People suffering from Parkinson’s disease have a high rate of psychosis, which may be induced or worsened by drugs used to treat the illness. A recently published study in the Journal of Psychopharmacology suggests that a marijuana component called cannabidiol (CBD) may be a helpful treatment for this condition.

This was a small, uncontrolled pilot study, but CBD produced rapid and fairly dramatic reductions in psychotic symptoms. And the growing body of evidence regarding CBD’s anti-psychotic properties has important implications beyond Parkinson’s patients. For example, there is some evidence that THC can worsen psychotic symptoms, but at least one study has implied that CBD, if present in sufficient quantities, can counter this effect. 

It’s been known for a while that some cannabinoids, the active components in marijuana, have antibacterial properties (one of many useful facts you won’t find on ONDCP’s Web site). Now, as noted by stories in the New York Times and Web MD, five cannabinoids, including THC, have been shown to be active against a particularly worrisome form of staph infection that’s resistant to conventional antibiotics. It took these major media outlets a while to catch up with the study, published August 6 in the Journal of Natural Products, but at least they covered it. 

An editorial in the July 18 New York Times worries about rising drug overdose deaths among young people, but misleadingly brings marijuana into the picture, for no good reason. 

While the Times is right to raise alarm over rising drug overdose deaths among youth, references to marijuana in that context are both puzzling and misleading. [Read more →]

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.

The other day I had a lengthy discussion with two producers at a national TV network. It was an unnerving lesson in what we’re up against as we try to educate the mainstream media.

The network had just broadcast a completely uncritical story on a report from a private think tank that serves as a drug war cheerleader. It had reported completely preposterous claims about supposed dangers of increased marijuana potency causing lung cancer or sending thousands to emergency rooms as if they were undisputed fact. I’d called to complain, and to their credit the producers called back.

Also to their credit, they asked tough questions about the points I was making. I want reporters to do that, as I never make statements to journalists that I can’t back up with published scientific evidence. And I do think the discussion made some progress (which is why I’m not naming names). But it also became clear that they never applied the same level of skepticism to claims made by prohibitionists. 

As we discussed the evidence that marijuana smokers don’t have higher lung cancer rates and that THC and other cannabinoids have documented anti-cancer activity, I mentioned that the 1999 Institute of Medicine report stated that marijuana has not been proven to cause any type of cancer. “But that was 1999,” one of the producers said. “With the increased potency now, it’s a whole different drug!” 

She had no idea she’d just repeated a completely fictional White House talking point as if it were revealed truth. 

I patiently explained that the notion that the claimed doubling of THC levels makes today’s marijuana “a whole different drug” makes no more sense than to claim that wine is a different drug than beer because it contains about three times the alcohol — a notion no one would take seriously. I also noted that higher potency would decrease any lung cancer risk, because users would get more THC (which fights cancer) with less smoke, and it’s the smoke that contains any potentially carcinogenic compounds. 

The producers believed they had done due diligence in researching the think tank’s claims: “We checked them with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.” The idea that a government agency that has long been an integral part of the drug war might not be a completely impartial source regarding marijuana had not occurred to them.

They listened to me. I think they heard. I hope they understood.