Supreme Court makes Medicinal Marijuana a federal crime. Do you agree?

[Rgirl]

Drug studies are based on the efficacy and safety of a given drug for a large enough number of people that makes it lucrative for the drug companies to sell and gives confidence to medical practitioners to prescribe it. It works, in it's most basic form, on the one standard deviation principle. That is, if a drug is safe and efficacious for about 66% of those tested, it's approved.

However, drug testing as it stands now does nothing for the individual who, for reasons of individual differences, cannot tolerate TCB in it's chemical form or for whom it does not work. In many individuals, smoking cannibis in its herbal form, which contains natural TCB works whereas chemical TCB taken in tablets doesn't or the tablets make them sick. With the millions of people with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other diseases that cause nausea and loss of appetite, smoking marijuana is the only way they can get relief from the horrendous symptoms of these diseases.

Gezando, you've been asking about studies testing the safety and efficacy of cannabis. Take a look at the following 89 studies on PubMed under just "cannabis treatment nausea":HERE

Aloft, I second 4DK about your wonderful post.

Rgirl

[gezando]

Drug studies are based on the efficacy and safety of a given drug for a large enough number of people that makes it lucrative for the drug companies to sell and gives confidence to medical practitioners to prescribe it. It works, in it's most basic form, on the one standard deviation principle. That is, if a drug is safe and efficacious for about 66% of those tested, it's approved.

My point they i.e. big bad $$$ grabbing pharma have to provide the data of benefits v risks to get approval. If the FDA sets it at 66% (you mean 3 std deviation instead) FDA is Ok with 66%, then let it be 66% (about the same percentage of efficacy of insulin) Even if the big pharma is out there for $$ they still need to provide safety / efficacy data.

However, drug testing as it stands now does nothing for the individual who, for reasons of individual differences, cannot tolerate TCB in it's chemical form or for whom it does not work.

Didn 't I advocate for more research?

In many individuals, smoking cannibis in its herbal form, which contains natural TCB works whereas chemical TCB taken in tablets doesn't or the tablets make them sick. With the millions of people with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other diseases that cause nausea and loss of appetite, smoking marijuana is the only way they can get relief from the horrendous symptoms of these diseases.

Didn't I say there should be more research?? BTW, Millions of pts only respond to the smoking form of cannabinoids, you stating that as a fact re: millions and not thousands a few hundred or a few just curious?

89 citings in PUbMed is not that many. I looked at the first 2, then #13 (by the title of the abstract) And the data again is not robust. That means there needs to be more research

I am pasting the abstract of 1, 2 and 13 here. I am not willing to pay for 20 cents a page for the library to get the entire articles. So we are just looking at abstracts and know nothing about the design of these studies, large scale studies or small, placebo controlled double blind or open label. Without knowing the detail, I am not willing to assume all 89 are scientifically sound. I am sure some are solid studies and some may not be worth the pieces of papers printed. I don't know whether they are using synthetic or cannabinods from the entire plant i.e. smoking. The first article abstract stated that evidence for MS treatment is not as yet convincing. The second abstract is about the cancer risks of cannabinoid. The third is the most interesting, it talks about endogenous receptors for endogenous cannabinoids. Last time I sat in a poster session about endogenous cannabinoids there were some very prelim data connecting that to stroke protection.

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. paul.smith@stonebow.otago.ac.nz

The evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) is increasing but is not as yet convincing.
Although several trials have reported no significant effect, the majority of the evidence which supports a beneficial effect on spasticity and pain is based on subjective measurements in trials where unblinding was likely to be a problem. The available clinical trial data suggest that the adverse side effects associated with using cannabis-based medicinal extracts (CBMEs) are generally mild, such as dry mouth, dizziness, somnolence, nausea and intoxication, and in no case did toxicity develop. However, most of these trials were run over a period of months and it is possible that other adverse side effects, not seen in these short-term studies, could develop with long-term use. Despite the evidence that cannabinoids can disrupt cognitive function and promote depression, on the basis of current data, such adverse effects seem unlikely to be associated with the use of CBMEs. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that their effects on balance and motor control, or immune function, may be clinically significant. There is, however, reason to be concerned about the use of therapeutic cannabinoids by people predisposed to psychosis and by pregnant women, given the increasing evidence of their adverse effects on the fetus. In conclusion, given the modest therapeutic effects of cannabinoids demonstrated so far, and the risk of long-term adverse side effects, there is reason to be cautious about their use in the treatment of MS

Office of Public Policy and Ethics, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. w.hall@imb.uq.edu.au <w.hall@imb.uq.edu.au>

This review discusses three different associations between cannabinoids and cancer. First, it assesses evidence that smoking of cannabis preparations may cause cancers of the aerodigestive and respiratory system. There have been case reports of upper-respiratory-tract cancers in young adults who smoke cannabis, but evidence from a few epidemiological cohort studies and case-control studies is inconsistent. Second, there is mixed evidence on the effects of THC and other cannabinoids on cancers: in some in vitro and in vivo studies THC and some synthetic cannabinoids have had antineoplastic effects, but in other studies THC seems to impair the immune response to cancer. As yet there is no evidence that THC or other cannabinoids have anticancer effects in humans. Third, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may treat the symptoms and side-effects of cancer, and there is evidence that it and other cannabinoids may be useful adjuvant treatments that improve appetite, reduce nausea and vomiting, and alleviate moderate neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main challenge for the medical use of cannabinoids is the development of safe and effective methods of use that lead to therapeutic effects but that avoid adverse psychoactive effects. Furthermore, medical, legal, and regulatory obstacles hinder the smoking of cannabis for medical purposes. These very different uses of cannabinoids are in danger of being confused in public debate, especially in the USA where some advocates for the medical use of cannabinoids have argued for smoked cannabis rather than pharmaceutical cannabinoids. We review the available evidence on these three issues and consider their implications for policy.


Walsh D, Nelson KA, Mahmoud FA.

The Harry R Horvitz Center for Palliative Medicine, The Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation - M-76, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. walsht@ccf.org

Cannabis occurs naturally in the dried flowering or fruiting tops of the Cannabis sativa plant. Cannabis is most often consumed by smoking marihuana. Cannabinoids are the active compounds extracted from cannabis. Recently, there has been renewed interest in cannabinoids for medicinal purposes. The two proven indications for the use of the synthetic cannabinoid (dronabinol) are chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS-related anorexia. Other possible effects that may prove beneficial in the oncology population include analgesia, antitumor effect, mood elevation, muscle relaxation, and relief of insomnia. Two types of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, have been detected. CB1 receptors are expressed mainly in the central and peripheral nervous system. CB2 receptors are found in certain nonneuronal tissues, particularly in the immune cells. Recent discovery of both the cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoids has opened a new era in research on the pharmaceutical applications of cannabinoids. The use of cannabinoids should be continued in the areas indicated, and further studies are needed to evaluate other potential uses in clinical oncology.

PS. just looked at one more abstract, #9. It is a complicated issue, there need to be more research and studies. Maybe it is miracle drug for some. But cannabinoids synethic or smoked is not w/o adverse side effects. AMA is not endorsing it.

A peek into Pandora's box: the medical excuse marijuana controversy.

Voth EA.

The Institute on Global Drug Policy, St. Petersburg, FL, USA. evoth@stormontvail.org

The smoking of marijuana for medicinal applications is a volatile and difficult issue for the medical and regulatory communities which has reached the forefront of discussions of public policy. Any consideration of this issue must take into account the substantial toxicity, impurity, and morbidity associated with marijuana use. Several states have passed ballot initiatives or legislation that allow a medical excuse for possession of marijuana. These initiatives bypass the Food and Drug Administration process of proving safety and efficacy, and they have created serious regulatory dilemmas for state regulatory boards. Several examinations of the issue have consistently drawn question to the validity of smoking an impure substance while voicing concern for the well being of patients in need. The historical, social, medical, and legal issues are examined.

[Aloft04]

Call it intellectual curiosity. BTW,if my house is on fire, I will try to get out, then after the dust settles, I will try to find out why and know all I can about what caused the fire.

Oh, here, let me help. That would be your stockpile of New Republic magazines spontaneously combusting.

BTW, I do not believe DEA agents will raid cancer pts houses. This law has been in effect since Clinton's time.

You make our point, gezando, or else you're missing it entirely..... Prior to this ruling (during "Clinton's time" as you call it) the Feds recognized this was a state's rights issue and that they had no jurisdiction under the Constitution to arrest or harass these ill people. The Supreme Court ruling last week cleared that pesky hurdle for them.

I've known two people in Oregon who benefit from MM - one had stomach cancer, and the use restored some appetite and eased his pain until he died. The other is still living and is able to work as a freelance writer free from debilitating migraines that have plagued her since adolescence. Nothing else helped. My message to you is simple. This is nobody's business but the patient and their physician. Perhaps it's time to direct the government's attention to matters that DO fall under the Constitution and need cessation....little things like invading another sovereign nation under trumped up pretenses for instance? Enriching supporters of the Republican party through war profiteering, tax breaks, and preferential placements. Channeling money intended for Afganistan into Halliburton's coffers in Iraq. Crawling in bed with assault weapon manufacturers who supported the ticket..... The list goes on and on,and gets uglier and uglier.

This country could benefit from a thoughtful analysis of how we got in the mess we're in, and I submit to you that it wouldn't lead to the deathbeds of suffering ill people seeking relief in weed. ~Final post on this topic~

[Flora MacDonald]

The big news in this case is that the Supremes said federal law trumps state law.
You can see that the dissenters were the justices are the state's rights, strict constructionists.
This can be good news as federal law under the 14th amendment brought you the Voting Rights Act, the ADA and more.
On the down side, some states have been trying to take action on issues that the Repulican controlled Congress won't deal with.
For example Kentucky recently passed a law allowing lawsuits against HMOs. If the Court is willing to support federal law on medical marijuana it is unlikely they will not enforce the federal law on suing HMOs.
It is interesting to see the so called "conservatives" in Congress wanting to pass federal laws on every darn thing.
As far as marijuana is concerned, legalize, regulate and tax it.
We can fix the defict in no time with the additional revenue and the drug dealers will be out of business. Everyone will be relaxed and happy, traffic will ease up, pizza and dorito sales will skyrocket. . .

[gezando]

Oh, here, let me help. That would be your stockpile of New Republic magazines spontaneously combusting.

\

Oh please, I don't own any republican magazines, or demostrate mags either. Phew so much histrionics A04 I have voted republican and non republican in the past. I guess unlike you I don't have a litmus test about who is a republican and who is a democrate.

You make our point, gezando, or else you're missing it entirely..... Prior to this ruling (during "Clinton's time" as you call it) the Feds recognized this was a state's rights issue and that they had no jurisdiction under the Constitution to arrest or harass these ill people. The Supreme Court ruling last week cleared that pesky hurdle for them.

Clinton's attorney general and surgeon general announced that any doctors who prescribed Mj would be prosecuted for a federal crime and lose their license or jailed, so they are just "harrassing" the doctors. Have they jail any doctors who prescribed MJ yet? I am talking about the practical side of things . I speculate ppl will continue to smoke MJ, the growers and dispensers will continue to sell for $$$,and DEA agents will not raid their houses.

My message to you is simple. This is nobody's business but the patient and their physician.

I am free to make up my mind whether cannabinoid is efficacious or not base on solid scientific data. Actually I have some friends from India who smoke Mj recreationally. I couldn't care less whether people smoke it recreationally or claim MJ as medicine. But on the issue of solid data, MJ is lacking, therefore I advocate for more research. No matter how much pple scream about it, the solid data supporting MJ as effacious is not robust. Sure it is b/w the pts and their doctors, it does not necessarily mean the docs are practicing evidence base medicine. AMA does not support using MJ.

Perhaps it's time to direct the government's attention to matters that DO fall under the Constitution and need cessation....little things like invading another sovereign nation under trumped up pretenses for instance? Enriching supporters of the Republican party through war profiteering, tax breaks, and preferential placements. Channeling money intended for Afganistan into Halliburton's coffers in Iraq. Crawling in bed with assault weapon manufacturers who supported the ticket..... The list goes on and on,and gets uglier and uglier.

Your stockpile of magazines combusting? Actually I agree with you about all of the above issues should be carefully evaluated. I think the whole world will be better off if guns don't exist. I also advocate for better science than just case reports so

wouldn't lead to the deathbeds of suffering ill people seeking relief in weed. ~Final post on this topic~

Ah.. but I want all the people in their deadbeds to recover and live and have much better medicines available to them through better research and better science. I I never oppose to people smoking MJ as long as they pay for it. The reality is MJ is the only substance that by pass the rigorous FDA approval process that is smart politics from it's supporters, growers, and dispensers.

I suppose the smart thing for the growers and dispensers to do is to try to get congress pass MJ as a diet supplement. That will take MJ almost completely out of most fed regulations. About legalizing it and taxing it (for recreation), I have no opinion. But legalzing it federally as "medicine" w/o solid data, that is something that I don't agree

[Aloft04]

The Feds have quickly started the raids that several on this thread speculated would not happen....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in703652.shtml