Smoked

[t-pain]

Smoked Marijuana is more effective and has less negative side effects than pharmaceutical cannabinoid based medicine.

 

 

How come prohibitionists keep lying, and why wont they stop?

Time and time again, every single prohibition lie has been defeated by the truth.
Time and time again, scientific double blind peer-reviewed studies have disproven
the theories made by prohibitionists. This latest unscientific lie to be destroyed
is that "smoked marijuana is not medicine".

For years patients have been prescribed marinol and other pharmaceutical

prescription synthetic cannabinoids. Many of these patients describe how
smoked or vaporized cannabis effects are much better than thier prescription
counterparts. Patients report that they are able to titrate their dosage when
using marijuana in a smoked or vaporized form. Marinol in pill form is not
possible to titrate the dose.

The latest study to confirm medical marijuana patients' testimonies is
"The medicinal use of cannabis and cannabinoids--
an international cross-sectional survey on administration forms."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24175484

Choice quote from the study's abstract?

In general, herbal non-pharmaceutical CBMs received higher
appreciation scores by participants than pharmaceutical products containing
cannabinoids.

 

FULL TEXT HERE:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+medicinal+use+of+cannabis+and+cannabinoids--an+international...-a0344393025

 

More interesting quotes from the full text:

The sublingual product nabiximols required the highest number of administrations (mean 10.9) per day.

 

Comparing CBMs in Group 1, subjects using inhalation (smoking and vaporizing) reported a first effect after about seven minutes. 

 

Although tea and baked goods/tincture are both taken orally, subjects using cannabis as tea reported more rapid onset of effect (mean 29 min.) than other oral preparations (mean 46 min.). Uptake of cannabinoids can be significantly delayed depending on the nature of the food present in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. For example, fatty foods can significantly delay absorption (Grotenhermen 2002).

 

Patients using nabilone or dronabinol reported the longest time before first onset of effect, likely due to the delay in GI absorption, resulting in similar scores compared to cannabis taken in food or as a tincture. Participants using nabiximols experienced first effects alter an average of 13 minutes, suggesting that nabiximols may be absorbed (at least in part) sublingually, speeding up the process of absorption of cannabinoids.

 

Duration of effects. The duration of effects experienced for each type of CBM was also assessed using the satisfaction score (Table 3c). A longer duration of effect reduces the need for frequent dosing.  ... However the lowest scores were observed for nabiximols, followed by oral use of dronabinol and the inhaled use of pure THC. The oral use of cannabis in foods, tincture, or tea received the highest satisfaction scores for duration of effects.

 

Ed note: Interesting sublingual spray sativex (nabiximols) has the worst duration of effects. Followed by dronabinol in pill form.

 

Cannabis smoking, closely followed by vaporizing, scored highest for satisfaction with ease of dose titration, while oral use of cannabinoids scored lowest.

 

The herbal cannabis-based products received mean scores in the range of 7.2 - 8.5 (meaning high overall satisfaction with side-effect profiles), while the pharmaceutical preparations scored notably lower with a range of 4.8 - 6.0.

Now show me the scientific double blind peer-reviewed study that shows
smoked marijuana is not useful as a medicine.

Edited November 5, 2013 by t-pain

[t-pain]

This quote was also in the study.

I'm very curious why such an unsubstantiated concern was added.

 

Patients who use CBMs on prescription, and simultaneously grow their own cannabis, may raise questions about the legitimacy of their medical use of cannabinoids.

[mibrains]

very interesting thanks t!

[imiubu]

Thanks t!

 

Yes that quote is a bit baffling yet somehow not all that surprising imo.

 

I had a friend who was terminal, many years ago who was prescribed marinol.

He would often call me @ night to 'talk him down' after the marinol effects

escalated past a point of comfort and he was 'too high'. 

He was often scared, kinda freaking out as he never knew how long the horrible feeling would last.

Every time he told me he would much rather just smoke a joint.

rip johnny.

 

 

edited spelling

Edited November 5, 2013 by imiubu

[trichcycler]

rip johnny

 

I prefer to smoke mine personally, either hash, oil, and vaporizing next. I DO know that NO physician will ever condone the Inhalation of rolled up  burning dried flowers of any plant to release its medicinal effect. Knowing this, I believe we all should be talking about vaporizing, concentrates, edibles, to detract from the old vision of us long hair , fat-joint wielding hippies getting high, if we're attempting to establish medical efficacy in their eyes.

 

After seeing the tye dye group protesting once, I heard a suit comment "hell, maybe it's the tye dye shirts causing or curing their cancer!  and that gave me a whole new objective at the time, to de-demonize our herb, and remove some of its stigma by representing differently than we always have, maybe to get something we never got. We keep acting the same way, and keep getting the same results, of course. If we want different results, we must approach this in a different way, imo.

 

If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got right? 

[imiubu]

grass, I see the topic of 'dress' as a double edgesd sword so to speak.. a certain catch 22 if you must.

 

Personally speaking, I've never been one to wear what is stereotypically considered 'hippie attire'.

Even though I have been a regular toker since about age 15, I've never felt comfortable wearing tie dye,

marijuana leaves and the likes.

I have always felt that being a 'hippie' was about not conforming to the 'norm' to 'THE MAN' , to be

free thinkers, et al and the attire was to be significant in it's statement.

Do not march to anyone's beat other than your own...

 

On the other hand, I fully understand that, let's say to 'create an illusion' of conformity for the suits to take

'us' seriously.. we should dress in attire that they 'understand'.

I am a jeans and t shirt person, but to attend any function esp. a court appearance, rally's etc... I do

dress accoring to 'protocal'.  Do I feel 'fake' doing so...yes, sorta.  Do I do it anyway... yes indeed.

 

Trying to control what others wear as a personal expression is impossible imo.

A good hearted plea to the 'tie dyed folks' is admirable yet I believe falls on many deaf ears.

 

If not for the 'hippies' and tie dye weed leaf wearing rebels, would we be where we are today

with cannabis reform???

I think not.

 

Peace

[trichcycler]

Interesting. Do you believe the scene at Woodstock actually helped our cause today? Or the rally of folks toking in the face of the man, and worse, our insatiable demand for a clubhouse to collectively  medicate our illnesses ? I'm not sure about that. I've been to the norml meetings and those are definitely not the types that are the shakers and movers there, but  the seated visitors, or us hippies, and the ones from past are. No doubt they support the current movement, and its not the hippie types exploiting it usually. I think that type of representation brings the same attitude from the same people that held it forever, unchanged. They are still making policy, and still pissed at our 1960's rallies. Refer madness lives in these folks, and untl they die, I think we should try to enlighten them, educate them, and represent differently than we have in the past, which I don't believe got us here. I see the young whipper snappers at the norml, and they are the workhorses with solid educational backgrounds, seeking numbers in us hippies. Many request protestors do not wear their gear, but to dress "appropriately", which I read as near opposite of inappropriately.

 

peace

[trichcycler]

Interesting.

Edited November 5, 2013 by grassmatch

[imiubu]

I am not sure if you understood me correctly... maybe I should learn to write 'better' statements?

 

I said it was a catch 22.

and, I agree that attire matters in this instance if 'we' want to be taken seriously.

BUT, you cannot make everyone dance to the same drum my friend.

That's it ... basically.

[trichcycler]

I understand you fully, just getting to know you is all. digging in that head of yours.

I know everybody wont listen, but might be nice to repeat the things they need to hear,

and represent well when in public, a notion largely ignored by our marijuana community.

 

maybe someone who insists wearing zig zag shirts to protests could chime in, and explain why they think

that may help their position, change policy ?  Showing support is cool, but I've medicated with suits before,

while in one myself, and yes, I felt like a sell out. but I represented well for us.

[Wild Bill]

 and worse, our insatiable demand for a clubhouse to collectively  medicate our illnesses ?

 

I think that is a difference between legitamite patients and those who are just looking for a legal way to get high. The last thing I would want to do when I am in pain is to drive to a club and hang around with a bunch of people.

 

I think folks should be able to do so if they desire but it seems to be a stretch that they are doing it for medicinal purposes.

[bobandtorey]

FREE THE WEED

[Highlander]

I think that is a difference between legitamite patients and those who are just looking for a legal way to get high. The last thing I would want to do when I am in pain is to drive to a club and hang around with a bunch of people.

 

I think folks should be able to do so if they desire but it seems to be a stretch that they are doing it for medicinal purposes.

 

Yes.  The idea that people would congregate and medicate is pretty silly.  Medicating isn't a social activity.  I don't have friends come to my house when I take an aspirin or two or a few swigs of Pepto-Bismol.  The notion that people should be able to meet up and medicate together makes us all look bad.  This doesn't fool anyone.

[trichcycler]

although I enjoy the effects, desired and undesired, of my herbal remedy, and I completely understand the desire to congregate during ritual stones, this part of it  discredits our movement each time people see it, and I agree with you.

 

I don't mind a legal way to get high either, for the record. Sometimes I don't even ask a patient what their qualifying condition is, unless they offer it up. I care only as far as helping to negate their discomfort. If getting stoned accomplishes that, who am I to question. If they want to get high, and a physician has recommended mj to them, I call them a legitimate patient.

 

The notion that a few people can demonize a common ancient plant and jail citizens for consuming it is absurd. Nobody needs a medical reason to drink,  cannabis is not curing cancer in any country were its legal. We could have fought for our civil rights, instead of medical ones, but I suppose the medical ones were more powerful, to sway the other 13% ? 

I think that is a difference between legitamite patients and those who are just looking for a legal way to get high. The last thing I would want to do when I am in pain is to drive to a club and hang around with a bunch of people.

 

I think folks should be able to do so if they desire but it seems to be a stretch that they are doing it for medicinal purposes.

Edited November 5, 2013 by grassmatch