> I'm sure your raging 9-year-old kid would chill out on a strong dose of heroin, too

Read what you've said again; do you realize how completely ridiculous this sounds?

A "strong dose" of heroin, to a 9-year-old who is opiate naive, will obviously not cause them to "chill out." It will cause them to horribly itch, turn green in the face, violently vomit, alternate between pouring sweat and feeling freezing cold, moan and cry, and finally lose consciousness and quite plausibly their life.

Cannabis, even at a very "strong dose," will cause none of this.

As plant medicines go, cannabis is something like a wonder drug at least in the limited sense that it is therapeutically active for a wide array of conditions at very, very safe doses.

There may be no other drug which is a candidate for relief for the symptoms described in the article and for which a trial regiment has such a low cost in terms of risk.

Heroin most certainly isn't one.

> Cannabis, even at a very "strong dose," will cause none of this.

It's ridiculous to compare cannabis to heroin, but it's still worth pointing out that giving a strong dose to someone who is 9 is a very bad idea that would probably be very unpleasant for the kid. There can be a tendency for people to overcompensate to "reefer madness" propaganda and tell people there are no issues with marijuana. It's probably a lot better than alcohol, but it's still a psychoactive substance that needs to be treated with respect.

Fortunately, the mother in this article seems to realize that and has put in a lot of effort into proper dosing:

>After the cookies finished baking, I’d taste a few crumbs and annotate the effects in a notebook. Often, I felt woozy. One variation put me to sleep. When I had convinced myself that a batch was okay, I’d give a cookie to my 9-year-old son.

It will for sure not be pleasant, but the kid would be back to normal in a day or so. It's not "probably a lot better than alcohol", it is empirically a lot better than alcohol. The amount of alcohol found in an average home could kill a 9 year old a few times over if consumed, the same can not be said for any amount of cannabis.

> giving a strong dose to someone who is 9 is a very bad idea that would probably be very unpleasant for the kid.

Absolutely - I hope my comment didn't read otherwise.

I'm just pointing out that the effects of a strong dose of heroin are nothing less than an urgent medical emergency and possibly a life-or-death situation.

The effects of a strong dose of cannabis are, as you say, likely to be quite unpleasant, but for other, less dramatic reasons.

Additionally, it is much, much easier to find a therapeutically effective dose of cannabis that is not unpleasant (or even otherwise noticeable) than with heroin or, for that matter, most other medical treatments. This is the killer feature of cannabis.

One could properly dose this 9-year-old and make him "chill out." I have no doubt that it is possible.

That said, I really agree with your argument. You make a great case for legalization that isn't merely "oh hur dur look how my child mellows out on weed." Thank you.

The case isn't "my kid mellows out on weed" it's "my kid has behavioral problems that prevent him from functioning at home & in school that are alleviated by weed".

The point, though, as I take it, is, would you be satisfied if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form?

> if someone took the time to isolate and synthesize the active ingredients in weed and made those available in prescription form

What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?

"What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?"

To a point, consistency. It might not even be pill form: vaporizers, inhalers, and other such things might work as well. It might be that the best way to do it is via hash instead of the unprocessed plant.

All that said, there is some concern with the synthetic. I have a feeling the very reason the plant works better is because of the high. For example, MS patients have problems with muscles. Patients report better mobility and less pain, yet the muscles don't actually improve. It seems it just doesn't bother them - and I imagine some of the synthetics wouldn't produce this effect.

It doesn't mean that synthetics won't work for some folks, though, and might be better for kids.

> What is the advantage of this over raw plant material?

Consistency.

In my experience (which is ample), consistency over the precise dosage != consistency over the effects. There's no doubt that consistency over dosage and precision is easier with isolated compounds.

However, if consistent effect is the goal, I want to suggest that oral administration is not ideal in the first place, and that oral administration of isolated chemicals even less so.

Achieving the latter is more accessible via slow, careful titration via vaporization or smoking of high-quality plant matter.

This is the case at least for me and people I know, including several patients with otherwise debilitating illnesses.

Additionally, I think that the ability to garden and grow medicines (not just cannabis, but plant medicines generally) is a great way for patients to gain some control (or at least the sense of control) over their illness. It also is often more economically viable as well.

It's been done already. The consensus, IIRC, is that it sucks compared to 'natural' forms, is too strong, lacks the 'secondary' active ingredients that many need/seek, and exists as a profit source and a source of control.

https://www.google.com/search?q=marinol&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

etc.

Yes and in fact we do basically give stimulants to roudy kids in the form of Adderall and Vyvance.

Adderall and Vyvanse are basically the same thing, it's just that Vyvanse is the prodrug form that can't be insufflated for quicker delivery. It'll be the same as it is orally.

Methylphenidate is a different beast altogether and not neurotoxic like the amphetamines are even though in therapeutic doses amphetamines are also extremely safe. The difference is that amphetamines are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and dopaminergic releasing agents while methylphenidate only inhibits dopamine reuptake alongside its effect as a CNS stimulant.

I agree with your main point but cannabis does make people vomit for sure. i saw it myself in college multiple times. Especially with large amounts of edibles and people's first time.

Heroin is not really a fair comparison. If you take away the pot, the kid won't get seriously ill from withdrawal symptoms. If you give too much pot, the kid won't forget to breathe and die. If it works for them, let them do what they think is best for their kid. The argument is basically there's an option that works for them, and causes little health complications. That it's "looked down on" means nothing. I'm sure talk therapy for mental illness was looked down on for quite a long time, and yet now it's a first line treatment with broad acceptance in popular culture.

I completely agree with you. Your argument stands much better than the one presented in this article.

The mother saw something in literature that made her think it could be useful, researched by going to a marijuana support group, talking to a Harvard professor/psychiatrist, and got clearance from her son's neurologist, then did methodical experimentation to find the right strain.

She didn't just wake up one day and say "hey! Let's give him a joint and see what happens!"

Which, I should add is pretty much how my sister came to use marijuana as medicine -- except she didn't live in a state where medical marijuana was legal, her teenaged son had a source. She was on treatment for an autoimmune disorder and on the days she took her meds, she was so nauseous that she couldn't get out of bed. Pharmaceutical anti-nausea meds (including $20/day Marinol) worked poorly or had unwanted side effects. Finally her doctor pointed her at a website and told her that he couldn't recommend it, but other patients had gotten relief from medical marijuana. And indeed, it made a huge difference for her.

Due to her illness, she had access to pretty much any narcotic painkiller she wanted, yet to gain access to marijuana, she had to ask her son to risk prosecution to buy it from a guy he knew from school.

Xanax would do the trick, but detox is horrible. I'm not sure about pot, obviously nothing close.

This article is propaganda. It doesn't contain any interesting data, just a rehash of the policy landscape and a single, heart string-tugging anecdote.

The data that backs this story up has been replicated and published for a long time. This is one family's experience, a transformative one for every member of the family. It's written not to provide scientific evidence but to communicate to those people who may still oppose marijuana liberalization and who don't even care about the data, which is clear cut and unmistakeable at this point.

Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.

Yet none of that data is presented in the article. That it exists doesn't improve the journalism here.

> Calling this propaganda is the height of ridiculousness.

You must have a poor imagination. There are cookies for that though.

This is published under opinions. Empirical evidence is usually more than enough for this section of 'journalism'.

I know it is fashionable to label articles propaganda, but the term gets thrown around lightly.

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

In what way is the article biased or misleading? It is clearly labeled 'Opinion'.

Not every article in a newspaper needs to meet the standards for an article in a peer-reviewed journal. There is a place for human-interest stories too.

Unfortunately, it's the heart string-tugging anecdotes that make policies happen in the US, not data.

After 80 years of ignoring the data, I do not know how else one would effect change other than employing the same tactics. Empirical data is available, anecdotal data is available, historical harm has accrued for non-violent "offenders". The rarely spoken facets of the hemp plant's superiority to pulp derived paper and cotton fabrics have been ignored for almost a century. Before "reefer madness" was invented, the aforementioned products couldn't compete, hemp was common and priduced superior products. The reasons for demonizing hemp, not marijuana, were economic forces and lobbyists pushing their agendas at any cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...

Storytelling probably wins over data everywhere there are people, and that probably can't be changed, barring genetic modification.

You might fight wars with data, but you win or lose them with propaganda. If the defenders wish to win the war on drugs, they must be willing to use at least as much propaganda as the attackers have used.

What data would this woman's experiment have produced that would improve this article in a meaningful way?

Propaganda is kind of a strong word.

I think your dismissal of the article as "propaganda" is nothing but trolling. Why do you think Cannabis should be illegal? Countless anecdotes have shown that cannabis works where other medicines don't. At what point should we drop this charade of a "war on drugs" and just accept that this plant has medicinal properties like no other?

Plainly I don't think it should be illegal, I was a medicinal marijuana patient for many years, as I said elsewhere in these comments. I don't think that a mother making cannabis cookies and eating bits of them to observe the effects, determine strain and dosage for her child is appropriate. Frankly that's embarrassing behavior for a college professor, somebody who ought to know better. If you're going to give a 9 year-old an MMJ recommendation/prescription, everything besides dose delivery should be managed exclusively by a doctor.

Outright prohibition isn't the answer, but the scatter shot of substitutes aren't correct either. Don't look for me to recommend the solution, I simply took issue with the Washington Post carrying this opinion piece which, frankly, glamorizes dangerous behavior.

And it's bullshit that you put words in my mouth. I never said cannabis should be illegal. "Trolling", really? Is that a byword for disagreement now? Please go harangue your DEA strawman somewhere else.

Perhaps you ought to reread the definition of the word you're confusing this opinion article with.

this is a false equivalency for two reasons: marijuana is not physically addictive, and THC doesn't have near the same capability to incapacitate people that heroin does.

"marijuana is not physically addictive"

As a lifetime medical patient, this is not entirely true. There are plenty of physical withdrawal effects. The primary one being headache and hypertension. Another one is lack of dreaming/REM sleep (as cannabis usage depletes your melatonin/serotonin levels, which effects your REM sleep.)

"THC doesn't have near the same capability to incapacitate people"

THC-Vivarin will hit you so hard I'd be surprised if you could remain standing despite the fact it only lasts for about 15 minutes.

"There are plenty of physical withdrawal effects. The primary one being headache and hypertension."

i don't know what you've been smoking, but as a daily "practically 24/7" smoker myself, i've never experienced any of these when i leave the country and go without cannabis for weeks (or months) at a time. for background: i smoke first thing when i wake up, and i pretty much take a hit from the bong every 30 mins as i work from home. my work and lifestyle allows for such frequent consumption. point i'm making is, i'm a very heavy smoker so i'm a reasonably good gauge for addictive potential.

every 6 months, i take a tolerance break by visiting family in another country. guess what happens when i go cold turkey during these visits? absolutely nothing. no shaking, no foaming at the mouth, no physical withdrawal whatsoever. do i get a little bit irritated if i think about how i can't get weed? sure. but if i choose not to think about it? i don't even notice anything different at all.

regarding the lack of dreaming, yes that may be true. however, as someone who also works out every day at the gym, i felt absolutely no difference in physical recovery nor mental recovery at all.

i think the point i'm making is: whatever "withdrawal" you're experiencing is entirely in your own head. you want to believe it's there, so it's there.

"i'm a very heavy smoker so i'm a reasonably good gauge for addictive potential"

Every human's body chemistry is different, so no, you are not a good gauge. To boot, I consume WAY MORE than you - I go through about 5-6 grams of concentrate a day. Get your leg replaced with titanium and plastic composites and see if your consumption doesn't jump up to really high levels due to chronic post-operative pain.

"every 6 months, i take a tolerance break by visiting family in another country."

Tolerance breaks simply aren't on the menu for me.

"i think the point i'm making is: whatever "withdrawal" you're experiencing is entirely in your own head"

Except I go to a doctor and they can physically measure everything, right down to my blood pressure, when I'm in withdrawal, and then watch everything change after I take a hit, so no, it's REAL.

Again, licensed MEDICAL patient. State card-carrying. I go to real doctors while you rely upon your own anecdotes.

>THC-Vivarin

Huh?

THC-Varin (stupid autocorrect on my phone from prior post) (AKA THC-V)is a highly-psychoative, hard-hitting THC homologue that is highly stimulating with very short duration of effect. High levels of this are present in African and Asian sativa strains. If you've ever taken a hit of stuff that got you high immediately, chances are you just had a quick THC-V dose from the strain. It lasts about 15 minutes, then fades away, leaving the normal delta-9 THC to do its thing for the next few hours.

Vivarin is brand of caffeine pill (haven't heard the name since the Nineties), I've not heard of combining it with THC.

Most good studies on THC are on adults/ developed brains. I'm not sure it's established yet that marijuana wouldn't cause a "physical" addiction if used in adolescence. It might be / hopefully is fine, but people shouldn't assume that just because cannabis is fairly harmless in adults it is also established to be safe for youth.

This. It is incredibly irresponsible to run the equivalent of clinical trials on your child. She pointed out a single medical study of cannabis for children that was a bust. Clinical trials are highly controlled and dosage is tiered for safety. Cowboy drug trials are dangerous and stupid. I don't care if it's cannabis, crack or aspirin. And she tested the cookies on herself to see if they were ok? Did she realize she was giving her child the equivalent of multiple times the dose?

I hope for her sake and her sons the long term effects on children are ok and that she isn't giving 10x the required therapeutic dose because she whipped it up in her kitchen.

All very easy to say, safely in your house away from your loved child in pain with 600+ violent outbursts a day.

Every parent has only one subject; every child raising is a trial. You only have one chance and have to choose one approach.

This drug is used worldwide by maybe a billion people. Scaremongering is unhelpful.

Cowboy drug trials on children are scary. No need for scaremongering.

Aspirin is used by billions of people and it's dangerous to give to children.

She obviously has no clue how to manage safe dosing for a trial and that is ignorant and dangerous.

Just because it's natural and everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's safe: hemlock is natural, "everyone" used to smoke cigarettes.

>Just because it's natural and everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's safe: hemlock is natural, "everyone" used to smoke cigarettes

But nobody is actually arguing that it's safe because it's natural. You don't have to, the data is conclusive: it is nigh on impossible to die of marijuana usage no matter what your age is. There are few other substances in a home that that can be said of.

Whatever you think the long term side effects would be it would seem pretty damn hard for them to outweigh the unceasing agony of this child's existence without marijuana. And as has been said numerous times before, everything major has already been ruled out so long term effects are not going to be catastrophic on the level of regret when you consider how much this child's quality of life has been improved.

Marijuana is used by millions of people and is probably safer than aspirin. Granted if you're breathing weed smoke instead of air 24/7 you probably won't fare too well but that's not what's happening here: small amounts, carefully tested on adults, of a substance scientifically believed to be safe. (which cigarettes never were on this order)

How about the 7 years of benefit? How about a child with a chance to grow up, who didn't have one before?

This was a desperate act, by a desperate parent who had been abandoned by a medical industry that's happy to lose a generation of sick children because hey! process.

The problem is that this drug is used worldwide as excuse to put in jail a lot of people also. Health issues aren't the only issues here to adress. This boy has now a bullseye painted publicly on his back and will be targeted in a few years by several kind of predators.

On the other hand, this "just put them to sleep all day" is a particularly outrageous "solution" for autistic children, that often are very smart and sensitive people and deserve to be respected and loved, as any other children.

>marijuana is not physically addictive,

One of my friends complained for months about headaches, loss of libido, tummy cramps while getting off of it after years of use.

On the other hand, marijuana has been used to treat those symptoms. It may be your friend had some other problem that was being masked by the prolonged marijuana use.

Or one of the other many reasons why there can be correlation without causation.

The headaches are caused by the brain not producing its own canabinoids due to the influx of outside cannabinoid sources.

Source - lifelong medical cannabis patient.

I've been physically addicted to alcohol and opiates, and also a long term daily marijuana user (currently over a year of sobriety from all drugs). THC has no physical withdrawal symptoms.

And I've been drinking alcohol every weekend the last 15 years. Your alcoholism is a myth because otherwise I would need alcohol right now. It doesn't really work that way.

There's a difference between physical and psychological addiction.

Currently we think cannabis is not physically addictive, and we think it might be psychologically addictive for some people.

People de-toxing from alcohol addiction can literally die if they do it wrong. That's never going to happen with cannabis.

I was drinking at least a fifth (750ml) of 40% abv spirits every day, doing at least 250mg+ oxy or equivalent in heroin, or smoking a gram or more of weed a day. Alcohol and opiates are physically addictive with very real withdrawal symptoms. Falling asleep was somewhat difficult for a couple days when I ran out of weed. Marijuana is not physically addictive.

Which is why the only drug I do is meth, since it's not physically addictive and actually makes me function better.

I love all these fallacious arguments by analogy. Just name the side effect of weed that you think is problematic, don't try to use some elaborate bait and switch to equivocate.

You mean Adderall? Millions of others do too.

No, methamphetamine is a legal treatment for ADHD and available at local grocery stores in the US: https://m.goodrx.com/methamphetamine

Tens of millions of dollars of meth are sold by pharma companies in the US each year.

But you do need a prescription?

You know heroin is a bit more addicting than marijuana and argument is that you can feed 9-yo with it and in case his other issues are solved he can stop with eating cookies. It is more like you have choice. Where with heroin you are robbed of that choice. Taking heroine is artificial choice by changed chemistry of your body not your free will or your comfort.

I understood from the article that the root cause of the problem was that the kid had pains. Due to his autism, he had problems communicating about his feelings and therefore the main manifested as rage. With small doses of cannabis the parents then managed to reduce the pain which then reduced the anger.

Technically, this isn't an argument for legalization, but an argument for medical use of synthetic cannabinoids. If research were not so difficult, you could treat this with a pill, which does nothing for all the other problems of the war on drugs.

"Technically, this isn't an argument for legalization, but an argument for medical use of synthetic cannabinoids."

Except synthetic cannabinoids have killed people. Marinol/Dronabinol has cost people their lives.

Is the article asking for legalization, of for proper controls of it to be used as a medicine? It is illegal for me to buy Heroine, but my doctor can prescribe me dia-Morphine which amounts to the same thing. Why stop something being used as a medicine because you don't want recreational use?

I prefer the moral argument that the government shouldn't tell you what you can do to your own body. I also prefer the ideology that states you shouldn't force your own opinions on others.

Whatever the argument is, I expect it to work as such: argmax substance: E[sum P(symptoms_i improves | substance, ailment)]. Heroin works great for burn victims, for instance..

Cannabis is a wonder drug. It makes people wonder about all kind of things. Like where they left the car keys. And why they left the refrigerator door open.

That's very specific to the cannabinoid THC. There are countless other healing cannabinoids that have no psychedelic or impairing effect, e.g. CBD, which is at this time probably the most studied non-THC cannabinoid.