Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2011 Independent Media Institute
Website: 
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).
Bookmark: 
(Cannabis - Medicinal - United States)
Pot May Be Instrumental In Combatting Cancer, Ms And Other Diseases 
But The Gov't Refuses To Fund The Necessary Research
A Review of the NIH Website Shows That U.S. National Institute on 
Drug Abuse's Kibosh on Medical Marijuana Trials Continues Unabated.
It was nearly two years ago when the Obama White House issued it's 
'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 their 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 declared in 2010. "We generally do not fund research 
focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana."
A review of the U.S. National Institutes of Health website 
clinicaltrials.gov shows that NIDA's kibosh on medical marijuana 
trials continues unabated. Though a search of ongoing FDA-approved 
clinical trials using the keyword 'cannabinoids' (the active 
components in marijuana) yields 65 worldwide hits, only six involve 
subjects' use of actual cannabis. (The others involve 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 are already 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/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' 
yields over 1,300 published papers in 2008, some 1,700 papers in 
2009, and another 1,200 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.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
THS mailing list