Pubdate: Wed, 26 Dec 2012
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Copyright: 2012 The Vancouver Sun
Contact: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477
Author: George Stepanenko

CMA'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA CONCERNS ARE MISPLACED

Re: CMA decries medical marijuana changes, Dec. 17

It is commendable that in the matter of cannabis as medicine the 
Canadian Medical Association is hewing to Hippocrates' maxim, "never 
do harm," but I believe their fears are misplaced.

Had the decades-long debate over cannabis been driven by science and 
intellectual honesty, rather than fear and political expedience, 
doctors like Anna Reid would be familiar with the numerous studies, 
many of them sponsored by governments, rigorously scientific, showing 
the herb to be relatively benign.

Less toxic than Aspirin; never shown to be the sole cause of any 
deaths: the risks have indeed been studied.

Sadly, because most of the studies have been concerned with 
discovering harms associated with cannabis use, little attention has 
been given to its applications as a medicine.

But that information is available as well, derived from the 
experiences - empirical experiments - of the tens of thousands of 
persons who have turned to this herb for relief from suffering when 
other avenues seemed to hold little promise.

It has been gathered and codified and can be found in the collective 
knowledge of our Compassion Clubs: which medical conditions respond 
to cannabis; which strain is most effective for which condition; 
dosages and regimens - precisely the kind of information a doctor 
would need to be comfortable in prescribing a drug.

Those inclined to complain that this is anecdotal, not "scientific," 
might do well to consider how pharmaceutical drugs enter the realm of 
modalities available to the medical profession.

New drugs are invented by companies with the intention they be 
marketed for profit - the corporation's reason for existence.

Results of studies performed on the drug have to be filed, but 
because the reports contain proprietary information, they remain 
inaccessible to anyone else.

Further, the drug companies are under no obligation to divulge 
unpromising studies and are free to accentuate the positive.

These new substances are introduced to practitioners usually in the 
form of monographs - summaries of the drug's intended applications, 
suggestive symptoms, effects, and side effects.

To the best of my knowledge, doctors are not specifically trained in 
the use of new drugs, time and information both in short supply, and 
there is little to be known about how these substances interact with 
other medicines, or the conditions under which the drug might have 
performed poorly, or even caused more harm than good - because this 
information is protected by law.

For the CMA to balk at prescribing cannabis because it hasn't seen 
any risk/ benefit analysis regarding its use is a misplaced concern at best.

George Stepanenko
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom