Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#2That's a very professional looking site and just goes to show how far medical marijuana has come ... in the US. As a UK citizen, I'm full of jealousy and saddened by the fact that we're probably further away from legalisation than ever. This petition [1] shows that there is at least some demand for a change in the law, but it seems unlikely to occur anytime soon with the current government in power.
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#3Speaking as an MD, the evidence for medical marijuana is, uh, pretty thin. In fact, most people would decry the mismatch of research to marketing if it were a traditionally prescribed drug.
The barriers to meaningful research are coming down, but the research just isn't there yet. I suspect that therapeutic targets will emerge, but no amount of enthusiasm changes the fact that high-quality research hasn't happened yet. On the other hand, there are real problems associated with use, such as an increased risk of psychotic disorders, problems with concentration, etc.
I consider it part of my job to look at the evidence and remain free of bias, because most marketing is put together by those who stand to make a lot of money off of what they are selling. If I apply those same criteria I use for other drugs I prescribe to marijuana, the outlook is not so good.
Recreation marijuana, on the other hand, suffers from no such pretense. People use it to get high, and understand the risk. This, to me, seems like a much more honest system for the use most people want.
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#4Speaking as an MD, the evidence for medical marijuana is, uh, pretty thin . In fact, most people would decry the mismatch of research to marketing if it were a traditionally prescribed drug. The barriers to meaningful research are coming down, but the research just isn't there yet. I suspect that therapeutic targets will emerge, but no amount of enthusiasm changes the fact that high-quality research hasn't happened y…
So research is too thin to assume any therapeutic use, but strong enough to claim real problems such as an increased risk of psychotic disorders and problems with concentration?
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#5Speaking as an MD, the evidence for medical marijuana is, uh, pretty thin . In fact, most people would decry the mismatch of research to marketing if it were a traditionally prescribed drug. The barriers to meaningful research are coming down, but the research just isn't there yet. I suspect that therapeutic targets will emerge, but no amount of enthusiasm changes the fact that high-quality research hasn't happened y…
So research is too thin to assume any therapeutic use, but strong enough to claim real problems such as an increased risk of psychotic disorders and problems with concentration?
It's different research, and yes.
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#6Speaking as an MD, the evidence for medical marijuana is, uh, pretty thin . In fact, most people would decry the mismatch of research to marketing if it were a traditionally prescribed drug. The barriers to meaningful research are coming down, but the research just isn't there yet. I suspect that therapeutic targets will emerge, but no amount of enthusiasm changes the fact that high-quality research hasn't happened y…
So research is too thin to assume any therapeutic use, but strong enough to claim real problems such as an increased risk of psychotic disorders and problems with concentration?
Yes. Each individual paper covers a very narrow topic. For example, here's a recent paper - White matter fractional anisotropy over two time points in early onset schizophrenia and adolescent cannabis use disorder: A naturalistic diffusion tensor imaging study
This paper tells me nothing about headache relief, or nausea related to chemotherapy.
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#7Very nice site. Slight typo under the CBN explanation tab -- you have "oxides", which is a noun; I believe you'd want "oxidizes" there.
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
So research is too thin to assume any therapeutic use, but strong enough to claim real problems such as an increased risk of psychotic disorders and problems with concentration?
Yes. Each individual paper covers a very narrow topic. For example, here's a recent paper - White matter fractional anisotropy over two time points in early onset schizophrenia and adolescent cannabis use disorder: A naturalistic diffusion tensor imaging study This paper tells me nothing about headache relief, or nausea related to chemotherapy.
It sounds like you are reasonably well informed in this field, whereas I can barely parse the abstract for the linked paper. I was hoping you could give me an educated opinion about negative effects of cannabis use in non-adolescents. It seems like papers are mostly finding negative effects for adolescents only.
Also, the particular paper you mention seems to be studying adolescents with "Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD)". Is this just a roundabout way of saying they are a pot smoker, or is there a difference between cannabis use and "cannabis use disorder"?
For example, consider a non-adolescent who uses cannabis sporadically but does not have a "disorder" (i.e. no addictive tendencies). Do you have an opinion about cannabis use for that individual?
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#9So, err, when are we gonna get medical MDMA and medical LCD?
Re: Show HN: Meadow Education: A beginner's guide to medical marijuana
#10Speaking as an MD, the evidence for medical marijuana is, uh, pretty thin . In fact, most people would decry the mismatch of research to marketing if it were a traditionally prescribed drug. The barriers to meaningful research are coming down, but the research just isn't there yet. I suspect that therapeutic targets will emerge, but no amount of enthusiasm changes the fact that high-quality research hasn't happened y…
I'm finding it very difficult to understand your insistence that all of the currently published research[0] into the benefits of marijuana use is somehow "low quality", or invalid, or an advertisement, while simultaneously claiming that all of the research into the detriments are completely valid. That's pretty silly, and quite the opposite of "remaining free of bias."
If you had stopped at saying we should be wary of touting marijuana as this utopian drug with no downsides, I would completely agree with you. In fact, I don't need research to know that marijuana use can be detrimental to health, as I am susceptible to a very extreme form of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome[1], and have come uncomfortably close to being the first person to die directly from its use. This has led me to actively investigate the subject for years. Experiencing first-hand results which are identical to both positive and negative research, I can't help but question the "non-bias" in your approach to the topic.
Just because people exploit medical marijuana programs for the purpose of recreation, doesn't mean there aren't legitimate therapeutic benefits. The reason why those programs are being so heavily exploited, is that marijuana has long been subject to prohibition in many countries, despite wide acceptance (even among your peers) that it is no more harmful than other legal drugs. Prohibition, of course, has not stopped anyone from growing and smoking it, which is exactly why these medical programs get exploited: they can be. Why go through the hassle of growing and harvesting and curing, or risking fines and jail time, when you can make a trip to a doctor's office and lie about muscle pain?
Marijuana has also long been subject to many, many smear campaigns[2] from people with zero understanding of the drug. Which ought to tell you that there are likely just as many people pushing for negative research results as there are positive. But that doesn't mean all of the negative research is "low quality", or invalid, or an advertisement, just as it doesn't define the positive research. It just means there are a lot of ignorant and greedy people in the world, which I think we can both agree on.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/search?q=marijuana&restrict...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndro...