![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 54 to 78 of 94. Go back in thread:
Posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by sukarno on March 4, 2009, at 13:46:53
Very well put! It seems that the doctors that are anti-cannabis read some of the studies that show it is effective for some problems, and revert to the "well it is smoked and anything smoked can be harmful to the lungs" mantra. I agree with that, but using a vaporizer burns at such a high temperature that it burns off the tars and any other harmful by-products without destroying the cannabinoids. Also, by having the vapor collect in a plastic bag before inhaled, you eliminate the direct intake of high temp. or burning substances directly into the lungs. If you have ever used or seen someone use one, they exhale zero smoke. The doctors usually don't have a response after that.
Posted by desolationrower on March 5, 2009, at 7:07:38
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
well, and water can be dangerous because of the bisphenol a bottles.
-d/r
Posted by detroitpistons on March 5, 2009, at 13:43:10
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
Thank You! I get so sick of hearing the "smoking marijuana is bad for your lungs" argument. All the so called "experts" seem to bring this up all the time....When I read something or hear interviews on the radio, I'm always pulling my hair out because nobody seems to know (or conveniently forgets) about vaporization. It's such a no brainer.
BUT, even if smoking, it's not the end of the world. People always want to compare pot smoking to smoking cigarettes. It's completely misleading. Depending on potency, you can take two puffs from a pipe and be done. That's what people seem to have trouble understanding, or refuse to take into consideration because of their. It's not like you're sitting there smoking joints all day long.
> Very well put! It seems that the doctors that are anti-cannabis read some of the studies that show it is effective for some problems, and revert to the "well it is smoked and anything smoked can be harmful to the lungs" mantra. I agree with that, but using a vaporizer burns at such a high temperature that it burns off the tars and any other harmful by-products without destroying the cannabinoids. Also, by having the vapor collect in a plastic bag before inhaled, you eliminate the direct intake of high temp. or burning substances directly into the lungs. If you have ever used or seen someone use one, they exhale zero smoke. The doctors usually don't have a response after that.
Posted by Budzoid on March 5, 2009, at 18:55:27
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by detroitpistons on March 5, 2009, at 13:43:10
When I talked about this subject with my "shrink" and he went down the list of usual reasons why it is bad; and I am able to respond to each one with the facts that show he is wrong, he ultimately is left with nothing else to say except that "it's still illegal". It really screws him up when I bring up all the recent progress made in decriminalization and the fact that doctors in those certain states are able to actually prescribe it. It blows their mind that someone can actually sit there and contradict their views with actual facts to the contrary. Some of these hard-core doctors will go to their grave without accepting the proven facts from study after study, that shows they are wrong. We will have to deal with this problem for many years to come, I'm afraid.
Posted by desolationrower on March 6, 2009, at 0:50:50
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 5, 2009, at 18:55:27
> When I talked about this subject with my "shrink" and he went down the list of usual reasons why it is bad; and I am able to respond to each one with the facts that show he is wrong, he ultimately is left with nothing else to say except that "it's still illegal". It really screws him up when I bring up all the recent progress made in decriminalization and the fact that doctors in those certain states are able to actually prescribe it. It blows their mind that someone can actually sit there and contradict their views with actual facts to the contrary. Some of these hard-core doctors will go to their grave without accepting the proven facts from study after study, that shows they are wrong. We will have to deal with this problem for many years to come, I'm afraid.
shrinks aren't wanting you to not smoke bud because of some harm that will occur, they don't want you to smoke because its something 'bad' people do and someone with mental illness isn't capable of self-regulation or deciding his own values; thats the shrink's job now. just take your pills like you're told.
-d/r
Posted by Budzoid on March 6, 2009, at 19:37:15
In reply to shrinks and 'drugs', posted by desolationrower on March 6, 2009, at 0:50:50
> > When I talked about this subject with my "shrink" and he went down the list of usual reasons why it is bad; and I am able to respond to each one with the facts that show he is wrong, he ultimately is left with nothing else to say except that "it's still illegal". It really screws him up when I bring up all the recent progress made in decriminalization and the fact that doctors in those certain states are able to actually prescribe it. It blows their mind that someone can actually sit there and contradict their views with actual facts to the contrary. Some of these hard-core doctors will go to their grave without accepting the proven facts from study after study, that shows they are wrong. We will have to deal with this problem for many years to come, I'm afraid.
>
> shrinks aren't wanting you to not smoke bud because of some harm that will occur, they don't want you to smoke because its something 'bad' people do and someone with mental illness isn't capable of self-regulation or deciding his own values; thats the shrink's job now. just take your pills like you're told.
