[News] Alfie Dingley/Cannabis Oil

[dingodan]

read what your saying. multiple molecule drugs can be regulated, as proven by the fact Sativex exists and is regulated. your common or garden cold remedy will have muliple active compounds, such as paracetomol and caffine.



funny you over looked the phrase "formulated extract". that means its not exactly the same as raw natural plant. ratio is TBC is not 1:1 with CDB, i dont know the amount and it varies greatly between different strains. i believe you will find "whole plant extract" means it only comes from the plant with no synthetic adjuncts.

"Whole plant extract" means nothing removed, not nothing added. If you are suggesting that it really means "wholly plant extract", that's a wild stretch.

Pharmacutical companies have tried (and succeeded) in developing medicines by isolating or synthesizing compounds like CBD and THC so they can be delivered as single molecule preparations (Dronabinol for example), but they have found that cannabinoids are far less effective delivered this way. This is known as the "entourage effect", which states that some plant based medicines seem to work better when the active compounds are not seperated from the other constituent parts of the plant, this seems to be true of Cannabis.

In addition to THC and CBD, Sativex contains potentially synergistic cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids, which also may contribute to overall therapeutic effects

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3717338/

But anyway, this is all besides the point, the supposedly "bad" constituent in cannabis is THC, which is clearly an important part of this medicine which we produce in this country and sell abroad. Even though as far as I can tell there isn't a cannabinoid, terpine or flavonoid removed in the extraction process, it doesn't matter, the issue is the presence of a compound which is illegal and the fact that we sell it and forbid it at the same time.

Infact the MD of British Sugar which grows cannabis under contract to GW Pharmaceuticals is the husband of a junior Home Office minister and MP with responsibility for drugs policy who has spoken out against any form of legalisation or regulation of cannabis in the UK. You couldn't make it up.

 

[dingodan]

He's had his medication returned, thankfully.

Surely that must put an end to the government's position that Cannabis must remain a schedule I substance, since that requires that it has no medicinal value, and they have just publicly accepted that it does.

 

[beorhthelm]

(its late, and much freely avaiable drugs have been consumed)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He's had his medication returned, thankfully.

Surely that must put an end to the government's position that Cannabis must remain a schedule I substance, since that requires that it has no medicinal value, and they have just publicly accepted that it does.

I don't understand the ruling. Its like them suddenly saying 'oh, alright - let's have another Brexit referendum'. This government is a joke.

I will go back to some of your (mostly) earlier points. My earlier cut and paste shows there is no evidence of benefit for cannabis/cannabinoids in humans. That is because trials have shown no benefit. I have done research on it myself. My old boss owns a company developing cannabinoids for medical use (in Canada where the laws are different). When I was younger I smoked an awful lot of weed. I have nothing personally against it. But as a pharmacologist I am always looking at evidence, weighing it up, wondering whether there is enough reason to develop a hypothesis and, if there is, testing it. Cannabis/cannabinoids simply don't excite me. They have interesting psychotropic effects, and seem to be useful for limiting nausia during cancer chemotherapy (I don't know the full evidence here as it doesn't interest me enough to read up on it).

What gets me is the clamour for people to use cannabis freely as a medicine on the basis that it is proven to be better than anything else available (the basis for aproval for new drugs). This is utter nonsense and is not supported by any data. I have no objection to peope doing further trials (venture capital is supporting this in Canada - that's the way forward - until the bubble bursts of course). Put your money where you instincts lay. There is no 'dangerous drug' landscape to prevent this in Canada and other places. The UK can learn from the data as it emerges.

But suddenly going from 'we are having that off you' to 'oh go on then, have it back' is beyond a joke in terms of political behaviour. With our governent (and the opposition) who would have thought it, eh?

 

[beorhthelm]

But suddenly going from 'we are having that off you' to 'oh go on then, have it back' is beyond a joke in terms of political behaviour. With our governent (and the opposition) who would have thought it, eh?

the Home Secratary has made a specific and limited ruling on the grounds of a life threatening circumstance. taking the drugs was not politcal, its officials following the law and regulations. theres an element of politics to finding a way to give them back, but everyone agrees its the right thing? so lets not object to that.

people are using medicinal use as a proxy for legalisation of cannabis, with the non sequitur that if medicinal cannabis is legal then so must a splif, because "its the same thing". we know from opioids this is nonsense. i expect more forms of cannabinoid drugs to be licenced in the near future if there is sufficient medical evidence of their benefits.

 

[dingodan]

I don't understand the ruling. Its like them suddenly saying 'oh, alright - let's have another Brexit referendum'. This government is a joke.

I will go back to some of your (mostly) earlier points. My earlier cut and paste shows there is no evidence of benefit for cannabis/cannabinoids in humans. That is because trials have shown no benefit. I have done research on it myself. My old boss owns a company developing cannabinoids for medical use (in Canada where the laws are different). When I was younger I smoked an awful lot of weed. I have nothing personally against it. But as a pharmacologist I am always looking at evidence, weighing it up, wondering whether there is enough reason to develop a hypothesis and, if there is, testing it. Cannabis/cannabinoids simply don't excite me. They have interesting psychotropic effects, and seem to be useful for limiting nausia during cancer chemotherapy (I don't know the full evidence here as it doesn't interest me enough to read up on it).

What gets me is the clamour for people to use cannabis freely as a medicine on the basis that it is proven to be better than anything else available (the basis for aproval for new drugs). This is utter nonsense and is not supported by any data. I have no objection to peope doing further trials (venture capital is supporting this in Canada - that's the way forward - until the bubble bursts of course). Put your money where you instincts lay. There is no 'dangerous drug' landscape to prevent this in Canada and other places. The UK can learn from the data as it emerges.

But suddenly going from 'we are having that off you' to 'oh go on then, have it back' is beyond a joke in terms of political behaviour. With our governent (and the opposition) who would have thought it, eh?

What you cut and pasted doesn't show that there is no evidence for medical benefit in humans at all. It just shows that Cannabis is on a legal schedule meant for substances with no accepted medical benefit. It's on the wrong schedule because there is so much evidence for medical benefit in humans that the rest of what you say about having read up on the subject I can't take seriously.

 

[dingodan]

the Home Secratary has made a specific and limited ruling on the grounds of a life threatening circumstance. taking the drugs was not politcal, its officials following the law and regulations. theres an element of politics to finding a way to give them back, but everyone agrees its the right thing? so lets not object to that.

people are using medicinal use as a proxy for legalisation of cannabis, with the non sequitur that if medicinal cannabis is legal then so must a splif, because "its the same thing". we know from opioids this is nonsense. i expect more forms of cannabinoid drugs to be licenced in the near future if there is sufficient medical evidence of their benefits.

It isn't exactly a non sequitur, because the acceptance of medical Cannabis is based on the two important things when it comes to any medicine, safety and efficacy. Well it's safety is of interest in the legalization debate, because it is prohibited because of how dangerous it is supposed to be. As we move towards allowing it to be used for a myriad of conditions on a large population of patients the basis for it's prohibition becomes considerably weaker. You have a huge population of people who are not suffering the harms which have long been wrongly associated with Cannabis, and this inevitably demonstrates that the actual harms caused by prohibition like criminal justice costs, the black market and it's operators like gangs and organised crime, unregulated products available to children, etc are not worth it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What you cut and pasted doesn't show that there is no evidence for medical benefit in humans at all. It just shows that Cannabis is on a legal schedule meant for substances with no accepted medical benefit. It's on the wrong schedule because there is so much evidence for medical benefit in humans that the rest of what you say about having read up on the subject I can't take seriously.

My earlier cut and paste explicitly states what I say....I will look it up....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My previous post.....no accepted medical use. Not my words....

Forgive me but this is not true. Follow the links. Eventually you get to the source. It mentions some work in mice (I can go on all day about animal models, but this isn't the time or place). When it comes to actual human beings, it says people take cannabinoids to alleviate pain (and like all pain killers apart from opiates the effect is subjective). Regarding actual human cancer it says this:

Cannabis , also known as marijuana, is a plant from Central Asia that is grown in many parts of the world today. The Cannabis plant produces a resin containing compounds called cannabinoids. Some cannabinoids are psychoactive (acting on the brain and changing mood or consciousness). In the United States, Cannabis is a controlled substance and has been classified as a Schedule I agent (a drug with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use).

So the headline is a lie. Fancy that.

 

[Cotton Socks]

It's not Alfie Dingley, the 6 year old that was being treated in the Netherlands,who has been allowed to have it. It's the 12 year old Billy Caldwell that's been allowed to have it back.
I knew someone years ago that claimed to smoke cannabis because it controlled his seizures, we thought he was talking shite and was a stoner. He did also take conventional anti seizure meds. It was only after he was unable to get any because his supplier got a normal job that we realised he wasn't actually a stoner after all.
He was having seizures everyday, he couldn't cook a meal as he was having constant muscle spasms, as well as full blown seizures. He had broken half the glasses in his house and could only have cold drinks out of plastic cups, he also hadn't left the house for a week.
Another friend managed to get him some and when he took it round there for him and watched him smoke a little bit he was really shocked that it stopped the jerks after 10 minutes. We also realised that he wasn't a stoner because the amount he put in probably wouldn't have got a mouse high and the £20 bag lasted him over 3 weeks. If something works for him and those other 2 kids why shouldn't they be allowed to take the risk of side effects rather than potentially dying from seizures.
It seems in the UK we are lagging behind the rest of the world regarding the potential use of cannabis. He always said he would be happy to participate in medical trials but it's not something that he would admit using to his Dr.

 

[dingodan]

My previous post.....no accepted medical use. Not my words....

A Schedule I drug is defined as having - a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use - correct.

But you cannot just say it's on schedule I and that is itself evidence that it has no accepted medical use.

It has acceped medical use. Like I said before, it's on the wrong schedule.

Molecular Pharmacology

Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Abeta aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17140265

British Journal of Pharmacology:

Cannabinoids offer a multi-faceted approach for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease by providing neuroprotection and reducing neuroinflammation, whilst simultaneously supporting the brain's intrinsic repair mechanisms...

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707446

Journal of Neuroinflammation

...elevation of cannabinoid receptor activity either by pharmacological blockade of the degradation of cannabinoids or by receptor agonists could be a promising strategy for slowing down the progression of brain ageing and for alleviating the symptoms of neurodegenerative disorders.

http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Cannabinoids-and-Brain-Ageing.pdf

University of Dublin

Pharmacological modulation of the endocannabinoid system has been shown to reduce chronic activation of the neuroinflammatory response, aid in Ca2+ homeostasis, reduce oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and the resulting proapoptotic cascade, while promoting neurotrophic support.

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bph.12492

Journal of Pain

This study adds to a growing body of evidence that cannabis may be effective at ameliorating neuropathic pain, and may be an alternative for patients who do not respond to, or cannot tolerate, other drugs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18403272

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Our results support the claim that smoked cannabis reduces pain, improves mood and helps sleep.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/14/E694

Neuropsychopharmacology

This study is the first to demonstrate the dose and route dependent analgesic effectiveness of cannabinoids for acute experimentally induced pain in a pain free population, evidence that supports the role of cannabinoids for the management of pain.

https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201397

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

In this trial, cannabis induced clinical remission in 50% of patients. Taking into account that our participants had longstanding Crohn’s disease, with 80% nonresponse or intolerance to anti-TNF-a, this result is impressive.

https://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(13)00604-6/pdf

Pharmacology

Cannabis sativa has lived up to expectations and proved to be highly efficient in cases of inflammatory bowel diseases... cannabis produces significant clinical benefits in patients with Crohn’s disease.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/356512

Patent US6630507 - held by - US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6630507B1/en

 

[DumLum]

The poor Mother was interviewed on 5Live, I think it was Wednesday, saying that Alfie will die and that someone would feel responsible. She said it was only a matter of time before he was rushed to hospital to die. In truth it was less than 48 hours.

Billy?
Alfie has been waiting months.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A Schedule I drug is defined as having - a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use - correct.

But you cannot just say it's on schedule I and that is itself evidence that it has no accepted medical use.

It has acceped medical use. Like I said before, it's on the wrong schedule.

]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that if a drug is on schedule 1 it has no medical use by definition. Opioids clearly fall into the category of useful and schedule 1. However, with the greatest of respect, some certainly, and others possibly, of the work you cite, including work published in one particular journal I know very well (and which does not publish original results of clinical trials) are comments on the outcome of animal studies, or reference to cannabinoids other than delta 9THC. The most recent meta analysis I can find, in a very decent journal is this:

http://cannabisclinicians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JAMA-Review-2015.pdf

It states:

STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications:
nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain,
spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder,
psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome.
RESULTS
A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of
bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these
associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo,
cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete
nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42];
3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater
average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted
mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95% CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in
the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.36 [95% CI, −0.69 to −0.05]; 7 trials). There was an
increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs
included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting,
disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of
cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence
suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting
due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome.
Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

So none of that is 'versus established drugs'. How effective must a drug be to warrant widespread use? Despite my skepticism, my old boss still thinks he can make money flogging cannabis for medical purposes, but mainly because of the hubris created by all the wishful thinking, and the massive market of people who swear that having a toof makes them feel better, and the changes in laws, more than a strong expecatation of major benefit effects. Judging by the amount of investment in the field, and the shift away from the old shibboleths about the drug, together with the landscape, the notion of 'botanicals' like 'neutraceuticals' (food medicines) and 'biologics' (monoclonals) as a unique therapeutic entity, and the human desire for progress, maybe he will make money.

A mate of mine is a genuine world expert on this....I think I will email him. Do you want to help me frame a succinct question I could ask him? My first shot would be 'is there evidence (clinical trial data, ideally sufficient in amount for meta analysis - not case reports etc) that botanical cannabis, or one of the derivatives or analogues, has proven clinical benefit, and ideally unique beneft not matched by other drugs, in treating any disease (prolonging life or, failing that, alleviating symptoms including pain and suffering)?' Please edit if you don't like that.

All the best

 

[luppers]

It appears to the casual observer that you are bracketing heroin and cannabis together here. Shirley shome mishtake?

Sure you haven't been on it--Shirley shome mishtake do you mean surely some mistake ?

 

[dingodan]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that if a drug is on schedule 1 it has no medical use by definition. Opioids clearly fall into the category of useful and schedule 1. However, with the greatest of respect, some certainly, and others possibly, of the work you cite, including work published in one particular journal I know very well (and which does not publish original results of clinical trials) are comments on the outcome of animal studies, or reference to cannabinoids other than delta 9THC. The most recent meta analysis I can find, in a very decent journal is this:

http://cannabisclinicians.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JAMA-Review-2015.pdf

It states:

STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications:
nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain,
spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder,
psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome.
RESULTS
A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of
bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these
associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo,
cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete
nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42];
3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater
average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted
mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95% CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in
the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.36 [95% CI, −0.69 to −0.05]; 7 trials). There was an
increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs
included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting,
disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of
cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence
suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting
due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome.
Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

So none of that is 'versus established drugs'. How effective must a drug be to warrant widespread use? Despite my skepticism, my old boss still thinks he can make money flogging cannabis for medical purposes, but mainly because of the hubris created by all the wishful thinking, and the massive market of people who swear that having a toof makes them feel better, and the changes in laws, more than a strong expecatation of major benefit effects. Judging by the amount of investment in the field, and the shift away from the old shibboleths about the drug, together with the landscape, the notion of 'botanicals' like 'neutraceuticals' (food medicines) and 'biologics' (monoclonals) as a unique therapeutic entity, and the human desire for progress, maybe he will make money.

A mate of mine is a genuine world expert on this....I think I will email him. Do you want to help me frame a succinct question I could ask him? My first shot would be 'is there evidence (clinical trial data, ideally sufficient in amount for meta analysis - not case reports etc) that botanical cannabis, or one of the derivatives or analogues, has proven clinical benefit, and ideally unique beneft not matched by other drugs, in treating any disease (prolonging life or, failing that, alleviating symptoms including pain and suffering)?' Please edit if you don't like that.

