Medical Marijuana herp derp

[Elite Engineer]

I didn't bother to look up the specific cannabinoids that reduce diskynseia nor the mechanism, but we all know that it works. To get around state laws regarding cannabis oil..why not just separate out the select cannabinoids that contribute to diskynseia reduction? I could probably do it in a university lab using a column in a day.

[John Cuthber]

"I didn't bother to look up the specific cannabinoids that reduce diskynseia"

Perhaps you should.

[DrKrettin]

There are around 66 different cannabinoids, and I don't think it is clear which ones have specific effects. Would you be able to select one of the 66 out, assuming you knew which one you were looking for?

[StringJunky]

I think the other problem is probably the ethics/law around human testing to isolate the desirable ones.

[Elite Engineer]

I think the other problem is probably the ethics/law around human testing to isolate the desirable ones.

I don't see the problem. Lots of people smoke cannabis, with little to no harmful effects . What's wrong with extracting certains fractions and studying the effects. Seems analogous to giving patients ethanol to see the effects of drunkenness.

There are around 66 different cannabinoids, and I don't think it is clear which ones have specific effects. Would you be able to select one of the 66 out, assuming you knew which one you were looking for?

Use different fractions and see which have the desired effects.

[StringJunky]

I don't see the problem. Lots of people smoke cannabis, with little to no harmful effects . What's wrong with extracting certains fractions and studying the effects. Seems analogous to giving patients ethanol to see the effects of drunkenness.

Use different fractions and see which have the desired effects.

It's not what you think or I think what matters, it's the people that decide these things. Besides, lots of people have suffered harmful effects. My short term memory is pretty f**ked and I experience bouts of paranoia. I was a heavy user/abuser, but even so, it is not a benign substance, it can just take longer than other substances to show pathological effects.

[EdEarl]

IDK all the rules for human testing, but whoever participates must volunteer without being pressured, and must be able to stop being a test subject at any time. In the US, law not ethics would prevent testing, I think.

[CharonY]

I don't see the problem. Lots of people smoke cannabis, with little to no harmful effects . What's wrong with extracting certains fractions and studying the effects. Seems analogous to giving patients ethanol to see the effects of drunkenness.

Use different fractions and see which have the desired effects.

 

First, you'll have to develop a method to successfully fractionate the components and characterize the content of each fraction, otherwise the exercise may be rather useless. Second, you have to ensure that either the extraction method is safe (many involve harmful solvents) or that there is a subsequent purifcation process that is safe. This step often involves animal models. Third, you have to ensure that each fraction contains reproducible quantitative composition. Fourth, every human study, even those that do not satisfy the rigour of a clinical trial, require a review by an ethics board and the informed consent of the participant.

 

I.e. overall a suitable animal model would be preferred over human studies. There is, however, the big issue that the effect may not be down to a specific compound but potentially requires several found in the extract. In that case you would invest a lot of effort into finding something that works less well.

I have no idea how any of this has anything to do with getting around state law as per OP.

Edited December 1, 2016 by CharonY

[Elite Engineer]

 

First, you'll have to develop a method to successfully fractionate the components and characterize the content of each fraction, otherwise the exercise may be rather useless. Second, you have to ensure that either the extraction method is safe (many involve harmful solvents) or that there is a subsequent purifcation process that is safe. This step often involves animal models. Third, you have to ensure that each fraction contains reproducible quantitative composition. Fourth, every human study, even those that do not satisfy the rigour of a clinical trial, require a review by an ethics board and the informed consent of the participant.

 

I.e. overall a suitable animal model would be preferred over human studies. There is, however, the big issue that the effect may not be down to a specific compound but potentially requires several found in the extract. In that case you would invest a lot of effort into finding something that works less well.

I have no idea how any of this has anything to do with getting around state law as per OP.

I know the whole process for drug development (preclinical phase, phase 1). Lots of drugs are given rigorous observation before their cleared..I'm sure the cannabinoids in marijuanna would be relatively straightforward. It's not like the pharmaceuticals that have dozens of negative side effects, and have o eb tested for safety. We know most of the pathways for the natural cannabinoids. As far as the extraction process, I can imagine couple of ways to cut down on harmful solvents to extract the first couple of fraction (i.e. supercritical CO2). Then when you need to use solvents, just carry out good QC. This all seems over the top from a substance that we know a fair amount about.

 

I have no idea how any of this has anything to do with getting around state law as per OP.

Some states don't allow medical marijuana because of the THC component, as it is a schedule I drug. I'm thinking, why not extract the beneficial cannabinoids and exclude the THC, to get around legal issues.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[CharonY]

That does not address the issue. The limitations include all material that contain the drug, i.e. obtaining the plant will fall under the same limitations, which is one of the hindrances of research on their effects. Fractionation will not solve this issue (method development would surely take longer than "a day").

 

However, if you think about isolating cannabinoids from other plants, that has actually being done, but I am not sure whether they are past the preclinical. In that context usually there are only very few shortcuts in the testing that you are allowed to make in the development of drugs and stating that it should be fairly safe is to my knowledge not something that they accept. Especially considering the effort you have to put in even if just change the formulation a bit. I.e. for anything that is supposed to show medical efficacy you have to go (and document) the full mile. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I have only a passing familiarity with the regulatory details.

 

Another option that is being explored is to find other compounds that can effectively target the same receptors as cannabinoids do. While there is a bit of research out there I am not sure how close they are to clinicals.

 

Also of course there are components being tested currently, including CBD, but afaik it has not shown efficacy for dyskenesia.

Edited December 1, 2016 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

"I didn't bother to look up the specific cannabinoids that reduce diskynseia nor the mechanism"
Is there any sound medical evidence that any cannabinoids actually do this?

[Elite Engineer]

"I didn't bother to look up the specific cannabinoids that reduce diskynseia nor the mechanism"

Is there any sound medical evidence that any cannabinoids actually do this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739835, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12465055..and a few others.

 

 

We may not know the exact cannabinoid that does this, but we can find it.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[John Cuthber]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739835, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12465055..and a few others.

 

 

We may not know the exact cannabinoid that does this, but we can find it.

Based on that paper it's the cannabinoid receptor that's responsible, in which case good old THC should work. The good news is that many people have been (at least crudely) extracting that for ages.

Some people might not be happy with the side effects.

 

Now do you see why I asked "which cannabinoids" in the first place?

[Elite Engineer]

Now do you see why I asked "which cannabinoids" in the first place?

I see why now. I swear I read a paper or article about the non-psychoactive cannabinoids that treat dyskinesia.

[John Cuthber]

I see why now. I swear I read a paper or article about the non-psychoactive cannabinoids that treat dyskinesia.

http://xkcd.com/285/

[Elite Engineer]

http://xkcd.com/285

ya ya ok..