Christine L. Miller
Your editorial on Jeff Sessions turning back the clock on marijuana (“Don't let Sessions turn back the clock on medical marijuana,"
Oct. 13) is puzzling to me as a scientist, as I have long viewed the
medical marijuana movement to be turning back the clock on FDA
protections. For example, did you know that Maryland has the dubious
distinction of being a state (the only state as far as I know) to allow
nurse midwives to recommend marijuana to their patients? The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have come out with a position
paper against marijuana use in pregnancy based on available data, but
no national association of nurse midwives has done so, thereby making it
clear they must be unfamiliar with the relevant scientific
publications.
If Jeff Sessions thinks marijuana might be harmful for the
developing fetus, he is taking a stand on the side of science, not
against it. Both human epidemiological studies and laboratory studies of
animals indicate marijuana use during key points of fetal development
can have lasting consequences, some of which are not obvious at birth
yet become apparent later. Marijuana may ease morning sickness, but at a
cost.
This is but one of the many medical marijuana applications
for which the risk/benefit analysis is poor, including for anyone with
an underlying cardiac condition or anyone in remission from certain
types of cancer. Breast cancer
has been shown to be stimulated by marijuana in animal studies
conducted by Dr. Robert McKallip of Virginia Commonwealth University,
and several epidemiological publications have shown that marijuana use
doubles the risk of testicular cancer.
If you add these risks to well
known negative mental health impacts, I rather suspect that when Jeff
Sessions sends his prosecutors into court in regards to medical
marijuana, they will be armed with scientific studies too numerous and
complex to recite here. There may soon be clinical trial results showing
a benefit of the purified cannabidiol component of marijuana for
seizure control in children, but the FDA should be evaluating how best
to achieve those benefits, not legislators.
No comments:
Post a Comment