Obama’s New Drug Control Report Calls for More Workplace Drug Testing, Nationwide Zero Tolerance La
- Thread starter Tea Party
- Start date
WatTyler
Revolting Peasant
It's really just a cannabis tincture from what I've read; there's nothing all that special about it as I understand. It's mocked a little for that over here as officially a medical cannabis tincture remains illegal, yet they got a license by claiming they extracted in some special way making it less psychoactive and gave the extract frightening (to some) commercial trade names- tetranibax and nabidiolex (and donated a lot of money to the political party in power at the time). Unfortunately it's pretty expensive and many (most?) of the NHS trust over here won't authorise it.
Edit: A source:
http://www.clear-uk.org/access-sativex/
http://www.clear-uk.org/the-sativex-scam-part-1/
just one side of the argument...
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
I saw that they were working on them, but didn't know they were available yet.
turk
turk
...yea they are here....indica's tend to (although nothing is 100%) have a higher body effect (which is what you want)...and hybrids give you the best of both worlds...S.F. has achieved a "cafeteria" type effect in that we have a number of dispensaries to choose from each with its own indiosyncracies as it relates to meds...it's really one of the best things about living here.....it's certainly NOT the cost of living....
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
...yea they are here....indica's tend to (although nothing is 100%) have a higher body effect (which is what you want)...and hybrids give you the best of both worlds...S.F. has achieved a "cafeteria" type effect in that we have a number of dispensaries to choose from each with its own indiosyncracies as it relates to meds...it's really one of the best things about living here.....it's certainly NOT the cost of living....
I think you are misunderstanding me. I know growers are trying to make a strain/strains of cannabis that DO NOT get the user high, but are still good for pain, nausea, etc.
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Ok, so are these strains like the ones I was talking about, that do not get the user high?
I am only talking about strains that never get the user high.
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Ok, then that's not the same as what I saw.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Tetranabinex and nsbidiolex are actually their trademark names for THC and CBD. Wild, right? As far as I can tell, they cultivate plants, then do a fairly simple extraction. The end result is a 1:1 ratio of those two compounds. So in that regard, it's better than Marinol or other synthetics (I'm assuming).
CBD can be crystallized, so it's only a matter of time before some chemist starts making that happen. Don't know how CBD would affect without THC though. Still so much to learn from this plant. Faster we can get it legal, sooner we can learn everything.
This website has alot of good info on CBD. projectcbd.org
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Thank you for the explanation, I didn't know that! In that case, I completely agree! It has to be way better than Marinol, another worthless drug.
Nuphile
Non-Smoker
According to the manufacturer's website, Sativex is an alcohol based tincture; the same type that were created by "big pharma" in the 1800's and early 1900's before the cannabis prohibition. I am sure they will charge an arm and a leg for this very rudimentarily made tinture that any one of us could create for next to nothing.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Here's an interesting article from Politico about Obama and the recent crackdown. Rep. Barney Frank is pissed so hopefully he'll make some noise.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75421.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75421.html
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Obama? Yes. Obviously so. Barney Frank? No. He's been a huge supporter of the movement. Since he's retiring from congress after this term, I think he'd be a great pro-legalization lobbyist.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
Obama really knows how to abandon his base.
Obama gives an interview with "Rolling Stone", and they ask about the recent raids. The people he is impressing with this kind of behavior, will never vote for him any way.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425?page=2
Obama gives an interview with "Rolling Stone", and they ask about the recent raids. The people he is impressing with this kind of behavior, will never vote for him any way.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425?page=2
OKcomputer
Kid A
Obama's answer is actually a little more promising than I expected it to be:
Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What's up with that?
Here's what's up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, "Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books." What I can say is, "Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage." As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.
The only tension that's come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do. I do think it's important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we've done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We've had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that's an appropriate debate that we should have.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ready-for-the-fight-rolling-stone-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425#ixzz1t6dYOzm3
Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What's up with that?
Here's what's up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, "Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books." What I can say is, "Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage." As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.
The only tension that's come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do. I do think it's important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we've done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We've had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that's an appropriate debate that we should have.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ready-for-the-fight-rolling-stone-interview-with-barack-obama-20120425#ixzz1t6dYOzm3
turk
turk
...seduced by words/rhetoric...they can all sound so pretty (from their speach-writers) as they tell us ever so eloquently why they can't help us...why they have to take this approach...or that approach....you can listen if you want...but at my age I jump to the end....it's complete utter bullshit, neither of these parties WANT to legalize weed...and the sooner we understand that fact the sooner we will do something about that....