3 ms·

Right now any clinical data we have on marijuana's active ingredients is massively tainted by the fact that NIH will only fund research into harmful effects, so

Right now any clinical data we have on marijuana's active ingredients is massively tainted by the fact that NIH will only fund research into harmful effects, so essentially you're suggesting that we're better off getting "prescribed" a quantity of something based on faulty/biased research. (Incidentally, CBD products are now technically legal in the US -- you can order them on Amazon!) The point with curare is that a small amount will kill you. All drugs are to some extent dangerous, but some are safe enough that people are allowed to buy them on their own and figure out the dosage they need -- e.g. aspirin, most antihistamines. The same arguments would apply to them.

hga 12y ago
Really, please, follow the links and read. Some of these drugs were or are being developed in other countries, so it's obviously not axiomatic the NIH's research had anything to do with their development. And at least 3 of them are being done in conjunction with the FDA, 2 approved, the CBD drug in Phase 2/3 FDA level trials. This massive tainting somehow hasn't convinced the FDA that THC and CBD are bad. Errr, I hope it's obvious that drug trials produce clinical data.... As for your final point, I would hope bmelton's comment would underline the folly of trying to use raw herbs of uncertain potency for reliably getting what is needed. Does Charlotte Figi need serious, hard to obtain quantities of CBD to stop her seizures, or will any old weed suffice???
- Tloewald 12y ago
  I'm aware of the clinical trials of marijuana derived drugs, but that produces clinical data on those drugs. (Indeed there's been a synthetic THC drug for AIDS patients available for years, but it appears not to work very well, and not as well for many patients as "the real thing".) My point is pretty simple -- marijuana is pretty damn safe, safer than tylenol for example, and it may or may not help with various medical conditions, so let people use it. If drug companies want to formulate highly specialized or refined derivative and market them against stuff you can grow yourself or buy from a dispensary, let them. But don't criminalize the basic product.

hga 12y ago

Really, please, follow the links and read. Some of these drugs were or are being developed in other countries, so it's obviously not axiomatic the NIH's research had anything to do with their development. And at least 3 of them are being done in conjunction with the FDA, 2 approved, the CBD drug in Phase 2/3 FDA level trials. This massive tainting somehow hasn't convinced the FDA that THC and CBD are bad. Errr, I hope it's obvious that drug trials produce clinical data.... As for your final point, I would hope bmelton's comment would underline the folly of trying to use raw herbs of uncertain potency for reliably getting what is needed. Does Charlotte Figi need serious, hard to obtain quantities of CBD to stop her seizures, or will any old weed suffice???

Tloewald 12y ago
I'm aware of the clinical trials of marijuana derived drugs, but that produces clinical data on those drugs. (Indeed there's been a synthetic THC drug for AIDS patients available for years, but it appears not to work very well, and not as well for many patients as "the real thing".) My point is pretty simple -- marijuana is pretty damn safe, safer than tylenol for example, and it may or may not help with various medical conditions, so let people use it. If drug companies want to formulate highly specialized or refined derivative and market them against stuff you can grow yourself or buy from a dispensary, let them. But don't criminalize the basic product.