Pure and Organic CBD & and Hemp Products

Effective medicine provided by mother nature

  • Powerful relaxant

  • Strong painkiller

  • Stress reduction
  • Energy booster

Why CBD?

More and more renowned scientists worldwide publish their researches on the favorable impact of CBD on the human body. Not only does this natural compound deal with physical symptoms, but also it helps with emotional disorders. Distinctly positive results with no side effects make CBD products nothing but a phenomenal success.

This organic product helps cope with:

  • Tight muscles
  • Joint pain
  • Stress and anxiety
  • Depression
  • Sleep disorder

Range of Products

We have created a range of products so you can pick the most convenient ones depending on your needs and likes.

CBD Capsules Morning/Day/Night:

CBD Capsules

These capsules increase the energy level as you fight stress and sleep disorder. Only 1-2 capsules every day with your supplements will help you address fatigue and anxiety and improve your overall state of health.

Order Now

CBD Tincture

CBD Tincture

No more muscle tension, joints inflammation and backache with this easy-to-use dropper. Combined with coconut oil, CBD Tincture purifies the body and relieves pain. And the bottle is of such a convenient size that you can always take it with you.

Order Now

Pure CBD Freeze

Pure CBD Freeze

Even the most excruciating pain can be dealt with the help of this effective natural CBD-freeze. Once applied on the skin, this product will localize the pain without ever getting into the bloodstream.

Order Now

Pure CBD Lotion

Pure CBD Lotion

This lotion offers you multiple advantages. First, it moisturizes the skin to make elastic. And second, it takes care of the inflammation and pain. Coconut oil and Shia butter is extremely beneficial for the health and beauty of your skin.

Order Now

What Is A Stroke?




  • Navigating Cannabis Options for Chronic Pain
  • Medical Perspective
  • Share your pain. Arthritis patients discuss marijuana, what works for them, questions, funny and heartfelt. What is the most effective pain reliever for arthritis? Arthritis patients are often told to keep moving. You'll want to talk to your doctor or the medical experts at a medical cannabis Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!. Pain management for conditions like arthritis is a. Talk to a healthcare practitioner before your pain gets out of control. Medical cannabis Unfortunately, when many patients hear the phrase “medical cannabis,” the first thing that comes to their mind is smoking. Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!.


    Other studies suggest that smoking cannabis produces rapid effects, while oral forms take longer to work but may last longer. Strains of cannabis may come with names like Purple Diesel and Blue Sky. A study out of Washington state found that commercial Cannabis strains fell into three broad chemotypes chemically distinct plants that otherwise appear indistinguishable that were defined by the THC: The best advice is to read the label and understand it.

    Bearman is also the co-founder of the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine, and a board member of Americans for Safe Access — a national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research,and of Patients Out of Time — a Virginia-based nonprofit that works to educate all disciplines of healthcare professionals, the legal profession, and the public about medical cannabis.

    It's also important to know that dispensary cannabis is not regulated by the FDA so what you get in one state, or at one time, may be different from another. Medical cannabis is currently legal in 31 states, many of which require patient registry or identification cards for the purchase and use of the substance for specific diagnosed medical conditions. These conditions differ by state and continue to change. In 24 of the states with legalized cannabis, some type of product testing is required.

    California, for example, requires dispensaries to sell only marijuana that has been tested for pesticides, contaminants, and microbial impurities. This information is included on the product label. Where does this leave chronic pain patients interested in trying medical cannabis? For those with concerns about the psychogenic effects, he recommends starting with a one-to-one ratio of THC to CBD for chronic pain. For pain relief, he recommends a dose of 15mg THC 0.

    The key to using medical cannabis for pain is two-fold. For starters, a personalized approach is needed. Each person is different, and many adjustments may be needed to zero in on the dose that controls pain with minimal side effects. Bearman said he also prescribes dronabinol, the man-made or synthetic THC, for some patients.

    Specifically, because dronabinol is regulated by the FDA and must meet purity and manufacturing standards, he knows exactly how much THC a patient is getting. Be sure to talk with your doctor about the right dose and route of administration before taking any prescribed of dispensed medical cannabis product for pain relief or related symptoms. Note that Medicare does not cover the product; check with your insurer for other program coverage. Read more about CBD Oil and its risks on our sister publication.

    Have you tried medical cannabis for your chronic pain? Did it work to relieve your symptoms, improve your sleep, or control any anxiety? Share your experience with ppmeditorial verticalhealth. We will contact you in advance if we are able to publish your story. Join the patient community. Find a Specialist Search our comprehensive list of medical professionals who treat chronic pain.

    Navigating Cannabis Options for Chronic Pain. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for research. New Jersey is one of the few states on the East Coast to approve legislation for medical marijuana, and has implemented more restrictive measures than original states like Arizona and California.

    According to New Jersey law, doctors are only allowed to prescribe marijuana for a set list of serious illnesses. Patients are forbidden from growing marijuana and using it in public, and are limited to two ounces of marijuana per month.

    These restrictive laws have attempted to eliminate the loopholes seen in other states where marijuana crackdowns have occurred. Ever since the implementation of the guidelines set forth by states like Arizona and California, there has been a movement toward increasingly strict laws.

    As more states continue to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana, it would appear that the issue has become less about the medical issues, and more about the political implications. The legalization of medical marijuana invokes various fields of law. First and perhaps most obviously, is criminal law. As a Schedule I drug [ 64 ], the most serious classification under the current federal regime, marijuana is heavily regulated at the federal, state, and local levels.

    Second, issues of administrative law are raised by the rights of states to engage in rulemaking and pass legislation that is adverse to well-established federal criminal law precedent. Finally, health law is implicated. At its core, the legalization of medical marijuana presents a centuries-old struggle between federal and state rights. As explored in considerable detail herein, since the founding of this Nation, states have sought to govern their residents in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of that particular state and without interference from the federal government.

    Even today, the distinction exists. Take for instance, Delaware and its pro-corporate laws which attract countless Fortune companies to incorporate there [ 65 ]. While all but a few of the companies are headquartered in other states, they come to Delaware for its generous tax structure and well-established corporate case law.

    If Congress were to federalize corporate law, Delaware would certainly argue that the government was infringing on its rights as a state. Congress, in enacting the CSA, recognized that although many controlled substances have a beneficial medical purpose, such purpose does not outweigh the important societal concern of conquering drug abuse and the legitimate and illegitimate trafficking of controlled substances. In particular, Congress made the following finding: So how are states permitted to enact legislation that so clearly runs afoul of established federal law?

    The answer to that question is complex and developed herein. The United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of legal matters in the Nation, has taken on the issue of medical marijuana only once. In , the case of Gonzalez v. Angel Raich and another woman named Diane Monson were California residents who were prescribed marijuana by their licensed, board-certified family practitioners to alleviate pain associated with a myriad of medical conditions. Monson grew her own marijuana, while Raich relied on caregivers to provide hers.

    Nonetheless, federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants as a violation of the CSA. Monson joined with Raich to bring an action against the Attorney General of the United States [ 69 ] prohibiting the enforcement of the CSA for personal medicinal use provided by state law.

    At the District Court level [ 70 ], the District Court denied their motion for an injunction a legal action effectively halting, in this case, government conduct. The Supreme Court, in a divided decision, reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the federal government is acting squarely within its rights to criminalize the manufacture and possession of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

    That power is known as the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court, citing a opinion [ 73 ], held that the federal government may regulate any activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the federal government had to satisfy only the most-minimal burden of proof to determine that an activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the case of medical marijuana, the Supreme Court held that difficulties in distinguishing locally-cultivated and marijuana grown elsewhere, coupled with concerns of diversion into illicit channels, that the federal government met its burden for believing that the failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would frustrate the Congressional intent of the CSA.

    Finally, the Supreme Court made clear that the fact that Raich and Monson used marijuana medicinally made no difference. Nonetheless, states continue to pass such laws. Thus, the tension between state and federal rights is ever-apparent.

    What many people do not realize, and it is unclear to what extent even prescribing physicians are aware, while a state law may legalize medical marijuana within a particular state, federal regulations — including criminal and civil penalties — still apply. Moreover, prescribing physicians must be cognizant of patients who reside, or even frequently travel to, a state other than that in which the physician practices or is licensed.

    Further complicating this legal quagmire of state versus federal rights concerning the legalization of medical marijuana is that in October , Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memorandum that the Department of Justice would stop enforcing the federal marijuana ban under the CSA against people who act in compliance with state medical marijuana laws.

    The practical effect of the memorandum is only to delay the unresolved tension between state and federal rights in this area, as absent enforcement, the Supreme Court will not have another attempt to further develop its holding in Raich. In other words, it is just another hurdle in clearing the way to a decisive legal position in the matter. Finally, the dispute between state and federal governments is not the only obstacle to a clear understanding of the legal status of medical marijuana.

