Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

President Joe Biden is pardoning everyone who has been convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law and is urging governors to take similar action for those convicted of possession under state laws.

Biden’s blanket pardon will affect over 6,500 people who have been convicted or charged with federal offenses for marijuana possession. If governors join in, it could potentially impact millions of others who have been convicted of possession under state laws and now have criminal records. The pardon does not alter federal or state laws that prohibit marijuana trafficking, marketing and under-age sales.

“Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Criminal records for marijuana possession have also imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities,” Biden said in a statement. “Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.” 

The mass pardon partially fulfills a campaign promise made by Biden during the 2020 election campaign and begins the process of changing marijuana’s status under federal law. Biden said he would ask Attorney General Merrick Garland to “expeditiously” review how marijuana is classified.

Marijuana was classified by the DEA as a Schedule I controlled drug in 1970, on the same level as heroin and LSD, which means it has “no currently accepted medical use.” That classification now makes little sense, with 37 states and the District of Columbia having legalized medical marijuana as a treatment for chronic pain and other health issues.

“We are pleased that today President Biden is following through on this pledge and that he is also encouraging governors to take similar steps to ensure that the tens of millions of Americans with state-level convictions for past marijuana crimes can finally move forward with their lives,” said Erik Altieri, Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).  

Altieri said the DEA should “deschedule” marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, and not just change its status to a less restrictive Schedule II or III level. Descheduling would amount to full legalization.

“Nearly half of voters now agree that legalizing marijuana ought to be a priority of Congress, and such action can only be taken by descheduling cannabis and repealing it from the US Controlled Substances Act — thereby regulating it in a manner similar to alcohol,” he said.

In 2020, the House passed legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, but the bill never came to a vote in the Senate, then controlled by Republicans. Legalization would appear unlikely if the 2022 midterm elections result in the GOP taking control of either the House or Senate.

Last week, a House GOP caucus released a “Family Policy Agenda” saying Congress should not legalize marijuana. The report claimed legalization at the state level “led to an explosion of marijuana use among children, which is having a hugely negative impact on their health.”

More Americans are now using marijuana and cannabis-based products to manage their pain than pharmaceutical drugs. A 2021 Harris Poll found that 16% of adults are using cannabis or CBD for pain relief, compared to 8% who use opioid medications and 11% who use non-opioid pain relievers.

Ending the War on Drugs Probably Won’t Help Pain Patients

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

America’s war on drugs has been running for half a century and calls to bring it to an end are increasing. Lawmakers and public health experts are questioning federal and state policies that criminalize drug use, while the public generally supports less punitive measures to address drug abuse and addiction.

"The war on drugs must end,” said a recent editorial in The Lancet. “Decriminalisation of personal drug use, coupled with increased resources for treatment and harm reduction, alongside wider initiatives to reduce poverty, and improve access to health care, could transform the lives of those affected."

But ending the war on drugs probably won’t help people with chronic painful conditions. That’s because decriminalization of recreational drugs is not necessarily associated with full legalization – as is the case with marijuana -- while legalization of recreational drugs is separate from medical care with pharmaceutical prescriptions.

The debate about how to end the drug war is largely ideological at this point. In the new issue of The American Journal of Ethics, Carl Hart, PhD, author of the book “Drug Use for Grown Ups,” writes with colleagues that laws criminalizing drug use are “rooted in explicit racism.”

"We call for the immediate decriminalization of all so-called recreational drugs and, ultimately, for their timely and appropriate legal regulation," they wrote.

But bioethicist Travis Rieder, PhD, author of the book “In Pain” about his experience with opioid-based pain management, wrote in the same journal that “ending the war on drugs does not require legalization, and the good of racial justice and harm reduction can be achieved without legalization.”

Yet another view comes from Stanford psychiatrist and PROP board member Anna Lembke, MD, who wrote in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs that creating a “safe supply” of drugs by legalizing the non-medical use of prescription medication would be a mistake.

“The expanded use of controlled prescription drugs should not occur in the absence of reliable evidence to support it, lest we find ourselves contending with a worse drug crisis than the one we’re already in. No supply of potent, addictive, lethal drugs is ‘safe’ without guarding against misuse, diversion, addiction, and death,” said Lembke.

The Lancet points to Portugal as an example that other countries should follow. But contrary to common belief, Portugal has not legalized drugs. In Portugal, drug possession of no more than a ten-day supply is an administrative offense handled by so-called dissuasion commissions.

Portugal has not even legalized recreational cannabis. Medical cannabis is legal in Portugal, but only when prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacy if conventional medical treatments have failed. Personal cultivation of cannabis remains against the law.

Further, neither decriminalization nor legalization necessarily improves racial and social justice. For instance, the University of Washington’s Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute reports that the legalization of cannabis in Washington state in 2012 has had no impact on reducing racial bias in policing and other disparities in the criminal justice system.

Broad drug decriminalization or legalization would likely have little impact on pain management. Healthcare professionals routinely prescribe medications that are illegal outside of clinical medicine, after weighing the risks and benefits for each patient. Patients are often monitored via pain contracts and drug testing, with some agreements even disallowing cannabis and restricting alcohol use for patients taking medications like opioids or benzodiazepines.

Physicians and pharmacies are under increasing scrutiny from law enforcement, insurers and regulators in the hope of curbing drug abuse. If decriminalization or legalization of drugs leads to more abuse, addiction and overdose, then the scrutiny could increase. So in an unexpected way, an end to the war on drugs could have negative impacts on pharmacological pain management.
 
Supporting an end to the war on drugs is a right and just action. But it would be a mistake to assume that an end to that war will necessarily bring a positive change to pain management. For that, it would be better to support physician autonomy and greatly expanded clinical research into pain management.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.  

Is Recreational Drug Use a Human Right?

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The book “Drug Use for Grown-Ups” by Carl Hart, PhD, is garnering a lot of attention. Hart argues that recreational drug use is a fundamental human right, while also describing the harms of drug laws and policy on people of color. His book is a mixture of anecdote and analysis that raises a lot of important issues about drugs and society.

Hart is unapologetic about his own drug use and that of others, saying that "Adults should be permitted the legal right to sell, purchase, and use recreational drugs of their choice." He sees drug use as “beneficial for human health and functioning” and causing ‘little or no harm” in most instances.

Specifically, Hart states that drug use is an "act that the government is obliged to safeguard” because it is a part of the “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. He claims that Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Declaration, was “a long-term avid drug user.”

Hart, who is a psychology professor at Columbia University, raises numerous questions in a blunt and sometimes brusque fashion, asking “Why is it that guns can be legally purchased but heroin cannot?”

He challenges his readers with remarks like: “Few would balk at using Viagra or Cialis to enhance sexual performance, but many more find it objectionable to use drugs such as amphetamines to improve the sexual experience.”

Hart doesn't mythologize or romanticize drugs or their users, and questions why advocates of the psychedelic movement call themselves “psychonauts.”

“The term psychonaut in itself is another attempt to dissociate middle-class psychedelic users from users of drugs such as crack and heroin, who are disapprovingly called ‘crackheads’ or ‘dope fiends’.”

Hart defends this position by pointing out that nearly 80 percent of illicit drug users don’t have problems such as addiction. He explains that his own heroin use is rational: “Like vacation, sex, and the arts, heroin is one of the tools that I use to maintain my work-life balance.”

As for overdose deaths, Hart contends that contaminated drugs are the issue. “A regulated market, with uniform quality standards, would virtually put an end to contaminated drug consumption and greatly reduce fatal, accidental overdoses,” he writes.

Further, Hart states that drug addiction is not a brain disease, writing that there is no evidence indicating that “responsible recreational drug use” causes brain abnormalities. He says obsessing over addiction has caused harm by stigmatizing drug users as unworthy of social support or rehabilitative care. Hart sees the opioid crisis as overblown and rooted in racism.

“All the evidence from research clearly shows that most heroin users are people who use the drug without problems, such as addiction; they are conscientious and upstanding citizens,” he writes. “The new ‘get tough on opioids’ policies have been fueled by the mistaken perception that most illegal opioid dealers are black or Latino.”

Legalization, Hart claims, is the key to changing all this. Prohibition of alcohol gave birth to criminal gangs and a thriving underground market in booze, some of it so contaminated with impurities it made people sick or even killed them. “This problem went away when Prohibition was repealed,” he points out.

But not all of this holds up so well. Hart argues that a legalized market with regulated substances would keep people safe, but he himself chooses to use an illicit substance called “hex” of unknown provenance and effect while at a drug festival.

