3 ms·

FWIW I just got home from a professional meeting at which a topic was the pros and cons of cannabis legalization (as in WA or CO). The relevant part of that pr

by jrapdx3 12y ago

FWIW I just got home from a professional meeting at which a topic was the pros and cons of cannabis legalization (as in WA or CO). The relevant part of that presentation was the potential real therapeutic value of some of the 400 or so component compounds resident in the natural botanical plant material. The problem was that studying the possible effects is impeded by the requirement for special permission to use cannabis (or fraction thereof), since its a Schedule 1 drug. Furthermore, the only legal source of cannabis is that which the federal government supplies (grown in Mississippi), which is very limited. That's a shame since preliminary studies suggest certain compounds in the plant may indeed have therapeutic applications. Other countries have gone further in studying cannabis (Israel was mentioned by the presenter), but until the DEA policy changes, study will remain minimal in the US. Unfortunately, removing restrictions in individual states is not very helpful since cannabis preparations produced in one state can't legally be shipped to other states, a severely inhibiting factor for medical research. Similarly, risks and benefits of MDMA have had minimal systematic evaluation. Anecdotal reports are not considered "evidence" in the world of science, as everyone reading here should know. The only way certain drugs will be studied is to work toward changing DEA policy, there's no getting around it.

GFischer 12y ago
Could it be an opportunity for my country (Uruguay) to host large-scale studies on marijuana? (100% legal here, though it's likely the next government will backtrack at least a little) What would we need to make it happen?
- jrapdx3 12y ago
  Usually a researcher takes an interest in a topic and champions the cause. Often the biggest problem is funding. Government or pharmaceutical industry are common funding sources, sometimes private foundations are also sponsors of studies. In any case, political savvy is the defining characteristic of successful leaders in science as it is anywhere else. I think what eventually allows new ideas to take hold is having the rigorous studies producing "air-tight" results. I always say it's hard to argue with facts. Once it's clear that "this stuff really works", others jump on board spurring all kinds of related offshoots and new studies. That's why it takes a tenacious and courageous leader to advocate for the "cause" of basic or foundational clinical research. "Spontaneously acceleration" happens if it turns out there's money to be made, but that may be way, way down the road.

by jrapdx3 12y ago

GFischer 12y ago

Could it be an opportunity for my country (Uruguay) to host large-scale studies on marijuana? (100% legal here, though it's likely the next government will backtrack at least a little) What would we need to make it happen?

jrapdx3 12y ago
Usually a researcher takes an interest in a topic and champions the cause. Often the biggest problem is funding. Government or pharmaceutical industry are common funding sources, sometimes private foundations are also sponsors of studies. In any case, political savvy is the defining characteristic of successful leaders in science as it is anywhere else. I think what eventually allows new ideas to take hold is having the rigorous studies producing "air-tight" results. I always say it's hard to argue with facts. Once it's clear that "this stuff really works", others jump on board spurring all kinds of related offshoots and new studies. That's why it takes a tenacious and courageous leader to advocate for the "cause" of basic or foundational clinical research. "Spontaneously acceleration" happens if it turns out there's money to be made, but that may be way, way down the road.