannabis oils don’t help.
Thanks for the invite for a few coldies mate I'm as much a larrikin as the next bloke I mean don't go off but I don't live in Oz so no wucka's, she'll be right.
 
I couldn't care less how you make your stuff. Essential oils aren't medicines! What's wrong with you.

This is an order of magnitude less complicated than the gene therapies I work on btw. You simply don't understand the development of medical treatments.
That’s because I’m not in the business of developing medical treatments.

We make cannabis oils for research, not medicines. CBD oils aren’t medicines. You can walk in to Holland and Barrett and buy a CBD oil over which there is no more control over manufacturer than there is over olive oil.

Why are other cannabis extracts treated as such?
 
Last edited:
I’ve not made a therapeutic claim. I’ve simply related what I have been told. I’ve not witnessed anything beyond someone who reports that his tumour has shrunk and his pain has been significantly relieved since taking cannabis oils. Given that his doctors told him that wasn’t going to happen and are amazed that it has, I’d say it evidence to start research.

I’ve PMd you.
I'm glad that his tumour shrank, regardless of why. And maybe cannabis was the reason, who knows?

I agree with continued research into therapeutic uses for cannabis.

The possibility exists that cannabis can actually make some cancers worse, not sure if this has been proven.

I too have seen anecdotal evidence of positive effects for some people.
 

Nick Dipples

War Hero
That’s because I’m not in the business of developing medical treatments.

We make cannabis oils for research, not medicines. CBD oils aren’t medicines. You can walk in to Holland and Barrett and buy a CBD oil over which there is no more control over manufacturer than there is over olive oil.

Why are other cannabis extracts treated as such?
The alternative / complimentary therapy therapy and health food market is stuffed full of sham therapies so if you want to be taken as seriously as healing crystals and homeopathy then that sounds appropriate.
 
Is that the firearms argument then, you gonna ban them too? , oh that’s right they are controlled even in America. Cigarette usage is dropping. The point is that no one knows the long term affects (yes I know of some of the clinical trials driven by vested interest) . You can make projections but that’s what it is.
Just like the Tobacco lobby stalled stating the claims for so long, the Alcohol lobby stalled it for so long etc etc.

And I don't get this whole "genie is out the bottle, so forget about it" argument...if we used that everywhere else, we would still have slaves, tons of guns floating around in the UK and elsewhere (oh wait, in the U.S. we actually do..) etc etc..
 

Yokel

LE
I have previously mentioned the book Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed. He briefly outlines double blind randomised control trials. Could these be used to test CBD type products against a placebo?

Likewise, can a double blind RCT be used to test for long term effects of anything that is legalised before letting the weed out of the bag?
 
The thing alcohol and weed have in common, is most people who over indulge, get silly, giggle and fall asleep.

Sadly, others get nasty and paranoid, and want to hurt and kill, and you can go well past your stop point with weed...... some people shouldn't be allowed near either.
 

Nick Dipples

War Hero
I have previously mentioned the book Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed. He briefly outlines double blind randomised control trials. Could these be used to test CBD type products against a placebo?

Likewise, can a double blind RCT be used to test for long term effects of anything that is legalised before letting the weed out of the bag?
Good questions and I haven't read that book. Are you talking about just safety of the general use of them or testing for effectiveness for a treatment? There is a lot to consider and defining the question is important.

Your second problem is the more difficult one. In this case you want to do a safety study about a rare but severe potential adverse reaction to something in a product. Millions of people take cannabis and a very small proportion develop debilitating mental health issues, and this is suspected to be higher than the general population. A RCT isn't really the right study to detect rare events as the timescales and sample sizes needed are too big. It wouldn't be ethical to give 50,000 teenagers a potentially harmful substance and 50,000 a placebo for 5 years and measure the rate of schizophrenia diagnoses in both groups.
A case-control study would probably be best for looking at long term safety of cannabis in general as you will adjust for confounding factors - but obviously that doesn't apply to a specific product. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext

For your first question, placebo controlled RCTs are often considered the gold standard for registrational studies but aren't necessarily the best choice in every case. It depends on the disorder you're treating and the rationale for the treatment.

If you want to evaluate Bob's Patent Skunk Oil for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer then a trial of BPSO vs placebo would be unethical. A trial of docetaxel + BPSO vs docetaxel + placebo might be ethical if there is preclinical evidence and biological rationale for the combination. However, if you are testing a treatment that is very obvious - say a highly psychoactive substance like Bob's - there is not a lot of point in the placebo control. But a properly designed study could see if there's a treatment effect. But this is probably not worth doing until you have shown initial efficacy and safety in a single arm trial, compared to historical controls.

So it depends on what is being tested and for what purpose. Sorry if that is an unsatisfying answer!
 

Yokel

LE
No I meant for treatment of something less serious - such as anxiety or migraine. Or a topical treatment for an annoying skin rash....

As someone who cares for a disabled Mother who had a Stroke, and despite what she and other thought (including the doctor!) the 'natural' stuff was not keeping her blood pressure down, I kick myself for not been more forceful in making her try another anti-hypertensive, and just put up with the side effects, I am not keen on anecdotes being used instead of logical reasoning and hard statistics.
 
Last edited:

Nick Dipples

War Hero
No I meant for treatment of something less serious - such as anxiety or migraine. Or a topical treatment for an annoying skin rash....

As someone who cares for a disabled Mother who had a Strike, and despite what she and other thought (including the doctor!) the 'natural' stuff was not keeping her blood pressure down, I kick myself for not been more forceful in making her try another anti-hypertensive, and just put up with the side effects, I am not keen on anecdotes being used instead of logical reasoning and hard statistics.
Sorry to hear that. That sucks but also sounds very much not your fault.
 

Serpico

Old-Salt
@Nick Dipples is CBD "highly psychoactive", or indeed at all? Anything which causes a psychoactive reaction in the brain is illegal after the 2016 act. A CBD seller I know has taken extensive legal advice on the matter and continued to sell it, he was also recently raided and had all his stock seized, I'm reckoning he'll get it back.

Interestingly it's apparently very tricky to prove in court that a substance is psychoactive
 

Nick Dipples

War Hero
@Nick Dipples is CBD "highly psychoactive", or indeed at all? Anything which causes a psychoactive reaction in the brain is illegal after the 2016 act. A CBD seller I know has taken extensive legal advice on the matter and continued to sell it, he was also recently raided and had all his stock seized, I'm reckoning he'll get it back.

Interestingly it's apparently very tricky to prove in court that a substance is psychoactive
Not my subject, but no it isn't as far as I know. As I understand it the 2016 law is not very practical.

The WHO says it basically isn't psychoactive. https://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/5.2_CBD.pdf
 
Until the 1950s hemp was legal. It wasn’t called cannabis except by biologists and the term marijuana hadn’t been invented. People made clothes out of it, people made paper out of it and a few people smoked it. Oh and people like my grandfather who had a chemists shop in Small Heath made medicines out of it.

Then powerful lobbies like the duPonts and Randolph Hearst sought to ban it because their nylon and paper businesses were affected. Step forward 30 years and the US couldn’t make protesting against Vietnam illegal but they could make what they smoked illegal. So we ended up with a completely unnecessary demonisation of hemp.

Pushing it underground meant that drug dealers hybridised hippy dope into skunk and fucked with the brains of kids. And it meant that no real research has been done on the medicinal benefits of cannabis.

I’ve seen people utterly screwed by doctor prescribed opioids get off them by taking a simple tincture of cannabis. The one my grandfather made 70 years ago. I’ve seen people with terminal cancers live far longer than their doctors told them they would. I’ve seen know people whose tumours have shrunk and disappeared. I know lots of people, including many ex soldiers, whose PTSD is managed by taking cannabis oils. And I’ve seen plenty of young people who suffer massive anxiety issues from smoking skunk as kids turn thelr lives around through taking oils.

So no, those of us who promote legalising medicinal cannabis do not do so because we want to get stoned. We do so because it works and because we are constantly lied to by big pharma. Do not confuse medicinal cannabis and dope.

Hit several nails directly on the head Bob
 

Serpico

Old-Salt
Aye, that's my understanding too.

However, if you are testing a treatment that is very obvious - say a highly psychoactive substance like Bob's - there is not a lot of point in the placebo control.
Bit naughty of you to say that then eh? ;) That said, it's fantastic to have an actual doctor* commenting on the thread. I personally believe CBD has a lot of potential, but it does freak me right out when I hear of folk eschewing regular cancer treatments in favour of it. Although I would bet my last quid that smoking weed after chemo would help reduce the sickness and allow them to eat and keep food down, which I guess is highly important when that ill.
 
The tall hemp shown grown in the previous video I posted is not Cannabis Sativa, it is Cannabis Indicus, which has a much lower THC content. Hemp is useful for many things other than paper and rope. It can be used for clothing, the seed can be used for food products, and when mixed with other things it makes first rate building material.

Add biodegradable food packaging, fast food containers.... the list is endless. It's easily and quickly grown too... ecologically sound... as green as Kermit's bum.... yet the powers that be still insist on banning it!
 
I’ve seen people utterly screwed by doctor prescribed opioids get off them by taking a simple tincture of cannabis.

So no, those of us who promote legalising medicinal cannabis do not do so because we want to get stoned. We do so because it works and because we are constantly lied to by big pharma. Do not confuse medicinal cannabis and dope.
Regarding Opioids...if you have time to watch..


Click here for a shorter version...will start at the legal prescription side of things...

 
Last edited:

Nick Dipples

War Hero
Aye, that's my understanding too.

Bit naughty of you to say that then eh? ;) That said, it's fantastic to have an actual doctor* commenting on the thread. I personally believe CBD has a lot of potential, but it does freak me right out when I hear of folk eschewing regular cancer treatments in favour of it. Although I would bet my last quid that smoking weed after chemo would help reduce the sickness and allow them to eat and keep food down, which I guess is highly important when that ill.
Not at all, Bob was complaining about not being able to flog THC-containing extracts, and in any case my hypothetical Bob's Patent Skunk Oil doesn't sound like the weak sauce.

I'm not a doctor and I apologise if I gave that impression, I am a clinical scientist responsible for global multi-centre cancer studies. My clinical experience is in oncology and I now work in industry.

I'm also not opposed to treatments that are properly evaluated, regulated and manufactured, but I am highly sceptical of cannabis based cure-alls because of the fanatical true believers that are desperate for it to be beneficial for everything.
 

Serpico

Old-Salt
Not at all, Bob was complaining about not being able to flog THC-containing extracts, and in any case my hypothetical Bob's Patent Skunk Oil doesn't sound like the weak sauce.

I'm not a doctor and I apologise if I gave that impression, I am a clinical scientist responsible for global multi-centre cancer studies. My clinical experience is in oncology and I now work in industry.

I'm also not opposed to treatments that are properly evaluated, regulated and manufactured, but I am highly sceptical of cannabis based cure-alls because of the fanatical true believers that are desperate for it to be beneficial for everything.
Oh, sorry old boy, I thought he was still talking about his CBD stuff. And no need for apologies, you didn't give that impression. I stuck a * beside doctor but forgot to add at the end "*not sure exactly what class of medical professional you are, but you obviously know your sh*t"

Yes, I'd agree with your last para entirely. I'd worry people facing terminal illness would be taken in by veiled promises rather than scientific evidence, and indeed they may well be very susceptible to that due to their mental state.
 
@Nick Dipples is CBD "highly psychoactive", or indeed at all? Anything which causes a psychoactive reaction in the brain is illegal after the 2016 act. A CBD seller I know has taken extensive legal advice on the matter and continued to sell it, he was also recently raided and had all his stock seized, I'm reckoning he'll get it back.

Interestingly it's apparently very tricky to prove in court that a substance is psychoactive
CBD is not psychoactive; the WHO guidance is clear. It’s available without prescription from health food shops.

THC is psychoactive, but only in its decarboxylated form. In the plant and in cold extracts it is in the acid form of THC-COOH. Burning decarboxylates the THC, removing the COOH molecule. That’s why dope smokers smoke marijuana and don’t eat salads of cannabis.

In theory, one could heat a full spectrum cannabis tincture to get high, but no one sane would do so. It would be a very expensive high. CO2 extracts can be made for vaping, but not with MCT oil as the solvent. So nobody buys full spectrum medicinal marijuana products for their psychoactive effect. In reality making cannabis oils removes cannabis from the recreational market.

So what we have is a situation where the authorities ban a product because one of it’s ingredients could be abused if it wasn’t processed into an oil.
 

New Posts

Top