FDA says marijuana has a legitimate medicinal purpose
abcactionnews.com
abcactionnews.com
The final straw for me was being awake for 2 days straight a few years ago. I would lay down and close my eyes and just be exhausted while doing nothing.
However, there is still a risk/reward equation. If I take too much, there’s a noticeable difference in next day cognitive performance. Like anything, weed is only an effective medical tool when used in extreme moderation. The same as diphenhydramine, ambien, etc.
My prescription drug is Trazodone, which so far has worked better than nothing. But it's a bit more involved of a process of winding down, for me. I have to make a conscious decision to stop everything I'm doing with it, and concentrate on just getting sleepy. Which is both maddening and a horrible waste of my waking time, in my opinion. And then every moment that I lay in bed, I have to make sure my mind is calm, or it's like I instinctively fight the drug and end up awake. On the edibles I just AM calm, I don't have to try to be anything.
Someone I know tried Trazodone but it had similar problems as well as other minor side effects. They switched to Quetiapine in extremely low dose and it worked great, however they are concerned to use it long term as it's not the main reason that drug is usually prescribed. Out of curiosity, I am wondering if you have tried that and can compare it to the current edible that is working for you?
Have you worried about dependence— an issue with any sleep med? I’ve been told daily use of edibles isn’t viable without taking days off to reset tolerance. I don’t think 20mg is very much, so maybe keeping the dose moderate and sub-recreational is key.
Unfortunately, we tend to be in the extremes rather than the middle. We've either criminalized it, or have it wide open. Maybe after a decade or so of studies that are enabled by the legalization, we can get better guidance on usage and control.
Pot helps you fall asleep, but it does not help you get good quality sleep.
Note that taking CBD reduces the negative effects of THC use, at the cost of less stoned. If using for medical reasons that's not a big deal. If recreational use it probably is.
and I just wish it would be subject to the same per ailment clinical trials that other substances are. so that for each specific thing people claim it helps with, there are specific side effects listed and studied.
zero of these state level efforts have that and we are still stuck in the medieval age of anecdotes, its embarrassing
The anecdotes masquerading as enlightenment are frustrating.
Its a pejorative statement about how thats all we have to work with
Only answer I can come up with is societal norms. Taking more prescriptions than prescribed makes you an addict, smoking more weed is just normal.
California is looking at incremental steps towards broader legalization in therapeutic contexts, which is a step in the right direction: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-14/decrimin...
Some states have enacted provisions around some or all of the Delta-9 THC analogs, but most have not.
I regularly have THCA products shipped to me via USPS in a box with marijuana leaves on it in a state where Delta-9 THC is still illegal for recreational use.
Maybe people could get this overturned in court in some of those states, but maybe not. I understand that there's some arguments that the federal law supersedes state law due to being on a USDA farm bill or something, but I really, really don't think any of the THC-A stuff has been tested in court.
Even at a purely federal level, I don't think I can just hop on a plane with a pound of THC-A weed and tell the TSA "oh this is just hemp."
TSA is supposed to let it through if it's below 0.3 D9-THC
GCMS will detect THCA if derivatized - https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/a-brief-review-of-d... - I find it hard to believe that you couldn't get a non-derivatized GCMS thrown out in court when it's known that GCMS will cause THCA to decarboxolate into THC.
I suppose I should stipulate I'm not a lawyer and there are obvious risks to possessing something that looks exactly like an illegal product.
I'm confused - doesn't that mean it has done anything, but cured - so it didn't cure?
“X is all but Y”
Interpretation 1: X has moved so close to Y that it may as well be Y
-> X loosely equals Y
(I think this is the colloquial understanding)
Interpretation 2: In the set that represents X, Y has been removed
-> X is not Y
Edit, eh your explanation probably explains it better anyway :)
And it took me a bit of experimentation to figure out the correct dosage in milligrams for my body. An interesting thing about cannabis is that you don't really risk a ton from over-indulging besides maybe just having a bad time with some uncomfortable mental state (paranoia and dizziness.) I'm a fairly small person and 20mg is what does it for me. But you might try 10mg or 30mg. I know people that take 50mg, or have (perhaps irresponsibly) taken 100mg. It's mostly up to you to figure out your dosage, and in most cases I'd say listening to your doctor for dose is the right call; for this I'd say maybe take it a bit more as a suggestion than a rule, until you find a sweet spot. If you find a sweet spot. Wish you the best!
what does this mean? any cannabis plant with THC will have CBD. the amount of the minor cannabinoids differ depending on the cultivar. recreational weed has been cultivated to spike the THC so it is way out of balance to the other cannabinoids, and in my current understanding seems to drastically reduce its use for medicinal purposes. the popular phrase is "entourage effect" of all of the cannabinoids working together.
Worst case, you can order hemp flower (very high CBD with trace amounts of THC) legally in many places and just combine that with a high THC strain at whatever ratio you desire. You can pretty easily make edibles yourself this way with an online guide, it's basically just following a recipe.
Appreciate all the technical advice in this thread.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/beyond-cbd-here-come-the...
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/cannabis-marijuana-and-cann...
I have found that if you look for a strain that has a high concentration of THC-V, it will typically be the more fun/giggly/silly experience with a lot of highdeas and almost no munchies.
Durban Poison or Tansie are my recommendations based upon my very light experience, of course, ymmv.
For me, a THC:CBN combo works wonders for sleep.
Something like Restavit (available OTC here, doxylamine succinate) makes me feel "tired" but does not seem to help me get to sleep. It does reduce wake-ups during the night and makes me feel like a zombie until noon the next day though.
"Several studies of PSG-measured sleep report increased SWS [25, 75], decreased REM sleep [74, 75, 160], and decreased REM density (e.g., number of eye movements during REM sleep) [74, 75]. However, this pattern is not always replicated [150]."[0]
(SWS =slow wave sleep)
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13722-016-0056-7
Alcohol very much screws up with my sleep though, and my total sleep score plummets if I go to bed drunk.
From what I understand, not very
In my case, I just ended up doing way too much THC in the evenings and at night so I would essentially pass out. I would sleep, but my sleep quality was really bad and I felt "groggy and foggy" the next day. When I tried to go off it, for a long time I would wake up every night around 3 AM and couldn't get back to sleep.
To be clear, I totally agree THC does have medicinal uses, but lots of medicines can cause a host of side effects and other problems (and sleep medicines in particular are a notorious bunch for dependency issues). If you go the THC route to help sleep, just be more careful than I was.
I've been part of interviews of various doctors in relation to cannabis. Some are so gung-ho it comes across that you should take no other medicine other than cannabis. Others come across from the point of view as it's just one more tool in the tool chest of treatment options. So even in the medical community, there's no consensus. I'm hopeful that the rate of current research will start revealing something closer to fact, and hoping bigPharma doesn't come along and ruin it
Internally we are wildly different and surprisingly varied.
I’ve stayed up for 2 days straight more times than I can count. I actually find that easier than making the decision to go to bed. That’s my issue, it’s not the act of sleeping, it’s the act of deciding that today is over.
I’ve read however that for some people THC can have detrimental effect on sleep. But that wasn’t the case for me, and in any event THC is better than either the typical sleeping pills or sleeping like 4 hours per day.
Drugs should not be illegal period, but "some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD" is a very funny (dark) sentence to me.
because it doesn't really have a legit medical use, it's schedule 1. marijuana, lsd, and psilocybin obviously no longer really fit these criteria, but heroin probably does.
with all that said, i'm generally against scheduling and think pharmaceutical and recreational drugs should be available over-the-counter.
UK seems to think otherwise
I legitimately don’t know.
I think there are quite a few things we could broadly legalize, like marijuana, lsd, shrooms, dmt, etc., and have little cause for concern. Opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, etc. have enough abuse potential that we do probably need real programs to help people get clean and away from the situation that led them to begin abusing in the first place before we make them broadly legal.
Though, at the same time there are legitimate arguments that we would see significant benefits in some areas by legalizing, if only because we could bundle naloxone with opioids and ensure consistent dosages and purity, which would save a lot of lives.
That said, I've lost two friends to heroin overdoses (one intentional, one not). They were both relatively successful. I find the call for better programs a bit empty - would these programs be voluntary if you are on decriminalized drugs? If so, do they have any chance of success? My friends were both financially fine so they could have opted for rehab and (as far as I know) did not.
Perhaps if legal there'd be better harm reduction practices, though I'm still skeptical this would overcome the increase in ubiquity.
The data also makes things hard. California and Oregon have far few overdoses than West Virginia. But Texas and North Dakota beat the west coast states by a lot.
But yes, I imagine any rehabilitation programs would be voluntary, though I think it would be reasonable to force them in situations where people are doing other illegal things while on the drug - DWI, the sort of public abuse you see in some cities (though lots of this is tied to a larger homelessness issue), etc. Bundle it up with programs for the homeless and you probably take care of a lot of the worst situations for people.
I don't think we'll ever get to perfect, but I hope everyone believes we can get to a better spot than we're at today.
If it's illegal than maybe fewer people are exposed, but it can be harder to know when it's a problem.
The link below is framework for harm reduction policies which seems pretty clear that tracking usage is not part of the practice
"Participation in services is always voluntary, confidential (or anonymous), self-directed, and free from threats, force, and the concept of compliance. Any data collection requires informed consent and participants should not be denied services for not providing information. This means using low-threshold evaluation and data collection systems to measure the effectiveness of harm reduction programs."
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/harm-reduction-fr...
Fentanyl is cheap, so a daily dose even for a heavy user is apparently less than $30 now ( https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/22/cheap-street-fentanyl-san-... ). It's also easy to get into, you just smoke it off a foil, no need for scary syringes.
