The new strain of cannabis that could help treat psychosis

[merl1n]

Big Pharma Again. God Help Us All.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/16/new-strain-cannabis-treat-psychosis-schizophrenia-gw-pharmaceuticals-david-potter

theguardian.com

Although widely seen as a potential trigger for schizophrenia, marijuana also contains an ingredient that appears to have antipsychotic effects. Tom Ireland visits the UK’s only licensed cannabis farm and meets the man responsible for breeding a plant that might be of benefit to millions

Edited November 17, 2014 by merl1n

[goindeep]

Thats a great article. If they keep it as close to natural and just extract the CBD for straight use it woyld be great but if they imitate it and synthesise it then it is a complete and utter waste of time and in total disrespect for the plant and the Dr. I have a feeling they will keep it all natural if that dr gets his way, seems like a stright up weed wizard of sorts, awesome. And his name is Dr Potter which makes it even sweeter.

 

Take away of the article for me was a reminder of what a fantastic and powerful plant it is. It can get you high as a motherfucker to the point you start to trip on shit you would not normally ever do when sober and it can reverse those same effects and make you feel as chill as a Panamanian Sloth. Remarkable!

[louise]

if they imitate it and synthesise it then it is a complete and utter waste of time and in total disrespect for the plant

 

You have had a awful lot to say in a short time... but this time, I gotta ask why?

 

Why would it b a complete waste of time to synthesize CBD?

 

Why would it be disrespectful?

 

Do you hold this opinion of other drugs that have been synthesized from natural beginnings?

 

Is it disrespectful to willow trees to used synthesized aspirin rather than chewing willow twigs?

 

Is it disrespectful to guinea pigs to use synthesized lithium carbonate rather than just collect lithium urate from guinea pig urine?

 

Is it disrespectful to yams to use synthesized hormones?

 

What about penicillin? Do you demand your antibiotics been grown from bread and orange fungus, or is it ok to use synthetic drugs to cure your infection?

 

Please explain....

Edited November 20, 2014 by louise

[Frank Reynolds]

Bit off topic but those glasshouses /drooool

[goindeep]

You have had a awful lot to say in a short time... but this time, I gotta ask why?

 

Why would it b a complete waste of time to synthesize CBD?

 

Why would it be disrespectful?

 

Do you hold this opinion of other drugs that have been synthesized from natural beginnings?

 

Is it disrespectful to willow trees to used synthesized aspirin rather than chewing willow twigs?

 

Is it disrespectful to guinea pigs to use synthesized lithium carbonate rather than just collect lithium urate from guinea pig urine?

 

Is it disrespectful to yams to use synthesized hormones?

 

What about penicillin? Do you demand your antibiotics been grown from bread and orange fungus, or is it ok to use synthetic drugs to cure your infection?

 

Please explain....

The short answer is because we do not need to synthesize CBD to get the desired effects.

 

The longer answer:

 

You need to synthesize things like the acids and metabolic acids in willow tree bark to transport into the patient, for desired effect and for safety.

 

Same goes with penicillin and its all natural fungi grandpa Penicillium. Hormones from root vegetables again are the same and i'm not sure about the guinea pigs although I can gather the same would be true.

 

We synthesize things where we have to e.g. because of commercial volumes, safety, routing and application but mainly because some natural compounds simply do not have the desired and targeted effects all on their own like I know with Aspirin they essentially take the metabolic acid out of the Salicin and work their magic on it by adding and bonding acetyl to it (hence its name) and a few other things which make it both easy on the stomach and assists the pharmacokinetic effect. Willow tree bark on its own does not do this. 

 

CBD is a chemical compound and beyond that it is a cannabinoid that is directly received by our cannabinoid receptors and it is safe. I believe the article itself stated the CBD test subjects had less side effects from the CBD as compared with whatever the other drug was. The CBD was simply extracted and then purified, not synthesized.

 

Its just like the whole argument of synthetic supplements V raw and natural foods. Any good doctor will tell a healthy person to eat whole foods before going to synthetic supplements. 

 

Simply put we synthesize where we have to. And we don't where we don't have to...kind of like why we don't synthesize chocolate   what a crying shame that would be.

 

Call me an old school hippy, but I prefer my cannabis all natural and without the touch of the Dr science and his magical synthetic wand.

[louise]

I'm glad to see that you recognise the relationship between artificial synthesis and price. GW already have Sativex approved for use in MS in Australia, but it will cost the patient between $15,000 and $45,000 annually because it failed to get PBS listing last year.

 

What is the good of another plant distilled medicine if no one in the target group can afford to use it?

[merl1n]

I have to agree with Lou in that it is of little use if nobody can afford it.

I also have a problem with the distilliation/separation/isolation of  individual components

We all know that different smokes have a different effect. As a medi smoker I use these to my benefit. I have a mix of smokes and forms (oil, hash, bud, cookies) and depending on my pain management needs, depends on what I consume.

I do not believe it is solely the level of THC or CBD that has the desired effect, but a combination of the myriad of other cannabinoids in combination with both THC and CBD that works for me. The isolation of components makes it easier for govt and big pharma to regulate, synthesis and then patent. All of this costs $$$$ and we pay. But in the separation the interactions of the cannabinoids can be lost. Often these components are patented and regulated by  differing companies and to have the desired effect patients need to consume more pharma crap and spend more $$$$$

 

The push needs to get away from pharma and the sale of individual components and more to growing GVM (Green Vegetable Matter) then producing bud, making hash, making cookies, making oils and making them available to those who need it. The govt is all worried about $$$$ and big pharma wants more $$$$$$$$$$$$$. The solution is not hard and the cost is not $$$$$$$$$, if anything the solution could save $$$$$$$$$.

 

It seems simple to me.

 

Merl1n

Edited November 20, 2014 by merl1n

[goindeep]

I'm glad to see that you recognise the relationship between artificial synthesis and price. GW already have Sativex approved for use in MS in Australia, but it will cost the patient between $15,000 and $45,000 annually because it failed to get PBS listing last year.

 

What is the good of another plant distilled medicine if no one in the target group can afford to use it?

 

I did not think we where talking about price but since you asked price is not wholly determined by synthesis and even if it was you dont put a medicine into your body based on how cheap it is if it cant do the same job as the original material where it was extracted from and then synthesized into whatever the new form may be. And i do not see how synthesizing a base compound that works directly on the problem could be made cheaper regardless. Its a balancing act IMHO.

 

But also Sativex is not necessarily expensive because it is a tincture and un-synthesized. It is expensive because of other reasons A) there is no real competitor (not in most countries anyway) it is made by a pharmacutical company that is publicly listed and traded = they are driven by profits C) regulatory and standards costs D) cost of R&D.

 

But just because it is expensive now it does not mean it will remain expensive. Im betting you will see the price of it come down dramatically and or see new competitors on the market with more affordable alternatives.

 

I have to agree with Lou in that it is of little use if nobody can afford it.

I also have a problem with the distilliation/separation/isolation of  individual components

We all know that different smokes have a different effect. As a medi smoker I use these to my benefit. I have a mix of smokes and forms (oil, hash, bud, cookies) and depending on my pain management needs, depends on what I consume.

I do not believe it is solely the level of THC or CBD that has the desired effect, but a combination of the myriad of other cannabinoids in combination with both THC and CBD that works for me. The isolation of components makes it easier for govt and big pharma to regulate, synthesis and then patent. All of this costs $$$$ and we pay. But in the separation the interactions of the cannabinoids can be lost. Often these components are patented and regulated by  differing companies and to have the desired effect patients need to consume more pharma crap and spend more $$$$$

 

The push needs to get away from pharma and the sale of individual components and more to growing GVM (Green Vegetable Matter) then producing bud, making hash, making cookies, making oils and making them available to those who need it. The govt is all worried about $$$$ and big pharma wants more $$$$$$$$$$$$$. The solution is not hard and the cost is not $$$$$$$$$, if anything the solution could save $$$$$$$$$.

 

It seems simple to me.

 

Merl1n

 

I don't disagree with you.

 

This is a big reason I am a proponent of recreational legalization use over and before medicinal. It wont happen and is a pipe dream, I know. But if you legalize and regulate for recreational use, medicinal products in the form of the original product untouched by large pharmaceuticals is a given. Pharmaceutical companies do a ton of R&D, analysis and breeding to come up wit htheir product that by the time the product reaches the market, it is as we are now discussing too expensive because they have costs to cover not to mention all of the regulations associated with medicine. Every standards and regulatory body wants their slice of the pie and everybody wants to tread carefully because it is a new area. Eventually I think even the pharmaceutical companies will get their prices down as competition increases, regulations and costs become mainstreamed and this is why I still support this type of thing in the big picture so to speak because it is still technically a move forward and its a great topic for discussion.

 

Do I agree with the price? Hell no!