Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

AMA Calls for More Research into Medical Use of Marijuana
November 20, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Feature
By Bob Curley

The federal government should consider moving marijuana out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in order to facilitate clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medications, the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a new policy statement.

In adopting the policy on Nov. 10 (PDF), the AMA's House of Delegates backed away from the group's long-standing opinion that marijuana should remain in Schedule I as a drug with no accepted medical uses, with a report from the group's Council on Science and Public Health stating that smoked cannabis has been shown in short-term controlled trials to be effective in reducing neuropathic pain and improving appetite, and may also alleviate symptoms among patients with multiple sclerosis.

The Council's report noted that the future of cannabinoid-based medicine lies in the botanical-drug development as well as the design of molecules targeting the endocannabinoid system. "To the extent that rescheduling marijuana out of Schedule I will benefit this effort, such a move can be supported," the report said.

In February 2008, the American College of Physicians similarly called for an "evidence-based review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule."

"This [AMA policy] shift, coming from what has historically been America's most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic," said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for medical use of marijuana and has backed many of the state medical-marijuana campaigns in the U.S.


No Endorsement of State Medical-Marijuana Laws

However, the panel's report also called the patchwork of state-based medical-marijuana programs "woefully inadequate in establishing even rudimentary safeguards that normally would be applied to the appropriate clinical use of psychoactive substances," and the AMA resolution stated that the new policy "should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product."

The Obama administration reacted cautiously to the new AMA policy, restating the FDA's assessment that raw marijuana "has not met the standards for identity, strength, quality, purity, packaging and labeling required of medicine."

"The Office of National Drug Control Policy agrees with the AMA that the safety and efficacy of drug products should continue to be determined by scientific and regulatory review, and not by ballot initiatives or state legislative action," the White House agency said in a press statement.


A Dearth of Research

AMA officials said that research into the medical uses of marijuana has been lacking, and the AMA policy urges the National Institutes of Health to "implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana," including assisting researchers on developing research protocols and safeguards, providing research funding, and providing adequate supplies of "marijuana of various and consistent strengths and/or placebo" via the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

"Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis," noted AMA board member Edward Langston, M.D.

Rick Doblin, Ph.D., executive director of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), said the AMA policy shift demonstrates that there is  "clearly more interest in medical marijuana in the medical community than ever before."

However, Doblin -- who has long contended that NIDA has worked to block medical-marijuana research through its gatekeeping role over supplies of marijuana for research -- said the policy will have "zero effect in getting NIDA out of the loop." Doblin said that a unique and open-ended Public Health Service (PHS) review process for medical-marijuana research, coupled with NIDA's monopoly on the drug supply, has prevented most basic research studies on smoked marijuana from getting off the ground.

Steve Gust, Ph.D., a special assistant to NIDA Director Nora Volkow, M.D., countered that the agency "has been and continues to be open to applications" for medical-marijuana research, but added that the agency has seen "no groundswell of interest from researchers" wanting to study the drug's medical uses. (NIDA funds research on drug abuse and addiction, not medical uses of drugs, so medical-marijuana studies, if approved, would be funded by other institutes within NIH.)

"The criticism about the so-called NIDA resistance to such research is completely unfounded, always comes from the same source, and in fact seems to be based on either a single example of a 10-year-old grant application to NIH or a request by MAPS that has reviewed by the PHS several times but has been technically deficient," said Gust. "The fact is that there has been more clinical research on medical marijuana in the last five years than the previous 20 -- almost all conducted by the Center on Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), and with mostly positive results."

Gust noted that the marijuana for the UCSD studies was provided by NIDA. "I really don't understand why the critics are not celebrating this increase in research and positive findings rather than continually harping on the falsehoods about NIDA blocking research," he said.

This news feature has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction, Nov. 23, 2009: The original headline and first paragraph of this article incorrectly said that the policy adopted by the AMA stated that limited research has shown that marijuana has medicinal value. This conclusion was not part of the resolution adopted by the House of Delegates. It was included only in the advisory report from the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health, which stated, "Results of short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis."

