From: Alamaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: July 6, 2008 12:17:47 PM PDT
To: CTRL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ctrl] AlterNet: Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring
Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet
Posted on July 5, 2008, Printed on July 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/90469/
The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana
research and
use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this
point,
few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials
maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another
story
One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds'
seemingly
inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US
government
nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical
marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.
It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate nor
persuasive. Here's why.
First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for
-- and
has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of
pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as
the oral
THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind
to the
brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis
antagonists
such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH
paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of
pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the
underlying
science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid
drugs in
pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other
words, at the same time the American Medical Association is
proclaiming
that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring
dozens
of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.
Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most
notably,
GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented
standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts,
primarily
THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken
directly
from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)
Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and
development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is
proactively
supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for
them.
Let me explain.
First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval
from
federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug
Administration -- a
process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific
merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile
toward
the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward
sanctioning
cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.
A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health
Products
Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug
in the
United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is
based in
London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically
hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of
"lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen
criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal
warning to
up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder
that
British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based
medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex?
Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal
view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution
to
authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription
drug.
Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The
real
hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here
again, a
culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic
cannabis
is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based
medicines than
a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness."
Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the
use of
medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes
legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a
fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including
many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to
obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is
legal
or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad
appeal.
But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use
fewer
pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that
adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly most
individuals in
the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where
medical
pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use
prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further,
despite the
availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines
such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans
continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of
choice.
Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever
warrant
or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief
from
natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector
continues to
move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-
based
pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government
and
law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of
total pot
prohibition.
Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to
legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most
especially
the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention
toward the
development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I
won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.
Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't
patent
medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.
Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation
in
Washington, DC.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/90469/
--
Alamaine, IVe
Grand Forks, ND, US of A
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a
philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
"Being ignorant is not such a shame as being unwilling to learn." -
Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758 (Benjamin Franklin)
~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.
------------------------------------
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
ctrl is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing
propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-
boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy
theory'with its many half-truths, mis-directions and outright
fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, ctrl gives no endorsement to the validity of posts,
and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. ctrl gives
no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
There are two list running, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] has unlimited posting and is
more for discussion. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is more for informational
exchange and has limited posting abilities.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Omimited posting abilities.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
OmYahoo! Groups Links