“I now include hex among the drugs I might want to take immediately before attending some awful required social event, such as an academic reception or an annual departmental holiday party,” he wrote.

Hart’s book is also notable for what it lacks. He doesn’t look at public health data or long-term studies on drug risks and user outcomes in the U.S. or other countries, and ignores animal research on drug risks and harms.

Hart also omits recent discouraging research on drug legalization and social justice. According to the University of Washington’s Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute, legalization of cannabis has had no impact on reducing racial bias in policing and other disparities in the criminal justice system.   

He also doesn’t discuss the under-treatment of pain in people of color due to myths about higher pain tolerance, lack of nerve endings, or greater abuse and addiction risk.

Hart clearly shows the harms of current drug policy, but arguably overstates the potential benefits of legalization. And his blunt style sometimes diminishes his own credibility.  Overall, the book “Drug Use for Grown-Ups” adds to the discussion of drug policy in the U.S. by asking some challenging questions, but doesn’t resolve many important issues.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

“Drug Use for Grown-Ups” is featured in PNN’s Suggested Reading section, along with other books on pain treatment and drug policy.

Election May Determine Whether Marijuana Will Be Decriminalized

By Dr. Lynn Webster, PNN Columnist

“Times have changed. Marijuana should not be a crime,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said last year when she and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) introduced the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act). The current Democratic vice-presidential nominee called the legalization of marijuana an important step "toward racial and economic justice."

“We need to start regulating marijuana and expunge marijuana convictions from the records of millions of Americans so they can get on with their lives," said Harris.  

"Racially motivated enforcement of marijuana laws has disproportionally impacted communities of color. It’s past time to right this wrong nationwide and work to view marijuana use as an issue of personal choice and public health, not criminal behavior," added Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis and several states allow its recreational use.  If it became law, the MORE Act would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level by removing it as a Schedule I controlled substance.

That wouldn't instantly remove all restrictions; states could still prohibit the sale of cannabis. But the MORE Act would give states more latitude to create laws to suit their needs, establish a trust fund to support programs for communities impacted by the war on drugs, and destroy or seal records of marijuana criminal convictions.

Game Changing Legislation

This week the House Judiciary Committee passed the MORE Act and later this month the full House is expected to approve the bill and send it to Senate. Chances are the bill will not pass the Senate, because Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) opposes it -- while paradoxically supporting hemp farming.

However, if the MORE Act passes, it would be a game changer. It could open the floodgates for the development of products that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the psychoactive compound in marijuana.  Some research suggests THC alone, or THC and cannabidiol (CBD) combined, could be more effective than CBD alone for treating pain, anxiety, insomnia and other conditions. More research could discover life-changing new treatments.

Since THC has rewarding properties, such as inducing euphoria, any drug that includes THC would likely be a controlled substance. Nevertheless, decriminalizing marijuana would create enormous economic opportunities for growers and anyone in the business of finding solutions to medical problems for which marijuana or its derivatives may be useful.

It doesn’t seem likely that marijuana will be decriminalized at the federal level this year. Congress criminalized marijuana in 1937 and all attempts to reform the law at the federal level have ultimately failed. Our current Senate is unlikely to change the status quo.

But the upcoming election will likely determine whether the MORE Act has a chance to become law in the near future. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden supports legalization and decriminalization at the federal level, while President Trump is generally opposed to changing federal marijuana laws. The election will also determine which party controls the House and Senate.

It behooves every voter to become familiar with the candidates' positions regarding cannabis. Criminalizing marijuana has caused great harm. We, as voters, have the power to change that.  

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is author of the award-winning book The Painful Truth, and co-producer of the documentary It Hurts Until You Die. Opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not reflect the views or policy of PRA Health Sciences. You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD.

Drug Legalization Needs to Consider Drugs That Haven’t Been Invented Yet

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

Drug decriminalization and legalization have become hot topics in the U.S. and around the world. Some states have legalized recreational cannabis and a handful of cities have decriminalized psilocybin, a hallucinogen found in some mushrooms. Countries like Portugal have decriminalized all drugs.

The arguments in favor of legalization seem reasonable, from harm reduction and de-stigmatization to access to a well-regulated supply of substances that people are going to use regardless of whether they are legal or not.

But rarely are questions asked about the drugs that haven’t been invented yet. Debate about legalization usually centers on popular but controversial substances like cannabis, with no mention of novel fentanyl analogs or other new psychoactive substances.

Novel opioids appear on the dark web regularly. For instance, the potent synthetic opiod isotonitazene is now being sold online, even though a team of international researchers said it “represents an imminent danger.”

Public health officials in the U.S. also recently warned about isotonitazene in the journal NPS Discovery, after the drug was identified in blood samples from eight overdoses deaths in Illinois and Indiana.

“Pharmacological data suggest that this group of synthetic opioids have potency similar to or greater than fentanyl based on their structural modifications,” they warned. “The toxicity of isotonitazene has not been extensively studied but recent association with drug user death leads professionals to believe this new synthetic opioid retains the potential to cause widespread harm and is of public health concern.”

Similarly, there are reports on overdoses with cyclopropylfentanyl, a chemical cousin of fentanyl that first appeared in Europe in 2017.

“The constantly growing diversity of NSO (new synthetic opioids) still poses a high risk for drug users and can be a challenging task for clinicians and forensic toxicologists. Clinicians treating opioid overdoses should be aware of the potentially long lasting respiratory depression induced by fentanyl analogs,” German researchers said.

Novel Substances

This problem is not limited to illicitly manufactured fentanyls and other opioids. Novel synthetic cannabinoids also pose risks. Such compounds include JWH-018 and AKB48, both known to be dangerous.

And the world of hallucinogens, amphetamines and other psychoactive substances is evolving, too. Psilocybin can now be harvested from bacteria and over 150 synthetic cathiones-- amphetamine-like psychostimulants -- have been identified in clandestine drug markets.

“Over the past hundred years or so, humankind has learned to synthesize the active chemicals in laboratories and to manipulate chemical structures to invent new drugs—the numbers of which began growing exponentially in the 2010s,” Ben Westoff notes in Fentanyl, Inc.

Further, drug consumption technology is changing rapidly. Just as the hypodermic syringe forever changed the risks of heroin, vaping devices are having similar effects. They allow for high-intensity consumption of nicotine, THC, and other drugs that contain unknown contaminants, as seems to have happened with vitamin E acetate in the recent outbreak of lung illnesses associated with vaping.

Lastly, there are risky interactions that can occur with the use of novel substances. The American Council of Science and Health points to the particularly important issue of drug-drug interactions. The world of street drugs now involves so many adulterants and contaminants that, when combined with novel substances, drug-drug interactions are potentially more dangerous than ever.

Historically, legalization of drugs has not led to a net public health benefit. And that was when “drugs” consisted of plant matter or distilled liquids. Modern technology means we can do much better, which in turn means we may be facing far worse.

The greatest risks arguably come from the drugs that have yet to be invented and the interactions that have not been discovered. Any discussion of full drug legalization needs to consider such possibilities.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

Should Opioids Be Sold Over-The-Counter?

By Crystal Lindell, PNN Columnist

There are currently two opioid crises going on. Too many people are dying of overdoses and too many chronic pain patients are being denied the medications they need to function. 

I have a solution for both — make hydrocodone and other opioid medications available over-the-counter without a prescription.

Yes, I know the idea of adding more opioids to the overdose crisis sounds counter-intuitive. But hear me out, because this is the solution that both pain patients and illegal drug users should be fighting for.

In short, it would make it much easier for pain patients to treat their symptoms, while also providing a safe supply for those dealing with addiction.

But isn’t hydrocodone dangerous and addictive? Well yes, it is. But so is alcohol and so is tobacco. So let’s compare.

According to the CDC, cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths annually in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke. As for alcohol, the CDC says it causes about 88,000 deaths per year.

How does that compare to hydrocodone? According to the DEA, of the 1,826 hydrocodone exposures reported to poison control centers in 2016, only two resulted in deaths. That’s right, two.

Another report by the CDC estimates there were 3,199 overdose deaths involving hydrocodone in 2016. But many of those deaths involved other drugs and we don’t know whether the pills were prescribed or not.  

Both estimates pale in comparison to the number of people dying from alcohol and tobacco.  

Yes, the number of deaths might go up if hydrocodone is sold over-the-counter. However, if you factor in how many lives we could save, we would come out far ahead.  

