Woman died on cannabis drug trial

Sativex is made from the cannabis plant A woman developed mental health problems and later died after taking part in trials of a cannabis-based drug, an inquest has heard.

Diabetic Rene Anderson, aged 69 from Sheffield, was taken to hospital after starting to take Sativex to see if it would relieve pain she was suffering.

The continuing inquest is expected to have implications for the use of drugs derived from cannabis.

Mrs Anderson, a retired supermarket supervisor from Silkstone Close in Frecheville, had been taking part in a trial supervised by diabetes expert Dr Solomon Tesfaye.

He told the court he wanted to investigate whether cannabis could provide useful relief from the severe pain experienced by diabetic neuropathy sufferers.

Sativex, which is not yet licensed in the UK but has been granted a licence in Canada, had shown good results in multiple sclerosis sufferers, Dr Resfaye said.

He was first aware of Mrs Anderson's case when her family complained about her mental problems just days after her treatment began.

The doctor said the dose of the drug, which is taken using an oral spray, was reduced but Mrs Anderson's daughter, Jackie Sadler, rang back two weeks later to tell of her mother's deterioration.

Sheffield coroner Chris Dorries heard how Mrs Anderson suffered a series of physical problems after she was admitted to hospital in October 2003, 23 days after starting to take Sativex

The coroner said the purpose of the inquest was to examine what links there were, if any, between the experimental treatment and the physical deterioration which led to Mrs Anderson's death.

I'm no hippy. I'm an extremely clean-cut guy sitting here wearing a suit and tie as I type this. I was a little mean with my post though. Sorry about that. The point I was trying to make was that marijuana grown indoors in Canada is no better than marijuana grown indoors here in the U.S.. Some of it is really powerful, some not so powerful. On average indoor grown product will be stronger though because growers can charge more for stronger stuff. Indoor growing is a costly, labor intensive process. Growing space is generally limited, as is the reach of the expensive grow lights, so to maximize profits they try to grow the best stuff they can grow. Pot is grown indoors just about everywhere, but there are a lot of places down in the U.S. where it makes more sense to just grow outdoors in our favorable climate or buy cheap commercial grade (usually Mexican) pot. There are a lot of places down here where indoor grown pot is rare simply because there is so much reasonable quality commercial grade pot at a tiny fraction of the price. Down south where I live indoor growing isn't that popular both because people aren't willing to pay four or five times as much or more for indoor grown product that isn't nearly as many times as strong, and because it is so hot for so much of the year down here that it would cost a fortune to cool the grow rooms with all the high wattage lamps and inefficient power ballasts used with indoor growing that jack the heat way up.

I don't believe a lot of this hype about marijuana being so much stronger than it used to be and I don't believe at all that marijuana grown indoors in Canada is better than that grown indoors here. I'm a middle-aged guy with kids and job that keeps me really busy. I stay away from pot nowadays, but I did smoke it when I was younger. I never was a "hippy" or even a major pothead, but I have smoked super powerful pot as well as that that would just give you a headache and a sore throat. The first time I smoked it was in 1978. It was some potent outdoor grown sinsemilla. There was a lot of strong pot and hash available back then. I smoked a little throughout the 1980's and 1990's as well, and even smoked some a couple of years ago at a class reunion with some old friends. From my experience I can tell you that there was always strong pot available. If it's gotten stronger on average over the years it hasn't been by that much. Although I will say that the percentage of stuff you wouldn't want to smoke like seeds, stems, and leaves found in bags of commercial grade did drop and more indoor grown marijuana did become available on the market.

But none of this really matters because even the strongest pot out there will not get you any higher than some decent commercial grade marijuana, you just might have to smoke a few more puffs of the weaker stuff. People are not getting any higher today than they were twenty or thirty years ago. Whether they are buying cheap Mexican pot for $25 a quarter ounce and smoking five or six or more puffs at a time or buying expensive indoor grown pot for $25 a gram and smoking a puff or two at a time, they end up with the same results. And people aren't generally smoking nearly as much of the expensive stuff as they would the cheap stuff because 1) it's just too expensive, and 2) not everyone is out trying to get just as stoned as they possibly can. People tend to have a level they like to reach, whether it's just the mild pleasant buzz state I liked, on up to a fairly heavy "stone." They tend to know about what it takes to get them to the level they want and they tend to quit when they get there. Even the ones who like to get really stoned don't often smoke much more than it takes them to get to that level because there seems to be a point you reach where you won't feel any different no matter how much more pot you smoke. Smoking more would be a waste, and most people don't want to waste pot they paid some ridiculous $25 a gram or something to buy.

All of this crap about today's "super pot" being so much worse for people than the stuff people were smoking twenty years ago is nothing but hype. It's just a way to con all of us older people who smoked pot when we were younger into believing what young people are doing today is so much worse than what we did ourselves. It's not. This is just more sham from the government, more hype to justify their policies and thwart those who want to see marijuana legal and regulated like alcohol.

Look closely at government numbers and you will see that tests results show that on average marijuana seized in this country is relatively weak. They'll make big claims about pot that is 25% or 30% THC. They'll say this Canadian or hydroponic pot they found is up to 25 or 30%, but they won't test it. They'll just infer that it is that strong even though if in fact any samples ever tested out that high only a couple have. The real truth is that indoor grown pot tends to test out at between 10% and 15% whether it comes from Canada or the US. Samples of all marijuana seized in the U.S. average about 5.2% THC, and this includes commercial grade along with indoor and outdoor sinsemilla. Sinsemilla has never averaged more than 13% or so in this country. According to the Marijuana Fact Sheet by the ONDCP it averaged about 9% THC a couple of years back when they last did the averages of seized samples. Commercial grade averages just under 5% THC. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the average of all types of seized marijuana is just 5.2% THC compared to just under 5% for commercial grade and about 9% for sinsemilla, that most of the pot on the market is lower potency commercial grade pot, not the expensive indoor grown stuff. Having a much higher percentage of indoor grown marijuana in Canada than here, no doubt the average potency of marijuana is higher in Canada than here, but like I said before that doesn't really matter that much because people tend to smoke less of the more powerful stuff anyway.

This was a long post, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying. Average potency of marijuana may be higher in Canada because a much greater percentage of that which is on the market there is indoor grown. Indoor grown pot in Canada is the same as indoor grown pot from the U.S. It all tends to be stronger than what the U.S. government calls "commercial grade," but that doesn't matter because people tend to smoke less of the more expensive more powerful stuff than they do of the cheaper weaker stuff.

Here's a little blip I found on a government website. Note that it says THC levels of indoor marijuana from the U.S. and Canada are typically under 15%. It's all the same stuff.

"Marijuana potency has increased; however, even with the advances in indoor cultivation techniques and marijuana production methods used throughout the United States and Canada (where much of the higher potency marijuana is produced), THC levels remain, typically, under 15 percent. Growers can and do produce marijuana with potency levels over 20 percent; however, not all growers have the capability or the determination either to produce top quality marijuana or to achieve the highest potential yield from their crops. Increasingly, organized crime groups in Canada and, to a lesser extent, the United States are becoming more involved in large-scale marijuana cultivation and are primarily interested in profits. It is unlikely that they will invest the care required to mass-produce top quality marijuana, particularly in the drying, manicuring, and curing stages of production. This trend should help to stabilize or further slow the rise in average potency levels."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/13846/marijuana.htm

From the same site: "The escalating prevalence of higher potency marijuana such as sinsemilla has resulted in an increase in average marijuana potency; however, high potency marijuana constitutes a relatively small portion of the marijuana available throughout the United States. Commercial-grade marijuana is the most widely available type throughout the country."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.