CBD reclassified as medicine in UK from November 1st 2016

[Werewolf]

It doesn't bring about increased safety, how many people in the UK have been harmed by dodgy CBD before the regulation?



Did you not read what I wrote? In practice things are not prescribed when technically available and indicated.

How do you measure it when it's not been regulated or measured?
Do you know that the stuff you've bought from Holly's Holistic Health Care is the same standard and mix from one week to the next?

Medicines are regulated specifically so that you can get repeatable results, knowing the amounts and minimising the dangers to the user, in many cases too much of the active ingredient is bad for you, or if you're using the "natural" version you're likely getting active ingredients that have other effects that aren't medically beneficial (or may have major side effects).

People have gone on about the medical benefits of various drugs for decades in an attempt to get them legalised, yet when the part of the drug that is actually beneficial is made available in the same manner as other medical drugs they complain.
It's almost like a lot of the time they're less worried about the medical benefits of what they're taking, but are more interested in what might be classed as medically unwanted side effects.

 

[Minstadave]

It doesn't bring about increased safety, how many people in the UK have been harmed by dodgy CBD before the regulation?

We wouldn't know because it's not regulated, there's no quality control or reporting mechanism.

I don't get the logic - you want CBD for medicinal use as it's a wonder drug but don't want it to be treated as a medicine because it's inconvienient? If it's as good as you say then it should be made available to others in a safe and regulated form.

 

[Energize]

How do you measure it when it's not been regulated or measured?
Do you know that the stuff you've bought from Holly's Holistic Health Care is the same standard and mix from one week to the next?

Medicines are regulated specifically so that you can get repeatable results, knowing the amounts and minimising the dangers to the user, in many cases too much of the active ingredient is bad for you, or if you're using the "natural" version you're likely getting active ingredients that have other effects that aren't medically beneficial (or may have major side effects).

People have gone on about the medical benefits of various drugs for decades in an attempt to get them legalised, yet when the part of the drug that is actually beneficial is made available in the same manner as other medical drugs they complain.
It's almost like a lot of the time they're less worried about the medical benefits of what they're taking, but are more interested in what might be classed as medically unwanted side effects.

How do you know any product is the same from one week to the next? How do you know a bag of flour doesn't contain ricin? You have the manufacture/retailers word and that's it at the end of the day.

Having an incredibly expensive licence doesn't change that. All it does it smother competition from smaller retailers ultimately reducing consumer choice.

We wouldn't know because it's not regulated, there's no quality control or reporting mechanism.

So zero published harm.

I don't get the logic - you want CBD for medicinal use as it's a wonder drug but don't want it to be treated as a medicine because it's inconvienient? If it's as good as you say then it should be made available to others in a safe and regulated form.

As good as I say?

I think that drugs/medicines should be available to anyone who wants them. A doctor can prescribe a drug whether it's regulated as a medicine or not in the UK. By regulating a drug what happens is it becomes less available and that is a bad thing.


Guys if classifying something as a medicine simply meant that a certain standard has to met in order for a licensed pharmacy to sell it I'd be saying "great".

However it does not mean that. It means an end to everyone selling it without a licence, that is a very different thing. What's worse is that to obtain that licence requires gargantuan investment, ultimately in a country with an already established market for CBD the only ones who benefit from this are the big pharmaceutical companies, not consumers.

 

[Minstadave]

There's zero published harm from snorting brick dust on a Tuesday whilst standing on your head - not sure that means it's harmless.

 

[Energize]

I'm not saying that there is no potential for harm from unregulated CBD, just that the idea that unregulated CBD sales are inherently harmful is not evidence based. Licensing is no assurance of quality either, there are numerous cases of regulated medicines being contaminated in some way or another as we hear about on the news from time to time.

Currently the situation in the UK is that doctors can already prescribe CBD, pharmaceutical companies can supply CBD, and patients can buy that CBD.

Licensing therefore simply serves to prevent patients buying it from whomever they want and forcing them to buy it from distributors that the UK government hands a licence to. All in all a great deal for those one or two suppliers, not such a great deal for existing CBD consumers and retailers however.

 

[Glaucus]

How do you know any product is the same from one week to the next? How do you know a bag of flour doesn't contain ricin? You have the manufacture/retailers word and that's it at the end of the day.

Having an incredibly expensive licence doesn't change that. All it does it smother competition from smaller retailers ultimately reducing consumer choice.



So zero published harm.



As good as I say?

I think that drugs/medicines should be available to anyone who wants them. A doctor can prescribe a drug whether it's regulated as a medicine or not in the UK. By regulating a drug what happens is it becomes less available and that is a bad thing.


Guys if classifying something as a medicine simply meant that a certain standard has to met in order for a licensed pharmacy to sell it I'd be saying "great".

However it does not mean that. It means an end to everyone selling it without a licence, that is a very different thing. What's worse is that to obtain that licence requires gargantuan investment, ultimately in a country with an already established market for CBD the only ones who benefit from this are the big pharmaceutical companies, not consumers.

just utter lol, you don't agree with it so you just write absolute nonsens.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Medicinesinfo/Pages/Safetyissues.aspx

so yes it absolutely does ensure better standards unlike a totally unregulated area, where you have no idea if its even cbd. which is as bad as homeopathy in many areas, with so many bs claims that its a miracle drug for everything under the sun.

no %%%%%%% harm, you are as bad as the homeopathy group. there is clear harm, some studies have even shown it to increase in cancer rate. Let alone when people self diagnose and self "treat" using bogus claims. it is far from no harm.

 

[Minstadave]

I think that drugs/medicines should be available to anyone who wants them. A doctor can prescribe a drug whether it's regulated as a medicine or not in the UK. By regulating a drug what happens is it becomes less available and that is a bad thing.

Drugs available to everyone that wants them? Without prescription?

Can't see any problem with that....

 

[Energize]

just utter lol, you don't agree with it so you just write absolute nonsens.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Medicinesinfo/Pages/Safetyissues.aspx

so yes it absolutely does ensure better standards unlike a totally unregulated area, where you have no idea if its even cbd. which is as bad as homeopathy in many areas, with so many bs claims that its a miracle drug for everything under the sun.

no %%%%%%% harm, you are as bad as the homeopathy group. there is clear harm, some studies have even shown it to increase in cancer rate. Let alone when people self diagnose and self "treat" using bogus claims. it is far from no harm.

Hilarious. I contrast the purchasing of a drug from a licensed market vs an unlicensed one, and you turn it into an unrelated rant about the harm of CBD as a substance in and of itself which I never addressed at any point...

On the subject of assessing harm of a substance for medical licensing purposes though, Prof Milton Friedman provides a good explanation as to how organisations like the FDA and MHRA do enormous harm.

Drugs available to everyone that wants them? Without prescription?

Yup.

Can't see any problem with that....

Compared to the prohibition we have now which has resulted in disaster it would be a panacea.