Cannabis research suggests medical marijuana could become an effective treatment for diabetic neuropathy. Diabetic neuropathy is a debilitating and sometimes fatal condition caused by diabetes. Diabetics suffer from high blood sugar due to insulin resistance, and this damages nerve cells in the body, causing severe pain. Patients who consumed THC as part of a study found they experienced less pain. Findings are not definitive, however, and further research into cannabis as a treatment for diabetes and associated symptoms is required.


Cannabis is believed to be an aggravating factor in rare cases of arteritis, a serious condition that in some cases leads to amputation. Because 97% of case-reports also smoked tobacco, a formal association with cannabis could not be made. If cannabis arteritis turns out to be a distinct clinical entity, it might be the consequence of vasoconstrictor activity observed from delta-8-THC and delta-9-THC.[100] Other serious cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke,[101] sudden cardiac death, and cardiomyopathy have been reported to be temporally associated with cannabis use. Research in these events is complicated because cannabis is often used in conjunction with tobacco, and drugs such as alcohol and cocaine.[102] These putative effects can be taken in context of a wide range of cardiovascular phenomena regulated by the endocannabinoid system and an overall role of cannabis in causing decreased peripheral resistance and increased cardiac output, which potentially could pose a threat to those with cardiovascular disease.[103] There is some evidence from case reports that cannabis use may provoke fatal cardiovascular events in young people who have not been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease.[78] Smoking cannabis has also been shown to increase the risk of myocardial infarction by 4.8 times for the 60 minutes after consumption.[104]
In the United States, non-FDA approved CBD products are classified as Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act.[63] This means that production, distribution, and possession of non-FDA approved CBD products is illegal under federal law. In addition, in 2016 the Drug Enforcement Administration added "marijuana extracts" to the list of Schedule I drugs, which it defined as "an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant."[64] Previously, CBD had simply been considered "marijuana", which is a Schedule I drug.[63][65]
Wild North American hemp is derived mostly from escaped European cultivated hemp imported in past centuries, perhaps especially from a revival of cultivation during World War II. Wild Canadian hemp is concentrated along the St. Lawrence and lower Great Lakes, where considerable cultivation occurred in the 1800s. In the US, wild hemp is best established in the American Midwest and Northeast, where hemp was grown historically in large amounts. Decades of eradication have exterminated many of the naturalized populations in North America. In the US, wild plants are rather contemptuously called “ditch weed” by law enforcement personnel. However, the attempts to destroy the wild populations are short-sighted, because they are a natural genetic reservoir, mostly low in THC. Wild North American plants have undergone many generations of natural adaptation to local conditions of climate, soil and pests, and accordingly it is safe to conclude that they harbor genes that are invaluable for the improvement of hemp cultivars. We have encountered exceptionally vigorous wild Canadian plants (Fig. 52), and grown wild plants from Europe (Fig. 53) which could prove valuable. Indeed, studies are in progress in Ontario to evaluate the agronomic usefulness of wild North American hemp. Nevertheless, present policies in North America require the eradication of wild hemp wherever encountered. In Europe and Asia, there is little concern about wild hemp, which remains a valuable resource.
Hemp has the ability to mitigate the toxin transfer from contaminated soil into food products. This process uses phytoremediation, an organic process where toxins are absorbed by plant roots and then stored in the cellulose for disposal. Hemp phytoremediation became more well-known after the Chernobyl disaster for its use in helping grow crops that are safe for consumption.
Hemp is a multi-purpose agricultural crop delivering seeds, fibers and bio-active chemicals for a number of uses and markets. Industrial hemp is defined in federal and Montana statute as Cannabis sativa L. that contains no more than 0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Industrial hemp is authorized as an alternative agricultural crop by the Montana Legislature, Section 80-18-101 through 80-18-111 of Montana Code Annotated.

One systematic review studied 30 randomized comparisons of delta-9-THC preparations with placebo or other antiemetics from which data on efficacy and harm were available.[31] Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol, and intramuscular levonantradol (a synthetic analog of dronabinol) were tested. Inhaled Cannabis trials were not included. Among all 1,366 patients included in the review, cannabinoids were found to be more effective than the conventional antiemetics prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, and alizapride. Cannabinoids, however, were not more effective for patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. Side effects included a feeling of being high, euphoria, sedation or drowsiness, dizziness, dysphoria or depression, hallucinations, paranoia, and hypotension.[31]

