https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...cal-called-cbd-can-no-longer-be-added-n968566
The city health department has ordered bars and restaurants not to serve CBD-infused edibles because the chemical has not been determined safe for consumption.
A key chemical in marijuana could spark trouble for a Brooklyn java joint owner who claims to be the first in New York City to have infused coffee drinks with the compound, cannabidoil, or CBD.
Ian Ford, proprietor of Caffeine Underground in the Bushwick section, said business boomed when he started selling CBD Coffee and Trippin’ Tea.
==================================================
CBD is sold in a number of states where its supposed medicinal properties are in demand. But no more in NYC - for the moment, at least.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569602/In conclusion, CBD safety profile is already established in a plethora of ways. However, some knowledge gaps detailed above should be closed by additional clinical trials to have a completely well-tested pharmaceutical compound.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...cal-called-cbd-can-no-longer-be-added-n968566
The city health department has ordered bars and restaurants not to serve CBD-infused edibles because the chemical has not been determined safe for consumption.
A key chemical in marijuana could spark trouble for a Brooklyn java joint owner who claims to be the first in New York City to have infused coffee drinks with the compound, cannabidoil, or CBD.
Ian Ford, proprietor of Caffeine Underground in the Bushwick section, said business boomed when he started selling CBD Coffee and Trippin’ Tea.
==================================================
CBD is sold in a number of states where its supposed medicinal properties are in demand. But no more in NYC - for the moment, at least.
FFS.
And nobody is going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars an FDA drug trial costs to prove something they cannot patent is "safe and effective." We know it's safe.
FFS.
And nobody is going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars an FDA drug trial costs to prove something they cannot patent is "safe and effective." We know it's safe.
I get a kick out of seeing the VA State house on TV. It reminds me of a business trip I took to Richmond to see a clinical researcher who had discovered a therapy, a chemical (vanillin) taken as a drug, that fixed sickle cell anemia. This condition affects black people & is caused by a mutation in the hemoglobin protein that arose in Africa because it makes the owner resistant to getting malaria. The company I worked for manufactured that chemical in huge amounts. But no one was interested in spending a penny on this because we couldn't enforce a patent on the use of this chemical as a drug because anyone could get it from China or elsewhere + getting it through the FDA & clinical trials would cost a fortune. This guy's building was just around the corner from the White House of the Confederacy. Took a walk to the State House & was only 10 feet or so from then Gov. Wilder out for a midday stroll. That was 25 years ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilder.
Vanillin & Sickle Cell: http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/bloodjournal/77/6/1334.full.pdf?sso-checked=true
FFS.
And nobody is going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars an FDA drug trial costs to prove something they cannot patent is "safe and effective." We know it's safe.
I had an argument with my father, who has an M.D. but ultimately went into the pharma business because there was no way to afford raising a family being a professor who saw patients on the side. He had no problem with full legalization of pot, but had a problem with docs prescribing it because it hadn't been through the FDA process (a process I'd heard many complaints about when he was working, but that aside....).
He didn't care for my points that, (a) nobody is ever going to put pot through that rigor for the same reason, (2) so many people have used it for so very long we can at least form some general safety conclusions even if it wasn't administered in a controlled setting, (3) there's no question it's safer than opioids, so why the hell not allow docs to prescribe it despite any remaining unknowns, (4) docs can already prescribe medicines for uses they aren't approved for....far more dangerous ones, and (5) how on Earth does it make sense to support full legalization for any purpose but oppose a doc saying "would you like to try this instead of morphine"? I mean...people know about medical uses already so why would it be worse for a doc to suggest trying it first for pain than someone to go out and do it to get stoned, or self-medicate for pain without doc advice?
Blech.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?