cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Research Programs Suggested










  Marijuana Research Programs Suggested

Posted by FoM on December 28, 2000 at 07:39:09 PT
By Joelle Babula, Review-Journal  
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal  

To prove marijuana either a potent medicine or useless remedy once and for all, Nevada doctors and pharmacists are recommending the state develop medical marijuana research programs to test its effectiveness. The move would allow doctors to prescribe the plant and patients to smoke it without criminal repercussions. But it still may be a long time before patients in this state can legally puff away. 
Despite a recently approved state initiative allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana for certain conditions, use of the drug is a felony under federal law. To protect doctors and patients from federal prosecution for prescribing and smoking marijuana, local health professionals want to limit use of the drug to state and federally approved research studies, which could add months if not years to approval time. These medical research recommendations, released in a report this week by the Nevada Medical Marijuana Initiative Work Group, will be presented to the 2001 Legislature as lawmakers decide how to implement the medical marijuana initiative. If the recommendations are enacted by the Legislature, they could become effective as early as spring. "Once the bill is effective, research programs would have to get up and running, and it's hard to know how long that would take," said Louis Ling, general counsel for the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy and part of the work group. "No matter what system gets passed, it's going to be a good long time before medical marijuana is available." Sixty-five percent of voters supported a measure in November, allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana to their patients to treat cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other ailments. "The beauty of this medical research system is that once the feds have an approved research project, everybody involved is legally protected," Ling said. "Nobody can be sued, challenged or jailed. You are not going to be exposing patients, doctors or pharmacists to legal prosecution because it's federally approved." Physicians and patients in other states with medical marijuana laws, such as California, Alaska and Oregon, have been subject to federal prosecution for prescribing and smoking marijuana under state law. "Medical research is the only way that legally protects everyone involved," Ling said. Under the group's recommendations, a physician interested in prescribing marijuana to patients would first have to develop a research proposal to study the drug as a treatment for any of the ailments listed in the initiative. If the proposal is accepted by an ad hoc committee designed to review such projects, the doctor would then take the project to the federal government for approvals from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Once federally approved, marijuana for the study would be provided through a federal farm in Mississippi and distributed through participating pharmacies, Ling said. Marijuana from the same farm, grown in the same controlled environment, ensures the consistency and potency of the drug, which is vital to producing legitimate medical research. The plant would not be grown, processed or manufactured in Nevada. Medical marijuana studies are under way at the University of California at San Francisco. Health officials in San Mateo County, Calif., are also seeking federal approval. Although the research recommendations will limit access to the drug and make the prescription process more cumbersome, some say it's the only way to truly classify marijuana as a legitimate medication, if it proves to be so through scrupulous medical trials. "The advantage of the proposal is that it would be fully legal and it also provides studies, the results of which could be used nationwide to assess the use of medical marijuana," state Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa said. Local AIDS activist Chris Reynolds, who works with AIDS patients who smoke marijuana to ease pain and symptoms, said the proposal will "settle the issue from both sides." "Those against medical marijuana say there's no proof it works, so this way, there will be a research project to get proof. I've been a longtime supporter of medical marijuana. I don't use it, but I think there are alternatives for those who need to relieve suffering," he said. Dr. Marietta Nelson, an ophthalmologist and president of the state medical association, said marijuana is good for some medical conditions, but she's concerned about the federal laws on distribution and use of the drug. Although she doesn't plan on prescribing marijuana for her glaucoma patients, she does hope the new state initiative is set up to protect local doctors and patients who use the plant from federal prosecution. "The effect of marijuana on glaucoma is very short-lived," Nelson said. "It only lasts a few hours, and there are other good glaucoma medications out there to relieve the eye pressure. I really doubt if any ophthalmologist will be using marijuana for glaucoma."Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Joelle Babula, Review-JournalThursday, December 28, 2000Copyright: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2000Address: P.O. Box 70, Las Vegas, NV 89125Fax: (702) 383-4676Contact: letters lvrj.comWebsite: http://www.lvrj.com/Related Articles: Medical Panel Urges Marijuana Researchhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8134.shtmlMarijuana: Legislature Wades Into Dicey Issue http://cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7766.shtmlMMJ Question Must Go Through Legislature http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7637.shtml

