Mark Blumel of South­ern Cal-​N.O.R.M.L. gives sound ad­vise for any pa­tient or co-​op when deal­ing with “San Diego” laws.

Mark Blumel gives sound advise on M.M.J.

WIlliam W. West | MySpace Video

FDA Bans Another Alternative Health Option While Refusing to Pull the Plug on Dangerous Meds

by Paul Fassa, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author
Click here to read original article

(NaturalNews) The FDA boosts Big Pharma sales and eliminates natural remedy competition. A current example is the FDA`s ban on ear candle production while allowing osteoporosis drugs with dangerous side effects to continue in the market place leading to - more easily broken bones! A recent ABC expose` showed how a leading osteoporosis drug caused more bone problems for a decade. Ear candle therapy has been around longer with far fewer complaints.

What Ear Candling Is

Its efficacy for minor ailments varies from user to user. There are those who swear by them, and those who ask "is that all there is to that?"

An ear candle is an inexpensive, hollow tube made of paper and wax, usually bees` wax. The tube is held upright in another person`s ear who`s lying on his or her side. The top of the tube is lit with a flame and held there for a few minutes. It`s safe with a second person administering. But if one tries to go it alone, it could be risky!

Ear candle advocates claim relief from ear noise and pain, nasal congestion, headaches, stress, and even colds and flus. Whether this folk remedy is or isn`t efficacious should be a matter of personal choice, which shouldn`t take long to ascertain for someone who`s shelled out 10 bucks for five ear candles.

But the FDA`s function is to eliminate alternative remedies and shepherd Big Pharma. After all, they must not let natural cures "discourage us from getting those `real cures`". The Medical Mafia uses this talking point often against all alternative methods, even though they often do cure without side effects.

Examples of the Medical Monopoly`s Real Cures

The tablets prescribed to cure or prevent osteoporosis cost much more than ear candles. The generic brands will cost around $100 every couple of months of prescribed steady use, while the brand label costs $150. Besides doing the opposite of what it claims, there are some dangerous side effects from this drug that stays in one`s body for 10 years!

At first, it does create stronger bones. But this drug, comprised of phosphonates that are used to clean soap scum from soap dishes, creates an imbalance of two important bone structure mechanisms osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Osteoblasts form new bone, while osteoclasts remove decayed or damaged bone through resorption, which transforms bone into minerals.

These biophosphonate drugs intentionally inhibit osteoclasts, which results in better bone density at first. But after the first year or so, osteoclast inhibition leads to stronger bone forming over weaker bone not removed through resorption. The result has been many users reporting bones snapping on their own without impact or trauma.

Honest health experts have known about the osteoblast/osteoclast imbalance potential for spontaneous bone breakage even before the popular drug first came out over a decade ago. Side effects include the possibility of blindness or atrial fibrillation, which can lead to heart failure and strokes.

Only now that ABC has publicized this does the FDA promise to "look into the matter". That`s pretty much what they said about a well known diabetes II drug that has caused at least 83,000 heart attacks from 1999 to 2007. In this case, the FDA claims they`ve received some new numbers and will discuss the the diabetes II drug in this July`s meeting.

So both drugs remain on the market, promoted, prescribed, and purchased. Gotta make enough money to cover those lawsuits and still profit! But not to worry, the FDA has protected us from ear candles.

Sources for more information include:

Health Freedom Petition to Stop the Ban on Ear Candles
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4790

Byron Richards - ABC Shines Light On Spontaneously Breaking Bones
http://www.wellnessresources.com/fr...

Bone Drug and Atrial Fibrillation Confirmed
http://www.wellnessresources.com/st...

Video: Bone Drug Hazard Explanation and Majarishi Approach to Osteoporosis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgea...

Obama's image photoshopped for pot ad

Obama's image photoshopped for pot ad

March 2, 2010, 9:42 am by Christina Wilkie

President Barack Obama's photo is being used to promote a marijuana gala in Los Angeles, and according to the gossip site TMZ.com, organizers have photo-shopped Obama's image to make it look like he's smoking pot. The April event is being billed as a celebration of the president's first year in office and the Justice Department's decision not to raid medical marijuana stores, which are legal under California state law. And while it's not technically illegal to use the president's image for commercial purposes, the White House strongly disapproves of the practice, and this case is no exception. Last month, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals took down billboards featuring an unauthorized photo of First Lady Michelle Obama after the White House complained. Check out the image here: http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/02/president-barack-obamas-marijuana-ad-pot/ Check out the original article here: http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/2475-obamas-image-photoshopped-for-pot-ad

Five Things You May ‘Know’ About Marijuana That Aren’t True

Five Things You May ‘Know’ About Marijuana That Aren’t True
NEWS JUNKIE POST
Feb 27, 2010 at 2:19 am

By Steve Elliott


The bulk of my writing is done for a pot-savvy audience, so it usually goes without saying that certain “cultural perceptions” about cannabis are wrong. To correct these marijuana myths to a crowd of potheads would be a classic case of singing to (an albeit higher) choir.

As editor of a pot website, I live and breathe marijuana (see what I did there?) every day, and have a great chance to fully inform myself.

But when speaking to members of the general public, I’m often struck (and stop that! It hurts) with the wide prevalence of beliefs about marijuana that have been scientifically disproven for years.

How many of these myths have you trusted lately?

1. One joint equals a pack of cigarettes.

This hoary old favorite comes back again and again, seemingly impervious to the onslaught of the real world.

Prohibitionists earnestly tell us that smoking just one joint “equals a pack of cigarettes.” Or maybe it’s 16, or maybe just four cigarettes; they seem a little unclear on the exact number.

This fallacious conclusion is derived from a study by Dr. Donald Tashkin in which the UCLA researcher examined airflow resistance in the lungs of tobacco smokers compared to that in the lungs of marijuana smokers. Dr. Tashkin did find that daily pot smokers experience a “mild but significant” increase in airflow resistance in the large airways, greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.

But what they don’t tell you is that, ironically, Dr. Tashkin also found – in the largest study ever of its kind – other, more important markers of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. In the four years since Dr. Tashkin’s latest study results were announced, I’ve never heard a single anti-marijuana speaker mention this.

They also never seem to have time to mention that Dr. Tashkin’s study unexpectedly found that smoking marijuana – even regularly and heavily! – does not lead to lung cancer.

Dr. Tashkin said these results “were against our expectations.”

“We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” Dr. Tashkin said. “What we found instead was no assication at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”

2. Medical marijuana has been a huge problem in states where it is legalized.

The mass media narrative seems to be “Maybe there are a few patients who need medical marijuana, but legalizing cannabis for medicinal use has led to huge problems in California. Do we really want those here?”

When pressed on exactly what those “huge problems” are, anti-marijuana zealots will usually offer up the “more pot dispensaries than Starbucks in Los Angeles” argument, saying something about dispensary proliferation being “out of control.”

What they don’t mention is that the situation in Los Angeles is entirely due to a lackadaisical city council that took more than two years to draw up an ordinance regulating the dispensaries, thus opening the door to their uncontrolled proliferation.

Neither to they mention that in cities such as San Francisco and Oakland, where city governments have been on top of the developing marijuana dispensary scene for years, there haven’t been any such problems.

Not only do these cities have orderly, well-run, reputable marijuana dispensaries, but in the case of Oakland at least, the city is now reaping millions of tax dollars from the shops – which, in what may be a first for American business, asked to be taxed.

Remember, there are 13 other states besides California that have legalized medical marijuana. Have you heard about nightmare scenarios occurring in those?

States such as New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Maine have set up systems of state-authorized marijuana dispensaries to carry out the will of the voters in giving patients safe and legal access to medical marijuana. The system hasn’t produced major problems, and is working as intended.

The other favorite argument of pot prohibitionists is that marijuana dispensaries are supposed to somehow “attract crime.

This one seems to be particularly near and dear to the hearts of small town police chiefs, as evidenced over and over by their apparently earnest (but completely inaccurate) testimony at city council meetings.

Dispensaries, in fact, have lower crime rates than either banks or liquor stores, according to the Denver Police Department, which certainly should know, since they have 300 of them in town.

The police chief of Los Angeles agrees. “Banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries,” L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Daily News.

