|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 26 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 11:46 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 11:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Never mind the fact that states that have legalized Marijuana have seen pain killer deaths, and overdoes drop across the board... For many people struggling with opioid use, a key to success in recovery is having support. Some are getting that support from an unlikely place: their health insurer.
Amanda Jean Andrade, who lives west of Boston in a halfway house for addiction recovery, has been drug- and alcohol-free since October. It's the longest she's been off such substances in a decade. She gives a lot of the credit for that to her case manager, Will — who works for her insurance company.
"Having Will is the best thing in the world for me," Andrade says. "Because if I have the slightest issue with anything to do with my insurance that includes, like, prescriptions — even when I had a court issue — I know that I can call him."
Andrade's insurer is CeltiCare Health Plan, one of several health insurance companies in Massachusetts taking aggressive new steps to deal with the growing opioid epidemic. CeltiCare has about 50,000 members in the state, and mostly manages care for patients on Medicaid.
Insurers typically cover some inpatient substance use treatment and detox, says CeltiCare's president and CEO Jay Gonzalez, but those are only short-term solutions. After a patient is discharged, relapse — and readmission — are likely without follow-up support.
That's why CeltiCare assigns social workers to some of the people it insures.
"This is the biggest potential solution to this problem, I think, because at the end of the day we have to find the members who are or could be in trouble, and we need them to be invested in addressing their issues," Gonzalez says.
For CeltiCare, the costs related to the opioid epidemic are huge: Nearly a quarter of its hospital admissions are related to substance use, Gonzalez says. The insurer spent more than 10 percent of its budget last year on Suboxone, a medication to treat addiction to narcotics. That's more than it spent on any other drug. Source You are overly simplifying opioid-related deaths. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't solve it. Solve, no. Reduce, absolutely. Unfortunately cannabis can't be used for everything opioids are but it could also save a lot of lives lost as a result of depression and PTSD especially in the military. Leaving it to the states and having the federal government just gtfo of it seems like it should be the easiest to make happen. At minimum though it needs to come off of Schedule 1, having it there is just nonsensical.
If you wanted to help these people, fixing your shitty healthcare system is the way to go (Obamacare was at best a bandaid - but I guess it is what was doable at the time). Legalising marijuana is largely a recreational issue.
EDIT: For the record: marijuana has only really shown effect in animal models and have yet to prove conclusively efficacious in humans both with regards to depression and PTSD. And the few studies that have been made did not exactly make it look like it would win in any superiority trials outside of vs placebo.
|
On January 26 2016 20:27 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2016 11:46 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 11:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Never mind the fact that states that have legalized Marijuana have seen pain killer deaths, and overdoes drop across the board... For many people struggling with opioid use, a key to success in recovery is having support. Some are getting that support from an unlikely place: their health insurer.
Amanda Jean Andrade, who lives west of Boston in a halfway house for addiction recovery, has been drug- and alcohol-free since October. It's the longest she's been off such substances in a decade. She gives a lot of the credit for that to her case manager, Will — who works for her insurance company.
"Having Will is the best thing in the world for me," Andrade says. "Because if I have the slightest issue with anything to do with my insurance that includes, like, prescriptions — even when I had a court issue — I know that I can call him."
Andrade's insurer is CeltiCare Health Plan, one of several health insurance companies in Massachusetts taking aggressive new steps to deal with the growing opioid epidemic. CeltiCare has about 50,000 members in the state, and mostly manages care for patients on Medicaid.
Insurers typically cover some inpatient substance use treatment and detox, says CeltiCare's president and CEO Jay Gonzalez, but those are only short-term solutions. After a patient is discharged, relapse — and readmission — are likely without follow-up support.
That's why CeltiCare assigns social workers to some of the people it insures.
"This is the biggest potential solution to this problem, I think, because at the end of the day we have to find the members who are or could be in trouble, and we need them to be invested in addressing their issues," Gonzalez says.
For CeltiCare, the costs related to the opioid epidemic are huge: Nearly a quarter of its hospital admissions are related to substance use, Gonzalez says. The insurer spent more than 10 percent of its budget last year on Suboxone, a medication to treat addiction to narcotics. That's more than it spent on any other drug. Source You are overly simplifying opioid-related deaths. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't solve it. Solve, no. Reduce, absolutely. Unfortunately cannabis can't be used for everything opioids are but it could also save a lot of lives lost as a result of depression and PTSD especially in the military. Leaving it to the states and having the federal government just gtfo of it seems like it should be the easiest to make happen. At minimum though it needs to come off of Schedule 1, having it there is just nonsensical. If you wanted to help these people, fixing your shitty healthcare system is the way to go (Obamacare was at best a bandaid - but I guess it is what was doable at the time). Legalising marijuana is largely a recreational issue. EDIT: For the record: marijuana has only really shown effect in animal models and have yet to prove conclusively efficacious in humans both with regards to depression and PTSD. And the few studies that have been made did not exactly make it look like it would win in any superiority trials outside of vs placebo.
One reason the research isn't out there is because it's been criminal to do it for the most part.
Legalizing cannabis has a multitude of positive impacts, and far too many negatives related to keeping it illegal. No one is saying legalizing cannabis is THE solution. It's just a really easy one that would help and we have no excuse for holding onto the ignorance and propaganda that convinces people it's not the right thing to do.
As for the superiority trials, considering the side effects of the stuff they currently use (and make billions off of) I don't think it's absurd to give people a less dangerous choice. Anecdotely I speak regularly with veterans who will swear on their honor that cannabis has literally saved their lives from addictions to opioids and other mood altering drugs.
I guess if one wants to make the point that it isn't a magic bullet, the response is, so?
Cannabis shouldn't be illegal.
|
On January 26 2016 21:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 20:27 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2016 11:46 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 11:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Never mind the fact that states that have legalized Marijuana have seen pain killer deaths, and overdoes drop across the board... For many people struggling with opioid use, a key to success in recovery is having support. Some are getting that support from an unlikely place: their health insurer.
Amanda Jean Andrade, who lives west of Boston in a halfway house for addiction recovery, has been drug- and alcohol-free since October. It's the longest she's been off such substances in a decade. She gives a lot of the credit for that to her case manager, Will — who works for her insurance company.
"Having Will is the best thing in the world for me," Andrade says. "Because if I have the slightest issue with anything to do with my insurance that includes, like, prescriptions — even when I had a court issue — I know that I can call him."
Andrade's insurer is CeltiCare Health Plan, one of several health insurance companies in Massachusetts taking aggressive new steps to deal with the growing opioid epidemic. CeltiCare has about 50,000 members in the state, and mostly manages care for patients on Medicaid.
Insurers typically cover some inpatient substance use treatment and detox, says CeltiCare's president and CEO Jay Gonzalez, but those are only short-term solutions. After a patient is discharged, relapse — and readmission — are likely without follow-up support.
That's why CeltiCare assigns social workers to some of the people it insures.
"This is the biggest potential solution to this problem, I think, because at the end of the day we have to find the members who are or could be in trouble, and we need them to be invested in addressing their issues," Gonzalez says.
For CeltiCare, the costs related to the opioid epidemic are huge: Nearly a quarter of its hospital admissions are related to substance use, Gonzalez says. The insurer spent more than 10 percent of its budget last year on Suboxone, a medication to treat addiction to narcotics. That's more than it spent on any other drug. Source You are overly simplifying opioid-related deaths. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't solve it. Solve, no. Reduce, absolutely. Unfortunately cannabis can't be used for everything opioids are but it could also save a lot of lives lost as a result of depression and PTSD especially in the military. Leaving it to the states and having the federal government just gtfo of it seems like it should be the easiest to make happen. At minimum though it needs to come off of Schedule 1, having it there is just nonsensical. If you wanted to help these people, fixing your shitty healthcare system is the way to go (Obamacare was at best a bandaid - but I guess it is what was doable at the time). Legalising marijuana is largely a recreational issue. EDIT: For the record: marijuana has only really shown effect in animal models and have yet to prove conclusively efficacious in humans both with regards to depression and PTSD. And the few studies that have been made did not exactly make it look like it would win in any superiority trials outside of vs placebo. One reason the research isn't out there is because it's been criminal to do it for the most part. Legalizing cannabis has a multitude of positive impacts, and far too many negatives related to keeping it illegal. No one is saying legalizing cannabis is THE solution. It's just a really easy one that would help and we have no excuse for holding onto the ignorance and propaganda that convinces people it's not the right thing to do. As for the superiority trials, considering the side effects of the stuff they currently use (and make billions off of) I don't think it's absurd to give people a less dangerous choice. Anecdotely I speak regularly with veterans who will swear on their honor that cannabis has literally saved their lives from addictions to opioids and other mood altering drugs. I guess if one wants to make the point that it isn't a magic bullet, the response is, so? Cannabis shouldn't be illegal.
1) Cannabis-research is entirely legal. Even if you want to do it in the US which is unlike popular belief not the only place whereedical research is conducted (especially not pain research). And even so, the difficulty of getting the required FDA and DEA approval is vastly exaggerated. It is not more researched because the results are generally not promising - pro-legalisation people just tend to blow up every miniscule positive pilot-trial.
2) A superiority trial takes side-effects into account.
3) Its completely fine if you want to legalise marijuana, I literally don't care. But don't insult our collective intellect by claiming that you want to do so to save the sick - the evidence is simply not there.
|
On January 26 2016 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Damn, Rand Paul went HAM on Donald Trump on The Nightly Show. Show nested quote +"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag, a speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president". It was in the context of a comedy sketch, but still. Show nested quote + "I steadfastly said he is not Hitler, Goebbels maybe. But I seriously compared him to Gollum"
That part was in the interview. As funny as I find Trump's leading and the responses from people like Rand and Jeb it is just a little scary. I mean when Trump loses the general it's not like all the people he riled up are going to disappear. I imagine they aren't going to be too happy with Clinton or Sanders either.
Trumps support is overblown, at least in the caucus states. Most of his "supporters" are over 55 (and he "polls" highest in the 65+ category), so they'll be dead in a couple decades for the most part anyways. The polls are mostly unscientific anyways. Let's wait until people actually vote. I'm a good 80% confident that Trump is going to come in 3rd in Iowa behind Cruz and Rand.
Also, once the veneer of his winner schtick is blown to hell he has nothing left. Going to be hilarious to watch actually.
|
On January 26 2016 22:20 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 21:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2016 20:27 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2016 11:46 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 11:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Never mind the fact that states that have legalized Marijuana have seen pain killer deaths, and overdoes drop across the board... For many people struggling with opioid use, a key to success in recovery is having support. Some are getting that support from an unlikely place: their health insurer.
Amanda Jean Andrade, who lives west of Boston in a halfway house for addiction recovery, has been drug- and alcohol-free since October. It's the longest she's been off such substances in a decade. She gives a lot of the credit for that to her case manager, Will — who works for her insurance company.
"Having Will is the best thing in the world for me," Andrade says. "Because if I have the slightest issue with anything to do with my insurance that includes, like, prescriptions — even when I had a court issue — I know that I can call him."
Andrade's insurer is CeltiCare Health Plan, one of several health insurance companies in Massachusetts taking aggressive new steps to deal with the growing opioid epidemic. CeltiCare has about 50,000 members in the state, and mostly manages care for patients on Medicaid.
Insurers typically cover some inpatient substance use treatment and detox, says CeltiCare's president and CEO Jay Gonzalez, but those are only short-term solutions. After a patient is discharged, relapse — and readmission — are likely without follow-up support.
That's why CeltiCare assigns social workers to some of the people it insures.
"This is the biggest potential solution to this problem, I think, because at the end of the day we have to find the members who are or could be in trouble, and we need them to be invested in addressing their issues," Gonzalez says.
For CeltiCare, the costs related to the opioid epidemic are huge: Nearly a quarter of its hospital admissions are related to substance use, Gonzalez says. The insurer spent more than 10 percent of its budget last year on Suboxone, a medication to treat addiction to narcotics. That's more than it spent on any other drug. Source You are overly simplifying opioid-related deaths. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't solve it. Solve, no. Reduce, absolutely. Unfortunately cannabis can't be used for everything opioids are but it could also save a lot of lives lost as a result of depression and PTSD especially in the military. Leaving it to the states and having the federal government just gtfo of it seems like it should be the easiest to make happen. At minimum though it needs to come off of Schedule 1, having it there is just nonsensical. If you wanted to help these people, fixing your shitty healthcare system is the way to go (Obamacare was at best a bandaid - but I guess it is what was doable at the time). Legalising marijuana is largely a recreational issue. EDIT: For the record: marijuana has only really shown effect in animal models and have yet to prove conclusively efficacious in humans both with regards to depression and PTSD. And the few studies that have been made did not exactly make it look like it would win in any superiority trials outside of vs placebo. One reason the research isn't out there is because it's been criminal to do it for the most part. Legalizing cannabis has a multitude of positive impacts, and far too many negatives related to keeping it illegal. No one is saying legalizing cannabis is THE solution. It's just a really easy one that would help and we have no excuse for holding onto the ignorance and propaganda that convinces people it's not the right thing to do. As for the superiority trials, considering the side effects of the stuff they currently use (and make billions off of) I don't think it's absurd to give people a less dangerous choice. Anecdotely I speak regularly with veterans who will swear on their honor that cannabis has literally saved their lives from addictions to opioids and other mood altering drugs. I guess if one wants to make the point that it isn't a magic bullet, the response is, so? Cannabis shouldn't be illegal. 1) Cannabis-research is entirely legal. Even if you want to do it in the US which is unlike popular belief not the only place whereedical research is conducted (especially not pain research). And even so, the difficulty of getting the required FDA and DEA approval is vastly exaggerated. It is not more researched because the results are generally not promising - pro-legalisation people just tend to blow up every miniscule positive pilot-trial. 2) A superiority trial takes side-effects into account. 3) Its completely fine if you want to legalise marijuana, I literally don't care. But don't insult our collective intellect by claiming that you want to do so to save the sick - the evidence is simply not there.
While it is legal to do cannabis research, the supplies and dosages (and dosage forms) you can use are very heavily regulated. All supply in the U.S. (in humans or animals) also has to come from the University of Mississippi, and since you need to place specific orders for THC and other cannabinoid concentration the turnaround time is pretty substantial. That's why so much of the research is on analogues.
(also, you don't really need superiority to current treatments to be approved by FDA, there's a reason non-inferiority trials exist, and I could count the number of superiority trials for all drugs that integrate side effect scores into their main measure of effect that aren't just a lumping of "cardiovascular mortality" or piss poor "quality of life index" on two hands)
That said, given what I learned in pharmacy school I wouldn't ever really prescribe it for people. It's just a little silly to keep it schedule 1, because it really does hamstring the research.
|
On January 26 2016 23:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 22:20 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 21:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2016 20:27 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2016 11:46 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 11:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Never mind the fact that states that have legalized Marijuana have seen pain killer deaths, and overdoes drop across the board... For many people struggling with opioid use, a key to success in recovery is having support. Some are getting that support from an unlikely place: their health insurer.
Amanda Jean Andrade, who lives west of Boston in a halfway house for addiction recovery, has been drug- and alcohol-free since October. It's the longest she's been off such substances in a decade. She gives a lot of the credit for that to her case manager, Will — who works for her insurance company.
"Having Will is the best thing in the world for me," Andrade says. "Because if I have the slightest issue with anything to do with my insurance that includes, like, prescriptions — even when I had a court issue — I know that I can call him."
Andrade's insurer is CeltiCare Health Plan, one of several health insurance companies in Massachusetts taking aggressive new steps to deal with the growing opioid epidemic. CeltiCare has about 50,000 members in the state, and mostly manages care for patients on Medicaid.
Insurers typically cover some inpatient substance use treatment and detox, says CeltiCare's president and CEO Jay Gonzalez, but those are only short-term solutions. After a patient is discharged, relapse — and readmission — are likely without follow-up support.
That's why CeltiCare assigns social workers to some of the people it insures.
"This is the biggest potential solution to this problem, I think, because at the end of the day we have to find the members who are or could be in trouble, and we need them to be invested in addressing their issues," Gonzalez says.
For CeltiCare, the costs related to the opioid epidemic are huge: Nearly a quarter of its hospital admissions are related to substance use, Gonzalez says. The insurer spent more than 10 percent of its budget last year on Suboxone, a medication to treat addiction to narcotics. That's more than it spent on any other drug. Source You are overly simplifying opioid-related deaths. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't solve it. Solve, no. Reduce, absolutely. Unfortunately cannabis can't be used for everything opioids are but it could also save a lot of lives lost as a result of depression and PTSD especially in the military. Leaving it to the states and having the federal government just gtfo of it seems like it should be the easiest to make happen. At minimum though it needs to come off of Schedule 1, having it there is just nonsensical. If you wanted to help these people, fixing your shitty healthcare system is the way to go (Obamacare was at best a bandaid - but I guess it is what was doable at the time). Legalising marijuana is largely a recreational issue. EDIT: For the record: marijuana has only really shown effect in animal models and have yet to prove conclusively efficacious in humans both with regards to depression and PTSD. And the few studies that have been made did not exactly make it look like it would win in any superiority trials outside of vs placebo. One reason the research isn't out there is because it's been criminal to do it for the most part. Legalizing cannabis has a multitude of positive impacts, and far too many negatives related to keeping it illegal. No one is saying legalizing cannabis is THE solution. It's just a really easy one that would help and we have no excuse for holding onto the ignorance and propaganda that convinces people it's not the right thing to do. As for the superiority trials, considering the side effects of the stuff they currently use (and make billions off of) I don't think it's absurd to give people a less dangerous choice. Anecdotely I speak regularly with veterans who will swear on their honor that cannabis has literally saved their lives from addictions to opioids and other mood altering drugs. I guess if one wants to make the point that it isn't a magic bullet, the response is, so? Cannabis shouldn't be illegal. 1) Cannabis-research is entirely legal. Even if you want to do it in the US which is unlike popular belief not the only place whereedical research is conducted (especially not pain research). And even so, the difficulty of getting the required FDA and DEA approval is vastly exaggerated. It is not more researched because the results are generally not promising - pro-legalisation people just tend to blow up every miniscule positive pilot-trial. 2) A superiority trial takes side-effects into account. 3) Its completely fine if you want to legalise marijuana, I literally don't care. But don't insult our collective intellect by claiming that you want to do so to save the sick - the evidence is simply not there. While it is legal to do cannabis research, the supplies and dosages (and dosage forms) you can use are very heavily regulated. All supply in the U.S. (in humans or animals) also has to come from the University of Mississippi, and since you need to place specific orders for THC and other cannabinoid concentration the turnaround time is pretty substantial. That's why so much of the research is on analogues. (also, you don't really need superiority to current treatments to be approved by FDA, there's a reason non-inferiority trials exist, and I could count the number of superiority trials for all drugs that integrate side effect scores into their main measure of effect that aren't just a lumping of "cardiovascular mortality" or piss poor "quality of life index" on two hands) That said, given what I learned in pharmacy school I wouldn't ever really prescribe it for people. It's just a little silly to keep it schedule 1, because it really does hamstring the research.
Cannabinoids are one of the better ways to treat seizures, as most of the products on the market aren't that great for chronic sufferers.
|
There's this thing called Google. It's pretty nice. It helps to prevent oneself from looking utterly uninformed while adamantly spewing self-involved, mindless lunacy.
Here's what I was able to find on the interwebs in a matter of seconds:
Marijuana as a remedy for arthritic pain: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Marijuana as means of combatting side effects caused by HIV: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Marijuana as a retardant for the spread of protein deposits triggering Alzheimer's, as well as a remedy for the side effects it exhibits: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov''
Marijuana as a cure for epilepsy: nyulangone.org A first-hand account of its effectiveness: www.cnn.com
One of the, allegedly unreliable animal studies you've referred to (see science for similarities between all terrestrial species), in which cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells (see cancer as sufficient reason to pursue this effort): www.cancer.gov
And here's a lovely lil excerpt from the head of the DEA (head=guy in charge) claiming medicinal marijuana is a joke, thus undermining your seemingly irrefutable point there lie no bureaucratic barriers: www.washingtonpost.com
The internet is a wonderful thing. It helps people prevent themselves from looking like idiots. But not always.
|
When the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce hired economist Tom Cunningham to fill a newly created position in July, one of his first assignments was to study the potential economic consequences if “religious freedoms” legislation is enacted in Georgia.
“The idea was, ‘This stuff could make an impact,’” said Cunningham. “It was clear there were potential losses associated with bad outcomes from the legislation.”
This was clear to him because Indiana was targeted by a wide range of boycotts after its version of the law passed only months earlier. The boycotts were based on widespread public opinion that the law sanctioned discrimination against LGBT people.
Cunningham’s study, released in November, estimated that Georgia could lose at least $1 billion if such a law is passed in the state. The same month, the Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau, a tourism agency, produced a report predicting similar losses for the state. Around the same time, former state Senate Majority Leader Ronnie Chance began meeting with a small group of business leaders concerned about the issue.
The growing sense of unease came to a head earlier this month, only days before Georgia’s 2016 Legislature convened, with the launch of Georgia Prospers, a coalition of several hundred businesses, including large corporations emblematic of the state such as Coca-Cola, Home Depot and Delta Airlines.
The coalition’s purpose: “to oppose discrimination of any kind,” said Chance, now a spokesman for the group. “In fact, the first thing you think of when you think of the South is racial discrimination. No discrimination is good, with the history we have.”
He took pains to point out that the coalition is not an advocacy or lobbying group, with no mention on its new website of SB 129 — the third attempt in Georgia in three years to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or RFRA, modeled after the federal law of the same name). Nonetheless, the group may well be a game changer in the ongoing conflict over such legislation and a sign of things to come in state-by-state battles over the issue.
Source
|
Is the medical side of Cannabis really a big deal in the US? Many countries discuss or have discussed the topic again and again, but nowhere was there ever such a focus on its medical side (in Switzerland it wasn't even a side topic), is this really the case in the US?
|
Its pretty serious and used mostly for pain relief and some other treatments. Mostly for long term pain caused by something like cancer. It treats pain and is less debilitating that some higher power pain relievers. Its pretty big in some parts of the US for treatment. But our country is huge compared to any single EU country.
|
On January 26 2016 23:07 always_winter wrote:There's this thing called Google. It's pretty nice. It helps to prevent oneself from looking utterly uninformed while adamantly spewing self-involved, mindless lunacy. Here's what I was able to find on the interwebs in a matter of seconds: Marijuana as a remedy for arthritic pain: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govMarijuana as means of combatting side effects caused by HIV: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govMarijuana as a retardant for the spread of protein deposits triggering Alzheimer's, as well as a remedy for the side : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov'' Marijuana as a cure for epilepsy: nyulangone.orgA first-hand account of its effectiveness: www.cnn.comOne of the, allegedly unreliable animal studies you've referred to (see science for similarities between all terrestrial species), in which cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells (see cancer as sufficient reason to pursue this effort): www.cancer.govAnd here's a lovely lil excerpt from the head of the DEA (head=guy in charge) claiming medicinal marijuana is a joke, thus undermining your seemingly irrefutable point there lie no bureaucratic barriers: www.washingtonpost.comThe internet is a wonderful thing. It helps people prevent themselves from looking like idiots. But not always.
I'm a MD PhD who has published articles concerning clinical trials of pain and somatic consequences of opioids in high-impact international journals. I have, unlike you I suspect, actual experience with getting FDA and DEA approval and running a clinical trial. I also have what qualifies as an expert knowledge on the treatment and research going on in the field of pain, including acute pain, cancer pain, and chronic non-cancer pain allowing me to contextualise what I read with already established facts. Among other things this allows me to understand basic things such as a computer model is not the same as an actual clinical trial (Alzheimer), that less than 1% of animal and ex vivo trials show an actual effect in humans (Cancer), that reducing frequency of attacks is not the same as curing epilepsy (Epilepsy), and that cannabinoids have not shown superiority to other treatment modalities of rheumatoid arthritis (Cochrane did a large review).
As someone who also treats patients I can assure you that no conspiracy is in place to keep marijuana illegal. We have been hoping for a new drug since the 80's. To believe otherwise is to believe that.millions of doctors prefer their patients to suffer...
You are right, the internet is a wonderful but it does not always prevent you from looking like an idiot - especially not when you presume to know and understand what you talk about without proper education in the field. Or did you think that we spend 7 years twiddling thumbs to become doctors?
EDIT: Phone ran out of battery, long live android. Don't get me wrong - I think Cannabis has a potential. It is just nowhere near what you think it is and the potential is not going to be fulfilled anytime soon regardless of legalisation or not.
|
rekt
repeat after me guys, big pharma and the healthcare system aren't blocking research or hiding cures because that would be stupid.
those studies are the equivalent of coolsciencefactsdaily.com proclaiming "research team discovers cure for cancer" when it's actually some researchers who tested some random molecule in a petri dish and it shut off a kinase. that's basically what marijuana proponents are doing, an in silico study does not an alzheimer's cure make.
|
Jeb Bush explained Sunday why he still thinks Rick Snyder has been “a great governor for Michigan” even after the mass lead poisoning because of tainted tap water in Flint.
The disgrace over Flint’s water, the Republican presidential prospect told ABC’s “This Week,” “is related to the fact that we’ve created this complex, no-responsibility regulatory system, where the federal government, the state government, a regional government, local and county governments are all pointing fingers at one another.”
Um, no.
Bush was attempting to muddy the proverbial water by portraying the Flint debacle as a failure of government at all levels. Snyder attempted the same diffusion of responsibility last week, saying that “government failed you — federal, state and local leaders — by breaking the trust you placed in us.”
But the Flint disaster, three years in the making, is not a failure of government generally. It’s the failure of a specific governing philosophy: Snyder’s belief that government works better if run more like a business.
No doubt, the federal Environmental Protection Agency deserves blame for failing to sound warnings more loudly and publicly, and for being too deferential to state authorities, once it learned last year that high lead levels in Flint were poisoning children.
But EPA had no role in the decisions that caused the problem, nor was it supposed to. That was entirely the responsibility of Snyder’s administration and his appointees.
The governor, former head of Gateway computers, was first elected as part of the tea party wave of 2010 with a plan to use his tech industry skills to run Michigan. He spoke of “outcomes” and “deliverables,” called residents “customers” and sought to “reinvent” the state to make it business-friendly.
A centerpiece of Snyder’s agenda, and one of his first actions, was a new law that gave the state dramatic powers to take over failing municipalities and school boards by appointing emergency managers with unchecked authority. Michigan voters killed that law in a November 2012 referendum, but a month later Snyder got the legislature, in a lame-duck session, to enact a law very similar to the one voters had rejected. This time, legislators attached it to a spending bill so it couldn’t be undone by referendum.
The unelected viceroys had mandates to improve municipal finances but little incentive to weigh other considerations.
In Flint, one such emergency manager, Edward Kurtz, abandoned the city’s decades-long reliance on Detroit as its source of clean tap water in 2013, under the theory that it could reduce Flint’s high water bills by tapping into a new pipeline that was still under construction.
Kurtz’s successor as Flint’s emergency manager, Darnell Earley (now emergency manager of Detroit’s schools), made the fateful decision to use treated water from the Flint River as the city’s water supply starting in 2014 while the pipeline was being completed — even though Detroit was willing to continue providing high-quality water under a short-term contract. This was supposed to save Flint $5 million.
And Earley’s successor as Flint emergency manager, Jerry Ambrose, overruled a city council vote in March 2015 to return to Detroit water. Ambrose called the council’s request “incomprehensible” and a waste of $12 million — even though there had already been chemical and bacterial problems with the river water, water quality had violated the Safe Drinking Water Act and the General Motors plant in Flint had stopped using the water because it was rusting car parts.
“You cannot separate what happened in Flint from the state’s extreme emergency-management law,” said Curt Guyette, who, working for the ACLU of Michigan, uncovered much of the scandal in Flint. “The bottom line is making sure the banks and bond holders get paid at all costs, even if the kids are poisoned with foul river water.”
The emergency-manager law, Guyette argued, “is about the taking away of democracy and the imposition of austerity-fueled autocracy on cities that are poor and majority African American.”
Snyder’s blaming of local authorities is disingenuous: Because of the emergency-management law, municipal officials can’t do anything without the blessing of Snyder’s viceroys.
The Flint disaster is Rick Snyder’s fault
|
On January 26 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote: Its pretty serious and used mostly for pain relief and some other treatments. Mostly for long term pain caused by something like cancer. It treats pain and is less debilitating that some higher power pain relievers. Its pretty big in some parts of the US for treatment. But our country is huge compared to any single EU country.
Thats not what i meant (but i really wasn't clear).
I feel like equating medical use of Cannabis with its Legalisation is just dishonest and I wonder why this is allways brought up in the US.
Nearly all people that want Cannabis to be legalised either want A: get stoned themselves B: see no point in criminalising people that like to get stoned C: think/know that its not any more harmfull than tobacco/alcohol. D: Feel like a legal marked would benefit plenty of people instead of criminals. E: .....
Why not just be honest? The simple fact of the matter seems to be: Criminalising cannabis creates more problems (tons) than it fixes (very few).
|
On January 26 2016 23:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Damn, Rand Paul went HAM on Donald Trump on The Nightly Show. "Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag, a speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president". It was in the context of a comedy sketch, but still. "I steadfastly said he is not Hitler, Goebbels maybe. But I seriously compared him to Gollum"
That part was in the interview. As funny as I find Trump's leading and the responses from people like Rand and Jeb it is just a little scary. I mean when Trump loses the general it's not like all the people he riled up are going to disappear. I imagine they aren't going to be too happy with Clinton or Sanders either. Trumps support is overblown, at least in the caucus states. Most of his "supporters" are over 55 (and he "polls" highest in the 65+ category), so they'll be dead in a couple decades for the most part anyways. The polls are mostly unscientific anyways. Let's wait until people actually vote. I'm a good 80% confident that Trump is going to come in 3rd in Iowa behind Cruz and Rand. Also, once the veneer of his winner schtick is blown to hell he has nothing left. Going to be hilarious to watch actually.
Actually, most of his supporters are in the 45-64 range. Only a third of his supporters are 65+ (Source, fifth paragraph). They'll be around for a while.
|
The amount coverage of Trump vastly outstrips the number of people who support him. It he good for rating for the “24/7 we want to be buzzfeed, but pretend we are news” networks. I am sure they will be around after Trump. The master plan of waiting for idiots to die out has never really been viable.
|
On January 26 2016 23:47 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 23:07 always_winter wrote:There's this thing called Google. It's pretty nice. It helps to prevent oneself from looking utterly uninformed while adamantly spewing self-involved, mindless lunacy. Here's what I was able to find on the interwebs in a matter of seconds: Marijuana as a remedy for arthritic pain: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govMarijuana as means of combatting side effects caused by HIV: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govMarijuana as a retardant for the spread of protein deposits triggering Alzheimer's, as well as a remedy for the side : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov'' Marijuana as a cure for epilepsy: nyulangone.orgA first-hand account of its effectiveness: www.cnn.comOne of the, allegedly unreliable animal studies you've referred to (see science for similarities between all terrestrial species), in which cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells (see cancer as sufficient reason to pursue this effort): www.cancer.govAnd here's a lovely lil excerpt from the head of the DEA (head=guy in charge) claiming medicinal marijuana is a joke, thus undermining your seemingly irrefutable point there lie no bureaucratic barriers: www.washingtonpost.comThe internet is a wonderful thing. It helps people prevent themselves from looking like idiots. But not always. I'm a MD PhD who has published articles concerning clinical trials of pain and somatic consequences of opioids in high-impact international journals. I have, unlike you I suspect, actual experience with getting FDA and DEA approval and running a clinical trial. I also have what qualifies as an expert knowledge on the treatment and research going on in the field of pain, including acute pain, cancer pain, and chronic non-cancer pain allowing me to contextualise what I read with already established facts. Among other things this allows me to understand basic things such as a computer model is not the same as an actual clinical trial (Alzheimer), that less than 1% of animal and ex vivo trials show an actual effect in humans (Cancer), that reducing frequency of attacks is not the same as curing epilepsy (Epilepsy), and that cannabinoids have not shown superiority to other treatment modalities of rheumatoid arthritis (Cochrane did a large review). As someone who also treats patients I can assure you that no conspiracy is in place to keep marijuana illegal. We have been hoping for a new drug since the 80's. To believe otherwise is to believe that.millions of doctors prefer their patients to suffer... You are right, the internet is a wonderful but it does not always prevent you from looking like an idiot - especially not when you presume to know and understand what you talk about without proper education in the field. Or did you think that we spend 7 years twiddling thumbs to become doctors? EDIT: Phone ran out of battery, long live android. Don't get me wrong - I think Cannabis has a potential. It is just nowhere near what you think it is and the potential is not going to be fulfilled anytime soon regardless of legalisation or not.
Expertise with A does not correlate to expertise with B (see suppressed correlative, logic, common sense). Cannabis is not an opioid, Cannabis is illegal and gaining approval for Cannabis differs from gaining approval for non-Cannabis. Your expertise with one particular facet of medicine does not qualify you to speak universally, and particularly unilaterally without supporting evidence, on all facets of medicine (see appeal to authority, red herring, logic, specialty, common sense). You going to school one year longer than myself and 90% of the current generation does not qualify you to disregard factual evidence with your own anecdotal evidence (see anecdotal fallacy, logic, common sense).
Regarding Alzheimer's:
Smoking, vaping, or eating the pot molecules THC and CBD directly effects nerve cell function, reducing chronic brain inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular dysfunction — all the while promoting stability of the human body’s internal environment (homeostasis) and healthy brain cells (neurotrophic support), studies show.
“What we found was that not only did the single puff a day reverse the memory impairment but also restarted neurogenesis,” Ohio State University, Gary Wenk told the Seattle Post Intelligencer this year.
blog.sfgate.com
Regarding bureaucratic blockades:
The U.S. government has patented marijuana molecule CBD as a neuroprotectant, evan as it maintains that cannabis is a schedule 1 drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse. The federal drug war is blocking deeper research into cannabis’ impacts on brain disease, Wenk states.
Regarding the man's qualifications:
faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu
Regarding cancer, I'll support exploratory research into one of the most destructive forces on the planet when said research has shown the elimination of cancer cells, regardless of the host. Regarding epilepsy, a reduction of frequency greater than 50% in preliminary trials offers incredible purpose to combat a debilitating disease (see false equivocation, semantics). Regarding a conspiracy, the illegal status of cannabis has greatly inhibited research (see above, and see false dichotomy regarding your ultimatum, logic, common sense).
Google. Give it a shot.
|
On January 27 2016 00:04 ticklishmusic wrote: rekt
repeat after me guys, big pharma and the healthcare system aren't blocking research or hiding cures because that would be stupid.
those studies are the equivalent of coolsciencefactsdaily.com proclaiming "research team discovers cure for cancer" when it's actually some researchers who tested some random molecule in a petri dish and it shut off a kinase. that's basically what marijuana proponents are doing, an in silico study does not an alzheimer's cure make.
It's not about actively blocking research. It's about the bounds of the imaginary. God complexes don't help matters.
|
I think the take away from this is that you should take all the claims of the medical power of cannabis with a grain of salt. I don’t think the point was to play “name that fallacy” when discussing the matter with someone who works in the field.
Also, someone can’t appeal to authority when they are the person they are the authority. You have no ability assess his expertise or areas of knowledge and its bad faith to assume they he lacks knowledge in the field just to further your argument. So unless you can 100% prove that he has no medical knowledge or expertise on the topic of cannabis in medicine, you can’t disregard his assessment of the subject and continue to argue in good faith.
|
On January 27 2016 01:07 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2016 23:47 Ghostcom wrote:On January 26 2016 23:07 always_winter wrote:There's this thing called Google. It's pretty nice. It helps to prevent oneself from looking utterly uninformed while adamantly spewing self-involved, mindless lunacy. Here's what I was able to find on the interwebs in a matter of seconds: Marijuana as a remedy for arthritic pain: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govMarijuana as means of combatting side effects caused by HIV: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govMarijuana as a retardant for the spread of protein deposits triggering Alzheimer's, as well as a remedy for the side : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov'' Marijuana as a cure for epilepsy: nyulangone.orgA first-hand account of its effectiveness: www.cnn.comOne of the, allegedly unreliable animal studies you've referred to (see science for similarities between all terrestrial species), in which cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells (see cancer as sufficient reason to pursue this effort): www.cancer.govAnd here's a lovely lil excerpt from the head of the DEA (head=guy in charge) claiming medicinal marijuana is a joke, thus undermining your seemingly irrefutable point there lie no bureaucratic barriers: www.washingtonpost.comThe internet is a wonderful thing. It helps people prevent themselves from looking like idiots. But not always. I'm a MD PhD who has published articles concerning clinical trials of pain and somatic consequences of opioids in high-impact international journals. I have, unlike you I suspect, actual experience with getting FDA and DEA approval and running a clinical trial. I also have what qualifies as an expert knowledge on the treatment and research going on in the field of pain, including acute pain, cancer pain, and chronic non-cancer pain allowing me to contextualise what I read with already established facts. Among other things this allows me to understand basic things such as a computer model is not the same as an actual clinical trial (Alzheimer), that less than 1% of animal and ex vivo trials show an actual effect in humans (Cancer), that reducing frequency of attacks is not the same as curing epilepsy (Epilepsy), and that cannabinoids have not shown superiority to other treatment modalities of rheumatoid arthritis (Cochrane did a large review). As someone who also treats patients I can assure you that no conspiracy is in place to keep marijuana illegal. We have been hoping for a new drug since the 80's. To believe otherwise is to believe that.millions of doctors prefer their patients to suffer... You are right, the internet is a wonderful but it does not always prevent you from looking like an idiot - especially not when you presume to know and understand what you talk about without proper education in the field. Or did you think that we spend 7 years twiddling thumbs to become doctors? EDIT: Phone ran out of battery, long live android. Don't get me wrong - I think Cannabis has a potential. It is just nowhere near what you think it is and the potential is not going to be fulfilled anytime soon regardless of legalisation or not. Expertise with A does not correlate to expertise with B (see suppressed correlative, logic, common sense). Cannabis is not an opioid, Cannabis is illegal and gaining approval for Cannabis differs from gaining approval for non-Cannabis. Your expertise with one particular facet of medicine does not qualify you to speak universally, and particularly unilaterally without supporting evidence, on all facets of medicine (see appeal to authority, red herring, logic, specialty, common sense). You going to school one year longer than myself and 90% of the current generation does not qualify you to disregard factual evidence with your own anecdotal evidence (see anecdotal fallacy, logic, common sense). Regarding Alzheimer's: Show nested quote +Smoking, vaping, or eating the pot molecules THC and CBD directly effects nerve cell function, reducing chronic brain inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular dysfunction — all the while promoting stability of the human body’s internal environment (homeostasis) and healthy brain cells (neurotrophic support), studies show.
“What we found was that not only did the single puff a day reverse the memory impairment but also restarted neurogenesis,” Ohio State University, Gary Wenk told the Seattle Post Intelligencer this year.
blog.sfgate.comRegarding bureaucratic blockades: Show nested quote +The U.S. government has patented marijuana molecule CBD as a neuroprotectant, evan as it maintains that cannabis is a schedule 1 drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse. The federal drug war is blocking deeper research into cannabis’ impacts on brain disease, Wenk states. Regarding the man's qualifications: faculty.psy.ohio-state.eduRegarding cancer, I'll support exploratory research into one of the most destructive forces on the planet when said research has shown the elimination of cancer cells, regardless of the host. Regarding epilepsy, a reduction of frequency greater than 50% in preliminary trials offers incredible purpose to combat a debilitating disease (see false equivocation, semantics). Regarding a conspiracy, the illegal status of cannabis has greatly inhibited research (see above, and see false dichotomy regarding your ultimatum, logic, common sense). Google. Give it a shot.
Dude. Stop digging.
|
|
|
|