All the best

Opioids do not fall into the category of "useful and schedule I", schedule I means not useful. Morphine, opium, codeine, and hydrocodone are all schedule II narcotics.

You can ask your mate if you want, your question seems reasonable, but bare in mind that there is something of a lack of the kind of clinical trial data you are talking about, but you have to consider two things, first clinical trial data for a lot of presciption medications is also limited, in some cases drugs are placed on the market on the basis of a single, small sample, clinical trial. Also, you said in an earlier post that the clinical "trials have shown no benefit", in fact clinical trials have not really been properly conducted, because like I said earlier the red tape and bureaucracy combined with a lack of funding and stigma, all a result of schedule I status, has proven prohibitive when it comes to conducting the best kinds of research.

The research I posted above may not involve double blind placebo controlled clinical trials, but they are more than sufficient to counter the claims you are making that there is no scientific evidence for medicinal value in Cannabis. Even what you posted above provides evidence of medicinal value. I'm not sure what you are arguing if not that there is in fact a scientific basis for the claim that Cannabis has proven medicinal value, and so, by definition, schedule I is not appropriate.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Opioids do not fall into the category of "useful and schedule I", schedule I means not useful. Morphine, opium, codeine, and hydrocodone are all schedule II narcotics.

You can ask your mate if you want, your question seems reasonable, but bare in mind that there is something of a lack of the kind of clinical trial data you are talking about, but you have to consider two things, first clinical trial data for a lot of presciption medications is also limited, in some cases drugs are placed on the market on the basis of a single, small sample, clinical trial. Also, you said in an earlier post that the clinical "trials have shown no benefit", in fact clinical trials have not really been properly conducted, because like I said earlier the red tape and bureaucracy combined with a lack of funding and stigma, all a result of schedule I status, has proven prohibitive when it comes to conducting the best kinds of research.

The research I posted above may not involve double blind placebo controlled clinical trials, but they are more than sufficient to counter the claims you are making that there is no scientific evidence for medicinal value in Cannabis. Even what you posted above provides evidence of medicinal value. I'm not sure what you are arguing if not that there is in fact a scientific basis for the claim that Cannabis has proven medicinal value, and so, by definition, schedule I is not appropriate.

Sorry, yes, getting my 'schedule's mixed up. Everything you say above is correct. For other readers (hic) I will point out that it isn't ethical to with-hold an effective drug to test a new drug in sick humans (versus placebo). You have to add the new drug to the established and show added benefit. And stuff done before the 70s can set precedents that are out of kilter with current process. For example, digitalis was so commonly used, but without proper testing, for so long that it strictly speaking had no proven mortality benefit in heart failure. Some 'restrospective testing' was planned in naive patients in the far east in the 80s but this is easy to critique, and may not have actually been carried out. On the other hand lidocaine was deemed effective in reducing one year mortality after short term use in heart attack patients when admnistered in hospital, in an open nonrandomized study by Kong Lie (sic) in Holland in the 1960s, and this 'good news' meant the drug was used routinely for decades, even after Antman published a meta analysis showing there was no benefit on survival. Yes, medicine, law and ethics, and the establishment of practice habit, coupled with commerce, social media and agendas, is quite a heady mix.

 

[dingodan]

However, with the greatest of respect, some certainly, and others possibly, of the work you cite, including work published in one particular journal I know very well (and which does not publish original results of clinical trials) are comments on the outcome of animal studies, or reference to cannabinoids other than delta 9THC.

What is that about?

I just went through all of the papers I cited. All of them dealing with direct medical research conducted by the authors themselves (4/9) involve human subjects. Others are medical journal articles and analysis of literature and other research, and none of the papers deal with animal studies. Every single paper deals explicitly with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), (bar one, which doesn't specify any particular cannabinoids) . Not one of those papers is in reference only to cannabinoids other than THC.

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION] You also have to seperate clinical trials, which are for medicines, and medical research, they are not the same.

Medical research, like those papers I posted above, should, in theory, lead to clinical trials of a medicine. You are effectively saying Cannabis can only be accepted as a medicine when clinical trials of a medicinal product have been conducted, but the fact is that this discussion is about Cannabis (rather than a specificly formulated medication) and whether it has inherent medicinal value. Medical research says it does, but the lack of clinical trials on a particular medication leave it unclassified as a medicine.

The medical research does demonstrate that even consumed raw Cannabis, as well as it's consituent cannabinoids, have medicinal value. This alone means that Cannabis shouldn't be a schedule I substance, and if it were moved, for example onto schedule II, it would then be easier to conduct the clinical trials on it as a medicine that you are wanting.

The lack of clinical trial data though doesn't diminish the already available evidence that Cannabis and it's constituents have medical value, all it does is prevent it from being classified legally as a medicine.

I'm arguing that it has proven medicinal benefit, which is true. You are arguing that it is not technically a medicine without clinical trial data, which is also technically true.

I personally think that scientifically proven medicinal value is sufficient in this case for a change in the law, even if it can't be classifed as a medicine under the current regime, people should still be allowed to use it since it has demonstrated medicinal benefit, and certainly there is no basis for maintaining it's schedule I status, without which it could be classified as a medicine under the current regime relatively quickly.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

[MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION] You also have to seperate clinical trials, which are for medicines, and medical research, they are not the same.

Medical research, like those papers I posted above, should, in theory, lead to clinical trials of a medicine. You are effectively saying Cannabis can only be accepted as a medicine when clinical trials of a medicinal product have been conducted, but the fact is that this discussion is about Cannabis (rather than a specificly formulated medication) and whether it has inherent medicinal value. Medical research says it does, but the lack of clinical trials on a particular medication leave it unclassified as a medicine.

The medical research does demonstrate that even consumed raw Cannabis, as well as it's consituent cannabinoids, have medicinal value. This alone means that Cannabis shouldn't be a schedule I substance, and if it were moved, for example onto schedule II, it would then be easier to conduct the clinical trials on it as a medicine that you are wanting.

The lack of clinical trial data though doesn't diminish the already available evidence that Cannabis and it's constituents have medical value, all it does is prevent it from being classified legally as a medicine.

I'm arguing that it has proven medicinal benefit, which is true. You are arguing that it is not technically a medicine without clinical trial data, which is also technically true.

I personally think that scientifically proven medicinal value is sufficient in this case for a change in the law, even if it can't be classifed as a medicine under the current regime, people should still be allowed to use it since it has demonstrated medicinal benefit, and certainly there is no basis for maintaining it's schedule I status, without which it could be classified as a medicine under the current regime relatively quickly.

Perhaps you are right. Smoked or not smoked, though? By the look of things elsewhere, it may come about, here - 'liberalisation'. It will have the Rees Moggs of this world spinning in their gravy, though

Sorry to be so picky over this. I have a wider 'day job' interest; every year I listen to students presenting on the evidence for a range of botanicals (feverfew, garlic, aloe vera and others) and when all the wishful thinking is eliminated there are few large clinical trials. So often when such trials are done all the promise evaporates. 'Failed translation' is a big issue for me, not least because it could be argued (and will when the antivivs wake up again) that animal research is normally misleading and therefore indefensible. I have seen enough data from animal and human trials where lack of blinding and randomization, and other forms of accidental or deliberate peeking, bias and manipulation lead to positive findings that eventually fail to translate that I have reluctantly reached the default that only a large randomized blinded clinical trial an reveal the truth. As you intimate, this is unlikely to happen in this instance.

I am also not a fan of botanicals and mixed stuff a priori, at least not until each ingredient, and their interactions, have been evaluated. This is partly for the simple reason that no two bunches of flowers etc contain exactly the same stuff. But it is more an intellectual objection and my professional interest in the propeties of pure chemicals - in practical terms, if the stuff generally works, when smoked or made as a tea, that's good enough.

Anyway - interesting chat.