A q for our resident research assistant...

[Guest niall]

Who funded this research,

 

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by a grant to Peter Fried from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, DC

I thought so... (NIDA).

 

This is not a press release it is a published article in a scientific journal written by the researchers.

 

Sorry mate, I meant the press release at the time - I remember this one from last year. Before it was even published the papers were scrambling to print "pot makes you dumb" headlines, and the research itself contradicts this (temporary effects only, light use actually improves IQ)...

 

Fucking NIDA only fund studies that are expected to find negative effects from pot, and if you want to study the effects they've got the monopoly on supplying low potency, leaves stems and all, schwag. Even here in Australia, we import their fucking pot to do our driving studies etc. The excuse was that "street" pot wasn't standardised, but at least it'd be way more accurate than smoking low potency crap that isn't a true reflection of what people are smoking, and who knows what else NIDA have done to it. Rumour had it that it was standardised by extracting the THC, no mention of the other 65+ cannabinoids, and then it's artificially sprayed back onto leaves to provide a standard dose. Same fucking shit was used to show how much tar cannabis smoke contains, but we don't fucking smoke the leaves you idiots, and there's far less tar involved if you're smoking small amounts of high potency bud.

 

Man it shits me, this is so biased and the public just don't understand.

 

Interpretation: Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained.

 

AA that finding doesn't sound that bad to me, actually I read go news from this article. And relly the point that 5 or more joints eaffects IQ is a statistical interpretation of the population sampled so for any1 person it will differ to some degree. What have you seen in the mass media regarding this research?

 

Quite a bit at the time, see:

 

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n649/a04.html?1475

 

Funnily enough I was hoping to provide a list of links, there were heaps from around the world at the time - not just Canada. But all I can find in the archive now are Canadian stories, only one of which has a negative title. The rest say it's temporary and one is actually called "Light pot smoking can enhance IQ, study says" which I don't remember seeing. Maybe my memory isn't too good, I was positive there was a heap of negative articles when this research was announced. Check out this MarijuanaNews.com link I gave earlier in the thread, good coverage of it at the time. In fact they have all the negative headlines there, phew...

[syk613]

Fucking NIDA only fund studies that are expected to find negative effects from pot, and if you want to study the effects they've got the monopoly on supplying low potency, leaves stems and all, schwag. Even here in Australia, we import their fucking pot to do our driving studies etc. The excuse was that "street" pot wasn't standardised, but at least it'd be way more accurate than smoking low potency crap that isn't a true reflection of what people are smoking, and who knows what else NIDA have done to it. Rumour had it that it was standardised by extracting the THC, no mention of the other 65+ cannabinoids, and then it's artificially sprayed back onto leaves to provide a standard dose. Same fucking shit was used to show how much tar cannabis smoke contains, but we don't fucking smoke the leaves you idiots, and there's far less tar involved if you're smoking small amounts of high potency bud.

 

yeah I understand some of NIDA's rationale, from the point of view of research, for doing these things, I could go into point by point but I would prefer to see some more info on them, have you got any sources for info that is critical of NIDA.

 

Unfortunently their aims are too stop drug (ab)use or at least educate on the problems associated with it, IMO this is needed, but as a by-product the evidence that mounts and backfires on these conservative pr*cks that demonise these drug for political gain can only help mj law reform, and many tend to do this. Public opinion may not improve in respect to this BUT scientific opinion IS being swayed by this kind of research and threfore it leads to more investigations into med effects etc and before you know even dipsh*ts like Carr get the point... eventually.

 

Also I would like to add that I in no way endorse the info I provide (ie the refernced material), in fact I feel I would be doing the community a disservice by filtering info, there is no need for me to censor this info. I would prefer to debate any issuses that ppl have and come to a concensus or agree to disagree.

cheers AA see you at MA

[Luke Skywalker]

Just cleaned up that double post for ya syk...

 

Why is it there's no such thing as use? Only abuse... You can "use" alcohol, but any "use" of illegal drugs is called drug "abuse".

 

*sigh*

[syk613]

Mate I don't mean to be a condescending d*ckhead but it is statements like that, esp out of the mouth of such a revered stoner like yourself, that perpetuates this stereotype of abuse. Don't get me wrong mj can be abused, but med researchers etc will refer to it as mj med USE never abuse as that does not make any sense ONLY d*ckheads and ppl who are referring to mj addiction refer to it as abuse NOT everyone and hopefully ppl wil use these terms in their right context, I’ll get off my soap box now.

 

Thanks Luke for clearing that 2nd post up, I was totally unaware of it, when it comes to message boards this is my 1st so the patience extended to me by the mods: yourself, chev, pipeman etc is much appreciated.

[Guest niall]

point by point but I would prefer to see some more info on them, have you got any sources for info that is critical of NIDA

I don't have much on NIDA directly, it's mostly anecdotal just observing the type of research that has been funded by them over the years - and in particular the type of research that they don't fund, that struggles to get any funding if at all.

 

A good primer on the NIDA schwag though is http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/series/pottv...eries-101-0.htm. It's a little biased of course, but accurate and enlightening nonetheless.

Edited November 27, 2003 by australian_activist

[syk613]

@ AA thanks for the link mate, I'll take a look

 

 

To all

I seem to be playing devil's advocate in support of the scientific community quite a lot so if ppl think I am talking out my ass or have offended I am sure you will not hesitate to respond.

 

I do see your point AA (and others who have raised it in the past) there is a lot of biased in our society directed towards mj but having worked in a pharmacy and also knowing a few science students (flatmates) I just couldn't help picking up a few things, and largely the ppl with med backgrounds that I've discussed mj with ALL consider it a safe drug, relatively, and efficacious for many ailments etc

 

IMO we need ppl to be more aware of mj and its consequences as these are very few and as I have said before, the pharmacists being educated at Syd Uni this year may have to answer Q's about mj and when it comes to adverse effects there aren't too many to remember, my point is the more they search for adverse effects the more scientists realise it is stupid and almost tantamount to torture to deny some ppl access to pharmaceutical grade 9-THC

Thanks to all

[Guest niall]

I seem to be playing devil's advocate in support of the scientific community quite a lot so if ppl think I am talking out my ass or have offended I am sure you will not hesitate to respond.

 

IMO we need ppl to be more aware of mj and its consequences as these are very few and as I have said before, the pharmacists being educated at Syd Uni this year

Oh I agree, I understand and respect the scientific method - it's not the researchers I'm upset with it's the guys who fund it. Follow the money trail, if all US based research has to seek FDA/NIDA approval, and are only allowed to use NIDA cannabis for their research...

 

It's completely rigged in my opinion, and I don't mean that they're having any effect on the results of the research - but they have enormous sway over what research gets done in the first place. If someone proposes a study which they disapprove of, it's not going to give them the results they want the public to hear, they just don't fund it or don't approve it. It's a Government controlled research monopoly, and they get to control the only source of cannabis too.

 

It's a delaying tactic, and it's worked damn well. Only now is another University is pushing to become a second supplier of cannabis for US research, only now does Canada have their own supply of cannabis for research so they're no longer using NIDA... But here in Australia we just trust our US buddies ("Drugged Cigarettes: G-Man Warns Australia", "Drug That Maddens Victims"... Smith's Weekly, April 1938) and base our research on their NIDA schwag :angry:

 

It just shits me, we need funding to explore the other side - potential benefits of cannabis. I'd like to see a stress/long-life study similar to the glass of red wine a day thing, I'm positive cannabis extends life, expands consciousness and is vital for space travel. Errr

[syk613]

It just shits me, we need funding to explore the other side - potential benefits of cannabis. I'd like to see a stress/long-life study similar to the glass of red wine a day thing, I'm positive cannabis extends life, expands consciousness and is vital for space travel. Errr 

 

This site is run by the NIH: National Institute Health, US gov organisation here is a link (again) , but check out this bit I cut and paste, some good research into med uses and what the US govt is looking at in regards to med mj. Cheers mate,

http://www.nih.gov/news/medmarijuana/Medic...alMarijuana.htm

 

for space travel.

What ?, you sound like wes clark , please explain this bit?

 

This is the NIH mission What is the National Institutes of Health (NIH)?throu www.nih.gov, then FAG

 

Founded in 1887, the National Institutes of Health today is one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and the Federal focal point for medical research in the United States. The NIH, comprising 27 separate Institutes and Centers, is one of eight health agencies of the Public Health Service which, in turn, is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

 

Simply described, the goal of NIH research is to acquire new knowledge to help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability, from the rarest genetic disorder to the common cold. The NIH mission is to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone. NIH works toward that mission by: conducting research in its own laboratories; supporting the research of non-Federal scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad; helping in the training of research investigators; and fostering communication of medical and health sciences information.

 

Eds: here is the info I said I would add earlier in this post mj med research by us gov.

 

 

Report to the Director,

National Institutes of Health,

by the Ad Hoc Group of Experts

 

Table of Contents

 

Executive Summary

 

Introduction

 

Clinical Pharmacology of Marijuana

 

Analgesia

 

Use of Marijuana in Neurological and Movement Disorders

 

Nausea and Vomiting

 

Glaucoma

 

Appetite Stimulation/Cachexia

 

Question 4. What Special Issues Have to be Considered in Conducting

Clinical Trials of the Therapeutic Uses of Marijuana?

 

Appendix: The Effect of Controlled Substances Scheduling on Marijuana Research

 

Ad Hoc Group of Experts

 

Download WordPerfect 6.1 version of "Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana."

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

 

 

Over the past 18 months there has been wide-ranging public discussion on the potential medical uses of marijuana, particularly smoked marijuana. To contribute to the resolution of the debate, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a 2-day scientific meeting on February 19-20, 1997, to review the scientific data concerning the potential therapeutic uses for marijuana and the need for and feasibility of additional research.

