For decades, prohibitionists have claimed that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that inevitably leads to use of harder substances like heroin and cocaine — despite the fact that every objective study ever done on the gateway theory has determined that it’s absolute crap.

Last week, researchers at the University of New Hampshire released yet another study discrediting the gateway theory. Their findings, based on survey data from more than 1,200 students in Florida public schools, showed that a person’s likelihood to use harder drugs has more to do with social and environmental factors than whether or not they’ve ever tried marijuana.

“There seems to be this idea that we can prevent later drug problems by making sure kids never smoke pot,” lead researcher Dr. Karen Van Gundy, associate professor of sociology at UNH, told CBS News. “But whether marijuana smokers go on to use other illicit drugs depends more on social factors like being exposed to stress and being unemployed – not so much whether they smoked a joint in the eighth grade.” [Read more →]

Share/Bookmark

British scientists warn increasing hostility toward scientific evidence that contradicts political agendas could hinder the collaborative relationship policy and science enjoys in Britain, the Guardian reported yesterday.

Last November, the British government ignored the advice of its Scientific Advisory Board and moved marijuana into a more dangerous class of drugs, a move described by top scientists at the time as “a sad departure from the welcome trend … of public policy following expert scientific advice.”

Of course, here in the United States, government has been ignoring its scientific advisors on marijuana policy for decades, at least since Nixon first lined his bird cage with the two-year study he commissioned recommending marijuana’s decriminalization.

And that unwelcome trend continues to this very day here, as evidenced by drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s recent lie that marijuana “has no medicinal benefit.” Not sure who Kerlikowske’s scientific advisors are, but the one we taxpayers use, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, says: “Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety … all can be mitigated by marijuana.”

Then again, it doesn’t take a scientist to know that it’s wrong to deny sick people medicine that eases their pain, or to arrest responsible adults because they prefer a drug that’s safer than alcohol or tobacco.

Share/Bookmark

Apparently, the Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s standard of proof for the efficacy and safety of medical marijuana is pretty high. Much higher, than that of, say, the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine, which in 1999 concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting and all can be mitigated by marijuana.”

The board was required by a court order to evaluate the scientific evidence surrounding medical marijuana Monday to determine whether it ought to be reclassified under the state’s controlled substances list. [Read more →]

Share/Bookmark

On March 17, 1999, the Institute of Medicine — in a report commissioned by the White House — declared, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting and all can be mitigated by marijuana.”

The report acknowledged the drawbacks of smoking and urged creation of a “rapid-onset, nonsmoked cannabinoid delivery system,” but added, “In the meantime, there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief.” Studies published since 1999 have verified that marijuana vaporizers provide just the sort of rapid, nonsmoked delivery the IOM suggested.

Federal officials disregarded — and sometimes baldly misstated — the findings, prompting co-author Dr. John Benson to tell the New York Times in 2006 that the government “loves to ignore our report. … They would rather it never happened.”

Now, we have a new president who speaks regularly of letting scientific data, not ideology, drive policy, and who has said he would put an end to Drug Enforcement Administration raids aimed at undermining state medical marijuana laws. Is a new and more rational day finally dawning?

Those in the Washington, D.C., area can catch what should be a lively discussion of the IOM report and its impact hosted by the Cato Institute on March 17, featuring MPP executive director Rob Kampia and University of California researcher Dr. Donald Abrams, whose studies have further documented marijuana’s medical value, and medical marijuana opponent Robert Dupont. Click here for details and reservation information.

Share/Bookmark

A systematic review and accompanying commentary in the June 17 issue of CMAJ, the medical journal published by the Canadian Medical Association, look at the side effects of cannabinoid medications. The results are generally reassuring.

Researchers reviewed published studies of various cannabinoid preparations, including Marinol, the THC pill, and Sativex, a marijuana-based oral spray (but not, unfortunately, smoked or vaporized whole marijuana). They found no increase in serious or life-threatening reactions to the drugs as compared to placebo. The less serious side effects that did occur were just what you’d expect — dizziness, for example. But the commentators expressed concern over the relative lack of data on smoked marijuana and on long-term use of other cannabinoids.

We could have such data if the U.S. government wanted us to. The Feds have been giving medical marijuana to a small number of patients for over 30 years in a program closed to new enrollment in 1992, but have never published any data on these patients, of whom only four now survive. And back in 1999 the Institute of Medicine raised the possibility of doing “n-of-1 studies” (for example, by reopening that closed federal program) in order to collect data while allowing access to medical marijuana for patients in great need. The suggestion was ignored.

Once again, our government is doing everything it can to avoid knowing that medical marijuana is safe and effective.

Share/Bookmark