Medical Cannabis Use

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back

Marijuana, or cannabis, as it is more appropriately called, has been part of humanity’s medicine chest for almost as long as history has been recorded. Of all the negative consequences of marijuana prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal cannabis to the tens of thousands of patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.

The purpose of this article is to review the historical significance of the use of medicinal cannabis, as well as to describe the implications of evolving medicinal cannabis regulations.

General cannabis use, both for recreational and medicinal purposes, has garnered increasing acceptance across United States and its territories. Limited data suggest that health care providers also may consider this therapy in certain circumstances. In the United States, cannabis is approved for medicinal use in 28 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The use and acceptance of medicinal cannabis continues to evolve, as shown by the growing number of states now permitting use for specific medical indications. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has considered how it might support the scientific rigor of medicinal cannabis claims, and the review of public data regarding safety and abuse potential is ongoing.

Historical significance of the use of medicinal cannabis

Cannabis is a plant-based, or botanical, product with origins tracing back to the ancient world. Evidence suggesting its use more than 5,000 years ago in what is now Romania has been described extensively. In the U.S., cannabis was widely utilized as a patent medicine during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Federal restriction of cannabis use and cannabis sale first occurred in 1937 with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Subsequent to the act of 1937, cannabis was dropped from the United States Pharmacopoeia in 1942, with legal penalties for possession increasing in 1951 and 1956 with the enactment of the Boggs and Narcotic Control Acts, respectively, and prohibition under federal law occurring with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Beyond criminalization, these legislative actions contributed to creating limitations on research by restricting procurement of cannabis for academic purposes.

In 1996, California became the first state to permit legal access to and use of botanical cannabis for medicinal purposes under physician supervision with the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act. As previously stated, as of 2018, 28 states as well as Washington, D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico will have enacted legislation governing medicinal cannabis sale and distribution; 21 states and the District of Columbia will have decriminalized marijuana and eliminated prohibition for possession of small amounts, while eight states, including Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, will have legalized use of marijuana for adult recreation.

Medical Use of Cannabis

As a Schedule I controlled substance with no accepted medicinal use, high abuse potential, concerns for dependence, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision—along with a national stigma surrounding the potential harms and implication of cannabis use as a gateway drug to other substances—transitioning from a vilified substance to one with therapeutic merits has been controversial. The United States Pharmacopoeia and the FDA have considered the complexities of regulating this plant-based therapy, including the numerous compounds and complex interactions between substances in this product, and how it might fit into the current regulatory framework of drugs in United States.

The emergence of interest in botanical medicinal cannabis is thought by many to be a collateral effect of the opioid abuse epidemic; public perception surrounding the use of medicinal cannabis suggests that this plant-based therapy is viewed as not much different than a botanical drug product or supplement used for health or relief of symptoms if disease persists. Like some herbal preparations or supplements, however, medicinal cannabis may similarly pose health risks associated with its use, including psychoactive, intoxicating, and impairing effects, which have not been completely elucidated through clinical trials.

Proponents argue that there is evidence to support botanical medicinal cannabis in the treatment of a variety of conditions, particularly when symptoms are refractory to other therapies; that beneficial cannabinoids exist, as evidenced by single-entity agents derived from cannabis containing the compounds THC and cannabidiol (CBD); that cannabis is relatively safe, with few deaths reported from use; that therapy is self-titratable by the patient; and that therapy is relatively inexpensive compared with pharmaceutical agents.

Opponents of medicinal cannabis use argue, in part, that well-designed randomized trials to confirm benefits and harms are lacking; that it has not been subject to the rigors of the FDA approval process; that standardization in potency or quantity of pharmacologically active constituents is absent; that adverse health effects relate not only to smoking cannabis but to unmasking mental health disorders, impairing coordination, and affecting judgment; that standardization does not exist for product packaging and controls to prevent inadvertent use by minors or pets; that there is a potential for dependence, addiction, and abuse; and that costs pose a potential burden.

Clinicians must be aware of these implications and informed about how this therapy may influence practice in a variety of health care settings, including acute care.

 

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312634/

Table of Contents