• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Therapeutic Cannabis use

Zebedy Colt said:
:goodpost:

However, you can really attribute all your links to anything that distracts drivers.

Or I can truck out links to News that counter those claims....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/?utm_term=.ce80760f5dd1

So what do we do.  Ban radios, airconditioners, Lipstick, Sandwhiches, and the mirros witht he light in Cars?

No one said anything about banning.  I just want to tax the crap out of it so we can dump more money into vacations for the PM and other good spending measures.

No one should be driving while high, drunk or stoned or what ever.  That should be a given.
 
Halifax Tar said:
No one said anything about banning.  I just want to tax the crap out of it so we can dump more money into vacations for the PM and other good spending measures.

No one should be driving while high, drunk or stoned or what ever.  That should be a given.

Very well said mate, very well said agreed!

Anything that can mess with Judgment, the user must take Responsibility

 
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/4-rcmp-officers-killed-on-alberta-farm-1.521207
A raid on a suspected marijuana grow operation in rural Alberta has left five people dead – four of them RCMP officers.

It's a lucrative business people are willing  to kill for.
It's a catch 22 as well.  The more quality control vac places on the product the higher price vetted growers can charge.  Maybe the price per gram will triple.  If the price becomes too exhorbant then maybe vac will cut back the dose they pay for again.
 
Zebedy Colt said:
Please refrain to posting anything to do with our site, you have no clue, and the fact you have been turfed proves that.  Look at your posts on these means.  Opinion does not make you a Pundit.  Please

Yes you turfed me and since I was added by one of your members some time ago without permission I am wondering how you knew who I was. I don't suppose you accessed my personal information on here as a moderator to find out who I am? Isn't that a site violation?
 
Jarnhamar said:
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/4-rcmp-officers-killed-on-alberta-farm-1.521207

It's a lucrative business people are willing  to kill for.
It's a catch 22 as well.  The more quality control vac places on the product the higher price vetted growers can charge.  Maybe the price per gram will triple.  If the price becomes too exhorbant then maybe vac will cut back the dose they pay for again.

Uhm,

That is an "Illegal" grow op, so to compare it with Medicinal Cannabis, or even "Legal" Cannabis which will happen in our future, you are just fear mongering.

People steal cars, should people stop buying them?

People modify Guns illegally, should we ban all of them outright?

If you are going to add to the conversation, please stop making it so dramatic, as to further stigmatize a medicine.  Didn't millions of dollars of Maple Syrup in Quebec get stolen by Organized crime???  Don't see you jumping on that.

Jeez, for real.

 
I am pretty sure (not 100% so don't no one jump all over me here...) that VAC has nothing to do with quality control. If that were the case, they would up all the pill-makers asses as well, would they not? Marijuana grown for medicinal purposes are grown by fully licenced and accredited, government inspected facilities and are subjected to more than the normal "controls". There are only 3 dozen or so legal providers in Canada, all of which VAC will approve. Only. If I went to a "guy" or a "store" and tried to claim a purchase through VAC, I would get told to pound salt.

QC? I feel that the quality of medicinal marijuana I get is top-notch.

Screw coconuts!
 
https://www.google.ca/amp/ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/home-grown-medical-marijuana-the-new-rules/amp?client=ms-android-rogers-ca

• The new rules set out a framework for commercial production by licensed producers, like the MMPR, but like the former MMAR, allows patients to produce a “limited amount” for their own use or designate someone to grow it for them .
 
https://news.lift.co/health-canada-issues-type-ii-recall-organigram-products/

[size=12pt]Health Canada issues Type II recall for OrganiGram products [/size]


Health Canada released their first public recall of a cannabis product since March 2015 today, with the announcement of a Type II recall of 69 lots of product. This is in addition to five lots recalled under a Type III recall in late December of last year.

The recalled products include both dried marijuana and cannabis oil produced between February 1, 2016 and December 16, 2016. The affected lot numbers are listed here.

The public recall notice explains that five product lots in December had tested positive for myclobutanil “and/or” bifenazate. Both of these are unapproved pesticides under Health Canada’s ACMPR. Then, On Jan 9 of this year, OrganiGram initiated a second voluntary recall, this time a Type II recall based on trace amounts of the same pesticide(s) found.

Health Canada lists their three recall types as such

    Type I: a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death,
    Type II: a situation in which the use of, or exposure to, a product may cause temporary adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote, or
    Type III: a situation in which the use of, or exposure to, a product is not likely to cause any adverse health consequences.

Type III recalls do not generally warrant a public recall, but a Type I or II recall does. In the past, Health Canada has issued public recalls for other medical cannabis, but has not detailed if it was a Type I, II or III.

Past medical cannabis recalls have been for issues like improper paperwork, inaccurate THC labeling, positive bacterial testing, and mould.


Health Canada recommends that any individual affected by the recall immediately stop using the recalled product and to contact Organigram Inc. at the following number: 1-855-961-9420.


 
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/12/marijuana-study-benefits-chemotherapy-pain-multiple-sclerosis

[size=14pt]Most marijuana medicinal benefits are inconclusive, wide-ranging study finds [/size]



There is not enough research to reach conclusive judgments on whether marijuana can effectively treat most of the symptoms and diseases it is advertised as helping, according to a wide-ranging US government study.

The same is also true of many of the risks said to be associated with using cannabis, the study finds.

More than 100 conclusions about the health effects of marijuana, including claims of both helpful and harmful effects, were evaluated by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in a study released on Thursday.

There was only enough evidence to support treatment for three therapeutic uses, the study found: to reduce nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, to treat chronic pain and to reduce spasms from multiple sclerosis.

“Really, most of the therapeutic reasons people use medical marijuana aren’t substantiated beneficial effects of the plant,” said Sean Hennessy, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of the 16-scientist committee that carried out the review.

Uses for which there was either “limited evidence or insufficient evidence”, according to Hennessy, included increasing appetite and weight gain for patients with HIV/Aids, calming attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, and treating epilepsy.

“There’s been an explosion of literature since 1999 … We reviewed thousands of abstracts,” said Robert Wallace, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health, and another member of the committee tasked with reviewing more than 10,000 studies to reach conclusions about the current state of research on marijuana. “A lot of the report is really where the state of the evidence is.”

For example, the report found “conclusive” evidence that cannabis can alleviate some nausea and vomiting associated with cancer treatment, but that case was long ago considered settled. For many indications in the report, science has not reached a definitive answer.

The report’s key findings fell into a few broad categories:

    Injury and death: evidence suggests that driving while high increases the risk of a car accident. In states where marijuana has been legalized, evidence suggests that children are at more risk of ingesting marijuana. Cannabis use could also harm adolescents’ educational and social development.

    Mental health: cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia, social anxiety disorders and, to a lesser extent, depression. Heavy marijuana users are more likely to report suicidal thoughts that non-users, and people with bipolar disorder who use marijuana almost daily show more symptoms than non-users.

    Cancer: evidence does not support a link between smoking marijuana and cancers typically associated with tobacco, such as head, neck and lung cancer. Evidence suggests that smoking marijuana on a regular basis is associated with chronic bronchitis and phlegm production.

    Addiction: evidence suggests that people who use more cannabis are more likely to be addicted, and that the younger people start, the more likely they are to develop problematic use.

    Nausea: there is conclusive evidence that cannabinoids, compounds derived from marijuana, are useful to treat nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

    Chronic pain: there is evidence to support use of cannabis in treatment of chronic pain, in particular in spasms associated with multiple sclerosis, the disabling central nervous system disease.

The report comes as the pace of marijuana reforms has quickened across the US. Medicinal marijuana is now legal in 29 states, and recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and in Washington DC. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the US, with an estimated 22.2 million people using the drug in the past month, according to a 2014 government survey.
Advertisement

Drug policy reform has also became a topic of international debate, as high-profile medical organizations and some countries call for decriminalization of illicit drugs. The academies’ report is the first in 18 years to address such a breadth of physical effects from marijuana, and is likely to fuel arguments on both sides of the marijuana debate.

While the paper is broad and wide-ranging, it is unlikely to end debate on any number of treatments. One researcher studying the therapeutic impacts of the cannabis compound cannabidiol on children with epilepsy said researchers’ conclusions were broadly “conservative”, and on epilepsy “wrong”.

“For science to do what it does, I think when they do a scientific review they should incorporate all the evidence that is out there for that disorder, and I don’t think they did that for epilepsy,” said Orrin Devinsky, director of New York University Langone Medical Center’s comprehensive epilepsy center. Still, he called the report “very valuable”.

The report comes at a significant time for marijuana policy worldwide, as drug policy reform has picked up both in the US and internationally. Less than one year ago, an international commission published a report in The Lancet calling for decriminalization of all drugs, finding that prohibition did not effectively combat drug use, addiction or organized crime. At the same time, the United Nations held a special session to discuss global drug policy, the first in almost 20 years. Additionally, mental health concerns about “skunk” marijuana have also increased.

The study represents the broadest review by the National Academies of Sciences since 1999, after California and Arizona passed the first medical marijuana laws, and the public debated whether physicians should prescribe marijuana.

Controversially, the 1999 report found that marijuana could indeed reduce nausea, but that it could also help treat pain. While the report found some negative effects from smoking marijuana, it also contradicted the then US “drug czar” Barry R McCaffrey’s position that “not a shred of scientific evidence” existed for the medicinal use of marijuana.
Advertisement

Almost two decades later, legal marijuana has spawned an untold number of shops hawking marijuana for people to enjoy like beer or wine, but also products that more closely resemble cure-alls on the untested supplement market.

“There is a great fear that I continue to have, that the cannabis industry medically will be like the vitamin and nutritional supplement market,” Devinsky said. “People advertise on TV that we isolated a compound from jellyfish and it improves memory.”

He added: “It’s become a religion for people, and my personal view is if you want to pray to whatever gods you pray to, and you want to advocate for whatever political candidate, it’s a free country. But when it comes to medical therapy, we have a higher standard.”

In the US, the push for marijuana legalization comes at a time of increasing dismay over the state of the criminal justice system, as sentencing laws passed during the “war on drugs” are being reexamined in light of their disproportionate impact on people of color.

“This growing acceptance, accessibility and use of cannabis and its derivatives has raised important public health concerns,” said Marie McCormick, a pediatrician at Harvard University’s TH Chan School of Public Health, who chaired the committee. “Moreover, the lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use.

“We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says, and to highlight areas that still need further examination. As laws and policies continue to change, research must also.”

The report also took the unusual step of calling for private funding sources to advance marijuana research. Researchers found it “difficult to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary”, the report said. “A diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research.”

One of those hurdles is the limited supply of research-grade marijuana, which is grown only at the University of Mississippi.

“Any federal study has challenges,” said Nolan Kane, a geneticist at the University of Colorado at Boulder studying the evolution of plants such as sunflowers and hemp. He described government-approved marijuana as having “a fraction” of the psychoactive ingredients of privately grown marijuana, and said research subjects described the marijuana as “old” and “low quality”.

“Getting people to even accept money to smoke their marijuana – you’d think college campuses, it would be easy to get people to smoke marijuana,” Kane said. “It doesn’t at all reflect the marketplace ... It’s always going to be comparing apples and oranges until they’re able to make the products more similar.”

The report is the product of 16 experts in their fields, including neurologists, oncologists, epidemiologists and child psychiatrists. Among the review’s most fervent calls were for more investigation.

The study was sponsored by a group of state health departments, federal agencies and nonprofits, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Robert W Woodruff Foundation and the Arizona department of health services.


 
So I think based on the limited data out there that the government should spend the money to conduct a long term study on the Therapeutic benefits of Cannabis and put to rest any arguments on the benefits or harm Cannabis does. It obviously benefits people but testimonials and data is unreliable. Given the fact that Cannabis is set to explode on the scene with its legalization as a recreational drug, I think the government owes the people to make sure it grown properly and any benefits or more importantly adverse health affects are investigated and the appropriate warnings issued if required.
 
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the research is on 'cannabis', whereas most pharmaceutical research is on individual pharmaceutical compounds. 'Cannabis' as both a genus and as a commercial product (licit or illicit) contains varying proportions of several active chemical compounds. That will necessarily introduce many confounding variables to any study that will limit its usefulness.
 
Brihard said:
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the research is on 'cannabis', whereas most pharmaceutical research is on individual pharmaceutical compounds. 'Cannabis' as both a genus and as a commercial product (licit or illicit) contains varying proportions of several active chemical compounds. That will necessarily introduce many confounding variables to any study that will limit its usefulness.

So I guess it may be hard given the various strains to quantify its usefulness or harm it may be causing. Perhaps individual chemicals such as THC should be looked at more closely or possibly synthesized or genetically modified with the health benefits and without the high for some people.
 
Our medical system is swamped and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen members fall through the medical cracks.

A major concern of mine is still the allure of members faking a PTSD (or whatever) ailment in order to essentially get pot for life.

If members are out of province doctor shopping and 4 doctors are responsible for a 53% increase in prescriptions (or whatever it was) then that needs to be addressed.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Our medical system is swamped and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen members fall through the medical cracks.

A major concern of mine is still the allure of members faking a PTSD (or whatever) ailment in order to essentially get pot for life.

If members are out of province doctor shopping and 4 doctors are responsible for a 53% increase in prescriptions (or whatever it was) then that needs to be addressed.

Some provinces and many doctors do not give prescriptions for MM and some who do only a small supply at a time. This is a big complaint from the MM community.  I have read on other online forums what doctors are more sympathetic to get a prescription, if fact some doctors give phone or Skype interviews and issue prescriptions. I believe  VA has tightened up and make vets go to a pain specialist first in order to better access a client for their needs.
 
Chief Stoker said:
Some provinces and many doctors do not give prescriptions for MM and some who do only a small supply at a time. This is a big complaint from the MM community.  I have read on other online forums what doctors are more sympathetic to get a prescription, if fact some doctors give phone or Skype interviews and issue prescriptions. I believe  VA has tightened up and make vets go to a pain specialist first in order to better access a client for their needs.

:whistle:
Some Doctors specialize in different disciplines. Personally, I'd rather go to a Dr that's more attuned to my problems and is not afraid to try alternative methods than one who has never dealt with it at all. So people go to the specialist. If they are breaking no laws, they are entitled to all the business they can get. I don't see a problem and I'm not going to impinge on someone's professional credentials by implying that they are doing something untoward or illegal. However, if you have proof this is illegal, or you have credible information that these Doctors aren't qualified, I'm all ears. Please bring me up to speed.

Of course people are going to go to doctors more knowledge of their condition, why not? I would always prefer to go to a doctor that is knowledgeable about the conditions, what the effects of prophylactic cannabis use on the conditions is, what the dangers are and what specific conditions warrant certain prescriptions. Doctors that have researched and specialized are always more preferable to a general practice MD. Patients want treatment, not days or weeks of shopping around trying to find someone with the qualifications. Patients that are happy are bound to let their friends know why and how. I'm sure you'll see more doctors in the future once it becomes more widespread.

Phone and Skype doctor visits have been in place for years, not just for medical cannabis. Doctors have been using these approved methods of contacting patients well before medical cannabis came on the scene. Why do you think the practice should be stopped? What about Skype and phone to consult on cancer? Do we get rid of those also?

Nothing has changed at VAC, the system remains as it was for current users. The specifics of who can prescribe, for what, will be out for the transition. Right now, your MD can prescribe. There is also a number of other conditions, besides pain, that MC can work for. So there will be a number of different medical disciplines involved, not just pain specialists. This comes into effect on May 22/17. You only need a specialist letter if you are going to need >3 grams/ day.


Jarnhamar said:
Our medical system is swamped and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen members fall through the medical cracks.

A major concern of mine is still the allure of members faking a PTSD (or whatever) ailment in order to essentially get pot for life.

If members are out of province doctor shopping and 4 doctors are responsible for a 53% increase in prescriptions (or whatever it was) then that needs to be addressed.

:whistle: This bit in yellow. We know it's a concern, for you, because you never fail to bring it up, constantly. I won't deny there are probably people out there cheating the system, but it's nowhere near the epidemic proportions that you always imply. And you keep saying members. That implies members of the CAF, who have, IIRC, no access to MC unless transitioning.

Why does someone shopping for a Doctor, that specializes in a particular discipline, create a problem so alarming that it needs to be addressed? I recall long ago, when Windsor/ Detroit only had one neurosurgeon. Perhaps he should have been investigated because he got 90% of the brain and back problems?

I'd like to address one more thing while I'm here. There seems to be a growing number of people accusing Vets and Serving members of faking their PTSI. The process for diagnoses doesn't end with the patient sitting in a Dr office rhyming off symptoms from a book. "Yep, you've got PTSI, because you named all the symptoms". There are a number of written tests, interviews with psychiatrists, psychologists and VAC. Boards are held, that include doctors, social workers and peer support organisations to discuss your case. While I have no doubt there are offenders out there, I don't think they are of sufficient numbers that you have to try keep hammering away with the accusation in your posts. If you have some other proof, specifically geared to the CAF, to improve your position, I'll listen. If not, please stop inundating us with your, worn out, unsubstantiated statements.

 
Huge difference in shopping for a doctor who specializes in a condition, and shopping for a doctor who you know will treat your condition the way you want it to be treated.
 
PuckChaser said:
Huge difference in shopping for a doctor who specializes in a condition, and shopping for a doctor who you know will treat your condition the way you want it to be treated.

I'll need to see proof this is happening. If you have it, let's discuss. However, if it's speculation, I have no interest. I won't agree to speculate on someone's professional or ethical qualifications, nor how they legally run their business. Until proven otherwise, I'll have to assume that these doctors are following their oath to do no harm and doing it legally. Do you agree?
 
recceguy said:
:whistle:
Some Doctors specialize in different disciplines. Personally, I'd rather go to a Dr that's more attuned to my problems and is not afraid to try alternative methods than one who has never dealt with it at all. So people go to the specialist. If they are breaking no laws, they are entitled to all the business they can get. I don't see a problem and I'm not going to impinge on someone's professional credentials by implying that they are doing something untoward or illegal. However, if you have proof this is illegal, or you have credible information that these Doctors aren't qualified, I'm all ears. Please bring me up to speed.

Of course people are going to go to doctors more knowledge of their condition, why not? I would always prefer to go to a doctor that is knowledgeable about the conditions, what the effects of prophylactic cannabis use on the conditions is, what the dangers are and what specific conditions warrant certain prescriptions. Doctors that have researched and specialized are always more preferable to a general practice MD. Patients want treatment, not days or weeks of shopping around trying to find someone with the qualifications. Patients that are happy are bound to let their friends know why and how. I'm sure you'll see more doctors in the future once it becomes more widespread.

Phone and Skype doctor visits have been in place for years, not just for medical cannabis. Doctors have been using these approved methods of contacting patients well before medical cannabis came on the scene. Why do you think the practice should be stopped? What about Skype and phone to consult on cancer? Do we get rid of those also?

Nothing has changed at VAC, the system remains as it was for current users. The specifics of who can prescribe, for what, will be out for the transition. Right now, your MD can prescribe. There is also a number of other conditions, besides pain, that MC can work for. So there will be a number of different medical disciplines involved, not just pain specialists. This comes into effect on May 22/17. You only need a specialist letter if you are going to need >3 grams/ day.


:whistle: This bit in yellow. We know it's a concern, for you, because you never fail to bring it up, constantly. I won't deny there are probably people out there cheating the system, but it's nowhere near the epidemic proportions that you always imply. And you keep saying members. That implies members of the CAF, who have, IIRC, no access to MC unless transitioning.

Why does someone shopping for a Doctor, that specializes in a particular discipline, create a problem so alarming that it needs to be addressed? I recall long ago, when Windsor/ Detroit only had one neurosurgeon. Perhaps he should have been investigated because he got 90% of the brain and back problems?

I'd like to address one more thing while I'm here. There seems to be a growing number of people accusing Vets and Serving members of faking their PTSI. The process for diagnoses doesn't end with the patient sitting in a Dr office rhyming off symptoms from a book. "Yep, you've got PTSI, because you named all the symptoms". There are a number of written tests, interviews with psychiatrists, psychologists and VAC. Boards are held, that include doctors, social workers and peer support organisations to discuss your case. While I have no doubt there are offenders out there, I don't think they are of sufficient numbers that you have to try keep hammering away with the accusation in your posts. If you have some other proof, specifically geared to the CAF, to improve your position, I'll listen. If not, please stop inundating us with your, worn out, unsubstantiated statements.

I think the reason why some provinces and some doctors won't deal with MM is that simply they don't believe in it which is their choice as you might agree. Its a known fact that some doctors give out MM prescriptions to people who abuse the system. If I wanted a prescription for MM, i'm sure I could find a skype doctor to give me one for $500. I'm not saying everyone is doing that but some of the talk I hear on social media MM pages leads to me believe there's abuse.

Consulting over the phone or Skype between doctors is normal. Seeing a MM friendly doctor recommended by a dispensary for a 3 min chat is suspect.

Lots of talk about it here

https://www.420magazine.com/forums/medical-marijuana-doctors/220924-medical-marijuana-services-looking-prescription-canada-under-new-laws-2.html?s=d1520d0796d95d3e340017b8596ac615
 
If anyone feels like I'm inundating them with worn out statements they're more than capable of throwing me on ignore.

As for phone and Skype calls to get prescriptions, what? That's news to me. I can't get medical staff to tell me shit over the phone. I'm blown away someone can get a MMJ prescription over the phone? I agree with Chief Stoker that's pretty suspect.

Doctors are hardly infallible. Operating on the wrong limb, leaving instruments inside peoples bodies. It's hardly heresy to question doctors in light of some of the shady stuff we read about. Like $50-$250 will get you a meeting with a doctor to write you a script. 

I'm not sure about epidemic proportions but didn't VAC just talk about a huge increase in MMJ prescriptions? Costing VAC so much that they initiated the whole 3 gram a day rule?

one neurosurgeon. Perhaps he should have been investigated because he got 90% of the brain and back problems?

I don't know. If there was 100 neurosurgeons and 2 of them were responsible for prescribing 90% of Oxycontin prescriptions should they be investigated then? I'd say yes. 

As for the doctor shopping question I think you know very well the circumstances of why someone might doctor shop to prescribe them exactly what they want. It's not something that's limited to MMJ, people doctor shop for narcotics too.
 
I read a few of the pages, there is some of it going on, no doubt. I only saw one 3 minute reference. That, I believe, was somebody talking to someone else about a 3 minute conversation. Could be wrong though. I know lots of doctors that see patients for no more than ten minutes, including prescriptions for lots of things so it probably isn't unusual for doctor to spend around the same with a cannabis patient. I'm not a doctor so I won't guess.

Doctors have been Skyping or videoconferencing with patients for a while now. This is neither suspect or unusual. And it's not just cannabis doctors. Like I said, I didn't see in the link where interviews were only 3 minutes long. Perhaps you could point it out?
 
Back
Top