And once you get addicted, you're a walking dead. The success rate for fentanyl addiction treatment is apparently less than 1%. ONE PERCENT. Even for heroin, it's around 5%.
So yeah, drugs are just different. Europe has not yet been hit with fentanyl, but it's starting to appear ( https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/16/fentanyl-kills-t... ). We'll see what happens.
these substances need to go through the FDA with per ailment clinical trials and side effects listed just like other substances
reach parity with other approved drugs, alongside licensed distribution (like other drugs), treatment programs and education
make options for consumers - like we're already doing at the state level with marijuana - but better options so they don't chose the black market supply
I think in retrospect, it took the FDA so long to get here for political reasons, not scientific or medical ones.
https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/epeb6k/the_universit...
Measure 110 was advanced by ballot initiative, and there was little planning around how supportive services/infrastructure would be built. As a result, the rollout has gone extremely poorly.
Add to that, despite what people will viciously argue to the contrary, the distribution caused to society by COVID. Across the entire US there was a significant increase in crime, followed by a subsequent reduction. Further, significant numbers of people were let out of the jail system and shelters to reduce crowding.
There are realistically several currents that are leading to people’s anecdotal experiences, which are challenging to disentangle. All I would argue is that it is folly to think that just throwing the doors open without careful planning and consideration is a bad idea (shocking, I know).
If drugs are to be outlawed based on their level of harm to society, tobacco shouldn’t be legal. It kills 7x as many as opioids every day.
Imagine if nicotine was banned and people had to get it from dealers who make it in liquid form in huge vats in their basement. There would be a lot more dead from nicotine overdose for sure.
Has anyone found a more definitive source that the FDA has recently released a "report" with this content? I wonder if this is just slow news day recap of old information.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-newsroom/press-announcem... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULoaz3E7o&t=20s [3-redacted] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/signed-ash-to-dea-le...
The change in _stated_ FDA policy is a huge shift. This explainable-by-a-simple-mistake news article seems much more likely to me. This article header says "Posted at 5:43 AM, Mar 21, 2024 and last updated 2024-03-21 20:13:30-04". That's a 100% full business day where _no other mainstream media_ picked up the story? Possible, but not likely.
It's not for everyone but it has certainly been good for me.
Maybe the same findings would still hold to a great degree, but I wonder and worry, if we are going to find out in 20 years that this ultraconcentrated high dose cannabis that never existed before is going to cause long term effects that were unanticipated by generations who were familiar with the proverbial weak 1970s "ditch weed."
After all, it happened with alcohol in the 19th century, when cheap distilled spirits were introduced, wreaking havoc on society accustomed to coping with the mild intoxication of beer, not yet accustomed to how to treat something radically different in concenctration. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane
1: https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...
None of these agencies are going to want to push for it to be fully descheduled.
From my point of view, it does not fix the problem of having people consume them, and it does harm the time it takes for us to have serious scientific tests that assess if they have any good benefits at all.
Thats all it is to them, politics. This FDA does not believe in true science.
It will also likely be politics that moves them to start banning food products that contain high levels of plastics, pesticides, etc. It won't be the science (thats already known), it will be politics again, but not until it's really bothered enough people again.
LSD is another drug where it is absurd it is on Schedule 1, and reporters likening it specifically to heroin as one of the hardest drugs is equally absurd. Psilocybin/Psilocin also fall in this category.
Obviously not to the extent that marijuana does, but we are seeing real medical research showing promising results around mushrooms, lsd, and similar substances in treating depression, ptsd, alcohol dependency, etc. as well as just general mental wellbeing. Plainly, these do not match the criteria of 'having no recognized medical use.'
Fix our drug laws.
People might start to become radicalized, see themselves as more connected to things like "the natural world" and then start to demand spooky changes which aren't all about economics.
It's far too much of a risky experiment to run, so it's easier to put it all on some type of banned substances list.
PSA: please make sure your second hand smoke does not affect others.
The reason THC should be generally legal is because evidence shows it generally has minimal harm and other significant benefits. Kratom needs more research and is best used if all in a clinical setting.
I haven't done Kratom for 2 years now, but I'm on Concerta now which helps a bit as well.
I'm using Concerta, because I got into legal trouble due to Kratom usage... Despite just trying to handle my work and life - being a corporate drone, I was almost deemed a criminal.
Not only is it an opioid, but it has SSRI-like effects [1][2][3] (similar to tramadol). If you get addicted to it (like I did) for years, you could have protracted withdrawals resembling SSRI post-acute withdrawal syndrome. The actual opioid withdrawals were a walk in the park (lasting only two weeks for me), but I spent 6 months unable to function with extreme, extreme anhedonia. I just watched TV on the couch for 6 months, feeling nothing.
[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35840540/
[2]: https://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/citation/2024/01001/1342...
How have you placed two in the same category????
you couldn't pay me enough to touch a deleriant