Bob in Mich

UB study on using cannabinoids to treat depression “Chronic stress is one of the major causes of depression,” Haj-Dahmane says. “Using compounds derived from cannabis — marijuana — to restore normal endocannabinoid function could potentially help stabilize moods and ease depression.” - See more at: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2015/02/004.html#sthash.hzXl055A.BDhpdm8g.dpuf

Recent cannabis endorsement from a doctors' group https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/15/more-and-more-doctors-want-to-make-marijuana-legal/ From the article The emergence of the group comes at a crucial moment in the national debate over marijuana legalization. More than 60 percent of the public now says that it supports marijuana legalization. Support for allowing medical use of marijuana with doctors' supervision is closer to 90 percent. Over 35 million Americans use marijuana recreationally each year, according to the latest federal statistics. Research organizations, medical groups and even many national lawmakers have called on federal authorities to revisit policies toward marijuana that have remained essentially unchanged for nearly 50 years.

Looks like a limited medical bill will get signed in PA https://www.mpp.org/states/pennsylvania/

A possible rescheduling of cannabis may be on the horizon. It is hard to fathom how the DEA could continue the schedule 1 classification but when their jobs depend upon it, they just may. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-era-in-medical-marijuana-research/ From the article Marijuana is widely recognized as an often-effective treatment for a variety of common conditions. Even though it remains illegal at the federal level, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized its use for chronic pain, nausea, glaucoma, migraine and more. But researchers like Patel and Cao believe cannabis has even greater potential in the treatment of major disorders including Alzheimer’s, cancer, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and autoimmune diseases. They have committed their careers to it and, despite the onerous restrictions and endless hassles—Patel once waited six months for a DEA green-light—they have made real progress and routinely published their findings. A decision by the DEA to reschedule, although it will not completely remove the onus of illegality or the burden on scientists, could launch a new era in marijuana research.

High level chronic pain can cause one to question their sanity. A person that has high level chronic pain very often is afraid of going without pain medicine. Getting dropped by a Pain Doctor and having to find a new one can easily lead to a coverage gap. Pain Management Doctors will urine test a patient. The idea is to ensure that the patient is taking his prescribed medication, not selling it. Many Doctors will completely drop a patient that tests positive for cannabis use. Because of that, many patients are afraid to try cannabis to see if they can cut down on their opiate medication. The new CDC guidelines suggest to Doctors that they not drop patients that test positive for cannabis use. This will hopefully allow patients to replace their opiates with cannabis, at least to some extent. This is harm reduction in addiction terms. So, instead of trying to 'score drugs' from your Doctor, the idea is that the patient would be much better off taking less pills from your Doctor. If the Doctor is now tolerant of medical cannabis usage, it is very likely the Doctor will see a substantial drop in patient opiate usage.

The CDC has issued new guidelines for Pain Management Doctors regarding cannabis testing. DO NOT ASSUME your doctor will now be OK with patient cannabis use. Ask questions... perhaps about your mythical friend with the same condition that is having success with cannabis. Be careful. From the article “Clinicians should not test for substances for which results would not affect patient management or for which implications for patient management are unclear. For example, experts noted that there might be uncertainty about the clinical implications of a positive urine drug test for tetrahyrdocannabinol (THC).” the guidelines state. "Clinicians should not dismiss patients from care based on a urine drug test result because this could constitute patient abandonment and could have adverse consequences for patient safety, potentially including the patient obtaining opioids from alternative sources and the clinician missing opportunities to facilitate treatment for substance use disorder." http://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2016/3/18/45g7l80k0vufyjyhb06z2ttgxdj3vk

Pennsylvania is getting closer to being the 24th medical state but they are not there yet. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/pa-medical-marijuana-train-slows-for-now/ But after this week the legislature won’t be back until April, and if the medical marijuana bill is further amended in the Senate, a spokesman for the House majority leader says he can’t promise that the House will take it up again.

http://www.investors.com/news/technology/gw-pharma-stock-rockets-as-cannabis-drug-fights-epilepsy/?ven=YahooCP&src=AURLLED&ven=yahoo This stock has drifted lower over the past year but got a big pop yesterday with phase 3 trial results for its cannabis based medicine From the Article: Shares of British drugmaker GW Pharmaceuticals (GWPH) more than doubled Monday after the company’s marijuana-based drug succeeded in a late-stage trial against a rare form of epilepsy.

This is not a new use by any means. UK's Queen Victoria used cannabis for this problem http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/1632726.stm

Did you happen to read the comments to that article? Several good points made there that save me typing. Check em out. Doubts? Why have doubts? Here, this will make you forget all about that article http://blessedsource.com/jimmy-carter-medical-marijuana-cured-my-cancer/ Or, I guess this one is a little better...more serious, just as a refresher http://blessedsource.com/23-health-benefits-of-marijuana/

This is a live cannabis health conference on 1/23 and 1/24...ongoing right now. Some of you might find it interesting. http://livestream.com/accounts/16829089/events/4660436

You guys are hilarious. Thanks. Please, don't ever change

New York state’s marijuana start-ups gear up for saleshttp://nbr.com/2015/12/22/new-york-states-marijuana-start-ups-gear-up-for-sales/

You are right. Nevermind

Apologies if it was not you, but I have read several times about the Dems putting up such a weak field while the Repubs have put up such a strong field. You know the candidates, at this point, are putting up themselves. They are looking at their money generation possibilities and making personal decisions whether to run or not. There are so few Dems because to Dems anyway, Hillary looks very tough to beat. To contrast, lots of Repub candidates think they can win. Why do they think that? Imo, because there are a lot of weak candidates on the Repub side and no one nearly as likely to win the party nomination as Hillary.

performer? You've tried this lame joke 3 times now that I've seen. Give it up already. Wasn't funny the first time

Seriously? You seem like a reasonable person. Why do you post such crap? Is it just to get a rise out of someone that can no longer stomach the ****? Who do you think he should meet with? 'The other side' is a group of people sitting silently with their arms crossed, just like this wisdom collective. They can't discuss anything because that would be giving in....the slippery slope you know, no compromise!! WTF is anyone on the pro gun side going to contribute? Take a shot at what they would say when meeting Obama and then tell me why that was worth the effort

The Daily Show had a focus group answer this question. Pretty much clears it up http://www.cc.com/video-clips/h2l2ij/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-who-s-actually-supporting-donald-trump-

I don't have an answer for you as to how to stop the well motivated, well connected, well financed, professional criminal with gun restrictions. OK? Again, not making acquiring weapons easy and legal for criminals to do so would be a good start, imo. The thread is long so I can see why it has been missed but I have said several times that I think that people in the US should be allowed to buy a gun. I have never advocated for trying to confiscate anyone's gun. I think we would all be better off with less guns but we are at where we are at. The point that I tried to make is that there are different types of shooters and so different situations to address. Just because a solution doesn't impact scenario A, doesn't mean that it may not be helpful defending against scenario B. Mental health restrictions won't stop everyone. Should we then forget about mental health checks? It is pretty clear to me that there are things that could be done. It is also clear though that irrational fear of the slippery slope stifles any meaningful discussion.

Wow! OK, OK, you guys win. You were right all along. Congratulations!! Now, can we have a discussion? The question is this. Where is this going? Can you look at the trajectory and see where this solution of more guns takes us? That may be better in a world where we all need to shoot it out with terrorists, but in the world where we have lots of mentally unstable people in our midst, that is a dangerous solution. I think we will see increased societal killings if everyone is armed too. Shootings over disrespect, jealousy, road rage, drunkeness, etc. Hell, I'd shoot several of you given the chance.....lol. Also, the reason we need good guys with guns everywhere, is because we have not been able to determine who should not have access to weapons. If we continue down this path, how do we not arrive in the world where we need highly armed guards everywhere?

I bet that answer felt good, huh? Made no sense but that's ok as long as it felt good.

You are promoting an unending arms race. At the same time you are fighting for your opponents' right to keep buying more weapons to use against you, more importantly, against all of us. This plan has an impact on the other citizens in this country and not in a good way. Just because some weapon may be available to a bad guy on the black market, that is a poor reason to make any weapon available to anyone on Amazon. If you make it easy, more bad guys will have more powerful weapons. Make it less easy.

You have to arm yourself to an extent that you enough to firepower to compete with the intruder, right? If that is right, why not consider ways of limiting the firepower available to future potential intruders? It seems to me that many enthusiasts are crossing their arms and saying, 'No, there is nothing that can be done. There is no control measure that is acceptable' Who here is in that camp?

I'm Dreaming of A White Christmas. That sounds like a good one to play.