Federal Reclassification Of Marijuana Could Have Major Impact On Medical Uses

[Robert Celt]

Federal authorities have announced that they are reviewing the possibility of loosening the classification of marijuana, and if this happens, it could have a far-reaching impact on how the substance is used in medical settings, experts said.

Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is listed alongside heroin and LSD as among the "most dangerous drugs" and has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced last week that it is reviewing the possibility of reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug, which would put it in the same category as Ritalin, Adderal and oxycodone.

Medical experts are welcoming the review, saying it could ease restrictions for researchers, so that they can better understand which compounds in marijuana could be used to help patients.

The American Medical Association told ABC News that the group supports the review "to help facilitate scientific research and the development of cannabinoid-based medicines."

"The Drug Enforcement Administration should work with other federal regulatory agencies to develop a special schedule for marijuana to facilitate study of its potential medical utility in prescription drug products," AMA officials told ABC News in a statement.

"Current standards for approval of prescription drug products require rigorous scientific study. While studies related to a limited number of medical conditions have shown promise for new cannabinoid-based prescription products, the scope of rigorous research needs to be expanded to a broader range of medical conditions for such products," the AMA added.

Dr. Kevin Hill, assistant professor of psychiatry at McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School, published a review of medical marijuana in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. In that review, he emphasized there are significant barriers for researchers who want to study marijuana for its medicinal potential.

There are "hoops you have to run through for this research," Hill told ABC News. "If you use marijuana itself, you have to get special licensing from the DEA. It involves a background visit and ... they don't give it out very easily."

There are currently two marijuana-derived medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Hill noted. The active ingredients in both medications are a group of compounds known as cannabinoids, and these chemicals are approved for nerve pain and for stimulating appetite in patients undergoing cancer treatment, Hill said. However, many other people use medical marijuana or marijuana-derived compounds for a host of other conditions from epilepsy to vertigo, he said.

"We know that medical marijuana has good evidence for treatment for a handful of medical conditions," Hill said. "There are thousands of people who are using medical marijuana for a whole host of medical conditions," where the efficacy has yet to be thoroughly studied.

By changing the classification of the drug, Hill said researchers and doctors could find out how effective marijuana is in other conditions.

"We could move toward a more evidence-based use of medical marijuana," Hill said.

Hill pointed out there are around 60 known compounds in marijuana and that many have not been thoroughly studied by researchers looking for medicinal uses. A new classification will mean it will be easier for researchers to obtain licenses to examine these chemicals for medical treatments and to access suppliers, experts said.

Steph Sherer, the founder of the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said changing the classification could be a "paradigm change." She pointed out there is currently only one supplier of medical marijuana for researchers.

"It will allow more federal institutions to engage in research and allow the NIDA [National Institute on Drug Abuse] to open up its source for cannabis so there's not just one place for researchers to use" marijuana, she explained.

The DEA along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Office of National Drug Control Policy announced they would review marijuana's classification after multiple letters from senators last year, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York.

"For too long schedule I status for marijuana has been a barrier for necessary research, and as a result countless Americans can't get access to medicine they desperately need," Gillibrand said in a statement last week. "It's past due for the DEA to reconsider marijuana's status. I am hopeful that antiquated ideology won't continue to stand in the way of science and that the DEA will reschedule marijuana to schedule II."

News Moderator: Robert Celt 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Federal Reclassification Of Marijuana Could Have Major Impact On Medical Uses
Author: Gillian Mohney
Contact: abcNews
Photo Credit: None found
Website: abcNews

 

[Lady Cannafan]

 

[Radogast]

Dr Kevin Hill is a proffesional marijuana hater.

"The Drug Enforcement Administration should work with other federal regulatory agencies to develop a special schedule for marijuana to facilitate study of its potential medical utility in prescription drug products," AMA officials told ABC News in a statement.

Total garbage. they know they are losing the fight on scheduling classification so they want tp make a special marijuana class "for drug company profits only."

 

[Lady Cannafan]

Dr Kevin Hill is a proffesional marijuana hater.




Total garbage. they know they are losing the fight on scheduling classification so they want tp make a special marijuana class "for drug company profits only."

I would have to agree with that.

I looked up a book review of Dr Hill's book:
"Marijuana: the unbiased truth about the world’s most popular weed" Center City, MN: Hazelden Publishing, 2015.

Here's a clip from the review just for insight into what he feels about Marijuana use:

Author Kevin P. Hill, M.D., is a credible authority on the psychiatric perils of regular marijuana use and its addiction. He argues, “More people use marijuana than any other illicit drug and more people meet criteria for marijuana addiction than any other illicit drug.” More than the misuse of prescription painkillers that so dominates our media, it turns out weed is indeed a threat.

Dr. Hill is a professor and a consulting psychiatrist at Harvard University’s McLean Hospital, where he treats individual addicts but also conducts research. He also is a consultant on drug abuse with pro sports leagues, including the National Football League and (alarmingly) with the Federal Aviation Administration. He also is an accessibly good writer for lay audiences.

The early chapters of this book are devoted to what Dr. Hill says are the three prevailing myths in public opinion that stand in the way of any reasoned public discussion about the utility and dangers of marijuana use in our society. The most important myth is that marijuana is a harmless herb without the dangers of such illicit substances as heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine. Here, Dr. Hill concedes that addiction mathematics can be tricky.

He notes that most research indicates users of heroin, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol have higher percentages of addiction, but it also is true that those addicted to pot number around 2.7 million Americans — roughly the population of Houston. While most occasionally infrequent smokers do not get addicted, the level of addiction rises when the habit becomes as frequently as daily or, and this is alarming, if the use starts in adolescence.

“Your brain cannot perform the way it is supposed to when you use marijuana,” Dr. Hill states. This is because the main ingredient in pot is known as THC — “delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol” — which plugs into the receptors in the brain that control thinking, concentration, coordination and memory. Prolonged use of marijuana, again, especially among the young, has been linked in some studies to changes in the brain’s structure and even in loss of IQ.

The falsity of the other two myths are easier to understand. Marijuana use does become addictive because it “hijacks the normal circuits of the brain” that trigger physical dependence. And, not surprisingly, addicts who try to get off the weed do suffer from withdrawal pains for the same reason.

But, happily, Dr. Hill does make a good case that like all natural products, herbal marijuana is made up of a host of compounds, some of which can be isolated and used to unlock some of those same brain receptors and alleviate not only intractable pain but also to counteract a wide number of neuro-diseases or symptoms from epilepsy to multiple sclerosis. Trials are underway at universities and pharmaceutical laboratories into separating out compounds from marijuana for use in treating a range of illnesses such as glaucoma, Parkinson’s disease and ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

For those who would rather smoke or munch the weed, he said, they “are taking in many other compounds, some of which may not be beneficial, may be harmful, or may cause undesired side effects.”

“We have used the same model with many other medicines that first were derived from plants: We identify the useful compounds, isolate them, and learn to manufacture and improve upon them. Second, when we manufacture a compound, we can carefully control its dose.” Dr. Hill notes.

Finally, as if we needed reminding, Dr. Hill warns the smirking talking heads on happy-chat television and dopers in basements everywhere that inhaling smoke of any kind is dangerous — and stupid.

 

[cleanslate]

Hill is preaching the dogma of reductionist medicine. That real medicine must be based on isolated, purified active compounds that can be patented, FDA approved and dosage controlled by MDs writing prescriptions. This is of course necessary when administering synthetic compounds to patients that have never occurred in nature. This also applies to natural compounds that are isolated from the synergistic context of the other modulating compounds that are found in cannabis and other medicinal plants that mitigate harmful side effects.

The notion that addiction is based on a chemical hook that hijacks the brain's circuitry has been proven to be erroneous by researchers such as Columbia neuropharmacologist Carl Hart. It is a matter of how you define terms like addiction and dependency that determines whether it is justified to label 2.7 million cannabis users as being addicted to an extraordinarily beneficial herbal supplement with a harm profile far less than that of caffeine and many foods that we regularly eat.

If a person consumes cannabis regularly to feel normal and productive, and without it suffers from depression and apathy, then this is not a matter of addiction but of addressing an endocannabinoid deficiency that causes them to be less of a whole, productive person then they are meant to be. If I am suffering from vitamin C deficiency I will consume plants that provide it, likewise if I suffer from an endocannabinoid deficiency I should be allowed to alleviate that deficiency by consuming phytocannabinoids provided by the cannabis plant.

 

[cleanslate]

Additional info on Dr Hill:

Dr. Hill's clinical research is focused primarily on medications and behavioral interventions that might improve available treatments for those wanting to stop smoking marijuana or cigarettes. Dr. Hill is the recipient of a prestigious federal K99/R00 grant award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); his project is to test the efficacy of a synthetic marijuana-like compound, nabilone, as a potential medication treatment for patients with marijuana addiction.

THE PARSONS COMPANY, INC.

His claim to be unbiased towards cannabis is undermined by his warm embrace by NIDA and his research to promote nabilone, while demonizing the cannabis plant, to provide Big Pharma with a patentable and profitable revenue stream .

 

[Lady Cannafan]

Hill is preaching the dogma of reductionist medicine. That real medicine must be based on isolated, purified active compounds that can be patented, FDA approved and dosage controlled by MDs writing prescriptions. This is of course necessary when administering synthetic compounds to patients that have never occurred in nature. This also applies to natural compounds that are isolated from the synergistic context of the other modulating compounds that are found in cannabis and other medicinal plants that mitigate harmful side effects.

The notion that addiction is based on a chemical hook that high jacks the brain's circuitry has been proven to be erroneous by researchers such as Columbia neuropharmacologist Carl Hart. It is a matter of how you define terms like addiction and dependency that determines whether it is justified to label 2.7 million cannabis users as being addicted to an extraordinarily beneficial herbal supplement with a harm profile far less than that of caffeine and many foods that we regularly eat.

If a person consumes cannabis regularly to feel normal and productive, and without it suffers from depression and apathy, then this is not a matter of addiction but of addressing an endocannabinoid deficiency that causes them to be less of a whole, productive person then they are meant to be. If I am suffering from vitamin C deficiency I will consume plants that provide it, likewise if I suffer from an endocannabinoid deficiency I should be allowed to alleviate that deficiency by consuming phytocannabinoids provided by the cannabis plant.