For Many Patients, Cannabis May Offer The Best Medicinal Pain Relief Yet Discovered

April 9, 2012

Natural News

By Raw Michelle

“Let’s keep something natural that can help people with all sorts of problems illegal so we can keep the prisons full.” –KTRN

By the beginning of the 1980s, after a four decade long lockdown, a re-interest in cannabis arose in the scientific community. In 1982, the American Institute of Medicine published an intriguing report entitled “Marijuana and Health”. The report was a collection of tentative exploratory research and case studies of the use of cannabis as a medicine.

The reappearance of a powerful plant in human pharmacopeia
The studies provided a glimpse of something that intrigued health care researchers. While the plant’s effects were entirely congruent with the goal of healing, the methodology used by the plant’s chemicals was very different from those employed by typical pharmaceuticals. To developers, cannabis suddenly represented a precedent for a whole new type of medicine. With over 88 pharmacologically active substances, cannabis introduced hundreds of new compounds to the medical world. The institute’s report concluded that further research into cannabis’ potential would be of great value to the field.

However, further research was very limited, stifled by cannabis’ legal status and social stigma. The legal status forces researchers to expend an overwhelming amount of time and effort to get permission to conduct the studies. The social stigma causes institutes to be less likely to receive funding for the projects, and that researchers are sacrificing their reputation in the professional world. That also means most of the studies conducted are federally funded. Unfortunately, in addition, successful researchers will still have to face a further publication bias, as journals also risk their reputations and status when publishing cannabis related research. It is ironic that even within a scientific community, researchers are punished for being unbiased. As a result, outlets that focus solely on cannabis related research have arisen. Internet publications have opened a wide market for research that would have previously been buried.

Click here for more.

Terminal Cancer Patient Kicked Out Of UCSF Hospital For Medical Marijuana Use

March 16, 2012

Activist Post

By Madison Ruppert

“Aren’t hospitals supposed to be helping people?” –KTRN

Angel Raich has become somewhat famous for her courageous fight against the government of the United States which opposes allowing Raich access to her much-needed medication.

Back in 2004 and 2005 Raich brought her fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court where she argued for the right to use medical cannabis.

Unfortunately in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the United States Congress has the power to criminalize both the production and use of home-grown cannabis, even in states which have already legalized its use in medicinal applications.

Now Raich is facing an entirely new fight with the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, a state-run institution in California, where medical marijuana is legal. Raich says that the UCSF Medical Center booted her out of their facility because of her medical marijuana use and even received some threats from hospital staff.

NBC Bay Area characterizes Raich as a “medical marijuana celebrity” and provides some quotes directly from Raich just moments after she said the hospital kicked her out.

“The pharmacist says ‘you’re not allowed to have [cannabis] in this hospital,’” Raich said. “’And if you’re gonna try to have [cannabis] in this hospital we’re going to call the Feds.’”

Raich reports that she originally checked into the medical facility to undergo tests on her brain which had been ordered by her doctor.

She is suffering from, and continues to battle, an inoperable brain tumor which results in chronic pain and seizures, and according to her, the prognosis is far from positive.

Click here for the full report.

Medical Marijuana Is The Future Despite The Fuss

February 13, 2012

Activist Post

By Renata Rollins

“Marijuana helps people with cancer and many other ailments – plus it’s all natural. It’s time for people to grow up.” –KTRN

Readers of the Jan. 29 Sunday Olympian woke up to two front-page headlines, five full-color photos and 85 column inches about the legal woes of local medical cannabis providers. The story had all the makings of great political drama: ambiguous laws, ambivalent lawmakers, undercover cops, lawyers of all stripes.

And yet, I’m in the chorus of millions asking: What’s the fuss? Any other business accused of a code violation, whether undercooking food or selling alcohol to a minor, could expect a visit from a clipboard-wielding state worker. But change one detail and it’s armed federal agents, state troopers and the local narcotics task force at the door – usually not knocking politely.

As similar scenes unfold across the nation, more communities bear witness to the waste and dishonor of cannabis prohibition. Not only does it harm already ailing patients, it makes criminals out of people who choose a safer alternative to alcohol, the world’s most destructive drug.

In 2012, the federal government looks pretty lonely insisting cannabis has “no medical use.” Research scientists, the American Medical Association, traditional medicine practitioners and 81 percent of the American public acknowledge its therapeutic benefits.

For thousands of years, herbal cannabis has relieved pain and inflammation, prevented nausea, treated menstrual discomfort and improved sleep. Repeated studies show cannabis helps addiction recovery, epilepsy, PTSD and cancer.

