By Ruth Hill R.N.
This article will discuss the FDA’s role in drug approval and marijuana’s place in medical therapy, which is hampered by political ideology. Policymakers have made considerable efforts, but scientific studies in peer-reviewed literature show marijuana’s benefits must be weighed against its well-described risks. The decision to accept marijuana as a legitimate medical therapy should remain within the FDA’s statutory role.
A new study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University (FA Wagner and JC Anthony) gives us some useful numbers. Based upon data from the National Comorbidity Survey with 8,100 people (men and women ages 15 to 54) who were interviewed for when they first used drugs and for when they became dependent, it was found that 12 to 13 percent became dependent on alcohol in a 10-year period. About 15 to 16 percent of people who used cocaine became dependent in the 10-year period [5-6% during their first year of use], and about 8 percent of marijuana users became dependent during the same period.
Clinical and epidemiologic evidence shows that cannabis dependence syndrome occurs in heavy chronic users. This is marked by a lack of control over use and continued use despite adverse personal consequences. The risk of becoming dependent on cannabis is probably more like the risk for alcohol than for nicotine or opioids. About 10% of those who ever use cannabis eventually meet the criteria for dependence.
Sandra P. Welch, in “Principles of Addiction Medicine,” noted that cannabis can be harmful, but no data suggest it causes death. Its main cardiovascular effects are increased heart rate and systolic blood pressure. Heart rate increase is dose-related, and its onset and duration align with blood Δ 9-THC concentration. Respiratory rate does not change consistently.
Our case law firmly establishes Congress’s power to regulate local activities when they are part of an economic class affecting interstate commerce. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress finds that the total effect of a practice threatens a national market, it may regulate the entire class.
During the Great Depression, immigrants were linked to marijuana and violence, leading Western states to pressure the federal government for control. Federal prohibition followed through taxation. Someday, understanding will come, laws will change, and Mother Nature’s most precious gift and its users will be released from tyranny.
The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in the parts of the brain that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’ age of maturity.”
Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults are recognized under our laws. First, studies confirm what parents know: youth often lack maturity and responsibility. These qualities often lead to impetuous, ill-considered actions and decisions. Almost every State prohibits those under 18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent.
Nixon’s 1972 decision to place marijuana in Schedule I was based on ideology, despite his medical commission recommending against prohibition and noting the longstanding medical use of marijuana. Another example of laws driven by ideology is Anthony Fauci’s suppression of hydroxychloroquine for COVID. The ongoing pilot study led by Dr. Oz, which aims to reimburse Medicare recipients up to $500 for marijuana use, is relevant to current discussions during the upcoming primary elections.
Let me know what your thoughts are at hilruth@gmail.com
