Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62
  1. #1
    I'm in Jail

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    14-12-2023 @ 11:54 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13,986

    The terrible truth about cannabis: Expert's devastating 20-year study

    Tuesday October 7 2014

    Have the potential harms of cannabis been understated?

    "Cannabis: the terrible truth," is today's Daily Mail front page splash story. The paper cites the risks posed by cannabis – including a doubling of the risk of schizophrenia – based on research the paper says has "demolished the argument that the drug is safe".
    The "terrible truth" is we still don't know enough about the safety and harms of cannabis because it's legally and ethically a difficult area to research. However, we can be pretty certain you can't take a fatal overdose from recreational cannabis use.
    The headlines in the Mail and several other papers were prompted by the publication of a narrative review of cannabis research by Professor Wayne Hall, an expert adviser on addiction to the World Health Organization.



    Cannabis is a class B drug, which is illegal to possess or sell

    Professor Hall concludes that cannabis research since 1993 has shown its use is associated with several adverse health effects, including a doubling of the risk of crashing if driving while "cannabis impaired". He also found that around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence.
    He also reports regular cannabis use in adolescence was strongly linked with using other illicit drugs, as well as increased risk of cognitive impairment and psychoses.
    In addition, cannabis smoking probably increases cardiovascular risk in middle-aged adults with pre-existing heart disease, but its effects on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear as most cannabis smokers have smoked, or still smoke, tobacco.
    But as this review was not systematic, it is impossible to tell if all relevant studies have been included. And all these conclusions were based on the results of observational studies, which means we can't tell if cannabis caused all the effects.

    Where did the story come from?

    The study was carried out by a single researcher from the University of Queensland Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Australia, and the National Addiction Centre at King's College London.
    It was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Addiction.
    Despite the somewhat hyped headlines, the media coverage of this study was generally accurate, but did not point out the limitations of the research. Indeed, the Mail's description of the study as "definitive" is rather at odds with the nature of the research.

    What kind of research was this?

    This was a narrative review that aimed to examine the changes in the available evidence on the adverse health effects of cannabis since 1993.
    It was not clear how the author identified the studies used as a basis for the review. It may be the case there are other studies showing no effect or harm that have not been included in the review.
    It is also not clear how the author compiled the results of the research to come up with strengths of effect.
    A systematic review is required to assess the adverse health effects of cannabis use.
    Also, although the author applied rules to the interpretation of the research, the conclusions are based on the results of observational studies.
    It is difficult to conclude from these types of studies that cannabis causes the effects seen, as there are still potentially differences between people who use cannabis and people who don't that could explain the differences seen.

    What did the research involve?

    The author looked at studies published over a 20-year period since 1993 (when a previous review was conducted) to see if there was evidence that cannabis caused adverse health effects. To do this, Professor Hall looked at whether:
    • there were case control and cohort studies that showed an association between cannabis use and a health outcome
    • cannabis use preceded (started before) the outcome
    • the association remained after controlling for potential confounding variables
    • there was clinical and experimental evidence that supported the biological plausibility of a causal relationship
    What were the basic results?

    The author listed the conclusions that he believes can now reasonably be drawn in the light of evidence that has accrued over the past 20 years.
    Adverse effects of acute use

    Professor Hall concluded that:
    • The risk of a fatal overdose is considered to be extremely small. The estimated fatal dose in humans is between 15 and 70g, far greater than it is reported a heavy user could ever use in one day. There have also been no reports of fatal overdose in the literature.
    • Driving while cannabis impaired approximately doubles car crash risk.
    • Maternal cannabis use during pregnancy modestly reduces birthweight.
    Adverse effects of chronic use

    Professor Hall concluded that:
    • Around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence, and this rises to one in six among people who start in adolescence.
    • Regular (daily or near daily) cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risks of early school leaving and cognitive impairment and psychoses in adulthood.
    • Regular cannabis use in adolescence is also associated strongly with the use of other illicit drugs.
    • Cannabis smoking may increase the risk of cardiovascular events such as angina or heart attack in middle-aged and older adults with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Some isolated reports suggest younger people not yet diagnosed with cardiovascular disease may also be at risk of cardiovascular events.
    • The effects of cannabis on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear because most cannabis smokers have smoked, or still smoke, tobacco.
    How did the researcher interpret the results?