The medical marijuana movement deserves credit for raising awareness about an herb that was legally sold in the United States until 1937. Still, the prescription model is overly restrictive. Imagine if you needed an established history of headaches in order to buy ibuprofen. Or if you needed a doctor’s note to get sleeping pills. Or if you had to join a co-op in order to access cough syrup for your kids.

All of these products, incidentally, result in fatal overdoses every year. (Herbal cannabis has never killed anyone because it has no lethal dose.) And yet we don’t think twice about seeing rows of meds in every grocery store and gas station. Let’s reserve prescriptions for truly dangerous drugs like Oxycontin and morphine, slap on a label stating cannabis “may cause drowsiness,” and stop spending tax dollars eradicating a natural remedy.

Click here for the full report.

Medical Marijuana Is The Future Despite The Fuss

February 10, 2012

Activist Post

By Renata Rollins

“It’s only a matter of time before medical marijuana is a reality in every state.”  –KTRN

Readers of the Jan. 29 Sunday Olympian woke up to two front-page headlines, five full-color photos and 85 column inches about the legal woes of local medical cannabis providers. The story had all the makings of great political drama: ambiguous laws, ambivalent lawmakers, undercover cops, lawyers of all stripes.

And yet, I’m in the chorus of millions asking: What’s the fuss? Any other business accused of a code violation, whether undercooking food or selling alcohol to a minor, could expect a visit from a clipboard-wielding state worker. But change one detail and it’s armed federal agents, state troopers and the local narcotics task force at the door – usually not knocking politely.

As similar scenes unfold across the nation, more communities bear witness to the waste and dishonor of cannabis prohibition. Not only does it harm already ailing patients, it makes criminals out of people who choose a safer alternative to alcohol, the world’s most destructive drug.

In 2012, the federal government looks pretty lonely insisting cannabis has “no medical use.” Research scientists, the American Medical Association, traditional medicine practitioners and 81 percent of the American public acknowledge its therapeutic benefits.

For thousands of years, herbal cannabis has relieved pain and inflammation, prevented nausea, treated menstrual discomfort and improved sleep. Repeated studies show cannabis helps addiction recovery, epilepsy, PTSD and cancer.

Click here for the full report.

Panel To Examine New Law Against Drug-Driving

January 9, 2012

The Independent

By Nina Lakhani

Government on introducing a new offence of drug-driving, ministers confirmed yesterday.

The panel will consider whether it is scientifically possible to introduce maximum levels for different drugs, similar to drink-driving limits, or whether any amount of cocaine, cannabis or heroin should constitute an offence. Last month The Independent revealed details about the panel, expected to start work this spring, which will report to the Home Office and Department of Transport.

Click here for the full report.

Medical Marijuana Legal Efforts Are Being Crushed By The DEA – Who Benefits?

October 26, 2011

Natural News

PF Louis

The state of California agreed on a referendum in 1996 to legalize medical marijuana in their state. A referendum is a citizen generated ballot that is then put to popular vote. So a majority of California’s voting citizens agreed that openly selling marijuana for medical purposes is okay.

Unfortunately, Big Brother disagrees. Recently, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) began raiding California state approved medical marijuana outlets and closing them down without warning. Other states that have approved medical marijuana programs are getting nervous.

Controlled Substance Act of 1970
This act provided a list of schedules placing drugs in different categories that define their use and legality. Marijuana was categorized as a Schedule I drug. Schedule I indicates that the drug has addictive qualities without any medical use.

The addictive qualities have proven to be false, and even more studies over the past four decades have proven several different medical uses for hemp with THC and other cannabinoids. Some studies (there have been more) are listed here: http://www.cannacenters.com/blog

Yet marijuana remains as a schedule I drug. If it were moved to even schedule II, there would be no medical marijuana raids. But the DEA goons have honored their malicious masters by not allowing marijuana to be moved to even the Schedule II slot. Who will? Congress is too corrupt.

The dark side of the drug war
According to analyst James Corbett, the drug war is a device for maintaining black market control over drug production and distribution at high prices for two reasons.

One is to launder large cash amounts into major banks; this keeps them liquid enough to loan more as part of the fractional reserve lending system, which allows banks to loan ten times more than the deposits they hold.

The other is for the CIA, colluding with the DEA and the ATF, to maintain black market high prices and to have their cash cow for black ops or covert operations, which avoid Congressional approval.

A clip of a 1988 TV interview shows Ron Paul stating that there should be no drug laws. Ron wants to decriminalize all drugs completely. This is not just because of his Libertarian “no victimless crimes” philosophy. He also wants to remove the covert cash flow enabling the CIA’s illegal operations.

The Corbett video report goes through a litany of different drug running ops from WW II (before the OSS became the CIA) to Mexican cartels and Afghanistan poppy fields. Very few major dealers and traffickers get busted. Most that do are simply being removed from competing with the larger CIA cooperating cartels, who launder their money through the international banking system.

This heavy handed medical marijuana suppression is also a boon for Big Pharma’s monopoly of petrochemical based toxic medicines that can be patented.

The economics of suppressing hemp
In the late 1930s, a hemp fiber removing machine was invented that promised to put the hemp industry on the threshold of becoming a major paper, textile and plastic producer. As a result of this, in 1937 Popular Mechanics touted the prospects of hemp becoming the first billion dollar cash crop.

This made some influential industrialists anxious about serious competition. Not to worry, they had friends in high places. The U.S. Treasury Secretary then was Andrew Mellon, owner of Mellon Bank. Mellon bank had some serious investments to protect among his business cronies.

So Andrew created a new government department, The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). He appointed family relative Harry Anslinger, a former top federal prohibitionist, as FBN head. Harry hastily classified marijuana as a dangerous narcotic.

Classifying marijuana as a narcotic not only killed marijuana for medical use, but it also destroyed a very promising, highly sustainable industry for hemp cultivation and product manufacturing.

Click here for the full report from Natural News.

The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011 – Identify Industrial Hemp

September 13th, 2011

Natural News

By: Marty Paule

Despite the proliferation of hemp products entering the green marketplace these days, there is still confusion among some consumers about the differences between industrial hemp and cannabis that’s grown for recreational and medicinal marijuana. Some of that confusion may result from the Controlled Substances Act of 1937 that fails to differentiate marijuana from industrial hemp in the ban of their cultivation. While some states have legalized growing industrial hemp varieties, farmers have been cowed by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s opposition. A bill introduced in May 2011 would amend the CSA to exclude industrial hemp.

To understand the distinctions between cannabis grown for industrial hemp purposes versus that cultivated for marijuana requires a little botanical clarification. Within the cannabis genus there are three species: Cannabis indica, Cannabis sativa and Cannabis ruderalis. Over thousands of years of cultivation, these species have naturally hybridized and have been crossbred by humans for various purposes, resulting in hundreds of strains. Those strains bred for their seeds, oil and fiber contain infinitesimal quantities of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the main substance responsible for the euphoric effects of recreational and medicinal marijuana. Smoking industrial hemp varieties is more likely to result in a headache than a high.

Based on standards established under the UN Narcotics Convention, a number of cannabis strains have been developed that contain minimal quantities of THC, which is further reduced during industrial processing, so that the end product contains virtually no THC. Despite this, the DEA continues to oppose industrial hemp cultivation arguing that pot proponents are really seeking a “back-door” route to getting all forms of cannabis legalized. The agency, with some justification, argues that with thousands of hemp strains confusing the picture, enforcement of industrial-only hemp cultivation is problematic. In March 2003, the DEA issued rules permitting sale of products such as food, oil, paper and textiles that contain no THC whatsoever.

Meanwhile, industrial hemp is being grown in Europe, Australia and Canada where THC content is limited to 0.3%. In contrast, cannabis raised for recreational or medicinal pot typically contains at least 3% THC, with many of the new and most potent strains offering THC levels of 20% and more. In Canada, the government has issued a list of low-THC cannabis varieties that may be cultivated for industrial hemp. Proponents of cultivation in the U.S. counter the DEA’s arguments over enforcement difficulties, urging the U.S. to follow Canada’s example by establishing a list of permitted industrial hemp varieties.

Much of the world’s hemp production today caters to the increasing popularity of hemp oil that’s rich in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Hemp textiles and apparel are also enjoying a vogue, especially among green consumers concerned about the sustainability of the clothing they choose. Because hemp requires little or no commercial fertilizers or pesticides, it has become a textile of choice among eco-friendly shoppers.

In May 2011 H.R. 1831, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011, which would amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp while distinguishing it from marijuana, was introduced. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Capitol Hill watchers don’t give the bill much of a chance — similar bills have died in committee in each of the last three congressional sessions.

Click here for the full report from Natural News

Alcohol More Harmful Than Crack or Heroin

November 2nd, 2010

Time: Healthland

By: Catherine Mayer

How often does life really imitate art? Let’s imagine that a writer has been commissioned to develop a comedic screenplay about the deeply serious business of how to classify and control drugs. The plot is likely to feature that staple slapstick character “the mad scientist,” and since Hollywood tends to choose Britons to portray its eccentrics and villains, the writer makes the scientist a British professor. What’s a good name for a nutty professor? Why not Professor Nutt? The problem with this scenario, as the writer discovers, is that there’s a real Professor Nutt, a campaigning British scientist who avers in a new study, Drug Harms in the U.K., that if you’re looking for the most dangerous drug of all, you have to start with alcohol, which is more harmful even than heroin and crack cocaine.

Nutt—his first name is David, and he holds the chair in neuropsychopharmacology at London’s Imperial College, a university globally renowned as a seat of scientific excellence—is not mad, though conservative columnists regularly question his sanity. He was sacked as an adviser to Britain’s last Labour government for challenging official policy to reclassify cannabis from a class C to a class B drug — boosting its threat level — and for suggesting that ecstasy, by contrast, should be downgraded from class A.

Nutt also outraged the establishment by comparing one of its favorite pursuits, horse-riding, to ecstasy use, in order to illustrate the way in which the risks of certain drugs were routinely and reflexively overstated. “Equasy” — equine addiction syndrome, in other words, riding — caused 10 deaths and more than 100 road accidents a year, he wrote in the Journal of Psychopharmacology in 2009. “Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms and would be, in practice, very easy to do…This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates — indeed encourages — certain forms of potentially harmful behavior but not others, such as drug use.”

Generating splenetic headlines isn’t Nutt’s aim. Generating debate is. His research into the damage caused by drugs, and the legislative framework designed to minimize these harms, has instilled in him a passionate belief that drug policy needs to be more firmly based on scientific evidence.

“By legislating on a substance without reliable scientifically based evidence, we run the risk of causing more harm through criminalizing users than might be caused by the drug itself,” he writes in the latest post on his personal blog, Evidence not Exaggeration. “The evidence on drug harms should not be sacrificed for political and media pressure.”

That’s the spirit behind his new study, authored with Leslie King and Lawrence Phillips and newly published in the medical journal, The Lancet. By analyzing the impact of 20 drugs in terms of 16 criteria highlighting their effect on users (health issues, dependency, mental impairment, loss of tangibles such as job, loss of relationships, injury) and on the people and society they interact with (crime, degradation of local environment, family strains, and wider issues such as economic cost), Nutt produced a ranking. He found that alcohol was the most harmful drug overall — and anyone who has seen the Saturday night transformation of British city centers into battlegrounds of blood and vomit will understand this point — followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine proved the most injurious to the individuals using the drugs. Cannabis ranked 8th most harmful, after two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

Booze and cigarettes do “have commercial benefits to society in terms of providing work and tax, which to some extent offset the harms,” notes the report, while concluding that “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.” The report also admits that “many of the harms of drugs are affected by their availability and legal status.”

That’s a key point likely to be picked up by critics of any moves to decriminalize marijuana, who say the social harms of the drug would increase in proportion to its availability. The voters of California will put that view to the test if they decide to support Proposition 19 in tomorrow’s ballot.

Click here for the full report from Time: Healthland

1 in 6 Doctors Addicted to Drugs or Alcohol

September 29, 2010

Natural News

By: David Gutierrez

According to surveys of British hospitals, one in six doctors will be addicted to alcohol or illegal drugs at some point during their medical career. A full third of junior male doctors and one in five junior female doctors admit to having used cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy or hallucinogenic drugs.

“The problems will become more acute in future, as drug and alcohol dependency is becoming more common in the population as a whole,” reads “Invisible Crisis,” a government-funded report into the problem.

“It may be easy to spot a health professional who is obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but persistent and long-term substance misuse can be harder to pick up and the consequences for quality and safety of care harder to predict,” the report reads. “Working while under the influence of drugs or alcohol increases the chances that healthcare workers will make mistakes and communicate poorly with colleagues and patients.”

Interviews conducted by the Daily Mail back up assertions that a culture of drinking prevails among health professionals, with some doctors confessing to hooking themselves up to saline drips or writing themselves prescriptions to ease the effects of binge drinking. One survey found that the average medical school student knows less about safe drinking levels than the average grade school student.

The problem is exacerbated by a patchwork of weak guidelines and regulations. Unlike bus or train drivers, doctors in the United Kingdom are never made to submit to random drug or alcohol testing, and there are no national regulations barring them from drinking on duty. Rules at individual hospitals also vary widely.

General practitioner Michael Wilks, a former alcoholic and now the deputy chairman of the Sick Doctors Trust, says his profession is in denial about the scale of the crisis.

“Doctors are taught to be decisive and they are treated with respect,” he said. “So to ask for help, you have to climb down off your pedestal and admit you have a problem.”

Click here for the full report from Natural News

UK Approves Pot-Based Drug

July 6, 2010

DailyFinance.com

by Bruce Watson

It looks like marijuana sales may be moving from the street corner to the pharmacy in the U.K., where a drug derived from cannabis went on sale Monday. Sativex, which was developed by GW Pharmaceuticals and will be marketed by Bayer, is intended for multiple-sclerosis patients. It’s the world’s first prescription drug made from pot, according to The Wall Street Journal, and Canadian regulators approved its use back in 2005.

British regulators approved the drug Friday. GW Pharmaceuticals also plans to seek approval for Sativex in other countries, including Spain, Germany and Italy. In the U.S., where Phase III (late-stage) clinical trials are set to start later this year, the company hopes to market the drug as a painkiller for cancer patients. Analysts estimate that annual revenues from Sativex will ultimately reach $74 million to $148 million.

These massive potential revenues have reignited the controversy over medical marijuana. If the active chemical in pot, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has proven its effectiveness for medical purposes in Sativex, could that lend more legitimacy to the idea of using marijuana leaves directly for medical purposes? Or will new pharma-developed drugs like Sativex outcompete marijuana in its original form?

Pricing the Pot Market

First, let’s take a look at how Sativex and marijuana would compete on cost. Of course, the current average prices for pot are much higher than they would be if the plant could be widely grown legally, and it’s hard to tell exactly what it would cost in that case. Because of its illegality, marijuana cultivation, transportation and sales are fraught with peril. The lack of secure supply chains and the potential cost of run-ins with the law tend to keep black market prices high.

However, a few open markets hint at what the actual market value of marijuana could be. In Amsterdam, for example, prices range from $1.50 to $10 per gram, depending upon the quality and origin of the marijuana. In Canada, the per-gram price for medical marijuana is only $4.91 ($5 Canadian).

The overall range, then, is $1.50 to $10 per gram for legal marijuana, with $5 per gram as a workable baseline. In Canada, the standard daily dose of medical marijuana ranges between 0.5 and 1.5 grams, which would cost roughly $2.50 to $7.50 for most patients. By comparison, a basic daily dose of Sativex costs roughly $16 per day. And a daily dose of Marinol, a drug containing synthetic THC that’s prescribed for AIDS and cancer patients in the U.S., runs between $9 and $13.50 per day.

This translates into a monthly price of $150 for marijuana, $337 for Marinol and $480 for Sativex. The comparatively high prices of Sativex and Marinol aren’t surprising. In fact, it’s a little shocking that they don’t cost more. Sativex is a processed version of marijuana, which means that its cost is directly tied to the base cost of the plant. Marinol, on the other hand, is a synthesized version of THC and contains far more THC than marijuana. In both cases, the cost of manufacturing massively increases the price that patients — or health-care providers — pay.

Challenges to Medical Marijuana

The basic argument against medical marijuana lies in its classification as a Schedule 1 substance, which means that it has a high potential for abuse, that it does not have an accepted medical usage and that there is a lack of accepted safety for its use in a medical setting. This, by the way, puts marijuana in the same class as heroin, LSD and peyote.

But with the increased acceptance of THC-based drugs like Marinol and Sativex, the Schedule 1 argument starts to crumble. In fact, Marinol contains far more THC than standard marijuana, which can provoke some unpleasant reactions. One consumer, Robert Randall, complained, noting: “When I took Marinol, I found it anxiety-provoking and intense, like I had wandered into a short story by Flannery O’Connor.” (Sativex avoids this effect with a different chemical composition and delivery system, GW claims.)

Another argument is that pharmaceutical companies can produce THC content with higher consistency and quality than medical marijuana. Critics of medical marijuana question whether actual marijuana can have the consistent THC content necessary for prescription use. Sativex, which is made from medical marijuana cultivated in secret farms around the UK, seems to suggest that marijuana plants can be grown with relatively consistent THC.

Smoked Medication vs Pills

The final key argument against medical marijuana is that it’s usually smoked. No medicines that are smoked are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency claims that a marijuana cigarette contains four times more cancer-causing tar than a normal cigarette. Then again, other methods of consumption — including vaporizers, water pipes, and cooked goods — can reduce or even eliminate the tar problem.

For supporters of medical marijuana, Sativex may seem to be a step backward. After all, the marijuana derivative is yet another stopgap separating sick people from a cheap, common, easily produced medication. Then again, as accepted medications start to draw closer and closer to actual marijuana, the arguments against the “the demon weed” increasingly seem to be going up in smoke.

Click here to read the full report

Next Page »