Monthly Archives: August 2009

Why medical marijuana could be a good thing

I saw the piece reproduced below on the ADCA Update list, and it’s quite a comprehensive look at the opportunities medical marijuana provdes and deconstructs some of the misconceptions around the use of medical cannabis in the USA. It was originally published at the excellent MAPINC:

THE CASE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

In a piece published [1] here last week, Rachel Ehrenfeld reports with dismay that the National Institute on Drug Abuse is presently soliciting proposals from contractors to grow marijuana for research and other purposes. Unfortunately, Ehrenfeld’s misunderstanding of this request for proposals is so monumental that one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Ehrenfeld suggests that this is some sinister part of “ObamaCare.” “For the first time,” she writes, “the government is soliciting organizations that can grow marijuana on a ‘large scale,’ with the capability to ‘prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products … distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products’ not only for research, but also for ‘other government programs.'”

Ehrenfeld spends several paragraphs explaining how this is all the evil brainchild of George Soros, the pet villain of prohibitionists. After all, “Since when is the U.S. government in the business of distributing marijuana cigarettes?”

Since 1978, actually. The federal government has been distributing medical marijuana to a small group of patients for more than [2] three decades via a program known as an IND (for “investigational new drug”). This program has been covered in the media from [3] time to time, and still exists, although it was closed to new enrolment by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. It’s not exactly a state secret.

In addition, under present (thoroughly dysfunctional) rules, scientists doing clinical research on marijuana must obtain the marijuana for testing [4] from NIDA. Since the 1970s, the government has contracted with the University of Mississippi to produce marijuana for this purpose, and all expectations are that the university will get the contract again. In other words, there is nothing new here.

Having completely misconstrued NIDA’s request for proposals as something new and sinister, Ehrenfeld proceeds with a selective, wildly distorted description of research on medical marijuana, claiming, “The evidence about the harm caused by marijuana to the individual user and society is overwhelming.”

In fact, there is a wealth of research that documents marijuana’s medical [5] efficacy and safety, and a vast array of medical and public health organizations that have recognized marijuana’s [6] medical potential.

For the record, let’s consider a bit of what’s been said about medical marijuana by organizations that are presumably not part of the Evil Soros Conspiracy. Bear in mind that this is just a tiny sampling of the material that’s available from respected medical organizations.

. From the 124,000-member [7] American College of Physicians:

“Given marijuana’s proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity, reclassification [out of Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act] would reduce barriers to research and increase availability of cannabinoid drugs to patients who have failed to respond to other treatments. …

“Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids.”

. From the [8] American Nurses Association:

“There is a growing body of evidence that marijuana has a significant margin of safety when used under a practitioner’s supervision when all of the patient’s medications can be considered in the therapeutic regimen. …

“There is significant research that demonstrates a connection between therapeutic use of marijuana/cannabis and symptom relief. The American Nurses Association actively supports patients’ rights to legally and safely access marijuana/cannabis for symptom management and to promote quality of life for patients needing such an alternative to conventional therapy.”

. From the Lymphoma Foundation of America, HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and others (in a [9] brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court):

“For certain persons the medical use of marijuana can literally mean the difference between life and death. At a minimum, marijuana provides some seriously ill patients the gift of relative health and the ability to function as productive members of society.”

And finally, from a study of smoked marijuana as a treatment for HIV-related nerve pain, published in the February 13, 2007, issue of the journal [10] Neurology:

“The first cannabis cigarette reduced chronic pain by a median of 72% vs. 15% with placebo … No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Smoked cannabis was well tolerated and effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy.”

Marijuana has been used as a medicine for some 5,000 years–maybe longer, actually, but written records only go back that far. In the world of scientific reality–not to be confused with the BizarroWorld inhabited by certain prohibition ideologues–it is both effective at treating a number of troubling symptoms and safer than the pharmaceuticals taken by millions of patients every day. Indeed, as a “recreational” substance it’s vastly safer than booze. But it’s much easier to imagine conspiracies run by billionaires with foreign-sounding names than it is to read and understand the actual research.

This article first appeared at forbes.com. Bruce Mirken, a longtime health writer, serves as director of communications for the [11] Marijuana Policy Project.

REFERENCES

1. http://drugsense.org/url/hrqFXWxS

2. http://drugsense.org/url/EmG1kbx7

3. http://drugsense.org/url/HE4Hi7XI

4. http://www.maps.org/sys/nq.pl?id=1921

5. http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/MedConditionsHandout.pdf

6. http://www.mpp.org/library/medical-marijuana-overview.html

7. http://drugsense.org/url/RTJp0V7l

8. http://drugsense.org/url/sPuJf8tI

9. http://drugsense.org/url/bplTeMy6

10. http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/7/515

11. http://www.mpp.org/

What are your thoughts? It seems a fairly straight down the line treatise to me. It’s a shame this level of defense still needs to be put up against misinformation.

Alcopops tax finally passes

It’s unlikely you missed it, but this week saw thr Senate pass the legislation related to raising taxes on pre-mixed alcoholic beverages, commonly called ‘alcopops’ (I bet alcohol industry marketing people still lose sleep over what a double-edged sword that term has become). It’s hard to disagree with ADCA’s viewpoint :

Alcopop Tax – The first step to reforming harmful drinking

The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) congratulates the Senate for passing the alcopop taxation legislation, but is calling for taxation reform to go even further.

“This issue has been delayed too long. There is no doubt that targeting these pre-mixed high-alcohol sweetened drinks is an important part of addressing issues of national binge drinking, ” ADCA’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr David Templeman, said today.

“We appreciate the Rudd Government continuing to fight for this tax, given the evidence from the Australian Taxation Office showed since the new tax rate for Ready-To-Drink spirits (alcopops) has been in effect, total spirits consumed decreased by 8 per cent.” he added.

ADCA believes that the tax will discourage underage drinking and delay the onset of drinking by some young people. This is imperative given the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey showed more than 20% of 14-19 year olds consume alcohol on a weekly basis and the risk of accidents, injuries, violence and self-harm are high among drinkers aged under 18.

“One of the recently revised alcohol guidelines specifically targets children and young people under 18 years of age – advising that NOT drinking alcohol is the safest option. We know that these alcopops are particularly attractive to young people, and so raising the tax level is part of addressing that problem,” he added.
Such a move also fits with the announcement in October 2008 by the National Preventative Health Taskforce Paper Australia: The Healthiest Country by 2020 setting a target to reduce the prevalence of harmful drinking for all Australians by 30%.

“The annual cost to the Australian community from harmful drinking is estimated to be almost $15.3 billion, and we have recognised there is a national health issue at stake here,” Mr Templeman said. “We must be prepared to legislate in order to create healthier communities and to give our young people every incentive not to get involved in harmful drinking patterns.”

ADCA as the national peak non-government (NGO) body representing the AOD sector, will continue to strive to engage with Government to deliver the National Binge Drinking Strategy and Preventative Health Taskforce priorities aimed at creating a healthier Australia. This will require significant investment in prevention and treatment.

“ADCA looks forward to seeing additional Government funding directed to short and long-term prevention measures in order to significantly reduce alcohol-related harm. This includes management of responsible drinking, product branding, outlet density, marketing and advertising, opening hours, alcohol awareness projects for communities, and most importantly, investment in standardised and consistent data collection to plan for the future.”

Mr Templeman said that statistical data supplied by the alcohol industry must be consistent across all States/ Territories. Accurate data collection had now been confirmed by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs as a crucial element to properly understand and address alcohol-related harm.

The point raised over data collection is incredibly valid – the only excuse left for inferior data collection is a lack of will and funding across the government and non-government sectors to tackle the issue.

Jobs: Comorbidity Project Officer

S

ANDAS Comorbidity Project Officer

The SA Network of Drug and Alcohol Services (SANDAS) Comorbidity Project has recently been refunded by the Commonwealth Dept of Health and Ageing (DoHA) until May 2011. This extends the timeframe of the SA component of the nationwide co morbidity capacity building initiative in the AOD NGO sector and allows SANDAS to further support the development of services for our member organizations in line with the project objectives.

SANDAS seeks to employ a Project Officer to assist the Comorbidity Coordinator in meeting the agreed objectives of the project and the requirements under the approved project plan and service agreement.

The position requires a suitably qualified person with significant experience in the Alcohol and Other Drugs sector, the Mental Health sector, in project management or other relevant experience. The position is offered at a SACS Level 7 salary rate on a full-time basis for an initial period of at least 12 months which includes a 3 month probationary period. SANDAS has some flexibility to negotiate with the right person the range of hours and some other terms and conditions.

To obtain a job and person specification and/or to discuss the position, email Andrew Biven at andrew@sandas.org.au phone 8212 9020

SANDAS will be happy to receive expressions of interest in the position which will include your CV and a summary of your skills, experience and qualifications relevant to this position.

Closing date is Friday 14th August.

Applications by email to Andris Banders, Executive Officer eo@sandas.org.au

Receipt of all applications will be acknowledged by return email.