Medical marijuana benefits proven?

[Silverstarqueen]

....

[Tacklewasher]

I understand where you are coming from, but I still think we should be wary of unproven promises. A few people you have heard from is not science.

More research is the answer and, until that research proves the effectiveness, I don't see how doctors could prescribe it. It's a tough spot to be in but, just like I don't want my doctor to give me prescriptions for homeopathic products, I don't see how a doctor can prescribe MJ at this point. Both the links you provided are the start of the scientific process, not the end.

It is a frustrating spot to be in, as the initial results look promising but politics is slowing the process down.

[Tacklewasher]

So I googled the Simpson Protocol.

First links were to hypnosis something or other. I assume that's not what you are referring to.

First link with any relation to MJ is a Facebook page. I think this is what you are talking about, and this is the kind of information that scares me. Promises made not supported by science. Not what I would be looking for.

Cancer is scary. I get that. But, at this point, the best methods for treating it are radiation and chemo. Not nice options but they are proven. Giving up on those for an untested treatment is a sure way to get worse.

[Boda]

Pretty much what it says in the title. There is a lot of press out there on the benefits of medical MJ, but little in the way of actual evidence (besides anecdotal) as to it's effectiveness.

Where is the scientific evidence of the benefits of MJ?

Couple point I want to make. 1) I think MJ should be legalized completely. 2) I am questioning whether it should be prescribed by MD's given the lack of evidence to it's effectiveness. 3) I recognize that the current legal status is a big part of why there are no good studies on MJ and 4) that it may very well prove to be a cure for cancer etc. but that this has not yet been proven.

Guess we'll see how this goes.

Tacklewasher, your call for further study prior to government sanctioning of MD's prescribing MJ in Canada in my view has merit. Primarily for liability issues. Although I suppose there is a remote chance that those studies may uncover previously unconsidered consequences of prescribing MJ for medicinal purposes.

I more strongly agree with your thought that MJ should be legalized.
The blatant waste of tax payer resources on the war on drugs cannot be argued logically.

[Tacklewasher]

Tacklewasher, your call for further study prior to government sanctioning of MD's prescribing MJ in Canada in my view has merit. Primarily for liability issues. Although I suppose there is a remote chance that those studies may uncover previously unconsidered consequences of prescribing MJ for medicinal purposes.

My concern is that, once testing is done, there is no benefit found. Then those who have chosen MJ over conventional treatments will have that much more time with cancer growing when it could have been dealt with. There are lots of instances of something showing promise in preliminary studies, only for further studies not supporting its effectiveness.

I more strongly agree with your thought that MJ should be legalized.
The blatant waste of tax payer resources on the war on drugs cannot be argued logically.

That is a different topic. The concern for the medical mj is that it is still a schedule I product resulting in little to no testing being allowed.

[Silverstarqueen]

....

[flamingfingers]

I would take some issue with TW when s/he says there is 'no benefit' from herbal remedies. Before the advent of aspirin, people chewed the inner bark of willow trees for pain relief. What about digitalis for heart problems - obtained from the foxglove plant. There are OBs and Gynec doctors advising women to seek out "Blessed Thistle" (which needs no prescription) for stimulating milk production:
https://herblore.com/overviews/list-of- ... production

I see no difference in a person seeking out help for various problems from cannabis - or parsley, cumin, or asparagus. It is a natural plant and if it relieves the symptoms - why not give it a try?

I think we are still too rooted in the "War on Drugs" fearmongering to really and clearly look at the issue. They seem to be afraid of the fact that it is 'mind altering' - but to what effect? What about peyote? Not illegal at all in Canada!

Cannabis is claimed to have cancer killing properties, particularly in brain tumors. Wish I had known that before my partner died of glioblastoma multiforme - I SURE AS HECK would have given it to him!!

[Silverstarqueen]

some chemotherapy agents came from herbal products.

http://www.livingrainforest.org/about-r ... eriwinkle/

Either way, they are extremely toxic, can easily kill in higher doses, which cannabis does
not.

Nevertheless, you will not get even close to the same studies at this point, where cannabis is not even widely legal for medical purposes or research, as you have for other drugs that have been studied for up to forty years.

What would people say if cannabis put cancers into remission, but caused secondary cancers after ten years or so? Would they say, well that's not good enough? This is just what happens with current chemotherapy/radiation. It postpones death for five years or ten if you are lucky, but then the cancer can come back, or another different cancer invades due to the treatment at a rate of from 10% to 25% depending on how many years out you go. Yes, that's better than dying in five years, but would we accept if cannabis could do that, or are we insisting on a full cure, which even now often is not accomplished.