>
> -d/rTouche'-It does feel like my Mental Health Doc. is talking to me as if I was a "bad boy" and in need of a good spanking. Sort of like my Dad used to do when I was a teen. I guess I'll just take all my SRRI's and wait for all my problems to go away. I know they will because my Doctor said they will.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 7:55:27
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 4, 2009, at 22:23:05
I'm a medical marijuana user, for chronic neuropathic pain, and I neither smoke it nor vaporize it. I much prefer oral preps, especially because my goal is not to get high. There is a bit of a psychotropic effect, but it doesn't interfere with other aspects of consciousness.
Lar
Posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 21:55:21
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 7:55:27
You must live in Canada. I don't believe any oral forms are available in the States. (I'm probably wrong, because I recall TV talk show host Montell Williams talking about taking an oral form for his physical problems). I would love to try one of those treatments. I am also living with neuropathy. I would trade any euphoric affects I might get from smoking it, for any pain relief. Because I had to sign a contract that forbids me from using any illegal drugs in order to get the opiates I am now having to take for pain, I have not used in 9 months. I really do not like the opiates. They make me feel bad, but it is the only option I have now to treat my chronic pain. You should feel lucky in that regard.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 22:13:53
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 21:55:21
I am in Canada, but the compassion club I'm a member of makes their own stuff. My favourite is something that is similar to milk chocolate, only it's made from cannabis butter (they make that first) instead of cocoa butter. Of course, it tastes a little different than regular chocolate. One square of chocolate is my standard dose. They even make a mock label for the chocolate bars, "Hempshey's". They have alcohol extract sprays, and some other oral products like cookies, muffins.
I understand the not liking opiates part. I couldn't tolerate them well before I started using the cannabis products. Together, I got along well enough. In then end, I had to stop using the opiates anyway. The side effects just got worse and worse, and I just couldn't continue. And then there was the withdrawal.....No such problem with the cannabis.
Lar
Posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 22:39:12
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 22:13:53
I recently watched a Natural Geographic special that showed a grower in Canada that turned his home grown into a butter that he then used to make cookies and such. All was considered medicine and perfectly legal.
I firmly believe that most of my physical and mental problems are a result of Lymes disease. I am going to insist my Doctor run tests to verify this next week.
If this is verified, and I get the right treatment, maybe I can ween myself off the opiates. This is my hope right now.
Be thankful you live in a country that is years ahead of us in this matter and you have the options I do not have at this time.
Posted by Zyprexa on March 11, 2009, at 14:30:47
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 8, 2009, at 21:55:21
In the US they have a THC pill. Only aproved for 3 conditions. One of them cancer. Can't remember the other two. Not sure if its legal in all states.
Posted by Neal on March 12, 2009, at 21:37:54
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2009, at 22:13:53
I think cannabis might have a role to play for some of us when they get it in pill form, so that it has a known dosage and quality.
I remember when you would be handed a joint, and you didn't know if one good hit would get you stoned or if it would take 3 joints. This was many years ago when growers were learning the fine art of cannabis cultivation for maximum THC content.
Posted by detroitpistons on March 12, 2009, at 22:05:06
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Neal on March 12, 2009, at 21:37:54
That art is being turned into a science, literally. Just in the past 10 to 15 years, I think there's been a huge surge in the availability of high potency stuff, like you say. It just seems to be much more available now than it was when I was a teenager. In fact, it almost seems as if the dirty low grade stuff is even less available than the good stuff now.
Maybe that's just because of my location or what have you, but that's the trend that I've seen....I think this high potency has almost given weed an even worse reputation than it already had. The potency issue is being used as ammo by the "anti" crowd. In London, the "skunk" has become somewhat of a problem, or so I've read. I don't really understand the argument though. Personally, I would just smoke a lot less of it. That was the main difference for me.
> I think cannabis might have a role to play for some of us when they get it in pill form, so that it has a known dosage and quality.
>
> I remember when you would be handed a joint, and you didn't know if one good hit would get you stoned or if it would take 3 joints. This was many years ago when growers were learning the fine art of cannabis cultivation for maximum THC content.
Posted by Budzoid on March 12, 2009, at 22:40:23
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Neal, posted by detroitpistons on March 12, 2009, at 22:05:06
I noticed that in the last few years before I had to quit, it took a lot less to get the desired results. 3 or 4 bong tokes is all it takes now. That cuts way down on the amount of smoke you inhaled. That, in turn meant less exposure to the tars and by-products that are bad for the lungs. The improved quality equals less smoke needed. Better for the lungs.
Posted by sukarno on March 13, 2009, at 7:44:54
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 12, 2009, at 22:40:23
I'm curious if anyone, especially Larry Hoover since he lives in Canada, has tried Sativex. Sativex is a prescription cannabis product made in Canada and sprayed either in the mouth or under the tongue. I assume this is absorbed through the mucous membranes of the mouth, thus bypassing the liver and avoiding the conversion from delta-9 THC to delta-11 THC.
Delta-11 THC is far more psychoactive and is generally regarded as unpleasant. That's why eating cannabis produces such strong effects compared to smoked/vaporized or sublingual preparations.
If you bypass the liver, it will go to the brain as delta-9 THC and give you the "high" (if you are seeking that) along with increased appetite, before it reaches the liver.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 17:53:06
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by sukarno on March 13, 2009, at 7:44:54
I've never tried Sativex. I have used an oral spray product made from kief (trichomes). It has a very fast effect, which I used when a sudden pain spike had me struggling. The clinic I use had a "tester" product, and I was encouraged to try some before purchasing it. I had to wait a couple of hours before I could drive home.
I get much less psychoactivity from oral consumption, rather than smoking. And the effect is considerably prolonged over smoking, too. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point.
The clinic I use also makes distinctions between C. sativa and C. indica, the hybrids between them, and thus, the products arising therefrom. They provide named strains, and the difference in effect is quite dramatic across the sativa/indica spectrum. I had no idea, before I had to learn.
Lar
Posted by detroitpistons on March 13, 2009, at 18:15:09
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » sukarno, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 17:53:06
I've always wondered what the difference in effect is between indica and sativa. I've probably smoked them both, but of course, I don't know the difference. Is the sativa the more common strain for recreational users?
> I've never tried Sativex. I have used an oral spray product made from kief (trichomes). It has a very fast effect, which I used when a sudden pain spike had me struggling. The clinic I use had a "tester" product, and I was encouraged to try some before purchasing it. I had to wait a couple of hours before I could drive home.
>
> I get much less psychoactivity from oral consumption, rather than smoking. And the effect is considerably prolonged over smoking, too. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point.
>
> The clinic I use also makes distinctions between C. sativa and C. indica, the hybrids between them, and thus, the products arising therefrom. They provide named strains, and the difference in effect is quite dramatic across the sativa/indica spectrum. I had no idea, before I had to learn.
>
> Lar
Posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 18:19:10
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Larry Hoover, posted by detroitpistons on March 13, 2009, at 18:15:09
Is there a correlation between the difference between C sativa and C indica and the THC/cannabinoid ratio?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 20:32:38
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 18:19:10
> Is there a correlation between the difference between C sativa and C indica and the THC/cannabinoid ratio?
Well, that's the way they make the distinction at my clinic. The distinction is arbitrary, as they're considered the same species, but different subspecies. Thus, the comparison is between Cannabis sativa sativa and Cannabis sativa indica.
Here's a blurb from my clinic:
"Types of Cannabis:
Marijuana is generally defined as the dried flowers of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa. The most important distinction for Cannabis sativa varieties is between "Sativa" and "Indica." Their origin and effects are quite different from one another. There is amazing variation in the Cannabis sativa species, and amazing potential for its therapeutic use. The following is a general guide:
Cannabis sativa Indica
Appearance:
- shorter, stockier plant reaching heights of 1-2 metres
- wide, deeply serrated leaves
- dense flower clusters (tight buds)
Effects (lower THC, higher CBN/CBD):- generally more physical than cerebral (however, the relief of physical symptoms can have a positive psychological effect)
- sedation, pain relief and relaxation
- best for later in the day and bedtime
- perhaps better for anxiety than depressionBenefits:
- reduces pain
- muscle relaxant
- relieves spasms, reduces seizures
- reduces inflammation
- aids sleep
- reduces anxiety and stress
- reduces nausea
- stimulates appetite
- relieves headaches and migraines
- reduces intra-occular pressure
- bronchio-dilator and expectorant
Cannabis sativa SativaAppearance:
- taller, lankier, potentially reaching heights of over 5 metres
- narrow serrated leaves
- loose flower clustersEffects (high THC, low CBN/CBD):
- more stimulating and uplifting
- energizing and thought provoking
- increases focus and creativity
- supports immune system
- best for use in daytime
Benefits:- reduces nausea
- stimulates the appetite
- fights depression
- positive, uplifting, cerebral effect
- energizes and stimulates
- promotes creativity
- relieves headaches and migraines
- relaxes muscles, relieves pain
- acts as an expectorant
Selecting the Best Strain and DosageThe efficacy of cannabis is directly related to strain selection. Care should be taken when selecting strains that will benefit you. Potency and dosage vary with different strains, conditions and individuals. The idea is to consume as little as possible of the most appropriately potent strains available in order to reduce costs and potential side effects.
