[Vision2020] Cannabis: Debbie & Kai Misunderstand, It Seems

[lfalen]

Excellent post
-----Original message-----
From: Tbertruss at aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:48:47 -0700
To: editor at lataheagle.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Cannabis: Debbie & Kai Misunderstand, It Seems

> 
> Kai, (and Debbie) et. al.
> 
> The issue I am addressing is the rational empirical basis for legal medical 
> use of cannabis under a doctors care.  You appear to believe that if cannabi> s 
> is legal for medical use, legal use for other various nefarious purposes wil> l 
> inevitably result, and the barbarians will storm the gates, or some such dir> e 
> consequence.  
> 
> Can we focus on the facts and reasoning involved in the scientific basis for>  
> medical use of cannabis?
> 
> It seems that both Debbie Gray and Kai have misunderstood the current 
> scientific status in the medical profession for the medical benefit and lega> l use of 
> cannabinoids (found in cannabis) in medicine.  Correct me if I am wrong, bot> h 
> Debbie and Kai, but you both seem to be arguing that the medical profession > is 
> still debating the legitimacy of the use of cannabinoids for valid medical 
> treatment in terms of whether the public should have prescribed access to 
> cannabinoids under a doctors care?  Is this your position?  
> 
> While of course there is still debate about the use of cannabinoids, and 
> further studies are called for, just as there is with many currently availab> le 
> prescribed medicines found on the market, the medical profession has already>  
> spoken on this issue that indeed cannabinoids have legitimate medical use, i> f we 
> believe that the medical profession would not allow drugs to be prescribed t> hat 
> were useless or harmful, though this assumption would be questioned by many,>  
> especially in light of the numerous drugs that the medical profession has 
> prescribed, that later turned out to be so harmful they were withdrawn from > the 
> market.  
> 
> Since Marinol, the pill form of cannabinoids available by prescription, went>  
> on the market, it has remained so without, to my knowledge, any harmful 
> effects that have led to a demand it be withdrawn from the market.
> 
> Therefore the question is not can cannabis in smoked form have any useful 
> medical benefit, it is only are there enough medical drawbacks to delivering>  
> cannabinoids via the smoking of cannabis to render this method not worth the>  
> benefits that can result from the cannabinoids delivered by this method?  Ca> nnabis 
> contains the same cannabinoid compounds that are in Marinol, a legal pill fo> rm 
> of cannabinoid delivery, and unless smoking cannabis as a method of delivery>  
> destroys the cannabinoids, which it does not, or results in some other effec> t 
> which neutralizes the effects of cannabinoids, smoking cannabis will result > in 
> some of the same medical benefits that can already be obtained from the lega> l 
> prescription drug Marinol.
> 
> So what are the drawbacks to smoking cannabis that may render the medical 
> benefits of the cannabinoids delivered not worth the risk or harmful effects> ?  Of 
> course, inhaling a burned plant can release numerous other compounds not 
> related to the medical effect desired, which is one reason many in the medic> al 
> profession dislike in principle the whole idea of legitimate use of smoked 
> cannabis in medicine.  It violates the assumption that the best method of de> livering 
> a drug (indeed some insist that to violate this principle undermines the 
> whole practice of medicine) is in a controlled purified form with exact dosa> ges.  
> You find the same argument against herbal medicine of all kinds.  And of 
> course there is the potential for lung damage and/or other effects not speci> fically 
> related to the medical effects desired.  The damage to the lungs or other 
> damaging effects of smoking cannabis would need to be weighed against the 
> beneficial effects that can be gained.  
> 
> This is the same kind of balancing act that goes on in medicine every day 
> with numerous drugs that have dangerous harmful side effects yet are still u> sed 
> due to their positive benefits.
> 
> Numerous legal drugs used in medicine that are in purified form have numerou> s 
> side effects that are also not related to treating the medical problem being>  a
> ddressed, and can have serious negative consequences.  This problem is almos> t 
> impossible to avoid in drug use in medicine.  People undergoing chemotherapy>  
> will accept the nausea and loss of hair, etc., which are side effects that 
> would be best avoided, but the results of saving a life from cancer outweigh>  
> these extremely unpleasant and harmful effects.
> 
> Therefore I think that to argue that smoking cannabis, where there are 
> unwanted side effects, and the consumption of numerous compounds not needed > for the 
> desired medical effect, IN PRINCIPLE negates the very idea it could have 
> medical benefits worth the risk, is not valid.
> 
> Numerous purified drugs have rather serious side effects and real medical 
> dangers, yet they are still allowed on the market due to their possible medi> cal 
> benefit in some people.
> 
> The main medical argument for the smoked cannabis form of delivery of 
> cannabinoids is based on the fact that currently there is no "rapid-onset ca> nnabinoid 
> drug delivery system," and here I again use the same quote from the National>  
> Academy of Sciences report I quoted earlier.  This means that smoking cannab> is 
> is currently the only delivery method to deliver cannabinoids quickly, which>  
> is beneficial in some medical uses.
> 
> The only rational fact based argument required to allow legal medical use of>  
> cannabis based on a medical argument is one type of medical situation for 
> which "there is no clear alternative," and again I quote from the same quote>  from 
> the NAS report on medical cannabis.
> 
> If an alternative method is found to deliver the cannabinoids quickly and 
> with the same effectiveness as smoking cannabis, there would no longer be an> y 
> argument for legal smoked cannabis use in medicine, except perhaps an econom> ic 
> one, which has some validity, given the outrageous costs of prescription dru> gs.  
> But this is not strickly a medical argument.
> 
> I trust my analysis of this subject has clarified the primary issues in this>  
> debate.  And again I would like to post the info from and web link to Health>  
> Care Canada on how the medical profession in Canada is dealing with the lega> l 
> medical use of cannabis.  I find it hard to imagine that the Canadian health>  
> care system would allow the legal prescribed use of cannabis under a doctors>  
> care if there was not a sound basis for the use of cannabis in medicine.  Bu> t no 
> doubt, as with many medical drugs in use in many countries in the world, som> e 
> countries decide a drug is valid to make available by prescription, and some>  
> others do not, and they all think they have their valid scientific basis for>  
> making these decisions.  This state of affairs calls into question the objec> tive 
> scientific basis of the practice of medicine.  No doubt politics and religio> n 
> is involved in medicine, and this influences, sadly, the decisions that the 
> medical profession can make that should be based solely on the science 
> involved. 
> 
> Here is the quote again from the NAS report along with the web link it came 
> from:
> 
> "Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes 
> available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suff> ering 
> from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as>  
> pain or AIDS wasting."
> 
> http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/ch4.html
> 
> And here is the info again from Health Canada about medical cannabis, along 
> with the web link it came from:   
> 
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/marihuana/about-apropos/faq_e.html
> 
> FAQ - Medical Use of Marihuana
> 
> The following are the most frequently asked questions regarding the medical 
> use of marihuana:
> 
> 
> Where does Canada stand on the issue of medical use of marihuana? 
> Does this legislation mean that marihuana is a legal substance? 
> Who is eligible to obtain an authorization to possess marihuana? 
> How does someone apply to possess marihuana for medical purposes? 
> Where does Health Canada's supply of marihuana come from? 
> Can patients grow their own marihuana? 
> Has Health Canada issued a Notice of Compliance? Go to Medical Use of 
> Marihuana
> 
> ***
> 
> Where does Canada stand on the issue of medical use of marihuana?
> 
> On July 30, 2001, Health Canada implemented the Marihuana Medical Access 
> Regulations, which clearly define the circumstances and the manner in which > access 
> to marihuana for medical purposes will be permitted. The Regulations contain>  
> three main components: Authorizations to possess dried marihuana; licences t> o 
> produce marihuana, which include Personal-Use Production Licences and 
> Designated Person Production Licences; and access to supply of marihuana see> ds or 
> dried marihuana. 
> 
> Does this legislation mean that marihuana is a legal substance? 
> 
> No. Marihuana is categorized as a controlled substance. It is not legal to 
> grow or possess marihuana except with legal permission by Health Canada. The>  
> Marihuana Medical Access Regulations allow access to marihuana to people who>  are 
> suffering from grave and debilitating illnesses. It is important to note tha> t 
> the Regulations deal exclusively with the medical use of marihuana. They do 
> not address the issue of legalizing marihuana. 
> 
> Who is eligible to obtain an authorization to possess marihuana? 
> 
> The regulations outline two categories of people who can apply to possess 
> marihuana for medical purposes. 
> 
> Category 1: This category is comprised of any symptoms treated within the 
> context of providing compassionate end-of-life care; or the symptoms associa> ted 
> with the specified medical conditions listed in the schedule to the 
> Regulations, namely: 
> 
> 
> Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis; 
> Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from a spinal cord injury; 
> Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from spinal cord disease; 
> Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea from 
> cancer; 
> Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea from 
> HIV/AIDS infection; 
> Severe pain from severe forms of arthritis; or 
> Seizures from epilepsy. Applicants must provide a declaration from a medical>  
> practitioner to support their application.
> 
> Category 2: This category is for applicants who have debilitating symptom (s> ) 
> of medical condition (s), other than those described in Category 1. Under 
> Category 2, persons with debilitating symptoms can apply to obtain an 
> Authorization to Possess dried marihuana for medical purposes, if a speciali> st confirms 
> the diagnosis and that conventional treatments have failed or judged 
> inappropriate to relieve symptoms of the medical condition. While an assessm> ent of the 
> applicant’s case by a specialist is required, the treating physician> , whether 
> or not a specialist, can sign the medical declaration.
> 
> How does someone apply to possess marihuana for medical purposes?
> 
> An application must be submitted in writing to Health Canada. Application 
> forms and guidelines are available online or by calling Health Canada toll-f> ree, 
> at: 1-866-337-7705. Applicants must provide a declaration from a medical 
> practitioner to support the application.
> 
> Where does Health Canada's supply of marihuana come from?
> 
> In December 2000, Health Canada contracted Prairie Plant Systems Inc. (PPS) 
> to cultivate and produce a safe, standardized, homogenous supply of marihuan> a. 
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> V2020 Post by Ted Moffett
>     
> 
>