    Professor Hall concluded that: "The epidemiological literature in the past 20 years shows that cannabis use increases the risk of accidents and can produce dependence, and that there are consistent associations between regular cannabis use and poor psychosocial outcomes and mental health in adulthood."

    Conclusion

    This narrative review has concluded that cannabis research in the past 20 years has shown that cannabis use is associated with a number of adverse health effects.
    It also found driving while cannabis impaired approximately doubles car crash risk and around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence.
    Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risks of early school leaving and cognitive impairment and psychoses in adulthood, according to the review.
    Regular cannabis use in adolescence is also associated strongly with the use of other illicit drugs.
    In addition, cannabis use probably increases cardiovascular risk in middle-aged adults with pre-existing heart disease, but its effects on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remains unclear because most cannabis smokers have smoked, or still smoke, tobacco.
    However, as this was not a systematic review it is impossible for readers to know whether all relevant studies have been included.
    All the review's conclusions were based on the results of observational studies. So while it seems probable that cannabis use increases the risk of some adverse outcomes, it is also possible there are differences between cannabis smokers and non-smokers that explain some of the differences seen.


    Cannabis labelled 'harmful and as addictive as heroin' - Health News - NHS Choices


    More links :


    Professor Wayne Hall - UQ Researchers


    Is cannabis dangerous? A review of research over the last 20 years says yes - Features - Health & Families - The Independent


    Marijuana and Your Health: What 20 Years of Research Reveals


    Cannabis as addictive as heroin, major new study finds - Telegraph
    Last edited by Latindancer; 08-10-2014 at 10:17 AM.

  2. #2
    The Fool on the Hill bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    นนทบุรี
    Posts
    5,839
    hmm...

    Risk versus reward? and, can it be quantified?

  3. #3
    I'm in Jail

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    14-12-2023 @ 11:54 AM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13,986

    The terrible truth about cannabis: Expert's devastating 20-year study

    A definitive 20-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis use has demolished the argument that the drug is safe.
    Cannabis is highly addictive, causes mental health problems and opens the door to hard drugs, the study found.
    The paper by Professor Wayne Hall, a drugs advisor to the World Health Organisation, builds a compelling case against those who deny the devastation cannabis wreaks on the brain. Professor Hall found:

    .......One in six teenagers who regularly smoke the drug become dependent on it,
    • Cannabis doubles the risk of developing psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia,
    • Cannabis users do worse at school. Heavy use in adolescence appears to impair intellectual development
    • One in ten adults who regularly smoke the drug become dependent on it and those who use it are more likely to go on to use harder drugs,
    • Driving after smoking cannabis doubles the risk of a car crash, a risk which increases substantially if the driver has also had a drink,
    • Smoking it while pregnant reduces the baby’s birth weight.
    Last night Professor Hall, a professor of addiction policy at King’s College London, dismissed the views of those who say that cannabis is harmless.
    ‘If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin or alcohol,’ he said.
    ‘It is often harder to get people who are dependent on cannabis through withdrawal than for heroin – we just don’t know how to do it.’
    Those who try to stop taking cannabis often suffer anxiety, insomnia, appetite disturbance and depression, he found. Even after treatment, less than half can stay off the drug for six months.
    The paper states that teenagers and young adults are now as likely to take cannabis as they are to smoke cigarettes.
    +5


    Addiction: Those who try to stop taking cannabis often suffer anxiety, insomnia, appetite disturbance and depression, the study found.

    Professor Hall writes that it is impossible to take a fatal overdose of cannabis, making it less dangerous at first glance than heroin or cocaine. He also states that taking the drug while pregnant can reduce the weight of a baby, and long-term use raises the risk of cancer, bronchitis and heart attack.
    But his main finding is that regular use, especially among teenagers, leads to long-term mental health problems and addiction.
    ‘The important point I am trying to make is that people can get into difficulties with cannabis use, particularly if they get into daily use over a longer period,’ he said. ‘There is no doubt that heavy users experience a withdrawal syndrome as with alcohol and heroin.
    ‘Rates of recovery from cannabis dependence among those seeking treatment are similar to those for alcohol.’

    Mark Winstanley, of the charity Rethink Mental Illness, said: ‘Too often cannabis is wrongly seen as a safe drug, but as this review shows, there is a clear link with psychosis and schizophrenia, especially for teenagers.
    ‘The common view that smoking cannabis is nothing to get worked up about needs to be challenged more effectively. Instead of classifying and re-classifying, government time and money would be much better spent on educating young people about how smoking cannabis is essentially playing a very real game of Russian roulette with your mental health.’

    Cannabis was given a Class B rating when the classification system for illegal drugs was set up in 1971, putting it below Class A substances heroin and cocaine in seriousness but above Class C drugs such as steroids.
    The Labour government downgraded the drug to Class C in 2004 – meaning officers did not normally arrest those caught with it – but reversed its decision within five years. Other failed attempts to liberalise the approach to cannabis include that of former Metropolitan Police chief Brian Paddick, who spearheaded a ‘softly, softly’ scheme while borough commander in Lambeth in 2001.
    His party leader, Nick Clegg, has previously backed moves to partially decriminalise the sale of cannabis. At the Liberal Democrat conference yesterday, he called for people to be spared jail if they are caught with small amounts of drugs.

    In 2005, David Cameron, when he ran for the Tory leadership, said it would be ‘disappointing’ if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at. He said he favoured ‘fresh thinking and a new approach’ towards drugs policy.
    Mr Cameron also voted, when he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, for the UN body on drugs policy to look at whether to legalise and regulate the drugs trade. Today, he no longer supports decriminalisation.
    Professor Hall last night declined to comment on the decriminalisation debate.

    But in his paper, published in the journal Addiction, he wrote that the rise of medical treatment for cannabis ‘dependence syndrome’ had not been stopped by legalisation. The number of cannabis users seeking help to quit or control their cannabis use has increased during the past two decades in the United States, Europe and Australia,’ he wrote. ‘The same increase has occurred in the Netherlands, where cannabis use was decriminalised more than 40 years ago.’
    David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, added: ‘There is no case for legalisation and we hope that this puts an end to the matter. The two main parties agree that cannabis needs to remain illegal – we hope the Liberal Democrats see this research and re-examine their policies.’

    For years, activists and celebrities trying to decriminalise cannabis have campaigned on the claim that the real health damage to users is done by the legal ban on drugs. They have dismissed the growing evidence that smoking cannabis is a serious risk to mental health.
    Prominent supporters of decriminalisation have included comedian Russell Brand, singer Sting, writer Will Self and left-wing barrister Michael Mansfield.

    A key figure has been David Nutt, who was chairman of the Home Office Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, until sacked for his campaigning five years ago. The professor said the risk of lung cancer from smoking was vastly greater than the risk of psychosis from cannabis.
    He gave a lecture in 2009 in which he said: ‘The analysis we came up with was that smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers. To put that figure in proportion, you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don’t.
    ‘The other paradox is that schizophrenia seems to be disappearing from the general population, even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years.
    ‘So, even though skunk has been around now for ten years, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia. Where people have looked, they haven’t found any evidence linking cannabis use in a population and schizophrenia.’

    The claim that cannabis is harmless is repeated in a documentary shortly to be released in Britain called The Culture High, which features interviews with Sir Richard Branson and Mike Trace, Britain’s deputy drugs czar under Tony Blair. He was sacked after the Mail revealed he was planning to launch a decriminalisation pressure group.
    The film contains an interview with an academic who states that ‘marijuana is the most non-toxic medicine I have ever come across’ and maintains, according to reports, that ‘scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows it has medical benefits’.
    Sir Richard’s appearance in the film is part of a long-running personal campaign against the legal ban on drugs. Sir Richard is also part of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a pressure group which says legalisation would ‘safeguard the health and security of citizens’.


    Cannabis labelled 'harmful and as addictive as heroin' - Health News - NHS Choices


    More links :


    Professor Wayne Hall - UQ Researchers


    Is cannabis dangerous? A review of research over the last 20 years says yes - Features - Health & Families - The Independent


    Marijuana and Your Health: What 20 Years of Research Reveals


    Cannabis as addictive as heroin, major new study finds - Telegraph

  4. #4
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,749
    So if that's the truth why are countries legalizing and decriminalising cannabis, possibly they need to look into the pharmaceutical companies.

    Cannabis has many medical properties, and we should be looking to these for alternatives to chemical based medicines.

  5. #5
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,749

  6. #6
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    24-02-2024 @ 04:47 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,939
    So a big yawn really.
    May this and could that but that's about all.
    A space filler.

  7. #7
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    I hate cannabis smokers
    I hate that sickly sweet stink

    how smokers see themselves, and like they used to look


    how they actually look these days




  8. #8
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,749
    Well you must hate a large percentage of the worlds population.

  9. #9
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    ^i hate every fucker


  10. #10
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,749
    ^ Well at least you admit.

  11. #11
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,749
    Some interesting figures here


    Papua new guinea 29.6% of population smoke cannabis some figures are out of date.

    Annual cannabis use by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,022
    Goddamn dopers...

  13. #13
    Member
    Your name here's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    06-04-2016 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    Ubon and elsewhere
    Posts
    113
    ^ "Hey you kids! Get off of my dadgumed yard dagnabit!"

  14. #14
    The Fool on the Hill bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    นนทบุรี
    Posts
    5,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Yasojack
    So if that's the truth why are countries legalizing and decriminalising cannabis
    Taxes, taxes, taxes, a magnificent amount of tax revenues are available, what politician can pass that up?

  15. #15
    The Fool on the Hill bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    นนทบุรี
    Posts
    5,839
    Colorado marijuana tax revenues surge as recreational sales surpass medical - The Washington Post

    Total revenue from marijuana taxes, licenses and fees topped 7 million dollars in June, and is likely to keep rising as more retail outlets enter the market.

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat
    Kurgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    15-05-2023 @ 10:57 AM
    Location
    Shitsville
    Posts
    8,812
    Quote Originally Posted by bowie
    Around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence, and this rises to one in six among people who start in adolescence.
    I wonder what the figures are for alcohol users?

  17. #17
    The Fool on the Hill bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    นนทบุรี
    Posts
    5,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurgen
    I wonder what the figures are for alcohol users?
    Alcohol Use, Abuse and Dependency :: Health Topics :: University Health Service :: University of Rochester

    indicated that upwards of 14 million Americans, that's one out of every 13 adults, abuse alcohol or are alcoholic

  18. #18
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,749
    Would think in the UK its 1 in 4.

  19. #19
    Member
    Tarquin Chucklefucc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    03-11-2014 @ 06:54 AM
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurgen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bowie
    Around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence, and this rises to one in six among people who start in adolescence.
    I wonder what the figures are for alcohol users?
    and the cheese eaters? cheese, always a bit moreish

  20. #20
    The Fool on the Hill bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    นนทบุรี
    Posts
    5,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Yasojack
    Would think in the UK its 1 in 4.
    Statistics on alcohol | Alcohol Concern

    •34% of men and 28% of women drank more than recommended (4 units for men, 3 for women) on at least one day in the last week. Excluding those who didn’t drink at all in the last week the figure rises to 52% of men and 53% of women

  21. #21
    Thailand Expat
    zygote1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    20-05-2015 @ 10:43 AM
    Location
    Hua Hin
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Yasojack View Post
    So if that's the truth why are countries legalizing and decriminalising cannabis, possibly they need to look into the pharmaceutical companies.

    Cannabis has many medical properties, and we should be looking to these for alternatives to chemical based medicines.
    Define medical properties, as it is not a scientific term, nor acceptable if you wish to offer the active ingredient of cannabis as a safe pharmaceutical.
    If you wish to claim that there are "beneficial" applications, then you can only speculate, as the "benefits" have not been established. Sorry, but that's the truth.
    Try as they might, the proponents of medical cannabis are unable to provide actual definitive evidence that supports the active ingredient of cannabis as a safe and effective pharmaceutical. Despite all the pseudo scientific claims that cannabis provides various medical benefits, not one legitimate, responsible researcher can prove the claim.

    In respect to your suggesting that "alternatives" be used to chemical based medicines, your choice of words is inappropriate because you fail to recognize that it is the chemical properties of a substance that produces its effect. In ancient times, bark of the willow tree was boiled to produce salicylic acid, the active metabolite. It was used for fever reduction and pain relief. It is for all intents and purposes a chemical. Unfortunately, there would not be enough willow tree bark on earth to meet the needs of the active ingredient users in any given week today. Fortunately, Bayer was able to synthesize the compound used in the drug commonly called aspirin. Almost the entire world's source of synthesized active ingredient comes from China. There are inadequate source materials for "alternative" drugs. If one wanted to use alternative "natural" methods, one would not put a dent in the daily medication needs of humanity. it is impossible.
    Last edited by zygote1; 08-10-2014 at 09:07 AM.
    Kindness is spaying and neutering one's companion animals.

  22. #22
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    24-02-2024 @ 04:47 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,939
    Weed is an EXCELLENT pain killer.

  23. #23
    Member
    Tarquin Chucklefucc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    03-11-2014 @ 06:54 AM
    Posts
    166
    Weed is EXCELLENT for curing cancer.

  24. #24
    RIP pseudolus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,083
    The bit that makes you high has no health benefits at all. However, many aspect of this amazing plant does. The US government, along with many others around the world consistently refute that aspects of the cannabis plant have any medical benefit at all, and to prove the point, they have patented it for virtually all medical use to ensure that no one can mass produce this very cheap weed like plant for the benefit of the people of the world and to make sure that big pharma can keep making the money. They had to do it, because if they actually admitted that aspect of the cannabis plant was useful in treating some ailments, big pharma could not profit from it as people would simply grow their own. So it will remain criminalized and locked away until such time that big pharma works out a way to stop people growing their own and give them a nice juicy monopoly on it, which is the only way they like to do business.

    http://tinyurl.com/6hwwmt


    United States Patent 6,630,507
    Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
    **Please see images for: ( Certificate of Correction ) **
    Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

    Abstract
    Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

    This application is a 371 of PCT/US99/08769 filed Apr. 21, 1999, which claims benefit of No. 60/082,589 filed Apr. 21, 1998, which claims benefit of No. 60/095,993 filed Aug. 10, 1998.
    Claims


    We claim:

    1. A method of treating diseases caused by oxidative stress, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid that has substantially no binding to the NMDA receptor to a subject who has a disease caused by oxidative stress.

    2. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is nonpsychoactive.

    3. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid has a volume of distribution of 10 L/kg or more.

    4. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is not an antagonist at the NMDA receptor.

    5. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR22##

    where R is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, carboxyl, alkoxy, aryl, aryloxy, arylalkyl, halo or amino.

    6. The method of claim 5, wherein R is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, carboxyl or alkoxy.

    7. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR23##

    where A is cyclohexyl, substituted or unsubstituted aryl, or ##STR24## but not a pinene; R.sub.1 is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, or substituted or unsubstituted carboxyl; R.sub.2 is H, lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, or alkoxy; R.sub.3 is of H, lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, or substituted or unsubstituted carboxyl; R.sub.4 is H, hydroxyl, or lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl; and R.sub.5 is H, hydroxyl, or lower substituted or unsubstituted alkyl.

    8. The method of claim 7, wherein R.sub.1 is lower alkyl, COOH or COCH.sub.3 ; R.sub.2 is unsubstituted C.sub.1 -C.sub.5 alkyl, hydroxyl, methoxy or ethoxy; R.sub.3 is H, unsubstituted C.sub.1 -C.sub.3 alkyl, or COCH.sub.3 ; R.sub.4 is hydroxyl, pentyl, heptyl, or diemthylheptyl; and R.sub.5 is hydroxyl or methyl.

    9. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR25##

    where R.sub.1, R.sub.2 and R.sub.3 are independently H, CH.sub.3, or COCH.sub.3.

    10. The method of claim 9, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR26##

    where: a) R.sub.1 =R.sub.2 =R.sub.3 =H; b) R.sub.1 =R.sub.3 =H, R.sub.2 =CH.sub.3 ; c) R.sub.1 =R.sub.2 =CH.sub.3, R.sub.3 =H; d) R.sub.1 =R.sub.2 =COCH.sub.3, R.sub.3 =H; or e) R.sub.1 =H, R.sub.2 =R.sub.3 =COCH.sub.3.

    11. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR27##

    where R.sub.19 is H, lower alkyl, lower alcohol, or carboxyl; R.sub.20 is H or OH; and R.sub.21 -R.sub.25 are independently H or OH.

    12. The method of claim 11, wherein R.sub.19 is H, CH.sub.3, CH.sub.2 OH, or COOH, and R.sub.20 -R.sub.24 are independently H or OH.

    13. The method of claim 2, wherein the cannabinoid is: ##STR28##

    where R.sub.19 and R.sub.20 are H, and R.sub.26 is alkyl.

    14. The method of claim 10, wherein the cannabinoid is cannabidiol.

    15. A method of treating an ischemic or neurodegenerative disease in the central nervous system of a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid, where the cannabinoid is ##STR29##

    where R is H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, carboxyl, alkoxy, aryl, aryloxy, arylalkyl, halo or amino.

    16. The method of claim 15, wherein the cannabinoid is not a psychoactive cannabinoid.

    17. The method of claim 15 where the ischemic or neurodegenerative disease is an ischemic infarct, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and human immunodeficiency virus dementia, Down's syndrome, or heart disease.

    18. A method of treating a disease with a cannabinoid that has substantially no binding to the NMDA receptor, comprising determining whether the disease is caused by oxidative stress, and if the disease is caused by oxidative stress, administering the cannabinoid in a therapeutically effective antioxidant amount.

    19. The method of claim 18, wherein the cannabinoid has a volume of distribution of at least 1.5 L/kg and substantially no activity at the cannabinoid receptor.

    20. The method of claim 19, wherein the cannabinoid has a volume of distribution of at least 10 L/kg.

    21. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid selectively inhibits an enzyme activity of 5- and 15-lipoxygenase more than an enzyme activity of 12-lipoxygenase.

    22. A method of treating a neurodegenerative or ischemic disease in the central nervous system of a subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound selected from any of the compounds of claims 9 through 13.

    23. The method of claim 22 where the compound is cannabidiol.

    24. The method of claim 22, wherein the ischemic or neurodegenerative disease is an ischemic infarct, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and human immunodeficiency virus dementia, Down's syndrome, or heart disease.

    25. The method of claim 24 wherein the disease is an ischemic infarct.

    26. The method of claim 1, wherein the cannabinoid is not an antagonist at the AMPA receptor.
    Oh and I am not a pot head. I actually know a chap who was sectioned to a mental health institute in the UK (by his parents suggestion) who went from A Grade student and all round nice guy to dribbling idiot through use of strong cannabis.

  25. #25
    Member
    Tarquin Chucklefucc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    03-11-2014 @ 06:54 AM
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by pseudolus
    The US government, along with many others around the world consistently refute that aspects of the cannabis plant have any medical benefit at all, and to prove the point, they have patented it for virtually all medical use to ensure that no one can mass produce this very cheap weed like plant for the benefit of the people of the world and to make sure that big pharma can keep making the money.
    No one outside the US gives a fvck what the corrupt US gov legislate about any more. It's a problem for Americans inside the country though.

    I mean, what do you think an Indian charras maker up in the Himachal Pradesh would respond if you told him to stop because glaxo smithkline owns the patent.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •