3 ms·

you realize that "decriminalization" is the same as 1800s snake oil salesmen at the world's fair right? the exact reason the FDA was created these substances n

you realize that "decriminalization" is the same as 1800s snake oil salesmen at the world's fair right? the exact reason the FDA was created these substances need to go through the FDA with per ailment clinical trials and side effects listed just like other substances reach parity with other approved drugs, alongside licensed distribution (like other drugs), treatment programs and education make options for consumers - like we're already doing at the state level with marijuana - but better options so they don't chose the black market supply

dekhn 3y ago
A few things to mention here. First, the government actually paid a university to grow cannabis and they gave it to glaucoma patients for decades without any interesting results (in my opinion probably because the grantees were more interested in getting repeated funding from NIDA than to publish things NIDA didn't want to see). Second, there have been a number of clinical trials on marijuana for quite some time with a wide range of results (it's a tricky drug to study for a number of reasons). For a long time, NIDA made it hard to get funding for this- and also constrained the supply- probably with the goal of preventing studies that would find efficacy. Third, I think the FDA system is really poor at evaluating a wide range of drugs (of which cannabis is an example). They have a really limiting mechanism that doesn't work well in "compassionate use" where we already have a good understanding of the risks from widespread use. Fourth, the FDA wasn't created to do this- it was created mainly to reduce consumer fear of drugs in response to absolutely horrific side effects. The drug that led to this, thalidomide, is approved by the FDA and used in the US as a highly effective medicine. I think in retrospect, it took the FDA so long to get here for political reasons, not scientific or medical ones.
- 57FkMytWjyFu 3y ago
  The product made by that university was whole plant, ground. It might have been paid to grow it, but it wasn't any good at it. https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/epeb6k/the_university_of_mississippi_remains_the_sole/ https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/epeb6k/the_universit...

dekhn 3y ago

A few things to mention here. First, the government actually paid a university to grow cannabis and they gave it to glaucoma patients for decades without any interesting results (in my opinion probably because the grantees were more interested in getting repeated funding from NIDA than to publish things NIDA didn't want to see). Second, there have been a number of clinical trials on marijuana for quite some time with a wide range of results (it's a tricky drug to study for a number of reasons). For a long time, NIDA made it hard to get funding for this- and also constrained the supply- probably with the goal of preventing studies that would find efficacy. Third, I think the FDA system is really poor at evaluating a wide range of drugs (of which cannabis is an example). They have a really limiting mechanism that doesn't work well in "compassionate use" where we already have a good understanding of the risks from widespread use. Fourth, the FDA wasn't created to do this- it was created mainly to reduce consumer fear of drugs in response to absolutely horrific side effects. The drug that led to this, thalidomide, is approved by the FDA and used in the US as a highly effective medicine. I think in retrospect, it took the FDA so long to get here for political reasons, not scientific or medical ones.

57FkMytWjyFu 3y ago
The product made by that university was whole plant, ground. It might have been paid to grow it, but it wasn't any good at it. https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/epeb6k/the_university_of_mississippi_remains_the_sole/ https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/epeb6k/the_universit...