cannabis in many varieties and cannabinoids especially the most significant naturally made potentially aboundant and so theoretically cheaply sourceable receptors' agonist compound, namely delta-9-thc, when taken not occasionally i.e. within a continuous pattern of increasingly large quantities, in order to steadily reach without having to rise a too harsh steep slope, to plateau when the desired medical effect could manifest, in extracted purified forms, at high molar concentrations (up to and over 5-10 µM depending on different malignancies) have demostrated - albeit not in many practical human targeted clinical settings despite numerous studies dating back since 1974 and even more so in the last recent decades, have confirmed such potential usage - a strong antiproliferative, antineoplastic, antitumor, anticancer activity.
As a non user, I would observe they didn't say no effects, it depends. If it didn't work for PTSD with vets (as one example) it did have measurable benefits for anxiety with non PTSD patients.
And, pharmaceutical grade, non (or less) psychoactive doses did work for appetite, nausea issues in cancer treatment and like situations and for paediatric fitting.
But the evidence for glaucoma seemed more mixed.
The problem is the vast bulk of non pharmaceutical, cannabis dispensary use, which appear to have a remarkably low bar to be dispensed.
I liked the rather wry observation that people taking it for sleep regulation probably restarted because of withdrawal symptoms before they could objectively say if it was necessary for sleep, if stopped.
Terrible article, repeatedly ignoring patients' lived experience. Biased, patronising, and outdated. Misinformation like this belongs in the past century.
> a gulf between how the public perceives cannabis and what gold-standard science shows
> The evidence does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids at this point for most of the indications that folks are using it for
> Pain is a leading reason people use medical cannabis, but the review found no evidence to indicate that cannabis could ease acute pain
> cannabis is classified federally along with heroin and LSD as having no medical purpose and a high propensity for misuse
The timing of this article's publication is provocative, don't you think?
Isn't there a pending Executive Order in the works that would move marijuana from the federal Schedule I list, making it a Schedule III (less restrictions)?
As near to a federal legalization as you can get without rousing rabble to react with a Just Say No!
I would love a peek at the NYT editorial calendar to see when this piece got, um, scheduled. And I wonder what it says about their editiorial intentions.
(As my old buddy Jethro used to sing, I'm just Wondering Aloud.)
And, pharmaceutical grade, non (or less) psychoactive doses did work for appetite, nausea issues in cancer treatment and like situations and for paediatric fitting.
But the evidence for glaucoma seemed more mixed.
The problem is the vast bulk of non pharmaceutical, cannabis dispensary use, which appear to have a remarkably low bar to be dispensed.
I liked the rather wry observation that people taking it for sleep regulation probably restarted because of withdrawal symptoms before they could objectively say if it was necessary for sleep, if stopped.
> a gulf between how the public perceives cannabis and what gold-standard science shows
> The evidence does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids at this point for most of the indications that folks are using it for
> Pain is a leading reason people use medical cannabis, but the review found no evidence to indicate that cannabis could ease acute pain
> cannabis is classified federally along with heroin and LSD as having no medical purpose and a high propensity for misuse
Isn't there a pending Executive Order in the works that would move marijuana from the federal Schedule I list, making it a Schedule III (less restrictions)?
As near to a federal legalization as you can get without rousing rabble to react with a Just Say No!
I would love a peek at the NYT editorial calendar to see when this piece got, um, scheduled. And I wonder what it says about their editiorial intentions.
(As my old buddy Jethro used to sing, I'm just Wondering Aloud.)
To say there's no medical benefit to cannabis is patently false, just ask those who use it for pain or epileptic relief.