nut said:
I don’t always read the entire Orac posts but did find this one very interesting:
Medical marijuana and the new herbalism, part 1
“… My personal sensitivities aside (which are obviously not shared by most people), I see two critical unaddressed questions with respect to cannabis. The first issue is standardization. I’m sorry, herbalists and pot smokers, but smoking a dried plant just isn’t it, particularly given the relatively low doses of active compound needed for optimal effects. That means pharmaceutical-grade material. If cannabis is a therapeutic drug, it should be treated like every other therapeutic drug and be subject to clinical trials. The second issue is comparative effectiveness research. It’s not enough just to say cannabis (or whatever cannabinoid drug or derivative you might wish to use) is “efficacious” against this disease or this condition. We need to know how efficacious it is compared to the existing standard of care. In most cases, even for indications for which there is evidence of efficacy, the existing evidence base suggests that cannabis is less effective than existing treatments, with the possible exception of its use as an antiemetic. Yet none of this sways the zealots, just as similar evidence with respect to other herbs doesn’t sway believers in herbalism. Meanwhile, medical cannabis is rapidly becoming big business. …”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/10/medical-marijuana-and-the-new-herbalism-part-1/
I have no problem with most of that,
I keep saying these things
1 grow the cannabis like the opium poppies, under strict license conditions
2 have the the plants processed by the pharmaceutical industry
3 make it available by doctor prescription
4 but to only those people who need it
growing cannabis plants under strict conditions and buying a pharmaceutical product as a mouth spray or tablet is how you get consistency
the other issue that article touched on is research, yes there is a real problem with research, access to information and different countries and states that have different laws.
The American government spent millions researching the negative effects while not providing money for researching the positive effects, that creates an unbalanced approach which is not helpful, its difficult for scientists and researches, doctors/patients to study/use the plant when you have a situation which resembles a jumbled mess.
The information comes in a few drips at a time, a bit here, a bit there, contradicting evidence here, something else said there, It would be great to see a more organized approach for a complex plant that has around 400 compounds, and 60-70 cannabinoids.
Humans are made out of chemicals and everybody is different, medical conditions like cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, anxiety etc, require different levels of compounds and cannabinoids for treatment. Cannabis might be helpful to some people or less helpful to others, or it might be used together with other products.
It would be good to see a relaxation of cannabis laws to allow people to grow one plant, but at the same time offer pharmaceutical products which are far more consistent and cleaner
An emphasis should always lean towards the more consistent and healthier alternative where one does not have to smoke it.
I say that only to appease the smoking generation which by observation exists, but one would imagine that over time smoking should diminish with each generation by education and by time.