I didn’t notice that. :smack:
If you were thirsty, and as a result wanted to have a glass of water, I would move aside and allow you access to the water cooler. I would not question your thirst, nor require some sort of proof.
That’s how simple the situation seems to me, and I’m befuddled sometimes by opposing points of view.
Pardon me, but are you high??
Do you also have such an unscientific approach to people using reiki, homeopathic “medicine”, anti-vaxxers?
To make your analogy fit, what if there is no proof that water cures thirst, but people just think it does?
Scientific evidence is not derived from a popular vote.
Language was inserted into the recent spending bill that removes federal restrictions on medical marijuana, thus allowing states to approve its use without having to worry about federal intervention. It doesn’t affect the class 1 status of cannabis, so there still won’t be any funded research on it, though the government continues to say that there is no beneficial use for it. How that conclusion is reached without research is a mystery.
- Yes, but my opinion remains unchanged. What I wrote is a bit silly now, but hey.
- as far as homeopathy, I’ll repeat the thirsty/water thing. If somebody wants to chew on willow for their headache, I won’t interfere. Anti-vaxxers are fucking with heard immunity and that’s where I’d draw a line.
- No problem whatsoever with placebo when it’s the patient’s choice.
Are you then in favor of relaxing federal restrictions to allow such studies?
I think the stuff should be legal for recreational purposes. I also believe that it may have some effects on some diseases - and that we establish that those effects are real before we start prescribing it.
The benefits have been (IMO) grossly exaggerated and/or not well established as a blind to get legislators to legalize it so people can get high.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, you’re wrong. The ingredient cannabidiol (CBD) is not hallucinogenic. Plants can be selected and bred for low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and high levels of CBD and the results for treating seizures are quantifiable.
Of course not. That wasn’t the point of the exchange.
Marijuana wasn’t made a Schedule I drug for scientific reasons. It was made a Schedule I drug for political* reasons. Taking it off Schedule I shouldn’t, therefore, require scientific evidence. We as a nation just need to generate enough momentum to enable political change.**
Fortunately, we’re getting there. Puff, pass, and chill.
*and racist
**Science is largely responsible for enabling said political change, but throwing around “double-blind studies” like they’re some kind of magical requirement to legitimize marijuana use isn’t arguing coherently. IMHO, of course.
Has any research been done on marijuana outside the U.S.? If so, what have they found?
Here are 13 completed studies at UCSD.
This is largely my take on it too. I’d happily legalise marijuana for everyone not just for those in medical need. I suspect the drug has some medicinal benefits, benefits that are probably exaggerated by those with an agenda, and benefits which can also be found in other legal drugs.
Well, quick googling brought up this apparently comprehensive index of 105 peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of medical marijuana, 22 of which were double-blind human trials. 12 of those came out clearly on the pro-side, while only 3 concluded no effectiveness for the specific issue under investigation.
I saw that page too, looking up double-blind studies. It’s interesting to me that double-blind studies came out *better *in establishing marijuana’s efficacious-ness at relieving symptoms than less rigorous studies.
IOW, at least with the group of studies they have, the innate biases were against marijuana.
There were seven other double-blinded studies that were also done, which found no clear evidence of benefit. Such studies said things like -
IOW it didn’t work in those studies either. So, of the 22 studies, 12 found benefits and 10 found either no benefits, or that things got worse.
I started a thread some time back on the question if it was worth anything as medicine. Consensus seemed to be mostly in line with Half Man Half Wit’s cite - it can be used in treatment of neuropathic pain and spasicity in MS patients, and as an adjunct analgesic in severe cancer. But not much more - there are better anti-glaucoma and anti-nausea drugs out there.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, 10 found that the results were muddy or found no effect, not that things got worse.
It’s tricky, too, because they’ve conflated lots of studies - like you quote - one study was on a cannabis extract - what’s in that?
I read somewhere that some pharma company tried to extract what they thought was the anti-nausea component of marijuana, leaving the mind-altering aspects behind, but it didn’t work.
There’s a difference between testing whole marijuana, cannabis extract, THC, CBD, synthetic cannabinoids, etc.
A doctor went on a popular TV news channel and made unsubstantiated, controversial medical claims? Sign me up!
(As an aside, I’m in favor of legalizing MJ.)
Seven were “neither pro nor con” and 3 were “definitely con”. IIUC saying “we couldn’t tell if marijuana worked or not” means either the study was poorly designed or carried out, or the results could be interpreted either way, etc.
But the burden of proof always lies with those proposing some new treatment.
Regards,
Shodan