Adding new conditions denied

Looks like the state has considered the addition of new conditions to those covered under Prop 203, and decided against adding them.

The irony is that for at least some of the existing conditions- including Crohn's- there's virtually no data to support their use. (One single study for Crohn's, and the results for that didn't come out until after Prop 203 was settled.)

If you read the article in the AZ Republic they basically said that there were no "high quality" studies to base there decision on. There will never be any "high quality" studies as the Federal Government won't allow research on medical cannabis. The only way they will ever add new conditions to the program is if they are put on the ballot via a referendum. Just like the "25 mile rule" will never be changed with out a referendum. The state hates the MMJ program and will never do anything to expand it and they can continue to denied new conditions based on a lack of scholarly studies and peer reviewed research which can't happen in the U.S.

YThor said:

Looks like the state has considered the addition of new conditions to those covered under Prop 203, and decided against adding them.

The irony is that for at least some of the existing conditions- including Crohn's- there's virtually no data to support their use. (One single study for Crohn's, and the results for that didn't come out until after Prop 203 was settled.)

Click to expand...

Hey man... not to belittle your argument or anything, but I have CD and without MJ my life is hell... MJ has always been lauded as anti-inflammatory, which is the primary side effect of Crohns disease. I don't lie really when I say I ingest upwards of an eighth a day, and I still struggle with appetite and pain all the time. Everyone gets excited about new food / restaurants or buffets, to me they are a certain trip to the hospital... Furthermore CD is a disease you have for life and kills people all the time, they aren't claiming MJ cures anything it really is there just so us with stomach pain can get a meal down every once in a while in peace.

That being said, your right, it should be used in tons of situations, the real problem is that there is little to no real clinical research in the USA so much of it is just anecdotal evidence. I think the law is really in effect to relieve pain and suffering mainly.

achiever420 said:

If you read the article in the AZ Republic they basically said that there were no "high quality" studies to base there decision on. There will never be any "high quality" studies as the Federal Government won't allow research on medical cannabis. The only way they will ever add new conditions to the program is if they are put on the ballot via a referendum. Just like the "25 mile rule" will never be changed with out a referendum. The state hates the MMJ program and will never do anything to expand it and they can continue to denied new conditions based on a lack of scholarly studies and peer reviewed research which can't happen in the U.S.

Click to expand...

I will add that they did write it into the Arizona program that there will be studies available for people to participate in (if you checked the box on the form and follow through), I don't know the validity of these yet I'll look through the e-mails I have been receiving.

This seems like a positive step in the right direction for MMJ.

1337hacker said:

I will add that they did write it into the Arizona program that there will be studies available for people to participate in (if you checked the box on the form and follow through), I don't know the validity of these yet I'll look through the e-mails I have been receiving.

This seems like a positive step in the right direction for MMJ.

Click to expand...

Yes that is true however unless the Federal Government reclassifies cannabis researcher's and university's aren't allowed to do research on it in any meaningful way so there will never be any studies which will provide the type of evidence Mr. Humble is looking for.

1337hacker said:

Hey man... not to belittle your argument or anything, but I have CD and without MJ my life is hell...

Click to expand...

I got CD, too; I'm just saying there's virtually no proof in the peer-reviewed literature to back up its use (and what does exist is pretty shoddy), yet it's standard in California, Michigan, Colorado, etc.

I've asked NORML and other folks to give me a history lesson as to how it got there (and I certainly don't deny that it works- quite the contrary), and nobody seems to know, or to care enough to tell me.

If Crohn's can get on the list for approved uses despite the dearth of supporting data, following the history as to how it happened may serve as an insight as to how to get other conditions added.

1337hacker said:

I will add that they did write it into the Arizona program that there will be studies available for people to participate in (if you checked the box on the form and follow through), I don't know the validity of these yet I'll look through the e-mails I have been receiving.

This seems like a positive step in the right direction for MMJ.

Click to expand...

What it is is a link to Clinicaltrials.gov, which allows you to search for studies that are recruiting for marijuana studies. So, you need to search through thousands of clinical trials, find the ones that are studying medical marijuana, locate the ones that are in the recruitment phase, then find studies that are being done in your area.

Right now, 12 studies are listed for marijuana and Arizona, 9 of which are recruiting:

Sativex and advanced cancer

Radiation Therapy in Treating Women Who Have Undergone Surgery For Ductal Carcinoma In Situ or Stage I or Stage II Breast Cancer (which fails to mention marijuana, cannabis, or Sativex anywhere in the text)

Higher-Dose Radiation Therapy or Standard Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer That Was Removed by Surgery (which fails to mention marijuana, cannabis, or Sativex anywhere)

Radiation Therapy, Paclitaxel, and Carboplatin With or Without Trastuzumab in Treating Patients With Esophageal Cancer (no mention of marijuana, cannabis, or Sativex)

Radiation Therapy With or Without Cetuximab in Treating Patients Who Have Undergone Surgery for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer (ditto)

Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy With or Without Cetuximab in Treating Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer (ditto)

Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Prostate Cancer (ditto)

Gemcitabine Hydrochloride With or Without Erlotinib Hydrochloride Followed By the Same Chemotherapy Regimen With or Without Radiation Therapy and Capecitabine or Fluorouracil in Treating Patients With Pancreatic Cancer That Has Been Removed By Surgery (ditto)

Three Different Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide (ditto)

So- one out of 12 studies that involves marijuana, and that's in the form of Sativex. Changing the search to "marijuana + Phoenix" or "marijuana + Tucson" yields no new/different results than the studies listed above.

In other words, there really isn't anything for the use of cannabis/marijuana with respect to medical studies- just Sativex, and that's just one study anyway.

Thanks for doing a little grunt work. I think what I was getting at is the law is written so that not only are the conditions that are listed considered automatic tickets into the show... but also that anything a doctor deems chronic pain. That leads me to believe that most of the medical marijuana philosophy as to right now is it's ability to relieve pain. I don't think anyone is trying to say they are curing chronic illnesses or anything, just relieving pain, which is what the law seems to be good for.

achiever420 said:

Yes that is true however unless the Federal Government reclassifies cannabis researcher's and university's aren't allowed to do research on it in any meaningful way so there will never be any studies which will provide the type of evidence Mr. Humble is looking for.

Click to expand...

I think that I read that the state and the UofA had contracted to actually do research on cannabis.

shootermcgavin7 said:

I think that I read that the state and the UofA had contracted to actually do research on cannabis.

Click to expand...

Not exactly they were appointed to do research on the research that already existed. Which is bullshit because cannabis is a schedule 1 and therefore studies will never be federally funded and do not exist.

irieie said:

Not exactly they were appointed to do research on the research that already existed. Which is bullshit because cannabis is a schedule 1 and therefore studies will never be federally funded and do not exist.

Click to expand...

You're right - thanks for clarifying. Basically it was a glorified literature review and not a research project.

“don’t worry Happy, you got this, Shooter’s gonna choke”