5 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

I hope so.

We are at what, 20 states?  More people live in those than in all the other states.  The game is over dude.  The rest is just details.

On 9/2/2021 at 10:53 AM, jsdarkstar said:

Republicans will never vote to legalize marijuana. 

The # 1 Reason given as to why?

Marijuana is one of the many tools of the devil. 

Man you need to relax there pothead

On 9/25/2021 at 11:29 PM, DEagle7 said:

Marijuana and Psicolybin should be studied extensively by the medical community before being specifically approved for medical uses a a prescription medication.

But until then, adults should be allowed to do what they want to do. Particularly when it comes to treating things like pain, anxiety, depression, PTSD etc. Their original classification as narcotics was firmly based in moral BS which kneecapped research into initially very promising medicinal profiles. It's absolutely inexcusable that we put people in jail for using either while being able to hand out opiates with minimal repercussions. 

We have been researching cannabinoids for decades. Cant seem to get a positive proof of concept clinically

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

We have been researching cannabinoids for decades. Cant seem to get a positive proof of concept clinically

Hasn't the research been hampered by the schedule 1 classification? I know there's been some, but my understanding is pharmas need to access cannabis from govt and they're very selective in what they allow studies to do. Basically that govt was "allowing it to be studied" but in a way that encouraged the outcome they wanted (to keep it schedule 1)

This is how it was explained to me by legalization advocates anyway. So they have incentive to exaggerate.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Hasn't the research been hampered by the schedule 1 classification? I know there's been some, but my understanding is pharmas need to access cannabis from govt and they're very selective in what they allow studies to do. Basically that govt was "allowing it to be studied" but in a way that encouraged the outcome they wanted (to keep it schedule 1)

This is how it was explained to me by legalization advocates anyway. So they have incentive to exaggerate.

Which is exactly what they are doing. Any pharma can get it easily. But clinically you need to synthesize the active ingredient yourself in a GMP lab so its not at all about access. Its about our limited understanding of neurochemistry.

9 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

We have been researching cannabinoids for decades. Cant seem to get a positive proof of concept clinically

Not nearly as much as we should have been. Which is his point.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not nearly as much as we should have been. Which is his point.

There has been far more than people want to accept. His point is off base.

you think pharmas arent pouring money into pain therapeutics?? Really??? It will be a gold mine for whoever hits.  We had efficacy models and early clinical trials running at my company back in the 2005-6 window and it was going on long before that. The challenge is the compounds dont seem to do much in isolation. There is something about the mixture in pot. It also speaks to the wide genetic variability in brain neurochemistry that we dont understand and thats not even getting into the challenges of measuring efficacy which is basically a subjective questionnaire 

8 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

There has been far more than people want to accept. His point is off base.

you think pharmas arent pouring money into pain therapeutics?? Really??? It will be a gold mine for whoever hits.  We had efficacy models and early clinical trials running at my company back in the 2005-6 window and it was going on long before that.

More than people want to accept? Why would people "want to accept" that there hasn't been research into cannabinoids? That makes no sense. There's a reason why states that license it for medical use have slowly increased since the 90's and we still are not at a majority of them. It was scheduled back in the 70's which absolutely hampered the research into since then. And yes, the pharmokinetic/dynamic models are more complex than traditional pharmaceuticals, but that doesn't make his point off base at all. In fact it reinforces it, since complex questions require complex answers, hence the need for more research, rather than enacting legislation that in effect restricts it. 

Quote

The challenge is the compounds dont seem to do much in isolation. There is something about the mixture in pot. It also speaks to the wide genetic variability in brain neurochemistry that we dont understand and thats not even getting into the challenges of measuring efficacy which is basically a subjective questionnaire 

The delta 8 gummies I have would say otherwise.

I think one of you is talking about pharmas trying to synthesize weed/THC/whatever. 

the other is talking about whether cannabis has any medicinal applications. 

maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like you're arguing different things. 

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think one of you is talking about pharmas trying to synthesize weed/THC/whatever. 

the other is talking about whether cannabis has any medicinal applications. 

maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like you're arguing different things. 

Could be. When he said DEagle's point was off base, I could've misinterpreted which point he was referring to. 

In any case, the bottom line is that it should be decriminalized at the very least and treated no differently than alcohol. As for medical applications, I agree that it has shown in some cases to be of clinical use (appetite stimulant perhaps the most promising) but further research is clearly needed. TJ's implication seemed to be along the lines of "welp, we've done enough research, the stuff clearly doesn't work, time to move on!"

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Could be. When he said DEagle's point was off base, I could've misinterpreted which point he was referring to. 

In any case, the bottom line is that it should be decriminalized at the very least and treated no differently than alcohol. As for medical applications, I agree that it has shown in some cases to be of clinical use (appetite stimulant perhaps the most promising) but further research is clearly needed. TJ's implication seemed to be along the lines of "welp, we've done enough research, the stuff clearly doesn't work, time to move on!"

I don't want to speak for him but his argument seemed to be that pharmas to date haven't been able to synthesize the proper mix of compounds from pot; that individual components are inert by themselves but somehow work together to give people the "high":

Quote

 The challenge is the compounds dont seem to do much in isolation. There is something about the mixture in pot. 

 

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't want to speak for him but his argument seemed to be that pharmas to date haven't been able to synthesize the proper mix of compounds from pot; that individual components are inert by themselves but somehow work together to give people the "high":

 

I don't know what that means. What are "the proper mix of compounds" he's referring to here? Is he arguing that there other compounds (besides THC) in edibles made from a THC distillate that could be producing the appetite stimulant and analgesic effects? Even so, I don't know how that reinforces the argument that there shouldn't be more research on the subject.

32 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

More than people want to accept? Why would people "want to accept" that there hasn't been research into cannabinoids? That makes no sense. There's a reason why states that license it for medical use have slowly increased since the 90's and we still are not at a majority of them. It was scheduled back in the 70's which absolutely hampered the research into since then. And yes, the pharmokinetic/dynamic models are more complex than traditional pharmaceuticals, but that doesn't make his point off base at all. In fact it reinforces it, since complex questions require complex answers, hence the need for more research, rather than enacting legislation that in effect restricts it. 

The delta 8 gummies I have would say otherwise.

Your anecdote is not data. Run a blinded study and then get back to us. no one is saying dont do research. In fact, i am telling you its been ongoing for ages but you are too hung up on arguing with me to listen, as per your usual. 

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Your anecdote is not data. Run a blinded study and then get back to us. no one is saying dont do research. In fact, i am telling you its been ongoing for ages but you are too hung up on arguing with me to listen, as per your usual. 

Yeah, all those people eating edibles are just imagining the effects. Good call.  

30 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think one of you is talking about pharmas trying to synthesize weed/THC/whatever. 

the other is talking about whether cannabis has any medicinal applications. 

maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like you're arguing different things. 

They arent that different really. You would still need thorough analytical chemistry on pot, standardized dose etc. the problem is what does efficacy look like and how do you measure it? How do you measure safety. Doing it with such complex mixtures makes the data incredibly difficult to work with.

mind you i am all for legalization. I think you can make a sound argument to regard pot as GRAS too. But the epi data is spotty at best. Thats what the schedule 1 has hurt, not the research. The outcome data.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, all those people eating edibles are just imagining the effects. Good call.  

No one said that either. Away put your strawmen

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Man you need to relax there pothead

Yeah, the GOP in PA is really going to vote to legalize it. You need to take another puff. 

24 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, the GOP in PA is really going to vote to legalize it. You need to take another puff. 

Medical marijuana was passed overwhelmingly in 2016. You need to mellow out man.

 

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

No one said that either. Away put your strawmen

You English learn better.

3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

We have been researching cannabinoids for decades. Cant seem to get a positive proof of concept clinically

Which is why I added the first part. My impression is that weed in particular is going to be much less effective than people hope, particularly for things like seizures.

Still don't see any reason for the level 1 roadblock, even if there are plenty of work arounds and think both would have more well defined medical uses by now and less stigma if it weren't in place. Even if it's just as a mild efficacy drug for chronic back pain or last ditch effort for treatment resistant depression. 

Unfortunately I doubt either are miracle pills.

47 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Which is why I added the first part. My impression is that weed in particular is going to be much less effective than people hope, particularly for things like seizures.

Still don't see any reason for the level 1 roadblock, even if there are plenty of work arounds and think both would have more well defined medical uses by now and less stigma if it weren't in place. Even if it's just as a mild efficacy drug for chronic back pain or last ditch effort for treatment resistant depression. 

Unfortunately I doubt either are miracle pills.

quit harshing my buzz man. 

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

quit harshing my buzz man. 

Psilocybin might have some effectiveness. Also fully support letting adults do what they want to do so even if it's not a miracle cure for seizures I see no problem with people using it to enjoy an afternoon tripping at the beach. 🤷‍♂️

On 9/28/2021 at 12:58 PM, DEagle7 said:

Psilocybin might have some effectiveness. Also fully support letting adults do what they want to do so even if it's not a miracle cure for seizures I see no problem with people using it to enjoy an afternoon tripping at the beach. 🤷‍♂️

Going "on a trip" every month or two has produced amazing results for me. My mood, mental clarity, and mental "quickness" are all positively improved. Of course this may not be true of everyone. My wife also enjoys partaking and while she has fun and "good trips", she doesn't experience the long term benefits I have thus far.

4 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Going "on a trip" every month or two has produced amazing results for me. My mood, mental clarity, and mental "quickness" are all positively improved. Of course this may not be true of everyone. My wife also enjoys partaking and while she has fun and "good trips", she doesn't experience the long term benefits I have thus far.

My wife is fine with small doses but gets incredibly nauseated when she really trips.  Still enjoys doing it for some reason.  Did a lot of it over in Thailand a few years back.  Mosquito netting was fun.  

15 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Going "on a trip" every month or two has produced amazing results for me. My mood, mental clarity, and mental "quickness" are all positively improved. Of course this may not be true of everyone. My wife also enjoys partaking and while she has fun and "good trips", she doesn't experience the long term benefits I have thus far.

It certainly explains alot. 😂

12 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

My wife is fine with small doses but gets incredibly nauseated when she really trips.  Still enjoys doing it for some reason.  Did a lot of it over in Thailand a few years back.  Mosquito netting was fun.  

That's common. A small amount of THC helps with the nausea sometimes. I take a 30mg gummie about an hour before.