
A low-THC cannabis strain for treating severe epilepsy - jonnathanson
http://www.5280.com/healthandwellness/magazine/2014/04/tangled-web
======
justizin
This is a really moving story and not the only of its' kind, but I also worry
that a lot of people are being turned onto what we call CBD-only medical
marijuana legislation, which is unfortunate. It is possible that some states
or municipalities which are / were / will be ready for broader measures will
take the half-measure of legalizing CBD-only treatments.

~~~
ars
You make it sound like that's a bad thing to legalize CBD-only treatment.

If CBD is the valuable compound here, why combine it with THC?

Personally I think they should make it schedule 2 or 3 instead of 1 and let it
be prescribed like all the thousands of other drugs - there is nothing special
about marijuana that requires self-prescription.

Edit: Looks like they've done that:
[http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/02/111641/marijuana-derived-
ep...](http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/02/111641/marijuana-derived-epilepsy-
drug-clinical-trial-children-uncontrolled-seizures)

(Well actually I think people should be able to prescribe themselves anything
they want as long as they pass a basic test on it, and take measures to avoid
exposing other people - so smoking would be right out, but that's a different
world.)

~~~
justizin
see, you have already misinterpreted an incredibly well written article and
gone down the boxed canyon road. I think it's a bad idea to _only_ legalize
CBD treatments, because THC is also valuable. There are also hundreds of other
unclassified compounds in cannabis which are valuable.

So what I'm concerned is, in some areas of the country where it is more
difficult to pass legalization, some activists who probably know better will
consider legislation that only allows very narrow compounds and in fact, it
may be nearly impossible to create a plant that is not illegal under CBD-only
legislation.

Cannabis has countless uses, but speaking as someone who has participated in
the authoring and passing of legislation, it's not easily amended or
revisited.

A lot of people who don't personally care about cannabis that much are willing
to vote for cannabis legislation once in a while, but they just don't want to
talk about it all the time. Passing legislation that is overly narrow on any
issue that people don't want to talk about makes them feel as if they have
accomplished something for another community, but they really don't want to
have to go through all the details every year.

Medical Cannabis itself has been described as a box canyon, largely because
there are tons of medicinal herbs that just happen to never have had a war
waged on them which noone would _think_ of regulating in the slightest. The
problem this creates, of course, is that, say, at a free concert in Golden
Gate Park in San Francisco if I ask people to sign a petition to put a
legalization measure on the ballot, they laugh and say:

    
    
      "Dude, it's already legal!!"
    

Thanks, Captain unregistered voter, I totally hadn't noticed. But it's not.

That said, even with full legalization, medical cannabis will still be an
important fight because it addresses the basic rights of people whose doctor
have told them to use this substance. We're still fighting for legislation
that prevents employers from being able to terminate a patient for cannabis
use, and there are concerns about people on probation for non-drug offenses
not being able to use it when in fact, it is often very helpful to them.

Anyway, Charlotte's Web is great, it's really amazing and beautiful that
cannabis is able to provide this sort of relief to such young children, and it
does need to be available, everywhere, right now, for everyone.

I'm just saying if someone is in a state and they think they can carry
legislation across the finish line with stories like this, it's important to
at least shoot for the bigger fight, because some children who have epilepsy
may have parents, uncles, aunts, or grandparents with cancer or HIV and the
munchies don't come from CBD. ;)

~~~
ars
> in some areas of the country where it is more difficult to pass legalization

What do you mean area? Medical drugs are regulated by the FDA, not the states.

Unless you are talking about recreational use which is a different topic.

~~~
pstuart
> Unless you are talking about recreational use which is a different topic.

No, it's still the same plant. Criminalizing its consumption is just flat out
wrong.

Where's the FDA on regulating Traditional Chinese Medicine? You know, herbs
and stuff?

What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs? Why do
_you_ have any say over what _I_ can consume?

~~~
shin_lao
>What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs? Why do
you have any say over what I can consume?

Before you say _" I can do anything I want/it's my problem/ freedom comes
first"_, please consider the following:

\- There is an asymmetric relationship between a customer and a manufacturer
with incredible marketing power.

\- You live in a society which invested in you, and although you might not
value your life, it actually has value for said society.

\- You are not alone, the problem isn't the loner consuming <whatever> but the
accumulated effect on society when the behavior is widespread.

\- When I'm ill I expect the drugs/treatments I take to either replace my
symptoms will less unpleasant symptoms or cure me altogether. The purpose of
testing and regulations are for people like me. You can call me a square if
you want, but I think my expectations are actually widespread.

\- _" But we know the effect of <whatever>, I use it all the time, and no
problem"_. Allergic reactions, interactions with other drugs, long term
effects, interactions with diseases... So many possibilities...

~~~
staunch
Do you know how many FDA approved drugs kill people every year due to adverse
reactions? How times drug companies have been caught selling FDA approved
drugs that they knew to be deadly? How do you justify alcohol and tobacco
being legal? Both directly kill millions.

How do you answer the actual question. On what moral principle can one human
seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?

Why not outlaw fatty foods like burgers and fries? That's the only thing that
directly kills even more people than alcohol and tobacco. Why not arrest
people for eating illegally fatty foods? Arrest illicit burger dealers?

If you had grown up in a world where fatty foods were illegal you would tell
us all how our desire to eat fatty food is bad for society. You would be
right. It is. It's also my right as a human.

~~~
shin_lao
_Do you know how many FDA approved drugs kill people every year due to adverse
reactions? [...]_

I don't understand your point. You realize that mistakes or corruption happen,
whatever system you have in place, it doesn't mean the system is wrong.

 _On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for
growing or possessing a simple flower?_

With that kind of argument you could say such things as "On what moral
principle can one human seek to imprison another human because it possesses a
piece of metal?" (weapon possession).

The problem is the balance between public interest and individual freedom. My
point isn't that outlawing <whatever substance> is the way to go, my point is
that you have to put everything in perspective and avoid overly simplistic
principles such as "what matters is my individual freedom".

You have to appreciate that your freedom stops where the freedom of others
start and that your actions have an impact on society as a whole.

It's not just a childish "I'm free to do whatever you want".

You are. If you live alone in the forest.

~~~
staunch
Thanks for admitting that you "don't understand." I'll try a bit more, but you
completely failed to refute or even adequately respond to anything I said so
I'm not inclined.

How can you not understand that _my_ freedom implies _your_ freedom? How can I
be free to live my life if society allows bad people to harm me? The world is
not an abstract concept. Your attempt at speaking in riddles may convince you
that you're right but it has no bearing on reality.

Calling freedom "childish" does not diminish it. Kings have been telling their
subjects for millennia that they're not responsible enough to rule themselves.
The fact that you feel this way is not surprising. It's a pessimistic and
wrong viewpoint that is hard for many to even _see_ let alone change their
thinking on.

Your intellectually dishonest attempt at comparing an actual "simple flower"
and a manufactured weapon (not "metal" as you pretend) is entirely specious.
Deciding what should be regulated by society is not trivial, the question is
how you make your decisions. Do you make your decisions based on maximizing
personal freedom or someone's perception of what's beneficial for "society"?

...and this is where I realize this is probably an argument between a
Constitutionalist American and a Chinese communist. We will probably have to
agree to disagree.

------
danford
Cannabinoids are very interesting. They're naturally occurring in both plants
and animals and researches believe the Endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays a
very large role in homeostasis. Cannabinoids have even been shown to induce
apoptosis (essentially reversing cancer cell growth).

Within different strains of marijuana you get different ratios of different
cannabinoids (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.) and the self-medicators have discovered
that these different ratios are good for treating different ailments.

I'm a firm believer that all cannabinoids need to be fully legal (and the
cannabis plant material) so they can be studied in greater detail. I believe
one day we'll see cannabinoids in our daily vitamin and mineral supplements
(probably not the intoxicating kind though).

------
h1karu
Epilepsy is not the only condition this plant cures, far from it, it's just
the most dramatic because you can measure the decrease in seizures so rapidly.

------
jwgur
Fantastic writing.

