HIGH TIME MEDICAL RESEARCH DONE ON MARIJUANA

The Herald's April 16 editorial, Strange Priority, was critical of
Health Canada for conducting research into marijuana at the expense of
other drugs with "more promise."

I certainly support the Arthritis Society of Canada's call for approval
of Pennsiad in an appropriate and timely fashion, assuming the research
does, in fact, support its efficacy and lack of side effects. Doctors'
prescription information certainly lists a wide variety of side-effects
for this drug (as do most drugs). Pennsaid's long-term effects may only
be known years from now, when it is too late to correct.

However, marijuana has proven effective for 5,000 years for a variety of
ailments with no harmful side-effects (unless you consider happiness and
a general feeling of well-being to be harmful). Until cannabis was
demonized following the repeal of alcohol prohibition, it was listed in
the U.S. pharmacopia as an effective remedy for a variety of ailments.
The anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of marijuana is, unfortunately,
the only evidence available, as no self-respecting pharmaceutical
company would spend a dime on research of a drug which holds no
financial incentive. How can they make money from cannabis if anyone can
grow it in their own herb garden?

It has been left to the government, which has finally heard the cries of
hundreds (nay, thousands) of medicinal cannabis users, to investigate
this research on our behalf. Previous attempts by the U.S. and other
governments to prove that cannabis is dangerous have resulted in studies
which ultimately show its effectiveness and safety, and have therefore
been suppressed. The World Health Organization has produced similar
studies, similarly suppressed. The National Institute on Drug Abuse in
the U.S. has consistently refused to allow research to receive
government-manufactured cannabis for any study whose intent is to
demonstrate efficacy rather than harm or addiction.

Even our own government has systematically ignored the LeDain Commission
(not a research study but a study of the uselessness of drug laws), a
study paid for by the Trudeau government in the 1970s, which recommended
that cannabis be removed from the schedule of controlled substances due
to its potential medical uses and its obvious harmlessness, to
individuals and to society .

As far as the various uses of cannabis, these go far beyond analgesic
effects, which are obvious to anyone who has used it for this purpose.

With more than 60 different cannabinoids, molecules which are found only
in the cannabis sativa L. plant varieties, this is one of the most
misunderstood and under-researched medicines in the history of
pharmaceutical research . One often ignored benefit of cannabis use is
its ability to improve the effectiveness of NSAIDS and opiate drugs
(codeine, morphine). According to the 1996 Parker Street Press book by
author, Rowan Robinson, titled The Great Book of Hemp, historically or
anecdotally proven therapeutic uses of cannabis include treating
glaucoma and breathing difficulty, to inhibit tumours, as an antibiotic,
as an anti-depressant, to control inflammation, as an analgesic, to
treat alcoholism, to treat opiate addiction, to alleviate insomnia, for
relief from herpes, for relief from migraine, for treatment of ulcer.

Beyond these basic "household remedy" uses there includes cannabis'
effect as an anti-oxidant which would negate any negative effects of
smoked cannabis (i.e. carbon monoxide, tars), as well as an anti-emetic
for chemotherapy and AIDS patients who cannot hold down the pills they
are given to make them eat.

Just because a drug is effective for 75 per cent of patients does not
mean that the remaining 25 per cent should suffer in silence.

In fact, the anecdotal evidence is extensive, not "limited" as suggested
by the Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health of the U.S.
Institute of Health. Much of it is supported by research done in other
countries for many years, but is not accepted outside the country of
origin unless it falsely supports prohibitionist propaganda about
"reefer madness." One historical, anecdotal example is Queen Victoria,
who used cannabis to relieve menstrual cramps.

It is high time (no pun intended) that our government has finally ponied
up for some real research, belated as it may be. It makes me proud to be
a Canadian.

It is only unfortunate that Health Canada has chosen an inexperienced
company to grow "med-pot" and have limited them to a low-level THC
content (five per cent), thus forcing participants to smoke two to three
times more plant matter to have the same effect of what a med-pot user
can grow for themselves (six to 15 per cent THC). It is even more
unfortunate that they have spent so little, and have developed a
long-term program (five years) which will keep current medical users out
of the loop and waiting for a conclusion for a long time.

We can only hope that the constitutional challenges to marijuana laws
result in total legalization long before that time.

Strange priorities, indeed.