SHARE   

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 23 Nov 09 10:12 AM EST
Thanks to JTO for covering this major shift in AMA policy. That policy shift, coupled with the recent USDOJ decision to stop interfering with lawfully established state-level mmj programs, should help us reverse a 70 year old mistake when we removed cannabis from the medical pharmacopoeia. Hopefully, the Obama administration will now revisit two DEA administrative law judges' recommendations that a) cannabis be removed from Schedule I and b) that the NIDA/Ole Miss monopoly on producing research-grade cannabis be broken (two recommendations that DEA administrators rejected, for obviously self-serving purposes.) BTW, the medical cannabis researchers at both UCSD and UCSF have had difficulty finding patients to participate in mmj research trials because the NIDA-provided cannabis was (is?) of such poor quality. Here's hoping we can now substitute science, common sense and compassion for social control, sooner than later.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 23 Nov 09 11:39 AM EST
Its nice to see that the AMA is finally beginning to respect the Hippocratic oath to "First, do no harm" when it comes to marijuana use. The AMA's previous advocacy of counterproductive War on Drugs zero-tolerance abstinence-only prohibitionism and punitive sanctions demonstrated no respect for human rights of marijuana users. Unfortunately, the AMA (and federal health agencies) still refuses to acknowledge that switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduces smokers health risks nearly as much as if they quit all tobacco/nicotine.

Posted by D. Armstrong on 23 Nov 09 12:50 PM EST
When I was in graduate school, I researched marijuana. I was shocked to discover that the government issued pure propaganda to pass the law against marijuana in the 1920's. They said it led to violence. I thought perhaps it was a multi-cultural issue. The only people using marijuana at the time were southern Blacks, like the jazz musicians of New Orleans, and Mexicans along the border towns. I thought it was a white male government's effort to suppress minorities. Now I think that perhaps the booming pharmaceutical companies were already buying politicians.

Posted by Fred on 23 Nov 09 05:25 PM EST
It seems ironic that smoking mj would be recommended. The level of particulate polution in mj smoke is very high. Would the AMA approve of such a route of delivery for other medicinal substances? The benefits of THC are one issue, the "delivery system" is another and it sounds like a risky trade off. Comments?

Posted by Brinna Nanda on 23 Nov 09 06:23 PM EST
The AMA has the exclusive rights to publish the code books which every physician needs to buy in order to navigate the treacherous waters of insurances claims. The DOJ defended the AMA's copyright on these codes in court. Clearly the AMA did not want to step on the DEA's shoes all these years. However, I believe there are new directives coming down from the DOJ, that have allowed the AMA to bow to science. I commend the Obama administration for doing what it can to end this absurd, mean spirited, failed, utterly incompetent so called War on Drugs. It is time let science and health professionals deal with drug use, and determine what is use vs. abuse, and what to do about the consequences to society.

Posted by John French on 23 Nov 09 06:39 PM EST
I don't remember where it can be found now (perhaps Erowid), but the story of how the Federal government coerced the AMA into taking a stance against marijuana in 1937 makes fascinating reading.

Posted by Ken Wolski, RN on 23 Nov 09 08:59 PM EST
"This [AMA policy] shift, coming from America's most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic," and long overdue, I might add. In 2002 the New Jersey State Nurses Association adopted a resolution that recognized the therapeutic value and safety of medically recommended marijuana. NJSNA urged the Governor and the State Legislature to make medical marijuana legally available to New Jersey residents who could benefit from it. The following year the American Nurses Association adopted a resolution in support of medical marijuana. It's no wonder RN's are the most trusted profession in America (according to Gallup polls). We are not afraid to stand up for our patients, to advocate for them, and to try to protect them from legal harm when they are following the recommendations of their physicians. And these same physicians often refused to put in writing their recommendations for marijuana, and refused to try to change the laws to protect the patients for whom they were recommending marijuana. Tsk, tsk. It's about time, AMA. Doing nothing is doing harm, too.

