Showing posts with label Awesome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Awesome. Show all posts

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Lakers - Wolves Preview: Amid Rumors Of Pau Gasol Trade, The Lakers Trudge On


WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 07: Pau Gasol #16 of the Los Angeles Lakers puts up a shot over Trevor Booker #35 of the Washington Wizards during the first half at the Verizon Center on March 7, 2012 in Washington, DC. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)
Rob Carr - Getty Images
2 days ago: WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 07: Pau Gasol #16 of the Los Angeles Lakers puts up a shot over Trevor Booker #35 of the Washington Wizards during the first half at the Verizon Center on March 7, 2012 in Washington, DC. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)
If you were under the impression that there's no way things could get any worse than the annual "Insanely Embarrassing Loss To Eastern Conference Gutter Team That The Lakers Aren't Actually Embarrassed About Or Else They Wouldn't Do It Annually" game, you probably find yourself awash in a world of unpredictable and uncomfortable rumors right now. First, there's the rumor that certain elements of the team are considering a full blown offensive mutiny, ready to ditch the sheet of paper that serves as Mike Brown's offensive playbook and go back to the geometry that won them fancy rings. Now, courtesy of Roland Lazenby, the oft melodramatic yet accurate scribe who seems dedicated to shining the light on the Lakers dysfunctional front office, we have rumors of an imminent trade involving the lovable but under-performing Pau Gasol.
Nobody else has confirmed in the slightest Lazenby's information, and Lazenby himself was quick to stem the tide by mentioning something about Chris Paul and official trades. I'm the first to admit I'm not a huge fan of the tone of Lazenby's work, it seems pretty clear he's got more of an agenda than just a guy who's paid to pay attention to the team, but his analytical offerings about the Lakers front office have always ended up being more accurate than I was willing to give credit for, so it's hard to outright dismiss what the man is saying.
Which means it will be hard to outright dismiss the idea that Pau Gasol will be traded shortly. It will be especially hard for that idea to be dismissed in the mind of one Pau Gasol.

The Credits: "Children of Men"


Photo
Geoff Burke-US PRESSWIRE - PresswireMore photos »
Starring: Rebellion in Lakerland? After an embarrassing loss to the Wizards, Lakerdom has been tossed into chaos. The finger-pointing has begun. Is Kobe shooting too much? Are players being selfish? According to Pau Gasol, yes:
"(There is) lack of concentration, overconfidence and a certain level of selfishness, in general. I'm not a person or a selfish player, but we have to move the ball more, and we have to look further the team game, because we have enough talent to use different players," said an upset Gasol to the Catalan public radio.
What are the Lakers doing about it? Are they considering breaking out of Mike Brown's system and using the triangle again?
If the report's on target, that's an abject disaster for Brown and Lakers' management. Players considering overthrowing a coach's offense in favor of what they want to do, which happens to be one of the most complex offenses to run?

Stray Bullets: Thinking Through Kobe's Role In The Two-Game Losing Streak

Photo
Geoff Burke-US PRESSWIRE - PresswireMore photos »
I dunno.... another loss like last night's actually made me feel better about the Lakers' road woes. I know, that probably makes no sense to you. How could I possibly feel better about yet another terrible Lakers loss?
Are the Lakers really a bad road team? At this point, I can't really tell. I guess I'd have some sense of relief knowing they just aren't good enough to get W's on the road. At least I know where the team really stands. If they suck, they suck. You can look at the roster and easily assume that to be the case. There's some odd sense of acceptance knowing your team simply isn't good enough, but I don't know if I'm buying that excuse.
Ignoring schedule losses, the Lakers have had their fair share of chances to have a much better record away from Staples Center. Let's face it, the Lakers have lost their share of games on the road in large part due to the decision-making of Kobe Bryant. Which explains why I question who they want to be versus who the Lakers are.
At this point, the way the Lakers lose on the road is just comical. How many games have the Lakers lost due to Kobe just wanting to take ridiculous threes? Five? Six? It just makes no sense to me that the same guy we watch destroy the Wolves, Kings and then Heat is so willing to revert back to such a lazy brand of basketball.
For a team still in search of itself, and what seemed like on the cusp of a real-deal hot streak, why does Kobe insist on burning wins in hopes of nailing the dagger shot? I'm glad if Kobe actually has enough confidence in his squad that he feels regular season wins are so important that they can be wasted in preference of the highlight shot. That can't be the case though.

The Credits: "Down to Earth"


What if he took 31 shots?
Geoff Burke-US PRESSWIRE - Presswire
What if he took 31 shots?
After two straight road losses to teams on the bottom of the Eastern Conference, the Los Angeles Lakers find themselves with a 6-14 road record, and 0-2 on the current trip. After the Sunday win against Miami instilled some confidence and hope that this Lakers squad could get two or three wins from the trip, the team and their fans have come crashing down to Earth.
As for last night's game, a 101-106 loss, the regular pattern held true. Good first half by the Lakers only to see the lead squandered and lost to the opposition. Kobe Bryant scored 30 on 9-31 shooting, and also added five rebounds, four assists and four rebounds. The other four starters had 31 shots combined. Pau Gasol had 19 points and 15 rebounds while his frontcourt mate, Andrew Bynum, also added 19 points but only six rebounds. Bynum racked up the frequent flyer miles with a few traveling calls and finished the night with seven turnovers. Mike Brown with the summation:
Obviously a tale of two halves. I thought in the first half we played the right way. In the second half we didn’t. We forced shots, and forcing shots is not a good thing for us. We’re not a team that can create on our own…we have to be an executing team, a spacing team, a team that moves the ball and moves bodies. In the second half we didn’t do it. The ball stuck a lot, we forced shots.
With the March 15th trade deadline looming larger than ever, and two disappointing losses this week, one has to hope that cooler heads prevail and no rushed or panicked trades happen in the next 48hrs.

Lakers Lose Another Road Game To Another Bad Team, Wizards 106-101


Photo
Geoff Burke-US PRESSWIRE - PresswireMore photos »
(SB Nation Los Angeles, Eric Stephen) Away from home, the Los Angeles Lakers are a terrible basketball team. They blew an 18-point lead in the second half Wednesday night, falling 106-101 to the terrible Washington Wizards at the Verizon Center. The loss snapped a nine-game winning streak the Lakers had over Wizards (9-29). The loss dropped the Lakers' road record to 6-14 on the season.
The Lakers (23-16) led by as many as 18 points in the third quarter, and held an 83-70 lead late in the quarter. Washington used a 17-0 run into the fourth quarter to take the lead, and pretty much played from ahead for most of the final period.
Star-divide
Kobe Bryant scored 30 points to lead the Lakers, but shot just nine for 31 on the night. Kobe had made just 17 of 57 shots (29.8%) in the first two games of the Lakers' three-game road trip. Pau Gasol added 19 points and 15 rebounds for the Lakers, who shot 39.5% on the night.
Trevor Booker scored 18 points and grabbed 17 rebounds to lead the Wizards, and Jamal Crawford added 14 points. JaVale McGee had 12 points and 12 rebounds for Washington, who shot 46.7% from the field.
The Lakers conclude their brief three-game road trip Friday night in Minnesota.

Andrew Bynum Dominates In Laker Win Over Timberwolves

Photo courtesy of Doug Pensinger, Getty Images
The final buzzer sounded and Andrew Bynum, with a towel over his shoulders, elbows bent with fists tightly closed in front of his chest, approached his teammates coming off the floor with that childlike, Christmas morning smile. He greeted each player one by one with, “We got a win. We got a win.” It’s only been two losses since their last victory, but Bynum and his team have gone through a lot this week – embarrassing losses, trade talks continuing to swirl around their most prominent players, players venting to the media about their state. He knows they didn’t add any more championship banners with this win, and they didn’t get the road trip record they had anticipated when they left L.A. But they did win tonight, and they won playing the right away…in the second half anyway.
For a team trying to recover from back to back losses to two awful teams, the purple and gold sure came into tonight’s game with very little energy or purpose. What opposing team wouldn’t take advantage? Not the Timberwolves, who ran off a 16-6 lead in what seemed like a blink of an eye, as the Lakers sludged through the first quarter, looking poised to help Minnesota break their 18-game losing streak against them. All this without the services of Kevin Love, who sat out tonight’s game due to back spasms.
The Lakers looked listless on defense, failing to communicate, and thereby giving up uncontested layups and dunks. The rebounding reflected the effort (or lack there of), and the Wolves capitalized with a 12-2 advantage in second chance points. On offense, the Lakers were even worse, unable to hang on to the ball long enough to make a play. They had seven turnovers in the first 12 minutes alone and 11 for the half. It was one careless pass after another, and though they cut a 14-point Minnesota lead going into the half, there was still so much to adjust if they wanted to get out of Minnesota with a win…and they did just that.
They played a second half that looked the exact opposite of the first, which in essence means, they played how they should have been playing in the first place – with energy, ball movement, aggression and a little bit of smarts didn’t hurt either.


Getty Images
It is March 9, 2012 and the (23-16) Los Angeles Lakers are in Mill city for a matchup with the vastly improved (21-19) Minnesota Timberwolves. The Lakers return home to the ‘twin cities’ where the franchise began in 1947 in the NBL. The Lakers, with George Mikan, won five championships calling Minneapolis, Minnesota home.
The Lakers had the appearance of a team turning the corner and playing with some momentum and swagger after a huge win at home over the Miami Heat. At 17-2, the Lakers tied for the second best home record in the league, but after 39 games played this season, 20 away from Staples Center L.A. have come out on top only six times.
The Lakers are not the same team on the road as their shot selection wavers, their execution falters and the reserves are not playing with confidence. The Lakers are playing in the finale of a forgettable three-game road trip, two terrible back-to-back performances, including a disappointing overtime loss to the Pistons and then losing to the Wizards after surrendering a 21-point lead.
Kobe Bryant is not solely to blame, but merely one of the culprits, shooting 17-57 over the last two games. The Lakers could greatly benefit from going back to running the triangle offense.

Photo by Rob Carr | Getty Images
After yet another road loss that saw the Lakers fall to 6-14 away from Staples Center, Andrew Bynum was asked if the Lakers problems are fixable?
If we can be real with each other. Yeah.” Bynum said.
Alright Bynum, lets keep it real.
Kobe Bryant finished the night 9 for 31 from the field (29%).
Bynum shot the ball just eight times, one less attempt than the amount of shots Bryant had from the three-point line.
Bynum made six of his eight field goals (75%).
As someone who has watched the majority of Kobe Bryant’s games over his 14-year NBA career, that may have been the worst 2nd half I have ever seen him play.
He was 3 for 18 in the 2nd half (17%). Many of his shots were forced; he rarely (if ever) looked to pass.

Photo courtesy of Chris Chambers at Getty Images
Well at least they beat the worst team in the league (Charlotte Bobcats). Then again, that was at home, inside the comforts of Staples Center where the Lakers are 17-2; a record that is almost disposable when placed against the team’s 6-14 record on the road. It’s one thing to lose to the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Miami Heat, the second and third best teams in the league. It’s an entirely different concept to lose to the Detroit Pistons and the Washington Wizards, the seventh and third WORST teams in the league.
After winning their first three games after the All-Star break, it appeared the Lakers were finally starting to gain some traction. They looked and played like a good, solid team completely capable of making a significant run in the post-season. The bench was starting to contribute, Metta World Peace was finally producing, Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol looked unbeatable as a pair, and Kobe Bryant was playing like an MVP. But just like the large leads they so easily create, that feeling of accomplishment fades when carelessness, apathy and overconfidence sets in; when the well-being of the parts overrides the well-being of its sum, resulting in nothing but embarrassment and loss.
This was probably the Lakers’ most manageable road trip in the season, especially after such improved play going into it; one where they could have come home 3-0 after defeating two bottom-feeding teams and then one who they have beaten twice this season already. Instead they’re 0-2, with the result of Friday’s game appearing almost meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Photo by Jed Jacobsohn of Getty Images
13-26 – The Detroit Pistons are 13-26, almost the exact opposite of the Lakers’ record to date, and the Lakers STILL could not pull together a game to defeat them. After allowing the Pistons just 17 points in the first quarter on 33% shooting, and then driving up their lead to 12 points in the second quarter, the Lakers lost focus and allowed the Pistons a run that ended in a 28-17 disadvantage going into the half.
After a concerted defensive effort and focus in the third quarter, the Lakers appeared poised to finally run the Pistons over and head on down to Washington, DC to stomp on the lowly Wizards. Instead they opened the fourth quarter on the bad end of a 10-2 run and just couldn’t keep their foot on the gas long enough to make the drive worth it. Each time they gained any sort of lead, they’d allowed the Pistons to get right back into it, needing a Kobe Bryant buzzer beating jumper to force overtime.
All they had to do was play smart, if even in the closing minutes of the final 12, but it was one poor decision after another – being three points ahead with less than two minutes left in the game but continuing to attempt three pointers instead of higher percentage shots that could pad the lead further; not closing in on Rodney Stuckey who scored on back to back possessions; throwing behind the back passes when every possession should have cherished and capitalized on. In the end, the game was a hot mess that didn’t need to be one.

(Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)
It is March 6, 2012 and the (23-14) Los Angeles Lakers start a three-game road trip in the largest city in the state of Michigan, Detroit, on a cold 40-degree day that feels like 30 due to 23-34 mph winds to match up with the (12-26) Pistons. The Lakers have won eight of their last 10 games and are coming off a signature win against the Miami Heat.
Kobe Bryant set the tone doing most of his damage early with Dwayne Wade guarding him scoring 18 first-half points while burying D. Wade in the post. Head Coach Mike Brown preaching defense has paid off, on Sunday, the Lakers held the Heat to just 37.5% from the field.


Photo by Harry How | Getty Images
World Peace had arguably his best game of the season as he scored 17 points, on 60% shooting. He also grabbed 7 rebounds, 4 steals, and 3 assists.
Although he filled up the stat sheet, he also did a great job defensively on LeBron James. He was asked after the game how he was able to contain LeBron James when no other player this season has been able to:
“I’m going to answer this as honest as I can, I’m one of the best defensive players ever. I’m one of the best defensive players to ever play on the wing.” Artest said. “I think that’s the answer. Sometimes media hides away from that fact. [I'm one of the best] especially in the last decade.”
World Peace also talked about his offense:
“I was shooting nine percent from the three [point line] earlier [this season]. I could of easily gave up on myself and deferred, but that’s not my character. I gotta keep on goin.”
In the last two games, World Peace is averaging 16 points, 5.5 rebounds, and 2.5 steals per game. He is also shooting 52% from the field, and 40% from beyond the arc.




Has the Lakers' offense stalled out?

A sneak-peek at tomorrow's story today ...
In the old triangle offense overseen by Phil Jackson, the players on the floor had to move themselves and the ball in order to make it click to the coach's lofty standards. It was easy to spot when it wasn't working right.
In the Lakers' new low-post offense devised and implemented by Mike Brown, the players must move their bodies and the ball in order to make it work to his satisfaction. So far this season, it's also been obvious when it's not working.
Old or new, either way, when the offense stalls so do the Lakers.
At the moment, after consecutive losses to lowly teams on their three-game trip, there's no question but that the Lakers have come to a screeching halt. It's clear they have embraced some but certainly not all of Brown's teachings.
It happened now and then when Jackson coached the Lakers, too, when they stopped running the offense and simply dropped the ball into Kobe Bryant's hands and stood back and watched the superstar guard try to work his magic.
Sometimes it happened, sometimes it didn't.
Brown and Bryant each sounded frustrated after the Lakers went off the rails for the second night in a row, losing Wednesday to the Washington Wizards only 24 hours after falling in overtime to the Detroit Pistons.
"Offensively, we've got to figure out how to play the game the right way," Brown said. "We did play the game the right way in the first half (during Wednesday's loss to the Wizards), but in the second half, we just lost it. ... The ball stopped moving."
Brown went on to criticize Bryant's shot selection, especially in the second half when he went 3 for 18 en route to 30 points on 9-for-31 shooting. Bryant's response when advised of Brown's comments was short and to the point.
"OK," he said after taking a few seconds to gather his thoughts.
Or thought, as the case seemed to be.

Hemp Edification: Why Marinol Is Not As Good As Real Marijuana

Quantcast
Hemp Edification
Hemp Edification

06 March 2012


Why Marinol Is Not As Good As Real Marijuana

Marinol Versus Marijuana
Last week I received a call from an attorney in Eugene that is representing a medical marijuana patient that is on probation.  The judge is willing to allow the medical marijuana patient to use Marinol while he serves his probation, but not raw medical marijuana.  The attorney admitted that he knows nothing about medical marijuana, but  felt that the judge is willing to listen to an argument that would support the medical marijuana patient being allowed to consume raw marijuana.  Rather than just send over what I dug up for the attorney, I figured I would post it here so everyone could benefit from it.  Who knows, it just might come in handy if you or someone you know is in a similar position.  Below is an article that was written by Paul Armentano for NORML :


Introduction


Marinol[1]  (dronabinol) is the only US FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoid. It is often marketed as a legal pharmaceutical alternative to natural cannabis.


Marinol is manufactured as a gelatin capsule containing synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in sesame oil. It is taken orally and is available in 2.5mg, 5mg and/or 10mg dosages. Marinol may be prescribed for the treatment of cachexia (weight loss) in patients with AIDS and for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic treatments.


Despite FDA approval[2] , Marinol typically provides only limited relief to select patients, particularly when compared to natural cannabis and its cannabinoids. Marinol should remain a legal option for patients and physicians; however, federal and state laws should be amended to allow for those patients who are unresponsive to synthetic THC the ability to use natural cannabis and its cannabinoids as a medical therapy without fear of arrest and/or criminal prosecution. By prohibiting the possession and use of natural cannabis and its cannabinoids, patients are unnecessarily restricted to use a synthetic substitute that lacks much of the therapeutic efficacy of natural cannabis.


Marinol Lacks Several of the Therapeutic Compounds Available in Natural Cannabis


Chemical compounds in cannabis, known as cannabinoids, are responsible for its numerous therapeutic benefits. Scientists have identified 66 naturally occurring cannabinoids.[3] 


The active ingredient in Marinol, synthetic delta-9-tetrahyrdocannabinol (THC), is an analogue of one such compound, THC. However, several other cannabinoids available in cannabis — in addition to naturally occurring terpenoids (oils) and flavonoids (phenols) — have also been clinically demonstrated to possess therapeutic utility. Many patients favor natural cannabis to Marinol because it includes these other therapeutically active cannabinoids.


For example, cannabidol (CBD) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid that has been clinically demonstrated to have analgesic, antispasmodic, anxiolytic, antipsychotic, antinausea, and anti-rheumatoid arthritic properties.[4]
Animal and human studies have shown CBD to possess anti-convulsant properties, particularly in the treatment of epilepsy.[5]  Natural extracts of CBD, when administered in combination with THC, significantly reduce pain, spasticity and other symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients unresponsive to standard treatment medications.[6] 


Clinical studies also demonstrate CBD to be neuroprotective against glutamate neurotoxicity[7]  (i.e. stroke), cerebral infarction[8]  (localized cell death in the brain), and ethanol-induced neurotoxicity,[9]  with CBD being more protective against glutamate neurotoxicity than either ascorbate (vitamin C) or alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E).[10]  Clinical trials have also shown CBD to possess anti-tumoral properties,[11] inhibiting the growth of glioma (brain tumor) cells in a dose dependent manner and selectively inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death) in malignant cells.[12]
Additional cannabinoids possessing clinically demonstrated therapeutic properties include: cannabinol (anticonvulsant[13]  and anti-inflammatory[14]  activity); cannabichromine (anti-inflammatory[15]  and antidepressant[16]  activity); and cannabigerol (anti-tumoral[17]  and analgesic[18]  activity). Natural cannabis’ essential oil components (terpenoids) exhibit anti-inflammatory properties[19]  and its flavonoids possess antioxidant activity.[20]  Emerging clinical evidence indicates that cannabinoids may slow disease progression[21]  in certain autoimmune and neurologic diseases, including multiple sclerosis[22]  (MS), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis[23]  (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and Huntington’s Disease.[24]
Clinical data indicate that the synergism of these compounds is likely more efficacious[25]  than the administration of synthetic THC alone.[26]  For example, McPartland and Russo write: “Good evidence shows that secondary compounds in cannabis may enhance beneficial effects of THC. Other cannabinoid and non-cannabinoid compounds in herbal cannabis … may reduce THC-induced anxiety, cholinergic deficits, and immunosuppression. Cannabis terpenoids and flavonoids may also increase cerebral blood flow, enhance cortical activity, kill respiratory pathogens, and provide anti-inflammatory activity.”[27]  In an in vitro model of epilepsy, natural cannabis extracts performed better than THC alone.[28] In human trials, patients suffering from multiple sclerosis experienced greater symptomatic relief from sublingual natural cannabis extracts than from the administration of oral THC.[29]  In 2005, Health Canada approved the oral spray Sativex[30]  – which contains precise ratios of the natural cannabinoid extracts THC and CBD, among other compounds — for prescription use for MS-related symptoms.[31] 


Marinol is More Psychoactive Than Natural Cannabis


Patients prescribed Marinol frequently report that its psychoactive effects are far greater than those of natural cannabis. Marinol’s adverse effects include: feeling “high,” drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, anxiety, changes in mood, muddled thinking, perceptual difficulties, coordination impairment, irritability, and depression.[32]  These psychoactive effects may last four to six hours.[33]  About one-third of patients prescribed Marinol report experiencing one or some of these adverse effects.[34] 


Marinol’s oral route of administration is responsible, in part, for its heightened psychoactivity compared to inhaled cannabis. Once swallowed, Marinol passes from the stomach to the small intestine before being absorbed into the bloodstream. Following absorption, Marinol passes through the liver where a significant proportion of the drug is metabolized into other chemicals.[35]  One of these chemicals, 11-hydroxy-THC, may be four to five times more potent than natural THC,[36]  and is produced in greater quantities.[37]  Thus, patients administered Marinol experience the psychoactive effects of both THC and 11-hydroxy-THC, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will suffer from an adverse psychological reaction. By comparison, only minute quantities of 11-hydroxy-THC are produced when cannabis is inhaled.[38]  Moreover, Marinol lacks the compound cannabidiol, which possesses anxiolytic activity and likely modifies and/or diminishes much of THC’s psychoactivity in natural cannabis.[39] 


Cannabis Vaporization Offers Advantages Over Orally Administered THC


Vaporization is an alternative method of cannabis administration that holds distinct advantages over both smoking and oral administration. Cannabis vaporization suppresses respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius).[40]  Although a comprehensive review of cannabis and health conducted by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found “no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use,”[41]  studies have found that heavy cannabis smokers face a higher risk of contracting bronchitis and respiratory illnesses.[42]  This risk is likely not due to the inhalation of cannabinoids, but rather to the exposure of noxious smoke. Because vaporization can deliver therapeutic doses of cannabinoids while reducing the users intake of pyrolytic smoke compounds, it is considered to be a preferred and likely safer method of cannabis administration than smoking.[43]
In practice, cannabis vaporization offers considerable advantages over oral THC consumption. While the oral ingestion of Marinol avoids the potential risks of smoking, it has significant drawbacks. Because of synthetic THC’s poor bioavailability, only 5-20 percent of an oral dose ever reaches the bloodstream[44]  and the drug may not achieve peak effect until four hours after dosing.[45]  Moreover, because Marinol is metabolized slowly, its therapeutic and psychoactive effects may be unpredictable and vary considerably, both from one person to another, and in the same person from one episode of use to another.[46]  By contrast, cannabis vaporization delivers cannabinoids to the bloodstream almost instantaneously.[47]  Vaporization’s rapid onset also allows patients to self regulate their dosage of cannabinoids by immediately ceasing inhalation when/if their psychoactive effects become unpleasant.[48] After oral administration of Marinol, patients have no choice but to experience the full psychoactive effects of the dose consumed. These dysphoric effects may last several hours.


Because of its rapid onset, vaporized cannabis is more desirable than Marinol for patients requiring a fast-acting therapeutic agent, such as those combating oncoming attacks of nausea, seizures or muscle spasms. Cannabis vaporization also offers a unique advantage to patients suffering from nausea and vomiting because it allows them an alternative delivery route to swallowing. Cancer and HIV/AIDS patients often report that their stomachs cannot hold down Marinol capsules during bouts of severe nausea[49]  and many rely on natural cannabis and cannabinoids for symptom control.[50]  In a 1994 survey of oncologists, respondents ranked synthetic THC ninth on a list of available antiemetic medications.[51] In another survey of oncologists, 44 percent of respondents said that they believed natural cannabis to be more efficacious than oral synthetic THC; only 13 percent of respondents rated Marinol more effective.[52]  A 1997 survey of physicians found that a majority preferred megestrol acetate over Marinol as an appetite stimulant in patients with HIV/AIDS.[53] 


As a result of Marinol’s slow onset and poor bioavailablity, scientists are now in the process of developing a new formulation of pulmonary dronabinol, delivered with a pressurized metered dose inhaler.[54]  In a Phase I study, pulmonary Marinol delivered via an inhaler provided rapid systemic absorption. Unlike oral synthetic THC, it’s possible that pulmonary Marinol “could offer an alternative for patients when a fast onset of action is desirable.”[55]  However, FDA approval of pulmonary Marinol and/or its inhaler remains years away. Sativex, an oral cannabis spray consisting of natural cannabinoid extracts, has greater bioavailability and is faster acting than oral synthetic THC. Clinical trials comparing its bioavailability and time of peak onset compared to vaporized cannabis have not been performed, though anecdotal reports indicate that vaporized cannabis and its cannabinoids likely possess greater bioavailability and are faster acting than the Sativex spray.


Marinol is More Expensive Than Natural Cannabis


Synthetic THC is a costly and difficult compound to manufacture.[56]  Much of this cost is passed on to the patient consumer, particularly if the full cost of Marinol (approximately $200 to $800 per month,[57] depending on the dosage) is borne out of pocket. Patients, particularly those with chronic conditions, often report that Marinol’s market cost limits their use of the drug.[58]  Doctors also report that Marinol’s high cost dissuades them from prescribing it to patients. In one survey of HIV/AIDS specialists, among respondents who had never prescribed Marinol to their patients, 33 percent cited the high cost of the drug as the reason.[59]  Natural cannabis, even at its inflated black market value, often remains far less costly for patients than oral synthetic THC.[60] 


Patients Ultimately Prefer Natural Cannabis to Marinol


In the 1970s and 1980s, several states conducted patient trials[61] of natural cannabis’ effectiveness as an anti-emetic in cancer patients unresponsive to conventional therapies. Some state protocols allowed patients to choose between inhaled cannabis[62]  and synthetic THC. In those studies which compared natural cannabis to dronabinol, inhaled cannabis was equal to or better than the oral administration of synthetic THC.[63]
For example, researchers at the Tennessee Board of Pharmacy found a “23 percent higher success rate among those patients smoking than among those patients administered THC capsules” in the treatment of nausea and/or vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy.[64] 
Researchers in New Mexico observed similar findings. “When the routes of [drug] administration were analyzed separately, it was found that inhalation was far superior to ingestion: 90.39 percent of the patients in the group that inhaled the marijuana showed improvement while only 59.65 percent of the patients in the group that orally ingested the delta-9-THC showed improvement,” they concluded.[65] 


Researchers at the California Board of Pharmacy found that inhaled cannabis and oral THC produced similar results in patients. However, physicians still rated natural cannabis as slightly more effective than oral THC as an anti-emetic.[66]
A 1988 New York State pilot study comparing inhaled cannabis to oral THC in cancer chemotherapy patients who were unresponsive to standard antiemetic agents found: “Twenty-nine percent of patients who failed oral THC responded to the cigarette form. … Our results demonstrate that inhalation marijuana is an effective therapy for the treatment of nausea and vomiting due to cancer chemotherapy.”[67]
Today, several patient populations continue to use natural cannabis and its cannabinoids in large numbers despite its illegality and the availability of Marinol. A 2005 British survey of more than 500 HIV/AIDS patients found that one-third of respondents use natural cannabis for symptomatic relief, with more than 90 percent of them reporting that it improves their appetite, muscle pain and other symptoms.[68]  A previous US survey found that approximately one out of four patients with HIV had used natural cannabis medicinally in the past month.[69]
Cannabis use is also prevalent among patients with neurologic disorders. Nearly four out of ten Dutch patients with prescriptions for “medical grade cannabis” (cannabis provided by Dutch pharmacies with a standardized THC content of 10.2 percent) use it to treat MS or spinal cord injuries, according to survey data published in 2005 in the journal Neurology.[70]  Perceived efficacy is greater among respondents who inhale cannabis versus those who ingest it orally, the study found.[71]
A 2002 British survey of MS patients found that 43 percent of respondents used natural cannabis therapeutically, with about half admitting they used it regularly.[72]  Seventy-six percent said they would do so if cannabis were legal.[73]  A Canadian survey of MS patients found that 96 percent of respondents were “aware cannabis was potentially therapeutically useful for MS and most (72 percent) supported [its] legalization for medicinal purposes.”[74]  Sixteen percent of respondents answered that they use natural cannabis for medical purposes to treat symptoms of anxiety/depression, spasticity and chronic pain.[75] 


A more recent Canadian survey published in Neurology reported that 14 percent of MS[76]  patients and 21 percent of respondents with epilepsy had used medical cannabis in the past year.[77]  Among epileptics, twenty-four percent of respondents said that they believed that cannabis was an effective therapy for the disease.[78]  A 2002 survey of patients with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) found that 25 percent of respondents had tried cannabis, with nearly half of those saying that it provided them symptomatic relief.[79] 


Conclusion


Oral synthetic THC, legally available by prescription as Marinol, often provides only limited relief to a select group of patients, particularly when compared to natural cannabis and its cannabinoids. Patients often experience minimal relief from Marinol and many experience unwanted side effects. In addition, many physicians are hesitant to prescribe the drug, and some patients are unable to afford it. Despite Marinol’s legality, many patient populations continue to risk arrest and criminal prosecution to use natural cannabis medically, and most report experiencing greater therapeutic relief from it.


The active ingredient in Marinol is a synthetic analogue of only one of the compounds in cannabis that is therapeutically beneficial to patients. By prohibiting the possession and use of natural cannabis and its cannabinoids, patients are unnecessarily burdened to use a synthetic substitute that lacks much of the therapeutic efficacy of natural cannabis and its cannabinoids.


Marinol should remain a legal option for patients and physicians and the development of additional cannabis-based pharmaceuticals should be encouraged. However, federal and state laws should be amended to allow for those patients who are unresponsive to synthetic THC, or simply desire an alternative to oral dronabinol, the ability to use natural cannabis and its cannabinoids as a legal medical therapy without fear of arrest and/or criminal prosecution.


March 5, 2012
Johnny Green
THE Weed Blog


End notes


1  Marinol is produced and marketed by Unimed Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Solvay Pharmaceuticals.


2  The FDA approved Marinol in 1985 as a Schedule II controlled substance. By definition, Schedule II drugs adhere to the following criteria: (A) The drug has a high potential for abuse; (B) The drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; (C) Abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. In 1999, Marinol was downgraded to a Schedule III controlled substance. By definition, Schedule III drugs adhere to the following criteria: (A) The drug has a potential for abuse less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs; (B) The drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; (C) Abuse of the drug may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.


3  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. p. 25: Table 1.5: Cannabinoids Identified in Marijuana.


4  R. Mechoulam et al. 2003. Cannabidiol: an overview of some pharmacological aspects. Neuroscience Letters 346: 61-64; J. McPartland and E. Russo. 2002. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: greater than the sum of their parts. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1: 103-132; A. Zuardi and F Guimaraes. Cannabidiol as an anxiolytic and antipsychotic. In: M. Mathre (Ed): Cannabis in medical practice: a legal, historical and pharmacological overview of therapeutic use of marijuana. McFarland Press: 1997: 133-141.


5  P. Consroe and S. Snider. Therapeutic Potential of Cannabinoids in Neurological Disorders. In: R. Mechoulam (Ed): Cannabinoids as Therapeutic Agents. CRC Press: 1986 21-51; E. Carlini and J. Cunha. 1981. Hypnotic and antiepileptic effects of cannabidiol. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 21: 417S-427S; J. Cunha et al. 1980. Chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers and epileptic patients. Pharmacology 21: 175-185.


6  D. Wade et al. 2004. Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients.Multiple Sclerosis 10: 339-340; D. Wade et al. 2003. A preliminary controlled study to determine whether whole-plant cannabis extracts can improve intractable neurogenic symptoms. Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation 17: 21-29.


7  A. Hampson et al. 1998. Cannabidiol and THC are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 8268-8273.


8  K. Mishima et al. 2005. Cannabidiol Prevents Cerebral Infarction. Stroke 36: 1077-1082.


9  C. Hamelink et al. 2005. Comparison of cannabidiol, antioxidants, and diuretics in reversing binge ethanol-induced neurotoxicity. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (electronically published May 5, 2005, ahead of printing).


10  A. Hampson, et al. 1998. Cannabidiol and THC are neuroprotective antioxidants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


11  H. Patsos et al. 2005. Cannabinoids and cancer: potential for colorectal cancer therapy. Biochemical Society Transactions. 33: 712-714; M. Guzman. 2003. Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents.Nature Reviews Cancer 3: 745-755.


12  P. Massi et al. 2004. Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 308: 838-845; G. Carter et al. 2004. Medical marijuana: emerging applications for the management of neurologic disorders.Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 15: 943-954.


13  C. Turner et al. 1980. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L.: A review of the natural constituents.Journal of Natural Products 43: 169-304.


14  F. Evans. 1991. Cannabinoids; the separation of central from peripheral effects on a structural basis.Planta Medica 57: S60-S67.


15  P. Wirth et al. 1980. Anti-inflammatory properties of cannabichromene. Life Science 26: 1991-1995.


16  R. Deyo and R. Musty. A cannabichromene (CBC) extract alters behavioral despair on the mouse tail suspension test of depression. In: International Cannabinoid Research Society (Ed.) 2003 Symposium on the Cannabinoids. ICRS: 2003.


17  S. Baek et al. 1998. Antitumor activity of cannabigerol against human oral epitheloid carcinoma cells.Archives of Pharmacal Research 21: 353-356.


18  J. McPartland and E. Russo. 2002. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: greater than the sum of their parts. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics.


19  Ibid.


20  Ibid.


21  Society for Neuroscience. “Marijuana-like compound may aid array of debilitating conditions ranging from Parkinson’s Disease to pain.” October 26, 2004.


22  G. Pryce et al. 2003. Cannabinoids inhibit neurodegeneration in models of multiple sclerosis. Brain. 126: 2191-2202.


23  C. Raman et al. 2004. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: delayed disease progression in mice by treatment with a cannabinoid. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis & Other Motor Neuron Disorders 5: 33-39.


24  I. Lastres-Becker et al. 2003. Effects of cannabinoids in the rat model of Huntington’s disease generated by an intrastraital injection of malonate. Neuroreport 14: 813-816.


25  E. Williamson. 2001. Synergy and other interactions in phytomedicines. Phytomedicine: International Journal of Phytotherapy and Phytopharmacology 8: 401-409.


26  A. Holdcroft. 2001. Cannabinoids: from plant to patient. Investigative Drugs Journal. 4: 773-775. (See specifically: Abstract: “The active constituents of cannabis, predominantly cannabinoids and possibly flavonoids, are more effective than a single cannabinoid. … Government … clinical trials of cannabis … should enable evidence to be presented to regulatory bodies documenting the medicinal uses of standardized cannabis plant material.”)


27  J. McPartland and E. Russo. 2002. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: greater than the sum of their parts. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. p. 103.


28  The Pharmaceutical Journal. “Cannabis herb may have advantages over THC in epilepsy.” July 19, 2003.


29  Comparison of results from: D. Wade et al. 2004. Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients. Multiple Sclerosis (See specifically: Abstract: Spasticity VAS scores were significantly reduced by cannabis-based medicinal extracts in comparison with placebo.) and J. Zajicek et al. 2003. Cannabinoids for treatment of spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 362: 1517-26 (See specifically: Abstract: Treatment with [oral cannabis extract or THC] did not have a beneficial effect on spasticity.)


30  http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com/projects/sativex/ 


31  Canada News Wire. “Sativex: Novel cannabis derived treatment for MS pain now available in Canada by prescription.” June 20, 2005.


32  Physician’s Desk Reference: 43rd edition. Medical Economics Company. 1989: 1859-1860.


33  Physician’s Desk Reference: 52nd edition. Medical Economics Company. 1998: 2353-2355.


34  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 203.


35  J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. The Lindesmith Center. 1997: 18-19.


36  L. Lemberger et al. 1973. Comparative pharmacology of delta-9-THC and its metabolite 11-0H-Delta-9-THC. Journal of Clinical Investigation 54: 2411-2417 and M. Perez-Reyes et al. 1972. Intravenous injection in man of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Science177: 633-635 as cited by J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence.


37  L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review.17: 445-452.


38  Ibid; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence,19.


39  G. Carter et al. 2004. Medical marijuana: emerging applications for the management of neurologic disorders. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America; L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review; A. Zuardi et al. 1982. Action of cannabidiol on the anxiety and other effects produced by delta-9-THC in normal subjects.Psychopharmacology 76: 245-250; G. Karinol et al. 1974. Cannabidiol interferes with the effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man. European Journal of Pharmacology 28: 172-177.


40  D. Gieringer et al. 2004. Cannabis vaporizer combines efficient delivery of THC with effective suppression of pyrolytic compounds. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4: 7-27.


41  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 199; See also: M. Hashibe et al. 2005. Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk. Alcohol 35: 265-275; K. Rosenblat et al. 2004. Marijuana use and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Research 64: 4049-4054; D. Ford et al. 2001. Marijuana use is not associated with head, neck or lung cancer in adults younger than 55 years: Results of a case cohort study. In: National Institute on Drug Abuse (Eds) Workshop on Clinical Consequences of Marijuana: Program Book.National Institutes of Health: Rockville, MD: p. 10.


42  M. Polen et al. 1993. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco.Western Journal of Medicine 158: 596-601; D. Tashkin. 1993. Is frequent marijuana smoking hazardous to health? Western Journal of Medicine 158: 635-637.


43  D. Gieringer et al. 2004. Cannabis vaporizer combines efficient delivery of THC with effective suppression of pyrolytic compounds. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics.


44  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 203; L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review.


45  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 203.


46  S. Calhoun et al. 1998. Abuse potential of dronabinol. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 30: 187-196; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, p. 19.


47  Ibid; National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. ”The poor solubility of Marinol in aqueous solutions and its high first-pass metabolism in the liver account for its poor bioavailability; only 10-20% of an oral dose reaches the systemic circulation. The onset of action is slow; peak concentrations are not attained until two to four hours after dosing. In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed. … Variations in individual responses is highest for oral THC and bioavailability is lowest.”


48  L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate. Drug and Alcohol Review.


49  Of Marinol’s patient population, only about 10 percent use it to combat cancer-related nausea. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 204.


50  E. Woolridge et al. 2005. Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 29: 358-67.


51  R. Schwartz and R. Beveridge. 1994. Marijuana as an antiemetic drug: how useful today. Opinions from clinical oncologists. Journal of Addictive Diseases 13: 53-65.


52  R. Doblin and M. Kleiman. 1991. Marijuana as an anti-emetic medicine: a survey of oncologists’ attitudes and experiences. Journal of Clinical Oncology 19: 1275-1290.


53  National Institutes of Health. 1997. Report of the Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana.Washington, DC as cited by L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic use of cannabis: clarifying the debate.Drug and Alcohol Review.


54  Medical News Today. “New synthetic delta-9-THC Inhaler offers safe, rapid delivery, Phase I study.” April 17, 2005.


55  Ibid.


56  Presentation of Unimed Pharmaceuticals Senior Vice President Robert Dudley before the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: February 24, 1998.


57  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 207; Morgan and L. Zimmer, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, p. 21; Medical Marijuana ProCon.org


58  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 206.


59  L. Growing et al. 1998. Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. Drug and Alcohol Services Council: South Australia.


60  National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 207; Medical Marijuana ProCon.org


61  State research trials regarding natural cannabis were discontinued by 1985, after the FDA approved Marinol.


62  The cannabis distributed in these trails was manufactured and provided by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Cannabis was provided to patients in the form of a cigarette.


63  R. Musty and R. Rossi. 2001. Effects of smoked cannabis and oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on nausea and emesis after cancer chemotherapy: a review of state clinical trials. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. 1: 29-56. “The data reviewed here suggested that the inhalation of THC appears to be more effective than the oral route. … Patients who smoked marijuana experienced 70-100% relief from nausea and vomiting, while those who used THC capsules experienced 76-88% relief.”


64  Board of Pharmacy, State of Tennessee. 1983. Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and Tetrahydrocannabinol in Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity. p. 5.


65  Behavioral Health Services Division. 1983. The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program: A Report on Progress to Date. Health and Environment Department: New Mexico. p. 4.


66  Research Advisory Panel. 1986. Seventeenth Annual Report of the Research Advisory Panel, p. 9-10.


67  V. Vinciguerra et al. 1988. Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy. New York State Journal of Medicine 88: 525-527.


68  E. Woolridge et al. 2005. Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.


69  D. Prentiss et al. 2004. Patterns of marijuana use among patients with HIV/AIDS followed in a public health care setting. Journal of Acquired Immune Definiciency Syndromes 35: 38-45


70  R. Gorter et al. 2005. Medical use of cannabis in the Netherlands. Neurology 64: 917-919.


71  Ibid.


72  Reuters News Wire. “Marijuana helps MS patients alleviate pain, spasms.” August 19, 2002.


73  Ibid.


74  S. Page et al. 2003. Cannabis use as described by people with multiple sclerosis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 30: 201-205.


75  Ibid.


76  A. Clark et al. 2004. Patterns of cannabis use among patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 62: 2098-2100.


77  D. Gross et al. 2004. Marijuana use and epilepsy. Neurology 62: 2095-2097.


78  Ibid.


79  News Wire. “Pot may ease Parkinson’s symptoms — Czech study.” November 13, 2002.

Out of touch on Colorado pot policy

Marijuana should be treated like Marinol, a synthetic THC approved by the FDA and widely-prescribed by physicians. There is no nanogram limit on Marinol. The caution statement on Marinol prescriptions reads: “Patients receiving treatment with Marinol
Boucher pointed out that though Marinol, a drug in pill form synthesized from THC, the chemical inside marijuana, is legal in Connecticut, medical marijuana is a violation of federal law, a point Republican state Rep. Al Adinolfi
Marijuana should be treated like Marinol, a synthetic THC approved by the FDA and widely-prescribed by physicians. There is no nanogram limit on Marinol. The ca.
Yet surely Roach is aware that prescription Marinol contains synthetic THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana. Indeed, the DEA contends Marinol is an appropriate legal substitute for marijuana. So if there is an unsettled scientific question,
Boucher pointed out that though Marinol, a drug in pill form synthesized from THC, the chemical inside marijuana, is legal in Connecticut, medical marijuana is a violation of federal law, a point Republican state Rep. Al Adinolfi, of Cheshire,

Marinol: The Little Synthetic That Couldn’t


Marinol is a synthetic form of THC that is less affective than cannabis in plant form, yet it is a Schedule 3 compared to cannabis, which is a Schedule 1, having no medicinal value.
Sam Skipper is a handsome man with black hair, blue eyes and a theatrical style that is well known in La Mesa, California. But in 1991, two years after the freelance gardener was diagnosed with HIV, his famous energy began to wane. “From August to December, I lost nineteen pounds,” says Skipper. “When I went to the doctor, he said, `It’s obvious you’re suffering from wasting syndrome.’”
Wasting syndrome, or anorexia-cachexia, afflicts 70 to 90 percent of AIDS patients, robbing them of their appetite. The resulting malnutrition can be more deadly than the virus itself. But there is only one drug that is commonly prescribed for the treatment of wasting syndrome: Marinol, the synthetic form of THC, the most psychoactive component of marijuana.
When Skipper tried a friend’s Marinol, it passed through him without any effect. “But marijuana is wonderful,” says Skipper. “It relaxes me, it takes away my pain. It makes me hungry and thirsty, so I eat and drink more, and that builds up my immune system.”
After watching his lover suffer through AZT treatment, Skipper refused synthetic medication altogether. “I took it on myself to eat,” he says – with the help of some homegrown sinsemilla. He liked to eat the buds fresh, or blend them into “peanut-butter balls” for breakfast, or cook them down into what he calls “cannabis tar.” “You take a little bit of that on your finger and chase it with milk,” he says.
The pot made Skipper hungry, and he started to gain back his weight. Blood tests taken last fall show that he has a high T-cell count (1210, which is 400 above normal), and also carries the antibodies to Hepatitis A, B, and C. “My immune system functions quite well,” he declares. At 164 pounds, he feels fat.
But the US government isn’t interested in Skipper’s weight gain – only his criminality. In the spring of 1993, a local narcotics task force raided his home twice, seizing crops of about 40 plants each. He was charged with possession and cultivation, and went to trial in San Diego Superior Court last October. In a landmark decision, the jury accepted his medical-necessity defense. Skipper was free until January, when the judge threw him in jail for violating an earlier probation. There he was knifed and lost eight pounds before his release on March 3. His case is now on appeal.
After one look at this man, the San Diego jury understood something the US government cannot bring itself to admit: that it is more important to help AIDS patients eat than it is to punish them for smoking marijuana.
Today, millions of Americans suffer from medical conditions that can be alleviated by marijuana. Doctors have witnessed that smoking marijuana, among other things, promotes weight gain for AIDS patients and reduces vomiting for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
But for cancer and AIDS patients, the US government has one answer: Marinol, or THC in a gel cap. Marinol has been approved by the FDA as a treatment for nausea and wasting syndrome, and the government claims it is superior to the “crude drug” marijuana. But the ban on marijuana isn’t really driven by concerns over public health. Instead, it serves the interests of business and pharmacology.
Unlike marijuana, which can be grown cheaply by the masses, Marinol is produced by pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and distribute it for profit. And unlike hemp seeds, which reproduce in the presence of light, water and a green thumb, Marinol is hatched in a lab, the product of chemicals and machines.
The story begins in 1985, when Unimed, now located in Buffalo, IL, bought the patent for Marinol from the National Cancer Institute. In order to produce the artificial cannabinoid THC, Unimed purchases a raw material known as termpene olivitol from Hoffmann-LaRoche, and sends it to a laboratory in Southern California. There, the crude oil is treated by a process known as liquid chromatography. If you push enough termpene olivitol through a silica gel column, you get 99 percent THC.
Another lab takes that THC and mixes it with sesame oil, then seals it in gel caps, in doses of 2.5, 5 and 10 milligrams. These caps are shipped to Roxane Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where they are packaged and distributed to your local drug store. A month’s prescription costs between $150 and $180.
The only problem is that the pill, which looks like a vitamin cap, isn’t all that popular in the sick wards. There are three main objections. First, vomiting patients have trouble swallowing a pill. Then, if a patient does swallow the pill, the good effects don’t kick in for hours. And when the pill finally starts to work – buckle up. “A 2.5 milligram Marinol pill absolutely knocked me out,” reports one man with AIDS. “I wound up lying on the sofa for days, just totally drugged and unproductive.”
Marinol has unpleasant side effects – as can be expected from a pill that is 99 percent THC. An April 1986 product insert from Roxane warned that Marinol elicits “disturbing psychiatric symptoms,” and that even patients on low doses might experience “a full-blown picture of psychosis.” The latter phrase has disappeared from recent product inserts, but experts say nothing has changed.
“It’s way too psychoactive,” says Robert Randall, the glaucoma patient who was the first American to obtain marijuana legally from the government. “When I took Marinol, I found it anxiety-provoking and intense, like I had wandered into a short story by Flannery O’Connor.”
In 1992, Randall traveled around the country. “I talked to hundreds of AIDS patients,” he says, “and only one preferred Marinol to marijuana.” It’s not just that marijuana helps them gain weight – it’s that Marinol is so scary. “A lot of guys start crying spontaneously when they’re on THC,” says Randall. “Then there’s the girl who took Marinol, looked at her mother and saw the angel of death.” Randall snorts. “How unpleasant would that be if you were sitting in a hospital, dying?”
It’s not unusual for AIDS patients who start smoking marijuana to gain 20 or 30 pounds. And many of them told Randall that Marinol didn’t even make them hungry. Randall’s informal poll is backed up by Dr. Robert Gorter of San Francisco, who has studied AIDS patients extensively. Writing in the journal of the Physicians Association for AIDS Care in 1992, Gorter stated, “Again and again patients have testified that they preferred marijuana above dronabinol [the scientific name for Marinol] for its appetite-stimulating effect.”
There was much testing done to prove marinol to be 'safe and effective' and while patients have been the anecdotal evidence for decades that marijuana is effective, perhaps having a comparison to the synthetic version will encourage more research into the plant matter itself and not the synthetic version, which can be costly.
Naturally, Roxane Labs has done studies that prove Marinol is effective as an appetite stimulant. “We went to a lot of trouble,” says Dr. Kirk Shepard, Roxane’s director of medical affairs. “It’s very difficult to do clinical trials for patients who are very ill. But we did properly controlled, randomized studies over the past few years and have proved that, statistically, there was a benefit for the majority of patients.”
Dr. Shepard is willing to admit that marijuana can be an effective treatment for cancer and glaucoma. “With chemotherapy, I would say yes, there are some studies that show that marijuana is effective,” he says. But for AIDS patients with a loss of appetite, he says, “there’s just no data” to show that marijuana can be safe and effective.
Most doctors leave it to the patients to decide whether or not a drug works. But the DEA doesn’t trust patients’ judgment. In the government’s 1992 decision to ban medical marijuana, a DEA administrator wrote, “Sick people are not objective, scientific observers, especially when it comes to their own health.” The decision was backed by Robert Bonner, the head of the Public Health Service under George Bush, who declared, “There is not a shred of evidence that smoking marijuana assists a person with AIDS.”
Some advocates of medical marijuana believe the best strategy for getting marijuana to AIDS patients is to conduct studies that will definitively prove its effectiveness. Randall scoffs at the need for such studies. Recalling the late Kenny and Barbra Jenks, the Florida AIDS patients who received legal government marijuana, he says, “What’s to prove? Two people have AIDS. They smoke pot, they gain weight. End of story.”
Advocates of clinical trials say the US government should supply the natural marijuana – and it’s not as if Uncle Sam doesn’t know how. Since 1969, a team of white coats has been cultivating the flowering tops of female cannabis plants in Oxford, MS. The notorious “pot farm,” hidden on five acres of bottomland, is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and run by the University of Mississippi. It continues to produce a limited quantity of low-grade marijuana each year.
After the plants are analyzed for THC content, they’re shipped in barrels to the Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina, where the dried leaves are rolled at a cost of $2 per joint. The joints are stored and frozen, pending delivery.
Back in the 1970s, these machine-rolled cigarettes were considered the best way to give THC to cancer patients who needed it. But there was concern about whether it was advisable from a political point of view. On May 9, 1978, a group of doctors met at the National Cancer Institute to discuss whether the THC cigarette merited further study. At the time, there was a THC pill available for research, but no pill had passed the tests needed for FDA approval.
According to minutes of the NCI meeting, Dr. Monroe Wall of the Research Triangle Institute said that his THC cigarette “is now highly standardized and is a reliable and reproducible method of administering the drug.”
Several doctors at the meeting noted that absorption of the THC pill was “erratic” and “unpredictable,” They agreed that “all in all, the cigarette may be the best means of administering the drug.”
Meanwhile, the news was spreading that marijuana could provide relief for cancer patients. In 1978, New Mexico passed the first state law recognizing the medical value of marijuana. Over the next few years, more than 30 states passed similar legislation. “By the summer of 1980,” says Bob Randall, “there was building pressure on the federal government to provide marijuana through an experimental program.” California requested one million joints.
The burgeoning demand for THC put the government in a pinch. But the bureaucrats rejected the obvious solution, which would be to increase production on the “pot farm.” The idea that NIDA could grow enough marijuana to accommodate the needs of sick people is what the drug warriors call an “imponderable” – meaning simply that they refuse to think about it. And so the search began for a pharmaceutical substitute.
In the late 1970s, says Bob Randall, “Everyone had decided that nabilone was the great white drug” that would replace marijuana. Nabilone is manufactured by Eli Lilly under the trade name Cesamet; its active ingredient is hexahydro-cannabinol. By 1978, the drug was being tested on cancer patients, and Lilly officials were predicting FDA approval within a year. “They had it on double-tracking with humans and animals,” Randall says, “until suddenly, dogs on nabilone started having convulsions and dropping dead.”
Enter Marinol. Tested on rats and other animals in the 1970s, it was never meant for human consumption. But after Cesamet bombed, the bureaucrats decided to give it a chance. In October 1980, the NCI began distributing Marinol free of charge to 20,000 patients at 800 hospitals. One of the 2,600 doctors who participated in the program was Dr. Ivan Silverberg, an oncologist in San Francisco.
Silverberg, one of the first doctors to use chemotherapy on lymphoma patients, had been an early champion of medical marijuana. Nevertheless, he entered the NCI program, and began prescribing THC to his cancer patients. After a year, Randall says, “One of Ivan’s patients walked into his office and threw the bottle at him, accusing him of trying to poison her.” He subsequently dropped out of the program.
During the early ’80s, studies were conducted in six states, offering smokeable marijuana to cancer patients who had not responded to traditional antivomiting medication. And while thousands of patients found marijuana consistently safer and more effective than synthetic THC, the government rejected the studies. They had already found a foster home for Marinol.
Back when Ronald Reagan was elected, Unimed was just a fledgling company in Somerville, NJ. Its executives didn’t have the money to develop pharmaceuticals on their own, so they developed a strategy to purchase experimental drugs from university and government studies, then market the drugs for a profit.
In 1981, the government agreed to sell the Marinol patent to Unimed, and Unimed applied to the FDA for permission to market the pill as a treatment for nausea. In November 1984, the FDA rejected Unimed’s application because clinical tests that had been done on the drug were deficient. But Unimed hustled up some more data, and by June 1985, the FDA delivered its approval. A year later, the DEA gave it a green light.
In 1987, two years after Unimed bought the Marinol patent from the NCI, the little company was flush with profits from the pill: $1.5 million in one year alone. In 1990, Unimed executives said they were anticipating a potential windfall of $80 million a year from the poor saps with cancer, and up to $1 billion a year from victims of the HIV virus. Marinol sales have never reached expectations. In fact, the company’s annual revenues have never topped $3 million.
In 1992, soon after the FDA approved Marinol for wasting syndrome, Roxane’s publicity department went into overdrive, printing out glossy pamphlets for AIDS patients. The pamphlets offer advice on weight gain (“Enjoy an ice cream sundae frequently!”) and dining enjoyment (“Use a tablecloth and china; invite a friend to share your meal”). But the most bizarre tip involves marijuana: “Do not smoke marijuana while using Marinol. This can cause an overdose.”
It’s simply ludicrous to suggest that a patient who is taking gel caps of 99 percent THC is going to overdose by smoking a cigarette averaging 5 to 10 percent THC. The product insert for Marinol dated December 1992 makes no mention of interactions between Marinol and smoked marijuana.
Besides, you can’t overdose to death on pot. According to pharmacologist Andrew Weil, researchers have tried to kill dogs with an overdose of marijuana, and the dogs simply won’t die. You might die if you ate 40 aspirins or 10 raw potatoes, but not if you ate 10 pounds of pot.
Synthetic THC is another story: swallowing a handful of pills can leave a patient unconscious. The 1992 product insert offers this advice for treating a Marinol overdose: “A potentially serious oral ingestion, if recent, should be managed with gut decontamination. In unconscious patients with a secure airway, instill activated charcoal via a nasogastric tube. A saline cathartic or sorbitol may be added to the first dose of activated charcoal.”
Does that sound risky? Let’s move on to the potential for developing a habit. According to the December 1992 product insert, Marinol can be “habit-forming” – in other words, a patient who stops taking it abruptly may go through four days of withdrawal. Typical symptoms include irritability, insomnia, anorexia, hiccups and diarrhea. Sleep disturbances may last for weeks.
What about cancer? Of course, anything you smoke may be damaging to your lungs. And one of the medical raps against marijuana is that it involves smoking a combination of 421 chemicals: 61 cannabinoids, a host of amino acids, proteins, and sugars – and at least one known carcinogen, benzopyrene. No one knows what that does to your lungs, but according to Dr. Donald Tashkin, one of the government’s anti-marijuana experts, recent laboratory studies have linked marijuana smoke with “accelerated malignant changes in hamster lung cells,” with “increased mutations,” “microscopic abnormalities,” and “increased risks of respiratory tract malignancy.”
Those links sound a bit tentative. But even NORML executive director Dick Cowan concedes that marijuana may be carcinogenic. “We have never claimed marijuana is harmless,” he says. “I encourage people to use a water pipe to reduce the possible damage to the respiratory system.”
You would think, with all the government-funded tests to see if marijuana can be linked to cancer, the same would be done for Marinol. But no one seems to care. According to the 1992 product insert, “Carcinogenicity studies have not been performed with dronabinol.”
Aside from lung cancer, smoking marijuana poses another potential risk for people with compromised immune systems. The government has long been telling pot-smokers that they risk “salmonella and fungal spore contamination.” And a recent study conducted at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that smoking marijuana, crack, or other drugs is “significantly associated” with bacterial pneumonia among patients with HIV.
The government has not produced a single case of a pneumonia or lung cancer contracted from smoking marijuana. But the risks are authentic, and Sam Skipper has taken precautions. He smokes from a large collection of water pipes.
Skipper is also keen to the risk of fungus and bacteria. “There are no contaminants in homegrown,” he points out. “But sometimes when I buy marijuana, I sterilize it myself. Marijuana is not water-soluble, so you can actually wash it in a pan, and then stick it in the microwave and dry it. You lose about a third, but you end up with sterilized cannabis.
Finally, it’s worth reviewing the side effects of marijuana and Marinol. While there are numerous side effects from smoking marijuana (euphoria, laughter, anxiety, dry mouth, red eyes, sleepiness, clumsiness, the munchies), countless patients who have used marijuana in a medical setting have testified that they experienced no adverse side effects.
People who take Marinol, on the other hand, frequently complain about the “disturbing psychiatric symptoms” that are common side effects of the drug. According to a 1985 edition of
The 1992 product insert for Marinol scatters these symptoms throughout the section marked ADVERSE REACTIONS (“amnesia,” “depersonalization,” “hallucination,” “paranoid reaction,” “depression”), but saves psychosis for a passing reference in the section called OVERDOSAGE: “Patients experiencing depressive, hallucinatory or psychotic reactions should be placed in a quiet area and offered reassurance.”
The side effects of marijuana pale beside those of other drugs commonly prescribed by doctors in the US. The standard drugs used in chemotherapy can cause deafness, kidney failure and cancer; those used to treat nausea can cause ulcers, secondary infections and psychosis; the eye drops and pills used to treat glaucoma can cause depression, heart failure, numbness and kidney stones; and the medications commonly given to paraplegics can cause kidney failure, hepatitis and seizures.
In 1987, after reviewing the evidence, DEA administrative law judge Francis Young declared, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” But don’t ask why the government is so afraid of medical marijuana. Even Bob Randall doesn’t have an answer. “I think it’s odd we’ve got a government that’s willing to secretly give you plutonium,” he says, “but it won’t give you marijuana when you want it. That seems a little twisted to me.”
Fortunately, the sick people who need marijuana are not alone in their struggle. In the last few years, cancer and AIDS doctors have begun to speak out, asserting a physician’s right to prescribe any drug that might work. Last spring, the Lymphoma Foundation and the Physicians Association for AIDS Care joined a lawsuit on behalf of medical marijuana. The 1,000 members of PAAC, which is based in Chicago, treat nearly 250,000 people with HIV, so they have firsthand experience with marijuana as a treatment for wasting syndrome.
“First,” says PAAC’s executive director Gordon Nary, “physicians should try the drugs that have been FDA-approved.” Of course, not all drugs work for all patients. Before suggesting marijuana, he says, doctors should “alert patients who have a compromised immune system to the risks” of fungal infection. But when you’re treating someone whose life is at stake, Nary sighs, “It’s simply a matter of appropriate medicine and human decency to allow compassionate use of any drug, experimental or on somebody’s blackballed list.”

Link Us