Discussion in 'The Pub' started by JackedEagle, Sep 14, 2017.
No worries, saw that after the fact.
I switched over to a dry herb vaporizer (Pax 3) earlier this year and it has been great. You should try one if you haven't yet... I'm sure there are still some undesirables, but it is much, much, much better than smoking for me for a number of reasons.
I also have issues with insomnia and pain from early onset arthritis and spinal stenosis. Milder Indica strains with a relatively low THC content work very well for me also, even in small doses (0.25 grams) when vaporized, with limited psychoactive effects. Bubba Kush and Girl Scout Cookies strains are pretty widely available and very effective... Bubba Kush in particular usually puts me to sleep in 30-45 mins.
Really appreciate the mature discussion here, honest anecdotes and experiences alongside those with excellent knowledge but no agenda other than straight talk/facts/truth. It’s refreshing. Thanks for all your contributions.
We’ve definitely shot ourselves in the foot as a nation having this in schedule one for so long, now way behind behind the curve of where we could/should be as legalization suddenly and rapidly progresses. I do expect more positives than negatives to come out from future research, although those may not be directly related to typical usage today, but more around extracts/pharmacology. It’s such a rich plant in terms of compounds. The fact that it has been entwined with human history for as long as it has been seems indicative of, well, something. It’s like the dog of the plant world.
I had a skin thing crop up that moved around a bit, eventually was diagnosed as a type of eczema, allergy related apparently. One doctor that I saw and looked at what was prescribed told me that there was research that seemed to indicate the CBD/THC topical was productive. I just picked some up, will report on how it works.
I’ve had my MM card since around 2011, shortly after I was diagnosed with glaucoma. I’ve been using mainly indicas in the evening to possibly stem that. Don’t really know if it works, but I don’t want to not use something that could help prevent me from losing my sight down the line... wish better research already existed...
Also, agree with @Sevenmodes, got a Pax 3 a few months ago, best thing out there.
Whereas the WebMD article I posted above suggests that dosages are expected to go down or be more precise, and that less can be more with CBD. I see no reason to be paranoid that responsible and professional practitioners and consumers will not adjust dosages to be the most safe and effective. It's not as if the consumption of aspirin is skyrocketing. People aren't seeking the wrong dose.
Yeah, what you view as realism I view as a largely one sided focus on the worst case negatives. Would you like me to review your last thirty posts on it to make sure? Because I really don't want to. I will have to say I was impressed that you relented on one case in your post just above comparing pot and opioids. So I am not looking to criticise you, and won't mind giving credit where due.
And I have no idea what magic assumptions you are talking about. Seems like you want to portray everyone as being like the guy you and a-bone ran across several years ago, who said pot cures everything for sure. I don't know anyone serious like that, and certainly wouldn't stereotype serious cannabis advocates in that way (nor advocates for allopathic medicine. To me both have their place and role.).
A warning about pain threshholds has NEVER been provided, ANY of the times I have been prescribed opioids (or ANY pain med or antiinflammatory, for that matter), thoughout my many decades, and that effect is almost certainly much, much worse with opioids. And yet are you complaining about allopathic medicine? No, you are not. I was trying to tell you that phenomenon exists with any long term alteration of pain or pleasure, even when due only to lifestyle, or when due only to natural endorphins. And yet you choose to attack only cannabis.
This one sidedness will always be a problem between us, apparently, since you said nothing is going to change your mind, especially not me. You will never catch me telling someone they are unlikely to change my mind, as I prefer the scientific mindset where nothing in my mind is sacrosanct in the face of incoming information. I might be stubborn anyway, don't get me wrong. But I know that it is me being stubborn, and hope on my best days not to be so much that way.
Recent preferred dosage for epilepsy seems closer to 10mg a day, by the way, as in the article I posted. 20mg showed no more effectiveness in that study, and 10mg carried much less side effects (and people dropping out of the trial). So I see dosages coming down in that case.
We are far from "running blind right now". Why? Because cannabis has been used without pause since humans walked the planet, as far as we know. Still waiting for you to acknowledge that. No, we run blind when, like with most new pharmaceuticals, we are dealing with a brand new chemical that has never existed on the planet before; a chemical invented in the lab. That is what the pharm industry typically does, and that is truly running blind, even given the typical number of trials to market. In fact, pharm companies will often bend over backwards to make sure the chemical is brand new, using mirror images of a chemical, etc., just for the purpose of getting a new patent and being able to price gouge. Isomers galore. And isomers might look very similar to existing chemicals, but the effects are usually very different. That is running blind, and running blind deliberately, in order to gain immoral levels of profit.
The skin thing is interesting as CBD is an immunosuppresant and may have some effect. It's another of many claims that make me wonder though. There's a guy who has published on and patented the use of CBD for immunosuppression in organ transplant. If it actually suppressed the immune system to that degree, it's not the sort of thing that you would want to be taking willy-nilly. Of course, his research isn't all that compelling, but it's another example of a claim that someone is making which is either really overblown or really scary.
As for glaucoma, just don't rely on weed alone to save your eyes. Its well known that its effect on intraocular pressure is less than remarkable, but it may be helping some.
Serious and reasonable practitioners? That's the problem - treating CBD like a supplement takes it entirely out of the hands of reasonable practitioners of anything. Just surf the web for CBD and see what is being claimed. Go to the local farmer's market if you're in a state where it's legal and listen to what is being claimed. It's everywhere in Colorado and the claims are ridiculous. I've gone to trade shows and industry events, have visited stores selling it with their other supplements and have listened to distributors pitch it to stores and counter sales people pitch it to customers. The claims are ridiculous. There was even a phone survey done in May amongst over 400 retailers in Colorado and 70% advised pregnant women to use cannabis products to treat morning sickness. That's a problem and the reality of an unregulated market.
You likely haven't been warned about the pain threshold of opioids when they were prescribed because it's not a concern when taking them for a 10 day script, just like physical dependence isn't a concern in that time frame. When you start taking them daily for no particular reason, like many, many people take CBD, that's when you're going to start seeing tolerance and hyperalgesia.
We have no record of any time in history where people were consuming the doses of CBD that they are now so, yes, we are running blind. As an example of that, I''ll leave you this.
In the early 1970s, Linus Pauling's delusions about the benefits of megadosing ascorbic acid were at a fever pitch and the FDA was dealing with vitamin manufacturers who were selling evermore increasing doses of common vitamins. The regulators tried to step in and limit the doses of vitamins that could be sold OTC, but a US senator named Bill Proxmire stepped in and, entirely on populist and ideological grounds, got an amendment to the FD&C passed which explicitly forbid the FDA from regulating the potency of vitamins.
In 1994, the same position was leveraged against the FDA by a couple of ideologues in congress when they got together with the supplement industry and bamboozled the public into thinking that the FDA was trying to outlaw vitamins. Remember this ad?
Of course the FDA was not trying to arrest people for taking vitamins, but the ******** letter writing campaign worked and we were delivered the DSHEA in 1994 with the explicit intent of ensuring that the supplement industry could operate without regulation.
Here's where it gets interesting.
Fast forward a couple of decades in which we have actually conducted loads of research on vitamins and what do we find? Turns out that megadosing on vitamins is not only not of any clear demonstrable advantage, but loads of data have come back to establish that dosing above the RDA is associated with increased all cause morbidity and mortality. High dose vitamins have even been shown in multiple studies to increase the risk of cancer in certain populations, despite the original claims of the Pauling-ites that we should be megadosing on them to prevent and cure cancer. There's a world of difference between what sounds reasonable, what sells, and what you actually find when you go looking.
On top of that, there are several hormones that occur naturally in your body, and that you absolutely need to survive, which will lead to all sorts of health problems if they get just a little bit out of range. Sex hormones, cortisol, and thyroxine all come to mind. Assumptions of safety in accordance with claims of natural and even necessary are not really justified, so why assume that the chemical constituents of a weed that is most prominently known for its ability induce temporary psychosis, dry mouth, and the munchies is inherently safe at any given dose (and yeah, a range of 3 orders of magnitude constitutes assumptions pertaining to any given dose)? Let's also not forget that THC, which has for years been advocated as a way to overcome nausea and vomiting, has recently been associated with the newly discovered "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome" - aka uncontrolled vomiting - which apparently correlates with exposure to high THC strains which didn't exist 10 years ago.
The point being that dose determines toxicity and assumptions about the safety and efficacy of things that would seem as innocuous as even vitamins - chemicals which your body needs to operate properly - are unfounded and dangerous when we start consuming them in unprecedented quantities simply because someone wants to make money off of the ignorance of the public and they manage to entice the ignorance of the Congress to protect their ability to do so.
As for my concerns about the safety of "allopathic" medicine? You're missing the point - I don't need to regularly point out the dangers of "allopathic" drugs because the general population is perfectly willing to imagine all sorts of horrors associated with them on their own (as fueled by the industry which is selling the imagined "alternatives" to such horrors). Moreover and more importantly, the federal government has voluminous laws, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the entirety of the FDA dedicated to regulating that realm and demanding ongoing proof of efficacy and safety. Sure, the system is not perfect, but I dare say it's a little better covered than the supplement industry and a hell of a lot better covered than the cannabis industry, so you'll have to excuse my deference to the multi-billion dollar professional mechanism that has been specifically charged with overseeing that space.
The supplement industry, and moreover, appropriate professionals (e.g, nutritionists), no longer promote indiscriminate mega doses of vitamins, as far as what I see often. They promote strategic and more normal supplementation. Back in the days of Mindell's Vitamin Bible, it was different. The only time I have purchased megadoses of vitamins in recent years, it was required by an allopathic physician for my mother, and I was threatened should I refuse those mega doses, some which were for fat soluble vitamins, the biggest no no. Are you complaining about allopathic doctors doing this? No.
I have to disagree that vitamin C is useless as a supplement. It is a well known antiviral, and a rare antiviral at that. Linus Pauling was what, fifty years ago? (And if it makes you feel better, my grad student friends broke into his office and had sex on his desk. No lie.) But I would say he is starting to get partially vindicated in that sense. My understanding is that it starts to become antiviral at about 1000mg (the typical amount in a packet of Emergen-C, coincidentally), though I would have to look it up (source: a licensed clinical nutritionist).
I don't consider weed "paranoia" to be psychosis, as the nature of it is qualitatively different from psychotic episodes caused by psychotic disorders. I would characterize it as temporary anxiety and feelings of fear in some with sensitive nervous systems (I also believe those effects are worse after alcohol consumption, which is common among weed users, as the alcohol irritates the nerves first and makes them vulnerable, being a solvent of fats.) Psychosis is different, and is not temporary, but mostly recurring. Some of that particular research is based on surveys, by the way, not professional diagnosis. Primary Axis I psychosis hovers at about one percent of the population, last I checked, and has not risen over the years with increases in pot use and potency. We will see whether that changes with the evolving laws.
However, I recommend anyone susceptable (via genetics or past episodes) to Axis I psychosis to avoid MJ, and have been recommending that for several decades, based on clinical experience, as I worked quite a bit over the years with dual diagnosis and schizophrenics. Same with beer, liquor and wine. It's all a no no. I have extensive clinical experience with that population. Anything that is neurologically active and random should be avoided by those genetically vulnerable.
On the other hand, CBD has shown some promise with treating psychosis (possibly via inhibiting certain neural responses, as a relaxant). But I certainly would not be recommending so-called "mega doses" until we see some kind of research results. I will have to look at the dosages used in those studies. You are ignoring all the positive research results, which I think is too bad. We will see with CBD and schizophrenia.
I don't think the general public imagines all sorts of terrible irrational horrors with allopathic health care. When we discuss it here, for example, there is usually maybe one guy who makes a post like that, a very small fraction of posters. The general public still trusts their doctors, and their growing numbers of pill bottles, way more than alternative medicine. Rather, the general public has trusted allopathic health care too much, IMO.
In fact, I would say the most common and severe problem among the elderly is the over prescription of pharmaceuticals. I don't have the numbers with me, but if I get them I'm not gonna be off. A lot of elder care physicians say that no matter what, any time an elderly person has problems the first thing to rule out is too many pharmaceuticals.
However, I don't conclude that allopathic health care is bad, like you do alternative care. But clearly, most pharmaceuticals are way more dangerous than pot (and other alternative treatments) at typical use. I don't think this is even debatable.
So your corporate medicine has failed to provide adequate safety, and is a major cause of death, somewhere near the top all told, as well as such deaths being wayyy under reported by hospitals. I had two close family members in the past month killed or permanently and severely maimed by allopathic medicines. Every single medical institution my mother has been in in recent years has blatantly misused pharmaceuticals with her, and I could easily go there in detail, though to do so would be way too painful right now. The misuse is absolutely systematic, and absolutely lethal, in huge numbers, and I would have no trouble documenting any of that, starting with a major Harvard study.
The supplement industry is a million miles away from that level of risk. And yet you only complain about alternative medicine in those terms, dismissing multiple entire fields of study and wellness. You just stated there is no such thing as a reasonable practitioner in any kind of alternative medicine, and I don't know how to even respond to that nonsense. Talk about painting with a broad brush. If only it didn't have to be such a blanket dismissal of all of it, I could find a lot more common ground, as it's not as if I haven't busted some new agers' balls over the years. You seem to have an agenda with this stuff, whereas all I have tried to say is that there is some value in a lot of these fields, posting studies along the way. I'm not trying to talk people out of seeing their doctors or pharmacists, and I'm not trying to say some remedy cures everything; nor has any practitioner I've worked with, many of whom I have admired.
For you to equate dry mouth (easily controlled by sipping orange juice, try it people) and munchies (easily controlled with Doritos and hummus) with the intense and often lethal side effects of corporate pharmaceuticals (which are aggressively advertised on every other TV commercial despite new heart failure with skin remedies) is just funny.
And yet nobody in alternative health professions I know states MJ is without any side effects. They say the side effects are less. And they are.
This is known in such studies as the "entourage effect", the synergistic effect of cannabinoids together. While the entourage effect seems to be real, that doesn't mean the chemicals have no use individually.
You know what? I suspect you're not lying.
CBD appears to mitigate some of the effects of THC, likely through direct competition for binding, but there isn't a lot of data to suggest that the entourage effect is real, at least not to the degree that it is used in marketing that suggests some sort of benefit from "full spectrum" cannabinoids; it's still very much hypothetical and not any sort of general phenomenon. You are just as likely (more so, actually) to experience additive adverse effects as you are additive or synergistic benefits. The direct antagonism of the two molecules is also likely to have one cancel out benefits due to the other.
If only cannabis weren't a Schedule I drug...maybe we'd have some better research.
Pot (speaking of the old weed) has a bouiency point, which smokers generally don't like to go over, unlike many other substances. Overdosing was never really an issue.
Today, it's a potentially different story, especially with the available edibles. Infused taffy-like bars with double the potency of most gummy products are to be cut into proper doses, whatever that happens to be for that individual and their symptoms. It's easy to bite off more than you can chew, and I agree that it's cause for concern. But nothing compared to the poison prescribed to patients every day, and that's no red herring to this conversation at all. It's the reason people are moving to legalization of relatively benign traditional medicines. Maybe psilocybin and peyote will be next.
I think you're still missing the point. The fact that there are responsible naturopaths and other professionals does not change the fact that the market is almost entirely unregulated. What difference do responsible practitioners make if supplements are marketed direct to consumers who can buy them without ever needing to consult a clinician? It's sort of like suggesting that, because France and the US are responsible with their nuclear technology, we needn't worry about irresponsible or evil players applying nuclear technology. When the information is open source, attempts at responsible behavior by certain actors become immaterial relative to the concerns of everyone having access to it. I also think you greatly overestimate the degree to which people use the services of these professionals.
You also still have the problem that, even amongst responsible professionals, the lack of research on most supplements, cannabinoids included, means that their use is still based on assumptions of safety and benefit, as was nicely demonstrated by the vitamin story. How nutritionists and naturopaths suggest vitamin dosing is beside the point - it's the fact that we simply can't assume safety and efficacy of any chemical, even those which seem the most innocuous and even necessary for survival.
Dry mouth and the munchies are just examples of side effects we know about. Hyperemesis is an emergent side effect. Hyperalgesia appears to be an emergent side effect. And these are problems with obvious symptoms. Side effects generally come from off target interactions with other proteins in the body beyond the therapeutic target(s). CBD itself is known to bind to dozens of different proteins, in pharmacological terms, it's a very "dirty" drug. The more we look, the more we can expect to find in terms of these side effects. This is not an issue of relative privation ("look how bad big pharma is") but of honest assessment of interventions on their own. Besides, as stated before, most serious adverse events associated with pharmaceuticals are rare and attend those medications for which there are no good alternatives and that are generally used in order to keep the patient alive. Their estimation is also very much an artifact of the way in which adverse drug events are reported as opposed to clear indications of real risk (i.e. the risk is often overstated on account of overly cautious reporting rules, as it should be). More importantly, we know what to look for because the people selling these meds were forced to do the research to identify (often rare) side effects and continue to do it on account of the best approximation of ideal FDA oversight. Once again, same game, different rules.
There's no doubt about this. The federal government is directly responsible for our knowledge gap right now and there was never any really good reason for it. In fact, recent interviews and document releases make it pretty clear that the reasons were quite nefarious.
I'm a little confused. So...what is the actual individual dose of CBD oil (in mg - eg, 25mg) that people are taking sublingual and how does the concentration/potency on the labeling of the oil differ (eg, 250/500/1000mg)? Interested in the individual dose to treat anxiety and pain. Charlotte's Web Plus indicates a 25 mg (ie, 1ml) dose, 1-2 times a day, but doesn't explicitly mention potency. Other oils mention potency and I thought I read a post here saying they take 600mg...that would be a whole lot of $$.
Good question that I'm also interested in. It certainly seems it can be different for many and the ailment one is trying to combat. I just started a 500mg oil last night and while the bottle says 3-4 drops, it's unclear to me what defines a drop (full dropper or literally just a tiny drop?). I'm going to start slow/low and see how it affects me. I didn't notice much effect last nights dosage but took a little more this morning and am noticing more. What I read seems to say start low (in both potency and dosage) and increase until you find the minimum dosage that works for you. As far as expense, the 500mg bottle I bought was about $30. I could see myself going through it very fast though, so will likely order more and maybe larger potency in which I can take smaller doses so it lasts longer.
So, the DEA (as of late last week) has relisted CBD as schedule 5. Apparently, the only reason it remains a listed substance is due to international treaties which require it to be controlled:
While this will finally open up research into CBD, all other components of the cannabis plant remain schedule 1, which is just stupid. What this means in practical terms is that, every time a negative result comes in from CBD research, you are going to hear the ad hoc excuse that CBD doesn't work alone but needs the "entourage effect" in order to have the desired outcome. Of course, there's no reason to believe that this is true, but it's going to be an ongoing justification for flooding the market with untested "supplements" with sensationalized conspiracy theories about how the FDA knows that CBD "cures" epilepsy yet they are preventing access to the magical mixture of cannabinoids that each manufacturer is trying to sell you. Buyer beware.
How does topical CBD cream compare to using oil for joint pain? A place I go to sells CBDistillery products specifically. I dinged my knee about a month ago, and I'm still having problems with inflammation. I'd like to get the other benefits from ingesting oil, but if cream works much better for joint inflammation I would go for that instead.
I live down the street from Green Cherry Organics. Did a 4 hour tour of their facility a few month ago with an LED manufacturer. Quite an eye opening adventure. They were the first certified organic producer in the country. They gave me a bottle and I took some but I dont know if it did anything. But then again I dont really have any issues to fix. Highly suggest them if you want to be sure there is nothing toxic in your CBD.