Cannabis drug 'fights pain without high'

BBC On Line ^ | Wednesday, 21 August, 2002 | Unsigned

[aculeus]

Scientists have developed a cannabis-based medicine which relieves chronic pain without any of the "high" normally associated with the drug.

They believe the discovery could pave the way for cannabis-based medication to become available by prescription within two years.

Much of the controversy surrounding the medicinal use of cannabis has centred on fears that it would be used solely for its mood-altering effects.

However, scientists at the University of Massachusetts in the United States say their discovery should help authorities to overcome these fears.

Dr Sumner Burstein and colleagues say early trials of the medication in animals and healthy patients have been promising.

The medication, called ajulemic acid or CT3, has been manufactured in laboratories.

It maximises the medicinal effects of tertrahydrocannabinol - the key ingredient of cannabis - without any of the mind-altering effects.

'More effective'

In animal tests, this compound was found to be between 10 to 50 times more effective at reducing pain than tetrahydrocannabinol.

Those tests showed that ajulemic acid was very effective at preventing the joint damage associated with arthritis and relieving the muscle stiffness associated with multiple sclerosis.

The compound was tested last year in 15 healthy volunteers in France. That study reported no side effects or mood changes in those participants.

A further trial on 21 patients with chronic severe pain is currently underway in Germany.

Dr Bernstein said the results of each study had been promising.

"The indications so far are that it is safe and effective," he said.

Dr Bernstein added that the compound could replace a wide variety of current medicines used to fight pain.

"We believe that [the compound] will replace aspirin and similar drugs in most applications primarily because of a lack of toxic side effects."

Dr Bernstein acknowledged that some patients may wish to experience the mood-altering effects of cannabis by taking this compound.

But speaking at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston, he added: "The medical community wants efficacy without this effect."

A spokeswoman for the UK's Medicinal Cannabis Research Foundation said: "We believe it would be premature to comment on the merits of ajulemic acid before more rigorous testing in patients has been carried out, but look forward to seeing the results after further study."

[Don Joe]

"I recommend you get yourself a bong and a big stack of 'Three Stooges' videos."

And I recommend that you...

Aw, nevermind. My mother always warned me against pissing into the wind.

[A CA Guy]

Well nobody holds a mouth open and stuffs drugs or por into an individuals mouth.
The first act of harm was done to themselves by the individual.
If anything, addicted folks are dragging enforcement into it.
Employers are ulcerating from employing addicts or lesser users.
There is no upside to addiction or the illegal drugs.

I know YOU are glad then that this perscription drug without the high is available.
Takes away the whole medical excuse for pot smoking!
Now it becomes more an issue of facilitating recreational dopers!

[A CA Guy]

por = pot

Sorry, working many hours and my typing is suffering so much due to that.

[headsonpikes]

I can see that I stand little chance of penetrating the logical thicket that is your position on this issue.

In my view, you have an UNWARRANTED faith in the GOOD intentions of those who seek tight governmental controls on pot or any other danged drug!

If one concedes to these would-be Kings the capacity to decide what folks can eat and drink, what kind of house they can live in, how folks tend to their own health, and etc,. THERE IS NOTHING LEFT for YOU to decide.

Is that the life you really want for yourself and your descendents?

[A CA Guy]

So I take it you are for ridding the country of the FDA?

[A CA Guy]

I like them to be drug-free, productive, financially secure and happy.

For 99% of the folks out there, that's enough!

[Physicist]

Have you tried the nasal spray version? Kills the worse migraines imaginable inside of five minutes, and, you don't have to punch holes in your body.

Oh, I could never wait five minutes for relief of a migraine; 30 seconds to a minute is my limit. <g>

Besides, I spend each spring soaking my gills with Rhinocort and other caustic sprays. By April my sinuses are so raw that it would be the same as an injection anyway.

[Physicist]

I like them to be drug-free, productive, financially secure and happy.

For 99% of the folks out there, that's enough!

Maybe you're right, but my descendents are not 99% of folks.

I want them to be free.

[Physicist]

I've used those suppositories, and didn't feel "dehumanized" in the least.

But didn't you feel "homogenized"?

(Sorry, couldn't resist. <g>)

[A CA Guy]

Time to move to your own Kingdom. Perhaps your clan can buy an island and be as free as you like!
But if you land in any society where you live with others, you go by the rules or are responsible and take the consequences of your actions when you don’t.

[serinde]

one that allows someone to illegally self medicating (libertarian)

In a libertarian govt., "self medicating" would not be illegal in the first place.

Each individual would chose the meds (or anything else) to go in their body. If it worked, well and good. If it didn't, too bad.

The problem for most people is that the process requires thinking for yourself, doing the appropriate study, making your own decisions, and accepting the consequences of those actions.

In other words, if you want to get high, go ahead. If you don't, then don't.

But if you do get high and get sick, it was your choice to take that substance, so don't cry or whine about being sick. If someone is stupid enough to take harmful drugs - knowing they are harmful - they deserve no pity or rescue from anyone.

And if you hurt someone else while high, you accept the consequences of that, too.

And if an adult is so stupid that they need someone else to tell them whether something is good/healthy/whatever, they are just being lazy and relinquishing control over their own body and ultimately their life.

It's called accepting personal responsibility for your own life. It's also called freedom.

[serinde]

Lawsuits caused by drug users. Criminality of drug users. Violent crimes of drug users. Poor health of drug users.

Each of these points can be made about tobacco and alcohol. Yet those substances are legal. Since there is thus no significant difference between "illegal" drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, your position is moot.

[serinde]

The results of what drugs do to the person gives most folks a clue as to why it is BAD and hurtful. ... Illegal drug use is like abortion, it touches many around it no matter how you try and package the act.

Your points are correct. Yet they apply equally well to alcohol and tobacco and they are legal. Can you tell me exactly what makes the drugs so much worse that they must be banned but the others legal?

[serinde]

Thanks for your comments.

Have you noticed that not one of them have answered my main question? Not on this thread or on any other about this topic.

I'll keep asking, though. Maybe someday one of them will be brave enough to think for him/herself and answer.

[A CA Guy]

Which means the argument for you is, "Well look at all the other SH!T! I want my SH!T then!".

That won't work, being drunk in public is mostly illegal and the ramifications of cigs on the cost of health are cancerous and expensive.

All you can do is base your case on the misery of others.

[A CA Guy]

Again, that SH!T exists on some legal level, so you want your lousy SH!T"
Not very ethical.

You already acknowledge there is a problem with the ones we have, so you can easily understand why no more needs to be added to the mix.

Besides, this is all MOOT, the benefit of the drug without the high is now available and the Addicted Warriors can go home now, the issue is gone, except for the addicted. IMO!

[Physicist]

But if you land in any society where you live with others, you go by the rules or are responsible and take the consequences of your actions when you don’t.

That's as true in Libertopia as it was under Stalin. The question is, are those rules there to protect the rights of the individual, or are they there to suppress them? Are the rules there for their own sake, or my sake?

Much better to have pot than Pol Pot.

[Physicist]

Besides, this is all MOOT, the benefit of the drug without the high is now available and the Addicted Warriors can go home now, the issue is gone, except for the addicted. IMO!

Have you really ever seen a drug war thread on FreeRepublic where the freethinkers based their main arguments on the medicinal value of pot? Be honest.

[A CA Guy]

Your point makes my case against Libertarians and illegal drugs then. Russians overcame their supression, whereas the public at large in the USA approves of enforcement against those using illegal drugs and only the few Libertarian folks feel supressed.
Join the other 99% of thought agaist illegal drugs and be free!

[A CA Guy]

Libertarians are almost at the heart of every PRO-ILLEGAL DRUG thread. Speaks for itself!