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 24 Nov 09 12:41 PM EST
Fred: Sorry no one responded to you earlier re: trade-offs of smoked cannabis. First, inhaled cannabis has been shown consistently to be more efficacious than Marinol (synthetic THC) or whole-plant cannabis eaten or made into a tea. That is because inhalation is the fastest administration route of any drug and allows titration to be much more precise and with more immediate effects than other routes. However, there are devices (vaporizers) used by mmj users (and recreational users) that heat the cannabis enough to release the volatile (pharmacologically active) oils without burning the plant material. Thus, patients get the benefits of inhalation without any CO or tars. Finally, though it is indeed counter-intuitive, several recent longitudinal and case-control studies have demonstrated that even smoked cannabis is associated with less cancer of the head, neck, lung, et al and lower rates of COPD than any of us expected (See Tashkin et al). Those studies also suggest a protective effect for mj smokers who also smoke tobacco. All very interesting stuff, indeed. I am gratified that, in my lifetime, we might actually be able to conduct scientific research in this country on one of the Goddess' four sacred plant gifts to mankind (according to my Indian elders) and to use the outcomes of that research to benefit all peoples. Yes we can.

Posted by Rob H. on 24 Nov 09 06:30 PM EST
"...less cancer of the head, neck, lung, et al and lower rates of COPD than any of us expected (See Tashkin et al)." So, smoked MJ causes less cancer than expected? Funny, in recent blogs, the potheads gave the same citation, claiming that these studies proved that smoke pot CURES cancer. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Posted by Rob H. on 24 Nov 09 06:42 PM EST
Hmm. Connect the dots. The AMA says state medical marijuana programs are "woefully inadequate" vis-a-vis safeguards. A state nurses' association resolves to recognize the "safety of medically recommended marijuana." My local medical marijuana distributors commonly sell pot that is grown by drug cartels in Mexico, and illegally on public lands. Much of that is shipped to other states, as well, complete with toxic pesticides. Call me skeptical, but there's no way any healthcare organization would lend any support to the idea that such a substance is "safe." With all due respect, there's a lot of spin in these comments.

Posted by Rob H. on 24 Nov 09 06:52 PM EST
So, can we expect the open-minded, intellectually honest folks who post here so often, to support U.S. research on the negative health impacts of marijuana? For decades, overseas studies of the harms of marijuana have been dismissed as "reefer madness." For decades, people on one side of this issue have pushed for an honest debate on not just the potential medical uses for pot, but for an examination of its inherent harms, as well. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Posted by maxwood on 24 Nov 09 07:34 PM EST
The Abrams study (2007) led to an endorsement of the Volcano Vaporizer ($600) for ingesting cannabis with benefits and without CO, tars-- you would think by now the NIDA would have adjusted its program to make the herb available in this form, rather than in the allegedly low-quality, dubiously titratable 900-mg. cigarettes. Wherever in the summary the words "smoked marijuana" occur, think of a vaporizer and ask why the taxpayer hasn't given a free one to every individual with a (whatever herb) smoking problem (estimated yearly economic cost of tobackgo $igarettes alone, US: $193-bil.).

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 25 Nov 09 03:10 PM EST
In response to Rob H (X3, Part 1): I apologize for understating the study findings re: mj use and head/neck cancers. The effect is profound: This is an excerpt from a JTO report of the research: "A new study finds that long-term marijuana users have a lower risk of certain head and neck cancers, Reuters reported Aug. 25. Researchers from Brown University studied patients with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and a control group and found that subjects who had smoked marijuana for 10 to 20 years had a 62-percent reduced risk of getting HNSCC. Those who smoked marijuana 0.5 to 1.5 times per week had a 48-percent reduction in risk. The study authors, led by Karl T. Kelsey, said that the findings may be linked to the known antitumor action of cannabinoids." Sorry I misstated the results of this surprising study. Here's the link: http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2009/marijuana-may-reduce-risk-of.html

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 25 Nov 09 03:19 PM EST
In response to Rob H (X3, Part 2): It may surprise you to discover that I agree with you on the health and safety aspects of your points here. Marijuana grown for and sold on the illicit market is grown and processed in a variety of ways and conditions. Some of conditions are potentially (or very conclusively) hazardous to the users' health. That is why I want to divorce mmj production and distribution entirely from the illicit market and make it available through a state-established and -supervised system that provides cannabis to patients that is grown by contract farmers under strict supervision to ensure safety and efficacy. That system would both reduce mmj demand on the illicit system and provide higher-quality, lower cost mmj than is available on the strrets. For one model of this suggested approach, email me for the TN draft mmj program prospectus ( tracevu@bellsouth.net )

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 25 Nov 09 04:44 PM EST
In response to Rob H (X3, Part 3): Most of us here at JTO support the full range of research on both positive and negative effects of cannabis use -- research that has been actively and aggressively suppressed for decades. We support research to detect acute cannabis intoxication symptoms indicative of impaired performance to reduce impaired driving, etc. We also do not deny that cannabis abuse and dependence are real phenomena that pose problems in functioning for some (but not all) who meet those diagnoses. We also strongly support substance use prevention efforts to delay or prevent the onset of psychoactive substance use of any kind (including caffeine) among adolescent populations. In summary, once we get beyond an simplistic, all-or-nothing approach to cannabis policy, we may all be surprised at how much we agree on and should work together to address. But first let's stop ruining peoples' lives for the crime of wearing illegal smiles.

Posted by jpthompson7 on 26 Nov 09 12:50 PM EST
As noted in the article NIDA does not fund medical research... They fund addiction research. I guess maybe they should be funding more research on the negative side effects of marijuana instead! I am an addictions therapist and witness the devastation that this substance has inflicted to abusers in our nation and they are vast! Buyer beware… The NIH needs to focus on safer ways of administering this substance.

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 29 Nov 09 03:59 PM EST
To be perfectly clear, let me edit a sentence fragment that appears above as follows: "... Most of us (insert: who subscribe to this on-line newsletter and post comments) here at JTO support the full range of research on both positive and negative effects of cannabis use ...." I hope that clarifies my non-employment at JTO. I very much appreciate that JTO is intellectually honest enough to post research reports and news stories on all aspects of important substance abuse policy issues. When they actually begin hiring people who are knowledgable about and support non-status quo positions, we (oops, they) will really be on the right track toward influencing drug policy in sensible and sensitive ways. (PS: I am cheap AND I can be had.)

Posted by Sue Brooks LCDC on 02 Dec 09 08:45 AM EST
The point is addiction. Xanax can be a great medication if used correctly. Cocaine is used in eye surgery. MMJ might also be a great medication if used correctly. Addicts can't use correctly.

Posted by Christine Woodrich on 16 Dec 09 01:36 PM EST
It's about time! Marijuana has helped a lot with my scoliosis and I know numerous people suffering from various conditions who have benefitted from smoking marijuana. There is medicinal value, even if conservative people don't want to believe it.

Posted by FrankO on 16 Dec 09 04:37 PM EST
Because of MJ effects on the perception of time and space and because of the long half-life there is no real way to tell if the levels of THC in the body are still affecting the person abilities (to work heavy complicated equipment or drive). If I am involved in an accident on the job and test positive for alcohol or any other substances of abuse, I am liable and my drug use plays a role. With MJ this is not the case. If I use MJ medically on Friday have an accident at work on Monday and test positive for THC, prove you did not use on Sunday or even Monday morning. This drug because of the long half-life will affect areas way out of the medical arena. Until they are able to adjust, determine and administer what is a therapeutic dose/level, users of a MJ prescription should give up their driver license and employment. I do not want to be on the road with them. So test away. Just make sure when testing you consider the half-life and how testing for levels will be determined. What level determines inability to operate a car or equipment at work?

Posted by Dwayne on 28 Dec 09 09:37 AM EST
FrankO!! Please Give up my drivers license and employment?? (OK) then you make sure you drive me where I need to go and pay my bills if that is what you want.What about u alcohol drinkers should u people do the same???

Posted by Bonnie on 05 Jan 10 10:55 AM EST
Agree with Ken, the RN. It's about time! Thank God for nurses and their mission to listen to, and advocate for their patients - no other secret agenda.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Submissions are held for review and approval.
Please read the guidelines before posting.

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments