Home | Community | Message Board


Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration >> Growery News Service

Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleP-O
 Arcade Champion: Simon


Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 17,561
Patients Ought To Be Skeptical Of Proposed CBD-Only Legislation
    #719852 - 03/08/14 10:54 AM (2 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

In recent weeks, lawmakers in several states have moved forward with legislative proposals to permit specific strains and/or extracts of cannabis possessing high quantities of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD), but otherwise maintaining criminal prohibitions on the whole plant.

But is this new direction in the best interest of patients? As I wrote in a recent column for Alternet.org (republished with permission by Cannabis Now under the title “Patients Ought To Be Skeptical Of Proposed CBD-Only Legislation — Here’s Why”), I believe the answer is ‘no.’

Ultimately, patients should not be unnecessarily forced to decide between either accessing the whole plant or its isolated components. They should have safe, legal access to both, and politicians, even well-intentioned ones, should not restrict patients’ right to choose the most suitable option.

Below are excerpts from my commentary. You can read the entire text here.

Patients Ought To Be Skeptical Of Proposed CBD-Only Legislation — Here’s Why
via Cannabis Now

[excerpt] If the plant ain’t broke, why fix it?

For longtime marijuana law reformers, the ongoing political conversation surrounding CBD is instructive. It makes it clear that many politicians’ public opposition to the idea of patients using marijuana therapeutically isn’t because of supposed unanswered questions surrounding the plant’s safety or efficacy. Rather, it is because lawmakers oppose the idea of some people getting high from a naturally growing herb. (The fact that patients can get equally high or even higher from FDA-approved synthetic THC has, for whatever reason, never been an expressed concern of either lawmakers or prohibitionists.) After all, the very same politicians who argue that marijuana isn’t medicine because it hasn’t been approved by the FDA or who allege that the substance hasn’t yet been subjected to sufficient scientific scrutiny utter no such public objections to the idea of legalizing patient access to CBD – a schedule I compound that hasn’t been reviewed, much less approved by the FDA, and that has been clinically studied far less than cannabis.

Perhaps most ironically is that were it not for the advent of legalized whole plant marijuana, a policy change publicly opposed by many present day CBD-only political advocates, lawmakers (and anti-pot groups like SAM) today wouldn’t be aware of CBD, much less advocating for it. The reality is that it was the stakeholders in medical marijuana states, and those who provide for them, who have done the most to explore and promote cannabidiol as a legitimate therapeutic agent. And they were able to do so because they, unlike most federally licensed medical researchers, had access to the whole plant.

We’ve been down this road before. Not long ago, lawmakers and anti-marijuana zealots were dismissing patients’ desire to access the marijuana plant because they alleged that the THC-pill Marinol could adequately meet patients’ needs. Patients and their advocates were skeptical of lawmakers’ claims then, and properly so. Now many of these same politicians are once again dismissing patients’ calls for whole plant medicine by claiming that products and strains containing CBD alone only will suffice. Patients and their advocates ought to be equally skeptical once again.

- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2014/03/06/patients-ought-to-be-skeptical-of-proposed-cbd-only-legislation-heres-why/#sthash.umpSicE6.dpuf







Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Feedback and Administration >> Growery News Service

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Canada: Lawmakers, police seek guidance after pot laws quashed Shaggy420 867 0 04/14/11 12:43 PM
by Shaggy420
* Colorado Medical Marijuana Bill Poised To Clear Final Legislative Hurdles SpaceMonkey 910 0 05/08/10 03:52 PM
by SpaceMonkey
* Colorado Department of Revenue May Require Patients Get Biometrics?!? batman returns 1,162 2 10/11/10 03:17 AM
by FarBeyondDriven
* Colorado Lawmakers Pass Marijuana Regulations SpaceMonkey 879 1 05/11/10 11:05 PM
by Triptonic
* Germany: Lawmakers ready to approve use of medical marijuana Shaggy420 556 1 08/17/10 02:53 PM
by TomCollins
* Different Effects of Marijuana in Bipolar and Schizophrenic Patients Shaggy420 855 0 07/15/10 04:48 PM
by Shaggy420
* UK: MS patients denied licensed cannabis drug by NHS Shaggy420 838 0 05/31/11 07:55 AM
by Shaggy420
* Cannabis ingredient 'can boost cancer patients' appetites, sense of taste’ Shaggy420 1,044 2 02/23/11 03:41 PM
by Dr. Siekadellyk

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: geokills
635 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 13 queries.