But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't), but that it's an entirely different question.
Correct. The study tested two cannabinoids isolated from marijuana, not whole-bud marijuana.
"But just because these components are present in marijuana I can almost bet that it will be reduced to an argument in the fight for legalization of smoking weed."
Well, yes, it's going to go there eventually. Pretty much all conversations about the medical efficaciousness of marijuana (or marijuana-derived compounds) bump up against the legalization topic. This is because conducting research on a substance currently deemed illegal by the federal government is very difficult. It's also because the government labels marijuana not just illegal, but a drug "...with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." (This is the 'Schedule I' classification).
Marijuana's classification in Schedule I, a category for "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence," is ridiculous. For what it's worth, here are some drugs legally considered less dangerous, or psychologically and physically dependence-forming than marijuana: cocaine, opium, methamphetamine, oxycodone, morphine, codeine, fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, Ritalin, Vicodin, Valium, Ambien, ketamine, and anabolic steroids.
"I'm not saying it shouldn't be legalized (perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't), but that it's an entirely different question."
Absolutely. Marijuana's legalization as a consumer item has little to no bearing on this finding, or vice versa. That said, its current medical status is in debate, and whenever a potential medical usage comes up, that topic is going to come up with it.
Surely the DEA has a mailing address to which it's possible to send relevant research papers?
Surely they read the literature?
The DEA, as a government agency, was created with the mission of eradicating drugs. They aren't really in the business of doing scientific evaluation of the drugs themselves, and I would be surprised if there are any scientists on staff, and if there are, even more surprised if they have any pull.
At any rate, the DEA doesn't set drug policy, the federal government does.
The federal governments' track record when it comes to controlling substances has not often been in line with scientific or social needs, as is evidenced by the extreme cost of the current war on drugs and the consequent negative effects on society. For example, cocaine is a refinement of cocoa which was included in things like coca-cola as a mild stimulant. When it became controlled, smuggling economics came to bear, and thus refining it into cocaine allowed for more value-per-unit-shipment in smuggling. Being more addictive, and thus worse for society, was a side effect of this. Worse, with the war on cocaine that occurred an even further refinement was done for the same economic reasons resulting in crack.
I posit that if the wellbeing of society were the primary importance for the federal government there would be no drug war, and thus no drug related violent crimes (or very few) and a lot less addiction.
English has a simple grammar to figure out, but things like this remind me why it's a difficult language to truly grok.
(I am Italian. Our government does occasionally do things like this, but at least they have to employ four paragraphs of byzantine quasi-latin, not get away with five words of non-language).
I mean, if some words are in a law that causes public expense, arrests, killings, etc. I would say it's pretty important that their meaning is set in stone and universally understood! I suppose there are problems with the US Constitution in that sense, but in this case the language used is current, not 300 years old.
Their classification of marijuana as having "no accepted medical use" is silly on its face, and I hope I adequately gave that impression in my comment. I'm not agreeing with it. I'm just pointing it out.
Unfortunately, changing the DEA's opinion is harder than just sending them the medical literature, and pointing out the contradictions in their position. This is a problem that needs to be addressed through the legislative process. (The DEA follows federal policy; it doesn't necessarily establish or alter federal policy). Fortunately, change is happening at the state level. If we reach the point where most states recognize medical uses for marijuana, then eventually, the federal government will have to cave on its hard line. Or so the thinking goes.
English is indeed a complex language, and it's also filled with the sorts of loaded terms with which lawyers have a field day. For instance, consider the word "accepted" in the phrase "accepted medical use." Accepted by whom? Who decides whether to officially "accept" a medical use? Is it the DEA? Is it the medical and scientific community? Is it the legislative branch of the federal government? Is it the judicial branch? Is it someone else? If this issue were ever to come to court, the DEA could argue that there is no "accepted" consensus. It would be a weaselly argument, but English is a fantastic language for weaselly, semantic arguments like that.
[1] http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-71...
Obviously they should be researching all angles but a concentrated hash oil perhaps high in CBDs could be the solution instead of just isolating one compound.
So I disagree. It could be the marijuana alone used in oil form and not smoking it.
I do take issue with your point as there are millions of people suffering from cancer. Marijuana is a well tolerated drug used by humans for thousands of years. People are suffering right now, and every day, and most are unable to obtain marijuana to help ease symptoms or for potential cancer fighting abilities.
I don't care about recreational use. I though am upset that I have to break the law to treat my cancer and that a family member with a potential recurrence gets told, oh don't worry you likely have 8 years before your cancer metastasizes. And there's nothing you can do about it except take estrogen. Which I believes increases cellular apotosis but comes with other risks.
Correct -- has no bearing on the issue of recreational use.
Rather, and more importantly: another gentle reminder that we (as a society) need to turn our backs on the unrelenting tide of fear, misinformation, and outright deception that has characterized most discussion on the medicinal (and recreational) use of controlled substances in the public sphere for the past several decades (nearly a full century, actually) -- and back to basic science.
In one paragraph they talk about treatment using of purified cannabinoids, in the next about THC isolated alone, while in the paragraph after they start talking about marijuana being classified as a Schedule I drug and then shortly after about the legalization of marijuana.
Ah. In that case, this research was already done with extracted compounds. The mice were not smoking. I'm sure that medically, if this were ever to be a treatment, it would be done through refined compounds as in the study, not by simply smoking. Medically it would be crazy to leave dosage to such an unreliable method.
As for this being used to argue in favor of smoking, well, it's a grave mistake to hold back science because somebody, somewhere, might use it to poorly argue for something. There's always some way something could be misinterpreted. Besides, per my previous point, if you want to take advantage of this smoking just isn't the way to go, and it's especially not the way to go if you're just smoking "something" with no idea how much of the relevant compounds is in it, or at least not enough of an idea. On the cost/benefit analysis, with "better brain cancer treatment" on the benefit side, potentially, I need to see some costs a great deal more significant than "somebody may use this to argue in favor of smoking pot", which "potheads" do at every available opportunity and more anyhow, before I start to worry.
Unless we finally redefine what "medically" means. "One-size-fits-all" is not necessarily the most effective way to treat medical issues, either. When it's in the context of pain relief, smoking/vaping is the easiest way for patients to manage their pain without getting "too much" or "too little" from other methods available. Medicine is starting to enter the age when solutions tailored to specific bio-chemistries are available.
he meant 'read the fucking article'
So, the question I ask is: Should it be illegal? And the resounding answer is 'No' because I don't believe in taking away people's freedom to do what they wish with their own bodies.