Medical Cannabis still to be illegal despite government promises

I read up on the proposed 'legalisation' here of medical cannabis.

It's a hoax, alas. They are allowing some patients to use an 'extract' with one or maybe two of the chemicals from the cannabis plant.

I doubt that will have better than a placebo effect.

Then, of course, if it fails, they will say "this proves cannabis has no medical value".

Classic bait and switch tactics.

"
Something else helped too: the occasional joint.

"You're able to get through the time with a little bit less trouble," he said. "You can never really get back to normal. It's just a little bit of relief that might make you able to stomach some food.""

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-government-announces-third-medical-cannabis-trial-for-chemotherapy-20160226-gn4fjh.html

Note: He is saying a joint is effective. Is their idea of medical 'cannabis' a joint? Of course not, silly! No joints for the dying, that would be rude. 'Extracts' - a pill that costs a lot of money and has no proven effect - will be allowed to him. Bad luck if it doesn't work, he should have started dying somewhere else.

"We really wanted to come up with a form of 'cannabis' that would be acceptable to patients," said Associate Professor Peter Grimison​, as he ignored the requests of his patients in favour of the lovely donations of pharmaceutical companies.

Australian government announced company to control monopoly over medical cannabis research

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/breaking-news/govt-grants-medlab-cannabis-licence/story-fni0xqe3-1227461276091

Oh, this is not looking good. And I have to wonder how much that company donated to their campaign fund.

"the company said it believed its patented particle delivery technology would mean smaller doses of cannabis would have to be used in patient care, resulting in less risk and fewer complications"

What risk? There have been zero overdoses recorded in the history of it's usage. Compare that to panadeine! And the patented delivery system sounds like they get t charge an arm and a leg to use something that costs almost nothing to make.

I recall reading Sativex (a cannabis extract) costs $10, 000/month for the users - they are taking something that a terminally ill person could grow themselves, and telling them they can have it to relieve their pain - but they better sell the house first...



"About 30 adults will participate in the first of three trials testing whether medicinal cannabis alleviates symptoms and pain for terminally ill patients and chronic sufferers."



The United States has tens of thousands of users who have been evaluated in such trials, which is why it was approved there. Why the hell would 30 here be needed?

This is for show; this is about control and the 'santisation' of cannabis, not about patient care.

Example of the American data:

"Eighteen trials published between 2003 and 2010 involving a total of 766 completed participants met inclusion criteria" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243008/)

There's no comparison. Of that thirty, maybe half will get through to the end. This is "Yes, Minister" stuff, not scientific research!

Further reading:

http://www.neurology.org/content/65/6/812.short

 Conclusions: Cannabis-based medicine is effective in reducing pain and sleep disturbance in patients with multiple sclerosis related central neuropathic pain and is mostly well tolerated.

http://msj.sagepub.com/content/10/4/434.short

Spasticity VAS scores were significantly reduced by CBME (Sativex) in comparison with placebo (P- 0.001). There were no significant adverse effects on cognition or mood and intoxication was generally mild.

Medicinal cannabis an option: minister

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/05/20/15/01/medicinal-cannabis-an-option-minister

We don't have separate trials here for every new medication. We rely on the US results. Why do we need new trials here for cannabis?

"It has to be tested, trialled, to be proven safe"

Done decades ago. Nixon investigated, it was cleared, he decided to ignore the findings. She's stalling for time.

une 2, 1971, Time:  3:16 pm - 4:15 pm -- Oval Office Conv. 510-3 
-- Nixon met with John Ehrlichman

RN: "Why in the name of God do these people take this stuff?"

JE: "For the same reason they drink. It's a, they're bored, it's 
a, it's a diversion."

RN: "Drinking is a different thing in a sense. Uh, Linkletter's 
point I think is well taken, he says, 'A person may drink to have 
a good time' -"

JE: "Mm-hmm"

RN: "-- but a person does not drink simply for the purpose of 
getting high. You take drugs for the purpose of getting high." 

[editor's note: Bullshit!]

JE: "Yep, yep."

RN: "There is a difference."

http://www.csdp.org/research/nixonpot.txt


http://www.marijuana.com/news/2014/08/richard-nixon-was-the-marijuana-antichrist/
https://archive.is/414ms
According to oval office tapes declassified in 2002, Nixon told Shafer he wanted a report that would blur the distinction between marijuana and hard drugs. The tapes reveal that as the commission was beginning its investigation in May, 1971, Nixon told his aide H.R. 
Haldeman, “I want a goddamn strong statement about marijuana. Can I get that out of this sonofa-bitching, uh, domestic council? I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.”

Two weeks later Nixon saw something in his news summary that inspired him to tell Haldeman, “Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists, you know, there’s so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By god, we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss. I want to find a way of putting more on that.”

[Editor's note: So if they'd been Catholic, Cannabis would be legal? Nixon was just a bigot looking for excuses to maintain the status quo]

"Shafer brought his report to the White House March 21, 1972. It called for a policy “which prohibits commercial distribution of the drug but does not apply criminal sanctions to private possession or use nor casual, non-profit distribution incidental to use.” This approach was soon dubbed “decriminalization.”

The Commission’s major findings, as culled by Doug McVay of Common Sense for Drug Policy:
“No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking... No valid stereotype of a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn...

Young people who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same people, socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco... No verification is found of a causal relationship between marihuana use and subsequent heroin use.... Most users, young and old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social functioning, academic achievement, and job performance...

“The weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior; if anything marihuana serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior... Marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts...

Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety...

Research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance¹



“No reliable evidence exists indicating that marihuana causes genetic defects in man... Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.”"


And almost every medication imaginable is dangerous. You think codeine or aspirin are safe?

"We have to make sure substances are clinically effective."

Done. The US already did all this. We've had cases of incurably ill patients recovering when they use it - and degenerating again when it's denied them.

This is insane. They have been "just about to try it" for decades. How long can they drag their feet on this?

For example:

1. On Mar. 21, 2014, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 105 (80 KB), known as "Charlee's Law," which allows the use and possession of marijuana extract, under certain conditions, by people with intractable epilepsy who have a statement signed by a neurologist.

The extract must be composed of less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and at least 15% cannabidiol (CBD) by weight, and may not contain any other psychoactive substance.

The law goes into effect on July 1, 2014. The extract must be obtained in a sealed container from a laboratory that is licensed in the state where it was produced, with a label stating the extract's ingredients and origin, and transmitted by the laboratory to the Utah Department of Health. The Utah Department of Health is required to determine the details of the registration program.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

Cannabis saves lives. This is not in dispute in the scientific community. It is kept illegal for political reasons only.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23386598

"Dronabinol and nabilone are indicated for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy and of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

However, pain and muscle spasms are the most common reasons that medical cannabis is being recommended. Studies of medical cannabis show significant improvement in various types of pain and muscle spasticity. Reported adverse effects are typically not serious, with the most common being dizziness. "

As a chronic pain sufferer, I've had to go for about a decade, slowly getting worse, being signed up to trials that are aborted at the last minute. I don't trust these governments any more. They will always try to find a way out from proceeding.

I can speculate as to why. I can guess that it would hurt the bottom line for too many companies, or that religious zealots have too much influence over them, or that they are genuinely bamboozled by vested interests.

But it's just speculation. And meanwhile, all around me, I see people withering and in pain, and for no other reason than the government talking about action on this issue - but never quite doing anything.

http://www.parkinson.org/Patients/Patients---On-The-Blog/August-2014/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-Medical-Marijuan

 "Spasticity, central pain syndromes and bladder dysfunction (disorders not including Parkinson’s disease) seemed to be improved with marijuana use.

39 patients (45.9%) described mild or substantial alleviation of their PD symptoms in general, 26 (30.6%) showed improvement of rest tremor, 38 (44.7%) had improvement in bradykinesia, 32 (37.7%) had alleviation of muscle rigidity, and 12 (14.1%) had improvement of L-dopa-induced dyskinesias. 

Only 4 patients in this survey (4.7%) reported that cannabis actually worsened their symptoms. Patients using cannabis for at least 3 months reported significantly more alleviation of their Parkinson’s disease symptoms in general"

You know what? If we had never discovered cannabis before, and found it could do this, we would use it as medicine, no question, because whatever the downside, the benefits are enormous.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/19/should-teenagers-get-high-instead-of-drunk/marijuana-is-far-less-toxic-than-alcohol-or-cocaine

" the safety margin of recreational substances as normally used is: 6 for heroin; 10 for alcohol; 15 for cocaine; 16 for MDMA; 20 for codeine; and 1,000 for LSD or marijuana."


This is from https://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf


Compared to other over-the-counter drugs, acetaminophen (aka paracetamol) has a relatively narrow safety margin—that is, the difference between a safe-but-effective dose and an overdose is relatively small. Doctors have reported liver failure from as little as 2.5 grams in a day, which is 1.5 grams less than the approved limit.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2011/12/emergency_contraceptives_over_the_counter_are_they_more_dangerous_than_other_drugs_.html



From http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

¹http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests.^{37, 38} Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.³⁹

Casual Pot Use Causes Brain Damage?

Casual Pot Use Causes Brain Damage? A response to https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/04/18/casual-pot-use-causes-brain-damage/


So Jodi Gilman, Ph.D (http://scholar.harvard.edu/jodigilman/home) as part of MGH-Harvard Center for Addiction Medicine (CAM) claims. The lead author's bread and butter is coming up with results that show drugs as being 'bad'. They would lose funding if they found out anything contrary to the agenda of the government.  As such, they are hardly independent. It's difficult to have confidence in this when Science and Politics are merged into one.

"Each sample had nine men and 11 women, and they each underwent a psychiatric interview to confirm they were not dependent on marijuana or any other illegal drugs."

So the assumption is these brain changes cause addiction - yet the first screening establishes they are not.

"The researchers were unable to measure the THC content of the pot smoked by study participants, but marijuana is much stronger today – at about 5 percent to 9 percent THC content – than in the 1960s and 1970s, when THC content was typically 1 percent to 3 percent."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/16/study-even-casual-pot-use-causes-brain-abnormalities-particularly-smokers-under-30/


There are at least 85 different cannabinoids isolated from cannabis, exhibiting varied effects.^[5]
(source). THC is higher at the expense of the others in some strains. Medical strains are typically higher in CBD, for example. So saying current crops are 'stronger' is meaningless.

"Scientists examined the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala—key regions for emotion and motivation, and associated with addiction—in the brains of casual marijuana users and non-users. Researchers analyzed three measures: volume, shape and density of grey matter (i.e., where most cells are located in brain tissue) to obtain a comprehensive view of how each region was affected.

Both these regions in recreational pot users were abnormally altered for at least two of these structural measures. The degree of those alterations was directly related to how much marijuana the subjects used." http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html

"The degree of those alterations" implies the brains were scanned before usage, which is false. We don't know which came first. What they could be establishing is that people with those structures are more likely to seek out cannabis in the first place.

The science here is incredibly tenuous and this is a big deal because life and death decisions are being made on an untested hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens#Addiction_and_drug_use

Research using microdialysis has shown that the levels of dopamine in the extracellular fluid of the nucleus accumbens increase when rats are injected with addictive drugs such as cocaine, heroin, nicotine, or alcohol.[8]

 This increase in dopamine is believed to be responsible for the reinforcing effects that later stimulate drug-taking behavior.

Functional-imaging studies in humans have shown that environmental cues associated with addictive drugs releases dopamine in the nucleus accumbens.

However, when administered methylphenidate, drug addicted subjects had a much smaller release of dopamine in this area than non-addicted subjects.

These findings suggest the notion that the nucleus accumbens is associated with the beginnings of drug addiction and the dorsal striatum is responsible for the augmentation of the drug habit.[8]

The nucleus accumbens has been targeted by stereotactic surgery for ablation as a treatment in China for alcoholism.[9]"

So the key points here are that it merely *suggested* that maybe the nucleus accumbens is associated with the beginnings of drug addiction.

And on that basis, China is removing chunks of people's brains.

And on that basis, anti-cannabis organisations are calling for re-criminalisation of cannabis, and jail or death for people using and growing, with the subsequent ruin of their lives.

All on the thinnest of connections.

Something is very wrong here.