If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market?
If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market?
The feds will still go after it as an illegal drug when presented as recreational and the will keep the stigma going on forever. Furthermore it will keep a lot of talented people out of good job opportunities for smoking a joint after work instead of having a glass of wine.
You're viewing a single thread.
It’ll get rescheduled when Big Pharma comes up with a potion that does a better job and that they can sell for $10k per dose. So long as cannabis works better than anything they can monetize, they’ll fight to keep it illegal. And they have very deep pockets.
The only reason cannabis is Schedule I is to "felonize" people who are more likely to vote against Republicans, so their right to vote can be taken away. Pharmceutical companies would frankly love for it to be descheduled, so they can research and develop it for prescription uses.
Yep. That's the real answer!
A better job at what, getting you high? Pretty sure they already have that, and while it doesn't net them 10k per dose the Sacklers would have liked that very much no doubt.
A better job at treating a range of physical and mental health issues. Recreation is just a bonus.
I think people need to actually research THC and cannabinoids. The handful of studies that have been done on them show that it's no better than OTC medication in all but the very rarest cases.
Medical marijuana is a complete hoax, it was always about making money and getting high.
We’ve obviously seen different research. Or, more likely, Fox vs legitimate news sources.
Nope. It's been 2-3 years, but I read every single research paper on the subject.
You're confusing blog posts with actual academic papers. Just a heads up the the effects of medicines are no where near as clearcut as people think. Cannabiniods have fairly weak evidence for efficacy.
Imagine thinking that journalists have the capacity to analyze papers. Try getting a degree or atleast taking some classes on biostatistics.
Amazing. Admitting that my degrees are not in medicine, even a cursory search of the literature finds over 76,000 articles on medical cannabinoids published in peer reviewed journals since 2000. About 2500 of them were published in the last three years. As an academic and former NPR-affiliate news director, I tip my hat to anyone who can read, understand, and synthesize information from 76,000 articles.
Please share the citation of your lit review and meta-analysis. I'm curious to know your evidence, reasoning, and analytical approach. You've drawn an interesting conclusion, so it must be a fascinating article.
No there is not. There is a few hundred, and most of then don't even cover efficacy in vivo which is the subject matter.
Keep LARPing as an academic, lets see how stupid you really are.
No there are not. There are a few hundred….
Well, whatever your degrees are in, they sure as hell didn’t include grammar.
So you haven’t read even a fraction of the published peer reviewed research and none of the current material. Interesting.
Why don’t you run over to your university library and ask nicely if one of the librarians will show you how to use any of the professional journal databases? Actually reading everything shouldn’t take more than a couple of years if you’re diligent. Make sure to keep up with all the new research published in the interim. Then we can talk.
And child, I teach research writing. I’ve forgotten more than you appear to know. My freshmen would run circles around you if this is the best you’ve got.
You've had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it's not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don't use your shitty lessons.
"Then we can talk"
You already admitted that you don't understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you're going to talk about? How you still don't understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?
We’re done here. Have a nice life.