Does Marijuana have Medical Value?

Recommend (2) Comments (2)

Apparently the folks at the Drug Free America Foundation have never actually bothered to read the literature on either medical marijuana or vaporization of marijuana. Smoking certainly has health drawbacks, and the Institute of Medicine urged research into alternatives in its 1999 White House-commissioned report, but also noted, "[I]t will likely be many years before a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system, such as an inhaler, is available for patients. In the meantime, there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief." [emphasis added]


Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders noted much the same thing in a 2004 column in the Providence Journal: "For many who need only a small amount -- like cancer patients simply trying to get through a few months of chemotherapy -- the risks of smoking are minor."


DFAF completely misunderstands vaporization -- which doesn't burn the marijuana, and thus produces no smoke and no tars or other toxic combustion products that would need to be filtered. A study of one such device, called the Volcano, published in 2006, concluded, "W ith the Volcano a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system seems to be available to patients." A followup study in 2007 reported, "Vaporization of cannabis is a safe and effective mode of delivery of THC."


And finally: No, eating does not "deliver the same damaging compounds." Those damaging compounds are all combustion products. No burning means no combustion products -- no tars, no carbon monoxide, etc. This isn't advanced stuff, it's 8th grade science. Does DFAF really not understand?