Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#151

Post by Thriptic »

stephengillie wrote: post #135
Thriptic wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really asking me for a source to prove that being caught doing something massively illegal will result in negative consequences? I'm going to assume that when we talk about running a study, we are talking about using marijuana in humans in a study, meaning a clinical trial. In order to perform a clinical trial with marijuana, by law investigators would need to get an IND (investigational new drug) application…

> In order to perform a clinical trial with marijuana... investigators would need to get ... approved by the FDA... Part of this involves DEA review... It only took you 3 coarse and unhelpful posts to answer my legitimate question. Thanks for your cooperation. (5 Whys? Only 3 Whys were needed here.)

Yeah true, sorry for being a dick. I'm sick today, exhausted, and surviving on stimulants; hence my aggression and suboptimal reading comprehension. I shouldn't be expecting other people to deal with me in that state, so again my bad.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#152

Post by SerLava »

sizzle wrote: post #121
craftyguy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't even begin to believe how&why we let things like this happen. $$$.

CBD and THC can easily be monetized for profit so what's the issue?

The issue was that we wanted a new loophole for the 13th amendment. We also really wanted to permanently "deport" Americans who had brown skin.

There's a lot of money in that.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#153

Post by deelowe »

tzakrajs wrote: post #110
deelowe wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure if you completely ignore how research is funded, how one makes a career out of performing research and why research is performed in the first place. Specifically, anyone performing medical research on marijuana is likely to lose any grants they have, is likely to lose their job for putting their employer at risk, is likely to not be able to find future employment for being so cavalier in their research and is li…

Those are patriots and leaders if you ask me.

Not everyone is interested in politics.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#154

Post by eftychis »

schreiaj wrote: post #148
eftychis wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far I did not have that issue, but I am getting a bit concerned. If that is correct, going to a doctor, despite paying a hefty price, I have to double and sanity check my doctor's prescriptions. I don't want to end up accidentally dealing with terrible side-effects for little gain... And I can not say I can trust my pharmacist to raise a flag on a dangerous prescription or interference between medication, as I wou…

My other half has a chronic psychiatric condition, after struggling for 2 years we'd found a combo that worked. Prior to that though, we'd had to check drug/drug interactions ourselves because a previous doctor simply didn't, nor did the pharmacist... Been using Epocrates (the free parts) to check interactions and side effects. Beats digging through the FDA website for it. One suggestion, NEVER look up common drugs l…

>> One suggestion, NEVER look up common drugs like Advil. Why is that?

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#155

Post by lovich »

pc86 wrote: post #126
komali2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?

> Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered? The Supreme Court does not have the authority to "neuter" parts of the Constitution.

It de facto does. If the government is running off one interpretation of a piece of the Constitution and the supreme Court rules that that interpretation is incorrect, it's been neutered

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#156

Post by dang »

jmcmichael wrote: post #146
dang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, you're right. I'd delete but it looks like HN won't allow me to do so now.

I'll delete it for you and detach it from the GP.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#157

Post by carbocation »

tzakrajs wrote: post #112
carbocation wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think scientists are excited about criminal charges for possession and distribution.

Good luck finding someone in these progressive bastions willing to arrest you.

These crimes are federal, not local, so that's not relevant.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#158

Post by simplecomplex »

SerLava wrote: post #152
sizzle wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CBD and THC can easily be monetized for profit so what's the issue?

The issue was that we wanted a new loophole for the 13th amendment. We also really wanted to permanently "deport" Americans who had brown skin. There's a lot of money in that.

Don’t know why you’re downvoted, since the Controlled Substances Act was meant to disrupt African American and leftist political efforts, according to Nixon’s domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman.

They couldn’t raid black panther meetings for legally possessing guns, but they could for smoking joints and selling drugs.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/poli...

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#159

Post by wyoh »

existencebox wrote: post #36
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

No need to hypothesize. The rampup of the drug war under Nixon was largely to attack blacks, hippies (antiwar), and other counterculture figures. [0] "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." (John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy chief) In the interim, it became a w…

That doesn't explain why it is banned in most countries around the world that didn't have Nixon nor blacks.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#160

Post by schreiaj »

eftychis wrote: post #154
schreiaj wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My other half has a chronic psychiatric condition, after struggling for 2 years we'd found a combo that worked. Prior to that though, we'd had to check drug/drug interactions ourselves because a previous doctor simply didn't, nor did the pharmacist... Been using Epocrates (the free parts) to check interactions and side effects. Beats digging through the FDA website for it. One suggestion, NEVER look up common drugs l…

>> One suggestion, NEVER look up common drugs like Advil. Why is that?

Because if there was one instance of it during trial or there was someone that had it while on the medication even unrelated it's probably in there.

So say someone took Advil then had, as a minor example, violent giggling fits completely unrelated. Now violent giggling fits is going to be listed as an adverse effect for Advil because, maybe it caused it?

Now replace violent giggling with fun things like: stroke, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, or whatever other fun things are listed on Advil...

Basically, likely to scare yourself for no reason. But for more serious drugs? Maybe worth some digging.

Post reply on HN