I know this has come about independently from Aukus but it’s hard not to see this through that lens. In the context of all troubles and uncertainty of Aukus this pops up and leaves us all wondering not just are the Aukus subs worth the cost but will they have any tactical value at all in 25y time

Just putting this here as several commentors seem to have misread my intention posting this here

Most responses here seem to assume that I’m opposed to medical marijuana, I’m not. I am in fact in favor of it’s use, appropriately, in select patients, as with any medication.

I also want to caution against conflating recreational use(which may be problematic but is usually fine) with medicinal use(which should be held to the highest standards of evidence as any medicine should).

Now, regarding the evidence to date, efficacy is well established for refractory epilepsy and spasticity in MS. It is quite well established to have a role in pain control. Evidence that it is superior to other treatments for anxiety is pretty scant, we hold antidepressants to a pretty low standard and cannabis fails to even be that good in the published studies.

In terms of safety we frequently see acute intoxication from prescribed cannabis and worsening of co-morbid mental health conditions is really common. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal pains are all fairly frequent and I have seen one case of psychosis from prescribed marijuana. What’s more, we see these more commonly in emergency departments, psych wards and GP clinics now that it is easily available from unscrupulous corporate owned clinics.

The article isn’t claiming that medical marijuana is inherently dangerous or that it doesn’t have a role in medicine. It states, correctly, that the TGA has never actually assessed the safety of the vast majority of products on the market. This is concerning for anyone who might want to prescribe these with confidence.

@givesomefucks@lemmy.world @wesker@lemmy.sdf.org @Taleya@aussie.zone @Randomgal@lemmy.ca

In my experience with people who have been prescribed cannabis according to this metric common side effects are acute intoxication and worsening of existing mental health issues. Uncommon side effects are diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain. Rare is psychosis, I’ve seen it once in maybe 200 patients but it’s probably not 0.5%.

We really need to define the risks if we’re going to prescribe cannabis at these volumes. Hence the call for TGA to investigate.

I would suggest that corporate practices going gungho prescribing medications without established safety data is more concerning than a potential prescriber impatiently waiting for the TGA to get their act together and assess these medications.

No, I believe I approach the literature with an open mind and while I don’t prescribe cannabis myself I do frequently refer patients who i think will benefit. The fact that there is legitimate use of cannabis in medical settings does not mean that it isn’t being over-prescribed and under regulated.

Incidentally the reason i don’t prescribe myself is purely as I don’t have capacity to add another string to my bow in my already busy practice.

I apologise for not being clearer. My point was that your calculation is wrong. You would need to calculate per patient which is not a published figure. Estimates are more like 1mil but I think that is based on faulty reasoning as my subjective experience is that most people remain on it for only a few months. Also that the vast majority of adverse events go unreported

I believe that ethanol infusion is still standard treatment for methanol poisoning but outside my expertise

Don’t get me started on antibiotic overprescribing.

deleted by creator

When prescribed as medicine, alcohol related adverse events are effectively zero

Do you think 13million individuals have cannabis prescriptions? Do you tink 100% of adverse events are reported? Do you think psychiatrists, emergency doctors and GPs who are reporting concerning rise in adverse events are lying?

I disagree, this wording from a professional organisation is concerning. The usual standard of evidence for medication is that the companies or organisations promoting provide proof of safety.

For example ANZCA (specifically the Faculty of Pain Medicine) state

There’s a lack of definitive evidence showing long-term opioid effectiveness for CNCP, and conversely, substantial evidence of potential harm. As a result, opioids should only be considered in exceptional circumstances—for example, when other treatments have failed and the pain is demonstrably responsive to opioids.

With regards to psychotropic med the RANZCP say

Medications should be part of a comprehensive care plan that emphasizes low doses, minimal number of agents, and the shortest effective duration. Explanation of risks, benefits, and off-label use must be delivered to both young patients and their guardians. Prudence and caution are essential, though when properly prescribed, these medications can significantly improve quality of life for youth with serious psychiatric conditions.

AMCA regarding the safety of cannabis say

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Whenever this is raised the argument about legalisation for recreational use is conflated. Alcohol, cocaine, oxycodone etc all have medicinal and recreational uses and we appropriately treat then differently.

If we are using it as medicine, at a minimum we should see prescription tracking and monitoring with implications for doctors prescribing inappropriately similar to the way we treat other medications with potential for abuse.

My opinion, for what it’s worth is that there should be legalised cannabis for recreational purposes.

What we definitely shouldn’t have is a situation where I am having people turning up to my clinic expecting a prescription for recreational doses of flower to smoke.

As a GP I know very few doctors who don’t accept that cannabis or cannabis derived products have a role to play in medicine. I know even fewer who don’t see the recent rapid explosion of cannabis prescribing as reckless and dangerous.

Its not necessarily clear from this article but all the NAPLAN data and other studies have shown that (in Australia) the school you attend has almost no influence on any valuable metric including academic success, long term income, self reported happiness etc. The factors that are most strongly predictive are parental income and parental education level. High-performing schools are just those that are in high income areas. It’s counter intuitive but it’s what the data reveals.

Review of outcomes across school sectors

Unless the public school has syringes in the sandpit save your money.

Obviously the “correct” amount of immigration is something on which reasonable people can agree but I’m curious where you get that 20-30% figure?

Thankyou. Fixed

The Eureka flag has a long history of being appropriated by anyone standing up to authority so it does at least make sense.

The red ensign is interesting, the article points out it was historically the civilian flag but to me it is the flag of the merchant fleet. This means that a flag that has been most used historically to signify obedience to and protection by Australian law despite not being in Australia has been appropriated by a sovereign citizens claiming that they don’t need to follow Australian law despite being in Australia.

:/

Murdoch is way off here. Even if we accept that the majority of protesters aren’t motivated by racism - I don’t accept that, but for the sake of argument - these protests drag the discourse to the right and make the fascists(I tried to type racists but autocorrect got it right this time) seem more reasonable.

I’ll concede that that is likely the case. The point remains it is an aggressively immoral way to structure a welfare organisation