Pubdate: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 Source: Press and Journal, The (UK) Copyright: 2003: Northcliffe Newspapers Group Ltd. Contact: http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/347 Author: Ian Oliver LET SCIENCE SETTLE THE GREAT CANNABIS CONTROVERSY Sympathy and emotional responses are not good grounds for deciding what should be regarded as medicine and whether a dangerous, mind-altering substance should be legalised. If we were to place our trust in limited and uninformed public opinion to draw up the pharmacopoeia, we would be on very dangerous ground. Judging from the reaction that has occurred in some quarters over the circumstances of an unfortunate woman in Orkney who has been flouting the/law by distributing cannabis chocolate to fellow-MS sufferers, that is exactly what some people are demanding. After the abandonment of the case against Elizabeth "Biz" Ivol for cultivating, possessing, and supplying cannabis, I was invited to take part in a radio discussion about whether or not cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes. Naturally, there was and remains an immense amount of sympathy for anyone who suffers from a chronic and incurable disease; that was very apparent from most of the contributions to the programme. Everyone wanted to allow the best possible care and treatment for Ms Ivol, a person who has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. However, some contributors approved of her manufacture, consumption, and supply of cannabis-laced chocolate and the growing of cannabis plants to enable her compassionate but illegal activities. The thrust of opinion was that if Biz and any other patients are able to get relief by consuming cannabis, then the law should allow them to do so. The fact that the cannabis plant is not classified as a medicine, and has not passed the tests necessary to receive a licence, has not deterred some in their pursuit of the quest to legalise the drug. Even distinguishing the good intentions of those who want cannabis to be used as a medicine from those who want to use the drug of their choice for recreational purposes, a profound ignorance prevails about the dangers. The Government must bear responsibility for failing to publicise accurate information about cannabis, particularly its alleged medicinal properties. FOR many years, there have been claims and anecdotal evidence that using cannabis has produced benefits for sufferers of various maladies. The US Office of National Drug Control Policy commissioned research by the National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine, to review the scientific record of marijuana. A report was published early in 1999, which concluded that some of the compounds found in the substance do have a potential as a medicine in the relief of symptoms such as pain, nausea and vomiting and poor appetite associated with the wasting diseases of Aids and cancer. This report demonstrated that, for most sufferers, there were other, more-effective drugs available, but for the few who do not respond to standard medications there is the possibility that new drugs could be developed from cannabinoids taken from the plant. The eventual approval of the use of cannabinoids should be subject to the same procedures as for the adoption of any other drug. The researchers did not support the use of cannabis for glaucoma, multiple sclerosis or any other chronic condition. International treaties oppose the legalisation of drugs of abuse. Cannabis has been recognised as a drug of abuse and its increased potency over the last two decades has made it the leading cause of drug-related emergency-room episodes in the US. New research indicates that it is a much more dangerous drug than was believed previously. The annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), in 1998, stressed that medical research should not become a pretext for legalising cannabis. The report concluded: "Political initiatives and public votes can easily be misused by groups promoting the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use under the guise of medical dispensation." An article in the British Medical Journal, in 2001, concluded that cannabinoids are no more effective at controlling pain than codeine and their depressant effects limit their usefulness. They should not be used in the treatment of acute pain and their widespread introduction for the clinical treatment of pain was said to be undesirable. Researchers from the University Hospital in Helsinki endorsed that view and demonstrated that a series of undesirable side-effects meant that cannabinoid derivatives had no place at present in mainstream medicine; there are better alternatives available. These findings were confirmed by the Pain Management Centre at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University. And, in an article in the British Medical Journal (July, 2001), it was stated that cannabis was not "a neglected wonder drug". Previously, the British Medical Association had issued a report entitled The Therapeutic Use of Cannabis, which concluded that cannabis itself was unsuitable for medical use. JUST about every month, some of the leading medical research centres around the world publish more information to show how dangerous a substance is cannabis. Thus, it is extremely unwise to regard it as a recreational or medicinal drug that should gain implicit Government approval by its failure to educate the public about the dangers. It is beyond dispute that cannabis affects adversely the cardio-vascular, central-nervous, respiratory, reproductive, immune and neuro-psychological systems. It is carcinogenic and produces psychosis in many young abusers. However much we might sympathise with those who suffer painful illnesses, it is important that we also understand the nature of cannabis and not react to anecdotal evidence, which is overwhelmingly countered by medical research. I cannot imagine that even the most hard-line opponent to the abuse of illicit drugs would object to any research-based medicine drawn from the cannabis plant. What we must not do is allow ourselves to be duped into believing that a few personal experiences with a mind-altering substance is persuasive evidence which justifies the legalisation of cannabis. If the medical (and not the political) world enthusiastically endorses the alleged medical benefits of cannabis, I shall be pleased that science has prevailed over ill-informed public opinion and political posturing. We must await the outcome of Government-approved trials. Until then, I shall continue to oppose self-medication with illegal drugs. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens