|
|
| Government Bias Prevents Gains in Cannabis Research |
|
Posted by CN Staff on June 12, 2002 at 13:18:42 PT By Bruce Taylor Seeman Source: Newhouse News 
Testimonials continue to mount about the medicinal magic of pot: the weed's purported power to dull enduring pain, build appetite, ease nausea and relax twisted muscles. But will we ever know if marijuana is truly therapeutic?Advocates for medical use of pot say research has been stalled by the federal government, which they accuse of regulatory excess and a bias for science that explores marijuana dangers rather than therapeutic possibilities. Some researchers say they have revised grant proposals to sidestep the skepticism of government reviewers. Others say the burdens of justifying their work have been too much. "That's one of the reasons I quit," said Dr. Paul Consroe, a retired University of Arizona pharmacology professor who sought federal support to study how marijuana might boost appetite in AIDS patients. "Why beat your head against the wall?" Scores of marijuana-related studies are funded each year by the federal government's National Institutes of Health. Among 148 active projects involving pot are studies that measure how the drug affects white blood cells, whether medications can reduce marijuana dependence and how marijuana is used by rural teen-agers. A researcher who wants to administer the drug in a study, however, faces myriad scientific and regulatory reviews. The federal government controls the only pot allowed in patient trials. To get marijuana for human testing, scientists need endorsements from three federal agencies -- the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. In the past five years, the NIH has received just seven funding applications for tests with government-grown marijuana to explore medical applications, said Steven Gust, a special assistant at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Four were approved. The low number of applications suggests modest interest in marijuana therapies, Gust said. But advocates for medicinal studies said researchers are leery of government roadblocks. "It's been institutionalized," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst at the Washington-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML. "Over the last 20 years, the top researchers have stopped sending research proposals" to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The federal government's awkward relationship with pot began long before the current debate over whether to consider marijuana as medicine. A 1972 federal report commissioned by President Nixon yielded an ambivalent portrait. People who smoked the drug were more likely to be lethargic, distracted, averse to routine and "not oriented toward traditional goals of society," the report said. But when it came to marijuana's impacts on the body, "the experimenter and the intermittent user develop little or no psychological dependence on the drug," the report concluded. "No organ injury is demonstrable." Marijuana remains the most-used illicit drug in the nation. A 2000 study found that nearly 11 million Americans had smoked pot within the past month, according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Its standing as an illegal drug, meanwhile, remains firm. Police arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations in 2000, the highest ever counted by the federal government, according to NORML. Activists' campaigns to modify federal law so that doctors could prescribe marijuana have failed. Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the medical marijuana movement "a well-funded and organized effort by a few individuals to clear the way for the legalization of marijuana." "I don't want it to look like we're not compassionate," Lemaitre said. "But we're highly doubtful there will be a smoked form of medicine." Nine states have passed "medical marijuana" laws intended to decriminalize pot for medical use. But in California, where "medical marijuana dispensaries" distribute the drug, the Drug Enforcement Administration has conducted raids to impose the federal prohibition. Protesters have charged federal officials are ignoring states' attempts to help the seriously ill. Segments of the medical community, meanwhile, have shown continued interest in the drug's potential to alleviate symptoms in people suffering from AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, cancer and other ailments. The Institute of Medicine, a federally chartered group that studies health-related issues, has urged more government-sponsored marijuana tests. While marijuana is not a benign substance, the institute's 1999 report said, its adverse impacts are "within the range" of effects tolerated for other medications. "The goal of clinical trials of smoked marijuana would not be to develop marijuana as a licensed drug but rather to serve as a first step toward the possible development of non-smoked, rapid-onset cannabinoid delivery systems," the report said. Last year, the American Medical Association called for studies in sick patients whose symptoms had been shown, at least in early accounts, to be reduced by marijuana use. Such reports are often cited by those who contend the federal government has been too squeamish about funding marijuana studies. Dr. Donald Abrams, a medical professor at the University of California at San Francisco, is a rarity -- a researcher who won approval to conduct a study with federal funds and marijuana. Abrams wanted to study whether pot would help AIDS patients gain weight and reduce nausea. His test proposal was rejected twice before being approved in 1997. In part to improve his chances, Abrams rewrote his proposal to measure whether marijuana caused accepted AIDS medicines to be less effective. "There are so many hoops and loops," Abrams said. Some seriously ill people smoke marijuana illegally. But Irvin Rosenfeld, 49, a stockbroker near Fort Lauderdale, Fla., is one of seven patients who smoke with permission from the U.S. government. Rosenfeld is a holdover from a now-abandoned "compassionate investigational new drug" program that let about three dozen chronically ill patients smoke marijuana to relieve symptoms. The program ended under President George H.W. Bush, but Rosenfeld was "grandfathered in" and now smokes 12 marijuana cigarettes a day. Rosenfeld, who has more than 200 bone tumors from a rare disease, said his doctor makes annual progress reports to federal officials. The marijuana dulls his pain, relaxes muscles and reduces inflammation, he said. "Each year my doctor filled out elaborate forms," Rosenfeld said. "The first time it took three hours. Three months later he asked, `What does the government think about that report?' I said, `What are you talking about? They buried it.' The next year, he took a red magic marker and put on each page: `It's Working.' We never heard back." Rosenfeld and three other program leftovers were recently studied by Dr. Ethan Russo, a Missoula, Mont., neurologist who concluded their pain relief and other benefits outweighed any cognitive or other impacts from smoking. Before that analysis, Russo said, he had twice been denied federal funding for a study on how marijuana might dull migraine headaches. "If I would have started out with a premise that cannabis causes headaches rather than relieves them, I not only could have gotten approval for the study, but I bet I would have gotten funding," Russo said. Advocates for therapeutic research say momentum may shift in upcoming months with six new tests under way at the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California at San Diego. The experiments, using federal marijuana and approved by federal agencies, are funded by California taxpayers. They will explore smoked marijuana's impact on pain and immunity in AIDS patients, the effects of medical marijuana on driving ability, and other questions. More experiments are planned at the center. In July, researchers will hold a conference to discuss how marijuana might be delivered without smoking -- perhaps as an extract under the tongue or as a suppository. "As you might imagine, our colleagues in the federal government are terrifically supportive of this approach," said Dr. Andrew Mattison, co-director of the center. Bruce Taylor Seeman can be contacted at: bruce.seeman@newhouse.com Complete Title: Advocates: Government Bias Prevents Gains in Medical Marijuana Research Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II - http://www.norml.org/ Related Articles & Web Sites: Hemp for Headaches Chronic Cannabis Use in PDF Format Cannabinoids in Pain Management Handbook of Psychotropic Herbs Picture: Ethan Russo M.D. Pot Pioneer - Cannabis Culture Marijuana Praised Despite Legal Issues Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #3 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on June 13, 2002 at 12:51:00 PT:
|
| Today's FOX morning News in Hawaii featured Dr. Carl Vogel of the UH Cancer Research speaking about treatments and programs for patients. When asked as the last question;
"What part can cannabis play in treatment for cancer and chemotherapy side effects? And what must we do to go forward?" His response was simply that although many may experience relief he suggests clinical trials to prove it's benefits. I suggested the question to the producer of the show and he graciously saved it for last! Peace And as Governor of Hawaii, I will establish the world's biggest and best clinical cannabis central cultivation facility to research and supply medical needs nation-wide. Alohas!
Jonathan Adler [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Industrial Strength on June 13, 2002 at 01:40:59 PT |
| I think that British medicine will be the first to conclusively "prove" (as if the last how many thousand years of medicine and the testimony of the near dead isn't enough??? I saw a video of a man with MS who was shaking too badly to light his own joint, ONE god damn toke and it was half as bad, half the joint later and he was barely shaking at all. It was a documentary on the subject that ran on national Canadian television.) Anyway, I think the British will be first to technically document it. In the field of medicine I would have to give the upper hand to the Brit's anyway, and this goes twofold for this subject. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by p4me on June 12, 2002 at 16:00:58 PT |
| The 73% of Americans that believe marijuana is medicine are growing in number and it seems unlikely that people will change an opinion on a fact. Like once people learn 4 times 4 is sixteen they will believe that forever because it is not an opinion of perspective but an opinion of facts. Maybe the American people will come to see their government in a completely new light when articles of government lies and stonewalling are presented. It looks like the canopy of silence is starting to break and the full spectrum of light will shine on the government's attitude toward marijuana. Then maybe the people will ask what are the real issues relating to drug abuse in this country and what should the real approach be. And when you start at the top of the list and work your way down you automatically hit T&A. We really do need to do something about those problems and to do that we have got to quit pissing away the $40 billion the Playboy article talked about and ending the absurd policy of having any government contractor drug test its employees. The Playboy article put the cost of drug testing at $5.9 billion and all that does is create a set of games for grown men and women to play that accomplishes very little. The 16 smokestacks in North Carolina will cost $2 billion to fix. I am sitting here breathing Code Red air that is "dangerous to everybody" while the government is sponsoring a drug policy that waste a good part of $46 billion. With $46 we could fix all the smokestacks and when we resumed a new approach to drug abuse problems we could start with new people and air that is fit to breathe. And how stupid is the government for wanting to spend another billion over 5 years to change what is now a well established pervasive thought? 1 [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |
