The reason that marijuana is unlikely to ever be approved for medicinal use in the United States is obvious -- so why isn't anybody discussing it? The first step in resolving a problem is usually acknowledging the problem, but the medical community is totally ducking this issue. Do they have a vested interest in it?
This commentary is currently only available as a podcast (length: 24 minute). Click here to listen to the discussion through streaming audio without downloading. Click here to down load the presentation directly. Or click here to visit our full podcast directory.
Usually the written commentaries precede the audio programs on this website, but this one is an exception. I've been discussing this topic for the past 12 or 15 years in my course on drug addiction in relationship to the CSA/DEA Drug Regulation Schedules. A printed version (in rough draft form) has been available for my students' use for probably the past decade. So why haven't I commented on this issue before, especially if "I know the secret"? Simple, I wanted to save SOMETHING for my book. The bigger question is, why hasn't the medical community or even NORML and other marijuana-related lobby groups been discussing it? The first answer to this two-part question is perhaps because the medical community has something to loose. I'll post NORML's reply here when I receive it. OK, you have to listen to the podcast if you want to know more. Or perhaps you already knew this too.
The only reason I'm letting the 'cat out of the bag' here is because I've decided to include the information in a podcast excerpted from one of my impromptu classroom lectures. And once it's out, it's out.
Please be advised that the presentation picks up discussing off-label prescription writing privileges currently enjoyed by American physicians. The context of the presentation is discussing the CSA/DEA Schedules for Controlled Substances in the United States. I was having a bad day, everything had gone wrong up to the presentation including running off to lecture and forgetting to copy the updated slide material I had just hastily finished for my morning lecture. (It wasn't quite [but almost ] as dumb as it sounds -- I thought I was logged onto my USB memory stick, but the file was still being saved on my hard drive.) So, an unscheduled discussion of an 'old topic' (for me) stalled off a little time to ensure that I wouldn't need the forgotten slides (other lecture material was also presented and is included in a separate podcast, part of the Addiction Science Network Addiction Training Series; the class will get the regularly scheduled material during the next lecture period).
OK, I see yet another issue and you won't have to wait for a commentary or even a podcast for this one: if there is no evidence for the medicinal use of marijuana, why did the FDA approve dronabinol (synthetic THC) for medicinal use? Replies from the FDA welcomed and will be posted here.
The FDA has argued that dronabinol can be substituted for smoked marijuana, but this isn't really true for the reasons partially described in the podcast. (And why would the FDA even argue that dronabinol substitutes for something that doesn't work according to them?) Hint: the problem with substituting orally administered dronabinol for smoked marijuana has to do primarily with how pharmacokinetics influence a drug's psychological impact (including its mood-elevating and potentially its pain-relieving properties as well). But a full explanation of how that works is in another podcast (Click here if you really want to learn about how pharmacokinetics affect a drug's psychological impact. Warning: you have to listen through a lot of material before reaching the part which addresses this topic; the presentation is a little over an hour long.)
|<< <||> >>|
An open, unmoderated discussion forum for the Addiction Science Network, promoting free and open exchange of evidence-based information and promoting scientific analysis of drug addiction and related topics.