Posted on 12/20/2001 4:46:29 PM PST by getsoutalive
I thought it might be helpful to many of the discussions that keep coming up about cannabis to offer some actual medical information and end the childish rhetoric that is so prevalent in these threads.
I will forgo the legality issue as it is obvious that cannabis is illegal because congress says so. At least that was the finding from the SCOTUS a few months back. When they weighed the medical necessity defense, Clarence Thomas wrote "It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception." Thus cannabis is not medicine because Congress SAYS SO!
Now, it is true that there has not been much research performed on the medical value of cannabis. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there is no money to be made from a plant that can be grown by just about anyone, anywhere in the world. Plus it costs a small fortune to sponsor a drug candidate through the FDA approval process. Secondly, the DEA has complete control of all legal supplies of "research material" and any requests to study medical efficacy have been rejected until very recently. Curiously, they have allowed a number of studies that hoped to prove how terrible the drug is, but we don't hear much about those because, they didn't provide the results the DEA had hoped for.
There are however, two public pharmaceutical companies that are focused exclusively on cannabis and/or synthetic derivatives. The first is Pharmos Corp. They are based in Israel and have US headquarters in NJ. They trade on the NASDAQ under the symbol PARS (PARS homepage ). The second company is GW Pharmaceuticals. They are based in the UK and trade on various European exchanges. So why would two public companies focus all there energy on a plant that "has no medical benefits"? Could it be that our congress is wrong? Lets take a look.
Pharmos has developed compound called Dexanabinol. It is a synthetic variation of THC that has been modified to remove the psychotropic effects. The lead compound is currently in the final phase of trials for its neuroprotective ability in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), such as skull fracture from a car accident. It has shown remarkable efficacy in earlier trials and the only side effect observed thus far is a localized rash. Derivatives of this lead compound are in the lab and offer potential benefits for many more indications. A list of these further possibilities is given at the investment site linked below. Neuropathic pain, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke, Parkinson's Disease and Nerve Gas protection are just a few. This does not mean that it will be effective for all these indications, but it is very promising and quite obviously not a neurotoxin (doesn't burn-out brain cells).
GW Pharmaceuticals is working with whole cannabis and non-smoking delivery of the active compounds of the natural plant. They have developed a sub-lingual spray form of the drug. GW?s studies are focused mainly on pain relief and are also showing great promise.
Dr Willy Notcutt of the East Anglian pilot study said, "The results so far have exceeded what I dared hope for . . . we are seeing 80% of our patients getting good quality benefit from the cannabis." Some were getting almost total pain relief, he said. "We have seen their pain scores go down to zero."
So, is cannabis the next miracle drug? The jury is still out on that question, but there appears to be incredible potential if one is willing to be open minded and do a little homework.
I don't remember...
No. He said it "has no medical benefits worthy of an exception."
/john
However, Sinequan, an antidepressant/tranquilizer, must be prescribed, and is legal. The resemblance of the molecular structures, at least the dibenzopyran skeleton is, to say the least, curious.
The cultivation and dispensing of Henbane, Hyoscyamus niger, is not Approved. However, the sale of the belladona alkaloid Hyoscyamine sulfate in Contac(TM) cold capsules, is OK.
Many things in Nature, when isolated, become legal and acceptable because they will produce reproducible results.
Some examples include willow bark (Aspirin), Rauwolfia serpentina (digitalis), Nux vomica (Strychnine), Goldthread root (Brucine), and probably hundreds of others.
There are several "Problems" with cannabis:
1: The mixtures of THC Isomers and other active components is widely variable with regard to strain, location of growth, and other conditions. If _one_ compound could be isolated and rigorously FDA Tested and proven safe and effective, there would not be this dispute. For example, let us say that we specifically mean one isomer, more specifically, 1-Hydroxy, 6,6,9-trimethyl dibenzopyran. The problem is that it does not affect different people the same way... And other people will react differently some times.
I have gotten some things approved by the FDA. It is neither cheap nor fun, but really, there are reasons for the cautions- Thalidomide comes to mind.
2: The stuff grows like a weed. Well, in some places it IS a weed. How can anyone base a monopoly on this? :-)
Like many I do not exactly consider SKF, Merk, etc. and others to be entirely altruistic organizations.
3: The medicine is too much fun and too uncontrollable- Despite its use for milennia. But whenever one sees polycyclic molecules nowadays, in the back of the mind, the word "Carcinogen Suspect" appears. If someone wishes to smoke their silage on their own, I can see where that is none of my business.
But if I am a stockholder in a drug company, I am not sure I want to see this stuff prescribed. I believe I read the half life of THC's in the body is 70+ days. If so, this is asking a lot of the liver, and it means that Mister Liver is not doing that well clearing it.
so not only are the drug companies a bit unwilling to invest a lot in a technology 5,000 years old, they are also very risk-shy. In old societies where cannabis was used a lot, what was the life expectancy of the people? Did they live long enough to develop cancer?
Let's watch what happens when all the '60's people, myself included, make it to Rest Home Age.
No. He said it "has no medical benefits worthy of an exception."
Look again. He did not say that. He said the "text of the Act" written by congressional comittee. So politicians made medical law without formal research performed by qualified scientists. The research is now being done and it appears they were wrong. How many people have suffered to appease politicians?
The "legalize it" lobby would be better served if it was honest and used the angle that it's much less dangerous and much less intoxicating than alcohol, and that sending someone to jail for possising it is beyond absurd.
I can never climb on the libertarian boat that wants alldrugs (even the most dangerous) legalized, but the time and resources we utilize going after people who smoke weed is crazy, given its relatively mild effects.
Please just check the links. You have been mislead.
The problem with the "medical marijuana" debate is that the pro-legal forces are being intellectually dishonest. No reputable doctor would EVER prescribe a medicine like marijuana, which is a cocktail of more than 40 active chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic.
Now, separating ONE chemical, doing research and clinical trials on it that are based on science is a good idea.
The anti-legal forces fear, correctly, that the agenda underlying "helping the sick people" has to do with recreational use of marijuana rather than medical use. Obviously being able to grow it yourself for "medical reasons" is de facto legalization, since cops won't be able to the intentions of the grower.
The PARS method is credible. Other methods that involve smoking the whole thing are not.
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.