The genus Cannabis was first classified using the "modern" system of taxonomic nomenclature by Carl Linnaeus in 1753, who devised the system still in use for the naming of species.[59] He considered the genus to be monotypic, having just a single species that he named Cannabis sativa L. (L. stands for Linnaeus, and indicates the authority who first named the species). Linnaeus was familiar with European hemp, which was widely cultivated at the time. In 1785, noted evolutionary biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck published a description of a second species of Cannabis, which he named Cannabis indica Lam.[60] Lamarck based his description of the newly named species on plant specimens collected in India. He described C. indica as having poorer fiber quality than C. sativa, but greater utility as an inebriant. Additional Cannabis species were proposed in the 19th century, including strains from China and Vietnam (Indo-China) assigned the names Cannabis chinensis Delile, and Cannabis gigantea Delile ex Vilmorin.[61] However, many taxonomists found these putative species difficult to distinguish. In the early 20th century, the single-species concept was still widely accepted, except in the Soviet Union where Cannabis continued to be the subject of active taxonomic study. The name Cannabis indica was listed in various Pharmacopoeias, and was widely used to designate Cannabis suitable for the manufacture of medicinal preparations.[62]
Hemp is completely different from marijuana in its function, cultivation and application. But these differences didn’t stop our political leaders from getting confused and accidentally grouping all Cannabis species as a Schedule I Drug and banning it in 1970 under the Controlled Substances Act. Even after 45 years, the government still seems to have some confusion in distinguishing the two plants. Although legislation is being made, progress has been slow.In its application, hemp and marijuana serve completely different purposes. Marijuana, as it is widely known, is used for medicinal or recreational purposes. Hemp is used in variety of other applications that marijuana couldn’t possibly be used in. These include healthy dietary supplements, skin products, clothing, and accessories. Overall, hemp is known to have over 25,000 possible applications.

Karl W. Hillig, a graduate student in the laboratory of long-time Cannabis researcher Paul G. Mahlberg[77] at Indiana University, conducted a systematic investigation of genetic, morphological, and chemotaxonomic variation among 157 Cannabis accessions of known geographic origin, including fiber, drug, and feral populations. In 2004, Hillig and Mahlberg published a chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in their Cannabis germplasm collection. They used gas chromatography to determine cannabinoid content and to infer allele frequencies of the gene that controls CBD and THC production within the studied populations, and concluded that the patterns of cannabinoid variation support recognition of C. sativa and C. indica as separate species, but not C. ruderalis.[52] The authors assigned fiber/seed landraces and feral populations from Europe, Central Asia, and Turkey to C. sativa. Narrow-leaflet and wide-leaflet drug accessions, southern and eastern Asian hemp accessions, and feral Himalayan populations were assigned to C. indica. In 2005, Hillig published a genetic analysis of the same set of accessions (this paper was the first in the series, but was delayed in publication), and proposed a three-species classification, recognizing C. sativa, C. indica, and (tentatively) C. ruderalis.[55] In his doctoral dissertation published the same year, Hillig stated that principal components analysis of phenotypic (morphological) traits failed to differentiate the putative species, but that canonical variates analysis resulted in a high degree of discrimination of the putative species and infraspecific taxa.[78] Another paper in the series on chemotaxonomic variation in the terpenoid content of the essential oil of Cannabis revealed that several wide-leaflet drug strains in the collection had relatively high levels of certain sesquiterpene alcohols, including guaiol and isomers of eudesmol, that set them apart from the other putative taxa.[79] Hillig concluded that the patterns of genetic, morphological, and chemotaxonomic variation support recognition of C. sativa and C. indica as separate species. He also concluded there is little support to treat C. ruderalis as a separate species from C. sativa at this time, but more research on wild and weedy populations is needed because they were underrepresented in their collection.


Retting is generally done in the field (Fig. 46, 47). This typically requires weeks. The windrows should be turned once or twice. If not turned, the stems close to the ground will remain green while the top ones are retted and turn brown. When the stalks have become sufficiently retted requires experience—the fibers should have turned golden or grayish in color, and should separate easily from the interior wood. Baling can be done with any kind of baler (Fig. 48). Stalks should have less than 15% moisture when baled, and should be allowed to dry to about 10% in storage. Bales must be stored indoors. Retted stalks are loosely held together, and for highest quality fiber applications need to be decorticated, scutched, hackled, and combed to remove the remaining pieces of stalks, broken fibers, and extraneous material. The equipment for this is rare in North America, and consequently use of domestically-produced fiber for high quality textile applications is extremely limited. However, as described above relatively crude fiber preparations also have applications.


Did you get an answer for this? I have the exact same scenario. I'm treating my TN with Tegretol, and recently tried CBD. I think I took too much and there are some weird drug interactions with Tegretol and I felt quite stoned....was alone and talking to myself in my head thinking I was Einstein. It freaked me out a bit but I think I took too much. I'm trying lower doses again as recently my TN seems to be resisting the meds, although I have had a lot of emotional stress, which seems to be a trigger. Thanks!! Anna

Hemp

×