    As discussed in the previous section, some local governments cities, counties, etc. City of Anaheim that the City has the legal right to ban all medical marijuana dispensaries within the boundaries of the City. The Court in QPA v. Anaheim noted that Art. One such permitted ordinance is that which abates a public nuisance. It is important to note that this is a decision at the trial court level which has no precedential value on anyone except the parties involved.

    It is likely that the proponents of the dispensaries will appeal to the appellate court and, if necessary, supreme court, where a decision would have a more widespread effect. From a health law perspective, physicians must carefully balance their medical and ethical responsibilities to their patients, with their own moral and legal responsibilities in following the law of the land.

    Although plausible after Raich , it is currently unclear to what extent a prescribing physician could be criminally charged with drug trafficking under the CSA or to what extent medical malpractice is implicated if a physician prescribes medical marijuana to a patient without explaining the possible legal consequences.

    If this analysis has shown anything, it is the paramount importance that prescribing physicians and patients alike are aware that the legal status of medical marijuana, despite the laws of sixteen states and the District of Columbia, is entirely unresolved. Society, in general, has always recognized that in our complex world there is the possibility that we may be faced with a situation that has two consequences — one good and the other evil.

    The time-honored ethical principle that has been applied to these situations is called the principle of double effect. As the name itself implies, the human action has two distinct effects. One effect is the intended good; the other is unintended evil. As an ethical principle, it was never intended to be an inflexible rule or a mathematical formula, but rather it is to be used as an efficient guide to prudent moral judgment in solving difficult moral dilemmas [ 75 ].

    The principle of double effect specifies four conditions which must be fulfilled for an action with both a good and an evil effect to be ethically justified:. The principle of double effect is applicable to the issue of whether it is ethical for a physician to prescribe marijuana for medical reasons because it has two effects, one good and the other evil.

    The good effect is that smoked marijuana is more effective than conventional therapies in helping patients withstand the effects of accepted, traditional treatments which can bring about a cure or the amelioration of their condition.

    The evil effect is that marijuana smoke has toxic effects and as a Schedule I illegal drug it has been argued it could lead to more serious drug abuse and send a wrong message that illegal drug use is safe and even condoned. To determine if it is ethical for physicians to prescribe medical marijuana for patients as a medical therapy, this issue will be examined in light of the four conditions of the principle of double effect.

    The first condition allows for the medical use of marijuana because the object of the action, in and of itself, is good. The moral object is the precise good that is freely willed in this action. The moral good of this action is to help treat pain, nausea, severe weight loss associated with AIDS and to combat muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis that cannot be treated adequately by traditional medicines.

    The immediate goal is not to endorse, encourage or promote illegal drug use. Rather, the direct goal is to relieve patients of their unnecessary pain and suffering [ 77 ]. The second condition permits the medical use of marijuana because the good effect of relieving pain and suffering is not produced by means of the evil effect.

    The two effects happen simultaneously and independently. The third condition is met because the direct intention of medical marijuana is to give patients suffering from life-threatening illnesses relief from the effects of accepted treatments that could cure their medical condition. Recent studies have shown that medical marijuana is more effective in controlling pain and nausea from chemotherapy treatments and in boosting the appetites of AIDS patients so as to combat wasting than any of the traditional FDA approved medications.

    To deny a physician the right to discuss, recommend, and prescribe marijuana to patients is a direct violation of the physician-patient relationship. To make an informed decision about their treatment, patients have the right to expect full disclosure and discussion of all available treatment options from their physicians. The hypothesized foreseen but unintended consequences of legalizing medical marijuana are two-fold.

    First, the smoke from marijuana is highly toxic and can cause lung damage. The intention of smoked marijuana is not to cause more health problems but to remedy the effects of existing treatments. Second, some members of the federal government believe that legalizing medical marijuana may lead to harder drug usage and may be seen as condoning and encouraging recreational drug use.

    Nevertheless, this has not been proven to be true. According to bioethicist William Stempsey, M. Ethicist George Annas points out that there are two ways to interpret this study.

    A study by Jan van Ours of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, cannabis users typically start using the drug between the ages of 18 and 20, while cocaine use usually starts between 20 and But it concludes that cannabis is not a stepping stone to using cocaine or heroin. Four surveys, covering nearly 17, people, were carried out in Amsterdam in , , and The study found that there was little difference in the probability of an individual taking up cocaine as to whether or not he or she had used cannabis.

    Although significant numbers of people in the survey did use soft and hard drugs, this was linked with personal characteristics and a predilection to experimentation [ 81 ]. If officials in the federal government are worried that the legalization of medical marijuana will send the wrong message to our children about drugs, then Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman asks a good question: Will some people view the legalization of medical marijuana as the condoning and encouraging of marijuana for recreational drug use?

    The direct intention is to relieve pain and suffering that cannot be relieved by presently approved medications. This misinterpretation of the legalization of medical marijuana can be corrected through public education. Finally, the argument for the ethical justification of marijuana for medical use by the principle of double effect focuses on whether there is a proportionately grave reason for allowing the foreseen but unintended possible consequences.

    Proportionate reason is the linchpin that holds this complex moral principle together. Proportionate reason refers to a specific value and its relation to all elements including premoral evils in the action [ 83 ]. The specific value in legalizing medical marijuana is to relieve pain and suffering associated with treatment for life-threatening illnesses.

    The premoral evil, which can come about by trying to achieve this value, is the foreseen but unintended possibility of the potential harmful effects of the smoke and the possibility that some may view this as condoning and even encouraging illegal drug use. The ethical question is: To determine if a proper relationship exists between the specific value and the other elements of the act, ethicist Richard McCormick proposes three criteria for the establishment of proportionate reason:.

    First, the most comprehensive scientific analysis to date by the Institute of Medicine cautioned that the benefits of smoking marijuana were limited because the smoke itself is toxic, but recommended that it be given, on a short-term basis under close supervision, to patients who do not respond to other therapies. Many of these conditions are terminal and the treatments they are undergoing also have toxic effects — chemotherapy, radiation, the AIDS cocktail, etc.

    The point is that the benefit of the treatments outweighs the burdens. The focus should be on encouraging the federal government to direct its research resources toward the development of alternative methods of delivering cannabinoids in the form of patches, capsules and bronchial inhalers.

    In this way the toxicity could be eliminated. Second, at present, there does not seem to be an alternative medication that is as effective as smoked marijuana. Thousands of patients who have smoked marijuana illegally for medical purposes have attested to its effectiveness. In addition, scientific studies have shown that Marinol, Nabilone and Sativex are less effective, more difficult for nauseous patients to consume, and more expensive than smoked marijuana. There are also other approved antiemetic drugs or combinations of these drugs which have been shown to be effective in relieving pain and suffering in some cancer patients [ 85 ].

    However, for others these medications have proven ineffective. To date, the only therapy that relieves their nausea and vomiting is smoking marijuana. Third, smoking marijuana for medical reasons does not undermine the value, which is the relief of pain and suffering. Many of the patients who would use medical marijuana are suffering from terminal conditions and are undergoing therapies that have serious side-effects.

    Since this seems to be the only therapy to date that relieves the pain and suffering of these patients, one can argue convincingly that it is a medical necessity.

    But, this has not occurred with other prescription psychoactive drugs e. Therefore, it is ethically justified under the principle of double effect for the federal government to legalize marijuana for patients who do not respond to traditional therapies.

    Seriously ill patients have the right to effective therapies. To deny them access to such therapies is to deny them the dignity and respect all persons deserve. The greater good is promoted in spite of the potential evil consequences. After reviewing pertinent scientific data, it is evident that there is ample evidence to warrant the Obama Administration to authorize the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, which would allow the drug to be used for medical purposes.

    As a candidate, President Obama promised to maintain a hands-off approach in the this matter and Attorney General Eric Holder also stated that federal prosecutors would not prosecute patients or providers in accordance with state law; however, recent crackdowns suggest otherwise [ 86 ]. In order to ensure the proper regulation of medical marijuana and the issues currently surrounding the topic, the following recommendations are proposed:.

    The top priority of the government, in regards to medical marijuana, should be to reclassify the drug as a Schedule II drug. This would enable dispensaries, clinics, pharmacies and physicians to provide patients with standardized, unadulterated forms of marijuana. If marijuana continues to be unregulated, patients will be forced to seek black-market marijuana, and risk possible legal repercussions to alleviate their condition. This argument is grounded in harm reduction, both legally and medically.

    Utilizing the proper legal and medical controls can provide an effective strategy to identify and reduce health hazards associated with smoked marijuana, as well as help to reduce legal prosecution faced with unregulated marijuana. Marijuana contains over known compounds, sixty of which are cannabinoids. There are also a number of carcinogens present in smoked marijuana.

    The main psychoactive compound in the drug is THC, which controls the strength or potency. THC concentration in black-market marijuana can vary greatly, which can lead to adverse effects for patients who may seek alleviating effects for their condition.

    To minimize such health risks, the federal government, specifically the FDA, must monitor marijuana produced for medical purposes. Recently, there have been numerous crackdowns on people who grow marijuana for medical uses. This problem is therefore two-fold, with medical and legal aspects. If the FDA was to intervene and oversee the production of marijuana, this would reduce the number of questions surrounding the growing of marijuana and the arrests that follow, as well as control the hazardous aspects of marijuana.

    If FDA regulation is present in medical marijuana production, the THC concentration and concentration of other hazardous compounds in marijuana can be controlled, thus reducing the harmful effects that impact the health of numerous patients.

    The medical community has provided studies proving the efficacy of marijuana in treatment of patients who have not responded to other treatments. Specifically, these studies have shown the therapeutic value of marijuana in controlling pain, alleviating nausea and vomiting, as well as alleviating symptoms of multiple sclerosis MS and AIDS.

    Significant analgesic effects were seen in treating neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and rheumatoid arthritis. The most effective cannabinoid available to patients is smoked marijuana, however due to varying THC concentrations and the fact that the mode of ingestion is inhaled smoke, there are also adverse effects. Two options that may help to reduce these adverse effects are more pure forms of smoked marijuana and cost effective alternatives.

    A more pure form of smoked marijuana i. Cannabinoid alternatives reduce the amount of these harmful compounds in marijuana. Such alternatives like Marinol, Nabilone, and Sativex do exist, however the two concerns that these alternatives pose are efficacy and cost. Smoked marijuana continues to be substantially more effective than these alternatives, and the cost of smoked marijuana is significantly less. In order to improve these alternatives and create new options, more research is needed.

    In order to properly research safer and cost effective alternatives, more NIH funding is necessary, and must be done to provide suffering patients with a beneficial treatment. To advance the development of new marijuana treatment alternatives, pharmaceutical companies should be given incentives to continue to explore new avenues for suffering patients.

    Walter Cristobal, the patch inventor, is working with MMDS to develop the patch-based delivery, as well as other delivery systems like creams and gels [ 43 ]. Another recent development in the marijuana industry has come from the pharmaceutical company Medicinal Genomics. As of August , the company has successfully sequenced the entire genome of the cannabis plant, a breakthrough which has the potential to grow the number of treatment options available to patients [ 89 ].

    Ethically speaking, denying physicians the right to prescribe a therapy that relieves pain and suffering to their patients is a violation of the physician-patient relationship.

    Patients are entitled to full disclosure of all possible treatment options from their physician in order to make an informed medical decision regarding their health. It is the medical responsibility of a physician to offer adequate relief from pain for their patients so that the patient may have an acceptable quality of life.

    Failure to provide an available therapy that has been proven effective would violate the basic ethical principle of beneficence, which is the obligation of physicians to seek the well-being or benefit of the patient. To allow a patient to suffer when an effective treatment is available is to directly harm the patient, and therefore a violation of beneficence. Scientific research has shown that the benefits of medical marijuana greatly outweigh the burdens. Overall, all people, especially in the federal government and the medical field, should be concerned over the quality of life of those suffering from neurological and movement disorders, cancer, wasting syndrome attributable to AIDS, etc.

    A Gallup poll of Americans has shown significant support for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe for patients. The poll found that seventy percent of Americans are in favor, as negative feelings continue to decline [ 89 ]. Medical marijuana has proven invaluable in the battle against terminal illnesses; however, unless the federal government publically acknowledges this fact, numerous terminal patients will continue to suffer needlessly.

    The fight against drug abuse is important because may lives are lost to drug addiction, but the effects of devastating illnesses impacts a substantially greater number of Americans. The apparent political motivations present in the federal government must be eliminated because the quality of numerous American lives hangs in the balance. The dignity and respect of all persons must be a priority for the Obama Administration.

    It is time to voice support for the most vulnerable and reclassify medical marijuana as a Schedule II drug, because for many patients it is truly a medical necessity. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Med Sci Monit v. Published online Dec 1. Clark , 1 Kevin Capuzzi , 2 and Cameron Fick 3. Clark 1 Jesuit Community, St. Find articles by Peter A. Find articles by Kevin Capuzzi. Find articles by Cameron Fick.

    Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Clark, Jesuit Community, St. Received Nov 26; Accepted Nov This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Medical Perspective Marijuana is taken from the leaves and flowering tops of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa , which grows in most regions of the world.

    Ethical Perspective Society, in general, has always recognized that in our complex world there is the possibility that we may be faced with a situation that has two consequences — one good and the other evil.

    The principle of double effect specifies four conditions which must be fulfilled for an action with both a good and an evil effect to be ethically justified: The action, considered by itself and independently of its effects, must not be morally evil. The object of the action must be good or indifferent. There must be a proportionate reason for performing the action, in spite of the evil consequences [ 76 ]. The means used to achieve the value will not undermine it.

    Conclusions After reviewing pertinent scientific data, it is evident that there is ample evidence to warrant the Obama Administration to authorize the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, which would allow the drug to be used for medical purposes. In order to ensure the proper regulation of medical marijuana and the issues currently surrounding the topic, the following recommendations are proposed: Government rescheduling of marijuana The top priority of the government, in regards to medical marijuana, should be to reclassify the drug as a Schedule II drug.

    FDA regulation of medical marijuana growth Marijuana contains over known compounds, sixty of which are cannabinoids. Advance research into more pure forms of smoked marijuana and cost effective alternatives The medical community has provided studies proving the efficacy of marijuana in treatment of patients who have not responded to other treatments. Increased funding enabling agencies to accomplish this research Medical marijuana research is contingent upon National Institutes of Health NIH funding.

    Increased pharmaceutical research into new medical marijuana alternatives i. Footnotes Source of support: N Engl J Med. Stack P, Suddath C. A brief history of medical marijuana. Federal Drug Classification Schedules. National Substance Abuse Index. The New York Times; Feb 10, Anaheim can ban medical pot shops. Delaware legalizes medical marijuana.

    PA bill would legalize marijuana as therapeutic option. For a Very Few Patients, U. The New York Times. Assessing The Science Base. Institute of Medicine; Mar, The following findings must be made to place a drug on Schedule I: Should marijuana be a medical option? Rules that Marijuana has no Medical Use. What Does Science Say?

    Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB. Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine. Yale University Press; United States of America. Investigating Possible Medical Uses of Marijuana.

    Medical Marijuana and the Mind. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. Medical Marijuana and Its Use by the Immunocompromised. Western Journal of Medicine ; Five years later, Dr. Abrams said he had to mask his true research interest.

    Navigating Cannabis Options for Chronic Pain

    Cannabis in Pain and Arthritis: A Look at the Evidence University in Montreal, and her talk was part of a symposium looking at the possibility. Cannabis may help treat chronic pain, but it is important to consult your Talk to your doctor about potential interaction with rheumatoid Share. top But doctors who prescribe medicinal marijuana to their own patients. The cannabis-derived chemical is non-psychoactive, and – while federally capable of relieving conditions as disparate as depression, arthritis and diabetes. While studies have shown CBD to have anti-inflammatory, anti-pain It was controversial to pursue medical marijuana for such a young patient.

    Medical Perspective



    Cannabis in Pain and Arthritis: A Look at the Evidence University in Montreal, and her talk was part of a symposium looking at the possibility.


    Cannabis may help treat chronic pain, but it is important to consult your Talk to your doctor about potential interaction with rheumatoid Share. top But doctors who prescribe medicinal marijuana to their own patients.


    The cannabis-derived chemical is non-psychoactive, and – while federally capable of relieving conditions as disparate as depression, arthritis and diabetes. While studies have shown CBD to have anti-inflammatory, anti-pain It was controversial to pursue medical marijuana for such a young patient.


    Most medical cannabis users take it to manage arthritis pain, says The Simons says the 25 organizations and 50 participants from patient groups talking about the effectiveness of medical cannabis as a treatment for arthritis pain. . The only really big deal here is big P_arma will not get it's due share of.


    As they listened to budtenders suggest what to use for pain, arthritis, “I took a little CBD before this talk, to make sure I stay calm. three thousand patients in Israel, the first of its kind, showed that cannabis The oil relieved her anxiety, and she shared it with friends, asking them to report their responses.

    Add Comment