Posted on 03/09/2004 8:58:30 PM PST by FairOpinion
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:42:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I thought we were talkng about 21st century United States medical practices, not about what is/was considered "medicine" in some third world country. Put down your Clan of the Cave Bear novel and update yourself with modern medical practices.
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Find for me one major medical organization, one medical study, one medical report that says so.
Yes, there are cannabinoids in marijuana that may prove to be beneficial. So far, there hasn't been one application where these cannabinoids are better than what is currently available through an existing FDA approved drug. Excuse me if I don't get all excited about this agenda-driven research.
Firstly, Canada is not a third world nation and smoked marijuana has been approved for medical use and is part of the Health Canada coverage.
Secondly, the blanket statement that marijuana is not a medicine is incorrect. A substance used as a medicine in the past and currently being used as such in a modern, industrial nation is a medicine - restrict yourself to a more specific definition of 'non FDA approved' and you would be correct. Otherwise, you're making a nonsensical denial of reality.
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Find for me one major medical organization, one medical study, one medical report that says so.
Medical Organizations - British Medical Organisation statement in 1997 about marijuana, "consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments."
Jerome Kassirer, M.D., editor, New England Journal of Medicine (January 1997) recommends change to Schedule 2 drug (potentially addictive but with some accepted medical use)
National Institutes of Health -- Expert Panel on Medical Utility of Marijuana (August 1997) statement to recommend provision of marijuana to clinical studies, "Marijuana looks promising enough to recommend that there be new controlled studies done."
American Academy of Family Physicians (1995) recommended "the use of marijuana ... under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications."
American Preventive Medical Association, "Medicinal Use of Marijuana" policy statement; signatory of 2000 letter to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
American Public Health Association, same policy statement
California Academy of Family Physicians, (1996) statement that "Support efforts to expedite access to cannaboids [sic] for use under the direction of a physician" and endorsed 1996 California Ballot Proposition 215.
The Medical and Nursing associations of Alaska, New York, Florida, California, Virginia, Wisconsin, and others have all come out in support of controlled medical use of marijuana.
Medical Study and reports - A quick pubmed search gives: Health Canada unveils plan to distribute marijuana for medical use. Can HIV AIDS Policy Law Rev. 2003 Aug;8(2):20-1.
Marijuana and multiple sclerosis. Commentary. Goodin DLancet Neurol. 2004 Feb;3(2):79-80.
Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. 1997. Report to the American Medical Association House of Delegates. Subject: Medical Marijuana. Chicago: AMA.
British Medical Association. 1997. Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. United Kingdom: Harwood Academic Publishers.
National Institutes of Health. 1997. Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
World Health Organization. 1997. Cannabis: A Health Perspective and Research Agenda. Geneva: WHO.
Marijuana and Medicine, Institute of Medicine,NAS, 1999. Critical review of medical uses for inhaled and marijuana preparations.
Abrams, Donald I., MD, et al., "Short-Term Effects of Cannabinoids in Patients with HIV-1 Infection - A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial," Annals of Internal Medicine, Aug. 19, 2003, Vol. 139, No. 4 (American College of Physicians), p. 264.
Vinciguerra et al., Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," The New York State Journal of Medicine, pgs., 525-527, October 1988
Doblin et al., Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and Attitudes," Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1991
Yes, there are cannabinoids in marijuana that may prove to be beneficial. So far, there hasn't been one application where these cannabinoids are better than what is currently available through an existing FDA approved drug.
Incorrect - examine chronic pain and antiemetic, for example, you will find that there are signifigant populations wherein the available medications are ineffective but smoked marijuana effects have led to cannabinoid research efforts to a better synthetic cannabinoid results that other analgesics like opiods can not attain and they have a benefit of less addiction risk.
The agenda in serious research is more knowledge, better understanding, and improved treatment. The agenda of NORML groups would be inconsequential except that it gives focus to the anti-drug fanatic that would rather suppress and subvert legitimate medical research rather than admit marijuana could produce something beneficial.
Cannabinoid research will expand treatment options and increase physiological understanding of a receptor system we have only known about for approximately ten years. Ten years where research has been squashed because of politics.
Do the organizations you listed support smoked marijuana as medicine, as per my question? Or do they simply acknowledge the potential medicinal properties of the cannabinoids contained within?
Also, your list of "Prestigious Organizations & Experts" was from the medmjscience.org web site (which you should have acknowledged), a site run by Americans for Medical Rights, a Soros funded operation. Americans for Medical Rights could give a FF about medical benefits -- the want legalization. Your source is biased and misleading.
To: Mr. David Fratello, Americans for Medical Rights
Mr. Bill Zimmerman, Americans for Medical Rights
Mr. Ethan Nadelmann, Lindesmith Center
Mr. George Soros, Chairman, Open Society Institute
Ms. Yvonne Sheer, Exec. Asst. to the Chairman, Open Society Institute
Mr. Aryeh Neier, President, Open Society Institute
Mr. Robert Kushen, Deputy Director, Open Society Institute
December 9, 1997
Dear Sirs and Madam:
We have tried to work with AMR but have been unsuccessful. If AMR doesn't withdraw its initiatives in Alaska, Colorado, Maine and Washington, D.C. by Friday, December 12, we will assume that they are not sincere about working with local patients' groups. Patients and their advocates in these states and others will then go public with their concerns that the AMR initiatives will endanger patients.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Citizens and patients of Alaska, represented by: Don Bellenger, patient/advocate, Alaskans for Cannabis Therapeutics
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. I support private cannabinoid research, as well as the medicines that come out of that research.
Round and round I'm prepared to go
On an issue that doesn't grow old.
What you believe you think you know
Is naught but stale bread with mold.
jmc813, Wolfie...thought ya'll might get a kick out of the "oldness" of the first article I linked.
Hmmmm. The medical usefulness of marijuana, or the medical usefulness of the cannabinoids contained within?
Is penicillium mold medically useful, or is it the penicillin contained within? White Willow bark, or the salicin ( which the body converts into salicylic acid, ie., aspirin) contained within?
It is a medicine and is used as a medicine. It is not a perfect medicine and you obviously have a strong bias against it being one. However, personal feelings can not be used to deny a fact. There are benzodiazepines that are used in Canada, Australia, and the UK that the FDA refuses to approve, to the detriment of some epilepsy patients. They can't be denied as medicines.
Your argument would be better served if you debated efficacy and the FDA not approving it.
Also, your list of "Prestigious Organizations & Experts" was from the medmjscience.org web site (which you should have acknowledged), a site run by Americans for Medical Rights, a Soros funded operation. Americans for Medical Rights could give a FF about medical benefits -- the want legalization. Your source is biased and misleading
Actually, I think one came from there which I found duplicated at other sites - the rest came from Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science Base, Institute of Medicine, National Association of Sciences, 1999, also the Effective Drug Control Strategy at http://www.csdp.org/edcs/ . Some might have been from "Marijuana: Medical Implications," American Family Physician, Dec 1999, too.
I don't get involved in the legalization movement so I have little knowledge of "Soros." Legalization groups like NORML do agendas beyond medicine and reversing the Constitutional damage of the "War on Drugs." Yet, their listing of medical groups that have come out in support of medical uses for marijuana does not negate the fact that those groups and many more support medical marijuana.
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. I support private cannabinoid research, as well as the medicines that come out of that research.
It's good that you support cannabinoid research and the resulting medical advances. Many who argue from the position that 'marijuana is not a medicine' are against such research for philosophical reasons of being against Drug War drugs.
The Federal government also uses the War on Drugs as reason to suppress research. NIH grants are pulled and NIH/FDA oversight approval is rescinded.
Marijuana as a controlled, prescribed medicine for a small patient population is not a blank check for marijuana being sold at the local 7-11. Denial of marijuana as a medicine does not strengthen opposition to marijuana legalization. If anything, it hurts that position by denying simple facts.
That is old propaganda. Everyone who is denied money for "medical marijuana" research claims that it's due to some government conspiracy. The two biggest loudmouths/conspiracy theorists are Ethan Russo and Rick Doblin.
"Scientists at the American Cancer Society (ACS) are studying skin patches containing marijuana to see if they can ease cancer pain. Stinchcomb was awarded a $361,000 ACS grant to head the 3-year study on whether cannabinoids can be absorbed through the skin. If developed, the patch could take up to 10 years to reach the marketplace, the ACS said."
There's all kinds of research going on.
"does not negate the fact that those groups and many more support medical marijuana."
They support smoked marijuana as medicine. They support it only as a means to obtain their ultimate goal of marijuana legalization for all. They do NOT care about sick and dying, other that to use them to obtain that goal.
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Do the groups you listed support smoked marijuana as medicine or do they simply acknowledge the potential medicinal properties of the cannabinoids contained within?
Incorrect, it happens. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you'll notice that I was involved in the early research of SR141716, Rimonabant. Our lab had Federal grants where we were supposed to find only harmful effects of marijuana concerning the HPA and HPO (or HPG) axis and other specific hypothalamic activities. Our results came up with positive effects for hyperactive adrenal disease models and a possible positive effect for depression induced by 5HT pathways in the hypothalamus. The funding was pulled after our results became known.
It's not just propaganda - it happens. In this area, the government made the error of demanding certain biased results before the study is performed. If a research group didn't give them the results they wanted, the funding dried up. I've been out of research in that area for almost a decade years, it may have changed since then. But it did happen in the 90s.
There's all kinds of research going on.
There's been an increase in the last three years that I've noticed. Most of the practical, ground breaking research went overseas where their was less resistance. Before our cannabinoid project had to shut down, we were working with a German pharmaceutical company and an Israeli one because that's where the action was since it was discouraged in the US.
"does not negate the fact that those groups and many more support medical marijuana."
They support it only as a means to obtain their ultimate goal of marijuana legalization for all. They do NOT care about sick and dying, other that to use them to obtain that goal
"Those groups" refer to the medical organizations. They care very deeply about the sick and dying.
Smoked marijuana is not medicine. Do the groups you listed support smoked marijuana as medicine or do they simply acknowledge the potential medicinal properties of the cannabinoids contained within?
Smoked marijuana fits the definition of a medicine and is used as such. You can't keep denying it because you don't want it legalized for common use.
Yes, those groups listed support the use of smoked marijuana in a controlled, prescribed fashioned for specific conditions.
Inhalation is a valid method of administering medicine. Until inhalers of cannabinoid agents are developed, smoking 'administration' is an inefficient method but valid method. Inhalers of a specific synthesized cannabinoid would be much better and more effective, as would injections and topicals.
Like I said before, you can't deny smoked marijuana is a medicine when it fits the defintion, the usage, and has been used as one, and is currently being used as one. Limit it to not approved by the FDA - your anti-legalization would be stronger for it.
Yes I can. Exactly how does a physician prescribe this medicine? How much medicine is to be taken for a particular ailment, how frequently, and for how long a period? What exactly is contained in this medicine -- do studies and reports indicate any possible side effects? What about a listing of drug interactions? Isn't it possible that this medicine can contain a fungus or bacteria, especially if the patient obtains his "medicine" from other sources? Isn't the patient inhaling chemicals known to be carcinogens?
If further research shows that smoked marijuana interferes with the immune system, can an AIDS patient sue their doctor who prescribed it? If further research confirms that smoked marijuana restricts blood flow to the optic nerve, can a glaucoma patient sue their doctor who prescribed it?
Smoked marijuana is no more medicine than chewing on a coca leaf..
You're still denying a fact simply because you don't like it. If you don't like it - it doesn't make it untrue.
Exactly how does a physician prescribe this medicine? How much medicine is to be taken for a particular ailment, how frequently, and for how long a period?
The physician writes a script for a dosage with the instructions "prn," as needed. Many medications are taken that way. A standard protocol from the clinical studies, like the ones performed in New York, California, Quebec, would give the rest.
What exactly is contained in this medicine -- do studies and reports indicate any possible side effects?
Contents in marijuana have been analyzed and every medicine has side effects - marijuana's are well known, hence the need to develop more specific agents.
Isn't it possible that this medicine can contain a fungus or bacteria, especially if the patient obtains his "medicine" from other sources?
Sure, that's why Health Canada's plan includes government regulations. California, Oregon, Washington, UK, Australia, et al. would do the same. Plus, that's why there is concern over medicine purchasing from Canada and Mexico. All medicines could have a quality control issue if viewed that way.
Isn't the patient inhaling chemicals known to be carcinogens?
Do you realize how many medications are carcinogenic? An increased risk of cancer is not unusual.
If further research shows that smoked marijuana interferes with the immune system, can an AIDS patient sue their doctor who prescribed it?
That study has been done. The results were no significant interference. (Short-term effects of cannabinoids on immune phenotype and function in HIV-1-infected patients. Bredt BM, Higuera-Alhino D, Shade SB, Hebert SJ, McCune JM, Abrams DI. J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;42(11 Suppl):82S-89S.)
If further research confirms that smoked marijuana restricts blood flow to the optic nerve, can a glaucoma patient sue their doctor who prescribed it?
No, just like a patient on oxycodone can not sue for hearing loss. Besides, marijuana acts through a direct receptor mediated effect through ocular cannabinoid receptors to to lower intraocular pressure. Different effect.
No medicine is perfect, no medicine is without side effects, no medicine is without a population wherein it isn't successful. Smoked marijuana is not a great medicine. But it is still a medicine.
Marijuana meets the definition and functionality of a medicine and inhalation is an accepted route of administration. You're arguing from a point that a dolphin can't be a mammal because it's a "fish."
And you have one R -- Refusal to answer my question.
Simply because something is being used as medicine doesn't make it medicine. Chicken soup is used for colds -- is chicken soup medicine?
"To say that smoked marijuana will never be used as medicine is completely false" --- "Dr. Russo ... will say that smoked marijuana ... will never be recognized as an approved medicine."
You should proofread your posts.
"when in 1974, research showed that cannabis could prevent cancer by cutting off the blood supply to emerging tumors."
Is that right? Wanna bet your life on that little Dr. Russo ditty?
"Injections of THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, caused transplanted tumors in mice to grow faster, according to a study published recently in The Journal of Immunology (Vol. 165, No. 1). Researchers say they are concerned these results might apply to cancer patients using marijuana or THC to fight nausea from cancer-treatment drugs."
"A potential disadvantage of the medicinal use of THC or cannibis [the marijuana plant] in patients with established cancer is the possible enhancement of tumor growth…," the study authors write."
"The researchers, led by Steven M. Dubinett, M.D., of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine ..."
"Dr. Willis also agrees with the researchers on another point: that smoking marijuana is risky. "ACS (American Cancer Society) has always been adamant against smoking anything, and tars in marijuana smoke are unquestionably carcinogenic," she says. Previous studies have found that, compared with tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains four times as much tar and higher concentrations of many carcinogens."
cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Marijuana_Ingredient_Causes_Mice_Tumors_to_Grow_Faster.asp
Smoked marijuana is not medicine.
Chicken soup is used for colds -- is chicken soup medicine?
And you expect an answer, don't you...
I stand by my previous statement.
Thank you. That is exactly it. In another thread, I tried to sum up the argument with
"Charlton Heston will never be a movie star"
- but Charlton Heston starred in many great movies like Ben Hur, even though he is is and might not make another film, he is still a movie star
- "Doesn't matter, Charlton Heston will never be a movie star."
It is just as circular here, I wish you better luck. But such refusal of basic fact in the face of agenda rarely responds to reason.
That is another dumb statement as you cannot prove the negative, but it also show that finding the smallest harm was more important than unlocking the miracles of the cannabinoids.
Agreed, that has been the focus of control over the research. Blind denial of marijuana as a medicine also adds to the hostile atmosphere inhibiting research into better development and application of cannabinoids.
The discovery of the endogenous cannabinoid system must have sent this crowd into a spasm.
The insane behavior of the federal government to block all the research of cannabinoids is yet another crime against humanity, just as cannabis prohibition itself is a crime against humanity.
I am not a part of the legalization group - for me the issues are separate. Legalization for recreational use is a social issue and not related to recognition of cannabis as a source for medical knowledge and improved treatment. As a member of the medical community and once a medical researcher, my focus is understandably narrowed to the research and application aspects. Such has been the focus of this thread.
In that aspect, I would agree that repression of cannabinoid research and application has been harmful to science and medicine. But then, there were those that for the sole reason of belief and dogma refused to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
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.