home

Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:30:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Canada has approved the use of Sativex, a liquid form of marijuana that is sprayed inside the mouth. It has been found to be an effective pain reliever for those suffering from multiple sclerosis.

The action marks the first time a natural marijuana product has been approved for prescription sale anywhere in the Western Hemisphere since marijuana prohibition was instituted in the last century.

Rob Kampia of Marijuana Policy Project adds,

Sativex is, for all practical purposes, marijuana in liquid form. Made from marijuana plants bred for specific levels of various active components, called cannabinoids, Sativex resembles marijuana extracts and tinctures that were legally available in the United States -- manufactured by major drug companies and sold through pharmacies -- until the federal government banned marijuana in 1937.

In clinical trials, Sativex relieved MS-related pain and sleep disturbance that were not helped by standard drugs, with remarkably few side effects.

< Muslim-Americans Sue U.S. Over Detention, Fingerprint Policies | Judge to Accept Moussaoui Guilty Plea Friday >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada | 29 comments (29 topical)
    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:40:21 AM EST
    Yes, this is good news for many people, but do you think bush will allow something that help's people here, in our land of freedom? if some poor person is found with that inside the land of freedom, that person may get up to 1000 years in prison, and be called a terrorists at that.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#2)
    by Johnny on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:40:27 AM EST
    "Remarkably few side effects" No munchies? Still, a positive sign.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    This product makes perfect sense as the only way the U.S. government will allow the plant to be grown and sold in this country...in a processed, copywrited form that some large company can profit off of. You still won't be able to grow the damn plant in your backyard because that will be cutting into their profits.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#4)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    “The action marks the first time a natural marijuana product …” Why make the distinction between synthetic and natural?

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    ...in a processed, copywrited form that some large company can profit off of.
    if i may be so bold as to speak for the mj smokers of america, "we are not opposed to a company and/or government (taxes) making profit off the sale and/or distribution of marijuana!

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    Pig, part of the thrust of Uncle's (lame) rantings against home-grown medicinal cannabis is that the 'crude drug' can't match the much touted bennies of the (corporately derived) synthetic THC product Marinol. This is like saying you can't strip white willow bark off the tree and make a tea with it to cure a headache, when the primary ingredient of aspirin was just that - white willow bark. (Nowadays there's no derivations from white willow; it's all synthesized.) Another shameless bid by Big Pharma to undercut competition, aided and abetted by Uncle's taxpayer funded bureaucrats under the guise of law enforcement and faux concern for the suck- uh, er, the public's welfare. Otherwise, legal ramifications aside, it would just be another so-called 'orphan drug' the Big Pharma boys can't make any money off of.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    This really isnt on topic - - but I was at NORML's annual conference in San Fran a few weeks ago - - and Rob Kampia was there speaking on marijuana initiatives sponsored by MPP in various locations...and well...does anybody else feel that this guy is a total tool? He was seen talking to a few well known drug reform advocates but for the most part just kinda walked around with a self important smug look on his face that reminded me of a certain president...at any rate, I appreciate what MPP's money can do but I wonder if they really have the marijuana consumer's best interests at heart. And this Sativex news has been around for awhile ever since GW pharmacuticals in Britain got rolling. Congressman constantly rail against never having an approved "smoked" medicine..which makes some intuitive sense- but there have been vaporizers around for years so technically you dont have to inhale all the "smoke" anyway. Perhaps this sativex will further shed some common sense on the real possibility of medical marijuana on politicians although i find that "highly" unlikely. Regardless of all that, Happy 420 everybody.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    I consider Rob Kampia a friend. I have known him since 1996 when he came to the House Judiciary Committee hearing where both Keith Stroup of NORML and I testified on marijuana laws. He works tirelessly for marijuana reform. He is not a tool but a committed activist. Your impressions are really unfounded. Maybe you were having a bad day. NORML and MPP are both great organizations. They are different, particularly in that MPP is funded by one large donor (no, not George Soros.)and has a lot more money to spend on promoting legislative initiatives. Information about Sativex has been around for a while but it was only yesterday that Canada approved it. It's a big story in Canada today. MPP's release is very timely.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    If you have a vessel of compressed hydrogen gas and another of oxygen you haven't got water, you have hydrogen and oxygen. When you have a sticky bud of home-grown of you know what, the sum of the whole is greater than its parts. Sativex, Marinol and whatever are only a 'reasonable facsimile thereof'. ecce granum

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    Boy I'll drink to this one. I get hungry just reading about slo stoned gin, Maryjane Margaretas, Rum and stoked, a Vodka Stash. I also wonder what would happen if you watered you Pot plant with Liquid Marijuana. Canada is lookin better and better just a few more Earth warming degrees and I'm outa here.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    Come on I thought I was pretty funny! :)

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#12)
    by roger on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    Ed, You forgot the Vodka Chronic!

