'I would rather use my vaporizer':

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Medical pot users say clinical proof could help fight stigma
Some say pot helps treat everything from PTSD to multiple sclerosis, HIV-AIDS and even cancer
While moving to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, Toronto Public Health acknowledges that there may be therapeutic benefits associated with cannabis, such as help with pain relief, nausea and inflammation.

That acknowledgement comes in a report considered and endorsed by the Toronto Board of Health on Monday, which calls on the federal government to use a public health approach to regulating the drug.

The claims around what marijuana can specifically treat, and even cure are broad, ranging from anxiety to PTSD to Multiple Sclerosis, HIV-AIDS, glaucoma, even cancer. Still, the problem when it comes to how it's being used and accessed, say researchers and medical marijuana producers, is a relatively low volume of definitive clinical research.

Terry Remaine uses cannabis to relieve muscle spasms caused by Multiple Sclerosis instead of the pharmaceuticals. But she got the same excuse when she first tried to get a prescription for marijuana.

"I'm seen by an M.S. clinic, but they will not prescribe [pot] because they say it hasn't been clinically trialed," she says. "They can give me medication, but I would rather use my [marijuana] vaporizer. The medication makes me drowsy."

Riley McGee, a former soldier living in Edmonton, served in Afghanistan and uses marijuana to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He's with Marijuana For Trauma Inc., a company that seeks to provide veterans with access to medical marijuana.

"What it really helps me with is it levels my mood and it helps me focus, with PTSD can be a bit of an emotional roller coaster. You can get angry or agitated quickly," he says.

He says more scientific studies on the effectiveness of cannabis could counter value judgements, biases and stigma.

However, giving pot to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder directly contradicts the military's stance on the issue. The Canadian Forces has said there's not enough proof to authorize marijuana as a treatment for PTSD and that some evidence suggests it could be harmful.

And the Canadian Medical Association has not endorsed the prescribing of medical cannabis for therapeutic purposes due to lack of evidence related to the drug's efficacy, harms, and mechanism of action.

While there is anecdotal evidence cannabis can be effective for chronic pain management, there are very few large long-term studies to back up claims, say researchers.

'Green rush'
"Humans have never had a panacea in terms of something that will cure such a wide range of conditions as has been claimed," says M-J Milloy, an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia, who researches how Canadians are using cannabis as medicine.

But he says there are a number of promising small studies that show that marijuana could be a substitute for opioids, treat cancer, even shrink inflammation caused by HIV-AIDS and a broad range of other conditions.

"What we need now is human studies to really determine the effectiveness of cannabis for these conditions," he says.

In the midst of a "green rush" as investors look to get into the marijuana industry — medical and otherwise — some say a portion of the money rolling in should be earmarked for research.

"Some of the funding should definitely come from industry and we are seeing that, along with government," says Pradyum Sekar, co-founder of Lift Resource Centre, which organizes the Cannabis Expo, a national marijuana industry trade show.

"But interested parties that would want to see cannabis having more clinical-based evidence should put more effort and resources into it."


A person was dressed up as a marijuana leaf at the Lift Cannabis Expo at the Metro Convention Centre in Toronto on the weekend. (CBC)

Tweed Marijuana Inc. is one of the big players in medical marijuana production. The Smith Falls, Ont., operation is one of the first licensed marijuana companies in Canada to go public.

Company president Mark Zekulin says they are committed to taking on a leadership role when it comes to research.

"This product has been prohibited for so long that there just hasn't been the basic research that we would all like, so we are funding clinical trials. We are funding research partnerships with universities."

He says the medical community is more used to dealing with big pharmaceutical companies.

"They are used to seeing a certain thing which is pharmaceutical pills. And this is different. And there is some evidence, but they want to see more. And it's incumbent on us to build that."

While he admits that soon people won't need a medical reason or a prescription to acquire cannabis, even with full legalization around the bend, he says scientific evidence could dispel some of the ongoing skepticism people who use cannabis as medicine routinely face.
 

Gquebed

Well-Known Member
It used to be that pharma drugs required up to 18 YEARS of clinical testing before they FDA in the States would even conisder allowing the drugs to go to market. Data of long term INDEPENDANT testing had to be submitted...

That may have been excessive, but there was a reason for it... to identify the long term side effects.

Somewhere in the 80s that all changed. Now pharma drugs can hit the market in less than 18 months, which is equivelant to no testing at all really.

So this excuse is absolute bullshit. What the docs really want is somebody eles to put a stamp of approval on it so they arent liable if there is any adverse reaction to prescribing it.

Anyway, if thats what they want... why doesnt somebody get after it? I mean, if "long term tests" equals 18 months now then whats the fuckin hold up?

Especially when the Isrealis have 20 years of data on medical weed. Thats right...they have been researing it for 20 years already.
 

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
Toronto health authority...wouldn't that be the city of Toronto?....and meanwhile all these raids have just gone down....hmmmmm.....
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
What we need is clinical studies to prove what we already know. I'm living proof that MJ can beat the shit out of cancer, even my oncologist (who was a non-believer) is on-board as he had written me off and can't find anything wrong with me 6 years after a "I'd get your things in order" discussion. And fuck Tweed too, research funded by LP's is akin to research funded by big pharma, no validity and reluctance to accept their findings since it's so self-serving. We need independent research and as part of legalization and putting in a useful medical program, the government should be sponsoring clinical research with the money they'll rake in.
 

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
Pam McColl said in her recent interview with Jason Wilcox that there are several studies and even long term ones but this article says "due to lack of studies" as well as Penis neck said there wasn't enough testing.
maybe Pam should show all these studies because it seems that no one in the actual medical community knows about MMJ.
she's such a tool
 

Gquebed

Well-Known Member
What we need is clinical studies to prove what we already know. I'm living proof that MJ can beat the shit out of cancer, even my oncologist (who was a non-believer) is on-board as he had written me off and can't find anything wrong with me 6 years after a "I'd get your things in order" discussion. And fuck Tweed too, research funded by LP's is akin to research funded by big pharma, no validity and reluctance to accept their findings since it's so self-serving. We need independent research and as part of legalization and putting in a useful medical program, the government should be sponsoring clinical research with the money they'll rake in.
Exactly. It is not as if there are no living case studies of the effects of mj. Thousands of people everywhere that can be studied for.

But okay. They want the scholarly studies with control groups and all. Well giddy up. 18 months an a few hundred volunteers, which would line right up for it. Me included.

So whats the problem. Or yeah... there are actual laws preventing canabis research...in the states anyway. Dont know about here...
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
Especially when the Isrealis have 20 years of data on medical weed. Thats right...they have been researing it for 20 years already.
they're definitely ahead of the curve on cannabis research. It actually goes back to 1968 though, so more than 20yrs
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
Borrow a few million from some other pool/budget and pay it back next year after recreational taxes start flowing in. Work with other countries or pay them to do the research, like Israel who's way ahead of everyone in clinical research/studies and already has some clinical proof of it's benefits. imo, it's all bull-shit excuses to buy enough time to design a program that will maximize income from taxes and fees. Notice I didn't mention any focus on patients needs or servicing their customers (us). That's because no one outside of the existing underground culture has any interest in this other than fucking money.
 

CarpeNocturnum

Well-Known Member
th
What we need is clinical studies to prove what we already know. I'm living proof that MJ can beat the shit out of cancer, even my oncologist (who was a non-believer) is on-board as he had written me off and can't find anything wrong with me 6 years after a "I'd get your things in order" discussion. And fuck Tweed too, research funded by LP's is akin to research funded by big pharma, no validity and reluctance to accept their findings since it's so self-serving. We need independent research and as part of legalization and putting in a useful medical program, the government should be sponsoring clinical research with the money they'll rake in.
Sir you are incorrect. It doesn't matter who funded the research as long as you read the full paper. Then how the research was obtained is laid out. This the data can attempted to be replicated for validity.
Also if the study was badly designed, that will be outlined within the paper.
The problem is not with research being funded by big pharma, it is thay big pharma will withhold data which is not favorable
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
th


Sir you are incorrect. It doesn't matter who funded the research as long as you read the full paper. Then how the research was obtained is laid out. This the data can attempted to be replicated for validity.
Also if the study was badly designed, that will be outlined within the paper.
The problem is not with research being funded by big pharma, it is thay big pharma will withhold data which is not favorable
Exactly my point, sponsored studies and papers are always skewed to favour the payer's perspective. Money drives everything, at a price.That's exactly what's going on in the US. Skewed stats and studies from every group who has something to lo$e.
 

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
it doesn't matter dude. research is still research you cannot deny the scientific method reasonably
but they look at it from only one angle.
look at some reports that were paid for by big tobacco..they said cigs were not a problem and not addictive.
the companies pay for them to find in their favour or they wouldn't fund the research.
if you think about it-why would they fund something that would effect their bottom line.
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
but they look at it from only one angle.
look at some reports that were paid for by big tobacco..they said cigs were not a problem and not addictive.
the companies pay for them to find in their favour or they wouldn't fund the research.
if you think about it-why would they fund something that would effect their bottom line.
That's exactly an example of why I say vendor sponsored studies et al are useless. If they're peer reviewed studies and sponsored by 3rd parties with no financial interest in the outcome I'll accept results. Otherwise all you're reading is what they want you to hear/know and skewed towards whoever's paying the bill. While I'm sure there's the odd exception I've seen enough examples being in the tech industry for 30 years to validate my point, no one, particularly someone with an argument including the word "dude" will change my view on that.
 
Top