Should it be made available for research?

[Daniel ~]

Pubdate: Wed, 01 Dec 2004
Source: Scientific American (US)
Copyright: 2004 Scientific American, Inc
Contact: editors@sciam.com
Website: http://www.sciam.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/404
Author: The Editors
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

MARIJUANA RESEARCH

The human brain naturally produces and processes compounds closely related to those found in Cannabis sativa, better known as marijuana [see "The Brain's Own Marijuana," by Roger A. Nicoll and Bradley E. Alger.] These compounds are called endogenous cannabinoids or endocannabinoids. As the journal Nature Medicine put it in 2003, "the endocannabinoid system has an important role in nearly every paradigm of pain, in memory, in neurodegeneration and in inflammation." The journal goes on to note that cannabinoids' "clinical potential is enormous." That potential may include treatments for pain, nerve injury, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, the wasting related to AIDS and more.

Yet outdated regulations and attitudes thwart legitimate research with marijuana. Indeed, American biomedical researchers can more easily acquire and investigate cocaine. Marijuana is classified as a so-called Schedule 1 drug, alongside LSD and heroin. As such, it is defined as being potentially addictive and having no medical use, which under the circumstances becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Any researcher attempting to study marijuana must obtain it through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The U.S. research crop, grown at a single facility, is regarded as less potent--and therefore less medicinally interesting--than the marijuana often easily available on the street. Thus, the legal supply is a poor vehicle for studying the approximately 60 cannabinoids that might have medical applications.

This system has unintended, almost comic, consequences. For example, it has created a market for research marijuana, with "buyers" trading journal co-authorships to "sellers" who already have a marijuana stockpile or license. The government may also have a stake in a certain kind of result. One scientist tells of a research grant application to study marijuana's potential medical benefits. NIDA turned it down. That scientist rewrote the grant to emphasize finding marijuana's negative effects. The study was funded.

Some may argue that researchers do not need to study the drug--after all, there is Marinol, a synthetic version of marijuana's major active compound, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC; it relieves nausea and stimulates appetite. But patients are often disappointed with Marinol as compared with marijuana. A 1997 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine noted that "it is difficult to titrate the therapeutic dose of this drug, and it is not widely prescribed. By contrast, smoking marijuana produces a rapid increase in the blood level of the active ingredients and is thus more likely to be therapeutic."

The reasonable course is to make it easier for American researchers to at least examine marijuana for possible medical benefits. Great Britain, no slacker in the war on drugs, takes this approach: the government has authorized a pharmaceutical firm to grow different strains of marijuana for clinical trials.

This call for marijuana research is not a closet campaign for drug legalization--easing research barriers would not require that marijuana be reclassified, nor would it have any bearing on individual states' decisions to approve limited use of medical marijuana. As a 1995 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association said, "We are not asking readers for immediate agreement with our affirmation that marijuana is medically useful, but we hope they will do more to encourage open and legal exploration of its potential." After almost a decade of little progress, we reiterate that sentiment.

- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mmjlist-unsubscribe@cannabismd.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mmjlist-help@cannabismd.org

[GrahamGarside]

I don't beleive we should have our heads in the sand over any kind of research. If there is the slightest chance of a medical application it should be explored. I myself suffer from chronic joint aches and can testify to the pain releiving qualities it offers. Unfortunately I don't like its other affects and also it's price so don't use it, but a medical version would be ideally suited to me.
I'm not fond of the drug though, contrary to many peoples beliefs it is addictive, I can barely hold a conversation with my bro if he hasn't had any because of how snappy and ratty he gets, and many of my friends who smoke border on obsession with it, sitting drawing little leafs on leaflets and getting all excited when they get a batch. And you aren't nearly as funny as you think you are on it

[robbie]

Honestly, I think they should legalize all drugs. But no free health care for those that choose to abuse them.
Rob

[Daniel ~]

A distinction should be made between actual addiction and habit, two very different things. As a 40 year recreational user, I have no ill effect from using or not using.

I can very easily fall into the habit, very easily break it. We all get petulant hen we can't have what we want...or is that just me?":O}

Ah, money, the only reason I haven't smoked in a while.

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by robbie

Honestly, I think they should legalize all drugs. But no free health care for those that choose to abuse them.
Rob

Not to worry, I don't know anyone who gets free health care. May I ask why those who suffer from addition, now known to have some very heavy duty genetic components should be denied health care?

Any idea what high school and collage football does to the human body?

Should they get free heath care? Why? I don't even watch the game?

The point I'm trying so clumsily to make is that NO ONE should be denied medical aid...ever.

BTW there are a great many pot heads out there making contributions to our society I could only dream of making.

But I do agree that the state should mind it's own business rather than trying to get inside our bedrooms and our heads.

[robbie]

The point I'm trying so clumsily to make is that NO ONE should be denied medical aid...ever.

My point was FREE health care, not NO health care. As I think with all drugs and drinking, it's about choice.(your life, your choice, you pay) NOBODY put the gun to my head to put the bottle to my mouth. I think it has alot to do with will. If you wanna really quit (regardless of some "genetic thing" you'll quit.

I've seen this with my Grandmother growing up. She smoked for YEARS hell decades, the doctor finally said "quit or die" she quit, she told me that she quit because she wanted to watch me grow up. (and lived another 15 years)

I would say her WILL to wanna see me grow up over powered her addiction.

But I do agree that the state should mind it's own business rather than trying to get inside our bedrooms and our heads.

Here here!!!
Rob

[Daniel ~]

Just so you realize that the science is in on the subject of addiction. While there are questions still to be answered, it has little to do with will power.

So how about football, their choice, they should pay?

Have you thought about what this society pays to create a Doctor and how much of that is paid for by your taxes?

Addicts pay taxes as well. I hope you've got the stomach to watch those without money to suffer and die untreated as I do not.

You drink, are you saying you would refuse medical aid if you couldn't pay for it?

I'm just asking...

[GrahamGarside]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

A distinction should be made between actual addiction and habit, two very different things. As a 40 year recreational user, I have no ill effect from using or not using.

I can very easily fall into the habit, very easily break it. We all get petulant hen we can't have what we want...or is that just me?":O}

Ah, money, the only reason I haven't smoked in a while.

I know what you mean. I drink on a night out out of habit, it's just what most people do and I'm too weak to be the one who doesnt, the next day when I'm nursing my hang over I don't continue to drink to prevent those withdrawel symptoms like an alchoholic would. Some people light up ust to reach a normal state, it's not as severe as something like heroin or nicotine but I would still say thats an addiction and there isn't conclusive evidence as to what it's permanent effects could be when taken in such large doses as someone like my brother does.
I don't beleive it should be illegal though, its my choice what I choose to do to my body, it's not the substance it's self that is a problem but the abuse of it, and while people can intoxicate them selfs with alchohol and get up to the kind of things I see on friday and saturday nights there is no justification for banning a substance giving similar effects to the mind and body minus the agressiveness incured by alchohol consumption.

[robbie]

So how about football, their choice, they should pay?

You may not know but I do as a copier tech I KNOW I'm prone to bad knees and a bad back. With that knowledge, I've taken step's (as well as my employer) to reduce the risk of injury. I suppose if I really didn't want bad knees or a bad back I could do something else.

Let's take a catcher for a baseball team. We all are pretty aware that those guys are prone to bad knees and bad back. I think it's reasonable that THEY probably know this as well. If they don't take the proper precautions, shame on them.

Have you thought about what this society pays to create a Doctor and how much of that is paid for by your taxes?

No I haven't.
I had to pay while I was going to school, and pay after I left (student loan's) They can't do the same? Yes taxes did pay for some of my schooling (I'm greatful) and I don't mind if it pays for some of there's as well.

You drink, are you saying you would refuse medical aid if you couldn't pay for it?

Bill me!!!
Do I own a house? Do I own a car? Can I sell my computer? Can I sell my TV? Do I have property? (I've made my bed, now I have to lay in it)

Thankfully though, I'm sure the state has a program set up. Which I don't mind one bit. It's the abuse of the program that concerns me.

I'm just asking...........

I'm just telling...........
Rob

[alexkerhead]

Originally Posted by robbie

Honestly, I think they should legalize all drugs. But no free health care for those that choose to abuse them.
Rob

that would be great, it would alos keep 80% of prison inmates out of the jails, therefore saving we the tax payers a substantial amount.

[Daniel ~]

Here's a difference in our mindsets Robbie. Your worried about abuse, I worry about those who need and to my mind deserve (That's everyone) care and don't receive it. Shouldn't we establish such care and make sure it reaches those most in need, before we worry if it will be abused?

By the way what abuse do you fear in getting medical treatment?

[danrok]

Let's no forget that it is only very recently that certain drugs were made illegal. The history of narcotic use goes back thousands of years.

Tobacco is quite a modern drug - only been in wide spread use for about 2,000 years! Opium goes back much further, most likely because opium poppies will grow easily almost anywhere where as tobacco is a very fussy plant and needs specific environmental conditions to grow.

The fact that pleasure drugs are illegal seems to cause crime - not the drug itself. When all these drugs were legal, no-one was commiting crimes to acquire them, at least not to any noticeable extent.

Smack addicts in the UK will commit crime such as shoplifting to acquire the money they need for the their habbit, unless they earn enough to pay for it. Some do earn ebough because they are doctors, accountants and lawyers.

The real cost of producing one day's worth of smack is 2 pence (about 3 cents). If the drug was not illegal that is all an addict would need 2p per day! No organised criminals would be interested in that. The user would not have to commit crime to pay for it.

[GrahamGarside]

the way i see it someone is quite happy with all the money being made from these substances being illegal

[Daniel ~]

BTW Pot's botanical classification is that of an herb, not that of a drug.

I became illegal in this country in the 1920's a means to control Black artists and musicians among whom it's use was prevalent. It's use goes back at lest 5,000 years both as medicine and as a high.

Nixon commissioned a $20,000,000 report, the results of which so infuriated his racist heart he tore it up. The report said it was a harmless pastime and should be legalize.

( Has anyone else had the pleasure of hearing the tape of Nixon and The Rev. Billy Graham discussing ****s and hebs, a real sonata of racist vehemence!)

But hey, criminals have been making the laws in this country right from the start.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by GrahamGarside

the way i see it someone is quite happy with all the money being made from these substances being illegal

I'm sure there are many of them! The great thing about illegal money is that you don't have to pay tax on it.

Where I live local people from all walks of life are caught in major busts, the police included.

But the roots of the UK supply lie in places such as Afganistan and the north coast of Africa. Same places as terrorist organisations.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

I became illegal in this country in the 1920's

I didn't realise you were that old or an out-law!

[surlyjoe]

[quote=Daniel ~]It became illegal in this country in the 1920's a means to control Black artists and musicians among whom it's use was prevalent. /QUOTE]

let's not forget our furry freinds to whom we gave the liqour monopoly in the 20's, they were the benefactors of outlawing pot as well, with more than a little left over for those keeping it a monopoly.