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help





Comment #11 posted by Steph on July 14, 2002 at 14:00:15 PT:
marijuana in the news
I agree with you....you never hear on the news that people have died from an overdose of marijuana, or have even died because of marijuana use...look at how many alcohol related deaths there are and it's legal...I think marijuana should be made legal for all to enjoy...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Lehder on December 29, 2000 at 04:59:38 PT
 Cannabis and Cigarettes
Among scientists who have examined the real consequences of pot use, these discoveries came as no great surprise. Two years ago, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet concluded, with a remarkable lack of tact, "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health." ----------------------If a major study revealed that people who use marijuana can expect to die before their time, we would hear about it on the news. If people were expiring in noticeable numbers from overdoses of pot, the discovery would soon be common knowledge. If smoking dope were proven to cause lung cancer, Clinton administration drug czar Barry McCaffrey would be shouting from the rooftops. But you rarely see anything reported about research into the health effects of cannabis. That's not because there isn't any research going on. It's because the findings are acutely embarrassing for supporters of the war on drugs. --------------Interestingly, as I recall, the large scale Kaiser Permanente human study found that while tobacco smokers have more lung cancers than non-smokers do, Cannabis or Marijuana smokers, on the other hand, have an average rate of total cancers that is no higher than people who smoke nothing at all. *IF I recall correctly, this same study actually found that Cannabis smokers averaged fewer overall cancers than their non-smoking counterparts who did not use Cannabis or Tobacco.*IF I recall correctly, there have been two (and possibly three) human population-type studies that have been done that found that, on average, Marijuana or Cannabis smokers have fewer cancers than do people who DO NOT smoke anything at all.---------------------Dr. Tashkin is one of several researchers who have studied the effects of Marijuana smoking on lungs. He apparently believes that prolonged Marijuana smoking may or will eventually cause some lung cancer in some people. But one, and I think, at least two of the studies that he has worked on have shown (*in my opinion) that smoking Marijuana somehow protects the lungs of people who also smoke Tobacco - AND/OR - that smoking Marijuana alone isn't as harmful to one's lungs as smoking Tobacco is.--------------------all fromhttp://www.drugabuse.com/boards/general/messages/0/889.shtml---------------------------------------As an oppnent of the so-called "war on drugs" for political reasons, I had hoped to find that some suppressed and little known study ( maybe from India where marijuana is legal, or at least was up until sometime in the 80's) might provide weak evidence that maybe people who use cannabis live, on average, a few weeks or months longer because of it. What did I find out? I found out thatMarijuana Prevents Cancer.I'll let you evaluate the source.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Lehder on December 28, 2000 at 19:45:25 PT
some answers
http://www.drugabuse.com/boards/general/messages/0/889.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Lehder on December 28, 2000 at 17:50:11 PT
a question
I would like to know, please, what, if anything, medical "studies" or research - whatever you want to call these things in the case of cannabis - have to say in answer to a very simple question:Does the use of cannabis, by a representative general population of healthy people, increase or decrease, on average, the human life span?---------------I'm not asking here if it prolongs life when used as medicine for sick people. On the opposite bank, I can't resist giving my opinion of how a totalitarian would answer this question: 1) imprison the smokers 2) malnourish them, kill them if necessary 3) factor the prisoners' longevity into the total and 4) conclude that, statistically speaking, cannabis abuse leads to an early death. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by budsmoker on December 28, 2000 at 12:06:44 PT
thats all crap
I dont understand all of this crap. Just legalize marijuana, and there will be no problem
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on December 28, 2000 at 10:11:01 PT:
5,000 years of recorded successful 'field trials'
without a single fatality should be enough to prove harmlessness, I think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Frank S. World on December 28, 2000 at 09:13:38 PT
More stall tactics!
I heartily agree, FOM. If you read Robert Randall's book, Marijuana Rx, The Patient's fight for Medicinal Pot, states tried to set up research programs back in the 70's and early 80's. Some actually did distribute some cannabis, but mostly the feds just jerked them around. Patients died, went blind, etc., without ever getting any mmj.It takes time for all the approvals, if they ever come, whicjh is unlikely, and patients need medicine today. People understand that, that is why they voted 2-1 to legalize it for medicinal use.An as far as the doctor's comments on glaucoma, I can personally attest cannabis has preserved my vision from a lifetime of glaucoma and that it is a great glaucoma med. The bad doctor ignores the fact that many patients can't tolerate the "good" medications she speaks of, or they are ineffective. She would probably rather ruin someone's eyesight with risky glaucoma surgery than prescribe safe, effective cannabis.Glad she isn't my doctor!
Rx Cannabis Now!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on December 28, 2000 at 08:42:14 PT
My 2 cents
I get so tired of excuses like this. Why do they always have a pill that works better then a free natural herb? Pills are man made and Cannabis is not. Pills cost money and with the cost of prescriptions drugs who can afford them if you don't have insurance? "The effect of marijuana on glaucoma is very short-lived," Nelson said. "It only lasts a few hours, and there are other good glaucoma medications out there to relieve the eye pressure. I really doubt if any ophthalmologist will be using marijuana for glaucoma."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dddd on December 28, 2000 at 08:34:14 PT
that's what's happening
 About Ling,Kap sez;"Or perhaps he is just playing along, knowing that the Federal position vis-a-vis medicinal canabis is so adamant, it will absolve him of any further responsibility to the electorate of Nevada" One hand washes the other.This is exactly what's going on.As soon as anyone is cornered into having to face the issue,the hot potatoe is tossed into someone elses hands,and so on,and so on.This convienient ploy makes it appear as if no one is avoiding the issue,and hence cant be blamed for obstructing the will of the voters..........................................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Frank on December 28, 2000 at 08:29:15 PT
Total Legalization The Only Option.
"Medical research is the only way that legally protects everyone involved," Ling said. That’s what’s needed? Is that why the people of Nevada voted for: a research project? This is just a political ruse to keep the status quo – keep it illegal and keep putting people in prison. The politicians subvert the will of the ballot box. People in Nevada will never have access to marijuana if the politicians have anything to say about it - never!. They keep playing games. Total legalization is the only option. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on December 28, 2000 at 08:13:48 PT:
How incredibly naive.
'"The beauty of this medical research system is that once the feds have an approved research project, everybody involved is legally protected," Ling said. "Nobody can be sued, challenged or jailed. You are not going to be exposing patients, doctors or pharmacists to legal prosecution because it's federally approved." '...'"Medical research is the only way that legally protects everyone involved," Ling said. Under the group's recommendations, a physician interested in prescribing marijuana to patients would first have to develop a research proposal to study the drug as a treatment for any of the ailments listed in the initiative. If the proposal is accepted by an ad hoc committee designed to review such projects, the doctor would then take the project to the federal government for approvals from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Drug Abuse.'Sounds just like Barry, doesn't he?Right. Go hat in hand to the very people who have a vested interest in maintaining cannabis prohibition and ask them to pretty please allow you to do what they have deliberately stymied, deglected, and recently threatened people with legal prosecution for: studying cannabis *objectively*. Without their heavy hand on their shoulders, guiding them to preconceived conclusions which support the status quo. Just ask Donald Abrams how hard it was to get permission to use the 'shijtwiet' he had to get from U of Miss; he had to predicate his study upon there being *a priori* harm done by cannabis to AIDS sufferers. When - surprise! - there were no indications of this and the results were made public at Durban this year, the NIDA has been doing it's level best to *ignore the findings*. As the old saying goes about "none so blind as those who will not see"...the so-called scientists at NIDA must be issued buckets to wear on their heads in addition to their lab coats. Which brings us to Mr. Ling:Evidently, Mr. Ling has no understanding of the depths of the Federal governments' perfidy regarding it's continued, decade-long stonewalling of bona fide, objective cannabis research. Like Pollyanna, he cheerfully recounts the benefits of Federal acceptance of medicinal cannabis trials, blissfully ignoring the fact the Feds have done *everything in their power* to *prevent* such research. AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT FOR THEM.Such naivete in a child is charming; in a grown man, it is grounds to doubt his mental competence. Or perhaps he is just playing along, knowing that the Federal position vis-a-vis medicinal canabis is so adamant, it will absolve him of any further responsibility to the electorate of Nevada ("See, I was all for implementing the law, but the Feds stopped me".) In either event, I'd think I'd want someone with a more pro-electorate stance working for me; Mr. Ling doesn't inspire much confidence in this regard. 
[ Post Comment ]




  Post Comment





Name:       Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL: 
Link Title: