Wales approves cannabis-based medicine

[Tefal]

Actually there is a lot of anecdotal evidence claiming that to be the case... at least for certain cancers... I would like to see it validated... but guess who funds these studies...

... yup, you guessed it... the industries that profit far more from treatment than cure.

That's not to say that people searching for a cure wouldn't have the right idea at heart.

It may be these reports have other mitigating factors, but it remains that more research should be completed.

ermm curing cancer makes you a **** ton more money than "treating" it.

unless you're one of those people who doesn't understand the difference between a cure and a vaccine.

curing it means that you're the first choice in treatment with no competition, people are always going to be getting cancer and even once they're cured there's a very high chance they will develop it again.


also there's the massive PR coup of saying "hey we cured cancer don't you reckon our cold remedy is better than the other guys?"

but again all this talk of curing cancer is a bit of a misnomer, given we already have cures for various cancers.

 

[Tefal]

Easy with **** test / blood test.

I wouldn't much like him on alcohol either... nothing to stop that in the same vein, really...

we have breathalysers for alcohol. the ****/blood tests as well cant define when you smoked it.

Again... the idea of the odd silly person doing something silly stopping the majority from having their freedom... it's the kind of mentality that gets everything banned.

What if that crane operator had had no sleep the night before and came to work... this is a higher risk than having someone who had just smoked operating the crane.

and we actually have rules for that too believe it or not, when they're moving hundreds of millions of pounds of product a day, they're taken seriously.

Had that operator had a spliff the night before but not the morning before work... he would have had a good nights sleep and been refreshed for work... but no, he made a mistake due to lack of sleep and dropped a toilet on your fat head...

YOU do not have the right to dictate to me what I do in my own time with my own body... go **** yourself

but how can we prove when he took it?

hence it would just become policy for all work places with machinery to keep their current rules ANY drugs in your system when tested = fired.

a policy likely followed by the police with cars.

given its detectable for weeks that defacto bans it for nearly all working people.

 

[crinkleshoes]

we have breathalysers for alcohol. the ****/blood tests as well cant define when you smoked it.


and we actually have rules for that too believe it or not, when they're moving hundreds of millions of pounds of product a day, they're taken seriously.

And breaking those rules is the same thing that you are talking about

Only you would rather ban everything for everyone rather than be at the small risk of a small percentage breaking a rule in a tiny percentage of usage scenarios... how is that reasonable?

Better not have any cough medicine that morning either... because... omg... HOW CAN YOU TEST that someone doesn't have a cough?

It's silly scaremongering / worrying for a 1 in a million chance...

Responsible use vs irresponsible use... the same trouble we have with alcohol

 

[mattyfez]

So out right ban being the only workable solution atm.

Well that's what we have currently, and it's not really working very well. It's also costing a lot of resources, police being one of many, I think it's safe to say that the law doesn't matter when it comes to cannabis, too many people use it for too many reasons.

To acociate it with anti social behaviour is quite short sighted, just because all a-holes may smoke, it does not follow that all who smoke are a-holes.

The main reason I don't smoke any more is that it's just too damn strong these days, and that's a direct consequence of prohibition. Supply and demand.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Well that's what we have currently, and it's not really working very well. It's also costing a lot of resources, police being one of many, I think it's safe to say that the law doesn't matter when it comes to cannabis, too many people use it for too many reasons.

To acociate it with anti social behaviour is quite short sighted, just because all a-holes may smoke, it does not follow that all who smoke are a-holes.

The main reason I don't smoke any more is that it's just too damn strong these days, and that's a direct consequence of prohibition. Supply and demand.

And in UK... cash croppers prefer to go for these strong indica strains that can be harvested earlier... rather than a higher/heady/energetic sativa high that is better for creativity/socialising/etc.

Indica's can be 6-8 weeks from flowering phase begin to harvest... whereas a decent Sativa will require 10-12 weeks and give a much lower yield.

People seem to love this mooning effect that I'm not a fan of either.

One of the best smokes I've had was a natural-grown sativa from the hills of south africa... no breeding, just how mother nature grew it and probably sub-10% THC content... unlike some of the headline strains from NL/UK/Canada that claim 30% now.

I know what you mean - but you can pad those stronger ones out with filler or use less in a bong/vape.

So yes... a side-effect of prohibition

 

[mattyfez]

And in UK... cash croppers prefer to go for these strong indica strains that can be harvested earlier... rather than a higher/heady/energetic sativa high that is better for creativity/socialising/etc.

Indica's can be 6-8 weeks from flowering phase begin to harvest... whereas a decent Sativa will require 10-12 weeks and give a much lower yield.

People seem to love this mooning effect that I'm not a fan of either.

One of the best smokes I've had was a natural-grown sativa from the hills of south africa... no breeding, just how mother nature grew it and probably sub-10% THC content... unlike some of the headline strains from NL/UK/Canada that claim 30% now.

I know what you mean - but you can pad those stronger ones out with filler or use less in a bong/vape.

So yes... a side-effect of prohibition

You can, but due to the illegality, most strains, as you rightly say, seem to be racing to the top of the THC race.. I'd much rather have a more balanced plant, rather than these silly 20% or more THC strains we see now.

They are just not pleasant to smoke.

 

[Jonnybmac]

Wow.

I can smell the weed over here...

Do you usually make assumptions like that? To be honest, I'm not even sure how you created that sentence from what I just said.

a)To make it abundantly clear, Conspiracy BS I have heard various Weed users say:
Chemtrails....
9/11
Sport was created as a distraction so you don't question anything
Sugar is in everything because it stops you asking questions

b)Comfortable slavery isn't a conspiracy. Its a fact (Unless you aren't referring to the fact that the western world pay factory workers in the 3rd world basically nothing), See we can both assume


To who ever asked, When I said long term I basically meant consistently for about 1 year.

IMO it doesn't take very long at all for the lazy-ness, shocking memory, lack of motivation and crazy beliefs to kick in if you're on it for a decent amount in that length of time.

Lazyness is in the person, not the drug. It can aid in influencing your life, but it does not control you, that is up to the person and if it wasnt cannabis it would be something else.

your views are actually quite ignorant. Im 27 years old and have smoked weed constantly since i was at the age of 13/14.
I've recently just completed the 3 national peaks in 22 hours 25 minutes, all of which I had a doobie at the top and bottom of each mountain, in february I completed the yorkshire 3 peaks.
I attend work 40 hours a week, I also do sufficient overtime. I've also just completed 5 years of part time study at college, whilst also doing an access open university module along side it and completed all with grades of over 90% and my highest being 98%. Im a weekend dad which leaves me little to no time left to be de-motivated. I've always held down a job and can never once say cannabis has influenced my life in anyway.
Any mistakes I have made in my life are down to me; thats not me being naive, thats all down to the person.

Im under no illusion that cannabis can make you a little lethargic, but if you moderate it then I see no problem with it and smoking sativa's rather than heavy indica's reduce this feeling somewhat. I try not to smoke it on a night as it does leave you feeling like you havnt had as good a nights sleep as if I have. It does has negative effects but so does anything else, but like everyone else it can be used respectfully and I dont see why I should be labelled like a criminal for smoking it, or cannabis labelled like its some sort of mind controlling drug when clearly it isnt.

I also dont beleive in any conspiricy theorys, and are quick to dispute any tin hat theorys. Again that is the person and not the drug that controls that. I could say the same when I see so many doctors and highly educated people who are so brainwashed with religion yet clearly dont take drugs(to my knowledge)

too many ignorant people on these forums.

 

[crinkleshoes]

You can, but due to the illegality, most strains, as you rightly say, seem to be racing to the top of the THC race.. I'd much rather have a more balanced plant, rather than these silly 20% or more THC strains we see now.

They are just not pleasant to smoke.

Yes - it's something else that is supposed to have an effect on the "mental issues" potentially associated with the plant... high THC vs low CBD.

These substances should balance themselves out within the plant.

Another issue of early-harvest (which is a side-effect of prohibition) means that plants are high THC but extra-low CBD.

I've had some like that... didn't like it... could really feel the difference... reason I started growing was because the quality from my supplier kept getting worse and worse... just as I describe... early-harvested crap that was just no good to smoke.

Turned out home-grown was the best I've ever had the pleasure of sampling, even above most I could find in Amsterdam.

We're thinking about moving to the south of this country where it is legal to grow 4 plants per person for personal use. Although running a coffeeshop in A'dam or another city is highly tempting... just awkward for non-nationals to setup, i believe.

You can get these other more-natural strains... it requires purchase online on the dark web for me though...

 

[Xordium]

There is a lot of misquoting on the actual damage that smoking cannabis can cause. As someone who regular looks at the scans of the actual damage it does cause in the brain I think I can categorically say that there are a few things that are obvious and the bulk of the research backs this up.

a) Cannabis is harmful in the developing brain - it actually changes the way growth occurs and is likely to cause longterm damage that is organically grown and can't be cured.
b) Cannabis is harmful in pushing someone who is genetically loaded towards certain mental health issues into developing those issues.
c) Cannabis usage is also attractive to those people who are genetically loaded
d) In the over 21 age group where people have no overriding family history of mental health problems and used in moderation then the damage cannabis causes is quite low down the actual scale of all drugs.

I tend to find people either accept points a, b and c or just d but never a, b, c and d for some strange reason.

 

[Eliot]

No... simply explanation of human nature and noticing of the greed that is rampant.

These are for-profit industries - do you disagree with this statement of fact?

Completely unrelated to this specific industry... things like car insurance... why should anything that is a requirement be a for-profit industry? This only drives abuse of the system that has been put in place to protect people.

Systems initialised with a publicised idea of protecting people, subsequently abused by those who are in the position to control those industries.

Do your research before you start belittling people for no good reason.

Yes car insurance should be a for profit industry.

 

[Angilion]

Good luck rejecting morphine... state approved heroin... if you need it in a hospital.

For the sake of accuracy, I'm going to point out that morphine is not "state approved heroin". Diacetylmorphine is heroin (heroin was simply a brand name for diacetylmorphine). Not quite the same thing, although morphine is still the active part of it (diacetylmorphine is essentially a very efficient way of getting morphine into active use in a person). Although the morphine used in UK hospitals often is diacetylmorphine because it's so effective.

Same argument could be used for alcohol too... drunk people drive into trees more frequently than stoners... do you believe that should be made illegal again? Prohibition worked well in the US... as we saw a dramatic increase in organised crime rate, murders, etc... it's the illegality of the industry combined with a large demand that causes the problems... actual use does not.

Outlawing a previously legal drug isn't the same as legalising a previously illegal drug. The fact that one drug is legal isn't by itself a compelling argument for making another drug legal.

The paranoia... was that really about everything and anything? Or was it primarily driven by its illegal status? Maybe I was just lucky, but the only paranoia I ever found while smoking was due solely to its illegality.

Pharma-approved prescription medication has also led to more death / injuries... we ban that too because of a small percentage of risk?

The illegal status has cause the end to so many lives, it's use - barely any.

Cough syrup has caused more accidents...

The illegality of cannabis has killed very large numbers of people? Really? Can you prove that?

Comparisons with legal drugs and most especially with legal recreational drugs look counter-productive to me. Tobacco and alcohol cause almost all directly drug-related deaths - is that really the comparison you want to make?

Also, comparing the very small number of deaths caused by cannabis either as the sole cause or a contributing cause with the very slightly larger number of deaths caused by prescribed medicines (using the same criteria) serves at least equally well as an argument for keeping it illegal on the basis that the illegality of it reduces the number of deaths. Risk is the reason why many medicinal drugs are only available by prescription. So at best that comparison would be an argument for making cannabis available only on prescription and only on medical grounds and only when prescribed by a doctor.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I don't drink and have never used any illegal drugs. Reason I have never used drugs is simple, I am not a smack head. And I don't care if people say weed is different than heroin etc etc, if you use any of them you are scum of the earth.

You sir are an absolute tool.

 

[crinkleshoes]

For the sake of accuracy, I'm going to point out that morphine is not "state approved heroin". Diacetylmorphine is heroin (heroin was simply a brand name for diacetylmorphine). Not quite the same thing, although morphine is still the active part of it (diacetylmorphine is essentially a very efficient way of getting morphine into active use in a person). Although the morphine used in UK hospitals often is diacetylmorphine because it's so effective.

So you state it's different then state it is the same

Outlawing a previously legal drug isn't the same as legalising a previously illegal drug. The fact that one drug is legal isn't by itself a compelling argument for making another drug legal.

That's not the argument I was making, I was comparing his argument to another.

Also easy to point out the person who will smoke before going to operate a crane will not care whether it is legal or not in first instance. So the comparison is moot anyway.

Him using a theoretical that is perfectly applicable to many other substances available on the market or simply sleep deprivation is no viable reason to keep a substance illegal... just because some twit is worried about what 1 person in a million might happen to do in a mis-use environment... how silly and absurd that such comparisons can be drawn without rising equal uproar.

The illegality of cannabis has killed very large numbers of people? Really? Can you prove that?

Ending of life is not necessarily the same as killing.

Many in prison for no good reason & the illegality causing the black market which leads to death...

Comparisons with legal drugs and most especially with legal recreational drugs look counter-productive to me. Tobacco and alcohol cause almost all directly drug-related deaths - is that really the comparison you want to make?

To state it is significantly less harmful than those "legal" drugs... yes, sure... that is a valid comparison.

But my specific comparison is not directly related to the harm, which is stated by others, including state-approved researchers with many degrees in the subject who a subsequently fired for providing respectably weighted opinions that their commissioners did not approve of.

I have a very simple point... prohibition does not work... even if you choose to look at it as an issue, which I do not, prohibition causes more problems than it fixes and only goes to benefit those we would not normally like to benefit.

We have reasonable examples of this within the past century with the prohibition of Alcohol in the US... along with the prohibition of other substances the world over.

If you wish to solve an "issue", you need to remove the demand... criminalising people does not do that - it is painfully obvious.

Why fight a war that cannot be won? (money?)

Also, comparing the very small number of deaths caused by cannabis either as the sole cause or a contributing cause with the very slightly larger number of deaths caused by prescribed medicines (using the same criteria) serves at least equally well as an argument for keeping it illegal on the basis that the illegality of it reduces the number of deaths. Risk is the reason why many medicinal drugs are only available by prescription. So at best that comparison would be an argument for making cannabis available only on prescription and only on medical grounds and only when prescribed by a doctor.

It's a naturally growing plant... it's hardly the same as a prescription medication and should not be treated as such.

Have you actually had a look into the history of this plant's illegality?

Your post (and many others) suggest that is not the case.

 

[deltalinx]

Is this nutter implying that weed treats cancer now?! hahaha

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/health/cannabis-landon-riddle/

Am I a nutter now?

His mother says his condition has improved so much following treatment with medical marijuana that chemotherapy isn't needed.

Do your research before your jump to assumptions.

 

[Burnsy2023]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/health/cannabis-landon-riddle/

Am I a nutter now?

Do your research before your jump to assumptions.

I think you should do some proper research first. That article holds little if any weight in an argument without some sort of proper scientific controlled study which as far as I can see is absent.

As for my personal 2p, I have no issue in THC being used in medicine, in fact I have no reservations in anything being used in principle as long as there are the clinical trials to show it's safe and effective.

 

[Mynight]

His mother is a recently ex heroin addict.

The "article" linked also said chemo was continued.

So what you have there is proof chemo and cannabis together cause remission. Chemo has been proven to cause remission alone there's nothing saying the cannabis actually helped more than staying the nasty side effects of chemo.

It is medical cannabis which is about as different from the lets get high stuff as possible. It contained little thc and high levels of cbd afaik cbd is the one already in use in medical treatments.

Also its CNN .

 

[deltalinx]

Just Google leukemia and cannabis, so many results.

 

[crinkleshoes]

I think you should do some proper research first. That article holds little if any weight in an argument without some sort of proper scientific controlled study which as far as I can see is absent.

As for my personal 2p, I have no issue in THC being used in medicine, in fact I have no reservations in anything being used in principle as long as there are the clinical trials to show it's safe and effective.

And have you seen how much fun it is to get trials funded that aren't well supported?

Not just for this... fringe scientific ideas too...

I would very much like more trials to be conducted... most definitely!

 

[Mynight]

I would love to see more research go into this but that CNN link proved nothing.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Just Google leukemia and cannabis, so many results.

:/

Google leukemia and elephants. Over 370,000 results!!!!!