Michael Rack

As far as the pharmocology/physiology goes, it is well known that
inhalation (in many circumstances) delivers a rather high {*filter*}
dose quickly, as opposed to ingestion, which often delivers the
dose more slowly at first, and slowly builds {*filter*} levels.  

Another thing that is often overlooked is that {*filter*} has some
400 compounds that are smoked -- THC may be the most common or the
most "active," but it is quite possible it may react synergisticly
with another compound.  In any case, THC (Marinol) is not {*filter*},
and is no substitute for it.

The debate should not be "is it any good"?  A whole lot of us know
that it has remarkable medical benefits, efforts should be in the
area of effective delivery.  I guess we ought to change our laws
along the way.  I find it difficult to believe that there exist
people who could look me (or anyone) in the eye and tell them to
suffer.  I know full well there are folks like that, it's still
hard for me to believe though...

--

[X]               We are the Neanderthals of the future

The second is that there are quite a few active {*filter*} in {*filter*};
they're all much less active than THC, but they modify the high and the
medical effectiveness; most studies have shown {*filter*} to be more
effective than marinol. See _From Chocolate to Morphine_ (Weil & Rosen),
and _Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine_, (Grinspoon).

Jerry Stratton

------
"THC is in Schedule 2.  {*filter*} is in Schedule 1.  It's in Schedule 1
supposedly because it contains a drug called THC which is in Schedule 2.
However, if you take the THC out of {*filter*}, it's still in Schedule 1,
even though it's got its drug taken out of it, because it's the {*filter*}
that's the controlled substance, and that is the trick to a controlled
substance.  They could make Scotch Tape into a controlled substance."
          -- Laurence McKinney

An efficacious dose can often be achieved through inhalation, without
being debilitated by the drug. Conversely, the {*filter*}dosages available
will often debilitate the patient at effecacious dosage levels.

The problem here is that the amount you take is not as important as the
speed at which you take it. The inhalation absorbs faster than the drug
can be metabolized. The {*filter*}ingestion relies on overwhelming the
metabolic pathways to achieve the peak level of drug in the body. The
result is that the patient will be "wasted" on Dronabinol, instead of
functional but high on inhaled THC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wether we immoralists are harming virtue? Just as little as anarchists
harm princes. Only since the latter are shot at do they sit so securely
on their thrones. Moral: morality must be shot at."
         - Freidrich Nietzsche

: >since THC is available legally as a schedule 2 drug, why would it be
: >necessary to smoke {*filter*} to get relief from muscle spasms?  Is there
: >some major pharmokinetic difference between smoking {*filter*} and taking
: >THC pills orally?

: Yes. More specifically, the {*filter*}dosage required to reach the peak level
: of THC in the body is much higher than the inhaled dosage because of the
: difference in the absorbtion rates of the GI tract and the lungs. The
: inhaled dosage is much easier to regulate.

: An efficacious dose can often be achieved through inhalation, without
: being debilitated by the drug. Conversely, the {*filter*}dosages available
: will often debilitate the patient at effecacious dosage levels.

Okay, so why not put the THC in an inert propellant and stick it in
an inhaler, like the ones used for asthma medicine?  No need to make
the patient inhale all that smoke.

R
R

The other issue is that the {*filter*} plant is much cheaper than Marinol
for the patient.

: : >since THC is available legally as a schedule 2 drug, why would it be
: : >necessary to smoke {*filter*} to get relief from muscle spasms?  Is there
: : >some major pharmokinetic difference between smoking {*filter*} and taking
: : >THC pills orally?

: : Yes. More specifically, the {*filter*}dosage required to reach the peak level
: : of THC in the body is much higher than the inhaled dosage because of the
: : difference in the absorbtion rates of the GI tract and the lungs. The
: : inhaled dosage is much easier to regulate.

: : An efficacious dose can often be achieved through inhalation, without
: : being debilitated by the drug. Conversely, the {*filter*}dosages available
: : will often debilitate the patient at effecacious dosage levels.

: Okay, so why not put the THC in an inert propellant and stick it in
: an inhaler, like the ones used for asthma medicine?  No need to make
: the patient inhale all that smoke.

That's an excellent idea!

Peter

Ryan

I believe they're chloroflourocarbons.  NO is {*filter*}, {*filter*}..

Jeff