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