Cannabis Compounds Reduce Multi-Drug Resistant Infections
Study Says Cannabinoids Show "Exceptional" Antibacterial Activity Against MRSA Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB: GFON). Dr. Robert Melamede, PhD., Director and Chief Science Officer, reported to the Board on the current state of research into the use of natural plant cannabinoids to reduce the spread of drug-resistant bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA), and the prospects for development of topical whole-cannabis treatments.
According to studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and by the Center for Disease Control in 2007, MRSA is responsible for more than 18,500 hospital-stay related deaths each year, and increased direct healthcare costs of as much as $9.7 billion.
Dr. Melamede stated, “Research into use of whole cannabis extracts and multi-cannabinoid compounds has provided the scientific rationale for medical marijuana’s efficacy in treating some of the most troubling diseases mankind now faces, including infectious diseases such as the flu and HIV, autoimmune diseases such as ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and diabetes, neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s, stroke and brain injury, as well as numerous forms of cancer. One common element of these diseases is that patients often suffer extended hospital stays, risking development of various Staphyloccus infections including MRSA. A topical, whole-cannabis treatment for these infections is a functional complement to our cannabis extract-based lozenge.”
Investigators at Italy's Universita del Piemonte Orientale and Britain's University of London, School of Pharmacy reported in the Journal of Natural Products that five cannabinoids - THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, and CBN - "showed potent antibacterial activity" and "exceptional" antibacterial activity against two epidemic MRSA occurring in UK hospitals.
The authors concluded: "Although the use of cannabinoids as systemic antibacterial agents awaits rigorous clinical trials, … their topical application to reduce skin colonization by MRSA seems promising. … Cannabis sativa … represents an interesting source of antibacterial agents to address the problem of multidrug resistance in MRSA and other pathogenic bacteria."
About Cannabis Science, Inc.
Cannabis Science, Inc. is at the forefront of medical marijuana research and development.
The Company works with world authorities on phytocannabinoid science targeting critical illnesses, and adheres to scientific methodologies to develop, produce, and commercialize phytocannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products.
In sum, we are dedicated to the creation of cannabis-based medicines, both with and without psychoactive properties, to treat disease and the symptoms of disease, as well as for general health maintenance.
Forward-Looking Statements
This Press Release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934.
A statement containing works such as “anticipate,” “seek,” intend,” “believe,” “plan,” “estimate,” “expect,” "project," "plan," or similar phrases may be deemed "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Some or all of the events or results anticipated by these forward-looking statements may not occur.
Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include the future U.S. and global economies, the impact of competition, and the Company’s reliance on existing regulations regarding the use and development of cannabis-based drugs.
Cannabis Science, Inc. does not undertake any duty nor does it intend to update the results of these forward-looking statements.
Cannabis Science Inc.
Steven W. Kubby, 888-889-0888
President & CEO
info@cannabisscience.com
www.cannabisscience.com
Wednesday 7 March 2012
Cannabis News - Cannabis Compounds Reduce Multi-Drug Resistant Infections
Spider silk conducts heat better than copper (Wired UK)
Spider silk conducts heat better than copper
07 March 12
Comments 1In addition to being extremely strong and stretchy, spider silk conducts heat better than most materials, including silicon, aluminium and pure iron, mechanical engineers at Iowa State University have discovered.
Spider silk has long been the subject of scientific scrutiny, but mostly for its impressive strength. Xinwei Wang, lead researcher on the study, was keen to put speculation that spider silk would be a good thermal conductor to the test as part of a search for organic materials that can effectively transfer heat; most materials from living things are very bad at conducting heat. Wang enlisted the help of eight golden silk orbweaver spiders. They were given lodgings in an Iowa State University greenhouse and fed crickets to fuel their web-spinning.
Wang, along with colleagues Xiaopeng Huang and Guoging Liu, found that spider silk conducts heat 1,000 times better than woven silkworm silk and 800 times better than other organic tissues. Spider silk conducts heat at a rate of 416 watts per metre Kelvin, compared with copper at 401 and skin at 0.6 watts per metre Kelvin.
Wang said: "This is very surprising because spider silk is organic material. For organic material, this is the highest ever. There are only a few materials higher -- silver and diamond."
The thermal conductivity of the spider silk also increased by 20 percent when it was stretched to its 20 percent limit. Most materials lose thermal conductivity when stretched.
These unusual properties are down to the defect-free molecular structure of spider silk, including proteins that contain nanocrystals and the spring-shaped structures connecting the proteins. However, more research is needed to fully understand why spider silk is so good at conducting heat.
This discovery could open a door to using spider silk to create flexible, heat-dissipating parts for electronics, better clothes for hot weather and bandages that don't trap heat.
The research is detailed in a paper in Advanced Materials called New Secrets of Spider Silk: Exceptionally High Thermal Conductivity and its Abnormal Change under Stretching.
Image: P7168396 / Hunter Desportes / CC BY 2.0
Joseph Kony From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - KONY 2012
Joseph Kony
| Joseph Kony | |
|---|---|
| Born | Joseph Kony 1961[1] Odek, Uganda |
| Nationality | Ugandan |
| Known for | Leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) |
| Height | 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m) |
| Title | Leader of the Lord's Resistance Army |
| Spouse | Thought to have over 60 wives[2] |
| Children | Thought to have 42 children[3] |
Joseph Kony (born 1961 in Odek, Uganda[1]) is a Ugandan guerrilla group leader, head of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a group engaged in a violent campaign to establish theocratic government based on the Ten Commandments throughout Uganda.[1] The LRA say that God has sent spirits to communicate this mission directly to Kony.[4]
Directed by Kony, the LRA has earned a reputation for its actions against the people of several countries, including northern Uganda, theDemocratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Sudan. It has abducted and forced an estimated 66,000 children to fight for them, and has also forced the internal displacement of over 2,000,000 people since its rebellion began in 1986.[5] As a result, in 2005 Kony was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court at the Hague, but has succeeded in evading capture since.[6]
Contents[hide] |
Biography
Early life
Joseph Kony was born in 1961 in Odek, a village east of Gulu in northern Uganda.[1][2] A member of the Acholi,[1] Kony was the son of farmers. He had a good relationship with his siblings, but if he was betrayed he would not hesitate to retaliate.[7] When confronted, he often resorted to his fists rather than parrying verbally. He was teased in school about his size and the teachers gave him a hard time for his low grades. His father was a lay catechist of the Catholic Church and his mother was an Anglican. Kony was an altar boy for several years, but he stopped attending church at about the age of 15.[7] As a teenager, Kony apprenticed as the village witch doctor under his older brother, Jamie Brow, and when his older brother died, he took over full responsibility.[8] He did not graduate high school. Kony first came to prominence in January 1986. His group was one of many premillennialist groups that sprang up in Acholiland in the wake of the wildly popular Holy Spirit Movement of Alice Auma (aka Lakwena), to whom Kony is thought to be related.[1] However, their relative loss of influence after the overthrow of Acholi President Tito Okello by Yoweri Museveni and his National Resistance Army (NRA) during the Ugandan Bush War (1981–1986) spurred resentment among the Acholi.
Lord's Resistance Army
Originally Kony's group was named the United Holy Salvation Army (UHSA) and was not perceived as a threat by the NRA. By 1988, with the accord between NRA and the Uganda People's Democratic Army and addition of its remnant troops as well as forced recruitment of children the United Holy Salvation Army was becoming a formidable resistance army. The bulk of his foot soldiers were children.[7] Whilst estimates of the number of children conscripted since 1986 vary, some put the figure as high as 104,000.[7] He often killed their family and neighbors when abducting these children, forcing them to fight for him.[7] With these remnants of UPDA was commander Odong Latek, who convinced Kony to use standard military tactics as opposed to its previous attempts which involved attacking in cross-shaped formations and the use of holy water. The new tactics proved successful and the UHSA delivered several small but stinging defeats against the NRA. After these victories the NRA responded by significantly weakening Kony's group with political actions and a military campaign namedOperation North. The operation was devastating to what would become the Lord's Resistance Army and with their number reduced from thousands to hundreds still engaged in retaliatory attacks on civilians and NRA collaborators.
By 1992, Kony had renamed the group the United Democratic Christian Army and it was at this time that they kidnapped 44 girls from the Sacred Heart Secondary and St. Mary's girls schools.[9]
Betty Bigombe remembered that the first time she met Kony, his followers used oil to ward-off bullets and evil spirits.[10] In a letter regarding future talks, Kony stated that he must consult the Holy Spirit. When the talks did occur they insisted on participation of religious leaders and opened the proceedings with prayers led by LRA's Director of Religious Affairs Jenaro Bongomi. Finally, during the 1994 peace talks Kony appeared preceded by men in robes sprinkling holy water.[2]
Joseph Kony was thought among followers and detractors alike to have been possessed by spirits; he has been portrayed as either the Messiah or the Devil. He reportedly made annual trips to the Ato Hills in Uganda. He would allegedly ascend to the highest of the hills and lie down in the hot sun for days. He would be covered by a blanket of red termites that slashed deeply into his skin. Oil from the Yao plant was spread over his body. Then he would enter a cave and stay in seclusion for weeks.[citation needed] Kony believes in the literal protection provided by a cross symbol and tells his child soldiers a cross on their chest drawn in oil would protect them from bullets.[7] Kony insists that he and the Lord's Resistance Army are fighting for the Ten Commandments, defending his actions: "Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph. It was not given by LRA. No, those commandments were given by God."[11]
The Ugandan military has attempted to kill Kony for most of the insurgency. Uganda's latest attempt towards tracking down Kony has been to enlist the help of former LRA combatants to search remote areas of the Central African Republic, the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where he was last seen.[12]
Indictment
| Lord's Resistance Army insurgency |
|---|
 |
| Events 1987–1994 |
| |
After the September 11th attacks, the United States declared the Lord's Resistance Army a terrorist group.[13] On October 6, 2005, it was announced by the International Criminal Court (ICC) that arrest warrants had been issued for five members of the Lord's Resistance Army for crimes against humanityfollowing a sealed indictment. On the next day Ugandan defense minister Amama Mbabazi revealed that the warrants include Joseph Kony, his deputyVincent Otti, and LRA commanders Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odiambo and Dominic Ongwen. According to spokesmen for the military, the Ugandan army killed Lukwiya on August 12, 2006.[6]
A week later, on October 13, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo released details on Kony's indictment. There are 33 charges, 12 counts are crimes against humanity, which include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and rape. There are another 21 counts of war crimes which include murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population, pillaging, inducing rape, and forced enlisting of children into the rebel ranks. Ocampo said that "Kony was abducting girls to offer them as rewards to his commanders."
On July 31, 2006, Kony met with several cultural, political, and religious leaders from northern Uganda at his hideout in the Congolese forests to discuss the war.[citation needed] The following day, August 1, he crossed the border into Sudan to speak with Southern Sudan Vice President Riek Machar. Kony later told reporters that he would not be willing to stand trial at the ICC because he had not done anything wrong.[citation needed]
On November 12, 2006, Kony met Jan Egeland, the United Nations Undersecretary-General for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief. Kony toldReuters: "We don't have any children. We only have combatants."[14]
U.S. action against Kony
On August 28, 2008, the United States Treasury Department placed Kony on its list of "Specially Designated Global Terrorists," a designation that carries financial and other penalties.[15] It is not known whether Kony has any assets that are affected by this designation.
In May 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,[16] legislation aimed at stopping Kony and the LRA. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate on March 11, 2010 with 65 senators as cosponsors, then passed unanimously in the House of Representatives on May 13, 2010 with 202 representatives as cosponsors.
In November 2010, Obama delivered a strategy document to Congress, asking for more money to disarm Kony and the LRA.[17]
In October 2011, Obama authorized the deployment of approximately 100 combat-equipped U.S. troops to central Africa.[18] They will help regional forces “remove from the battlefield” Joseph Kony and senior LRA leaders. "Although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense," Obama said in a letter to Congress.
Kony 2012
In March 2012, U.S.-based campaign group and not-for-profit Invisible Children Inc released a short film promoting awareness of Kony and his actions and encouraging supporters to donate to their cause.[19] Intended to go viral on social networks, particularly Facebook, within 48 hours news media had described it as having succeeded in that aim;[19] on Facebook, it has received over 3 million shares, exceeding Invisible Children's target of 500,000.[20] The film, Kony 2012, currently has over 1.3 million views on Vimeo,[21] and 100 thousand views on social media site YouTube,[22] with other viewing emanating from a central "Kony2012" website operated by Invisible Children.
See also
- Children of War
- The World's 10 Most Wanted
- Invisible Children (2006 documentary film)
References
- ^ a b c d e f Daniel Howden (November 8, 2008). "The deadly cult of Joseph Kony". The Independent. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
- ^ a b c "Profile: Joseph Kony". BBC News. October 7, 2005. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
- ^ Beatrice Debut Gulu (February 10, 2006). "Portrait of Uganda's rebel prophet, painted by wives". Mail & Guardian Online. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
- ^ "Joseph Kony". The New York Times. October 13, 2011. Retrieved October 21, 2011. "Mr. Kony has presented himself over the years as the channel through which these lingering voices communicate from the beyond."
- ^ "Read The Bill: H.R. 2478". GovTrack.us. 2009-05-19. Retrieved July 11, 2011.
- ^ a b "Ugandan army 'kills senior rebel'". BBC News. August 13, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f Jimmie Briggs (2005). Innocents Lost: When Child soldiers Go to war.
- ^ Peter Eichstaedt, First Kill Your Family: Child Soldiers of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army, p. 206
- ^ "Crises in Sudan and Northern Uganda". Subcommittee on Africa. U.S. House of Representatives. July 29, 1998. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
- ^ Boustany, Nora (July 11, 2007). "The Woman Behind Uganda's Peace Hopes". The Washington Post. p. 3. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
- ^ "I will use the Ten Commandments to liberate Uganda". Times Online. (subscription required)
- ^ Gettleman, Jeffrey (2010-04-10). "Uganda Enlists Former Rebels to End a War". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 2011-07-11.
- ^ Philip T. Reeker (December 6, 2001). "Statement on the Designation of 39 Organizations on the USA PATRIOT Act's Terrorist Exclusion List". U.S. Department of State.
- ^ "[AlertNet"]. (subscription required)
- ^ Capaccio, Tony (October 14, 2011). "Obama Sends Troops Against Uganda Rebels". Bloomberg News. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
- ^ "LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009". Resolve Uganda. May 24, 2010.
- ^ Kavanagh, Michael J. (November 25, 2010). "Obama Administration Asks for Funds to Boost Uganda's Fight Against Rebels". Bloomberg. Retrieved October 15, 2011.
- ^ Gerson, Michael (January 26, 2011). "Joseph Kony and the international effort to bring him to justice". Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
- ^ a b "News Hour - Trending Now: Kony 2012". GlobalTVBC. March 6, 2012. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
- ^ Lees, Philippa (March 7, 201). "Kony 2012 sheds light on Uganda conflict". Ninemsn. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
- ^ "Kony 2012". Vimeo.
- ^ "Kony 2012". YouTube. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
External links
 | This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removingexcessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (October 2011) |
- "Wanted": Joseph Kony on Interpol`s list of wanted persons
- The Rescue of Joseph Kony's Child Soldiers
- Girl Soldiers - The cost of survival in Northern Uganda Women News Network - WNN
- "I want peace talks to resume" Audio interview with Kony on Radio France Internationale English Service 22 June 2008
- I want peace, but Museveni is the problem, says Kony, transcript of Joseph Kony's call in to a political talk show on the Mega FM radio station broadcasting from Gulu on 28 December 2002
- Kony's eldest son killed, New Vision, 8 July 2005
- Hague Justice Portal: Joseph Kony
- J. Carter Johnson, Deliver Us from Kony, Christianity Today, January 2006
- Sam Farmar, Uganda rebel leader breaks silence (interview with downloadable audio in MP3 format), BBC Newsnight, 28 June 2006, also on Google Video
- Ruud Elmendorp's video interview with Joseph Kony on Rocketboom 16 August 2006
- Ochola John, LRA victim: 'I cannot forget and forgive', BBC, 29 June 2006
- Julia Spiegel of the Enough Project discusses efforts to kill Joseph Kony Bloggingheads TV diavlog Sunday, 11 January 2009
- Most Wanted Slideshow
- Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson's article on Kony, January 26, 2012.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday 6 March 2012
Jon Stewart compares Limbaugh to pungent bucket of raw sewage | The Raw Story
Jon Stewart compares Limbaugh to pungent bucket of raw sewage
By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 0:05 EST
On his show Monday night, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart skewered conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
Stewart first noted that many of his viewers made whoopee while his show was broadcasting, but warned them against engaging in “sexy time” because of the following segment.
“Tonight you might want to post-bone those activities,” he said, “because while the show will still be employing the Spanish fly that is a comedic take on political news, we will be mixing it with the electrodes to your genitals that is this cat, human cold shower Rush Limbaugh.”
Limbaugh recently attacked Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke because of her testimony in Congress about contraception, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
“You’ve got to misunderstand so many things. One, he seems to believe that anyone using contraception is automatically having a ton of sex and that contraception is something women have to pay for every time she has sex and that nevertheless the women is benefiting from it financially from having all that dirty contraceptive fueled sex. ”
“Personally, I don’t get too worked up about things Rush Limbaugh says because he is — and has been for many years — a terrible person,” Stewart said. “So its Rush Limbaugh. Is it particularly vile Rush Limbaugh? Of course. That’s like saying this is a particularly pungent bucket of raw sewage mixed with rotting cow guts and typhoid.”
He ended his segment by observing that Fox News host Megyn Kelly had railed against the idea that employers should be required to cover contraception, speculating that Fluke had a “sense of entitlement.”
Stewart then played a clip of Kelly criticizing the fact that the United States was the only industrialized country that does not require paid maternity leave.
“You know where that maternity leave came from, right?” he asked. “Nine months prior, half a bottle of Chablis, DVD copy of the Notebook, scented candles. If you took maternity leave and employers were required to pay that for you, then we paid for you to have sex — which by the way, fine, you deserve it.”
Watch video, via Mediaite, below:
Hemp Edification: Why Marinol Is Not As Good As Real Marijuana
Hemp Edification
06 March 2012
Why Marinol Is Not As Good As Real Marijuana
Marinol Versus Marijuana
Last week I received a call from an attorney in Eugene that is representing a medical marijuana patient that is on probation. The judge is willing to allow the medical marijuana patient to use Marinol while he serves his probation, but not raw medical marijuana. The attorney admitted that he knows nothing about medical marijuana, but felt that the judge is willing to listen to an argument that would support the medical marijuana patient being allowed to consume raw marijuana. Rather than just send over what I dug up for the attorney, I figured I would post it here so everyone could benefit from it. Who knows, it just might come in handy if you or someone you know is in a similar position. Below is an article that was written by Paul Armentano for NORML :
Introduction
Marinol[1] (dronabinol) is the only US FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoid. It is often marketed as a legal pharmaceutical alternative to natural cannabis.
Marinol is manufactured as a gelatin capsule containing synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in sesame oil. It is taken orally and is available in 2.5mg, 5mg and/or 10mg dosages. Marinol may be prescribed for the treatment of cachexia (weight loss) in patients with AIDS and for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic treatments.
Despite FDA approval[2] , Marinol typically provides only limited relief to select patients, particularly when compared to natural cannabis and its cannabinoids. Marinol should remain a legal option for patients and physicians; however, federal and state laws should be amended to allow for those patients who are unresponsive to synthetic THC the ability to use natural cannabis and its cannabinoids as a medical therapy without fear of arrest and/or criminal prosecution. By prohibiting the possession and use of natural cannabis and its cannabinoids, patients are unnecessarily restricted to use a synthetic substitute that lacks much of the therapeutic efficacy of natural cannabis.
Marinol Lacks Several of the Therapeutic Compounds Available in Natural Cannabis
Chemical compounds in cannabis, known as cannabinoids, are responsible for its numerous therapeutic benefits. Scientists have identified 66 naturally occurring cannabinoids.[3]
The active ingredient in Marinol, synthetic delta-9-tetrahyrdocannabinol (THC), is an analogue of one such compound, THC. However, several other cannabinoids available in cannabis — in addition to naturally occurring terpenoids (oils) and flavonoids (phenols) — have also been clinically demonstrated to possess therapeutic utility. Many patients favor natural cannabis to Marinol because it includes these other therapeutically active cannabinoids.
For example, cannabidol (CBD) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid that has been clinically demonstrated to have analgesic, antispasmodic, anxiolytic, antipsychotic, antinausea, and anti-rheumatoid arthritic properties.[4]Animal and human studies have shown CBD to possess anti-convulsant properties, particularly in the treatment of epilepsy.[5] Natural extracts of CBD, when administered in combination with THC, significantly reduce pain, spasticity and other symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients unresponsive to standard treatment medications.[6]
Clinical studies also demonstrate CBD to be neuroprotective against glutamate neurotoxicity[7] (i.e. stroke), cerebral infarction[8] (localized cell death in the brain), and ethanol-induced neurotoxicity,[9] with CBD being more protective against glutamate neurotoxicity than either ascorbate (vitamin C) or alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E).[10] Clinical trials have also shown CBD to possess anti-tumoral properties,[11] inhibiting the growth of glioma (brain tumor) cells in a dose dependent manner and selectively inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death) in malignant cells.[12]Additional cannabinoids possessing clinically demonstrated therapeutic properties include: cannabinol (anticonvulsant[13] and anti-inflammatory[14] activity); cannabichromine (anti-inflammatory[15] and antidepressant[16] activity); and cannabigerol (anti-tumoral[17] and analgesic[18] activity). Natural cannabis’ essential oil components (terpenoids) exhibit anti-inflammatory properties[19] and its flavonoids possess antioxidant activity.[20] Emerging clinical evidence indicates that cannabinoids may slow disease progression[21] in certain autoimmune and neurologic diseases, including multiple sclerosis[22] (MS), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis[23] (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and Huntington’s Disease.[24]
Clinical data indicate that the synergism of these compounds is likely more efficacious[25] than the administration of synthetic THC alone.[26] For example, McPartland and Russo write: “Good evidence shows that secondary compounds in cannabis may enhance beneficial effects of THC. Other cannabinoid and non-cannabinoid compounds in herbal cannabis … may reduce THC-induced anxiety, cholinergic deficits, and immunosuppression. Cannabis terpenoids and flavonoids may also increase cerebral blood flow, enhance cortical activity, kill respiratory pathogens, and provide anti-inflammatory activity.”[27] In an in vitro model of epilepsy, natural cannabis extracts performed better than THC alone.[28] In human trials, patients suffering from multiple sclerosis experienced greater symptomatic relief from sublingual natural cannabis extracts than from the administration of oral THC.[29] In 2005, Health Canada approved the oral spray Sativex[30] – which contains precise ratios of the natural cannabinoid extracts THC and CBD, among other compounds — for prescription use for MS-related symptoms.[31]
Marinol is More Psychoactive Than Natural Cannabis
Patients prescribed Marinol frequently report that its psychoactive effects are far greater than those of natural cannabis. Marinol’s adverse effects include: feeling “high,” drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, anxiety, changes in mood, muddled thinking, perceptual difficulties, coordination impairment, irritability, and depression.[32] These psychoactive effects may last four to six hours.[33] About one-third of patients prescribed Marinol report experiencing one or some of these adverse effects.[34]
Marinol’s oral route of administration is responsible, in part, for its heightened psychoactivity compared to inhaled cannabis. Once swallowed, Marinol passes from the stomach to the small intestine before being absorbed into the bloodstream. Following absorption, Marinol passes through the liver where a significant proportion of the drug is metabolized into other chemicals.[35] One of these chemicals, 11-hydroxy-THC, may be four to five times more potent than natural THC,[36] and is produced in greater quantities.[37] Thus, patients administered Marinol experience the psychoactive effects of both THC and 11-hydroxy-THC, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will suffer from an adverse psychological reaction. By comparison, only minute quantities of 11-hydroxy-THC are produced when cannabis is inhaled.[38] Moreover, Marinol lacks the compound cannabidiol, which possesses anxiolytic activity and likely modifies and/or diminishes much of THC’s psychoactivity in natural cannabis.[39]
Cannabis Vaporization Offers Advantages Over Orally Administered THC
Vaporization is an alternative method of cannabis administration that holds distinct advantages over both smoking and oral administration. Cannabis vaporization suppresses respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius).[40] Although a comprehensive review of cannabis and health conducted by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found “no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use,”[41] studies have found that heavy cannabis smokers face a higher risk of contracting bronchitis and respiratory illnesses.[42] This risk is likely not due to the inhalation of cannabinoids, but rather to the exposure of noxious smoke. Because vaporization can deliver therapeutic doses of cannabinoids while reducing the users intake of pyrolytic smoke compounds, it is considered to be a preferred and likely safer method of cannabis administration than smoking.[43]In practice, cannabis vaporization offers considerable advantages over oral THC consumption. While the oral ingestion of Marinol avoids the potential risks of smoking, it has significant drawbacks. Because of synthetic THC’s poor bioavailability, only 5-20 percent of an oral dose ever reaches the bloodstream[44] and the drug may not achieve peak effect until four hours after dosing.[45] Moreover, because Marinol is metabolized slowly, its therapeutic and psychoactive effects may be unpredictable and vary considerably, both from one person to another, and in the same person from one episode of use to another.[46] By contrast, cannabis vaporization delivers cannabinoids to the bloodstream almost instantaneously.[47] Vaporization’s rapid onset also allows patients to self regulate their dosage of cannabinoids by immediately ceasing inhalation when/if their psychoactive effects become unpleasant.[48] After oral administration of Marinol, patients have no choice but to experience the full psychoactive effects of the dose consumed. These dysphoric effects may last several hours.
Because of its rapid onset, vaporized cannabis is more desirable than Marinol for patients requiring a fast-acting therapeutic agent, such as those combating oncoming attacks of nausea, seizures or muscle spasms. Cannabis vaporization also offers a unique advantage to patients suffering from nausea and vomiting because it allows them an alternative delivery route to swallowing. Cancer and HIV/AIDS patients often report that their stomachs cannot hold down Marinol capsules during bouts of severe nausea[49] and many rely on natural cannabis and cannabinoids for symptom control.[50] In a 1994 survey of oncologists, respondents ranked synthetic THC ninth on a list of available antiemetic medications.[51] In another survey of oncologists, 44 percent of respondents said that they believed natural cannabis to be more efficacious than oral synthetic THC; only 13 percent of respondents rated Marinol more effective.[52] A 1997 survey of physicians found that a majority preferred megestrol acetate over Marinol as an appetite stimulant in patients with HIV/AIDS.[53]
As a result of Marinol’s slow onset and poor bioavailablity, scientists are now in the process of developing a new formulation of pulmonary dronabinol, delivered with a pressurized metered dose inhaler.[54] In a Phase I study, pulmonary Marinol delivered via an inhaler provided rapid systemic absorption. Unlike oral synthetic THC, it’s possible that pulmonary Marinol “could offer an alternative for patients when a fast onset of action is desirable.”[55] However, FDA approval of pulmonary Marinol and/or its inhaler remains years away. Sativex, an oral cannabis spray consisting of natural cannabinoid extracts, has greater bioavailability and is faster acting than oral synthetic THC. Clinical trials comparing its bioavailability and time of peak onset compared to vaporized cannabis have not been performed, though anecdotal reports indicate that vaporized cannabis and its cannabinoids likely possess greater bioavailability and are faster acting than the Sativex spray.