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#13)
    by Wes on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    Hey Ed, How about Pot-Buttered Rum. Sweet!! Now that was funny, not quite up to par with the Vodka Chronic, but a pretty worthy stab anyway.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    Green Goose Sambudca Rebel Smell

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    Rum & Toke

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    Just give me a Sufferin' Bastard and I won't complain.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    "Posted by pigwiggle: "Why make the distinction between synthetic and natural?" Synthetic isolates are not natural plants, whose chemistry is usually extremely complex. Cannabis is a highly complex plant. It is not like ephedra, which has a fairly simple alkaloid, or opium, which is similarly alkaloidal, and not much else. Cannabis has at least two major classes of chemicals, and the isolates focus on one part of one class. But the actual chemistry of the plant is HUNDREDS of chemicals, with the effects of variation of that chemical balance being very poorly understood. Most of medicine is CLINICAL. It is based on observed side-effects. It is not pure science, but rather long practice. Most drugs have never been studied (other than clinically) in the combinations in which they are commonly prescribed. And new drugs are no more safe for being understood in a test tube. It has to be tested in life. Celebrex (et al.) is a synthetic isolate of ginger rhizome. The natural plant has no side-effects; the synthetic isolate damages the liver and has killed quite a few people. The same results may be expected from other synthetic isolates. The whole plant has been bred for ten thousand years to do its stuff, without hurting the breeders. Whole plants (or whole plant parts) contain buffers, both synergists and antagonists. Remove those buffers at your own risk. Or, in the case of corporations, for profit, screw the public.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    Oh, and it has been pointed out, today is 4-20. (supposedly the day Abbie Hoffman first took LSD; since slang for drugs).

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#19)
    by Johnny on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    Also supposedly the time everyone would start toking up before a Grateful Dead show...

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#20)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    “The whole plant has been bred for ten thousand years to do its stuff, without hurting the breeders.” You certainly can’t say this; we have no idea what effects there may be. I for one think that my admitted overindulgence for the past 15 years may have crippled my memory. It matters little to me how positive or negative the effects are. I don’t think the FDA or anyone else has solid moral grounds for depriving folks of their freedom to use whatever they please. A prescription should be a recommendation; all drugs should be available to adults over the counter, use at your own risk.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 06:30:43 PM EST
    Talkleft: I appreciate any and all who work on behalf of drug law reform - so I thank you and Rob and Keith etc... I based my remark on the fact that much touted "drug law reform" legislation seems to follow a pattern: it trades reducing or eliminating certain categories of penalties - such as for simple possession - while at the same time increasing penalties for other type of offenses. Without outright legalization - where is everybody supposed to get the weed? ? Am I going to be allowed to have it but not grow it? Or buy it? There would still be wasted gov't resources, violations of 4th amendment...the same sorta stuff we fault prohibition for in the first place. MPP sponsored one such type bill. Im sure they will do others in order to appease legislators. Im not much for appeasing to the G on this issue. Thats all. We all have our own take on this and I dont have the financial backing to lobby myself - - so I thank Rob for his actions. No hard feelings. You have to admit he is kinda goofy looking though. lol. J/K

