01/05/2007 16:00:00
New Studies Destroy the Last Objection to Medical Marijuana
---
New research on "vaporization" has demonstrated that all those fears
about the ill effects of smoking marijuana are 100 percent obsolete.
Anyone who advocates for medical marijuana sooner or later runs into
arguments about smoking: "No real medicine is smoked." "Smoking is bad
for the lungs; why would any doctor recommend something so harmful?"
It's a line of reasoning that medical marijuana opponents have used to
great effect in Congress, state legislatures, and elsewhere. Indeed, the
FDA's controversial 2006 statement opposing medical marijuana was
couched in repeated references to "smoked marijuana."
But new research demonstrates that all those fears of "smoked marijuana"
as medicine are 100 percent obsolete.
The smoking argument was the closest thing to a scientifically
meaningful objection to medical marijuana. While marijuana smoke, unlike
tobacco, has never been shown to cause lung cancer, heavy marijuana
smoking has been associated with assorted respiratory symptoms and a
potentially increased risk of bronchitis. That's because burning any
plant material produces a whole lot of substances such as tars, and
carbon monoxide that are not good for the lungs.
Nevertheless, inhalation is clearly the best method for administering
marijuana's active components, called cannabinoids. Cannabinoids such as
THC are fat-soluble molecules that are absorbed slowly and unevenly when
taken orally, as in the prescription THC pill Marinol. This means that
Marinol typically takes an hour to two hours to work, and dose
adjustment is nearly impossible. Patients often report that when it
finally kicks in, it hits like a ton of bricks, leaving them too stoned
to function.
For that reason, The Lancet Neurology noted a few years ago, "Smoking
has been the route of choice for many cannabis users because it delivers
a more rapid 'hit' and allows more accurate dose titration." Because the
effect is nearly instantaneous, patients can simply take as many puffs
as they need, stopping when they've achieved the needed effect without
excessive intoxication.
So far, no pharmaceutical product -- not even Sativex, the much-touted
marijuana spray now marketed in Canada -- achieves this combination of
rapid action and simple, accurate dose adjustment.
Back in 1999, the Institute of Medicine's White House-commissioned
report on medical marijuana conceded marijuana's medical benefits,
saying that what is needed is "a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug
delivery system."
The new studies -- one from the University of California, San Francisco,
and the other from the University at Albany, State University of New
York -- confirm that such a system is here. It's called vaporization,
and has been familiar to medical marijuana patients for many years, but
few outside the medical marijuana community know it exists. Unlike
smoking, a vaporizer does not burn the plant material, but heats it just
to the point at which the THC and the other cannabinoids vaporize. In
the Volcano vaporizer tested at UCSF, the vapors are collected in a
detachable plastic bag with a mouthpiece for inhalation.
The UCSF study, conducted by Dr. Donald Abrams and colleagues and just
published online by the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
(to appear in the journal's print edition on May) compared a
commercially available vaporizer called the Volcano to smoking in 18
volunteers. The subjects inhaled three different strengths of marijuana
either as smoked cigarettes or vaporized using the Volcano.
The researchers then measured the volunteers' plasma THC levels and the
amount of expired carbon monoxide, which is considered a reliable marker
for the unwanted combustion products contained in smoke.
The two methods produced similar THC levels, with vaporization producing
somewhat higher levels, and were judged equally efficient for
administration of cannabinoids. The big difference was in expired carbon
monoxide. As expected, there was a sharp increase in carbon monoxide
levels after smoking, while "little if any" increase was detected after
vaporization. "This indicates little or no exposure to gaseous
combustion toxins," the researchers wrote. "Vaporization of marijuana
does not result in exposure to combustion gases, and therefore is
expected to be much safer than smoking marijuana cigarettes."
A second study, by Dr. Mitch Earleywine at the University at Albany,
State University of New York, involved an Internet survey of nearly
7,000 marijuana users. Participants were asked to identify their primary
method of using marijuana (joints, pipe, vaporizer, edibles, etc.) and
were asked six questions about respiratory symptoms. After adjusting for
variables such as age and cigarette use, vaporizer users were 60 percent
less likely than smokers to report respiratory symptoms such as cough,
chest tightness or phlegm. The effect of vaporizer use was more
pronounced the larger the amount of marijuana used.
"Our study clearly suggests that the respiratory effects of marijuana
use can be decreased by use of a vaporizer," Earleywine commented. "In
fact, because we only asked participants about their primary means of
using marijuana, it's likely that people who exclusively use vaporizers
will get even more benefit than our results indicate, because no doubt
some in our study used vaporizers most of the time but not all of the time."
In a rational world, the government officials objecting to medical
marijuana based on the health risks of smoking would greet this research
with open arms. They would join with groups like the Marijuana Policy
Project in spreading the word about this important, health-enhancing
technology.
Don't hold your breath.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/51277/
Source:
http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=12511
Author:
Alternet via UKCIA
|