Marinol is More Expensive Than Natural Cannabis
Synthetic THC is a costly and difficult compound to manufacture.[56] Much of this cost is passed on to the patient consumer, particularly if the full cost of Marinol (approximately $200 to $800 per month,[57] depending on the dosage) is borne out of pocket. Patients, particularly those with chronic conditions, often report that Marinol’s market cost limits their use of the drug.[58] Doctors also report that Marinol’s high cost dissuades them from prescribing it to patients. In one survey of HIV/AIDS specialists, among respondents who had never prescribed Marinol to their patients, 33 percent cited the high cost of the drug as the reason.[59] Natural cannabis, even at its inflated black market value, often remains far less costly for patients than oral synthetic THC.[60]
Patients Ultimately Prefer Natural Cannabis to Marinol
In the 1970s and 1980s, several states conducted patient trials[61] of natural cannabis’ effectiveness as an anti-emetic in cancer patients unresponsive to conventional therapies. Some state protocols allowed patients to choose between inhaled cannabis[62] and synthetic THC. In those studies which compared natural cannabis to dronabinol, inhaled cannabis was equal to or better than the oral administration of synthetic THC.[63]For example, researchers at the Tennessee Board of Pharmacy found a “23 percent higher success rate among those patients smoking than among those patients administered THC capsules” in the treatment of nausea and/or vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy.[64]
Researchers in New Mexico observed similar findings. “When the routes of [drug] administration were analyzed separately, it was found that inhalation was far superior to ingestion: 90.39 percent of the patients in the group that inhaled the marijuana showed improvement while only 59.65 percent of the patients in the group that orally ingested the delta-9-THC showed improvement,” they concluded.[65]
Researchers at the California Board of Pharmacy found that inhaled cannabis and oral THC produced similar results in patients. However, physicians still rated natural cannabis as slightly more effective than oral THC as an anti-emetic.[66]A 1988 New York State pilot study comparing inhaled cannabis to oral THC in cancer chemotherapy patients who were unresponsive to standard antiemetic agents found: “Twenty-nine percent of patients who failed oral THC responded to the cigarette form. … Our results demonstrate that inhalation marijuana is an effective therapy for the treatment of nausea and vomiting due to cancer chemotherapy.”[67]
Today, several patient populations continue to use natural cannabis and its cannabinoids in large numbers despite its illegality and the availability of Marinol. A 2005 British survey of more than 500 HIV/AIDS patients found that one-third of respondents use natural cannabis for symptomatic relief, with more than 90 percent of them reporting that it improves their appetite, muscle pain and other symptoms.[68] A previous US survey found that approximately one out of four patients with HIV had used natural cannabis medicinally in the past month.[69]
Cannabis use is also prevalent among patients with neurologic disorders. Nearly four out of ten Dutch patients with prescriptions for “medical grade cannabis” (cannabis provided by Dutch pharmacies with a standardized THC content of 10.2 percent) use it to treat MS or spinal cord injuries, according to survey data published in 2005 in the journal Neurology.[70] Perceived efficacy is greater among respondents who inhale cannabis versus those who ingest it orally, the study found.[71]
A 2002 British survey of MS patients found that 43 percent of respondents used natural cannabis therapeutically, with about half admitting they used it regularly.[72] Seventy-six percent said they would do so if cannabis were legal.[73] A Canadian survey of MS patients found that 96 percent of respondents were “aware cannabis was potentially therapeutically useful for MS and most (72 percent) supported [its] legalization for medicinal purposes.”[74] Sixteen percent of respondents answered that they use natural cannabis for medical purposes to treat symptoms of anxiety/depression, spasticity and chronic pain.[75]
A more recent Canadian survey published in Neurology reported that 14 percent of MS[76] patients and 21 percent of respondents with epilepsy had used medical cannabis in the past year.[77] Among epileptics, twenty-four percent of respondents said that they believed that cannabis was an effective therapy for the disease.[78] A 2002 survey of patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) found that 25 percent of respondents had tried cannabis, with nearly half of those saying that it provided them symptomatic relief.[79]
Conclusion
Oral synthetic THC, legally available by prescription as Marinol, often provides only limited relief to a select group of patients, particularly when compared to natural cannabis and its cannabinoids. Patients often experience minimal relief from Marinol and many experience unwanted side effects. In addition, many physicians are hesitant to prescribe the drug, and some patients are unable to afford it. Despite Marinol’s legality, many patient populations continue to risk arrest and criminal prosecution to use natural cannabis medically, and most report experiencing greater therapeutic relief from it.
The active ingredient in Marinol is a synthetic analogue of only one of the compounds in cannabis that is therapeutically beneficial to patients. By prohibiting the possession and use of natural cannabis and its cannabinoids, patients are unnecessarily burdened to use a synthetic substitute that lacks much of the therapeutic efficacy of natural cannabis and its cannabinoids.
Marinol should remain a legal option for patients and physicians and the development of additional cannabis-based pharmaceuticals should be encouraged. However, federal and state laws should be amended to allow for those patients who are unresponsive to synthetic THC, or simply desire an alternative to oral dronabinol, the ability to use natural cannabis and its cannabinoids as a legal medical therapy without fear of arrest and/or criminal prosecution.
March 5, 2012
Johnny Green
THE Weed Blog
End notes
1 Marinol is produced and marketed by Unimed Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Solvay Pharmaceuticals.
2 The FDA approved Marinol in 1985 as a Schedule II controlled substance. By definition, Schedule II drugs adhere to the following criteria: (A) The drug has a high potential for abuse; (B) The drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; (C) Abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. In 1999, Marinol was downgraded to a Schedule III controlled substance. By definition, Schedule III drugs adhere to the following criteria: (A) The drug has a potential for abuse less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs; (B) The drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; (C) Abuse of the drug may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
3 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. p. 25: Table 1.5: Cannabinoids Identified in Marijuana.
4 R. Mechoulam et al. 2003. Cannabidiol: an overview of some pharmacological aspects. Neuroscience Letters 346: 61-64; J. McPartland and E. Russo. 2002. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: greater than the sum of their parts. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1: 103-132; A. Zuardi and F Guimaraes. Cannabidiol as an anxiolytic and antipsychotic. In: M. Mathre (Ed): Cannabis in medical practice: a legal, historical and pharmacological overview of therapeutic use of marijuana. McFarland Press: 1997: 133-141.
5 P. Consroe and S. Snider. Therapeutic Potential of Cannabinoids in Neurological Disorders. In: R. Mechoulam (Ed): Cannabinoids as Therapeutic Agents. CRC Press: 1986 21-51; E. Carlini and J. Cunha. 1981. Hypnotic and antiepileptic effects of cannabidiol. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 21: 417S-427S; J. Cunha et al. 1980. Chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers and epileptic patients. Pharmacology 21: 175-185.
6 D. Wade et al. 2004. Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients.Multiple Sclerosis 10: 339-340; D. Wade et al. 2003. A preliminary controlled study to determine whether whole-plant cannabis extracts can improve intractable neurogenic symptoms. Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation 17: 21-29.
7 A. Hampson et al. 1998. Cannabidiol and THC are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 8268-8273.
8 K. Mishima et al. 2005. Cannabidiol Prevents Cerebral Infarction. Stroke 36: 1077-1082.
9 C. Hamelink et al. 2005. Comparison of cannabidiol, antioxidants, and diuretics in reversing binge ethanol-induced neurotoxicity. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (electronically published May 5, 2005, ahead of printing).
10 A. Hampson, et al. 1998. Cannabidiol and THC are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
11 H. Patsos et al. 2005. Cannabinoids and cancer: potential for colorectal cancer therapy. Biochemical Society Transactions. 33: 712-714; M. Guzman. 2003. Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents.Nature Reviews Cancer 3: 745-755.
12 P. Massi et al. 2004. Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 308: 838-845; G. Carter et al. 2004. Medical marijuana: emerging applications for the management of neurologic disorders.Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 15: 943-954.
13 C. Turner et al. 1980. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L.: A review of the natural constituents.Journal of Natural Products 43: 169-304.
14 F. Evans. 1991. Cannabinoids; the separation of central from peripheral effects on a structural basis.Planta Medica 57: S60-S67.
15 P. Wirth et al. 1980. Anti-inflammatory properties of cannabichromene. Life Science 26: 1991-1995.
16 R. Deyo and R. Musty. A cannabichromene (CBC) extract alters behavioral despair on the mouse tail suspension test of depression. In: International Cannabinoid Research Society (Ed.) 2003 Symposium on the Cannabinoids. ICRS: 2003.
17 S. Baek et al. 1998. Antitumor activity of cannabigerol against human oral epitheloid carcinoma cells.Archives of Pharmacal Research 21: 353-356.
18 J. McPartland and E. Russo. 2002. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: greater than the sum of their parts. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Society for Neuroscience. “Marijuana-like compound may aid array of debilitating conditions ranging from Parkinson’s Disease to pain.” October 26, 2004.
22 G. Pryce et al. 2003. Cannabinoids inhibit neurodegeneration in models of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 126: 2191-2202.
23 C. Raman et al. 2004. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: delayed disease progression in mice by treatment with a cannabinoid. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis & Other Motor Neuron Disorders 5: 33-39.
24 I. Lastres-Becker et al. 2003. Effects of cannabinoids in the rat model of Huntington’s disease generated by an intrastraital injection of malonate. Neuroreport 14: 813-816.
25 E. Williamson. 2001. Synergy and other interactions in phytomedicines. Phytomedicine: International Journal of Phytotherapy and Phytopharmacology 8: 401-409.
26 A. Holdcroft. 2001. Cannabinoids: from plant to patient. Investigative Drugs Journal. 4: 773-775. (See specifically: Abstract: “The active constituents of cannabis, predominantly cannabinoids and possibly flavonoids, are more effective than a single cannabinoid. … Government … clinical trials of cannabis … should enable evidence to be presented to regulatory bodies documenting the medicinal uses of standardized cannabis plant material.”)
27 J. McPartland and E. Russo. 2002. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: greater than the sum of their parts. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. p. 103.
28 The Pharmaceutical Journal. “Cannabis herb may have advantages over THC in epilepsy.” July 19, 2003.
29 Comparison of results from: D. Wade et al. 2004. Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients. Multiple Sclerosis (See specifically: Abstract: Spasticity VAS scores were significantly reduced by cannabis-based medicinal extracts in comparison with placebo.) and J. Zajicek et al. 2003. Cannabinoids for treatment of spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 362: 1517-26 (See specifically: Abstract: Treatment with [oral cannabis extract or THC] did not have a beneficial effect on spasticity.)
30 http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com/projects/sativex/
31 Canada News Wire. “Sativex: Novel cannabis derived treatment for MS pain now available in Canada by prescription.” June 20, 2005.
32 Physician’s Desk Reference: 43rd edition. Medical Economics Company. 1989: 1859-1860.
33 Physician’s Desk Reference: 52nd edition. Medical Economics Company. 1998: 2353-2355.
34 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 203.
35 J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. The Lindesmith Center. 1997: 18-19.
36 L. Lemberger et al. 1973. Comparative pharmacology of delta-9-THC and its metabolite 11-0H-Delta-9-THC. Journal of Clinical Investigation 54: 2411-2417 and M. Perez-Reyes et al. 1972. Intravenous injection in man of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Science177: 633-635 as cited by J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence.
37 L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review.17: 445-452.
38 Ibid; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence,19.
39 G. Carter et al. 2004. Medical marijuana: emerging applications for the management of neurologic disorders. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America; L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review; A. Zuardi et al. 1982. Action of cannabidiol on the anxiety and other effects produced by delta-9-THC in normal subjects.Psychopharmacology 76: 245-250; G. Karinol et al. 1974. Cannabidiol interferes with the effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man. European Journal of Pharmacology 28: 172-177.
40 D. Gieringer et al. 2004. Cannabis vaporizer combines efficient delivery of THC with effective suppression of pyrolytic compounds. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4: 7-27.
41 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 199; See also: M. Hashibe et al. 2005. Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk. Alcohol 35: 265-275; K. Rosenblat et al. 2004. Marijuana use and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Research 64: 4049-4054; D. Ford et al. 2001. Marijuana use is not associated with head, neck or lung cancer in adults younger than 55 years: Results of a case cohort study. In: National Institute on Drug Abuse (Eds) Workshop on Clinical Consequences of Marijuana: Program Book.National Institutes of Health: Rockville, MD: p. 10.
42 M. Polen et al. 1993. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco.Western Journal of Medicine 158: 596-601; D. Tashkin. 1993. Is frequent marijuana smoking hazardous to health? Western Journal of Medicine 158: 635-637.
43 D. Gieringer et al. 2004. Cannabis vaporizer combines efficient delivery of THC with effective suppression of pyrolytic compounds. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics.
44 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 203; L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review.
45 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 203.
46 S. Calhoun et al. 1998. Abuse potential of dronabinol. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 30: 187-196; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, p. 19.
47 Ibid; National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. ”The poor solubility of Marinol in aqueous solutions and its high first-pass metabolism in the liver account for its poor bioavailability; only 10-20% of an oral dose reaches the systemic circulation. The onset of action is slow; peak concentrations are not attained until two to four hours after dosing. In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed. … Variations in individual responses is highest for oral THC and bioavailability is lowest.”
48 L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review.
49 Of Marinol’s patient population, only about 10 percent use it to combat cancer-related nausea. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 204.
50 E. Woolridge et al. 2005. Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 29: 358-67.
51 R. Schwartz and R. Beveridge. 1994. Marijuana as an antiemetic drug: how useful today. Opinions from clinical oncologists. Journal of Addictive Diseases 13: 53-65.
52 R. Doblin and M. Kleiman. 1991. Marijuana as an anti-emetic medicine: a survey of oncologists’ attitudes and experiences. Journal of Clinical Oncology 19: 1275-1290.
53 National Institutes of Health. 1997. Report of the Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana.Washington, DC as cited by L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate.Drug and Alcohol Review.
54 Medical News Today. “New synthetic delta-9-THC Inhaler offers safe, rapid delivery, Phase I study.” April 17, 2005.
55 Ibid.
56 Presentation of Unimed Pharmaceuticals Senior Vice President Robert Dudley before the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: February 24, 1998.
57 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 207; Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, p. 21; Medical Marijuana ProCon.org
58 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 206.
59 L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. Drug and Alcohol Services Council: South Australia.
60 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 207; Medical Marijuana ProCon.org
61 State research trials regarding natural cannabis were discontinued by 1985, after the FDA approved Marinol.
62 The cannabis distributed in these trails was manufactured and provided by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Cannabis was provided to patients in the form of a cigarette.
63 R. Musty and R. Rossi. 2001. Effects of smoked cannabis and oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on nausea and emesis after cancer chemotherapy: a review of state clinical trials. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. 1: 29-56. “The data reviewed here suggested that the inhalation of THC appears to be more effective than the oral route. … Patients who smoked marijuana experienced 70-100% relief from nausea and vomiting, while those who used THC capsules experienced 76-88% relief.”
64 Board of Pharmacy, State of Tennessee. 1983. Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and Tetrahydrocannabinol in Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity. p. 5.
65 Behavioral Health Services Division. 1983. The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program: A Report on Progress to Date. Health and Environment Department: New Mexico. p. 4.
66 Research Advisory Panel. 1986. Seventeenth Annual Report of the Research Advisory Panel, p. 9-10.
67 V. Vinciguerra et al. 1988. Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy. New York State Journal of Medicine 88: 525-527.
68 E. Woolridge et al. 2005. Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.
69 D. Prentiss et al. 2004. Patterns of marijuana use among patients with HIV/AIDS followed in a public health care setting. Journal of Acquired Immune Definiciency Syndromes 35: 38-45
70 R. Gorter et al. 2005. Medical use of cannabis in the Netherlands. Neurology 64: 917-919.
71 Ibid.
72 Reuters News Wire. “Marijuana helps MS patients alleviate pain, spasms.” August 19, 2002.
73 Ibid.
74 S. Page et al. 2003. Cannabis use as described by people with multiple sclerosis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 30: 201-205.
75 Ibid.
76 A. Clark et al. 2004. Patterns of cannabis use among patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 62: 2098-2100.
77 D. Gross et al. 2004. Marijuana use and epilepsy. Neurology 62: 2095-2097.
78 Ibid.
79 News Wire. “Pot may ease Parkinson’s symptoms — Czech study.” November 13, 2002.
Very good
Flickr - projectbrainsaver
www.flickr.com
|
