![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 45 to 69 of 94. Go back in thread:
Posted by Budzoid on March 1, 2009, at 23:29:42
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » garnet71, posted by detroitpistons on March 1, 2009, at 12:05:05
This just in! Maybe the governmental ignorance concerning the use of medical marijuana for people who can be helped by it is finally changing. Check out this link and read what our new Prez thinks about the subject.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/from/ET/
Posted by sam K on March 2, 2009, at 0:45:42
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 1, 2009, at 23:29:42
medical marijawana>!>>!>!>! get me some n letz blazeeeeeeee. jkin I dont smoke. not against it though. toke up ya potheads!!
Posted by Neal on March 3, 2009, at 3:54:11
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by sam K on March 2, 2009, at 0:45:42
The body makes its own versions of THC, dubbed endocannabinoids, which work by binding to the same specific receptors as THC. Endocannabinoids travel in the opposite direction of most brain signals. In this way, they play a part in regulating almost all brain and body processes, making endocannabinoids prime targets for treating many diseases and conditions.
Posted by SLS on March 3, 2009, at 5:38:34
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Neal on March 3, 2009, at 3:54:11
> The body makes its own versions of THC, dubbed endocannabinoids,
Comparing endogenous cannabinoids to THC is like comparing dopamine to apomorphine. Dopamine is a natural internal substance that facilitates normal function. Apomorphine, a synthetic substance that binds to the dopamine receptor, puts you to sleep at low dosages and can produce psychosis at higher dosages. It is not a natural product of the body, and does not work the same pharmokinetically or pharmodynamically. There are no THC receptors. THC is an environmental substance that just happens to bind to the internal endocannaboid receptors. I know you know this, but I just wanted to expand upon an important point. THC, like Valium, attaches to a particular receptor, but does not act like an endogenous substance at that synapse.
> making endocannabinoids prime targets for treating many diseases and conditions.
Agreed.
- Scott
Posted by Neal on March 3, 2009, at 17:23:25
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Neal, posted by SLS on March 3, 2009, at 5:38:34
well, you caught me using the old cut-and-paste from some article. I knew it was probably bull****, but I thought it was funny. Humor should be a part of any discussion of pot.
Thanks for giving us the straight dope,
~neal
Posted by Budzoid on March 3, 2009, at 21:38:05
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » SLS, posted by Neal on March 3, 2009, at 17:23:25
I was a recreational user for over 30 years. Now that I'm in my 50's, I've developed severe arthritis in my neck that is causing neuropathy. Cannabinoids are one of the few proven treatments for neuropathy. Since I have to have pain medicine to function, I had to sign a drug contract stating I will not use illegal drugs. I get drug tested every month to ensure this. I believe I would not require as much morphine and oxycodone if I could supplement my treatment with cannabis. I know I could use a little euphoria in my life every now and then. Constant, severe pain sucks!
I hope you can understand why I'm in favor of decriminalization and medicinal use. For me, it's personal.
Posted by detroitpistons on March 3, 2009, at 21:43:46
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 3, 2009, at 21:38:05
> I was a recreational user for over 30 years. Now that I'm in my 50's, I've developed severe arthritis in my neck that is causing neuropathy. Cannabinoids are one of the few proven treatments for neuropathy. Since I have to have pain medicine to function, I had to sign a drug contract stating I will not use illegal drugs. I get drug tested every month to ensure this. I believe I would not require as much morphine and oxycodone if I could supplement my treatment with cannabis. I know I could use a little euphoria in my life every now and then. Constant, severe pain sucks!
> I hope you can understand why I'm in favor of decriminalization and medicinal use. For me, it's personal.
>
I take it you don't live in one of the 13 states where medical marijuana is legal? I wouldn't be surprised if more states followed suit in the next couple of years. Obama just basically ordered the DEA to not raid dispensaries in California....the times are a-changin.
Posted by Budzoid on March 3, 2009, at 22:05:55
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by detroitpistons on March 3, 2009, at 21:43:46
I know, I was the one who posted that news. I live in the deep south (always a few years behind everybody else) and at last check, the state house of representatives had passed the bill, but it came up a few votes short in the state senate. Maybe later this year or next year. They recently did a poll in our second largest city and 87% were in favor of medicinal use. Sooner or later the peoples' voices will be heard.
Posted by sukarno on March 4, 2009, at 13:46:53
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 3, 2009, at 21:38:05
I'm all in favor of medical cannabis, but we must be aware of the dangers of smoked cannabis as it presents a lot of risks vs vaporized cannabis or Sativex (which is sprayed in the mouth IIRC).
Google stroke and cannabis (or marijuana). More than a few young people who smoked cannabis without any preexisting medical conditions or structural abnormalities in their brains developed multiple cerebellar infarcts, which then caused the cerebellum to swell and put pressure on the medulla, which caused their deaths.
Three cases were seen in five years at the same hospital in St. Louis. Two of the cases were young adults/adolescents who only occasionally smoked cannabis. They were non-smokers of tobacco. The other case involved a man in his 30s who was a long time tobacco and cannabis user who had recently increased his already heavy intake. I think he survived. I know one of them survived.
The cannabis was tested for adulterants but none were found.
It was thought that the toxic constituents of cannabis smoke ("tar") caused inflammation and damage to the blood vessels of the cerebellum. Another theory was proposed that it was orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure upon standing) that triggered the strokes. Cannabis is known to lower blood pressure.
It is a false statement that cannabis never killed anyone or that it is safe.
I think we should import Sativex, as it is sprayed in the mouth or under the tongue, and this bypasses the liver, so it is not converted into Delta-11 THC (and thus remains as Delta-9 THC). It also contains the other cannabinoids, but thankfully because it isn't smoked, there are no toxic substances in it.
I also believe though, having said that, that smoking anything, including oregano or parsley could trigger a stroke.
Carbon monoxide is a very dangerous substance. Carboxyhemoglobin in the blood is a very bad thing. Hemoconcentration can lead to blood clots.
Also Google, "cannabis arteritis".
Although what I point out above is quite rare, the doctors at that hospital said that 3 cases in 5 years of strokes (leading to death in 2 of those 3 cases) in otherwise healthy individuals without preexisting health conditions at the same hospital, should throw up red flags everywhere. It isn't as rare as once thought, but I wouldn't say the risk approaches 1% of anything of that sort.
If you are in moderate to severe chronic pain and have a choice between opiates or side-effect ridden medications such as tramadol, I would definitely take the risk and go with cannabis (even smoked).
At least there is no serious withdrawal when cannabis is abruptly discontinued. If there is any withdrawal, it is mostly psychological and physically mild.
Regards,
Paul
Posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by sukarno on March 4, 2009, at 13:46:53
Very well put! It seems that the doctors that are anti-cannabis read some of the studies that show it is effective for some problems, and revert to the "well it is smoked and anything smoked can be harmful to the lungs" mantra. I agree with that, but using a vaporizer burns at such a high temperature that it burns off the tars and any other harmful by-products without destroying the cannabinoids. Also, by having the vapor collect in a plastic bag before inhaled, you eliminate the direct intake of high temp. or burning substances directly into the lungs. If you have ever used or seen someone use one, they exhale zero smoke. The doctors usually don't have a response after that.
Posted by desolationrower on March 5, 2009, at 7:07:38
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
well, and water can be dangerous because of the bisphenol a bottles.
-d/r
Posted by detroitpistons on March 5, 2009, at 13:43:10
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
Thank You! I get so sick of hearing the "smoking marijuana is bad for your lungs" argument. All the so called "experts" seem to bring this up all the time....When I read something or hear interviews on the radio, I'm always pulling my hair out because nobody seems to know (or conveniently forgets) about vaporization. It's such a no brainer.
BUT, even if smoking, it's not the end of the world. People always want to compare pot smoking to smoking cigarettes. It's completely misleading. Depending on potency, you can take two puffs from a pipe and be done. That's what people seem to have trouble understanding, or refuse to take into consideration because of their. It's not like you're sitting there smoking joints all day long.
> Very well put! It seems that the doctors that are anti-cannabis read some of the studies that show it is effective for some problems, and revert to the "well it is smoked and anything smoked can be harmful to the lungs" mantra. I agree with that, but using a vaporizer burns at such a high temperature that it burns off the tars and any other harmful by-products without destroying the cannabinoids. Also, by having the vapor collect in a plastic bag before inhaled, you eliminate the direct intake of high temp. or burning substances directly into the lungs. If you have ever used or seen someone use one, they exhale zero smoke. The doctors usually don't have a response after that.
Posted by Budzoid on March 5, 2009, at 18:55:27
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by detroitpistons on March 5, 2009, at 13:43:10
When I talked about this subject with my "shrink" and he went down the list of usual reasons why it is bad; and I am able to respond to each one with the facts that show he is wrong, he ultimately is left with nothing else to say except that "it's still illegal". It really screws him up when I bring up all the recent progress made in decriminalization and the fact that doctors in those certain states are able to actually prescribe it. It blows their mind that someone can actually sit there and contradict their views with actual facts to the contrary. Some of these hard-core doctors will go to their grave without accepting the proven facts from study after study, that shows they are wrong. We will have to deal with this problem for many years to come, I'm afraid.
Posted by desolationrower on March 6, 2009, at 0:50:50
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 5, 2009, at 18:55:27
> When I talked about this subject with my "shrink" and he went down the list of usual reasons why it is bad; and I am able to respond to each one with the facts that show he is wrong, he ultimately is left with nothing else to say except that "it's still illegal". It really screws him up when I bring up all the recent progress made in decriminalization and the fact that doctors in those certain states are able to actually prescribe it. It blows their mind that someone can actually sit there and contradict their views with actual facts to the contrary. Some of these hard-core doctors will go to their grave without accepting the proven facts from study after study, that shows they are wrong. We will have to deal with this problem for many years to come, I'm afraid.
shrinks aren't wanting you to not smoke bud because of some harm that will occur, they don't want you to smoke because its something 'bad' people do and someone with mental illness isn't capable of self-regulation or deciding his own values; thats the shrink's job now. just take your pills like you're told.
-d/r
Posted by Budzoid on March 6, 2009, at 19:37:15
In reply to shrinks and 'drugs', posted by desolationrower on March 6, 2009, at 0:50:50
> > When I talked about this subject with my "shrink" and he went down the list of usual reasons why it is bad; and I am able to respond to each one with the facts that show he is wrong, he ultimately is left with nothing else to say except that "it's still illegal". It really screws him up when I bring up all the recent progress made in decriminalization and the fact that doctors in those certain states are able to actually prescribe it. It blows their mind that someone can actually sit there and contradict their views with actual facts to the contrary. Some of these hard-core doctors will go to their grave without accepting the proven facts from study after study, that shows they are wrong. We will have to deal with this problem for many years to come, I'm afraid.
>
> shrinks aren't wanting you to not smoke bud because of some harm that will occur, they don't want you to smoke because its something 'bad' people do and someone with mental illness isn't capable of self-regulation or deciding his own values; thats the shrink's job now. just take your pills like you're told.
>
> -d/rTouche'-It does feel like my Mental Health Doc. is talking to me as if I was a "bad boy" and in need of a good spanking. Sort of like my Dad used to do when I was a teen. I guess I'll just take all my SRRI's and wait for all my problems to go away. I know they will because my Doctor said they will.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 7:55:27
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
I'm a medical marijuana user, for chronic neuropathic pain, and I neither smoke it nor vaporize it. I much prefer oral preps, especially because my goal is not to get high. There is a bit of a psychotropic effect, but it doesn't interfere with other aspects of consciousness.
Lar
Posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 21:55:21
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 7:55:27
You must live in Canada. I don't believe any oral forms are available in the States. (I'm probably wrong, because I recall TV talk show host Montell Williams talking about taking an oral form for his physical problems). I would love to try one of those treatments. I am also living with neuropathy. I would trade any euphoric affects I might get from smoking it, for any pain relief. Because I had to sign a contract that forbids me from using any illegal drugs in order to get the opiates I am now having to take for pain, I have not used in 9 months. I really do not like the opiates. They make me feel bad, but it is the only option I have now to treat my chronic pain. You should feel lucky in that regard.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 22:13:53
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 21:55:21
I am in Canada, but the compassion club I'm a member of makes their own stuff. My favourite is something that is similar to milk chocolate, only it's made from cannabis butter (they make that first) instead of cocoa butter. Of course, it tastes a little different than regular chocolate. One square of chocolate is my standard dose. They even make a mock label for the chocolate bars, "Hempshey's". They have alcohol extract sprays, and some other oral products like cookies, muffins.
I understand the not liking opiates part. I couldn't tolerate them well before I started using the cannabis products. Together, I got along well enough. In then end, I had to stop using the opiates anyway. The side effects just got worse and worse, and I just couldn't continue. And then there was the withdrawal.....No such problem with the cannabis.
Lar
Posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 22:39:12
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 22:13:53
I recently watched a Natural Geographic special that showed a grower in Canada that turned his home grown into a butter that he then used to make cookies and such. All was considered medicine and perfectly legal.
I firmly believe that most of my physical and mental problems are a result of Lymes disease. I am going to insist my Doctor run tests to verify this next week.
If this is verified, and I get the right treatment, maybe I can ween myself off the opiates. This is my hope right now.
Be thankful you live in a country that is years ahead of us in this matter and you have the options I do not have at this time.
Posted by Zyprexa on March 11, 2009, at 14:30:47
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 21:55:21
In the US they have a THC pill. Only aproved for 3 conditions. One of them cancer. Can't remember the other two. Not sure if its legal in all states.
Posted by Neal on March 12, 2009, at 21:37:54
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 22:13:53
I think cannabis might have a role to play for some of us when they get it in pill form, so that it has a known dosage and quality.
I remember when you would be handed a joint, and you didn't know if one good hit would get you stoned or if it would take 3 joints. This was many years ago when growers were learning the fine art of cannabis cultivation for maximum THC content.
Posted by detroitpistons on March 12, 2009, at 22:05:06
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Neal on March 12, 2009, at 21:37:54
That art is being turned into a science, literally. Just in the past 10 to 15 years, I think there's been a huge surge in the availability of high potency stuff, like you say. It just seems to be much more available now than it was when I was a teenager. In fact, it almost seems as if the dirty low grade stuff is even less available than the good stuff now.
Maybe that's just because of my location or what have you, but that's the trend that I've seen....I think this high potency has almost given weed an even worse reputation than it already had. The potency issue is being used as ammo by the "anti" crowd. In London, the "skunk" has become somewhat of a problem, or so I've read. I don't really understand the argument though. Personally, I would just smoke a lot less of it. That was the main difference for me.
> I think cannabis might have a role to play for some of us when they get it in pill form, so that it has a known dosage and quality.
>
> I remember when you would be handed a joint, and you didn't know if one good hit would get you stoned or if it would take 3 joints. This was many years ago when growers were learning the fine art of cannabis cultivation for maximum THC content.
Posted by Budzoid on March 12, 2009, at 22:40:23
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Neal, posted by detroitpistons on March 12, 2009, at 22:05:06
I noticed that in the last few years before I had to quit, it took a lot less to get the desired results. 3 or 4 bong tokes is all it takes now. That cuts way down on the amount of smoke you inhaled. That, in turn meant less exposure to the tars and by-products that are bad for the lungs. The improved quality equals less smoke needed. Better for the lungs.
Posted by sukarno on March 13, 2009, at 7:44:54
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 12, 2009, at 22:40:23
I'm curious if anyone, especially Larry Hoover since he lives in Canada, has tried Sativex. Sativex is a prescription cannabis product made in Canada and sprayed either in the mouth or under the tongue. I assume this is absorbed through the mucous membranes of the mouth, thus bypassing the liver and avoiding the conversion from delta-9 THC to delta-11 THC.
Delta-11 THC is far more psychoactive and is generally regarded as unpleasant. That's why eating cannabis produces such strong effects compared to smoked/vaporized or sublingual preparations.
If you bypass the liver, it will go to the brain as delta-9 THC and give you the "high" (if you are seeking that) along with increased appetite, before it reaches the liver.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 17:53:06
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by sukarno on March 13, 2009, at 7:44:54
I've never tried Sativex. I have used an oral spray product made from kief (trichomes). It has a very fast effect, which I used when a sudden pain spike had me struggling. The clinic I use had a "tester" product, and I was encouraged to try some before purchasing it. I had to wait a couple of hours before I could drive home.
I get much less psychoactivity from oral consumption, rather than smoking. And the effect is considerably prolonged over smoking, too. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point.
The clinic I use also makes distinctions between C. sativa and C. indica, the hybrids between them, and thus, the products arising therefrom. They provide named strains, and the difference in effect is quite dramatic across the sativa/indica spectrum. I had no idea, before I had to learn.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.