Do THC pills work

[Artificial Emotion]

But if pure cannabidiol was legal some could take it instead and not have to deal with some fucked up side effect like parkinson's, tardive dyskinesia, anhedonia, dyphoria or even kidney failure.

I'll answer that with a question. Why haven't the typicals been totally replaced by newer atypical drugs?

Morphine, heroin, different types of opium, different ROA of opium, pods, and pod extracts are all different from each other. I feel it is analogous to cannabis in that the pure concentrated compounds are legal and used more than the superior natural precursor but backwards drug laws prevent wider use of both. And opium can't be injected without some chemistry like cannabinoids. I think they should use smoked opium for pain because it has similar advantages like smoking cannabis as an ROA(I'm not saying they're the same).

The similarities are superficial. If isolated morphine and the whole drug opium from which it is extracted are both useful in medicine it does not follow that both cannabis and pure THC must both be useful medically because they are different drugs that are pharmacologically different.

I feel that pure versions of cannabinoids could still have some use.

So do I, but I still feel the same way about Marinol.

Also say a patient needs a very specific mixture of cannabinoids. Unless there's a bunch of mixtures on the market that come close to what they need, they may need to take each in pure form to get exactly what they need. With many other medicines that have several active compounds some have termed them irrational mixtures or "shotgun" medicine. Often other actives aren't usually need, it's hard to individualize the doses, and are often more expensive than any one drug alone. Usually with most of them it's cheaper and better just to buy each drug individually. So some many need Marinol in certain circumstances.

Cannabis is unlike pharmaceutic drugs and as such it is not a fair comparison to make. Prohibitionists have long made that argument but cannabis is a plant who's toxicity profile is lower than most drugs that are prescribed and so the presence of other cannabinoids which appear to do very little is less of an issue.

As for needing a bunch of mixtures on the market as you put it, usually there is at least one strain that each person finds more useful than others. Usually it's a combination of cannabinoids working in synergy that works best, and getting this unique combination is often possible with the right strain.

 

[THC2LSD]

^There's a pill for every ill, and a strain for every pain.

I'll answer that with a question. Why haven't the typicals been totally replaced by newer atypical drugs?

Because they cost more and also have shitty side effects. I'm speaking from experience. And there's some studies to back this up. Although they have some benefits over the old ones and some respond better to them, they aren't that big of an improvement over Thorazine or lithium. Basically small improvements and Madison Avenue marketing is what they have over the old shit.

As for needing a bunch of mixtures on the market as you put it, usually there is at least one strain that each person finds more useful than others. Usually it's a combination of cannabinoids working in synergy that works best, and getting this unique combination is often possible with the right strain.

My biggest fear is that with legalization many of those strains would die out due to corporations tendency to homogenize products. Think about what Monsanto, Anheuser-Busch, British American tobacco, Altria(formerly Philip-Morris), Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and others would do to cannabis. I can guarantee they'll want to get in on the action. It could be good if they research and improve the plant, but what's to improve? They'll probably make some shit that's all about the same, just different brands. Whatever makes the consumers buy more. It won't happen right away, a lot will start growing it in their gardens or farms, but I fear after awhile it'll be as common as growing your own tobacco.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Because they cost more and also have shitty side effects.

The atypicals have far fewer side effects than the older typicals. This is a fact. So, given this, why would psychiatrists decide to use the older typicals in place of the atypicals? I can tell you, it is not because of cost. I myself can speak from experience where being in a psychiatric ward for 18 months in 2005 I made the progression from quetiapine to olanzapine to haloperidol (and finally back to olanzapine but that's another story). Now why would my psychiatrist do that? If he didn't have the 3rd line option of a typical he would be pretty limited in his choices. Some people do not respond to the newer generation of drugs. The same thing is the case with antidepressants -why is there not just one SSRI? Or one class of antidepressant? A lot of it is marketing, but a lot of it is because some people are treatment resistant and need to be cycled through different drugs before finding one that works.

Although they have some benefits over the old ones and some respond better to them, they aren't that big of an improvement over Thorazine or lithium.

Lithium isn't even an antipsychotic so I'm not sure why you mentioned that drug. It's used to treat bipolar disorder, not schizophrenia. Atypical antipsychotics were revolutionary psychotropic drugs with far far fewer side effects that the vast majority of non-treatment resistant schizophrenics tolerate far better. Tolerability is very important and can mean the difference between being a drooling doubled wreck and a fully functioning member of society.

