Pubdate: Fri, 18 Feb 2011
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2011 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Paul Armentano
Note: Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (the National 
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and is the co-author 
of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink 
(2009, Chelsea Green).
Referenced: Researchers Find Study of Medical Marijuana Discouraged 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n052/a05.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/American+Medical+Association
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Donald+Abrams

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN? NOT FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA RESEARCH

So Much for the American Medical Association's Demand for Clinical 
Cannabis Research.

It was nearly two years ago that the Obama White House issued its 
"Scientific Integrity" memorandum stating, "Science and the 
scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration."

Those of us involved in marijuana law reform welcomed the memo -- 
which came just months after the American Medical Association called 
for "facilitating ... clinical research and [the] development of 
cannabinoid-based medicines" -- and we hoped that it would stimulate 
the commencement of long-overdue human studies into the safety and 
efficacy of medical cannabis.

Those hopes were snuffed, however, when a representative from the 
U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the agency that 
oversees 85 percent of the world's research on controlled substances, 
reaffirmed its longstanding "no medi-pot" policy to The New York 
Times. "As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is 
primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use," a 
spokesperson told the paper in 2010. "We generally do not fund 
research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana."

A review of the U.S. National Institute of Health website 
clinicaltrials.gov shows that NIDA's kibosh on medical marijuana 
trials continues unabated. Though an online search of ongoing 
FDA-approved clinical trials using the keyword "cannabinoids" (the 
active components in marijuana) yielded me 65 worldwide hits, only 
six involved subjects's use of actual cannabis. (The others involved 
the use of synthetic cannabinoid agonists like dronabinol or 
nabilone, the commercially marketed marijuana extract Sativex, or the 
cannabinoid receptor blocking agent Rimonabant).

Of the six, two of the studies have already been completed: "Opioid 
and Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetic Interactions" and "Vaporization as a 
Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System," both of which were spearheaded 
by researchers (primarily Dr. Donald Abrams) at the University of 
California at San Francisco.

The four remaining studies are still in the "recruitment" phase. Of 
these, only two pertain to the potential medical use of cannabis: 
"Cannabis for Spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis," which is taking 
place at the University of California at Davis and is likely the 
final clinical trial associated with the soon-to-be-defunct and 
defunded California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research and 
"Cannabis for Inflammatory Bowel Disease," led by researchers at the 
Meir Medical Center in Israel.

Of the remaining studies, one focuses on the detection of 
cannabinoids and their metabolites on drug screens, while the other, 
entitled "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Risk Taking and Decision 
Making Tasks," seeks to establish pot-related harms, hypothesizing 
that subjects "demonstrate poorer decision-making abilities and 
increased risk-taking behaviors" after smoking marijuana.

So much for the AMA's demand for clinical cannabis research.

By contrast, preclinical (animal) trials assessing the therapeutic 
efficacy of cannabinoids are occurring at a record pace. A keyword 
search on the search engine PubMed using the term "cannabinoids" 
yielded over 1,300 published papers in 2008, some 1,700 papers in 
2009 and another 1,200 published last year.

While many of these studies highlight the ability of cannabinoids to 
manage a wide range of symptoms, even more intriguing are the results 
indicating the potential of cannabinoid intervention to halt the 
development of serious diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, Lou 
Gehrig's disease and multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, without abrupt 
changes at the highest levels of government -- changes that do not 
appear to be forthcoming despite this administration's public demand 
for "scientific integrity" -- scientists will indefinitely lack the 
human follow-up data necessary to adequately answer societal 
questions regarding cannabis safety, efficacy and proper dosage.

"Change we can believe in?" Not when it comes to studying pot.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake