cannabisnews.com: Nevada Approves Bill on Medical Use of Marijuana
Nevada Approves Bill on Medical Use of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on June 02, 2002 at 07:29:08 PT
By Tanya Albert, AMNews Staff
Source: American Medical News
Despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that put the kibosh on California's cannabis buying clubs, the Nevada Legislature earlier this month voted to legalize the medical use of marijuana there. The key difference in Nevada's system that some experts say should allow the legislation to go forward without much, if any, interference from the federal government is the way the law lets patients access medical marijuana.
Unlike California's buying clubs, where large amounts of marijuana were grown in a central location and then distributed to patients, Nevada's legislation would allow patients or their caregivers to have up to seven plants for their personal use. It's similar to laws in Oregon and Maine in that respect, and neither of those states has encountered problems with the federal government before or after the May high court ruling. "Our analysis is that the Supreme Court ruling said there is no medical necessity defense and that buying clubs weren't legal," said Brenda Erdes, legislative counsel with Nevada's Legislative Counsel Office, which directed the state Legislature on the best way to write the law without running into problems. "But there wasn't anything beyond that." The court ruling didn't strike down laws or ballot initiatives that passed in nine states in recent years, including California. And in Oregon and Maine, where medical marijuana programs have been up and running for several years, the ruling hasn't changed physician habits when it comes to recommending whether patients should be allowed to have marijuana for medical purposes. "We've received no questions to our knowledge," said Jim Kronenberg, spokesman for the Oregon Medical Assn. "The atmosphere is unchanged," added Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon Attorney General's Office. "Physicians have always been wary because they are subject to federal laws." Buffering physicians But Oregon has tried to make physicians feel more confident that they won't get in trouble with federal authorities. Oregon law requires patients to get a note from their doctor, which they can bring to the state to receive a license which allows them to own marijuana plants, Neely said. About 2,300 cards have been issued. Nevada's legislation, which at press time was waiting for the governor's expected signature, tries to do something similar. In addition to letting patients cultivate seven plants, the state would create a registry for patients whose physicians recommended that they use medical marijuana to treat side effects of their serious illnesses. Nevada also would take things a step further than other states have. It plans to ask the federal government for permission to conduct research on whether marijuana helps ease pain, nausea and other problems that people with cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses encounter. Despite the research component of the legislation, the Nevada State Medical Assn. continues to oppose legalizing medical marijuana. The medical benefits haven't been shown, and the federal government would have to change its policies for the drug to be legal, said NSMA Executive Director Lawrence P. Matheis. "It simply is a popular vote," he said. "It's empathy for people who are chronically ill. There is question to whether there is any medical value. ... The state constitution is a terrible place to put a medical directive." Las Vegas oncologist Arnold Wax, MD, agreed. He pointed to a study in the July 1, 2000, Journal of Immunology that found that the active ingredient in marijuana actually caused cancer cells to reproduce faster. And, he said, there are plenty of other legal drugs on the market to treat patients, including Marinol (dronabinol), manufactured by Roxane Laboratories Inc. and Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc. Marinol is the synthetic form of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. "There is absolutely no use for medical marijuana," he said. "It is a social and emotional issue. It is not a medical issue." Note: The legislation isn't expected to raise problems with federal authorities, but the state medical association opposes it.Source: American Medical News (US)Author: Tanya Albert, AMNews StaffPublished: June 25, 2001Copyright: 2002 American Medical AssociationWebsite: http://www.amednews.com/Contact: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/amnews/edlet.htmRelated Articles & Web Sites:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmNearly 60 Now Approved for Medical Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11494.shtmlNew State Law Eases Penalties on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11008.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #11 posted by dddd on June 03, 2002 at 06:57:05 PT
.......degrees.......
....You're extra cool Ethan....I really liked your polite addendum..:
"I did not mean to imply any elitism to the understanding medical articles. I should have said that it takes an incredible amount of time and effort to sort out these issues."
...I appreciate your delicious eloquence!
I think that a person who has matriculated,and studied these things as extensively as you have,,,deserves a certain smidgen of 'eliteness '...You are a distinguished scholar,and I think this forum is greatly enhanced by your presence.........Sincerely...dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Lehder on June 03, 2002 at 06:16:37 PT
thank you, Dr. Russo
You are always very fair-minded. If more physicians were so interested as you are in studying evidence and had the same appreciation of cause and effect, rather than being satisfied with shuffling medicare billings and being led about by pharmaceutical sales people, then a lot more of them would be outspokenly on our side.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by Ethan Russo MD on June 03, 2002 at 05:50:55 PT:
Addition
I did not mean to imply any elitism to the understanding medical articles. I should have said that it takes an incredible amount of time and effort to sort out these issues.The offending article cites a dose of 1 mg/kg of THC injected intraperitoneally. Often that includes some solvent that has toxic properties of its own. An equivalent dose in the average 70 kg human would be 70 mg injected. That is an extremely high dose for that route, especially when administered chronically. The implications of this experiment on use in humans are questionable at best.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Lehder on June 03, 2002 at 05:39:06 PT
the drug warrior exception
What's the story, morning glory? Yea, or nea?This request is not clear to me. Would you ask that I quote only research that demonstrates that cannabinoids kill cancer? I provided the abstract to a reference that was inadequately cited in the article. Period. I would not make a "yea or nea" committment (to what?) on the basis of one abstract. Must everything be trivial?Does the 2000 Immunology articly cited say
cannabinoids reduce or increase tumor growth? No. The abstract says,"In two different weakly
immunogenic murine lung cancer models, intermittent administration of THC (5 mg/kg, four times/wk
i.p. for 4 wk) led to accelerated growth of tumor implants compared with treatment with diluent alone."That is not enough to draw any conclusions about ingested cannabis. I don't know what the article says, nor do I know what is said in later papers that cite this one, nor do I know anything about the experimental conditions or if the work has any bearing whatsoever on the effects of cannabis ingested by humans. I provided a reference that was not clearly identified. Period.I would dispute the elitist statement that "an advanced degree" is needed to understand published medical or biological studies, though, admittedly, those who are motivated to undertake the work of comprehension often already have an advanced (medical or biology) degree! I do not have the time or the desire to spend the many hours that would be needed to read the full article and many associated articles in order to evaluate the July 1 2000 Nat. Med. article and determine if it has any bearing at all on ingested cannabis, and I would not emulate the foolishness of Tanya Albert by making a conclusion without all this work.But Nothing in human culture requires an advanced degree for access, including my own discipline in which I hold an advanced degree.But true understanding of anything does require a scientific spirit in which one considers all evidence and is constantly self-critical, asking "what might be wrong with my ideas?", and seeking flaws in one's understanding. Unless, of course, you are a drug warrior - like Tanya Albert.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo MD on June 02, 2002 at 17:57:18 PT:
And Another Thing
Dr. David Hadorn in Victoria, BC is undertaking a project such that irresponsible doctors and scientists who make unsubstantiated and erroneous statements about cannabis will have to answer to their respective overseeing authorites.We have no intention that those who seek to vilify this medicine or deny it to sick people will go unanswered.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Ethan Russo MD on June 02, 2002 at 17:54:41 PT:
Where Am I?
Trying to do my job, and have a home life.Now, as to the questions. Addressing this stuff adequately requires an advanced degree. Suffice it to say, most of the negative articles about immunological effects of THC are based on doses 50-100 times those required to have a psychoactive effect, are in test tubes, or rats, or are funded by NIDA with a not so hidden agenda.Please be aware that THC has very positive immunological effects in various diseases, the latest being that Hepatitis C patients respond much better to treatment when they also happen to use cannabis. It also kills brain and breast tumor cells. Who are you going to believe?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Dankhank on June 02, 2002 at 17:17:00 PT:
Me Too ...
Huh???What's the story, morning glory?Yea, or nea?Dr Russo, where are you when we need you to figure this out for us ...?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on June 02, 2002 at 11:56:38 PT:
huh?
As I read posts 1 and 2, I am confused. Does the 2000 Immunology articly cited say cannabinoids reduce or increase tumor growth? If they are as posted in comment #2, does that not mean Arnold Wax is misstating the case?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by p4me on June 02, 2002 at 09:28:41 PT
ICBS Again
And, he said, there are plenty of other legal drugs on the market to treat patients, including Marinol (dronabinol),
manufactured by Roxane Laboratories Inc. and Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc. Marinol is the synthetic form of
THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. "There is absolutely no use for medical marijuana," he said. "It is a social and emotional issue. It is not a medical
issue."How far out there can you get with a lie saying it is not a medical issue. I would like to hear about legalizing marijuana in its own right but we are led down a path because everyone is divided on the medical issue. On one side you have 73% of the American people and on the other side that would really be the minority and the uninformed minority at that and the federal government. And its not a medical issue.And even if marinol and marijuana did exactly the same thing you cannot put a bottle of marinol in the ground and water it and come up with more medicine. You have got to get out and pay the FICA taxes and the income tax associated with your earnings and take what you are allowed to keep and hand it over to the pill companies. If marijuana were just another pill it would not be a big deal. But what about a person in the 12% of North Carolinians that live in poverty. What do they do when they don't have money for migraine medicine? This BS stinks so bad I just want to run away.And I can tell you the story of my friend that wanted Xanex and his doctor said he would right him a prescription for Valium. Do you think that his stock portfolio might affect his prescriptions? I don't know but I think that there should be a prohibition on doctors owning stock in pill companies. If that law already existed we may not be hearing garbage like stated above. And has anyone wanted a generic and the pharmacy goes ahead with the patented parent so you will have to pay the cost and not the insurance company. They pulled that with me once and of course that will not happen again.Have I said this before: It is the money stupid.The Peter Jennings report titled "Bitter Medicine" said the pill industry is the most profitable industry in the country. Of course he said the President and Congress needed to jump in and do something but what are the chances of that happening. I have said this before too: You can buy a pair of shoes from anywhere in the world over the internet and have it delivered to your door. The same should be true for medicine. How can some little country like Canada do such a good job of negotiating prices with the pill companies and the big bad bully the US is pathetic. Of course it is the money stupid, but why can't a Canadian company get license to sell medicine or even set up shop in the US to break the monopoly of the American pill companies. That money thing seems to be the answer.How the American government can hold off 73% of the American people with bull$hit is amazing. And not even a Congressional hearing. God dam.VAAI, POW
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by Lehder on June 02, 2002 at 08:52:38 PT
Journal of Immunology Abstract
here's the abstract of the july 1 00 articlehttp://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/165/1/373?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabinoid&searchid=1023030978178_818&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=165&issue=1&journalcode=jimmunolhere are some related articles:http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/3/951The following abstracthttp://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/3/951says "The development of new therapeutic strategies is essential for the management of gliomas, one of the
most malignant forms of cancer. We have shown previously that the growth of the rat glioma C6 cell
line is inhibited by psychoactive cannabinoids (I. Galve-Roperh et al., Nat. Med., 6: 313–319,
2000). These compounds act on the brain and some other organs through the widely expressed CB1
receptor. By contrast, the other cannabinoid receptor subtype, the CB2 receptor, shows a much
more restricted distribution and is absent from normal brain. Here we show that local administration
of the selective CB2 agonist JWH-133 at 50 µg/day to Rag-2-/- mice induced a considerable
regression of malignant tumors generated by inoculation of C6 glioma cells....These results support a therapeutic approach for the
treatment of malignant gliomas devoid of psychotropic side effects. "Here's the abstract for the Nat. Med. citation above:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10700234&dopt=Abstract"Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active component of marijuana,
induces apoptosis of transformed neural cells in culture. Here, we show
that intratumoral administration of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and the
synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN-55,212-2 induced a considerable
regression of malignant gliomas in Wistar rats and in mice deficient in
recombination activating gene 2. Cannabinoid treatment did not produce
any substantial neurotoxic effect in the conditions used....These results may provide the basis for a new therapeutic
approach for the treatment of malignant gliomas."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by John Markes on June 02, 2002 at 08:08:23 PT
Conflict of Interest
"Las Vegas oncologist Arnold Wax, MD, agreed. He pointed to a study in the July 1, 2000, Journal of Immunology that found that the active ingredient in marijuana actually caused cancer cells to reproduce faster. And, he said, there are plenty of other legal drugs on the market to treat patients, including Marinol (dronabinol), manufactured by Roxane Laboratories Inc. and Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc. Marinol is the synthetic form of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. "There is absolutely no use for medical marijuana," he said. "It is a social and emotional issue. It is not a medical issue." "So here we have him saying the pill form of THC is ok, but the plant version is not. Hmmm... I wonder which pharm company sent him a check?
The Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment