Cannabis is a Schedule I (1) drug, the most severe rank a drug can have. Requirements for Schedule I:
1 - The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. 2 - The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 3 - There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
There have been some theories about a “war against recreational drugs”, and proponents of this theory suggest that drugs with strong recreational properties may meet with excessive bureaucratic regulation.
Further theories along the same vein suggest the ocean may in fact be slightly damp, and that Hand Of Lixue may be prone to the occasional understatement.
″ That probably means that the FDA thinks that the studies that exist don’t provide enough evidence for it being a good antidepressant.”
The previous comment of mine was an example of a controversial move by the FDA, which illustrates that they may have reasons to deny approval to certain drugs deemed to have excessive “recreational” potential. I’m hoping you can see why this is relevant to a conversation about why the FDA might opt not to approve a drug.…
Why do you focus on the FDA? Almost all countries have drug regulation agencies, and various of them approve cannabis or cannabinoids for therapeutic uses, but, as far as I know, none of them approves ketamine for use as an antidepressant.
Because the thread was about the FDA. I have no clue whether the claim about ketamine is valid or not, but I do strongly suspect that “The FDA has not approved this” is not relevant (since they have a clear motive to oppose the substance even if it is an antidepressant.)
If no place else has approved it, then that is much more useful evidence against ketamine, and I’m glad to encounter such :)
Cannabis is a Schedule I (1) drug, the most severe rank a drug can have. Requirements for Schedule I:
1 - The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. 2 - The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 3 - There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
There have been some theories about a “war against recreational drugs”, and proponents of this theory suggest that drugs with strong recreational properties may meet with excessive bureaucratic regulation.
Further theories along the same vein suggest the ocean may in fact be slightly damp, and that Hand Of Lixue may be prone to the occasional understatement.
Cannabis is schedule I, ketamine isn’t. I therefore don’t see the point of bringing up cannabis.
The previous comment of mine was an example of a controversial move by the FDA, which illustrates that they may have reasons to deny approval to certain drugs deemed to have excessive “recreational” potential. I’m hoping you can see why this is relevant to a conversation about why the FDA might opt not to approve a drug.…
Why do you focus on the FDA? Almost all countries have drug regulation agencies, and various of them approve cannabis or cannabinoids for therapeutic uses, but, as far as I know, none of them approves ketamine for use as an antidepressant.
Because the thread was about the FDA. I have no clue whether the claim about ketamine is valid or not, but I do strongly suspect that “The FDA has not approved this” is not relevant (since they have a clear motive to oppose the substance even if it is an antidepressant.)
If no place else has approved it, then that is much more useful evidence against ketamine, and I’m glad to encounter such :)