Hybrid Strain Crosses:Most cannabis seeds and medicine available today are from hybrids - crosses of Sativa and Indica varieties. This allows cultivators to enjoy and select for various desired characteristics of growth, appearance and effect. The genetics and hence the effects of one lineage will usually be dominant. For example: Indica-dominant crosses are for pain relief, with the sativa component helping with energy and activity levels. Sativa-dominant crosses are good for stimulating appetite, with the indica component helping to reduce body pain and increase relaxation.
Cannabis has been proven helpful in relieving the symptoms of thousands of conditions, including:- pain from various ailments and injuries
- arthritis, bursitis
- migraines
- multiple sclerosis
- Hepatitis C
- fibromyalgia
- mental/emotional health issues including anxiety, stress, depression, hyperactive and hormonal disorders
- nausea and low appetite
- HIV/AIDS
- cancer and chemotherapy
- crohn's
- muscular dystrophy
- epilepsy. parkinson's,
- asthma, emphysema,
- glaucoma and other intra-ocular disorders
- skin diseases such as pruritis and psoriasis
- back pain and muscle spasms
- paraplegia and quadriplegia
- insomnia and other sleep disorders
Active ingredients: (Cannabinoids)There are approximately 60 identified cannabinoids and each of an infinite number of strains of cannabis has its own cannabinoid profile. The active cannabinoids each have unique physiological effects and many combinations actually appear to have synergystic and antagonistic effects.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC):
Euphoric, stimulant, muscle relaxant, anti-epileptic, anti-emetic, anti- inflammatory, appetite stimulating, bronchio-dilating, hypotensive, anti- depressant and analgesic effects.
Cannabidiol (CBD):
Lessens the psychoactive effects of THC, sedative and analgesic effects.
Cannabichromene (CBC):
Promotes the effects of THC and has sedative and analgesic effects.
Cannabigerol (CBG):
Has sedative effects and anti-microbial properties as well as lowering intra-ocular pressure. CBG is the biogenetic precursor of all other cannabinoids.
Cannabinol (CBN):
A mildly psychoactive degradation of THC, it's primary effects are as an anti-epileptic, and to lower intra-ocular pressure.
Systems of Delivery:Smoke it:
Smoking is the most common method used because of convenience, rapid onset, and greater control over dosage. The short-term effects may last up to a few hours. Cannabis may be cut or ground up then rolled into a 'cigarette' or 'joint,' the narrower the better for efficiency. Choose rolling papers that are as thin and narrow as you can manage, made from unbleached hemp or rice, and with non-toxic vegetable- based glue. Pipes and water-pipes are useful for smoking small quantities. Glass pipes are the most hygienic and easiest to keep clean. Water pipes can cool the smoke to ease intake, but their filtering and humidifying effects may be counter-productive.
Vaporize it:
A vaporizer will pass heated air through yourcannabis, releasing the active chemicals without the unwanted heat, destruction of cannabinoids, and by- products of combustion associated with smoking. Hot-air vaporizing is healthier and more efficient than smoking.
Eat it:
This method is effective for people who would rather not smoke, and provides more of a body effect, pain relief, for a longer amount of time. Effects are felt in about an hour and may last up to 8 hours. The active ingredients can be extracted into fat or alcohol, dramatically increasing digestibility and effect. Cannabis infused oils, butters and alcohols can be used in making food laden with THC, substituted wherever a non-potent version is called for, or ingested on their own. A near-empty stomach is best for assimilation and comfort. Cannabis seed is very healthy, high in efficiently digested 'essential fatty acids."
Others:
Alcohol infused 'tinctures,' depending on their base and strength, can be drank, dropped under the tongue (sublingual), or applied topically (as can other preparations). Different people and conditions respond to different methods. In most cases, it is worth-while to determine which system of delivery is the most effective for the individual."
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 20:37:19
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Larry Hoover, posted by detroitpistons on March 13, 2009, at 18:15:09
The indica/sativa distinction is really at the sub-species level. Most street dope is likely to have an indica heritage, I've been told. Skunk is an indica strain. Most hydroponic pot is indica, because it's compact. Hash-producing strains (in their native Asia) are indica. But the lines are blurry.
Lar
Posted by detroitpistons on March 13, 2009, at 20:51:15
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » detroitpistons, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 20:37:19
Interesting....Good info. Thanks.
> The indica/sativa distinction is really at the sub-species level. Most street dope is likely to have an indica heritage, I've been told. Skunk is an indica strain. Most hydroponic pot is indica, because it's compact. Hash-producing strains (in their native Asia) are indica. But the lines are blurry.
>
> Lar
Posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:07:00
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » sukarno, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2009, at 17:53:06
Some things from memory which may interest you.
"One River" is a great book about Richard Schultz, a Harvard ethnobotanist who explored the Amazon basin looking for psychoactive plants and the ways they were used by the indigenous peoples.
He was so reactionary that he refused to recognise the results of the American War of Independence, and voted for Queen Elizabeth for president in the presidential elections. When he was asked if he wanted to see the Manaus Opera House he refused, saying it was built with the blood of Indians.
Anyway, he was a major authority on cannabis, and during the 60s made himself available free of charge as an expert witness in cases of possession. His evidence was that it was impossible to determine if the sample involved came from cannabis sativa, and since he was the world expert, it worked, at least for a bit.
Posted by Budzoid on March 14, 2009, at 18:54:47
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Sigismund on March 13, 2009, at 21:07:00
Great info., guys. As I live in a state that it is still illegal (Alabama), I have to deal with doctors that refuse to accept the studies that it is "good for what ails you".
It wasn't until I had to quit it to get my pain meds. (pain clinic contract), that I realized just how effective it was for most of my problems.
I thought it made me feel good, now I know why.
Anyway, the decriminalization law has passed the state house of representatives, but came up a couple of votes short in the state senate.
This year they think it may pass.This would be a first for the deep south, which has always been several years behind the times.
Please keep this thread going.
Posted by detroitpistons on March 14, 2009, at 20:50:55
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis, posted by Budzoid on March 14, 2009, at 18:54:47
Budz,
I'm assuming you've already contacted your state representatives (not that it would do much good)? Hell, maybe you can even start your own grass roots campaign. Things like this can get legs really fast when you're trying to help people in pain...I know, none of this is easy, and it sucks to be in your position.
I'm just curious. When they test you, are they looking for opioids (for confirmation) in addition to the other stuff? In other words, would you be in trouble if your test came back completely clean?
> Great info., guys. As I live in a state that it is still illegal (Alabama), I have to deal with doctors that refuse to accept the studies that it is "good for what ails you".
> It wasn't until I had to quit it to get my pain meds. (pain clinic contract), that I realized just how effective it was for most of my problems.
> I thought it made me feel good, now I know why.
> Anyway, the decriminalization law has passed the state house of representatives, but came up a couple of votes short in the state senate.
> This year they think it may pass.This would be a first for the deep south, which has always been several years behind the times.
> Please keep this thread going.
Posted by Budzoid on March 14, 2009, at 21:39:36
In reply to Re: In Defense of Cannabis » Budzoid, posted by detroitpistons on March 14, 2009, at 20:50:55
> Budz,
>
> I'm assuming you've already contacted your state representatives (not that it would do much good)? Hell, maybe you can even start your own grass roots campaign. Things like this can get legs really fast when you're trying to help people in pain...I know, none of this is easy, and it sucks to be in your position.
>
> I'm just curious. When they test you, are they looking for opioids (for confirmation) in addition to the other stuff? In other words, would you be in trouble if your test came back completely clean?
>
>Thats just it. I'm already on Morphine and oxycodone for the pain.I hate opiates.
If I were allowed to use cannabis, I'm sure I could reduce the opiates.
When I get tested every month, they expect to find opiates and nothing else. No chance to mask the tests. I know this can be done.It's either all or none.
>
> > Great info., guys. As I live in a state that it is still illegal (Alabama), I have to deal with doctors that refuse to accept the studies that it is "good for what ails you".
> > It wasn't until I had to quit it to get my pain meds. (pain clinic contract), that I realized just how effective it was for most of my problems.
> > I thought it made me feel good, now I know why.
> > Anyway, the decriminalization law has passed the state house of representatives, but came up a couple of votes short in the state senate.
> > This year they think it may pass.This would be a first for the deep south, which has always been several years behind the times.
> > Please keep this thread going.
>
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.