[Crunchy]

‘Gold Standard’ Studies Show That Inhaled Marijuana Is Medically Safe And Effective

February 17th, 2010 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

Share this Article

 

The results of a series of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy of inhaled marijuana consistently show that cannabis holds therapeutic value comparable to conventional medications, according to the findings of a 24-page report issued earlier today to the California state legislature by the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR).

 

Four of the five placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that marijuana significantly alleviated neuropathy, a difficult to treat type of pain resulting from nerve damage.

 

“There is good evidence now that cannabinoids (the active compounds in the marijuana plant) may be either an adjunct or a first-line treatment for … neuropathy,” said Dr. Igor Grant, Director of the CMCR, at a news conference at the state Capitol. He added that the efficacy of smoked marijuana was “very consistent,” and that its pain-relieving effects were “comparable to the better existing treatments” presently available by prescription.

 

A fifth study showed that smoked cannabis reduced the spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis. A separate study conducted by the CMCR established that the vaporization of cannabis – a process that heats the substance to a temperature where active cannabinoid vapors form, but below the point of combustion – is a “safe and effective” delivery mode for patients who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation while avoiding the respiratory risks of smoking.

 

Two additional clinical trials remain ongoing.

 

The CMCR program was founded in 2000 following an $8.7 million appropriation from the California state legislature. The studies are some of the first placebo-controlled clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of inhaled cannabis as a medicine to take place in over two decades.

 

Placebo-controlled clinical crossover trials are considered to be the ‘gold standard’ method for assessing the efficacy of drugs under the US FDA-approval process.

 

“These scientists created an unparalleled program of systematic research, focused on science-based answers rather than political or social beliefs,” said former California Senator John Vasconcellos, who sponsored the legislation in 1999 to launch the CMCR. Vasconcellos called the studies’ design “state of art,” and suggested that the CMCR’s findings “ought to settle the issue” of whether or not medical marijuana is a safe and effective medical treatment for patients.

 

“This (report) confirms all of the anecdotal evidence – how lives have been saved and pain has been eased,” said California Democrat Senator Mark Leno at the press conference. “Now we have the science to prove it.”

 

Full text of the CMCR’s report to the California legislature is available at online at: http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf.

 

source: http://blog.norml.org/2010/02/17/%E2%80%98...-and-effective/

 

Peace,

Crunchy

[Fibrofeend]

cool thanks for posting!

Meets the standard for FDA approval process...how long can they keep denying it ?

[Crunchy]

this is so good, now there is legit scientific study to show the effectiveness of smoked cannabis, where are the prohibitionists gonna turn now? other than to the unfounded arguments they've been repeatedly ranting about over the decades.

 

we are slowly boxing them in with the truth, for every lie they tell we eventually bring evidence to the table to prove them wrong, soon they really wont have anywhere to turn

Edited February 18, 2010 by Crunchy

[Rocker]

The biggest benefit of smoked cannabis is the high. If there is any other advantage well, that's okay too.

 

As far as I'm concerned I want cannabis legalised because it is my, and hundreds of thousands of others, drug of choice.

[Innocent criminal]

Interesting

 

What I want to know is how you administer a placebo in vaporized cannabis trials, I dont think you could slip a placebo (what the F would you use as a substitute?) past me or any of my regular smoking mates.

Makes me wonder as to the actual scientific validity of the trials, not that I would rather different result, just that if I can pick that whole so can others.

[Paladin]

Interesting

 

What I want to know is how you administer a placebo in vaporized cannabis trials, I dont think you could slip a placebo (what the F would you use as a substitute?) past me or any of my regular smoking mates.

Makes me wonder as to the actual scientific validity of the trials, not that I would rather different result, just that if I can pick that whole so can others.

 

I've found that there are serious flaws in the methodologies used on both sides of the debate here. And it looks to me like the studies being conducted by this mob have a pro-cannabis bias and a pro-legalisation agenda. Now, I agree with the sentiment, but have seen time and time again how it can skew the research. (In fairness, I haven't read the raw report yet, so am leaning heavily on assumption and what I've read from advocacy groups before).

 

On the flip side, you have organisations like http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/cannabis-research/ here in Australia reporting only the science they WANT to report.

 

I'm doing a bit of a literature review at the moment, trying to get to the real truth around some of this research. I'm specifically interested in long-term cognitive effects of daily cannabis use.

 

As a tenured academic, this is kinda what I do for a living - if anyone is interested, I can flick relevant papers here with an analysis. I use cannabis daily, and so am interested in trying to find unbiased reporting on this. I'm actually as interested in finding out the 'negatives' as I am the positives.

 

The problem is there are so many confounding variables in a lot of these studies. What strains are we talking about when it comes to cannabis and psychosis, for example? Are we controlling for people who smoke cannabis, but also use other substances, etc etc etc.

 

Thank God so much work is being done on this now. The complete truth (both pro and con) is slowly emerging.

[Paladin]

Meh. Rather than go back and edit what I wrote, I'll post this briefly:

 

Turns out I *was* wrong in my assumptions. This research center looks pretty legit to me, and the studies seem to have been conducted fairly well. The center is an independent organisation, government initated. On the face of it, the stuff that they are researching seem to provide easy 'wins' for pro-cannabis arguments, but that does not mean the methodologies in this case are flawed. These studies are, in fact, being carried out by researchers at the University of California, over multiple campuses.

 

The 24 page 'report' mentioned here, can be found at:

 

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf

 

Now, it provides only sketchy abstracts/summaries of various studies (the 'report' is not itself a study, but rather a recap of what the center is doing).

 

The vaping study is actually pretty interesting. I've posted the summary below. No testing against placebo, to answer the above question. Rather, comparing THC blood levels between smoking a joint and vaping via a Volcano at 30 and 60 minute marks after inhalation. No surprises here - vaping is considerably more efficient. But this is definitely a solid finding (the small sample size notwithstanding).

 

In summary - despite my initial prejudice to the contrary, these people are legit, and doing good work.

 

 

A summary of one of their studies follows:

 

“Vaporization as a ‘Smokeless’ Cannabis Delivery System”

 

Donald Abrams, M.D., University of California, San Francisco

 

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a vaporization system (the Volcano;

VAPORMED® Inhalatoren; Tüttlingen, Germany) as a “smokeless” delivery system for inhaled

cannabis. Because of concerns regarding the practicality and palatability of using cannabis

cigarettes as a standard treatment, there has been an interest in developing alternative delivery

systems. Participants were randomly assigned to receive low, medium, or high dose (1.7,

3.4, or 6.8% tetrahydrocannabinol) cannabis cigarettes delivered by smoking or by the vaporization

system on six study days.

 

The full results of this study have been published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics

(Abrams, et al., 2007 – see reference list). Eighteen healthy volunteers were recruited to

participate in the research. The analysis indicated that the blood levels of vaporized cannabis

are similar to those of smoked cannabis over a six hour period. However, blood concentrations

of THC at 30 and 60 minutes after inhalation were significantly higher in vaporized cannabis as

compared to smoked cannabis. In addition, carbon monoxide levels were significantly reduced

with vaporization compared with smoked cannabis. Fourteen participants preferred vaporization,

2 preferred smoking, and 2 reported no preference. In summary, vaporization of cannabis

was found to be a safe mode of delivery, and participants had a preference for vaporization

over smoking as a delivery system in this trial.