Jun 14 2016 Published by drugmonkey under Cannabis, Drug Abuse Science
There is a lot of focus on cannabis this year. Much more than usual, seemingly.
And everyone talks about how it is the growing legalization (medical and recreational) that is the driving justification.
I find this to be interesting.
8 responses so far
Like legalization leads to people justifying more use, thus making it more important to study, or legalization makes it easier for scientists to justify studying it to peers? (or both?)
As someone who is interested and well versed in cannabis, what do you think about all the interest in cannabinoids as therapeutics? I've had several neutraceutical organizations contact me about testing CBDs against a disease model I work on, but I'm hesitant about pursuing any of these opportunities because they feel a bit like snake oil.
It cures cancer. Haven't you been reading the memes? Case closed.
Philapodia- it comes down to whether you can find support for the idea that is convincing enough to you, for your model. For example, I'd say a fair read is that evidence on seizure is enough to interest ppl in some focal effort on CBD.
Other proposed applications may not have sufficient evidence as yet. Some might be worth an unlikely shot.
Makes sense, doesn't it? As it becomes more legal and widely prescribed, it makes sense to study its effects more intensely. It'd be nice if we lived in a world where a preponderance of scientific evidence could be amassed before something affects a ton of people, but such is not our lot.
My fear is that these organizations are trying to get academic labs to test CBD so they can say that "CBD has been scientifically shown to cure X disease", when in fact it's really only been superficially tested in a very artificial in vitro system and has not gone through rigorous clinical Phase 1-3 trials to fully understand if CBD is having a real effect against the disease and if it's safe. Because they're a "supplement" they're not regulated, and in my opinion this poses a potential risk to public health if they're being marketed as cures.
Since CBD remains a Schedule I drug I am unclear on the advantage to "supplement" companies.
I am intrigued by the epilepsy connection, though still frustrated by the mostly newspaper anecdote "evidence". I feel like there's some truth to the conspiracy theorists, though, that good studies on a widely available substance with political overtones are difficult to fund.
The stories on the cannabis seem as good as the stories on brain stimulation for epilepsy, in my cursory looks, though.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded researcher who blogs about careerism in science. And occasionally about the science of drug use.
Site Admin | Theme by Niyaz
Drugmonkey Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved