420 day? What's the 411 on medical marijuana?

istockphoto

(CBS) 420, 4:20 and 4/20 are all pot smoker code for lighting up, and each April 20 (get it?) crowds gather in cities across the U.S. to celebrate cannabis and push for laws okaying its use.

Some toke for pleasure, others for better health. But what's the truth about "medical marijuana?"

On one side of the debate are those who see pot as a near-miracle drug with benefits for a wide range of ailments, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, and neurological disorders. On the other are those who insist that scientific evidence to support these claims is iffy - and that the push to legalize marijuana across the country is just an excuse potheads use to keep themselves out of jail.

What do doctors say?

The closest thing to a final word may be a 2008 position paper issued by the American College of Physicians, the nation's second-largest physician group and a respected voice on medical matters. It summed up the scientific information supporting the use of marijuana to treat four conditions:

Poor appetite/vomiting. There's "abundant" research to support the use of THC (one of more than 60 chemical "cannabinoid" compounds in marijuana) as an appetite stimulant and an antiemetic (antivomiting remedy). "Studies of chemo-therapy patients with nausea and vomiting found THC to be equivalent or superior to other antiemetics," the authors of the paper wrote. "THC and other cannabinoids may offer relief not found in other drugs."

Glaucoma. "Cannabinoids have been shown to have neuroprotective properties and to reduce interocular pressure, a risk factor for glaucoma, a potentially blinding eye disorder. However, the effects are short-lived, and there is concern that long-term use of marijuana could reduce blood flow to the optic nerve. The authors of the paper pointed out that the American Academy of Ophthalmology has concluded that given the variety of glaucoma drugs now available, there is no scientific evidence to show marijuana is the best option for the disorder.

Neurological disorders. Evidence suggests that smoking marijuana can provide relief of pain, tremor, and spasticity in some multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury patients. In addition, recent research showed that smoking marijuana eased nerve pain associated with HIV/AIDS. A pot component called cannabidiol has been recommended for epilepsy, but "human research is scant."

Pain. "Current research on the role of various forms of marijuana as an analgesic is promising," the authors wrote, singling out cancer and rheumatoid arthritis as pain-causing conditions for which pot may be beneficial. But pot can increase as well as decrease sensitivity to pain, so more research is needed to "identify the specific kinds of pain that may be relieved by marijuana."

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Tell us your thoughts on medical marijuana.

[Lena_Butler]

Whether used medically or not, marijuana has a lot of negative side effects. You have to weigh the pros and cons of using it. Check out some of the side effects here; http://www.testcountry.com/infographics/side-effects-of-using-marijuana.html

[Nissl]

I have moderate, occasional sciatica as a result of surgery last year. I have found that opiate drugs do not work well; they can make you "not care" but they do little for the pain. Anti-inflammatories are very good if there is inflammation around the nerve, but not if there isn't. Cannabis is often (but not always) pretty helpful, to the extent that I have to be careful not to sit in bad positions and irritate the nerve further without realizing it. I would rather not play around with other pharmaceuticals that affect the CNS as I am already familiar with cannabis's side effects, which are pretty minimal with infrequent oral dosing, and handle them pretty well. I'm glad I live in CA and could get a medical recommendation relatively easily.

More broadly, I should just point out that a very narrow majority is still opposed to legalization, but this is shrinking year by year. We will see what happens with legalization efforts in CA and OR in 2012. I broadly support legalization but am concerned that it will lead to federal disruption of the current medical systems in these states, or in various ways make it easier for minors to acquire the drug.

[toking420]

First of all our government has lost touch with reality. The will of the people is to legalize pot. Grow some high thc wee, and do a stidy under controlled conditions. Tobacco is worse on the reapiratory system.
Also, I am a devout follower of Jesus, and I believe this plant was created to heal the humans God created. Use your heads lawmakers, tax tax tax marijuana, eleminate The DEA and MEG angents, get rid of the black market for pot, and have the same fines for DUI as alchohol.
By the way I have not smoked pot for MANY years-it is the truth-I was electromagnetically tortured for 8 months in Libertyville Illinois. Serve the individuals who elected you NOW.

[GrannyGreen]

My brother, Malcolm pretty much covered it all!! People want an alternative to treatment by chemical toxicity and if it makes them feel a little better in the process... even better!

To learn more about Medical Marijuana and meet other like-minded individuals please visit www.MedicalMarijuana.com

[malcolmkyle]

Here are just some of the many studies the Feds wish they'd never commissioned:

06) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 1):

Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

07) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART 2):

In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

08) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 3):

Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

09) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 4):

Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased Lung Cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

10) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE GREAT MEDICAL VALUE:

In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." The report also added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report & they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

[malcolmkyle]

Here are just some of the many studies the Feds wish they'd never commissioned:

01) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:

A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health
. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

02) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:

Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

03) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE:

Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.

04) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK:

The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

05) PROHIBITION MAY CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found the following: Cannabis (Marijuana) use in San Francisco was 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample. And lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p 836-842.

[kesterling2003]

ac24221, between 1/1/1997 and 6/30/2005 Neurontin was the direct cause of 968 deaths more than cannabis has in the entire recorded history of man. This is a clear cut example of just what "FDA approved" can mean to patients.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000145#drugdeathchart

[kesterling2003]

quoted -----> "...there is no scientific evidence to show marijuana is the best option for the disorder."
------------------------------

Gosh, doesn't everyone love weasel words? The statement below is just as true as the statement above.

"...there is no scientific evidence to show marijuana is not the best option for the disorder."

<p>Here's another one that's just as true:</p>

<p>"...there is no scientific evidence to show marijuana is an acceptable treatment as any for the disorder."</p>

<p>Then there's this one, "...there is no scientific evidence to show marijuana needs to be used as the medicine of last resort, and only after making the patient endure a few years suffering more than needed to prove to the Know Nothings that the patient "just wants to get high". </p>

<p>But the fact of the matter is that despite being married to medical cannabis in the collective minds of Americans, the research scientists have developed drugs which strike the need or give the patient as good or better benefit for glaucoma as using medicinal cannabis. If the FDA approves a drug that's in phase 3 of the 3 phase approval process it is likely MS is going to be stricken from the list as well. But the FDA drug will contain organic THC as part of the formulary. The key difference in this new drug from dronabinol is that it will also have cannabidiol. The latter being the reason that dronabinol is not an acceptable substitute for whole plant cannabinoid medicines.</p>

<p>This leaves only several hundred maladies for which medicinal cannabis is useful and/or gives the patient a significant medical benefit. There are no significant remedies for neuropathic pain on the shelves of the FDA accredited pharmacies shelves. There are no significant remedies for PTSD. The Israeli government sure seems to think that cannabis is a significant remedy for PTSD. I can't swear it's true but I have heard that the Israelies hold their soldiers in high regard and will go out of their way to make sure that they're taken care of, particularly for conditions which their service was the direct, proximate cause of their condition.</p>

<p>Ten years from now it's doubtful that there will be any significant medical need for whole plant options. It's one of the more annoying aspects of the Know Nothing prohibitionists ignorant lobbying against letting licensed doctors and accredited scientists make the decisions about what is or what is not medicine is that two things in the process are as certain as death or taxes. 1) the vast majority of cannabinoid medicine will be based on non-psychoactive cannabinoids and 2) that the researchers will figure out a way to gain the benefits of medicinal cannabis and to eliminate the getting high 'side effect'.</p>

<p>20 years from now the only places you will see medical cannabis is in California and possibly in Colorado. Prop 215 in California is liable to never go away because it can't be repealed or amended except by voter initiated ballot initiative. Coloradoans went and amended the State Constitution to include protecting medicinal cannabinoid patients from prosecution by the State. But perhaps Colorado has a legislative remedy to repeal that Amendment.</p>

[tmittelstaed]

So we replace pot, which is very cheap as it can be grown by anyone, with pills which just put money into big pharma. Real smart there.

[TheStolenGiraffe]

if we're not going to legalize it, then we at least need to decriminalize it...there are too many tax payers dollars going towards arresting, convicting, and imprisoning people for this "crime" that doesn't appear to affect anyone but the user.

the "Reefer Madness" theories have long been debunked, and I'm beginning to think that it only remains illegal in order to unjustly prosecute, target, and discriminate against black people and provide much needed cheap labor to the prison industrial complex.

if you smoke weed...you can't get/keep a job (at least one worth having) and your viewed as a drug addict on the same level as dope, meth, and crack abusers. Something just doesn't seem right about that...especially for a natural plan that grows from the earth, and is ready for ingestion from the moment it sprouts with no other processes needed.
You pluck it from a stalk and smoke it...no assembly line required, no chemicals added.

[ac24221]

I am a Diabetic with Peripheral Neuropathy. To the argument that there are pharmaceuticals that can do the same job as cannabis, that is not always so. I have had two doctors try to prescribe Neurotin to me. It is a very toxic drug with horrific side effects for some people. I almost ended up in emergency. Cannabis works fine. With proper research into cannabis many medicines will come from a plant without the negative side effects of so many of the other drugs out there and cannabis is a lot cheaper.