When It Comes To Medical Pot, Rats Are Smarter Than Our Politicians

[grace]

When It Comes To Medical Pot, Rats Are Smarter Than Our Politicians

Paul Armentano

Posted July 18, 2008

The Huffington Post

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/when-it-comes-to-medical_b_113176.html>

 

You can learn a lot from a rat -- especially if the subject is medical cannabis.

 

According to a just-published study (see below) from the University of Milan -- you didn't actually think medicinal marijuana research took place in this country, did you? -- the administration of whole-plant cannabis extracts provides superior pain relief compared to the administration of the plant's isolated components (such as THC) in an animal model of neuropathic pain.

 

"[T]he use of a standardized extract of Cannabis sativa ... evoked a total relief of thermal hyperalgesia, in an experimental model of neuropathic pain, ... ameliorating the effect of single cannabinoids," investigators reported. "Collectively, these findings strongly support the idea that the combination of cannabinoid and non-cannabinoid compounds, as present in [plant-derived] extracts, provide significant [therapeutic] advantages ... compared with pure cannabinoids alone."

 

Ironically, US lawmakers and bureaucrats have long argued just the opposite -- maintaining that the therapeutic use of the plant should remain illegal, but that its "active ingredients ... could be isolated and developed into a variety of pharmaceuticals, such as Marinol."

 

So if rats can deduce that whole cannabis works better as a medicine than a single synthesized molecule, what's stopping our politicians from reaching this same conclusion?

 

 

Antihyperalgesic effect of a Cannabis sativa extract in a rat model of neuropathic pain: mechanisms involved.

Comelli F, Giagnoni G, Bettoni I, Colleoni M, Costa B.

Department of Biotechnology and Bioscience, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 2, 20126 Milano, Italy.

10 July 2008

National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18618522>

 

This study aimed to give a rationale for the employment of phytocannabinoid formulations to treat neuropathic pain. It was found that a controlled cannabis extract, containing multiple cannabinoids, in a defined ratio, and other non-cannabinoid fractions (terpenes and flavonoids) provided better antinociceptive efficacy than the single cannabinoid given alone, when tested in a rat model of neuropathic pain. The results also demonstrated that such an antihyperalgesic effect did not involve the cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors, whereas it was mediated by vanilloid receptors TRPV1. The non-psychoactive compound, cannabidiol, is the only component present at a high level in the extract able to bind to this receptor: thus cannabidiol was the drug responsible for the antinociceptive behaviour observed. In addition, the results showed that after chronic oral treatment with cannabis extract the hepatic total content of cytochrome P450 was strongly inhibited as well as the intestinal P-glycoprotein activity. It is suggested that the inhibition of hepatic metabolism determined an increased bioavailability of cannabidiol resulting in a greater effect. However, in the light of the well known antioxidant and antiinflammatory properties of terpenes and flavonoids which could significantly contribute to the therapeutic effects, it cannot be excluded that the synergism observed might be achieved also in the absence of the cytochrome P450 inhibition.

 

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PMID: 18618522 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[mull]

 

Dirty rattus, stop highlighting the truth.. it can't be patented..

 

[Guest niall]

it can't be patented..

 

You can patent methods of extraction, combinations of synethetic and natural cannabinoids in specific ratios, methods of genetic manipulation like Monsanto is pursuing with the world's major food crops, license and trademark proprietary strains, methods of storage in pharmaceutical mediums for improved absorption, methods and tools for ingestion... You can effectively tie up the market and enjoy the protection afforded by patents without actually having a direct patent, and sue everyone who challenges your status quo.

 

As long as we have access to whole-plant cannabis then we're ok, but Big Pharma is busy patenting everything that they can come up with and get past patent offices.

[grace]

You can patent methods of extraction, combinations of synethetic and natural cannabinoids in specific ratios, methods of genetic manipulation like Monsanto is pursuing with the world's major food crops, license and trademark proprietary strains, methods of storage in pharmaceutical mediums for improved absorption, methods and tools for ingestion... You can effectively tie up the market and enjoy the protection afforded by patents without actually having a direct patent, and sue everyone who challenges your status quo.

 

As long as we have access to whole-plant cannabis then we're ok, but Big Pharma is busy patenting everything that they can come up with and get past patent offices.

 

Patent applications need supporting research documentation to back any claim before a patent is granted.

 

So as big pharma continues to move forward with research into the "safety and efficacy" of cannabis-based pharmaceuticals and obtaining patents it will become harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of cannabis prohibition.

 

It's this research documentation and references that cannabis users can use to support their application for authorisation to use cannabis as medicine in either "natural" or semi-synthetic form.

 

It will also become very difficult for health departments to reject applications from medical users seeking authorisation to use cannabis as medicine. Authorisation will of course provide exemption from criminal laws.

 

The legislation which prevents patenting of the cannabis plant.

 

The Patents Act 1990 (Cth)

 

Section 18(3)

 

"For the purposes of an innovation patent, plants and animals, and the biological processes for the generation of plants and animals, are not patentable inventions."

 

<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s18.html>