BIG PHARMA IS IN A FRENZY TO BRING CANNABIS-BASED MEDICINES TO MARKET

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research
and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this
point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal
officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's
another story

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds'
seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the
US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use
of medical marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.

It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate
nor persuasive. Here's why.

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for --
and has already received -- multiple patents for the medical
properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot
derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists
(synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors)
like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend
was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The
endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy,"
which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has
been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in
pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other
words, at the same time the American Medical Association is
proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy
to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most
notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a
patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The
extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound
CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an
undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and
development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is
proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's
good for them. Let me explain.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval
from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug
Administration -- a process that remains as much based on politics as
it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is
unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be
unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health
Products Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a
prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company,
GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British
politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the
recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in Prime Minister Gordon
Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of "lethal quality."
(Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties
on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five
years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that British
regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine,
even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely,
Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal view
toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to
authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The
real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here
again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use
therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use
of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of
"Reefer Madness."

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the
use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one
becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise
only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will --
including many older patients who would never the desire to try or
the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of
whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no
doubt have a broad appeal.

But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use
fewer pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any
degree that adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly
most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California --
three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible
on the open market -- use prescription drugs, not cannabis for their
ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing
herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and
Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical
preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever
warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior
relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private
sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and
efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder
and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their
absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades
to legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most
especially the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their
attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based
therapeutics. That said, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any
royalty checks.

Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't
patent medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.