Taxol, comes from the Yew tree.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

[flamingfingers]

Virtually all drugs used today are derived from plants, animals and lichens. Most of them have been discovered by anecdotal 'evidence' and studied in greater detail - with chemical compounds synthesized in a lab. Cannabis elements have been attempted in a lab; however, have not proven effective the same way the natural plant has.

[Tacklewasher]

And when the testing prove the usefulness of the drugs, then they are part of medical science. But too many of the herbals are both unproven and unregulated. So you buy a bottle of ginseng based on what you've read on the internet and you are both buying an unproven medication and you are buying something with such poor quality control that there is no guarantee there is even ginseng in the bottle.

The health supplement industry is the biggest scam going these days. Billions are poured into it with no research being done to even test the effectiveness. People think Big Pharma are crooks when they fall for the supplement industry, not knowing that many of the big pharma are in the supplement industry and have been very successful (in the US) in lobbying to prevent the very testing and regulations that could prove the effectiveness (or not) and ensure some measure of quality control. But when I tried to start a thread on this, there was zero interest. It is another area where more studies are needed. With the exception of homeopathy. It is simply ludicrous on the face of it.

And I am a he.

[Silverstarqueen]

Just because something is part of the legal drug industry does not ensure that it is as effective as advertised. For many years antidepressants were sold as...antidepressants. The fact that many many patients were not getting relief seemed to be irrelevant(or somehow the patient's fault). Then years later it is discovered that they are only somewhat more effective than placebo, and in fact did not work in up to 2/3rds of the patients. Some heart/cholestrol lowering medications were found to be no more effective than dietary changes, again most patients weren't informed of that. There have been a weight loss drugs that did far more harm than good. If quality control is a concern, and of course it is, then all the more important that people be able to grow their own, or have a local or trusted grower, where they can see the product, much as some people do with organic produce. Still people should be able to assess for themselves if a product is doing what they want it to do. And as far as quality control, there were thyroid medications sold a few years ago that just didn't seem to be working. Patients were pooh-poohed by their doctors when they complained that something was wrong. Until they found out there was a problem with the potency, which in a thyroid medication even a tiny reduction can cause a big difference for the user.
Look at all the kids put on ritalin or other stimulants. Some needed it, some didn't. But it was doctor prescribed and that didn't stop it from being misused and mis-prescribed.
Yes, herbal producers should have to undergo periodic testing of their product to see if it contains what they claim it contains. That does not mean they are useless. Homeopathic is another whole kettle of fish, but if it works for someone, good on them. As long as they are labeled homeopathic, all that is required is honesty in labeling. Some people really will be healthier taking a homeopathic or herbal product, than say tylenol or ibuprofen. Look at all the people who were harmed or killed by simple OTC or prescription tylenol or NSAIDS. Now years later we are tole Tylenol doesn't work as advertised (although many people figured that out), and NSAIDS can damage kidneys and heart health. Yes, I swore by Vioxx until they took it off the market, I took ibuprophen (according to my doctor and pharmacist, no problem, take lots) and my health deteriorated. We are all guinea pigs for pharmaceutical drugs, and have been for years. So if people want to use cannabis as they see fit, that should be up to them, certainly with caution and self education as to possible side effects.

[bean1336]

Gah, I should have read this post before posting a new one on weeds kelowna

[bean1336]

And I agree, this industry needs more regulation. People claim to grow organic but then have spiders on them. And if they don't have spiders you're likely ingesting pesticides...

[Gixxer]

And I agree, this industry needs more regulation. People claim to grow organic but then have spiders on them. And if they don't have spiders you're likely ingesting pesticides...

What kind of regulations are you suggesting? Most marijuana users know the difference between good or bad marijuana. Its no different than going to the supermarket and picking through fresh produce.

[Silverstarqueen]

An herbal product, or some plant product, whether it's ginseng or corn, or whatever, does not have to have any specific health benefit. So much for the outrage over products which have not been proven to cure x, y, or z. It only needs to be accurately labeled or sold, as to what the product contains. The same would be for cannabis, as an herbal product, it doesn't have to treat any disease or condition whatever. Now someone can claim this or that for some product, but they cannot sell that product as having any particular effect, unless it is demonstrated in some study/trials (like pharmaceuticals, even though they have fudged a number of studies).