[Vision2020] Medical Cannabis: National Academy of Sciences

[Debbie Gray]

Hi Ted
No, I hadn't really read the report with it's voluminous data when I asked
that question. I have now just scanned through it and in my opinion it
doesn't offer strong support for THC in any form but seems to say that it
might help some and it might not and basically reiterating the need for
further, randomized, controlled studies. So perhaps that should be the
next step. The existing studies aren't very good and often rely on
anecdotal evidence. I realize most medical studies say 'may' and 'might'
and 'with caution' and 'your mileage may vary' but I think it is a logical
next step to bringing this issue into the mainstream.

Again I will say I am NOT against medicinal marijuana and I am not against
legalizing drugs, etc etc.

But I want more evidence on the efficacy and safety of medicinal marijuana
as a treatment because it would be inhumane otherwise to continue
prescribing something that may or may not turn out to be little more than
a placebo. I would hope that if I were to suffer from the effects of
chemotherapy or AIDS-wasting or whatever that I could at least know that
medicinal marijuana were scientifically tested and proven to be a
legitimate treatment. It's the same with homeopathic and alternative
medicines. I just like to know MORE INFO. And what about the studies in
your report about THC perhaps further suppressing the immune system?
That's the first I'd heard about that.

And it concerns me the other 400 chemicals that are referred to as being
in marijuana in the 'smoked form' and what those might be doing to the
rest of your body.

Debbie (info addict)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 tbertruss at aol.com wrote:

>  All:
>  Below is the V2020 post where I quote the National Academy of Sciences
> report on the medical use of cannabis.
>  So Debbie, I guess you did not read my first post with the above
> subject heading?  And Joan, I already quoted a report with voluminous
> data and references to numerous other studies on this subject that
> explains why marinol in pill form is not as efficacious as smoking
> cannabis for some medical purposes.  The quote below answers Debbie's
> question.  And Dave Budge was correct about this issue.
>  From the National Academy of Sciences report on the medical use of
> cannabis:
>  "Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes
> available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people
> suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking
> marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."
>  This quote is toward the bottom of the rather voluminous amount of info
> presented at this web link:
>  http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/ch4.html
>  The whole other debate about the nefarious effects of legalized
> cannabis on society for all other non strictly medical uses is such an
> emotional irrational can of worms to open it is nearly impossible to
> have a rational empirical debate, almost as impossible to get anywhere
> as arguing about Religion.
>  V2020 already has an endless polarized debate ongoing about Religion.
> I'm not sure it can handle another debate of such a polarized and
> emotional nature.
>  Ted Moffett


%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
  Debbie Gray      dgray at uidaho.edu
  We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
  so as to have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%