3 ms·

> I checked wikipedia. It says there are more than 120 known cannabanoids Don't look up the number of sugars or proteins. > Imagine you went to a doctor with

> I checked wikipedia. It says there are more than 120 known cannabanoids Don't look up the number of sugars or proteins. > Imagine you went to a doctor with a headache and he handed you 120 pills then said "None of these are labelled, but 15 of these will help with your headache, 60 will do random things to other parts of your body, 20 will cause negative side effects, 3 will make your headache worse, and 13 will get you a little high." This is a lovely straw man, but not representative of the situation under discussion. Humans have cultivated cannabis for greater than 5,000 years, longer than many domesticated foods, which are similarly chemically complex. Do you trust the farmer that that carrot is going to have the desired effect if you eat it? Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. > selectivity breeding it to have a little more or a little less of each Oh sweet summer child, selective breeding is so much more complicated than you seem to understand. > Most have pretty specific mechanisms of action that are understood before we prescribe them. Throughout most of human history, most drugs have been discovered empirically without any understanding of how they function at all. Having worked with molecular biologists, I'd say it's an enormous stretch to say we understand much about how we work. No comprehensive model exists, outside of testing on real humans, for evaluating the effects of a drug.

mapontosevenths 1y ago
> Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. I'm really not sure what our disagreement here really is. I think we're both agreed that modern Cannabis is fairly fit for it's purpose. As you say, they've been doing 'human experimentation' with it for thousands of years and it's evolved alongside us. I just also think that we shouldn't halt progress at the level of farming a plant because it's "good enough." We have new tools available to us now, and we should use them. To try and rephrase: All I'm really saying here is that we should try to understand HOW those cultivars work, and optimize by extracting the useful bits or by synthesizing variations on them in a lab. That way we can minimize the side-effects and maximize the benefits. Are you opposed to that? If so why?
- timschmidt 1y ago
  I agree that we should work to understand mechanisms of action. However, I am aware of the enormity of the task, and I don't think we will have molecularly accurate complete pictures of how any drug affects us until we have complete virtual models on which to emulate and evaluate in detail. And that is a long way off. It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines, which I think is unwarranted. The organisms around us are far more sophisticated than any human construction, our senses are incredibly finely tuned sensors, and selective breeding is an enormously powerful tool. Because these were available to ancient humans, people often make the mistake of thinking them simplistic, outdated, or somehow superseded by modern technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. It is no accident that plants an animals around us produce compounds which are useful to us. We are all genetic relatives. Until we understand our own biology fully, and that of the plants and animals upon which we depend, I believe there is much it can teach us. One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    > It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines That's a fair criticism. I'm an engineer not just by training, but by nature. When the only tool you have is an engineer, every problem looks like it can be solved with better engineering. So far in life that's mostly worked out well for me. > One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well. Similarly, it seems to me that you may be unfairly biased against man made solutions. The problems you describe are just engineering challenges. Difficult ones to be sure, but we have some very clever scientists and some very sophisticated tools that are improving at a non-linear pace. We may not crack the nut this week, but someone will eventually. > From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. Plants are also technology now. Why not a genetically modified plant that produces only the desired cannabanoids, or modified versions of the cannabanoids? I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but what I mean to say is that the comparison is a bit unfair. Not every plant is good for you and not every man-made solution is the cartoon chemical plant from Captain Planet. Cannabis as it exists is good for many things, but it can certainly still be improved.

mapontosevenths 1y ago

> Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. I'm really not sure what our disagreement here really is. I think we're both agreed that modern Cannabis is fairly fit for it's purpose. As you say, they've been doing 'human experimentation' with it for thousands of years and it's evolved alongside us. I just also think that we shouldn't halt progress at the level of farming a plant because it's "good enough." We have new tools available to us now, and we should use them. To try and rephrase: All I'm really saying here is that we should try to understand HOW those cultivars work, and optimize by extracting the useful bits or by synthesizing variations on them in a lab. That way we can minimize the side-effects and maximize the benefits. Are you opposed to that? If so why?

timschmidt 1y ago
I agree that we should work to understand mechanisms of action. However, I am aware of the enormity of the task, and I don't think we will have molecularly accurate complete pictures of how any drug affects us until we have complete virtual models on which to emulate and evaluate in detail. And that is a long way off. It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines, which I think is unwarranted. The organisms around us are far more sophisticated than any human construction, our senses are incredibly finely tuned sensors, and selective breeding is an enormously powerful tool. Because these were available to ancient humans, people often make the mistake of thinking them simplistic, outdated, or somehow superseded by modern technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. It is no accident that plants an animals around us produce compounds which are useful to us. We are all genetic relatives. Until we understand our own biology fully, and that of the plants and animals upon which we depend, I believe there is much it can teach us. One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  > It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines That's a fair criticism. I'm an engineer not just by training, but by nature. When the only tool you have is an engineer, every problem looks like it can be solved with better engineering. So far in life that's mostly worked out well for me. > One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well. Similarly, it seems to me that you may be unfairly biased against man made solutions. The problems you describe are just engineering challenges. Difficult ones to be sure, but we have some very clever scientists and some very sophisticated tools that are improving at a non-linear pace. We may not crack the nut this week, but someone will eventually. > From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. Plants are also technology now. Why not a genetically modified plant that produces only the desired cannabanoids, or modified versions of the cannabanoids? I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but what I mean to say is that the comparison is a bit unfair. Not every plant is good for you and not every man-made solution is the cartoon chemical plant from Captain Planet. Cannabis as it exists is good for many things, but it can certainly still be improved.