 

 

 

Central to the current debate about the therapeutic uses of marijuana is the claim that smoked marijuana offers therapeutic advantages over the currently available oral form (dronabinol capsules) of its most active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC), for a wide variety of conditions. As the therapeutic claims surrounding marijuana are wide-ranging, 10 separate NIH Institutes (with interest in the relevant areas) selected a group of eight experts with broad experience in clinical studies and therapeutics (and none of whom had a predetermined position on the medical utility of marijuana) to examine the data from the published scientific literature presented by speakers in the various therapeutic fields. The Ad Hoc Group of Experts also considered public comments including those of patients and advocacy groups as well as written material submitted to the Group after the meeting. The Expert Group was asked to focus on four questions:

 

 

 

Question 1 - What research has been done previously and what is currently known about the possible medical uses of marijuana?

 

 

 

Question 2 - What are the major unanswered scientific questions?

 

 

 

Question 3 - What are the diseases or conditions for which marijuana might have potential as a treatment and that merit further study?

 

 

 

Question 4 - What special issues have to be considered in conducting clinical trials of the therapeutic uses of marijuana?

 

 

 

Each presentation of data by a speaker was followed by a question-and-answer session by the Expert Group. There was no requirement that individuals on the Group agree or express a consensus view, although they were free to do so if they so desired. A second day was provided for public comment and further discussion by the Expert Group.

 

 

 

This report is a compilation of the opinions of the Expert Group. Speakers reviewed the literature on the potential efficacy of cannabinoids, including smoked marijuana, in the areas of analgesia, neurological and movement disorders, nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, glaucoma, and appetite stimulation/cachexia. A review of selected aspects of the general clinical pharmacology of marijuana precedes the disorder-specific commentary.

 

 

 

The discovery of receptors in the central nervous system (CNS) for cannabinoid compounds, and the presence of an endogenous ligand for these receptors, is of importance to the debate concerning the potential therapeutic uses of marijuana. This discovery supports a recommendation for more basic research to discover the functional roles of the cannabinoid receptors as a key underpinning for possible therapeutic applications. Such an approach allows the bridging of knowledge from molecular neurobiology to animal studies to human clinical trials.

 

 

 

The scientific process should be allowed to evaluate the potential therapeutic effects of marijuana for certain disorders, dissociated from the societal debate over the potential harmful effects of nonmedical marijuana use. All decisions on the ultimate usefulness of a medical intervention are based on a benefit/risk calculation, and marijuana should be no exception to this generally accepted principle.

 

 

 

The availability of THC in capsule form does not fully satisfy the need to evaluate the potential medical utility of marijuana. The Expert Group noted that, although delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, dronabinol, Marinol®, or 9-THC) is the principal psychoactive component of the cannabis leaf, there may be other compounds in the leaf that have useful therapeutic properties. Furthermore, the bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of THC from smoked marijuana are substantially different than those of the oral dosage form. These are the rationales for studying the pharmacological actions of other constituents of the cannabis leaf, as well as determining whether a differential benefit occurs with smoked marijuana rather than oral dronabinol.

 

 

 

The Expert Group noted that even for conditions where good therapies are available, some patients develop adverse reactions or are nonresponders. The needs of this subset of nonresponders must be considered in the deliberations on testing marijuana as a possible therapeutic agent.

 

 

 

The Expert Group also noted that risks associated with marijuana, especially smoked marijuana, must be considered not only in terms of immediate adverse effects on the lung; e.g., bronchi and alveoli, but also long-term effects in patients with chronic diseases. Additionally, age, immune status, the development of intercurrent illnesses, and concomitant diseases should be considered in the determination of the risk calculation. The possibility that frequent and prolonged marijuana use might lead to clinically significant impairments of immune system function is great enough that relevant studies should be part of any marijuana medication development research, particularly when marijuana will be used by patients with compromised immune systems. Concerns were expressed by members of the Expert Group on the use of smoked marijuana because of the combustion byproducts, particularly when marijuana would be used for conditions requiring chronic therapy. Hence, a recommendation was made for the development of insufflation/inhalation devices or dosage forms capable of delivering purer THC or cannabinoids to the lungs free of dangerous combustion byproducts.

 

 

 

The major conclusions in each therapeutic area are summarized below.

Edited November 27, 2003 by syk613

[Guest niall]

It just shits me, we need funding to explore the other side - potential benefits of cannabis. I'd like to see a stress/long-life study similar to the glass of red wine a day thing, I'm positive cannabis extends life, expands consciousness and is vital for space travel. Errr 

 

What ?, you sound like wes clark , please explain this bit?

Hehe, just being silly for a bit of fun.. Quote from David Lynch's movie adaptation of Dune (the spice...)

[syk613]

You really are a funny b@stard AA, when I read that 1st part I LMAO, then thought you might have a valid point, how gulible what is the name of that flick mate?