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.