Brinna Nanda's Open Salon Blog

The AMA Joins the Medical Marijuana Camp (finally!)

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:11:02 -0500

November 10, 2008

AMA Calls for Review of Marijuana's Schedule I Status

The American Medical Association voted today to return to its original position that cannabis has wide ranging therapeutic benefits and should not be prohibited.

It's odd, in a way, that it took the AMA so long to climb on board the medical cannabis train. Back in 1937, the AMA strongly objected to the implementation of the Marijuana Tax Act, and lobbied hard for a medical exemption for the plant. That testimony was unfortunately both ignored and misrepresented to congress by forces pushing the Tax Act. But it was the forced removal of cannabis from the United States Pharmacopeia in 1940 which pulled the veil of forgetfulness over the eyes of physicians, who, until that time, prescribed cannabis regularly for a wide range of ailments including insomnia, hysteria, pruritis, and as a way for alcoholics and opiate users to free themselves from their addictions.

Perhaps the organization's reluctance to disturb the waters, until now, hinged on the fact that the DEA has long held the AMA by the fiscal short and curlies -- giving that illustrious organization exclusive rights to publish and sell the code books which every physician must buy to navigate the treacherous waters of insurance billing; that and the fact that code book revenue supplies the AMA with 60% of their operating expenses suggest there's not a lot of wiggle room when it comes to disagreeing with the DEA. One can only assume that new directives have been coming down the pike.

One also must give a lot of credit to the medical student wing of the organization, which had been lobbying hard for a rethink on the marijuana issue.

But for whatever reasons, including, perhaps, the overwhelming scientific evidence of both the efficacy and safety of cannabis; and in response to a pre-publication report by the Council on Science and Public Health, the AMA called for a review of the present scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), in order to support more effective research.

Presently cannabis is classified, along with heroin, and LSD as having no current use for medical treatment in the United States, a high potential for abuse, and not safe to use even under a physician's supervision. As a result of this classification, research into the medical benefits of cannabis has been fully stymied.

The geriatric CSA was shepherded through congress by President Richard Nixon as a part of his War on Drugs, launched back in 1972. Nixon began his military action with a cultural focus on marijuana, and the "peaceniks" who smoked it. In order to do this he had to ignore the recommendations of the very commission he appointed to investigate marijuana, headed by former Republican Governor Raymond Shafer. The Shafer Report, which was the summary of two long years of hearings on the subject concluded that, "neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," and recommended to Congress that "citizens should not be criminalized or jailed merely for private possession or use." Nixon was not pleased.

In spite of numerous lawsuits which began right after the Acts implementation, and sympathetic but overturned findings by the DEA's own administrative law judges in response to those suits, decade after decade, lawmakers have refused to revisit the classification.

That may all change now.

The Age of Medical Marijuana Commercials – Maybe

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:09:09 -0400

When Conservative Party member Joel Peacock travelled from his home in Buffalo N.Y. to Louisiana on a Hurricane Katrina assignment, he found that medical cannabis activism knows no party lines. Suffering from chronic pain resulting from an accident, he ran out of his prescription medications while in New Orleans. A client of his gave him some marijuana to try. When he used it, he discovered that marijuana took away his pain, nausea and stomach cramps, and let him sleep. Now he is appearing in a a 30 second television spot produced by the Marijuana Policy Project.

“It (cannabis) just did everything that my medicine doesn't do,” said Peacock.

The ad, which premiered September 16th on NBC, supports the passage of two New York State Bills, A. 9016 and S. 4041-B. This legislation would allow patients with severe, debilitating and life-threatening illnesses to register with the state to relieve their symptoms with marijuana on their doctors' advice, without facing criminal penalties.

But when MPP tried to buy air time on ABC, CBS and Fox, those three networks refused to air the appeals.

Only NBC was willing to run this spot, and one other featuring Kevin Smith, M.D. of Saugerties, N.Y., who suffers from a complex of auto-immune illnesses.

“To have a day without pain, to be able to sleep . . . it's a gift from heaven,” said Dr. Smith, from his sickbed, in the second ad. “It (cannabis) was just wonderful.”

Under present New York State law, both Joel Peacock and Kevin Smith would be considered criminals and risk arrest, a situation that the pair of bills, sponsored by Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, and State Senator Tom Duane, would remedy. The pending legislation would allow registered patients to obtain medical marijuana from organizations licensed and regulated by the state department of health.

A similar bill passed the Assembly in 2007, but could not get a Senate floor vote at that time. According to MPP, a 2005 Siena Research Institute poll showed that that 76% of New York voters support allowing medical marijuana, and that both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored and voted for this legislation in New York.

The true bipartisan nature of this effort makes it difficult to understand why ABC. CBS and Fox refused the to air the spots. The three networks didn't publicly state reasons for their action, but perhaps they're afraid of offending their pharmaceutical sponsors who certainly would be impacted if what Dr. Smith, echoing Peacock, said is true:

“Simply by using the marijuana, I found I was able to stop all my narcotic medication.”

The ads, which ask voters to call their legislators in support of the bills, are appearing on NBC affiliates in New York City and in several key state Senate districts, including in Rochester, Buffalo, Watertown, Yorktown, and Kingston.

They also may be seen below and on Youtube.

New study affirms smoked marijuana anti-cancer properties

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:08:02 -0400

In 1974, University of Virginia researchers discovered something very unlikely. Cannabis, banned in the United States in 1937, and further demonized by the Nixon administration in 1968, had an unexpected property: it inhibited the growth of lung cancer cells. But, even more surprising was the response from the government: an apparent complete absence, even discouragement of any follow-up studies. The results were briefly mentioned in news reports at the time, but with the end of the Carter administration, cannabis became a step-child as far as scientific research was concerned.

Like any unloved step-child cannabis was treated with different rules, and made a scape-goat for social ills.

There was still research being done on cannabis, but funding was only available if the intent was to prove harm. In fact, it wasn't until the pioneering work done by Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, in Israel, and Dr. Manuel Guzman in Spain, that this startling anti-cancer property of cannabis sativa became public again.

What is even more troubling is that the United States Government actually did a secret follow up-study on the Virginia findings, in the mid '90's. When it only served to confirm the results of the 1974 research, and showed that THC (one of the main active ingredient in cannabis – and the one the government loves to hate), when administered to mice, protected them against malignancy, true to form, our government attempted to bury the results. Fortunately, a draft copy of the study was leaked to the journal, AIDS Treatment News, and the media covered the story. An excellent article by Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, covers this part of our shameful history.

By 2003, the cat was pretty much out of the bag, and a quick search on PubMed brings up at least 262 results when you put in "cannabis and cancer" in the search string. But, as late as this year, the US Government was still funding research meant to prove that cannabis causes cancer. The extremely flawed survey which attempted to link cannabis smoking with testicular cancer falls into this category. In fact, in 2008, two years after Dr. Donald Tashkin research which showed that not only does cannabis not cause lung cancer, but appears to protect against it, three respected doctors from the cannabis research group felt compelled to write a letter to the European Respiratory Journal debunking a New Zealand study which claimed that smoking cannabis led to an increased risk of lung cancer.

Now, this month in Cancer Prevention Research Journal one can find a study demonstrating that chronic, long term of cannabis actually reduces the incidence of head and neck cancer. Specifically:

"10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC" [head and neck squamous cell carcinoma].

Knowing this, are you angry? You should be. It's a safe bet to say you know someone who has cancer. Or died of it.

It's also a safe bet that you didn't hear any coverage of this story in the mainstream media.

For my money, it's way past time for the politics of prohibtion to be thrown aside, and hard science applied to what promises to be an extraordinary new era in the treatment and cure of cancer.

And... we need all the voices we can get saying: That time is now!

_________________________________

Requests for reprints of the study cited above can be made here: Karl T. Kelsey, Department of Community Health, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Division of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI. Phone: 401-863-6420; Fax: 401-863-9008; E-mail: Karl_Kelsey@brown.edu.

Calling it medical marijuana sends the RIGHT message to kids

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:07:01 -0400

Children are not stupid. Indeed, they tend to be more aware than most adults, who, by the age of 30 have generally devolved into repetitive patterns of mind and behavior. We either engage in futile endeavors to preserve the status quo, or launch doomed attempts at improvement by endlessly rearranging “things" around us. Adults, as a rule, have lost true openness and presence of mind. Indeed, the actual present hardly registers on our consciousness, as we live mired in memory, suffer interminable rounds of discursive thought, and forge futile projections.

I admit, I don't give long shrift to adults (and here I include myself). We are as a lot, self-involved, suffer from petty motivations and believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that we actually know something. The messages we routinely give to children are wrought with hidden agendas and confused communication. As a general rule, we believe that children must be shielded from life, which, to the adult, invariably means telling half-truths, downright lies or simply avoiding an issue altogether. Thus, adults propagate a vicious cycle of disinformation which ends in the sad and sorry shutdown of the self.

Telling children the truth, on the other hand, frees both the adult and the child. Initially, it frees the adult because we must actually confront the truth of a situation; and that truth is accessible only by a mind that has become still. Truth is arrived at, revealed not – sorry to say – by thought, but through detatched witnessing. We even have a phrase for it: scientific method.

What is this method? In the most simple terms, it is proposing a hypothesis, and then verifying or disproving said hypothesis through observation. This takes time and attention and therefore is not very popular. It is much easier to repeat hearsay.

Secondly, when a verified construction is, in turn, presented to a child, couched in the caveat that this has been my observation, the child is given the opportunity to a.) learn the scientific method, and b.) possibly apply this valuable resource to her or his own life experiences.

The trouble is, most adults are afraid of the truth. Oh, we believe we can handle it, but that children (or spouses, cousins, parents, bosses, friends, bankers, employees) certainly can't. Worse, we believe there is some personal advantage to lying. But lies are lies, no matter how we rationalize them.

Which brings me to the recent veto of the New Hampshire Medical Marijuana bill by Democratic Governor John Lynch. This legislation would have protected severely ill patients from arrest and prosecution for simply using cannabis as medicine. The bill which passed the Rhode Island Senate by a solid 14 – 10 vote, and the House by an overwhelming 232 –108, would allow terminally ill and acute care patients to use and acquire medical cannabis through government regulated “compassion centers.”

There's a good chance that the veto will be overridden. The tide toward medicinal use of marijuana has definitely turned, with 1/4 of the US population living in the 13 states where it is already legal. At present, there are at least 4 more states vying to become the 14th, either by legislation or referrendum. Sadly, Lynch is apparently a member of the old guard of politicians who value political safety over common sense and the needs and desires of their constituents.

Lynch's stated reason for denying such safe access to the estimated 150 New Hampshire medical cannabis patients who would avail themselves of these services each year is (and I paraphrase) “I caved to the demands of law enforcement.” Strangely, on this particular topic, law enforcement seems to believe it has a mandate to influence legislation, rather than simply enforcing it. Why this should be so may have a lot to do with the fact that drug enforcement is the big cash cow... but that is a topic for another blog.

And so we come, at long last, to the statement that was the impetus for this particular rant. I quote Portsmouth Police Chief, Michael Magnant, identified in a secoastonline.com article by Michael Mccord, as having encouraged the governor to veto the bill:

“Calling it medicine doesn't make it so. It's not FDA-approved, and there's no quality control. It leads to higher drug use, and it impairs driving. I think it sends the wrong message to our kids,” said Magnant.

There is so much wrong with this statement, in addition to that last sentence, that I hardly know where to begin. Leaving the ultimate truth of his position aside for a moment, I would like to point out the following:

a.) Calling cannabis a drug, doesn't make it so (it is in fact, verifiably, an herb).
b.) Suggesting that FDA approval actually sets a safety standard indicates that Chief Magnant hasn't read recent reports about acetaminophen.
c.) Saying that “it” leads to higher drug use is typical of the empty phrases in popular usage by drug warriors whenever this issue is discussed. The statement neither specifies what exactly is meant by higher drug use, nor what hard evidence, if any, supports this hypothesis.
d.) Driving, of course, is impaired by any number of factors including health, weather, tiredness, cell phones, hunger, eating, worn tires, radio, alcohol, looking at maps, talking, stupidity, and “FDA approved” drugs. None of these substances or situational occurances are banned outright, and only use of cell phones and alcohol constitute vehicular prohibitions in certain states and circumstances.

