Drug issues

[mastein]

Dean mentioned setting up a study or series of studies to address medical uses of MJ and then said he would treat it as "any other drug". I see a big issue here. What are other candidates saying on the issue? please post if you know.

Here is my take on Dean's FDA idea:
All the other drugs tested by FDA are synthesized drugs, ie.some chemist (or group thereof) in a lab isolates and or changes a natural chemical into another chemical, purifies etc. MJ is well known grows rather easily, has different varieties and several chemicals (including THC) that alter pair receptors, so the FDA model cannot work, in the same way it cannot work for aspirin or any other well known product.

Also with the drug companies focused on selling their patented products (about half or so of all drug company money goes to ads pushing their drugs) why would they want to get into the business of providing a new non-patented drug.

[LibLabUK]

1. Not sure where you get your info about drug licencing...

All the other drugs tested by FDA are synthesized drugs ie.some chemist (or group thereof) in a lab isolates and or changes a natural chemical into another chemical, purifies etc.

The FDA doesn't test any drugs. It defines the rules and criteria under which drugs are licenced for use in humans.

I'm not sure why your definition of "synthesized" is relevant, are you suggesting that any or all natural products with proven or unproven medical efficacy should be licenced to be sold as drugs for the treatment of human disease simply because they aren't produced in labs/chemical factories?

MJ is well known grows rather easily, has different varieties and several chemicals (including THC) that alter pair receptors, so the FDA model cannot work

I'm sorry, what has the chemical interactions of a compound got to do with whether or not the FDA can licence it?

Are you saying that cannabis has certain qualities that can't be demonstrated in Phase III radomised clinical trials like every other modern drug?

Why can't the active compounds within cannabis be isolated, "synthesized", formulated into tablets/suspension/spray/patches/pessaries/suppositories/injectables and trialled like other drugs?

Are you like alot of medical cannabis supporters, and afraid of what proper clinical trials will reveal?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibLabUK]

3. Hmm... get out of the bed on the wrong side?

Are you a member of the FDA?

No, just someone familiar with the planning and running of clinical trials.

I can care less about what tablets they can synthesize mj into.

Well you should be. For there to be a truly beneficial medical use of canabis components/products then they need to be administerable in a clinically useful way. Smoking, eating or infusing the raw material isn't going to cut it for clinical use. You need to be able to control the dose and you need to ensure a predictable absorption rate (understanding the pharmacokinetic properties of a drug are part of the registration procedure, pre-Phase I usually).

You come off to me as if you think I should be impressed that you can use words like 'patches' and 'sprays'. Here's another one, 'suppositories'.

I included suppositories in my post. An incredibly good way of administering a drug infact.

The overwhelming majority of independent studies from Europe, Canada, and even the one by Nixon(which he disowned, like I am sure you would) have proven again and again that mj is not addictive, and given regular use doesen't have the debilitating health effects of alcohol and tobacco would(not to mention it doesnet affect motor skills the same way or as severely as alcohol does).

I never mentioned addictiveness, nor any harmful effects. However, clinical trials are for researching both the side-effects/contra-indications and the clinical effectiveness of a drug. For a drug to be licenced it needs to be either more effective or have less side-effects than an existing drug.


In case you didnt catch it, you clueless fuck, the poster said that the FDA has yet to clarify why mj is illegal when there is no clinical evidence to prove it's harm to the extent the laws against it would justify.

I didn't pass any comment on the legality of cannabis.

As you might be able to tell I dont care if my id gets purged, I just cant stand fascists like you, especially on this site.

Apparently being a facist means not wanting quack medicine on the shelves of a pharmacy. Interesting.


Finally, the posters point was that the pharmaceutical companies dont want mj to be legalized, because if it is, they will hardly be able to extract the kind of profits they have come to see as their due.

That's not technically true, because if they can extract active compounds from cannbis they would probably alter them to increase their activity, absorption or effect and THAT would be patentable.


By the way, I have a degree in electrial engineering, as well as being a veteran in the active duty US Air Force(as a mechanic on 135's) and I can tell that you are full of shit and a stooge who doesen't have a clue, although this wouldn't take any great degree of intelligence to determine. Bye.

That's a good qualification for a debate on the pharmaceutical industry and drug regulation. Ofcourse, the ad hominem attacks on me do detract a little from your points.

[DocSavage]

4. Facist?

Holy cow, does everyone that disagrees with you earn the title facist?

Harmful effects of Cannibus: Well, other than being the same as unfiltered cigaretts, I am not sure. But I do have a question. I have had a few friends that are very pot friendly and smoke daily. Please explain the changes in congnetive capability that happens after a few years.

As for the phamaceutical Companies. well, if THC or one of the other componets of cannibus is as effective in combating nausea as thought, the drug companies would be all over it. What a great med for patients undergoing Chemo and Radiation. Smoking it seems to be counterproductive for a patient with lung cancer, but that is just my take.

[LibLabUK]

5. Hmmm

"What a great med for patients undergoing Chemo and Radiation."

I'd be really interested to see a proper Phase III trial against the more potent anti-nausea/anti-emetic drugs in patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

"As for the phamaceutical Companies. well, if THC or one of the other componets of cannibus is as effective in combating nausea as thought, the drug companies would be all over it."

According to a release in Drugs R D (found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12952500&dopt=Abstract) it seems that a pharmaceutical company is interested in researching the use of cannabis compounds for clinical use.

Wonder how this was overlooked by the thread starter.

"Harmful effects of Cannibus: Well, other than being the same as unfiltered cigaretts, I am not sure."

A little research turned up this gem of a paper (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/942)

Smoking cannabis causes chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung disorders, which were recently summarised in a review released by the British Lung Foundation.3 A striking feature of cannabis smoking is that it is associated with bullous lung disease in young people.6 Inflammatory lung changes, chronic cough, and chest infections are similar to those in cigarette smokers, but may also be commoner in younger people.7-9 Premalignant changes have been shown in the pulmonary epithelium, and there are reports of lung, tongue, and other cancers in cannabis smokers - BMJ 2003;326: 942-943 ( 3 May )

I'd like to see a real informed discussion here.