Drug Abuse

Chapter Six Medical Uses of Cannabis

In order to furnish the results to which I have been led by more than thirty years' experience of the drug, it will be well to arrange the maladies in which it has been either useful, or useless... by giving my experience of the great value of Indian hemp.
Dr J. Russell Reynolds, personal physician to Queen Victoria, (The Lancet, 1890) (217)

Cannabis occupies one of the most important chapters in the history of world medicine. Lavishly supplied by nature, non-toxic, safe, and with a wide range of applications, it has been used by all peoples and cultures to treat many mental dysfunctions and physical ailments for more than three thousand years.

From the sixteenth century onwards, Western therapeutic practice focused almost exclusively on opium and opium preparations. In the nineteenth century opium was joined by cannabis and cannabis products. Into the first decades of the twentieth century, the concept of `medicinal therapeutic media' meant more or less the products of two plants: the opium poppy and cannabis.

Western medicine discovered cannabis in the nineteenth century and the plant held a privileged place in its therapeutic armoury until 1937, when it was expelled from the therapeutic sphere for reasons that had nothing whatever to do with either medicine or therapy.

In 1839, Dr W. B. O'Shaughnessy, a British doctor, Professor at the Medical School of Calcutta, and advisor to the medical service of the British East India Company, published a paper on the analgesic, antispasmodic, and muscle-relaxing properties of cannabis, expressing his firm belief that "in Hemp the profession has gained an anti-convulsive remedy of the greatest value."(218) O'Shaughnessy's pronouncements roused the interest of doctors all over the world, and as a result, over the next sixty years, more than a hundred scientific studies of cannabis were published.

In 1860, Dr R. R. M'Meens presented the results of his study of the medical uses of cannabis to the Medical Society of Ohio: After acknowledging their indebtedness to Dr O'Shaughnessy, he reviewed the symptoms and conditions for which hemp was found useful. These included tetanus, neuralgia, the arrest of uterine hemorrhage, as an analgesic during labor, in dysmenorrhea, convulsions, the pain of rheumatism, asthma, pogpartum psychoses, gonorrhea, and chronic bronchitis.(219)

In 1881, Dr H. Kane established cannabis as a useful substitute in cases of alcohol addiction.

In 1889, Dr E. A. Birch "approaching modem research techniques, treated one chloral-hydrate addict and one opium addict with cannabis indica. In both, the drug addiction was replaced by unidentified ills containing cannabis, which was subsequently slowly withdrawn." (220)

In 1899, Sir William Osler, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins and at Oxford University, produced a paper on migraine and stress, in which he concluded that "cannabis indica is probably the most satisfactory remedy. "(221)

In 1890, Dr J. Russell Reynolds, personal physician to Queen Victoria, published an article in The Lancet in which he summarised his thirty years experience of the therapeutic use of cannabis, asserted its efficacy in cases of migraine, various epileptic conditions,depression, asthma, and dysmenorrhoea, and concluded "by giving his opinion of the great value of Indian hemp. "(222)

In 1891, Dr J. B. Mattisson acknowledged the therapeutic usefulness of cannabis in many physical pathological conditions and mental dysfunctions, and concluded that "Indian hemp is not a poison... cannabis indica is, often, a safe and successful anodyne and hypnotic... it is a drug that has a special value in some morbid conditions, and its intrinsic merit and superior safety entitle it to the place it once held in therapeutics. "(223)

In the circumstances, at the turn of the nineteenth century it would have been hard to imagine that a few decades later cannabis would head the list of scapegoat substances and that its users would be facing merciless treatment at the hands of the law, with penalties ranging from a few years to life imprisonment or even the death sentence in some cases.

Until 1937, cannabis was an ingredient of more than thirty pharmaceutical products on the US market. After 1937, when the Marihuana Tax Act made it an illicit substance, it became extremely difficult legally to prescribe cannabis derivatives for therapeutic purposes.

During the witch-hunting period (1946-60), all research into the therapeutic uses of cannabis was frozen.(224) In the early sixties, however, public opinion began actively to dismiss the FBN's scaremongering propaganda and the scientific community resumed its investigations into the therapeutic properties of the `forbidden grass', as a result of which Δ9-THC was successfully synthesised in 1965.

In August 1971 certain secret Defence Department documents were declassified. While at NIMH as a consulting research psychiatrist in 1967 I had become aware of the existence of a clandestine research at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. From 1954-59, Dr Van S. Sim was in charge of the project. He reported to Medical WorldNews: Marihuana... is probably the most potent anti-epileptic known to medicine today. (225)

During the '70s, the FDA and the DEA bowed to public pressure and agreed to allow doctors to conduct an experimental project, whereby they would be able to use capsules of syntheticΔ9-THC and joints of natural marihuana to combat nausea and vomiting. At the same time, thirty-four states legalised the use of cannabis for medical reasons. Nonetheless, marihuana remained - and remains - on Schedule I of Controlled Substances.

In the '80s, the vast body of data amassed by the federal research programmes proving natural marihuana's therapeutic value for very serious complaints made it imperative that its legal status be changed. This went totally against Reagan and Bush's 'anti-drug policy'.

In 1985, the US government tried to play for time by adopting a compromise solution. Having proclaimed, until 1979, that "cannabis had no therapeutic value", the US Department of Health and the FDA now acknowledged and made available to the public a version of syntheticΔ9-THC called dronabinol, which was manufactured and marketed, as Marinol, by Eli Lilly. (226) It was originally indicated for the side-effects of chemotherapy, and later began to be used with some success as an appetite stimulant for AIDS victims. Soon afterwards, dronabinol was joined by another form of syntheticΔ9-THC, nabilone, purveyed on the market as Cesamet. Thus, for the first time in half a century, a few cracks began to appear in the edifice of total control erected by the prohibition brigade within the power bloc.

But in 1991, on the order of George Bush, who insisted that his repressive anti-drug policy be implemented, the US Department of Health tried to put a stop to research into the therapeutic applications of marihuana by slashing the federal programmes' budgets and discouraging or intimidating researchers. Furthermore- and this was even more serious - it attempted to have all the data amassed by the arduous efforts of thirty years of research (1960-90) destroyed, displaying a mentality and adopting methods worthy of Nazi and Communist totalitarianism.

Apart from anything else the decision also hampered the development of new drugs based on cannabis, which oh-so-coincidentally, enabled Eli Lilly's products to continue monopolising the market, as they had done since 1985. (George Bush, let us not forget, became a director of Eli Lilly after leaving the CIA in 1977, and the Bush family holds a considerable number of shares in the company.)

In 1973, Dr Tod Mikuriya conducted a systematic investigation of the relevant medical literature and summarised the `Possible Therapeutic Applications of Tetrahydrocannabinols and Like Products' as follows:

Analgesic-hypnotic, appetite stimulant, antiepilepticantispasmodic, prophylactic and treatment of neuralgias, including migraine and tic douloureux, antidepressanttranquillizer, antiasthmatic, oxytocic, antitussive, topical anaesthetic, withdrawal agent for opiate and alcohol addiction, childbirth analgesic 2277 antibiotic, intraocular hypotensive, hypothermogenic.(227)

And in 1990, Professor Jerome Jaffe fully corroborated Dr Mikuriya in Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, the most authoritative textbook of pharmacology and therapeutic practice in the field of mainstream medicine:

Marihuana, Δ9-THC, and certain synthetic analogs have one established and several potential therapeutic applications. Some synthetic cannabinoids may find use as analgesics or anticonvulsants. The capacity of some natural and synthetic cannabinoids to lower intraocular pressure has had little clinical utility to date.Δ9-THC and a synthetic cannabinoid, nabilone, are now available for oral use as antiemetics. They are indicated for control of nausea associated with chemotherapy. (228)

The therapeutic value of cannabis and its derivatives is now proven and accepted for the following broad range of pathological conditions:

1) Glaucoma (intraocular hypertension)
2) Side-effects of chemotherapy (nausea and sickness)
3) Asthma
4) Epilepsy and spasms
5) Depression and anorexia
6) Pain of varying aetiology
7) Cancer
8) Dependence on opiates and alcohol

Cannabis has four major advantages which make it unique from a therapeutic point of view:

1) It is the least toxic of the available drugs.
2) It has a wide range of therapeutic applications.
3) It acts in a different way from other drugs.
4) It can be combined effectively and safely with any drug.

1. Glaucoma (intraocular hypertension)

The term glaucoma refers to a number of ophthalmic problems that are all characterised by increased endophthalmic pressure, which damages the optic nerve, leading to reduced vision and ultimately blindness.

The drugs available today (myotics, carboanhydrasis inhibitors, adrenaline) do not cure even the most common forms of glaucoma, are extremely ineffective, are not suitable for all sufferers, have serious side-effects, and have to be taken for the rest of the patient's life. Sufferers who do not respond to them or who cannot tolerate or counteract their serious side-effects are forced to choose between a high-risk surgical operation of dubious effectiveness and blindness. Glaucoma is the second commonest cause of blindness in the United States, and every year it claims the sight of more than 240,000 people worldwide.

The existing treatments for glaucoma do no more than control its various manifestations to a slight extent. Myotic drugs cause blurred vision in daylight, which becomes worse in low lighting conditions, are implicated in the development of cataracts, and predispose the patient to ragoiditis and detachment of the retina. Carboanhydrasis inhibitors block the production of the watery fluid in the eye by suppressing the action of the carboanhydrasis that is essential to its formation. Normal doses cause colicky abdominal or stomach pains, nausea, salivation, diarrhoea, hyperhidrosis, hot flushes, conjunctival congestion, pain in the eyelids, and teariness; large doses cause dyspnoea and affect the functioning of the heart. Adrenaline or epinephrine is used as a conjunctival decongestant in the form of drops or ointment.

By 1972 numerous observations, investigations, and reports had been conducted and produced on the effects of marihuana and its derivatives on glaucoma sufferers, and they opened up new, hopeful prospects for dealing with the endophthalmic hypertension associated with glaucoma.

While scientists were studying the effects of known doses of marihuana on young male volunteers, it was observed that one of the effects was a reduction of arterial pressure in the eye. They supposed that since this was the case with normal subjects it might also be the case with glaucoma sufferers. And so it proved to be. (229)

In the context of the lengthy cannabis investigation planned and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, efforts in this sphere focused on the effects on glaucoma patients of (i) smoking marihuana, (ii) oral administration of Δ9-THC, and (iii) intravenous administration of Δ9-THC.(230)

1) SMOKING MARIHUANA AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION OF Δ9-THC

This was a double-blind experiment conducted by Robert Hepler, Ira Frank, and Robert Petrus of the Medical School of UCLA at the NIDA's request.(231)

The subjects were male volunteers aged between 21 and 29 years, who were divided into four groups: one group smoked natural marihuana;(232) the second smoked Δ9-THC mixed with a marihuana-like placebo; the third took synthetic Δ9-THC by mouth; and the fourth group smoked a marihuana-like placebo withoutΔ9-THC. Having fully evaluated their findings, the researchers announced:

The amount of pressure drop was in the range of 30% for 2 % THC and natural marihuana. The placebo also showed consistent mild pressure drop, the effect approximating 10% pressure reduction. Since we subsequently observed pressure-reducing effects with cannabinoids other than THC, our THC-eluted marihuana may have contained significant amounts of other active agents... There are no indications so far of any deleterious effects of marihuana smoking on visual function or ocular structures. There is reason to suspect that the mechanism of pressure reduction induced by marihuana smoking may differ from the mechanism of action of standard antiglaucoma drugs presently in use.(233)

2) INTRAVENOUS ADMINISTRATION OF CANNABINOIDS The NIDA assigned the relevant study to Mario Perez-Reyes, Donna Wagner, Monroe Wall, and Kenneth Davis - all researchers in the Medical School of the University of North Carolina. They summed up the study and their findings as follows:

Six different cannabinoids were intravenously infused to normal subjects, and their effect on intraocular pressure was measured. Δ8- THC, Δ9-THC, and 11-hydroxy-Δ9-THC produced significant reductions in intraocular pressure, whereas 8ß-OH-Δ+-THC, and cannabindiol were less effective. (234)

It is now generally accepted that "when smoked, given intravenously, or taken orally, cannabis, THC, and other cannabinoid derivatives have been found to reduce the vision-threatening intraocular pressure of glaucoma",(235) and since 1990 synthetic Δ9-THC in the form of eye-drops has been available on the market.

2. Side-effects of chemotherapy (nausea and vomiting)

Despite the prohibition brigade's hopes to the contrary, the therapeutic value of cannabis is widely recognised today in addressing the side-effects of chemotherapy undergone by cancer patients. Special preparations are already available for this purpose.

In the eighth edition of The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (1990), Professor Jerome Jaffe writes:Δ9-THC and a synthetic cannabinoid, nabilone, are now available for oral use as antiemetic. They are indicated for control of nausea associated with chemotherapy. (236)

In the third edition of their textbook, A Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse (1992), Drs Gail Winger, Frederick Hofmann, and James Woods note:

THC and its synthetic analogs have been evaluated for their ability to suppress severe nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing some types of cancer chemotherapy. (237)

3. Asthma

Marihuana was systematically used in the treatment of bronchial asthma in the nineteenth century, but it has recently been ascertained that the ingestion of Δ9-THC via the respiratory or the digestive system causes noticeable bronchial dilation in healthy young people. This naturally raised the question of whether marihuana has a similar effect on people suffering from complaints involving bronchial contraction, which would mean it could be used to treat asthma attacks. The latest research shows that marihuana does indeed have such an effect.

The NIDA asked Drs L. Vachon, P. Mikus, W. Morrissey, M. Fitzgerald, and E. Gaensler of the Medical School of Boston University to study the effect on asthma of smoking marihuana. The subjects were 17 volunteers aged between 18 and 30 with a history of asthma; all but one of the seventeen had a relation who suffered from asthma.

The effects of a single administration of marihuana smoke on bronchial mechanics were studied in a group of asthmatic subjects. The diagnosis of asthma was made on the basis of history and evidence of reversible airway obstruction; the subjects were free of symptoms at the time of testing. They received a standard volumeof a mixture of air and smoke from natural marihuana containing one of two different concentrations (1.9% and 0.9%) of Δ -THC. Both concentrations showed significant and prolonged reversal of the bronchoconstriction as yell as significant but shorter duration of tachycardia.(238)

The NIDA also asked Drs P. Tashkin, B. Shapiro, and Ira Frank, of the UCLA Medical School to study the direct effects of marihuana on airway dynamics in spontaneous and artificially induced bronchial asthma.

Previous studies have shown that both smoked marihuana and oral Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) produce significant acute bronchodilatation in healthy young males. We present data on 10 subjects with clinically stable bronchial asthma of mild to moderate severity in whom acute effects of smoked 2 % natural marihuana (7 mgm/kg) and oral Δ9-THC (15 mgm) on plethysmographically determined airway resistance (RAW) and specific airway conductance (SGAW) were compared with those of placebo using a double-blind crossover technique. After smoked marihuana, SGAW rose immediately and remained significantly elevated (33 to 48% above initial control values) for at least 2 hr, whereas SLAW did not change after placebo. The peak bronchodilator effect of 1250 pg of isoproterenol was greater than that of marihuana, but the effect of marihuana lasted longer. After ingestion of 15 mgm of THC, SGAW was elevated significantly at 1 and 2 hr, and RAW was reduced significantly at 1 to 4 hr, whereas no changes were noted after placebo. In 6 asthmatic subjects, bronchospasm (> 30% decrease in SGAW) was induced by exercise on a bicycle ergometer or treadmill or by inhalation of 0.25 to 1.25 mgm methacholine. Following induction of bronchospasm, subjects smoked 2% marihuana or placebo or inhaled 1,250 pg isoproterenol or saline in a single-blind fashion. Bronchospasm was promptly reversed by smoked marihuana and inhaled isoproterenol but not by smoked placebo or inhaled saline. The above findings indicate that in stable asthmatics smoked marihuana and oral THC cause significant bronchodilatation of at least 2 hr duration and that smoked marihuana is capable of reversing experimentally induced bronchospasm. (239)

4. Epilepsy and spasms

In 1949, J. Davis and H. Ramsey studied the antispasmodic effects of cannabis on five epileptic children who were being treated with phenobarbitone and dilatin. The results were extremely encouraging.

The demonstration of anticonvulsant activity of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) congeners by laboratory tests prompted clinical trial in five institutionalized epileptic children. All of them had severe symptomatic grand mal epilepsy with mental retardation... Two isomeric 3 (1 ,2-dimethyl heptyl) homologs of THC were tested, Numbers 122 and 125A, with ataxia potencies fifty and eight times, respectively, that of natural marihuana principles. Number 122 was given to 2 patients for three weeks and to 3 patients for seven weeks. Three responded at least as well as to previous therapy; the fourth became almost completely and the fifth entirely seizure free... [only] the second patient [had] a brief paranoid behaviour 3.5 weeks later; similar episodes had occurred prior to cannabis therapy. Other psychic disturbances or toxic reactions were not manifested during %e periods of treatment. Blood counts were normal. (240)

In 1969, prompted by the results of research, Professor Tod Mikuriya included spasms and epilepsy in the list of conditions on which cannabis might have a therapeutic effect. (241) And in 1990, in view of the findings of research during the intervening twenty years, Professor Jerome Jaffe confirmed Mikuriya's assessment, and stated that "some synthetic cannabinoids may find use as analgesics or anticonvulsants. "(242)

5. Depression and anorexia

The weight loss, suffering, and depression arising out of the despair and anguish of impending death are the main symptoms of people with advanced cancer. They are difficult to treat because the available drugs used to control them at present are extremely inadequate and ineffective.

Reports by earlier researchers thatΔ9-THC produces euphoria, stimulates the appetite, and has notable analgesic and anti-emetic effects made it a very attractive proposition to study cannabis as a means of helping cancer patients. It naturally drew the interest of the medical world and the NIDA, which latter asked a team of scientists to investigate the appetite-stimulating, anti-depressive, analgesic, and anti-emetic effects of cannabis in the context of the complex research programme for the Pharmacology of Marihuana (1967-70).

Drs W. Regelson, T. Kirk, M. Green, J. Schulz, and M. Zalis of the Medical School of Richmond University, in association with Professors Butler and Peek of the Psychology Department of Denton University, Texas, conducted double-blind experiments(243) to investigate the effects of Δ9-THC on both in-patient and out-patient cancer sufferers, and they summed up their work and their findings as follows:

Our data suggest thatΔ9-THC has value as an antidepressant and can be of value in the management of both in-patient and out-patient cancer patients - provided somnolence, dizziness, and depersonalization do not result in early discontinuation. The potential of Δ9 -THC is clear; many patients with advanced cancer are depressed and anxious. Indeed, the despondency and anxiety engendered by cancer destroy the quality of life that remains and become in many patients more important than the organic problems produced by the disease itself. The depression and anxiety in many cancer patients are by no means symptomatic of an unstable personality or an endogenous depression; rather, they are clearly a common response to a catastrophic event that is extremely difficult to deal with as the usual reassurances or psychic-energizers (antidepressants) have little or negative effects. Previous attempts at psychometric evaluation of marihuana (Zinberg and Weil, 1970; Hogan, Manakeon, Conway, and Fox, 1970; McGlothlin and Rowan, 1970) have aimed primarily at the personality and life-history correlates of reactional use. The cancer population is obviously a nonuser group with special characteristics. This study represents an attempt to define and to determine the effects of Δ9-THC on that group with particular reference to changes in the despondency that so uniquely characterizes cancer... Of fundamental importance is the almost complete absence of subjective euphoria or high reported in experienced users (by high we mean a euphoric state subjectively apparent to the drug recipient)... One of the previously reported psychological effects of Δ9-THC that failed to appear among our subjects was suspiciousness... The foregoing results, considered with the clinical observations of the effects ofΔ9-THC demonstrating significant slowing and occasional reversal of the characteristic weight loss associated with cancer, as well as trends toward analgesic and antiemetic effects, suggest promising further study of the efficacy of Δ9 -THC as a supportive treatment for the control of secondary symptoms in cancer patients... As in a previous study (Lowe and Goodman, 1974), weight gain was demonstrated in more than half the medicated subject. That may be interpreted as further evidence that Δ9-THC has appetite-stimulating properties, as shown earlier (by Freedman and Rockmore, 1946; Hollister et al., 1968; Clark, Hughes, and Nakashima, 1970)...

Summary: Δ9-THC in cancer patients at acceptable dosage (0.1 mg t.i.d., orally) had the effect of a tranquillizer and mild mood elevator, clearly without untoward effects on cognitive functioning and apparently without untoward effect on personality or emotional stability - at least as can be measured by psychological tests. Medically, the clinical notes and weight data suggest thatΔ9 -THC stimulates appetite and helps retard the chronic weight loss associated with cancer, and hint at some antiemetic and analgesic benefit.. .(244)

6. Pain of varying aetiology

At the invitation of the NIDA, R. Noyes, S. Bruk, D. Daran, and A. Canter of the Department of Pathology and Psychiatry of Iowa University's Medical School investigated the analgesic effects ofΔ9-THC on cancer patients and concluded that:

A preliminary trial of oral THC demonstrated an analgesic effect of the drug in patients experiencing cancer pain. Placebo and 5, 10, 15 and 20 mg THC were administered double-blind in 10 patients. Pain relief significantly superior to placebo was demonstrated at high dose levels (15 and 20 mg combined). At these levels, substantial sedation and mental clouding were reported. (245)

7. Antitumour effects

In 1976 the results were published of the investigation carried out for the NIDA by L. Harris, A. Munson, and R. Carchman of the Medical School of Richmond University into the inhibitory effect of some cannabinoids on certain neoplasms,(246) as a contribution to the discussion prompted by contrary conclusions reached by various earlier studies on animals (247) and human beings .(248)

One interesting conclusion from our study is that cannabinoid activity against neoplasms may not be related to their behavioural properties, since cannabinol, which is essentially behaviourally inactive, is effective in our systems. Our results add a new perspective to the increasing body of evidence that Δ9 -THC, though behaviourally active, has other cellular actions that may have greater importance in the long run since they may lead to the development of a new class of therapeutic agents. We hope that our model systems will provide the means by which nevi and more active antitumor agents can be developed.(249)

8. Detoxification of alcoholics and drug addicts

Modem research into the use of cannabis and cannabis products in the detoxification or maintenance of people dependent on alcohol, drugs, and other addictive substances is based on the therapeutic experience and accumulated knowledge of the medical use of cannabis over the last hundred years as a means of coping with withdrawal symptoms and as a substitute for the substances in question.

In 1887, H. H. Kane published his observations on the successful use of cannabis as a substitute with alcoholics. They were corroborated in 1889 by E. Birch, who administered cannabis to his opium-addicted clients "in treating addictions to opium and chloral hydrate"(250) and in 1891 by J. B. Mattison, who concluded that cannabis "has proved an efficient substitute for the poppy". One of the morphine addiction cases he described was a naval surgeon, "nine years a ten grains daily subcutaneous morphia taker... [who] recovered with less than a dozen doses. "(251)

In 1942, S. Allentuck and K. Bowman established that cannabis derivatives are effective in allaying withdrawal symptoms in opium addicts. In their study of forty-nine people dependent onopiates, they observed that "the withdrawal symptoms were ameliorated or eliminated sooner, the patient was in a better frame of mind, his spirits were elevated, his physical condition was more rapidly rehabilitated, and he expressed a wish to resume his occupation sooner. "(252)

In 1953, L. Thompson and R. Proctor announced the results of their satisfactory use of a synthetic cannabis product (pyrahexil) for withdrawal symptoms exhibited by patients dependent on alcohol, barbiturates, and certain other addictive substances, and they agreed with Allentuck and Bowman that the use of cannabis did not give rise to biological or psychological dependence and that the discontinuance of the drug did not result in withdrawal symptoms.(253)

After the Korean War, when Cold War hysteria was at its height, cannabis and the other `narcotics' were "associated directly with the Communist conspiracy".(254) As a result, the penal sanctions for using them became extremely harsh(255) and research into their therapeutic properties was halted. Research began again in the mid-sixties, when the draconian penal restrictions were eased somewhat, and still continues today, with remarkable results, in the context of programmes set up by various state-run and private organisations under the supervision of the US Department of Health. (256)

9. Pharmaceutical products based on cannabis

Nowadays, the medical profession is becoming increasingly aware of the therapeutic value of cannabis, which is undoubtedly helping to drastically undermine the simplistic scaremongering of those who want it banned and its users prosecuted. More and more doctors are actively supporting the demand that doctors and not politicians should decide about the therapeutic uses of any particular substance, in accordance with the findings of scientific research and not on the basis of repressionist ravings.(257)

A number of pharmaceutical products containing Δ9-THC are already available in the United States, being used to counteract the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy and to restore lost appetite. This closely reflects the modem attitudes towards cannabis that are developing all over the world.(258) The first drugs of this kind that were used in 1985 were dronabinol (marketed as Marinol) and nabilone (marketed as Cesamet). Nabilone was placed on Schedule II of Controlled Substances on the disingenuous grounds that it "produces subjective effects similar to those of Δ9-THC", despite the fact that its side-effects are negligible in comparison with those of the drugs used hitherto. The argument was that the public had to be `deterred' from using it for nonmedical purposes.

Cannabis is totally non-toxic, does not lead to physical dependence, and is without a doubt the least dangerous of all the existing euphoriants and the safest of all the therapeutic substances in the armoury of medical science. This has been publicly acknowledged by the American National Institute of Mental Health, which, as long ago as 1971, declared that with regard to toxicity, cannabis products must be considered the safest of all broadly applied remedies. (259)

217 J. R. Reynolds, `Therapeutical and Toxic Effects of Cannabis Indica', The Lancet, vol. 1 (1890), 637-9; reprinted in T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers (1973), 145-9.

218 B. O'Shaughnessy, On the Preparations of the Indian Hemp or Gunjah (1839); reprinted in T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers (1973), pp.3-30.

219 L. Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered (1977), pp.219-20.

220 E. A. Birch, 'The Use of Indian Hemp in the Treatment of Chronic Chloral and Chronic Opium Poisoning', The Lancet, vol. 1 (1889), 625; reprinted in T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers (1973), pp. 141-3.

221 W. Osler, The Principles and Practice of Medicine, 8th ed. (N.Y., 1913), p.1089; quoted by L. Grinspoon in Marihuana Reconsidered (1977), p.220.

222 J. R. Reynolds, `Therapeutic Uses and Toxic Effects of Cannabis Indica', The Lancet, vol. 1 (1890), 639; reprinted in T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers (1973), pp. 145-9.

223 J. B. Mattisson, `Cannabis Indica as an Anodyne and Hypnotic', The St Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. LVI, 5 (1891), 265-71; reprinted in T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers (1973), pp. 151-7.

224 See Chapter 3: 'The Age of Prohibition'.

225 T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers, 1839-1972 (1973), p.xxii.

226 Dronabinol (Marino!) was placed on Schedule II of Controlled Substances (requiring a special prescription).

227 T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers, (1973), p.xxiv.

228 J. Jaffe, 'Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse', in Goodman and Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (1990), p.553.

229 J. Jaffe, R. Peterson and R. Hodgson, Addictions (1981), p.80.

230 The research was carried out on the initiative of the `Centre for the Study of Narcotics and Drug Abuse' (a section of the NIMH), which is now known as the NIDA. The results were published by Raven Press in 1976 in the collective volume Pharmacology of Marihuana: A Monograph of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, edited by the clinical pharmacologist Monique Braude and the biochemist Stephen Szara, both of whom hold managerial posts in the NIDA's research department.

231 R. Hepler, I. Frank, and R. Petrus, `Ocular Effects of Marihuana Smoking', in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana, (1976), pp.815-24.

232 The quantity (7 mg/k) and Δ9-THC content (1 %, 2%, and 4%) were fixed.

233 R. Hepler, I. Frank, and R. Petrus (1976), ibid., pp. 816 and 824.

234 M. Perez-Reyes, D. Wagner, M. Wall, K. Davis: `Administration of Cannabinoids and Intraocular Pressure', in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana, (1976), p.832.

235 C. Carrol, Drugs in Modern Society (1993), p.346.

236 E. Jaffe, `Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse', in Goodman and Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (1990), p.553.

237 G. Winger, F. Hofmann, and J. Woods, A Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, (1992), p.130.

238 L. Vachon, P. Mikus, W. Morrissey, M. FitzGeraid, E. Gaeader, 'Bronchial Effect of Marihuana in Asthma', in Braude and Szara, eds, The Pharmacology of Marihuana, (1976), p.784.

239 D. Tashkin, B. B. Shapiro, I. Frank, 'Acute Effects of Marihuana on Airway Dynamics in Spontaneous and Experimentally induced Bronchial Asthma', in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana, (1976), p.799.

240 J. Davis and H. Ramsey, 'Antiepileptic Action of Marihuana-Active Substances', Federation Proceedings, vol. 8 (1940), p.284; reprinted in T. Mikuriya, Marihuana: Medical Papers (1973), p.167.

241 T. Mikuriya, 'Historical Aspects of Cannabis Sativa in Western Medicine', New Physician (1969), 904.

242 J. Jaffe, 'Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse', in Goodman and Gilman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (1990), p.553.

243 Natural THC and a placebo were used on two groups of patients.

244 W. Regelson et al., 'Δ9-THC as an Effective Antidepressant and Appetite-stimulating Agent in Advanced Cancer Patients', in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana (1976), vol. 2, p.763-76.

245 R. Noyes et al., `Analgesic Effects of Q9-THC', in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana (1976), pp.833-6.

246 L. S. Harris, A. E. Munson and R. A. Carchman, 'Antitumor Properties of Cannabinoids', in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana (1976), pp.749-62.

247. A. Singer (1971); A. Zimmerman and D. McClean (1973); J. Levy et al. (1974).

248 C. Lucthenberger (1973); R. Kolodny (1974); M. Stenchener (1974); J. Jaffe (1990), p.553.

249 L. Harris et al., in Braude and Szara, eds., The Pharmacology of Marihuana (1976), p.761.

250 L. Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered (1977), p.223.

251 L. Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered (1977), p.220.

252 S. Allentuck and K. Bowman, `The Psychiatric Aspects of Marihuana Intoxication',. American Journal of Psychiatry, 99 (1942), p.250.

253 L. Thompson and R. Proctor, 'Pyrahexyl in the Treatment of Alcoholic and Drug Withdrawal Conditions', North Carolina Medical Journal, 14 (1953), pp.520-3.

254 David Musto, The American Disease (1987), p.231.

255 The Hale Boggs Bill of 1951, it will be remembered, imposed a five-year prison sentence (for a first offence) and life imprisonment (for a second offence) for possession or use of any illicit substance. And it recommended the death sentence for an adult selling heroin to a minor under eighteen.

256 One example is the New Drug Investigations (NDI), which are regulated by special protocols.

257 An International Medical Marihuana Movement (San Francisco Headquarters, 3745 Seventeenth Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, USA) has already been organised, based in San Francisco, to coordinate doctors' efforts to impose respect for the basic premise that doctors, not politicians, should decide about medical matters.

258 See, e.g., Pomeroy et al. (1986); Manzo (1988).

259 US Department of Health (1972). The NIMH is a section of the US Department of Health.

< Prev		Next >