[Ahmabeliever]

CBD, interesting. The production of CBD is enhanced by a longer flowering period. When trichromes are all amber, the CBD content will be higher. THC degrades into CBD as late flowering progresses.

High CBD content is the stuff that puts you to sleep. More common in indicas, possibly due to the shorter flowering periods raising CBD content faster.

Artificial THC, well, why? Drug companies can't stand not getting their piece can they.

They'll make something with ugly side effects and then cannabis will get more bad press.

[Michaelangelica]

Maker of cannabis-based medicines hit by disappointing trial
he company said in a statement to the stock exchange that although the patient response rate to its drug, sprayed into a patient's mouth, was "very high" and better than the placebo, the difference between the two was insufficient. That meant the trial was unable to yield a "statistically significant outcome".

"Although the difference between the Sativex and placebo groups was clearly in favour of Sativex, it narrowly failed to reach statistical significance in this trial due to an unexpectedly large placebo response," GW Pharma explained.
. . .
"This doesn't call into question anything we have seen before but it doesn't show anything new. So we have to put it to one side and do another trial."
. . .
GW Pharma has been developing Sativex for 10 years, working with government backing to develop a safe way to provide cannabis-based pain relief. It grows thousands of marijuana plants at a secret countryside location to help develop the drug that provides relief for MS pain, MS muscle stiffness, or spasticity, cancer pain and nerve damage pain caused by conditions such as shingles and diabetes.

The drug became the first cannabis-derived medicine to win regulatory approval when it was approved in Canada in 2005 as a treatment for nerve pain in MS patients and it is also available in the UK on special prescriptions.

Maker of cannabis-based medicines hit by disappointing trial | Business | guardian.co.uk

[HydrogenBond]

I would like to approach medical MJ from a different angle. I am sort of neutral but can see how its prohibition can create a conflict of interest, since one is stuck in the middle between two opposing forces. It can create a no win situation. The angle I had in mind is whether the original arguments for making MJ illegal still hold water with respect to all the science that appeared since that time. Many of the 1960's and 1970's claims were health based and may have been supported by the data of that time. But has the data changed and do these arguments still hold true?

The reason I ask this is some of the earliest arguments that began the prohibition back in the 1920's were racist. Back then these arguments may have had the support of science studies. But they don't really hold water at this time in history. The original arguments were against Blacks, Mexicans, and American Indians. Some of the claims were increase in rape, psychotic episodes, affects that were like someone smoking crack cocaine. Most of these can be debunked based on our current understanding.

I am not sure of the list of the latest arguments. If someone had access to that list it might be a good exercise to place each argument under the microscope of modern science and medicine to see which still apply. Maybe they all still hold true, or maybe all don't hold water with respect to the data since that time. The odds are it is somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. I realize this is a conflict of interest, especially if it turned out less than well. But this is a science forum where we discuss science and debunk myths using the latest science as evidence to support.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I would like to approach medical MJ from a different angle. I am sort of neutral but can see how its prohibition can create a conflict of interest, since one is stuck in the middle between two opposing forces. It can create a no win situation. The angle I had in mind is whether the original arguments for making MJ illegal still hold water with respect to all the science that appeared since that time. Many of the 1960's and 1970's claims were health based and may have been supported by the data of that time. But has the data changed and do these arguments still hold true?

The reason I ask this is some of the earliest arguments that began the prohibition back in the 1920's were racist. Back then these arguments may have had the support of science studies. But they don't really hold water at this time in history. The original arguments were against Blacks, Mexicans, and American Indians. Some of the claims were increase in rape, psychotic episodes, affects that were like someone smoking crack cocaine. Most of these can be debunked based on our current understanding.

I am not sure of the list of the latest arguments. If someone had access to that list it might be a good exercise to place each argument under the microscope of modern science and medicine to see which still apply. Maybe they all still hold true, or maybe all don't hold water with respect to the data since that time. The odds are it is somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. I realize this is a conflict of interest, especially if it turned out less than well. But this is a science forum where we discuss science and debunk myths using the latest science as evidence to support.

To be honest the arguments are still basically the same except now it's all of us that will go crazy and kill everyone rather than just a minority. Then there is the old "If you smoke pot you'll end up shooting heroin" health issues are seldom used but when they are it is assumed that pot smokers smoke at a similar rate to cigarette smokers. concern over the fact that modern pot is several times as strong as pot was years ago are never put into the context of the real world where pot is smoked in smaller amounts as it gets stronger. it is always assumed that joints are the same size as cigarettes and that pot smokers have to smoke the whole thing like cigarette smokers do. The idea of research is tainted by the assumptions that pot is smoked the same way as tobacco. It is seldom taken into account that pot isn't addictive like tobacco and that pot smokers edit their does by how strong the pot is.

[HydrogenBond]

Marijuana use and Mortality

American Journal of Public Health, April 1997, Volume 87 Issue 4, p585

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of marijuana use to mortality.

Conclusions: Marijuana use in a prepaid health care-based study cohort had little effect on non-AIDS mortality in men and on total mortality in women. (Am J Public Health. 1997; 87:585-590)

I just did this research a minute ago. I was very surprised and expected to see marijuana much closer to cigarettes based on collective hearsay. I hope science will go take that erroneous argument and cross it out. Truth in science is not always politically correct, but it should always be.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Marijuana use and Mortality

American Journal of Public Health, April 1997, Volume 87 Issue 4, p585

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of marijuana use to mortality.

Conclusions: Marijuana use in a prepaid health care-based study cohort had little effect on non-AIDS mortality in men and on total mortality in women. (Am J Public Health. 1997; 87:585-590)

I just did this research a minute ago. I was very surprised and expected to see marijuana much closer to cigarettes based on collective hearsay. I hope science will go take that erroneous argument and cross it out. Truth in science is not always politically correct, but it should always be.

I wouldn't hold my breath, MJ has to be the devil it's self or too many politicians will look stupid. It's a great whipping boy when they want to stir up votes. Of course it's ok for the president to be have been a dust monkey but to admit you inhaled MJ can be a killer to a carer. weed will always be the first stepping stone on the road to ruin

[HydrogenBond]

I am digressing, but if we assume that politics can have an impact on which science studies are stressed or ignored, is it possible that other areas of science, influenced by politics, are doing the same type of thing? For example, my gut never felt good about the hype behind manmade global warming, because it is a hot political issue. Any science that could pour cool water on this political fire is not going to get the same level of hype if we want this political fire to remain stoked. The zero mortality study for MJ was never stressed due to this affect. It sort of cools the fire.

From a practical point of view, if I was a politician and needed to keep the fire going, what I would do is try to direct most of the research money into studies that help the fire. Disproportionate science will help assure the political illusion is not going to be challenged easily by science since it will assure majority consensus along the lines I need. I would also need to assure that any independent studies not get the press they may deserve. The media need a license to broadcast so that keeps them from straying. We need to keep the people ignorant of all the data or else they will cool off. All the data, would make it harder for me to excite the crowd. In other words, fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt. Inner doubt can be created by using part of the data. This will create a hole in their ability to reason. The fanaticism is reflex to fill in that hole, with more fanaticism equal to a bigger hole. Once the herd is not rational, we can direct them in irrational ways. This is politics 101.

No matter how many times politicians make promises they don't keep we still keep falling for it with the next politician. The way the affect works, is the promise creates a hole in reason since it is based on narrow data. The hole allows us to stir up irrational feelings such as a utopian hope. It is not so much the promise that is important, but the emotions that the data hole can help induce, that people crave. With the MJ prohibition, the hole allows us to feel empathetic, mad, self righteous, cruel, etc. all because there is a hole in the data that causes reason to take back seat to emotions. Nobody wants to give up, it is intoxicating.

This affect is also operative with the opposition, i.e., MJ users. In an attempt to stress the data in the hole, they create their own data hole, leading to their own fanaticism. That is why I suggested gathering the arguments and the data to fill both holes so things become more rational.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I am digressing, but if we assume that politics can have an impact on which science studies are stressed or ignored, is it possible that other areas of science, influenced by politics, are doing the same type of thing? For example, my gut never felt good about the hype behind manmade global warming, because it is a hot political issue. Any science that could pour cool water on this political fire is not going to get the same level of hype if we want this political fire to remain stoked. The zero mortality study for MJ was never stressed due to this affect. It sort of cools the fire.

From a practical point of view, if I was a politician and needed to keep the fire going, what I would do is try to direct most of the research money into studies that help the fire. Disproportionate science will help assure the political illusion is not going to be challenged easily by science since it will assure majority consensus along the lines I need. I would also need to assure that any independent studies not get the press they may deserve. The media need a license to broadcast so that keeps them from straying. We need to keep the people ignorant of all the data or else they will cool off. All the data, would make it harder for me to excite the crowd. In other words, fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt. Inner doubt can be created by using part of the data. This will create a hole in their ability to reason. The fanaticism is reflex to fill in that hole, with more fanaticism equal to a bigger hole. Once the herd is not rational, we can direct them in irrational ways. This is politics 101.

No matter how many times politicians make promises they don't keep we still keep falling for it with the next politician. The way the affect works, is the promise creates a hole in reason since it is based on narrow data. The hole allows us to stir up irrational feelings such as a utopian hope. It is not so much the promise that is important, but the emotions that the data hole can help induce, that people crave. With the MJ prohibition, the hole allows us to feel empathetic, mad, self righteous, cruel, etc. all because there is a hole in the data that causes reason to take back seat to emotions. Nobody wants to give up, it is intoxicating.

This affect is also operative with the opposition, i.e., MJ users. In an attempt to stress the data in the hole, they create their own data hole, leading to their own fanaticism. That is why I suggested gathering the arguments and the data to fill both holes so things become more rational.

I think I'm going to get emotional another human who likes his truth straight instead of mixed with what he wants to believe or what others think he should believe My hat's off to you!

[DougF]

Well said HydrogenBond,

[Michaelangelica]

[quote]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I am digressing, but if we assume that politics can have an impact on which science studies are stressed or ignored, is it possible that other areas of science, influenced by politics, are doing the same type of thing?

I am sure this is the case.
The squeaky research gets the most oil?
Politics societal attitudes and values MUST effect science; as science also effects/affects our world view.
I remember doing an unfortunately short course of the philosophy of history which looked at how our view of history was very much affected by our current societal concerns. Fascinating stuff; it really made me wonder about "truth" in history studies.

I also remember a social psy. professor who showed a number of scientific studies on the psychology of ESP, showing "something" unexplainable was going on.
He said "Behavioural scientists believe in scientific method. Right?"
"So we have all these good scientific studies on ESP. Right?"
"So how come 99% of Behavioural Scientists don't believe in ESP?"

i.e., MJ users. In an attempt to stress the data in the hole, they create their own data hole, leading to their own fanaticism. That is why I suggested gathering the arguments and the data to fill both holes so things become more rational.

I am sure this is the case on both/all? sides of the argument. Unravelling prejudice from science in this area is a bit of a Gordion knot. I fear it always will be,(Although the history of Tobacco 'science' gives some hope) meanwhile, as you can see, from the personal accounts just here on Hypography, many people suffer unnessesarily.