CBD is a non-psychoactive compound in marijuana that shows promise in epilepsy and pain therapy, so the DEA wants to class it with heroin

boing
21

Me too. But I can’t figure out why (and I am Ramones fan!).

On topic: I’m frustrated trying to find guidelines on dosage for my specific condition (psoriatic arthritis). I have legal access under our current Canadian system (used to be Medical Marihuana Access Regulation, not sure what it’s official name is) and have been recommended to try THC and CBD oils, either by themselves or mixed; sublingually or in non-heated food (yogurt works great).

I’ve been experimenting with the CBD only so far. The only recommendation I was given is “start with a few drops, wait 1 hour, assess, repeat if necessary”. Started with 0.1ml, wait, another 0.1ml, all day. Nothing. Next day, same but using 0.2ml. Nothing. Next day, same but using 0.3ml. Nothing.

Also tried some large single doses; 0.5ml, 1.0ml, 2.0ml, 3.0ml. Nothing. No pain relief. No high. Nothing.

Next I’ll try mixing in some THC, but I have no idea where to start. Ideally I’d like to vary only the THC.

Then I’ll try THC only. I have experience with the herb, even in edible form, so I sorta know what to expect: a pleasant body stone as long as dosage is observed.

I’m starting to read the research. WHO paper just came out today.

Adding to the variables, there is a lot of talk 'round the web about the importance of the various terpenes in the plant (limonene, myrcene, many others…). If any of these dozen or so variables have medicinal properties, either directly or by the entourage effect, it might be a while before the guidelines will be known for each disease/condition.

Get the damn research done!

5 Likes
22

It’s 1000% big Pharma wanting to eradicate competition to their opiates.

2 Likes
23

GOP “we need fewer regulations”. Also GOP “we need to regulate this”

5 Likes
24

Warning: It may seem for part of this post like I agree with the Trump administration decision.

Heroin can be prescribed (under a different name) for medical uses in other countries. LSD and psilocybin are showing promise in clinical trials for some therapies. Obviously cannabis is used by many people for many therapeutic uses.

To be on schedule 1, a drug is supposed to be the case that, “The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.” That gives the idea that this is a question of whether the medical community accepts the value of the drug for therapeutic purposes. That sounds like it’s letting science lead the way.

But it never was. Whether a drug is addictive is a question for science, whether a drug is effective at treating conditions is a question for science. Whether a drug ought to be regulated or outlawed is a question of politics.

So to some extent, I’m with the current administration on their idea that the question of whether a drug ought to be schedule 1 is a question of values, because I think the idea it was ever about science was a lie told to try to give the weight of expertise to a political decision that was made to suppress Democratic votes. That kind of abuse of the authority of science played a big part in creating a lot of problems we have today, including the rejection of science.

The outcomes of policies is a matter that science can study. Which outcomes we want is a question of values. I want 1) to get people effective drugs to treat illness and pain, 2) to reduce the harms caused by drugs, and 3) to let people have a good time if that’s what their into. Those are my values. I think the best evidence says that the way to achieve that would be with regulation on the quality of products (similar to food safety regulation) and no criminal restrictions.

My observation tells me that the outcomes desired by the Trump administration are more like: 1) make Trump feel important, 2) maintain power, 3) translate power into monetary gain. They, therefore, are going to want a different set of policies.

So I don’t think the real problem here is the rejection of science. We ought to be better at separating what we learn from science from the political and value decisions. When you elect plutocrats, you get plutocratic laws; and science, if they paid attention to it, would help them figure out how to be better at being plutocrats.

1 Like
25

Ok, question on a hypothetical scenario here. I’m assuming a world where the US government remains sufficiently absurd as to keep cannabis scheduled.

The DEA defines marijuana as such: “The term ‘marihuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”

Clearly that means compounds extracted from the plant, and not merely compounds found within the plant. Otherwise the definition would include water, chlorophyll, glucose, DNA, etc.

I assume someone, somewhere has sequenced the cannabis genome at this point, or could find a way to legally do so.

Given that the Supreme Court idiotically ruled that cDNA and genes are different things, there could be a decent legal argument (IANAL) that a chemically synthesized copy cDNA of a particular cannabis gene would not be covered by the definition above. Such a gene can then be inserted into yeast or bacteria. Would this give us a legal route to synthesizing otherwise restricted compounds?

If so, the DEA could easily then schedule those compounds directly. But those would be new scheduling activity, and maybe they could be sued for ignoring the facts the same way the FCC is being sued over ignoring the facts on net neutrality?

1 Like
26

I think you are forgetting the part where the DEA has guns.

27

It’s 1000% big Pharma wanting to eradicate competition to their opiates

That isn’t 1000% accurate. Big Pharma can still make a shit ton of money off of CBD. Did you notice that there are currently Phase III trials of CBD?
Particularly if they can use CBD to treat a very specific disease, then they get all kinds of nice perks.

I am sure that Big Pharma is partly behind the resistance to medical marijuana, but at this point the fight is beyond even their lobbying. This is clearly in the realm of the ideological.

Money can convince a man to cut himself, but only beliefs can convince a man to kill himself!

2 Likes
28

I ended 19 years of opioids after establishing a regular yoga asana practice - and after establishing the use of CBD oil for a 20+ year daily moderate-severe chronic pain condition. Speaking as a clinician, IT WORKS and it is not mind-altering, but it is powerfully effective in keeping inflammation in my body at bay. It also brought my intraocular pressure (IOP) down, after it spiked and my eye doctor diagnosed me with open-angle glaucoma (increased IOP). The effects persist in the body after use and, as far as I can determine, they are almost completely beneficial.

6 Likes
29

Forgetting, no. Failing to mention, yes.

Even the police occasionally lose in court, against a well organized opposition.

30

2 knees up?

1 Like
31

Big Pharm 1
The Rest of US 0

1 Like
32

This story warms my heart, I’m really happy for you. In the state where I currently live CBD oil with a maximum of 5% THC content can be prescribed legally for a small number of diseases/conditions/disorders (I’m not a clinician, I don’t know the specific term), but it can’t be made, purchased or distributed here legally.

Thanks, compassionate conservatives.

33

Glad to hear of your success with CBD :clap::+1:

Upthread I mention my frustration with not knowing where to start dosage-wise for my problem (moderate-to-severe, nearly continuous joint pain from psoriatic arthritis).

I’m very much interested in your CBD treatment regime. Oil/tincture/lotion/flower? Size of and frequency of dosage? Was relief immediate, or did it take a day/days/week to build up before effective?

The CBD oil I’m using (CannTrust.ca, “CBD Drops Cannabis Oil”, 40ml; CBD: 25mg/ml, THC: <2mg/ml; primary terpene is “Caryophyllene”); as I mention in my previous post, no amount of this oil taken under my tongue has had any noticeable effect.

At least the THC oil works well. A good distraction from the pain…

34

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.