A look at the facts quickly tells us that all types of crime are, in fact, down in states with marijuana dispensaries.

3. Legalization is a slippery slope. If we legalize pot, what’s next? Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?

The evergreen popularity of this baseless bugaboo is a bit puzzling.

The answer is easy and obvious. While the legalization of marijuana now enjoys majority support, according to recent polls, support drops precipitously for relaxing the laws around any other drugs.

Pot’s closest competitors, ecstasy and cocaine, each have only 8 percent support for legalization. Heroin and meth are even lower at 6 percent each, according to Angus Reid Public Opinion.

Legalizing pot won’t open the floodgates; in fact, the increased visibility of marijuana in American society only serves to highlight the stark differences between cannabis and most other illicit substances.

The American people know the difference between marijuana and hard drugs. Most Americans know someone who uses marijuana without it destroying their life. It’s not hard to see the chasm that separates pot, and its users, from the desperately addicted scenario that goes with substances like heroin and methamphetamine.

4. If we legalize pot, there will be carnage on our highways. Look at what we’re already facing with alcohol. Do we really want MORE impaired drivers?

The simple truth of it is, there are already millions of marijuana smokers using our roads and highways every day.

With estimates of current marijuana users in the United States running between 40 and 100 million, you can bet that if weed really caused wrecks, it would be a national tragedy on the level of drunk driving.

If marijuana resulted in motor impairment anywhere near the level produced by alcohol, those gory findings would have made banner headlines across the land – as has been the case with alcohol.

Many of us have, hopefully in our younger years, discovered on a very personal level that driving under the influence of alcohol is an extremely bad idea. But think about it: How many in your circle of friends have a “I was so high I totaled my car” story?

While I’m not encouraging anyone to take bong hits then rush out onto the freeway, a growing body of evidence indicates that marijuana is, on balance, far less a road hazard than is alcohol.

The tendency for stoners to overcompensate for whatever slight impairment occurs is one reason that marijuana-related car crashes aren’t in the headlines every day.

Even the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which in its understandable quest for respectability is very cautious around the stoned driving issue, grants: “…Emerging scientific research indicates that cannabis actually has far less impact on the psychomotor skills needed for driving than alcohol does, and is seldom a causal factor in automobile accidents.”

5. If we legalize it, everybody and his brother will become a flaming pothead.

Some of the pot prohibitionists have an interesting view of human nature. They think that as humans we are mostly seething cauldrons of pent-up desires just waiting to express themselves, if only legal repercussions weren’t in the way.

Now, I’m willing to grant this may be a reasonably accurate self-assessment for some of these guys, but for the rest of us, it’s just not so, when it comes to the pot laws.

The laws against marijuana been a spectacular failure in preventing its use. Since pot was made illegal more than 70 years ago, its popularity has risen almost every single year – even as the laws against it became more and more draconian in many locales.

The most extensive study ever taken on U.S. marijuana arrests and penalties, released last November, found that marijuana arrests have no impact on usage rates.

Meanwhile, another approach has been tried in places like the Netherlands, which relaxed its pot laws in the 1970s and has since seen teen and overall marijuana use at a level half that of the United States.

Those of us who make marijuana policy reform our work welcome an open, serious debate on the issues surrounding cannabis re-legalization.

All we ask is that in that debate, everyone should at least stick to the facts and not cling to outdated, shop-worn superstitions from the 20th Century.

Check out the original article here: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/27/five-things-you-may-%E2%80%98know%E2%80%99-about-marijuana%E2%80%A6-that-aren%E2%80%99t-true/

Medical Marijuana Studies Critique

Medical Marijuana Studies Critique
Dr. Phillip Leveque Salem-News.com

CONFIRMED SAFE & EFFECTIVE: SURPRISE!
medical marijuana
Salem-News.com

(MOLALLA, Ore.) - I had heard rumors about studies conducted in the past ten years that the California Legislature had spent several million dollars on, to confirm that marijuana/cannabis was really a safe, effective drug --but it smelled fishy to me.

As it has been used for at least 4,000 years by at least 400 million people who weren’t stoned “staring at the spots on the wall” but getting good relief, one would wonder if those studies were real.

California has about 300,000 legal users and probably a million or more who smoke it when they can get it, regardless of the legal standing.

There are so many people in California and elsewhere who are infected with the Reefer Madness Virus that such Government-paid boondoggling as this doesn’t really surprise me.

Learning about who the 22 members of the Scientific Review Board are was really a shock. Only 6 were M.D.’s who might have had some inkling of marijuana benefits, but where do the 16 Ph.D’s fit here? If they are Pharmacologists who teach that marijuana is “dangerous and addicting”, where and how did they get their scientific background on this subject?

For the 8 M.D.’s of the 23 that serve on the National Advisory Council, where did they acquire medical marijuana expertise? I see some of this group are bought and paid for Government employees who rarely have anything good to say about this DEVIL DRUG used medically by millions of people.

Don’t get me wrong, their collective approval that cannabis/marijuana is truly a safe medication has finally caught up with the U.S. Government figures which verifiably state that 70,000,000 Americans use it once in a while with little to mild detriment.

Getting to the studies and their results one-by-one:

Dr. Donald Abrams’ on HIV Peripheral Neuropathy. He has been working with these patients for about 20 years and it must have been amusing to him to participate. Smoking as in a cigarette is totally archaic but I do see he used vaporizers, the modern method. The concurrent use of Neurontin (gabapentin), Amitryptyline (Elavil), narcotics (Oxycontin?) and NSAIDS (aspirin like) are ungentle throwbacks, but yes, cannabis works better than any of the latter. The adverse effects of the latter don’t compare with the beneficial cannabis.

Dr. Ronald Ellis’ double blind study with placebos should have given him pause. Marijuana users can tell with the first puff that the placebos are NOT marijuana. He also used marijuana cigarettes. Cannabis was superior to the FAKE DRUG and even the patients use of concurrent analgesics.

Dr. Barth Wilsey’s study on neuropathic pain indicated that even low doses of marijuana were beneficial with minimal adverse effects.

Dr. Mark Wallace’s experimental pain production with dermal injection of capsaicin (from chili peppers) was really scary and cannabis didn’t work well here. After about 45 minutes it helped but higher doses (8% THC) caused worse pain? I would guess that the higher dose of cannabis elicited the “panic reaction” response. My suggestion is – don’t inject capsaicin!

Dr. Jody Corey-Bloom studied cannabis on spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis with pain. Cannabis reduced both spasms and pain which M.S. patients discovered years ago. They have found it better than “standard” M.S. drugs.

Dr. Donald Abrams’ other investigation with vaporizers in which 14 of 18 patients preferred the vaporizers. This is a standard observation.

Dr. Sean Drummond (Ph.D.) discovered that cannabis enabled sleep which is the main reason why severe chronic pain patients have been using it for years.

Dr. Thomas Marcotte (Ph.D.) studied if cannabis affected driving ability. He indicated the results are in preparation but here is a warning, we know cannabis acts like a sedative and the patients know this also. Studies in Australia found cannabis users to be more careful drivers, they didn’t want to get caught. Alcohol users didn’t care and they got caught.

Dr. Mark Wallace studied smoked cannabis on the pain of Diabetic Neuropathy. He should know that cannabis works on almost all types of pain and by the way isn’t all pain cause by sensory neuropathy.

Dr. Barth Wilsey has another study on vaporized cannabis against neuropathic pain. He shouldn’t be surprised of the beneficial results.

Dr. Howard Fields performed studies on cannabis and migraines. Other researchers have found cannabis to be very effective in migraines, Trigeminal Neuralgia and Tempo Mandibular Joint (TMJ) pain.

Dr. Mark Barad studied the effects of cannabis on Fear Extinction such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in mice. Battle Veterans have found that cannabis is better than any other medication for suppressing immediate Battle Stress but also for Post Traumatic Stress. His studies were with mice. I would guess that mice might think differently than humans. In Iraq, soldiers have found that their “sniffer dogs” DO get canine PTSD.

Dr. Danielle Piomelli studied if the effects of acute use of THC, the botanic cannabinoid, had any effect on Anandamide, the natural endocannabinoid. He found that THC had no effect on levels of the natural endocannabinoid. Chronic use DID cause an increase in Anandamide. It is not surprising that chronic THC use might cause a different response. Acute doses rapidly go into body fats and last only for a few hours.

Again, I congratulate these marijuana scientists. If only those with Reefer Madness Virus would read and understand them. Marijuana/cannabis is more than a miracle drug of the past. It is also efficacious for about 200 medical conditions of the present and future.

Sic Semper Cannabis

Check out the original article here: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february282010/medical_marijuana.php

The Straight Dope: Time to recognize real benefits of medical marijuana

Image via Wikipedia

The Straight Dope: Time to recognize real benefits of medical marijuana
by William Brigham / Press-Banner
Feb 25, 2010

The recent proposal for a medical marijuana outlet in Scotts Valley raises many questions, most of which I leave to those who know best about law enforcement, zoning, liability and other legal considerations. But underlying all of this is the question of the application of marijuana (Cannabis sativa) to the treatment of medical problems.

The timing is propitious in this case, as the Center for Medical Cannabis Research at the University of California — established in 2000 as a result of Senate Bill 847, the Medical Marijuana Research Act — submitted its most recent report to the governor and the Legislature earlier this month.

The center has conducted 15 randomized clinical studies, and its conclusions in five of those studies are quite clear: Smoked cannabis has clear and positive benefits in the treatment of pain secondary to injury (e.g., spinal cord injury), disease (e.g., HIV disease) or injury to the nervous system due to infections, stroke or other causes, as well as to the treatment of muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis.

In those controlled studies, patients who previously did not receive sufficient relief from pain by taking prescription analgesic medication did obtain pain relief from cannabis. To assure validity, the control groups in the studies received cannabis cigarettes with the active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, removed. So, while they looked and smelled like marijuana cigarettes, they were in fact placebos.

Studies of people with cancers were discontinued because of procedural problems, but it has been reported elsewhere that relief from the nausea associated with chemotherapy is commonly attained by the use of cannabis.

There are side-effects from the use of smoked cannabis, of course, and in the center’s studies, those included respiratory problems, dizziness, sedation and changes in cognition. But those can be measured against the side effects of opioid pain medication (e.g., Vicodin or OxyContin), which can include some of those from smoked cannabis, as well as others.

The use of vaporizers to ingest cannabis is one solution to avoid some side effects of smoking, most notably respiratory problems. The CMCR has undertaken studies comparing the effects of vaporized to smoked cannabis and found that, while the levels of THC were initially higher in those using vaporized cannabis, over a several-hour period levels were similar to that from smoked cannabis. Importantly, carbon monoxide levels were much lower in those who used vaporized cannabis.

Unfortunately, all of the scientific research one can muster is often not sufficient to counter the social and moral arguments leveled against the use of “medical marijuana.” We can trace this back to the modern stigmatization of marijuana following the end of alcohol’s prohibition in 1933.

A huge federal bureaucracy was left with little to do at that point, and its leader, Harry Anslinger, set about to demonize and criminalize marijuana, leading to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The use of marijuana was associated with “undesirables” and deviants, such as musicians, artists, “Negroes” and common criminals.

Notwithstanding the widespread use of marijuana today — about 18 million Americans report having used marijuana at least once in the past month — American society is far from accepting of this drug.

But whether Scotts Valley is ready for medical marijuana remains to be seen.

• William Brigham, M.S.W., M.A., of Scotts Valley is administrator of the National Football League Program for Substances of Abuse and father of five daughters. Contact him at wcberm@gmail.com.

Check out the original article here: http://www.pressbanner.com/view/full_story/6469058/article-The-Straight-Dope--Time-to-recognize-real-benefits-of-medical-marijuana?instance=home_community

Image via Wikipedia

Marijuana use up for seniors as Boomers age

Matt Sedensky, Associated Press

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

(02-23) 04:00 PST Miami --In her 88 years, Florence Siegel has learned how to relax: A glass of red wine. Some classical music, preferably Bach. And every night like clockwork, she lifts a pipe to her lips and smokes marijuana.

---

Long a fixture among young people, use of the country's most popular illicit drug is now growing among the AARP set, as the massive generation of Baby Boomers who came of age in the 1960s and '70s grows older.

The number of people aged 50 and older reporting marijuana use in the prior year went up from 1.9 percent to 2.9 percent from 2002 to 2008, according to surveys from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The rise was most dramatic among 55- to 59-year-olds, whose reported marijuana use more than tripled from 1.6 percent in 2002 to 5.1 percent.

Observers expect further increases as 78 million Boomers born between 1945 and 1964 age. For many Boomers, the drug never held the stigma it did for previous generations. Some have always used it, while others are revisiting the habit in retirement, either for recreation or as a way to cope with the ailments of aging.

The drug is credited with relieving many problems linked to aging: aches and pains, glaucoma, macular degeneration. Patients in 14 states enjoy medical marijuana laws, but those elsewhere buy or grow the drug illegally to ease their conditions.

But there's also the risk that health problems already faced by older people can be exacerbated by regular marijuana use. Older users could be at risk for falls if they become dizzy, smoking it increases the risk of heart disease, and it can cause cognitive impairment, said Dr. William Dale of the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Siegel, who finds marijuana has helped her sleep better than pills ever did, was well into her 50s before she tried pot for the first time. She can muster only one frustration with the drug.

"I never learned how to roll a joint," she said. "It's just a big nuisance. It's much easier to fill a pipe."

This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/22/MNLP1C5C7Q.DTL#ixzz0gO03AZB0

Medical Marijuana Has Merit, Research Shows

Image by dumbeast via Flickr

Medical Marijuana Has Merit, Research Shows
Although Research Shows Medical Mariuana Works, Critics Say California Center's Research Is Flawed
By Kathleen Doheny
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Feb. 18, 2010 -- Marijuana can be a promising treatment for some specific, pain-related medical conditions, according to California researchers who presented an update of their findings Wednesday to the California Legislature and also released them to the public.

''I think the evidence is getting better and better that marijuana, or the constituents of cannabis, are useful at least in the adjunctive treatment of neuropathy," Igor Grant, MD, executive vice-chairman of the department of psychiatry at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, tells WebMD.

''We don't know if it's a front-line treatment. I'm hoping the results of our studies will prompt larger-scale studies that involve a much more varied population."

''This [report given to the Legislature] sets the stage of larger-scale studies,'' he says.

Some experts who reviewed the report say some of the studies are flawed and that they worry about the long-term health effects of marijuana smoke.

Perspective: Medical Marijuana Research

Some observers speculated that the researchers presented their report to the Legislature to call attention to marijuana research because an initiative to legalize marijuana for general use is expected to be on the California ballot in November 2010.

But Grant says that's not the case. "We sent it to the Legislature because our report was due," he says.

The program Grant directs was launched in 1999, when the California Legislature passed (and the governor signed) SB 847. Since then, the center has completed five scientific trials, with more in progress.

Medical Marijuana: The Research Scorecard

Five studies, published in peer-reviewed medical journals, show the value of marijuana for pain-related conditions, the researchers say in the report.

* Smoked cannabis reduced pain in HIV patients. In one study, 50 patients assigned either to cannabis or placebo finished the study. Although 52% of those who smoked marijuana had a 30% or more reduction in pain intensity, just 24% of those in the placebo group did. The study is published in the journal Neurology. In another study, 28 HIV patients were assigned to either marijuana or placebo -- and 46% of pot smokers compared to 18% of the placebo group reported 30% or more pain relief. That study is in Neuropsychopharmacology.
* Marijuana helped reduce pain in people suffering spinal cord injury and other conditions. In this study, 38 patients smoked either high-dose or low-dose marijuana; 32 finished all three sessions. Both doses reduced neuropathic pain from different causes. Results appear in the Journal of Pain.
* Medium doses of marijuana can reduce pain perception, another study found. Fifteen healthy volunteers smoked a low, medium, or high dose of marijuana to see if it could counteract the pain produced by an injection of capsaicin, the ''hot'' ingredient in chili peppers. The higher the dose, the greater the pain relief. The study was published in Anesthesiology.
* Vaporized marijuana can be safe, other research found. In this study, 14 volunteers were assigned to get low, medium, or high doses of pot, either smoked or by vaporization delivery, on six different occasions. The vaporized method was found safe; patients preferred it to smoking. The study is in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.

A sixth study, as yet unpublished, found marijuana better than placebo cigarettes in reducing the spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis and the pain associated with the spasticity.

Medical Marijuana Research: What's Next?

Grant's researchers will finish two more studies, with results expected by 2011, he says. What happens then, when the initial allocation of nearly $8.7 million, awarded back in 2000, runs out?

"We're going to act as a kind of shell or organizational structure to help investigators apply for funding with the NIH [and others]," he says. Grant says he is expecting no more funding from cash-strapped California.

Although 14 states have legalized medical marijuana, he says, California is the only state that has ''stepped up to the plate'' to do research.

Medical Marijuana Research: Other Opinions

The California center's studies are flawed, says Joel Hay, PhD, professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a vocal critic of medical marijuana.

"It's not medicine," he says of marijuana. "It would never be approved by the FDA.

''I certainly concede that cannabinoids may have a very valuable medical role," he says. But the danger is in the smoking of marijuana, he says, citing health effects.

Isolating the active ingredient is a better approach, he says, and has actually already been done. "If you want a cannabionoid, it's here," he says, referring to Marinol, available and FDA approved. The active ingredient is THC or tetrahydrocannabinol, the same as found in marijuana.

''Marijuana contains a huge variety of compounds, some of which have not even been thoroughly identified," Hay tells WebMD. The studies, he says, are all short-term, with small groups.

Another flaw, he says, is that it's difficult to have a true placebo when studying marijuana. "People know when they are consuming a psychoactive product," he says.

Another flaw is that patients were allowed to continue on their pain medicine, says Kevin Weissman, PharmD, director of drug information services at Los Angeles County+University of Southern California Medical Center. That may have affected the results.

Grant counters that it was not humane to take patients off pain medicines that were providing any degree of relief.

Like Hay, Weissman says marijuana does have an analgesic effect. But he worries about the long-term effect of marijuana smoke and says research is needed to find a safer delivery system that works, such as vaporization.

Here is the link to the actual article: http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20100218/medical-marijuana-has-merit-research-shows

Medical Marijuana: Putting Together California’s Research

By Anna Wilde Mathews

After California became the first state to allow medical use of marijuana, legislators decided in 1999 to fund research that was supposed figure out what the drug was good for therapeutically. Now we have an answer: a report issued today says it seems to ease some types of pain, and maybe muscle spasticity from multiple sclerosis.

Of course, lots of state residents have found their own, much more varied, answers, since California’s law is one of the most open-ended about who’s eligible for medical marijuana. Anyone who can get a doctor to write a recommendation, based on just about any medical condition, can buy marijuana in California. But this is the official report from the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, based at the University of California, San Diego.

Since its 2000 founding, the center has funded 15 clinical studies, including seven trials. The results include some fodder for medical-marijuana supporters who argue for the drug’s unique importance, particularly the finding that it worked as an add-on to more standard treatments for pain stemming from nerve damage.

The report argues marijuana may have a “novel mechanism of action not fully exploited by current therapies.” The drug may also have an effect on multiple-sclerosis patients’ spastic motions “beyond the benefit available from usual medical care,” the report says. Other research hasn’t shown this effect consistently.

The report also flags some mild side effects, including dizziness and, ahem, “changes in cognition.” Marijuana opponents will probably say that the studies weren’t long-term enough to show the potential downsides of chronic use.

The center has made these findings public before — they can be found on the center’s Web site. Still, the report is important because it pulls together the results in a document that is supposed to reach the general public.

And now that 13 other states have followed California in adopting medical marijuana laws, the research is likely to play a role as the Golden State once again tries to take the lead in marijuana policy: a California ballot measure that would attempt to legalize the drug’s use by adults 21 and older is likely to come to a vote later this year.

The WSJ took a recent look at marijuana research here.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/02/17/medical-marijuana-putting-together-californias-research/

Can Medical Marijuana Help Relieve Symptoms of Fibromyalgia?

Image via Wikipedia

Can Medical Marijuana Help Relieve Symptoms of Fibromyalgia?