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    Posted by pigwiggle: “The whole plant has been bred for ten thousand years to do its stuff, without hurting the breeders.” "You certainly can’t say this;" I certainly can. You however can misinterpret what I said to mean that these efforts were inherently successful, which is not what I meant or implied. All I meant is that the long 'clinical' testing which goes along with long breeding, is the SAME guarantee on safety as both the combinations of Rx drugs in long use, or the health effects of individual drugs in a population over time. There are NO records, for instance, of fatal cannabis doses in the literature (that I am aware of). They are not likely to appear at this late date. "we have no idea what effects there may be." That is entirely untrue. There MIGHT be some danger not discovered in billions upon billions of uses; but it is unlikely. So we have a definite idea. " I for one think that my admitted overindulgence for the past 15 years may have crippled my memory." Though some short-term memory loss is considered a norm for heavy cannabis use, that just begs the question of what THIS use of your brain has given you, as a trade-off on that effect. It is also possible that another herb or combination of herbs, properly-chosen, could restore this detriment. In other words, that might not be permanent. You might try a regular dose of wheatgrass, see if that helps. Or alternately a good B-vitamin supplement. That's just not the kind of side-effect that is being discussed. "It matters little to me how positive or negative the effects are. I don’t think the FDA or anyone else has solid moral grounds for depriving folks of their freedom to use whatever they please." Oh, I utterly disagree. The issue is not individual use, or shouldn't be. It is MASS use. The FDA has a legitimate and crucial function in protecting our medical and alimentary systems. Before the Rx-lobbyists took over, the FDA had a pretty good track record with plants, in part because of the efforts of the otherwise execrable Orin Hatch (who was representing herb manufacturers). " A prescription should be a recommendation; all drugs should be available to adults over the counter, use at your own risk." Wow. That's outright ridiculous. Should manufacturers be able to sell appliances that are not UL listed and might electrocute the casual user? No. I agree with you about non-prescription materials, but you take it too far if you think Rx drugs aren't flat-out dangerous.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 10:46:44 PM EST
    S**t I forgot what I was going to say.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 06:56:45 AM EST
    “but you take it too far if you think Rx drugs aren't flat-out dangerous.” Right, folks should be free to be self-destructive. Folks will chose to do things that you think are absurd or otherwise harmful. Eat fatty foods, smoke, drive without seatbelts, recreationally or habitually take drugs, ride bicycles at night, and so forth. You are advocating that the feds have a legitimate reason for depriving an individual of their freedom. Why; to protect them. Thanks, but no thanks. Where do I opt out? “Should manufacturers be able to sell appliances that are not UL listed and might electrocute the casual user?” Yes. If you are as cautious as I you wouldn’t purchase appliances that didn’t comply voluntarily with a given standard. Consumers should have legal recourse for purchasing a product that was misrepresented as safe. I appreciate the concern, but life is too short and death too final for you to be using the violence of the state to mess around in my business for what YOU consider my best interest. Have you been struck by the irony that you are supporting the same position that is being used to deprive you of the freedom that you are simultaneously advocating? Look, my best interest is solely my concern, but out.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 07:17:00 AM EST
    Step in the right direction. It recognizes the medicinal use of some of the compounds and their lack of significant side effects. At some point we may recognize that there is no reason for mj to be illegal. It's a stupid and expensive prohibition. You want to grown your own and smoke it? Why should that matter to me? I have enough libertarian leanings to support marijuana decriminalization.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    Well said pigwiggle

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    Hillarious, pig and kdog. "Consumers should have legal recourse for purchasing a product that was misrepresented as safe." Really! So you are in favor of millions of additional lawsuits, after millions of additional inadvertent deaths, because government shouldn't regulate ANYTHING. Not only that, but patently unsafe products have a right to be on the market, provided the people who used it haven't sued the company out of existence. It's right there in print for everyone to see, how idiotic your irrational views really are.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 06:55:49 AM EST
    Whatever Paul. Say I have a toothache, I'd like some Vicodin to ease the pain. So I have to go pay a dentist to sign a piece of paper so big brother will let me buy it. It's assinine. I'm an adult, supposedly living in a free country, capable of making my own decisions about what I put in my body. I don't want or need a nanny to "protect" me from myself. Maybe you do. Here is a novel idea...if you are not sure if a product is safe, don't use it. Take responsibility for yourself. As it is now, with all our regulations and prohibitions, faulty products still make it to the market. This is why we have courts. I doubt giving people more freedom will lead to millions of lawsuits, and if so I can live with that. Bottom line...I'm sick of being treated like a child, or an idiot uncapable of making it through life without rerstrictions on my freedom.

    Re: Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    “unsafe products have a right to be on the market, provided the people who used it haven't sued the company out of existence.” Not anymore than now. If a company produces an unsafe product they can sell it as long as they disclose the hazard, given that it is known. Tobacco for instance, or alcohol, or saccharine, or fireworks, or marijuana, whatever. You are aware that smoking marijuana can be as bad or worse than smoking tobacco, of course depending on the method and amount, right? “So you are in favor of millions of additional lawsuits, after millions of additional inadvertent deaths, because government shouldn't regulate ANYTHING.” Well, most regulations are in place to protect business interest by restricting competition. Anyway, if protections for corporations were removed there would really be no incentive to knowing sell harmful products and further misrepresent the potential for harm. There would be no profit. Would you invest in a company that didn’t rigorously test its products if you knew you could be held liable proportionate to your investment, not to mention risking the initial investment? Of course not. Kdog- “I'm sick of being treated like a child, or an idiot uncapable of making it through life without rerstrictions on my freedom.” Indeed; me too.

    Liquid Marijuana Approved in Canada | 29 comments (29 topical)