3 ms·

"OK. But it isn't marijuana "itself" that does this. It is one or more chemical components that we can isolate, right?" Correct. The study tested two cannabino

"OK. But it isn't marijuana "itself" that does this. It is one or more chemical components that we can isolate, right?" Correct. The study tested two cannabinoids isolated from marijuana, not whole-bud marijuana. "But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed." Well, yes, it's going to go there eventually. Pretty much all conversations about the medical efficaciousness of marijuana (or marijuana-derived compounds) bump up against the legalization topic. This is because conducting research on a substance currently deemed illegal by the federal government is very difficult. It's also because the government labels marijuana not just illegal, but a drug "...with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." (This is the 'Schedule I' classification). Marijuana's classification in Schedule I, a category for "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence," is ridiculous. For what it's worth, here are some drugs legally considered less dangerous, or psychologically and physically dependence-forming than marijuana: cocaine, opium, methamphetamine, oxycodone, morphine, codeine, fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, Ritalin, Vicodin, Valium, Ambien, ketamine, and anabolic steroids. "I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't), but that it's an entirely different question." Absolutely. Marijuana's legalization as a consumer item has little to no bearing on this finding, or vice versa. That said, its current medical status is in debate, and whenever a potential medical usage comes up, that topic is going to come up with it.

spiritplumber 12y ago
Doesn't the whole "...with no currently accepted medical use" part automatically obsoletes with research such as this? Surely the DEA has a mailing address to which it's possible to send relevant research papers? Surely they read the literature?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- MCRed 12y ago
  I honestly can't tell if you're being earnest or not. So, apologies if you're being sarcastic. The DEA, as a government agency, was created with the mission of eradicating drugs. They aren't really in the business of doing scientific evaluation of the drugs themselves, and I would be surprised if there are any scientists on staff, and if there are, even more surprised if they have any pull. At any rate, the DEA doesn't set drug policy, the federal government does. The federal governments' track record when it comes to controlling substances has not often been in line with scientific or social needs, as is evidenced by the extreme cost of the current war on drugs and the consequent negative effects on society. For example, cocaine is a refinement of cocoa which was included in things like coca-cola as a mild stimulant. When it became controlled, smuggling economics came to bear, and thus refining it into cocaine allowed for more value-per-unit-shipment in smuggling. Being more addictive, and thus worse for society, was a side effect of this. Worse, with the war on cocaine that occurred an even further refinement was done for the same economic reasons resulting in crack. I posit that if the wellbeing of society were the primary importance for the federal government there would be no drug war, and thus no drug related violent crimes (or very few) and a lot less addiction.
  - Fundlab 12y ago
    I think you meant coca plant not cocoa.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    Thanks. It just seems to me "currently accepted medical use" is pretty unambiguous, there is SOME, that is, other than none, currently accepted medical use so their definition is wrong on its face. I'm surprised that nobody told them "Look, you're using English wrong(ly)" as a way to challenge the law. English has a simple grammar to figure out, but things like this remind me why it's a difficult language to truly grok. (I am Italian. Our government does occasionally do things like this, but at least they have to employ four paragraphs of byzantine quasi-latin, not get away with five words of non-language). I mean, if some words are in a law that causes public expense, arrests, killings, etc. I would say it's pretty important that their meaning is set in stone and universally understood! I suppose there are problems with the US Constitution in that sense, but in this case the language used is current, not 300 years old.
- Synaesthesia 12y ago
  The US government has a patent on cannabis as a medicine.
researcher88 12y ago
There was also a study recently in Europe that either tested just THC or just a CBD which found no effective treatment for cancer.
- geographomics 12y ago
  And there have also been studies showing that cannabis compounds can actually stimulate cancer growth (for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328).
eli 12y ago
Unless I'm misunderstanding they tested both isolated cannabinoids and whole-bud. In some cases whole-bud was better.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  The study's abstract [1] states that they tested CBD and THC in two forms: as "pure" forms, and as derivatives ("biological drug substance"). "Pure" is open to interpretation, and I had assumed it to mean the raw, unadulterated compounds themselves. You may be right, though. "Pure" could mean raw plant matter. But if that were the case, it wouldn't be a test of the two cannabinoids themselves; it would be a test of every chemical in the raw plant matter, including terpenes and other cannabinoids. (Cannabis contains over 85 cannabinoids, and those are only the ones we currently know of). [1] http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-7163.MCT-14-0402.abstract http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-71...

spiritplumber 12y ago

Doesn't the whole "...with no currently accepted medical use" part automatically obsoletes with research such as this? Surely the DEA has a mailing address to which it's possible to send relevant research papers? Surely they read the literature?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
MCRed 12y ago
I honestly can't tell if you're being earnest or not. So, apologies if you're being sarcastic. The DEA, as a government agency, was created with the mission of eradicating drugs. They aren't really in the business of doing scientific evaluation of the drugs themselves, and I would be surprised if there are any scientists on staff, and if there are, even more surprised if they have any pull. At any rate, the DEA doesn't set drug policy, the federal government does. The federal governments' track record when it comes to controlling substances has not often been in line with scientific or social needs, as is evidenced by the extreme cost of the current war on drugs and the consequent negative effects on society. For example, cocaine is a refinement of cocoa which was included in things like coca-cola as a mild stimulant. When it became controlled, smuggling economics came to bear, and thus refining it into cocaine allowed for more value-per-unit-shipment in smuggling. Being more addictive, and thus worse for society, was a side effect of this. Worse, with the war on cocaine that occurred an even further refinement was done for the same economic reasons resulting in crack. I posit that if the wellbeing of society were the primary importance for the federal government there would be no drug war, and thus no drug related violent crimes (or very few) and a lot less addiction.
- Fundlab 12y ago
  I think you meant coca plant not cocoa.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  Thanks. It just seems to me "currently accepted medical use" is pretty unambiguous, there is SOME, that is, other than none, currently accepted medical use so their definition is wrong on its face. I'm surprised that nobody told them "Look, you're using English wrong(ly)" as a way to challenge the law. English has a simple grammar to figure out, but things like this remind me why it's a difficult language to truly grok. (I am Italian. Our government does occasionally do things like this, but at least they have to employ four paragraphs of byzantine quasi-latin, not get away with five words of non-language). I mean, if some words are in a law that causes public expense, arrests, killings, etc. I would say it's pretty important that their meaning is set in stone and universally understood! I suppose there are problems with the US Constitution in that sense, but in this case the language used is current, not 300 years old.
Synaesthesia 12y ago
The US government has a patent on cannabis as a medicine.

researcher88 12y ago

There was also a study recently in Europe that either tested just THC or just a CBD which found no effective treatment for cancer.

geographomics 12y ago
And there have also been studies showing that cannabis compounds can actually stimulate cancer growth (for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328).

eli 12y ago

Unless I'm misunderstanding they tested both isolated cannabinoids and whole-bud. In some cases whole-bud was better.

jonnathanson 12y ago
The study's abstract [1] states that they tested CBD and THC in two forms: as "pure" forms, and as derivatives ("biological drug substance"). "Pure" is open to interpretation, and I had assumed it to mean the raw, unadulterated compounds themselves. You may be right, though. "Pure" could mean raw plant matter. But if that were the case, it wouldn't be a test of the two cannabinoids themselves; it would be a test of every chemical in the raw plant matter, including terpenes and other cannabinoids. (Cannabis contains over 85 cannabinoids, and those are only the ones we currently know of). [1] http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-7163.MCT-14-0402.abstract http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-71...