By: Dr. Stephen F. Grinstead, LMFT, ACRPS, CADC-II
Since I first published this article in 2002 I find
that the same old controversies about marijuana are still raging. One of
these issues is the use of marijuana as a legitimate medication. Dr.
Cliffored Gevirtz, (2007) points out that Cannabis has a very long history
in medicine with early records going back 5000 years to China; it was then
used to treat such conditions as malaria, constipation, and rheumatic
pains. Nonetheless, today there are two primary polarized camps fueling
this debate. One side preaches the evils of using this herb as medication
and the other side extols the virtues of medical marijuana.
Over the past several decades I have listened to both
sides of this issue and have seen the impact of this controversy on many of
my clients. Unfortunately, until recently there has been an important piece
missing; reliable double-blind studies designed to test how effective
marijuana really is as a legitimate medication. Unfortunately, there are
very few of these studies and some of them have small numbers of
participants. In addition, several of these research study outcomes are
somewhat inconclusive. Gevirtz (2007) also points out that there have been
no studies evaluating the analgesic effects of smoked cannabis (marijuana)
or other smoked cannabinoids.
Robson (2001) published his analysis of nine randomized
controlled trials with a total of 222 adult patients. These studies'
subjects had either cancer pain, chronic nonmalignant pain, or patients with
postoperative pain. In these trials oral THC 5-10 mg, an oral synthetic
THC(NIB) 4 mg, and intramuscular levonantradol (Marinol) 1.5-3 mg. These
studies compared those interventions with oral codeine 60-120 mg and oral
secobarbital (it has no analgesic properties but does have a sedative agent)
50mg. Although the therapeutic benefits proved to be small and variable in
these studies, they had clinical relevance because of the minimal side
Gevirtz's (2007) conclusions included noting a wide
range of efficacy across various cannabis preparation but related poorly
with efficacy compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or other
simple analgesics. He also noted that increasing the cannabinoid dose to
increase analgesia resulted in more adverse side effects.
There are also legality issues to consider because of
the way in which the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) rates or "Schedules"
drugs. For Schedule I substances, the criteria that need to be considered
are whether the substance has a high potential for abuse, has no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of
accepted safety for use under medical supervision. While Schedule I drugs
cannot be used medically, the law does allow supervised research.
For substances to be rated as Schedule II, the DEA
considers its high potential for abuse, whether it has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted
medical use with severe restrictions and whether abuse of the substances may
lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. While legal for
medical use, doctors need to go through additional legal steps when
prescribing these drugs.
A substance is placed on Schedule III based on its
potential for abuse relative to substances in other schedules, whether it
has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and
its relative potential to produce physical or psychological dependence is
What has been available for several years as a
legitimate medication is Marinol (dronabinol), a synthetic THC
(delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the active psychoactive chemical in
marijuana). While marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug by the DEA
and illegal for medical use, Marinol the synthetic form of THC has finally
been reduced from Schedule II to a Schedule III Drug.
Marinol has been used in treating Glaucoma, people
undergoing chemotherapy, and for people with AIDS. Again sides are split on
the effectiveness of this medication. One side says Marinol works great
therefore there is no need to legalize the medical use of marijuana. The
other side states that Marinol is not nearly as effective as smoked
After working with many individuals who have used
Marinol and also smoked marijuana, I see that both sides have good points.
For example, after helping some of my clients work through denial issues
surrounding marijuana abuse, they become honest and share that the Marinol
did work as well for controlling nausea or increasing appetite, but they
didn't get high. On the other hand, several clients who needed help for
nausea caused by chemotherapy treatment were not able to ingest the Marinol
tablets and found smoking marijuana to be a better option for them.
There are many risks associated with marijuana,
especially smoked marijuana, that must be considered not only in terms of
immediate adverse effects on the lung; e.g., bronchi and alveoli, but also
long-term effects in people with chronic diseases and those with a poor
immune status. The major problems I have with someone smoking marijuana as
a medicine is the inability to regulate the dosage and, even more important
the delivery system. The level of THC varies so greatly in the marijuana
that is currently available, that coming up with a therapeutic dose is
extremely difficult. In addition, marijuana has other ingredients that may
have problematic side effects. Then there is the dangerous delivery
system—the issue of smoking it. The components of the smoke are hazardous,
especially in the immuno-compromised patient. No other medication we have
is administered that way because of the potential dangers.
Because of the lack of more positive research outcomes
there has been minimal exploration of a safer delivery system for the active
ingredient of marijuana (THC). There have been suggestions that an aerosol
delivery system for the THC or Marinol would eliminate the dosage and the
unsafe smoking problems. Why is this not being given due consideration?
One of the reasons may be that there is not enough
profit for drug companies, but I believe the main reason is the stigma that
has historically surrounded marijuana. I think that marijuana is a serious
drug of abuse that leads to dependency (addiction), but this is also true of
many legal prescription medications. For example Vicoden and OxyContin have
both been increasingly abused in the past several years and Valium and Xanax
have been a serious abuse problem for at least the past decade.
Another problem with medical marijuana is that it is
often prescribed for conditions that may not be medially indicated. In
fact, several of my clients received medical marijuana prescriptions for
stress management and chronic pain management. I am not aware of any
legitimate research that indicates marijuana is a medically effective
treatment for either of these conditions. That is why quality research
needs to be undertaken to prove once and for all the legitimacy of using
marijuana—or at least its active ingredient THC—to treat specific medical
Joy, Watson, & Benson, (1999) published their book
Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base. One major important
finding of this book was that although marijuana smoke delivers THC and
other cannabinoids to the body, it also delivers harmful substances,
including most of those found in tobacco smoke. In addition, plants contain
a variable mixture of biologically-active compounds and cannot be expected
to provide a precisely defined drug effect. For those reasons, the book
concludes that the future of cannabinoid drugs lies not in smoked marijuana,
but in chemically-defined drugs that act on the cannabinoid systems that are
a natural component of human physiology. Until such drugs can be developed
and made available for medical use, the report recommends interim
solutions. The development of these appropriate drugs depends upon thorough
double-blind clinical trials.
I understand this is a very controversial issue. While
I am not in favor of legalizing "street drugs" I do advocate utilizing a
potentially effective medication after it has undergone the same level of
testing as the other medications we currently use. Like Gevirtz (2007) I do
not believe that there is enough valid evidence to support the introduction
of cannabinoids into widespread clinical practice for pain management. I
believe that in addition to verifying the effectiveness, the delivery system
and dosage problems need to be resolved before I would feel comfortable
endorsing the use of medicinal marijuana for any of my clients.
Gevirtz, C., (2007). An
emerging therapy: The future role of cannabinoids in pain management.
Topics In Pain Management, Vol. 22, #8, pp. 1-5..
Holdcroft, A., Maze, M., &
Dore, C. B., (2006). A multicenter dose-escalation study of the
analgesic and adverse effects of an oral cannabis extract (Cannador) for
post-operative pain management. Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 104;
Joy, J., Watson, S. J., &
Benson, J. A., Editors, (1999). Marijuana and medicine: Assessing
the science base. Washington; DC. National Academies Press
Pertwee, R. G., (1999).
Cannabis and cannabinoids: Pharmacology and rationale for clinical use.
Rorsch Komplementarmed, Vol. 6, (suppl 3): pp. 12-15.
Reynolds, J. R., (2005)
Therapeutical uses and toxic effects of Cannabis indica.
Lancet, 1890; i: pp. 637-638.
Robson, P., (2001).
Therapeutic aspects of cannabis and cannabinoids. British Journal of
Psychiatry; #178: pp. 107-115.