And finally
e.) It...sends...the...wrong....message.... to....our....kids.

Aaaaaaahhhhhhehhehehehehheheheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

What is particularly noxious about the last statement, besides its vapidity, is that is is so patently wrong. How can any sane, rational person believe that categorizing, as medicine, a substance which relieves or eliminates nausea, treats glaucoma, alleviates pain, lifts the spirits, and reduces seizures and muscle spasms, is sending a “wrong message” to anyone. It is a true message, a factual message, a verifiable message, and most importantly, by classifying marijuana, or as I prefer to call it, cannabis, as a medicine, we are telling children that healthy people don't need it.

Now, I could end this article right here, but in case I have not driven the point home sufficiently, I will just add that it is my observation (and I invite you to verify my hypothesis) that children do not like to think of themselves as sick, nor do they like to take “stuff” to make them “better.”

So, if you want kids to view pot as sexy, adult, cool, gangsta, whatever, fine, but as for me, I would much prefer them to see it as plain old yukky medicine.

###

For further study: Report on teen usage in medical marijuana states.

How I Became a Medical Cannabis Activist

Mon, 8 Jun 2009 00:06:24 -0400

When my mother was dying, I had the privilege of being her sole caregiver. And it was a privilege, for this extraordinary Hungarian writer and poet provided me with a wonderful, enviable childhood. I always felt completely loved, accepted and supported in my life choices. So, life, in its wisdom gave me the chance to give something in return.

When she became increasingly ill with a parade of disorders ranging from Grave's disease, and spinal stenosis, to degenerative arthritis, breast cancer and stroke, her suffering broke my heart.

I took her from doctor to doctor; she underwent countless procedures and operations, and was given a pharmacy's worth of medications.

In her last year, her pain, depression, insomnia and gastric distress were monumental. Nothing helped her. One of her most upsetting moments came during a visit to her neurologist, as she sought relief for her maddening neuropathy. He wanted to prescribe Gabapanten for her, but it was a medication she had already tried. It hadn't helped, plus it made her dizzy, drowsy and caused her legs to swell. Somewhat coldly, the doctor informed her: “Well, if you won't take Gabapanten, then there is nothing I can do to help you.” She felt dismissed, and abandoned.

I felt angry.

I couldn't believe there was nothing out there that would make a difference. I began extensive research to find something, anything that would actually address her increasingly desperate condition. Surprisingly, everything pointed to… medical cannabis. I begged her to try it.

She refused, of course, being fully indoctrinated by the decades long demonization of the plant. I persisted. She resisted. This went on for some weeks. Finally, she agreed, more to please me, I think, than out of any belief it would help – but help it did. In fact, the results were amazing.

She was able to get off of thirty different pharmaceuticals, half of which were given to combat the side effects of the other half. Her depression lifted, she could sleep again, her intractable pain and peripheral neuropathy were mitigated. Her appetite returned, and she got her personality back.

Once again we could have long, warm and witty conversations; and when she would ask for her "magic cookies" with a mischievous smile that was endearing, I knew I was finally giving her something that worked.

I was able to purchase cannabis brownies and cookies for her because I live in California, and had easy and safe access to a medical cannabis dispensary in my home town.

My mom died in 2006, a final massive stroke took her, and I shall miss her 'till the day I die ... but in one of our last conversations, just before she fell asleep, this daughter of an iconoclastic publisher from Budapest, turned to me and said, with the deep Hungarian accent she had never lost: "Wouldn't it make my father smile to know that the only thing that helps me is illegal."

It was funny at the time, but then I asked my self: "Why is it illegal? Why doesn't everyone in this country have access to this powerful, yet gentle medicine?"

Since then I have turned my time and energy to educating people about medical cannabis, busting the myths that have accumulated over the years, and working with increasing effort toward national legalization.

I am doing this for my mom.