Look at the facts before declaring marijuana a cure-all

By MILAN KARNA

 

Over the past two years, Ohio has seen a number of petitions and ballot initiatives to legalize recreational or “medicinal” marijuana.

The well-funded campaign by Responsible Ohio lost in every county in the state last November thanks in part to Buddie, the Joe Camel reincarnation, and the written-in monopoly to the state’s constitution, which would have allowed 10 investors complete control of the burgeoning industry of big marijuana in Ohio. Currently, the founder and the author of this failed initiative are leading the effort with our legislature to work on a “medical” marijuana bill.
While it may be hard to speculate what might happen here in Ohio and in many other legislatures and ballot boxes throughout the United States, a closer examination of the facts are needed. Advocates tout marijuana as a medical panacea, which can treat many indications. Last month, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism released a study that estimates 6 million people suffer from cannabis use disorder, or roughly 30 percent of all regular users.

The University of Michigan and the state of Colorado have conducted surveys with both having in excess of 87 percent of individuals who use marijuana for self-diagnosed pain and less than 4 percent of individuals using for chronic illnesses.

Cancer, HIV, and glaucoma were the basis for the “medical” marijuana campaign getting its foot in the door in California back in 1996; however, very little restriction is given on indications for use today, despite lack of proven scientific research for any condition.
 

Whole-plant marijuana is a Schedule I drug, which means it has a “high propensity of addiction and no medical benefit.” It’s estimated that 2,000 compounds are in the plant, and when combusted marijuana has nearly five times the tar as tobacco (which has a remarkably similar beginning, being advertised as a health product).

The Institute of Health has also found similar amounts of other deleterious chemicals such as carbon mono- and dioxide, ammonia, and acetone. The Denver Post has reported numerous recalls for marijuana products occurring since last September due to high herbicide and pesticide content.

Assume a pharmaceutical company tried to market an untested drug through voter initiative or legislative action rather than advance through the rigorous testing that helps determine efficacy and safety today (which costs an estimated average of $2.6 billion per drug from discovery through clinical trials, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development).

Wouldn’t you be outraged? A vast majority of drugs that are researched don’t make it to market because they are found not to be efficacious or safe; marijuana the plant or any of its components should be held to the same standard.

Despite many of the confounding factors found in the plant itself, it does not mean there isn’t potential or that components shouldn’t be researched. Synthetic cannabinoids like Dronabinol and Nabilone have been approved by the FDA and a marijuana derivative, Epidolex is currently in clinical trials at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus.

Many studies are ongoing today looking at isolated compounds either from the plant itself or in synthetic from, in various forms of delivery that are not in overly intoxicating or in smoked forms.
  

But at the same time, potential is not current medicine. Politics and profit should be outside the sphere of science. Anecdotal evidence which is often pushed for an agenda that ultimately wants to achieve full-blown commercialization of marijuana should be left out.

These life and death decisions should be conducted by researchers and not by initiatives and legislators that could place public health in danger.