Merry Christmas
Posted on 12/12/2005 11:26:03 AM PST by minus_273
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.
She died in March 2004 from acute kidney failure.
The continuing inquest is expected to have implications for the use of drugs derived from cannabis.
Useful relief
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.
Admitted to hospital
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
These included pneumonia which culminated in her death five months later.
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.
The inquest, which began on Monday, is expected to last five or six days.
Anyone who aids and abets the use of illegal drugs is a druggie.
Nobody claims it's harmless.
What we say is "It's none of your business what I do inside my own home"!!
Is THAT so hard for you to digest.
Do ANY ONE of you WOSD'ers think that there is something YOU do that I might object to...maybe smoking, drinking, eating fatty food, not exercising, engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, eating fast-food, using chemical fertilizers, engaging in high-risk sports.
See ALL of these things have consequences. And, as ADULTS, we make choices. However, you folks seem to think your better and smarter than everybody else (typical for fascist liberals - which you are - cause there is no such thing as a "conservative drug-warrior". That is impossible. You merely come off - rightfully so - as "conservative hypocrites").
In addition, all WOSD'er are too stupid to realize that the difference between "high risk activities that are legal" and "high risk activities that are illegal" is an arbitrary distinction, made up by your government based upon who has bribed them with the most money. And, you guys, follow lockstep behind the fascists, spewing out lies, inaccuracies, fallacies and ignorance.
I, personally, think one of the most disgusting traits humans have is hypocrisy. And every WOSD'er I have ever know was and are the BIGGEST hypocrites out there.
You guys make Hillary look principled.
Bravo!!! - and 2112 right back at ya'
Yes.
Really? Usually there's one like these on every marijuana thread:
"Smoking anything is bad for your lungs, but other than that, pot is freaking harmless."
-- MadManDan, post #43
Maye the two of you pot lovers ought to get together to get your stories straight.
"What we say is "It's none of your business what I do inside my own home"!! Is THAT so hard for you to digest."
Well, yeah, it is. Because you're NOT "doing it in your home". Certainly the 800,000 pot smokers arrested last year weren't "doing it in their own home".
Oh, by the way. We are under no obligation to protect your right to do dope.
Next lie - ask the 800,000 not arrested in their homes. OK, how do you know "how many were arrested in their homes"... you don't you just throw out this figure as if it MEANS something. It doesn't The truth is, you think the Drug-nazis should be able to kick in my door and arrest me in my house for smoking pot - c'mon at least be honest about it - you HATE druggies ... damn the facts, damn the truth, damn the constitution - YOU hate them - they must be destroyed. In fact, you probably get so upset thinking about the druggies that you have to go have a beer and a cigarette to calm yourself down!!!!. Also, how many of those "800000" were USING the pot. Just like someone going to the liquor store, many of those folks were just taking it from one place to another.
Come up with something that isn't based upon pure ignorance and hatred, and I'll be glad to listen. Meanwhile, folks like yourself give the rest of the liberals all the ammunition they need to show what a bunch of Hypocrites the right-wingers are. Drug warriors are nothing but a zit on the face of the constitution.
That still leaves 799,998 potheads on the street with marijuana -- smoking, dealing, and transporting. Those that were caught, that is.
And we're arresting, what, 10% max? That means 8 million potheads walking and driving around in public. So much for your "It's none of your business what I do inside my own home".
Merry Christmas
Mellow out, dude. Take another hit of that kilo stash you are working on this week.
Either that or stay off the crack.
Marijuana does not impair the ability to drive.
So, to me, it is simple. Be consistent, Defend Freedom - no matter the form.
I think she's on the pot. She's taking the pot, and now she's on the pot. She's the pot-on head, because she took the pot and now she's on the pot, and pot-on heads are often on the pot.
Hi Laz!!
Hey! No dissin' on Band on the Run!
Besides, we're big pants people.
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.