My biggest fear is that with legalization many of those strains would die out due to corporations tendency to homogenize products. Think about what Monsanto, Anheuser-Busch, British American tobacco, Altria(formerly Philip-Morris), Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and others would do to cannabis. I can guarantee they'll want to get in on the action. It could be good if they research and improve the plant, but what's to improve? They'll probably make some shit that's all about the same, just different brands. Whatever makes the consumers buy more. It won't happen right away, a lot will start growing it in their gardens or farms, but I fear after awhile it'll be as common as growing your own tobacco.

I completely agree. This is why many think legalisation could very well have an adverse effect on cannabis biodiversity. What is good is that secret tobacco documents show they are at least currently against manufacturing cannabis cigarettes because they think that it would have a bad effect on their brand image and reputation, if you can believe it.

I do however think cannabis is unique in that people will still want to grow their own weed in the same way people grow tomatoes even though they are cheaply available in supermarkets. Even if cannabis were dirt cheap I would still continue growing.

 

[THC2LSD]

^With the new atypical anti-psychotics although they usually have a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, tolerablity is about the same percentage wise according to many studies. They can definitely help some with whom the typical anti-psychotics either don't work or are intolerable. I couldn't tolerate any of the new atypical anti-psychotic but did well with the typical antipsychotic Prolixin Atypicals are definitely a step up for many and another option, but a huge breakthrough no. It's was though that the atypical antipsychotics might help more with negative symptoms, but I don't think they do nor AFAIK is it proven. A big breakthrough would be one that treats negative symptoms, or even doesn't cause weight gain or extrapyamidal symptoms at all. The best would be one that can cure it, but that would be like a miracle drug.

I mention lithium because mood disorders like bipolar or schizoaffective disorder can cause psychosis too. Other treatments also have similar tolerability to lithium, though once again they can help others and they're another tool to use. Also the therapeutic index is usually better with other treatments than lithium.

I really want to try cannabindiol to see if it can treat psychosis. Some research indicates it's as good as any antipsychotic with much less side effects. Most high cannabindiol strains have almost as much THC AFAIK. Well, I think hemp or ditch weed might have a higher ratio but much lower levels of cannabinoids. What I was thinking of was taking cannabindiol with low doses of THC. Doses of cannabindiol are like 40-1000mg. That would be a lot of THC if you smoked most high CBD strains. It'd be nice if there was a really high CBD strain. Is there one?

 

[Artificial Emotion]

With the new atypical anti-psychotics although they usually have a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, tolerablity is about the same percentage wise according to many studies. They can definitely help some with whom the typical anti-psychotics either don't work or are intolerable. I couldn't tolerate any of the new atypical anti-psychotic but did well with the typical antipsychotic Prolixin Atypicals are definitely a step up for many and another option, but a huge breakthrough no. It's was though that the atypical antipsychotics might help more with negative symptoms, but I don't think they do nor AFAIK is it proven. A big breakthrough would be one that treats negative symptoms, or even doesn't cause weight gain or extrapyamidal symptoms at all. The best would be one that can cure it, but that would be like a miracle drug.

Research is still accumulating because the drugs are quite new but the way I understand it is that the current research and clinical practice indicates that atypical antipsychotics are generally safer and better tolerated than and as effective as conventional antipsychotics. I've had 6 consultant psychiatrists in the last 7 years and a countless SHOs, assistants and even a pharmacist working for the hospital in Lambeth in London all confirm this to me in the past so I don't believe it's a pharmaceutical conspiracy to market new pointless patented drugs. The incidence of motor like extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia, anticholinergic side effects, prolactin elevation, and QTc prolongation is low with most atypical antipsychotics.

When I was on haloperidol I couldn't continue taking it for long because my hands would move upwards towards my chest with the arm muscles contracting. It was as if I was doing it myself but at the same time couldn't stop myself, as if I was possessed. My leg also wouldn't bend when I walked so it looked like I was pretending to be a crippled person and it was really embarrassing. I've seen other people drool and look so bad they literally look mentally retarded. Their speech becomes slurred and they become incredibly restless with akathesia to the point where they drive everyone else just as crazy as themselves. Atypicals come with their own problems, especially drugs like olanzapine which cause weight gain, diabetes and cardiovascular problems but the EPS problems for examples are not an issue in the same way as with the typicals. This is common knowledge in psychiatry and is why the atypicals are a first line choice.

I mention lithium because mood disorders like bipolar or schizoaffective disorder can cause psychosis too. Other treatments also have similar tolerability to lithium, though once again they can help others and they're another tool to use. Also the therapeutic index is usually better with other treatments than lithium.

Okay fair enough, it it just seemed a bit out of place that's all, so I wondered if you had confused it with an antipsychotic drug.

I really want to try cannabindiol to see if it can treat psychosis. Some research indicates it's as good as any antipsychotic with much less side effects. Most high cannabindiol strains have almost as much THC AFAIK. Well, I think hemp or ditch weed might have a higher ratio but much lower levels of cannabinoids. What I was thinking of was taking cannabindiol with low doses of THC. Doses of cannabindiol are like 40-1000mg. That would be a lot of THC if you smoked most high CBD strains. It'd be nice if there was a really high CBD strain. Is there one?

I don't think there will ever be any single silver bullet. Even if it has fewer side effects some people might find it useful but it will never replace antipsychotics. What's more promising is genetic mutations that are identified that allow scientists to offer more targeted therapy using existing drugs. I almost got to take part in what I think was a study for this sort of thing myself where had to put samples of saliva into these little vials at different times of the day for about a week. I remember one of the guys that did it confessed to me that he lied about his identity at the time and told all sorts of other untruths which is why I remember it after so long. I've actually asked a professor of psychiatry that did shifts at Maidstone hospital in Kent about the whole CBD thing myself because I was interested in the subject myself (long story) and he was really quite unimpressed about the whole thing. He seemed to think there were far more exciting avenues of research. I'm inclined to take his word for it but who knows what the future holds, there might be something in the pipeline now for all I know.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

I really want to try cannabindiol to see if it can treat psychosis. Some research indicates it's as good as any antipsychotic with much less side effects. Most high cannabindiol strains have almost as much THC AFAIK. Well, I think hemp or ditch weed might have a higher ratio but much lower levels of cannabinoids. What I was thinking of was taking cannabindiol with low doses of THC. Doses of cannabindiol are like 40-1000mg. That would be a lot of THC if you smoked most high CBD strains. It'd be nice if there was a really high CBD strain. Is there one?

Why not try it on yourself? There is no high CBD low THC strain available from seedbanks, unfortunately. I have some high CBD, low THC bud right in front of me now though. All I did was take a charas strain from the Real Seed Company and grow it out. 1/4 of the plants were high THC/low CBD, 1/2 were moderate THC/moderate CBD and 1/4 were high CBD/low THC. It's quite surreal smoking what would be really large amounts of bud normally but without getting high at all. Smoking fibre hemp or ditchweed will definitely give you a headache because it's really poor smoking material.

 

[DeadVutts]

Wow. Lot of conflicting information on the effects of marinol. I'll share my experience. Firstly, keep in mind that neither marijuana or marinol effect everyone the same.

I suffer from chronic intractable migraines accompanied by intense nausea, as well as back and neck pain from injuries. At this point I've been put on everything from dilaudid or fentanyl to topamax. None of them worked well. Some of them put me in the hospital (gabapentin, lyrica, etc). I've had to go to the ER 5 times from prescribed and properly taken drugs.

When I've been able to legally try marijuana (California or visiting Amterdam last year), I find that some strains work very well on my migraine pain, body pain, and nausea. I often mix a primarily sativa strain with an indica. My best combination thus far was "girl scout cookies" mixed with "super lemon haze". Unfortunately it's not legal where I live. Also, cheap weed can make the headaches worse.

My latest severe round of nausea (which lasted 4 weeks) was so bad I lost 30 pounds. All the usual anti-emetics failed to work. I'd been living off gatorade and juice for weeks. I was prescribed marinol. My doctor hadn't prescribed it before, but I asked about it and he decided it was worth a shot.

Marinol's most obvious failing is that a pill is a really stupid way to treat nausea, especially if you need to keep it down for an hour. Smoked or vaporized marijuana can take effect in mere minutes.

Despite this issue, marinol (10mg x2 day) worked wonders for my nausea and lack of appetite. I was able to eat some solid food and had no trouble keeping it down. The relief lasted for many hours, over 6 hours per dose (most smoked weed lasts me around 2 hours). There was no discernible high, nothing that felt like smoking some decent weed. No confusion, fatigue, euphoria, etc.

I hear a lot of complaints regarding the price of marinol, but it was dirt cheap with my insurance, and my insurance is generally awful. I'd spend more on a sandwich.

So in conclusion, marinol CAN be helpful for patients with extreme nausea, from chemotherapy or other issues. It certainly doesn't work on my chronic pain (and it was not prescribed for pain). From my own experience I'd say it's pretty useless as a recreational drug. Pros: good for severe nausea, dose lasts a long time, no odor, legal, cheap. Cons: taking a pill for nausea can suck, it's probably hard to get a prescription for most people, no enjoyable side effects, needs to be stored in a refridgerator (I have no idea how much heat/light it takes to damage it), hard to find information on the amount of thc in the pills, hard to find information on marinol regarding drug tests. In general the information on marinol seems almost as sketchy as other synthetic cannabinoids.

If anyone has other questions please let me know; I'll answer if I can.