4 ms·

One could properly dose this 9-year-old and make him "chill out." I have no doubt that it is possible. That said, I really agree with your argument. You make a

by gragas 10y ago

One could properly dose this 9-year-old and make him "chill out." I have no doubt that it is possible. That said, I really agree with your argument. You make a great case for legalization that isn't merely "oh hur dur look how my child mellows out on weed." Thank you.

ritchiea 10y ago
The case isn't "my kid mellows out on weed" it's "my kid has behavioral problems that prevent him from functioning at home & in school that are alleviated by weed".
- mcguire 10y ago
  The point, though, as I take it, is, would you be satisfied if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form?
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?
    - extra88 10y ago
      > What is the advantage of this over raw plant material? Consistency.
      - jMyles 10y ago
        In my experience (which is ample), consistency over the precise dosage != consistency over the effects. There's no doubt that consistency over dosage and precision is easier with isolated compounds. However, if consistent effect is the goal, I want to suggest that oral administration is not ideal in the first place, and that oral administration of isolated chemicals even less so. Achieving the latter is more accessible via slow, careful titration via vaporization or smoking of high-quality plant matter. This is the case at least for me and people I know, including several patients with otherwise debilitating illnesses. Additionally, I think that the ability to garden and grow medicines (not just cannabis, but plant medicines generally) is a great way for patients to gain some control (or at least the sense of control) over their illness. It also is often more economically viable as well.
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      "What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?" To a point, consistency. It might not even be pill form: vaporizers, inhalers, and other such things might work as well. It might be that the best way to do it is via hash instead of the unprocessed plant. All that said, there is some concern with the synthetic. I have a feeling the very reason the plant works better is because of the high. For example, MS patients have problems with muscles. Patients report better mobility and less pain, yet the muscles don't actually improve. It seems it just doesn't bother them - and I imagine some of the synthetics wouldn't produce this effect. It doesn't mean that synthetics won't work for some folks, though, and might be better for kids.
  - jungletek 10y ago
    It's been done already. The consensus, IIRC, is that it sucks compared to 'natural' forms, is too strong, lacks the 'secondary' active ingredients that many need/seek, and exists as a profit source and a source of control. https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 etc.
chrischen 10y ago
Yes and in fact we do basically give stimulants to roudy kids in the form of Adderall and Vyvance.
- jolux 10y ago
  Adderall and Vyvanse are basically the same thing, it's just that Vyvanse is the prodrug form that can't be insufflated for quicker delivery. It'll be the same as it is orally. Methylphenidate is a different beast altogether and not neurotoxic like the amphetamines are even though in therapeutic doses amphetamines are also extremely safe. The difference is that amphetamines are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and dopaminergic releasing agents while methylphenidate only inhibits dopamine reuptake alongside its effect as a CNS stimulant.

by gragas 10y ago

ritchiea 10y ago

The case isn't "my kid mellows out on weed" it's "my kid has behavioral problems that prevent him from functioning at home & in school that are alleviated by weed".

mcguire 10y ago
The point, though, as I take it, is, would you be satisfied if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form?
- jMyles 10y ago
  > if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?
  - extra88 10y ago
    > What is the advantage of this over raw plant material? Consistency.
    - jMyles 10y ago
      In my experience (which is ample), consistency over the precise dosage != consistency over the effects. There's no doubt that consistency over dosage and precision is easier with isolated compounds. However, if consistent effect is the goal, I want to suggest that oral administration is not ideal in the first place, and that oral administration of isolated chemicals even less so. Achieving the latter is more accessible via slow, careful titration via vaporization or smoking of high-quality plant matter. This is the case at least for me and people I know, including several patients with otherwise debilitating illnesses. Additionally, I think that the ability to garden and grow medicines (not just cannabis, but plant medicines generally) is a great way for patients to gain some control (or at least the sense of control) over their illness. It also is often more economically viable as well.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    "What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?" To a point, consistency. It might not even be pill form: vaporizers, inhalers, and other such things might work as well. It might be that the best way to do it is via hash instead of the unprocessed plant. All that said, there is some concern with the synthetic. I have a feeling the very reason the plant works better is because of the high. For example, MS patients have problems with muscles. Patients report better mobility and less pain, yet the muscles don't actually improve. It seems it just doesn't bother them - and I imagine some of the synthetics wouldn't produce this effect. It doesn't mean that synthetics won't work for some folks, though, and might be better for kids.
- jungletek 10y ago
  It's been done already. The consensus, IIRC, is that it sucks compared to 'natural' forms, is too strong, lacks the 'secondary' active ingredients that many need/seek, and exists as a profit source and a source of control. https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 etc.

chrischen 10y ago

Yes and in fact we do basically give stimulants to roudy kids in the form of Adderall and Vyvance.

jolux 10y ago
Adderall and Vyvanse are basically the same thing, it's just that Vyvanse is the prodrug form that can't be insufflated for quicker delivery. It'll be the same as it is orally. Methylphenidate is a different beast altogether and not neurotoxic like the amphetamines are even though in therapeutic doses amphetamines are also extremely safe. The difference is that amphetamines are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and dopaminergic releasing agents while methylphenidate only inhibits dopamine reuptake alongside its effect as a CNS stimulant.