Miami
Herald, By David Murray, Thursday, June 12, 2014
David
Murray was chief scientist at the White House, Office of National Drug Control
Policy and is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Substance
Abuse Policy Research.
In
a recent poll conducted for the Miami Herald, 54 percent of the Miami-Dade
County respondents said they support legalization of medical marijuana.
Trailing
not far behind, 46 percent opposed it — a surprisingly high number given the
one-sided nature of the well-funded pro-legalization campaign that has
dominated local discussion on the issue.
But
while the voices of residents and legislators are being heard, one crucial
group has been left out of a debate — the scientific community that is
assessing marijuana’s efficacy as a medical treatment.
What
does this community have to say about marijuana being sold at dispensaries
before it is proven effective through the FDA’s drug approval process?
According
to a recent study by Yale Medical School published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association in May, there are very real risks associated
with treating marijuana as a medical treatment, including structural brain
damage, an irreversible lowering of the IQ, respiratory damage and increased
risk of psychotic disorders.
Furthermore,
the report states “Medical marijuana differs significantly from other
prescription medications.
Evidence
supporting its efficacy . . . relies largely on testimonials
instead of adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized
clinical trials . . . and in general falls short of the
standards required for approval of other drugs by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).”
Miami-Dade’s
residents and legislators invariably hear that marijuana dispensaries are
compassionate services for those afflicted by such serious diseases as cancer
or HIV/AIDS, for whom it is said no other “medicine” suffices, justifying their
use of an intoxicating smoked weed.
However,
only 3 percent of those using marijuana dispensaries suffer from cancer or
HIV/AIDS, according to a recent RAND study that examined participants in
California.
Who
actually uses these facilities?
Participants
in the study found them to be overwhelmingly male (73 percent), substantially
unemployed (31 percent), largely reporting “chronic pain” (58 percent) as their
medical condition (nearly half of them already having a prescription for
opiates), with another 44 percent reporting either a mental or sleep disorder
as their reason for needing marijuana.
To
date, there is no compelling clinical need for what smoked marijuana purports
to do; the medical conditions for which it might be applied are already treated
by non-marijuana medicines that have been found safe, effective and without
risk of abuse.
The
risk to young people is great, and scientific evidence continues to mount.
A
recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine by the director of
the National Institute of Drug Abuse sums up the known adverse effects of
marijuana smoking, with considerable stress on the dangers of adolescent
exposure.
Modern
medicines are a product of medical research, using scientific methods.
Medicines are not made by agenda-driven legislators or well-meaning crowds by a
show of hands.
Medicine
is not wish-fulfillment, able to turn an intoxicating folk-remedy into a
healthy medical compound by clicking ones’ heels.
Medicine
is determined by controlled results.
Most
importantly, when it comes to acceptance, science has the only vote that
matters.
Marijuana
is a Schedule I Controlled Substance — a dangerous substance with no recognized
medical use — for a reason.
It
has not completed the course of proof required of all legal medicines sold in
the United States.
Until
rigorous clinical trials can demonstrate therapeutic efficacy sufficient to
outweigh its risks, marijuana will remain such, as the FDA reiterated in 2006.
Let the research go forward, but not by abandoning standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment