9 ms·

OK. But it isn't marijuana "itself" that does this. It is one or more chemical components that we can isolate, right? We've done so many times before and create

OK. But it isn't marijuana "itself" that does this. It is one or more chemical components that we can isolate, right? We've done so many times before and created more potent medicines. But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed. I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't), but that it's an entirely different question.

dreamweapon 12y ago
But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed. Correct -- has no bearing on the issue of recreational use. Rather, and more importantly: another gentle reminder that we (as a society) need to turn our backs on the unrelenting tide of fear, misinformation, and outright deception that has characterized most discussion on the medicinal (and recreational) use of controlled substances in the public sphere for the past several decades (nearly a full century, actually) -- and back to basic science.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
Marijuana should not have been made illegal in the first place (IMO). It's a wrong that many people want righted, which is why any discussion of Marijuana usually turns into a discussion about the corrupt legal system that we live with. So, the question I ask is: Should it be illegal? And the resounding answer is 'No' because I don't believe in taking away people's freedom to do what they wish with their own bodies.
eidyia 12y ago
the plant should be legalized, what you do with it its up to you, personally I dislike any sort of smoking so am planning to drink a lot of teas if the day ever comes. but indeed a different discussion ^^
jerf 12y ago
Read The Fine Article a bit more closely. It contains the answer to your question.
- unicornporn 12y ago
  The Fine Article? English is not my spoken or native tongue, so I'm not sure what you mean. The article itself? If so, it further strengthens my premonition. In one paragraph they talk about treatment using of purified cannabinoids, in the next about THC isolated alone, while in the paragraph after they start talking about marijuana being classified as a Schedule I drug and then shortly after about the legalization of marijuana.
  - jaredmcateer 12y ago
    RTFA is a common internet acronym that generally means "Read the fucking article", jerf was just making it more polite by replacing "fucking" with "fine".
  - jerf 12y ago
    "English is not my spoken or native tongue, so I'm not sure what you mean." Ah. In that case, this research was already done with extracted compounds. The mice were not smoking. I'm sure that medically, if this were ever to be a treatment, it would be done through refined compounds as in the study, not by simply smoking. Medically it would be crazy to leave dosage to such an unreliable method. As for this being used to argue in favor of smoking, well, it's a grave mistake to hold back science because somebody, somewhere, might use it to poorly argue for something. There's always some way something could be misinterpreted. Besides, per my previous point, if you want to take advantage of this smoking just isn't the way to go, and it's especially not the way to go if you're just smoking "something" with no idea how much of the relevant compounds is in it, or at least not enough of an idea. On the cost/benefit analysis, with "better brain cancer treatment" on the benefit side, potentially, I need to see some costs a great deal more significant than "somebody may use this to argue in favor of smoking pot", which "potheads" do at every available opportunity and more anyhow, before I start to worry.
rtkwe 12y ago
Most do turn into that, though for more or less legitimate reasons. After it was schedule 1'd most medical research stopped because it was extremely difficult to impossible to get approval and access to the government approved supply of marijuana (which hadn't gone through any of the selective breeding the illegally produced breeds had experienced). From that alone there's a good argument that schedule 1 was a mistake and an overreaction.
jonnathanson 12y ago
"OK. But it isn't marijuana "itself" that does this. It is one or more chemical components that we can isolate, right?" Correct. The study tested two cannabinoids isolated from marijuana, not whole-bud marijuana. "But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed." Well, yes, it's going to go there eventually. Pretty much all conversations about the medical efficaciousness of marijuana (or marijuana-derived compounds) bump up against the legalization topic. This is because conducting research on a substance currently deemed illegal by the federal government is very difficult. It's also because the government labels marijuana not just illegal, but a drug "...with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." (This is the 'Schedule I' classification). Marijuana's classification in Schedule I, a category for "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence," is ridiculous. For what it's worth, here are some drugs legally considered less dangerous, or psychologically and physically dependence-forming than marijuana: cocaine, opium, methamphetamine, oxycodone, morphine, codeine, fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, Ritalin, Vicodin, Valium, Ambien, ketamine, and anabolic steroids. "I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't), but that it's an entirely different question." Absolutely. Marijuana's legalization as a consumer item has little to no bearing on this finding, or vice versa. That said, its current medical status is in debate, and whenever a potential medical usage comes up, that topic is going to come up with it.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  Doesn't the whole "...with no currently accepted medical use" part automatically obsoletes with research such as this? Surely the DEA has a mailing address to which it's possible to send relevant research papers? Surely they read the literature?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - MCRed 12y ago
    I honestly can't tell if you're being earnest or not. So, apologies if you're being sarcastic. The DEA, as a government agency, was created with the mission of eradicating drugs. They aren't really in the business of doing scientific evaluation of the drugs themselves, and I would be surprised if there are any scientists on staff, and if there are, even more surprised if they have any pull. At any rate, the DEA doesn't set drug policy, the federal government does. The federal governments' track record when it comes to controlling substances has not often been in line with scientific or social needs, as is evidenced by the extreme cost of the current war on drugs and the consequent negative effects on society. For example, cocaine is a refinement of cocoa which was included in things like coca-cola as a mild stimulant. When it became controlled, smuggling economics came to bear, and thus refining it into cocaine allowed for more value-per-unit-shipment in smuggling. Being more addictive, and thus worse for society, was a side effect of this. Worse, with the war on cocaine that occurred an even further refinement was done for the same economic reasons resulting in crack. I posit that if the wellbeing of society were the primary importance for the federal government there would be no drug war, and thus no drug related violent crimes (or very few) and a lot less addiction.
researcher88 12y ago
Isolating just THC or just CBDs can be problematic in not knowing exactly why it's working. This happened with Marinol/Dronabinol not being as effective as regular marijuana with increasing appetite and reducing nausea. Obviously they should be researching all angles but a concentrated hash oil perhaps high in CBDs could be the solution instead of just isolating one compound. So I disagree. It could be the marijuana alone used in oil form and not smoking it. I do take issue with your point as there are millions of people suffering from cancer. Marijuana is a well tolerated drug used by humans for thousands of years. People are suffering right now, and every day, and most are unable to obtain marijuana to help ease symptoms or for potential cancer fighting abilities. I don't care about recreational use. I though am upset that I have to break the law to treat my cancer and that a family member with a potential recurrence gets told, oh don't worry you likely have 8 years before your cancer metastasizes. And there's nothing you can do about it except take estrogen. Which I believes increases cellular apotosis but comes with other risks.

dreamweapon 12y ago

But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed. Correct -- has no bearing on the issue of recreational use. Rather, and more importantly: another gentle reminder that we (as a society) need to turn our backs on the unrelenting tide of fear, misinformation, and outright deception that has characterized most discussion on the medicinal (and recreational) use of controlled substances in the public sphere for the past several decades (nearly a full century, actually) -- and back to basic science.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

Marijuana should not have been made illegal in the first place (IMO). It's a wrong that many people want righted, which is why any discussion of Marijuana usually turns into a discussion about the corrupt legal system that we live with. So, the question I ask is: Should it be illegal? And the resounding answer is 'No' because I don't believe in taking away people's freedom to do what they wish with their own bodies.

eidyia 12y ago

the plant should be legalized, what you do with it its up to you, personally I dislike any sort of smoking so am planning to drink a lot of teas if the day ever comes. but indeed a different discussion ^^

jerf 12y ago

Read The Fine Article a bit more closely. It contains the answer to your question.

unicornporn 12y ago
The Fine Article? English is not my spoken or native tongue, so I'm not sure what you mean. The article itself? If so, it further strengthens my premonition. In one paragraph they talk about treatment using of purified cannabinoids, in the next about THC isolated alone, while in the paragraph after they start talking about marijuana being classified as a Schedule I drug and then shortly after about the legalization of marijuana.
- jaredmcateer 12y ago
  RTFA is a common internet acronym that generally means "Read the fucking article", jerf was just making it more polite by replacing "fucking" with "fine".
- jerf 12y ago
  "English is not my spoken or native tongue, so I'm not sure what you mean." Ah. In that case, this research was already done with extracted compounds. The mice were not smoking. I'm sure that medically, if this were ever to be a treatment, it would be done through refined compounds as in the study, not by simply smoking. Medically it would be crazy to leave dosage to such an unreliable method. As for this being used to argue in favor of smoking, well, it's a grave mistake to hold back science because somebody, somewhere, might use it to poorly argue for something. There's always some way something could be misinterpreted. Besides, per my previous point, if you want to take advantage of this smoking just isn't the way to go, and it's especially not the way to go if you're just smoking "something" with no idea how much of the relevant compounds is in it, or at least not enough of an idea. On the cost/benefit analysis, with "better brain cancer treatment" on the benefit side, potentially, I need to see some costs a great deal more significant than "somebody may use this to argue in favor of smoking pot", which "potheads" do at every available opportunity and more anyhow, before I start to worry.

rtkwe 12y ago

Most do turn into that, though for more or less legitimate reasons. After it was schedule 1'd most medical research stopped because it was extremely difficult to impossible to get approval and access to the government approved supply of marijuana (which hadn't gone through any of the selective breeding the illegally produced breeds had experienced). From that alone there's a good argument that schedule 1 was a mistake and an overreaction.

jonnathanson 12y ago

"OK. But it isn't marijuana "itself" that does this. It is one or more chemical components that we can isolate, right?" Correct. The study tested two cannabinoids isolated from marijuana, not whole-bud marijuana. "But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed." Well, yes, it's going to go there eventually. Pretty much all conversations about the medical efficaciousness of marijuana (or marijuana-derived compounds) bump up against the legalization topic. This is because conducting research on a substance currently deemed illegal by the federal government is very difficult. It's also because the government labels marijuana not just illegal, but a drug "...with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." (This is the 'Schedule I' classification). Marijuana's classification in Schedule I, a category for "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence," is ridiculous. For what it's worth, here are some drugs legally considered less dangerous, or psychologically and physically dependence-forming than marijuana: cocaine, opium, methamphetamine, oxycodone, morphine, codeine, fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, Ritalin, Vicodin, Valium, Ambien, ketamine, and anabolic steroids. "I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't), but that it's an entirely different question." Absolutely. Marijuana's legalization as a consumer item has little to no bearing on this finding, or vice versa. That said, its current medical status is in debate, and whenever a potential medical usage comes up, that topic is going to come up with it.

spiritplumber 12y ago
Doesn't the whole "...with no currently accepted medical use" part automatically obsoletes with research such as this? Surely the DEA has a mailing address to which it's possible to send relevant research papers? Surely they read the literature?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- MCRed 12y ago
  I honestly can't tell if you're being earnest or not. So, apologies if you're being sarcastic. The DEA, as a government agency, was created with the mission of eradicating drugs. They aren't really in the business of doing scientific evaluation of the drugs themselves, and I would be surprised if there are any scientists on staff, and if there are, even more surprised if they have any pull. At any rate, the DEA doesn't set drug policy, the federal government does. The federal governments' track record when it comes to controlling substances has not often been in line with scientific or social needs, as is evidenced by the extreme cost of the current war on drugs and the consequent negative effects on society. For example, cocaine is a refinement of cocoa which was included in things like coca-cola as a mild stimulant. When it became controlled, smuggling economics came to bear, and thus refining it into cocaine allowed for more value-per-unit-shipment in smuggling. Being more addictive, and thus worse for society, was a side effect of this. Worse, with the war on cocaine that occurred an even further refinement was done for the same economic reasons resulting in crack. I posit that if the wellbeing of society were the primary importance for the federal government there would be no drug war, and thus no drug related violent crimes (or very few) and a lot less addiction.

researcher88 12y ago

Isolating just THC or just CBDs can be problematic in not knowing exactly why it's working. This happened with Marinol/Dronabinol not being as effective as regular marijuana with increasing appetite and reducing nausea. Obviously they should be researching all angles but a concentrated hash oil perhaps high in CBDs could be the solution instead of just isolating one compound. So I disagree. It could be the marijuana alone used in oil form and not smoking it. I do take issue with your point as there are millions of people suffering from cancer. Marijuana is a well tolerated drug used by humans for thousands of years. People are suffering right now, and every day, and most are unable to obtain marijuana to help ease symptoms or for potential cancer fighting abilities. I don't care about recreational use. I though am upset that I have to break the law to treat my cancer and that a family member with a potential recurrence gets told, oh don't worry you likely have 8 years before your cancer metastasizes. And there's nothing you can do about it except take estrogen. Which I believes increases cellular apotosis but comes with other risks.