GIVE REEFER A CHANCE, MEDICALLY

Reefer Madness, a 1937 exploitation film, warned marijuana use causes
"the total inability to direct thoughts (and) the loss of all power to
resist physical emotions leading finally to acts of shocking violence."

Some marijuana supporters who rightly laugh at these silly claims also
say the natural presence of marijuana on God's green earth proves its
harmlessness, forgetting that some of world's deadliest poisons grow
naturally.

Unfortunately, when it comes to assessing the U.S.'s medical marijuana
policy, the irrational arguments on both sides of the debate hamper
efforts to carry out much-needed research on marijuana's medical use.

Contrary to a 1999 Institute of Medicine report calling for future
research on smoked marijuana, which could be a useful treatment for
chemotherapy-induced nausea, physical wasting in AIDS patients and
spasticity in multiple sclerosis, the FDA states that no sound medical
studies support the use of medical marijuana.

Rather than carry out proper studies, federal agencies have made it
tougher on marijuana researchers by scrapping the FDA's compassionate
investigational new drug program in 1992 and reducing the amount of
marijuana legally allowed in clinical studies.

As a result, most of the data on medical marijuana is from flawed
observational studies on recreational marijuana use, not from
randomized controlled trials on patients, which might address pros and
cons of this potential therapy.

On the other side of the spectrum, 13 states rebuffed the federal
stance by removing state criminal penalties for growing or possessing
medical marijuana. While a 2006 Supreme Court ruling stated that
federal anti-drug laws trump state laws, 99 percent of marijuana
arrests are made by local and state authorities, meaning that these
laws provide significant protection for marijuana-toking patients.

Like the federal government, these states are wrong to ignore the lack
of research and make such bold moves without proper studies on the
potential harms of marijuana to patients.

Although states and Feds are at odds in many respects, there is one
therapeutic application they agree upon. A pill form of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the strongest psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana, is classified as a Schedule 2 drug that can
be prescribed for medical use but is not legal for the general public.

But smoked marijuana, which carries the notorious Schedule 1 label, is
more cheaply produced and produces a rapid increase in blood levels of
THC, meaning it is more likely to be therapeutic.

Some patient advocacy groups claim this is enough to support
legalization but fail to mention the Institute of Medicine report's
finding that smoking is not a safe way to deliver cannabinoids due to
marijuana's variable and uncertain composition, the damage it delivers
to the respiratory tract and its potentially deleterious effects on
the immune system -- not exactly small concerns for drugs being used in
cancer and AIDS patients.

Whether the best treatment with the least side effects is in the form
of a cigarette, pill or sublingual spray, researchers need to be free
to compare all the alternatives side-by-side. In light of the Justice
Department's recent call to reverse the Bush administration's strict
crackdown on medical marijuana, this might soon become a reality.

The hope is that the campaigning of fanatical anti-marijuana crusaders
or abuse of this policy by potheads seeking to get high does not again
ruin the chance to gain some scientific insight into the medical
benefits and harms of smoked marijuana.