And you know what? The acetaminophen found in hydrocodone products like Vicodin could cause an overdose before the hydrocodone does.  

“The scientifically and medically accepted amount to produce a fatal overdose of hydrocodone is 90 mg. Thus, 18 (5mg) Vicodin pills can lead to an overdose,” explains an addiction recovery website.

“This already puts an individual far above the liver’s tolerance of acetaminophen at 5,400 mg, meaning an individual would experience two separate overdoses if they managed to consume this many pills.”  

Although opioid tolerance can greatly impact how much would be needed to cause an overdose, the fact remains that the acetaminophen might actually be the most dangerous part of the medication. The solution for that? Sell hydrocodone over-the-counter without the acetaminophen.   

Patients Turning to Street Drugs

How do we save lives by giving people more access to drugs? To answer that you have to understand how people are actually dying as a result of the opioid crisis.  

Here’s a hint: it’s not usually caused by hydrocodone. 

First, the misguided fight against the opioid epidemic has led to many doctors refusing to prescribe any opioid medications. Unfortunately, taking medications away from people who need them to function doesn’t somehow result in them magically fighting through the pain. Instead, it just pushes them to take more acetaminophen or some dangerous illegal drug that we’re trying to curb.  

When that happens, people are left to find illegal alternatives — and what they discover is that heroin and illicit fentanyl are actually cheaper than hydrocodone sold on the black market.  

Our system of prohibition is forcing pain patients and illegal drug users to turn to street drugs. We are doing something wrong when it’s easier and cheaper to take heroin or fentanyl than it is to take hydrocodone.  

Making hydrocodone over-the-counter would create a safe supply and would undoubtedly save a lot of lives. It would also have the added benefit of saving patients a lot of money on doctor visits.   

We are at a point when the war on drugs is doing more harm than good for everyone. It’s time for us to consider more radical solutions to these issues. And making hydrocodone available over-the-counter should be at the top of that list.  

Decriminalize Opioids

Thankfully, the country seems to be moving in this direction somewhat. Cannabis is being legalized recreationally, as everyone realizes how pointless marijuana prohibition is. And just this month, Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang announced his proposal to decriminalize opioids.  

“We need to decriminalize the possession and use of small amounts of opioids,” Yang says on his website. “Other countries, such as Portugal, have done so, and have seen treatment go up and drug deaths and addiction go down. When caught with a small quantity of any opioid, our justice system should err on the side of providing treatment.” 

No, Yang is not likely to win. And no, his proposal doesn’t go far enough. But it’s a start — and will hopefully start to shift the conversation.  

Is there anything we can do as patients to help this cause? Honestly, I believe there is. I constantly see pain patients and advocacy groups post disparaging comments about people who use drugs illegally. I understand why it’s easy to blame them for the crackdown on opioids. But they aren’t the ones who put the new regulations in place — for that you can blame the CDC, DEA and FDA.  

Instead of fighting illegal users, we should be trying to work with them as part of a common cause — decriminalization and legalization. It’s a fight we can all get behind.  We can post about that stance online and we can tell our loved ones why it’s important to us. We can also tell our elected officials. You can reach your federal representatives in the House here, and in the Senate here.

If we all take up this cause together, there is real hope we can make progress.  

Crystal Lindell is a journalist who lives in Illinois. She eats too much Taco Bell, drinks too much espresso, and spends too much time looking for the perfect pink lipstick. She has hypermobile Ehlers Danlos syndrome. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

‘Cannabis Tourism’ Linked to More Fatal Accidents

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Has marijuana legalization made driving more dangerous?  There have been conflicting claims over the years that states where cannabis is legal have more car crashes. And one recent study found that over half of medical cannabis users drive while impaired.

A new study adds a little more clarity to the issue.

Researchers at Monash University in Australia looked at traffic fatalities in three U.S. states where recreational cannabis was legalized (Colorado, Washington and Oregon), and in eight neighboring states and British Columbia.

They found there was an average of one additional traffic fatality for every million residents. That may not sound like much, but when you consider there were 27 million people in the affected areas, it adds up to 170 additional deaths in the first six months after legalization.

Many of the additional deaths were attributed to “cannabis tourism” in which people in neighboring states and provinces purchased recreational cannabis in legalized states and then drove home while under the influence.

"The results suggest that legalizing the sale of cannabis for recreational use can lead to a temporary increase in traffic fatalities in legalizing states. This spills over into neighboring jurisdictions through cross-border sales, trafficking, or cannabis tourists driving back to their state of residence while impaired,” says lead author Tyler Lane, PhD, a postdoctoral research Fellow at Monash.

"Our findings suggest that policymakers should consult with neighboring jurisdictions when liberalizing cannabis policy to mitigate any deleterious effects."

Because the increase in fatalities was temporary, Lane believes it could be due to an initial “celebratory response to legalization” that contributes to cannabis tourism. His study was published in the journal Addiction.

Fatalities Drop in Medical Cannabis States

While fatalities rose in states with recreational cannabis, Lane notes that previous research has found a decrease in traffic fatalities in states that legalized medical marijuana. That may be because patients may be substituting cannabis for alcohol and other controlled substances used to relieve symptoms.

“There seem to be differences between medicinal and recreational user consumption patterns. Medicinal users have a tendency to substitute, but recreational users are more likely to treat alcohol and cannabis as complements and use them together,” Lane said in an email to PNN. 

“Because marijuana on its own is less impairing than alcohol, and combined used is much more impairing than either in isolation, it suggests that when people substitute alcohol for cannabis (in the medicinal use context), they will still be impaired, but to a much lower degree than if they were still using alcohol.” 

This “harm reduction role” of medical cannabis was noted in a 2016 Canadian study that found patients reduced their use of alcohol, illicit drugs and prescription drugs when cannabis was taken for medical reasons. 

Medical marijuana is currently legal in 33 states and Washington DC, and ten states allow its recreational use.

UK and Canada Legalizing Cannabis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

There’s a lot of hype this week about Canada becoming the second and largest country to legalize recreational marijuana. The first was Uruguay.

But the bigger news for the pain community may be in the United Kingdom, which has some of the strictest marijuana laws in Europe. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a surprise announcement last week that medical cannabis products would be rescheduled on November 1 and become available by prescription to treat chronic pain, epilepsy and chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Javid agreed to review the scheduling of medical cannabis in June, after a public outcry over the seizure of CBD oil flown into Heathrow Airport for a 12-year old boy who has epilepsy. Although the oil primarily contained cannabidiol – the non-psychoactive ingredient in marijuana – it was still technically illegal under UK drug laws.

“I stressed the importance of acting swiftly to ensure that where medically appropriate, these products could be available to be prescribed to patients,” Javid said in a statement.

“I have been clear that this should be achieved at the earliest opportunity whilst ensuring that the appropriate safeguards were in place to minimise the risks of misuse and diversion.”

Javid was also clear he has no intention of supporting the legalization of recreational marijuana in the UK. Smoking cannabis in any form will also remain illegal. Even so, it was a big step forward for marijuana supporters..  

“This is a major victory for our campaign and will mean a lot of people will have a much better quality of life,” Clark French, a multiple sclerosis patient and cannabis activist, told Leafly.

“It does look that this could be the most open, accessible medical cannabis policy in Europe, if they get it right and we keep guiding them in the right directions,” said Jon Liebling of United Patients Alliance, a medical marijuana advocacy group.    

The rollout of CBD-based medicines in the UK will go slowly. It could take up to a year before the National Health Service comes up with guidelines to govern the distribution of CBD-based products. Initially, only medical specialists will be allowed to prescribe cannabis, although the guidelines are expected to eventually include general practitioners.

Activists are urging the Home Office to allow medical cannabis for all patients, not just those with pain, epilepsy or nausea.

“We do believe that everybody should have access,” said Liebling. "When you're talking about cannabis as a medicine, you really do have to compare the risks associated with cannabis that we're aware of versus the risks of those drugs that patients are already taking.” 

Legalization Worries Canadian Medical Association

Medical cannabis has been legal in Canada since 2001 and about 330,000 Canadians are registered and already have access to it.  But some health officials are less than enthused about the October 17 legalization of recreational cannabis.

"Given the known and unknown health hazards of cannabis, any increase in use of recreational cannabis after legalization, whether by adults or youth, should be viewed as a failure of this legislation," wrote Dr. Diane Kelsall, interim Editor-in-Chief, in an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Kelsall points to the stampede of Canadian and American companies looking to get into the cannabis industry and predicts many will brazenly advertise their products to young people.

“Cannabis companies may initially focus on attracting current consumers from black-market sources, but eventually, to maintain or increase profits, new markets will be developed as is consistent with the usual behaviour of a for-profit company. Marketing efforts may include encouraging current users to increase their use or enticing a younger demographic. The track record for tobacco producers has not been encouraging in this regard, and it is unlikely that cannabis producers will behave differently,” Kelsall warned.

Kelsall said the Canadian government needs to carefully track cannabis use and should have the courage to amend the law if problems arise.

DEA: Decision Not Made on Marijuana Legalization

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is considering, but has not yet made a final decision on whether to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance, a move that would essentially make medical marijuana legal in all 50 states.

Last week two media outlets, the Santa Monica Observer and the Denver Post published reports speculating that marijuana could be rescheduled sometime this summer. The Observer even set a date for the announcement – August 1st – and cited an unnamed “Los Angeles based DEA Attorney” as the source of the information.

"Whatever the law may be in California, Arizona or Utah or any other State, because of Federal preemption this will have the effect of making THC products legal with a prescription, in all 50 states," the Observer quoted the DEA lawyer as saying.

The two stories fueled rampant speculation in blogs and on social media that a rescheduling of marijuana was imminent. Snopes.com even published its own take on the rumors, calling them “unproven.”

“There is as yet no indication that the information published on the topic was accurate, and there has been no official confirmation the DEA would moving in that direction on 1 August 2016,” Snopes said.

“We don’t have anything official to report,” DEA spokesman Rusty Payne confirmed to Pain News Network.

Like many rumors, there is some truth in the details. In a letter sent several months ago to Sen. Elizabeth Warren and seven other U.S. senators, a DEA official said the agency was finally getting around to making a decision on a five year old petition to reschedule marijuana.

“And in that letter we said we hoped to have a decision around July first. That’s certainly not a deadline, that’s just neighborhood ballpark, around that time. So people are getting antsy as the time is getting nearer,” said Payne, adding that DEA would not be making the decision alone.

“The agency that determines whether or not something is a medicine is the FDA, not the DEA. That’s why we have to rely on their portion of an in-depth study to determine whether or not something should be rescheduled or essentially determined to be a medicine. And if the FDA rules something is not a medicine, we’re bound by that. We cannot move it ourselves. We can’t overrule or override FDA on that,” said Payne.

The DEA has already received a recommendation from the FDA on whether to reschedule marijuana, but has not disclosed it. In the past, both agencies have resisted any attempt to legalize marijuana at the federal level, even as dozens of states moved to legalize medical marijuana.

In 2011, the DEA rejected a similar petition, saying “the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.”

Marijuana is currently classified as Schedule I drug – along with heroin and LSD – because it is considered to have no medical benefit and has a high potential for abuse. Moving it into the Schedule II classification, along with opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone, could potentially make marijuana available by prescription in all 50 states.    

Such a decision would upend the $40 billion medical marijuana industry, which is mostly composed of small companies and dispensaries that have created a niche for themselves while dealing with a cornucopia of state laws and municipal regulations. Rescheduling would open the door for pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies to get into the marijuana business.

"Schedule II would be a nightmare for the cannabis industry," Andrew Ittleman, a lawyer for a Miami law firm that advises marijuana companies, said in Inc.

Legalizing Marijuana? Don’t Forget its Medical Use

By Ellen Lenox Smith, Columnist

At least half a dozen states may be joining Colorado and Washington in the full legalization of marijuana. As a medical marijuana patient in Rhode Island, that has never been my battle. I have tried to stay focused on improving medical marijuana laws in Rhode Island and 23 other states, such as expanding the conditions for which it can be prescribed to include chronic pain and other medical issues.

It is mind boggling to me that some states have not yet approved marijuana’s medical use, but seem to be jumping right into legalization, most likely because they see it as a way to generate tax revenue.

We must hold onto the medical programs and be sure they are not mixed into the rules for full legalization. That would be like allowing medication from the pharmacy available to anyone to enjoy for pleasure. This is our medicine.

I have no problem with others having the pleasure of using cannabis socially, but let’s make sure we maintain the integrity of the medical programs.

This is our vision for every state in this country in the near future:

1) Medical marijuana is approved in all states and it includes reciprocity from state to state so we are safe to medicate legally when we travel.

2) Patients qualify when their doctors confirm they have a need and cannabis is no longer limited to specific conditions. There are many less common ones that can be treated effectively with this medication. 

3) Patients have a choice of growing, which is both therapeutic and helpful for those who find strains they are compatible with.

4) Each state offers compassion centers or dispensaries that are strategically placed so all have access within a reasonable distance.

5) Prices at these centers are affordable and on a sliding scale. Many who are afflicted with health issues already have massive medical bills. We do not want to have the mindset of making a large profit off the sale of their medication.

6) When all states are legal, we then conquer the battle of being reimbursed for our medicine from our insurance companies.

7) Allow centers to grow the plants they need to accommodate patients with all of the various strains. 

      8) Allow centers to sell various forms of medical marijuana, including dry product, oils, tinctures, topicals, edibles, etc.

      9) Allow a delivery system for those seriously ill and a gifting program to those financially unable to pay.

     10) All centers grow organically, keeping us safe from pesticides and other chemicals.

     11) People using medical marijuana will have the legal right not be drug tested, discriminated or fired from employment.

As the demand for full legalization continues to spread across the country, please help your state maintain the integrity of its medical program. Medical marijuana is intended to help us with quality of life, not to make a huge profit from. Let those that are using it for recreation be the ones to pay taxes and bring in the revenue for your state.

Let’s keep this medicine affordable for those in need.  For those that do not need it for medical reasons, be glad you are able to use cannabis socially and not have to face issues like us!

Ellen Lenox Smith suffers from Ehlers Danlos syndrome and sarcoidosis.  Ellen and her husband Stuart are co-directors for medical marijuana advocacy for the U.S. Pain Foundation and serve as board members for the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition.

For more information about medical marijuana or to contact the Smith's, visit their website.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

How to Advocate for Medical Marijuana Legalization

By Ellen Lenox Smith, Columnist

I wish everyone in the U.S. had safe and affordable access to medical marijuana. Although legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, many of you still live in states where cannabis is illegal and may want to know what you can do to help expedite the process of legalization.

I thought it might be helpful to share our experience with you to help you turn your state into a more compassionate state.  My husband and I are the co-directors of medical marijuana advocacy for the U.S. Pain Foundation. We are very proud of the foundation for supporting the use of this medication and for taking a positive stand.

So here are our suggestions:

1) Google your state’s medical marijuana laws and become familiar with where your state stands.

2) If a bill has been submitted, find the names of the legislators that submitted it. Contact them and request a meeting, leave a phone message, write a letter or offer to testify. The goal is to begin establishing a relationship with this person, to let them know of your willingness to help get their legislation passed.  

3) Remember that you are in an illegal state, so you want to share the success you had while living or visiting a legal state. You do not want to take any chance getting arrested!

4) You will find that telling your story is the key. Try to find others who will also be able to share how this medication helped them too.  Share your medical condition, how it affects your daily life, and how using medical marijuana made a difference.

5) If you are able to attend a hearing, be sure to dress like you are going to work. Keep the language clean and show them that you are an everyday person trying to live life with major medical difficulties. You do not want to be perceived as a recreational drug user, so dress and act with a serious demeanor.

6) Along with sharing your story, you also need to discuss the qualifying conditions for treatment in the bill. Some states where marijuana is legal do not allow cannabis to be prescribed for chronic pain. If you don’t get the correct wording in there now for chronic pain, it may never qualify. Therefore, it is very important to include the following language in your bill:

A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following:

• Cachexia or wasting syndrome
• Severe, debilitating, chronic pain
• Severe nausea
• Seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy
• Severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease
• Agitation related to Alzheimer's Disease

If they want you to testify, prepare your speech before your arrive. Consider putting your main points on a card to talk from, instead of just reading from a paper out loud. Eye contact can really help.

Stay on point. Time is limited and you must respect this or they will shut you off to allow others time to speak. Share details about your medical condition, what effect it has on your daily living and how medical marijuana has made life more tolerable for you. Ask them to have a heart and help you and all the others in your state.

I always end with: “You never know what life might bring you next. I didn’t ask to have to cope with this condition. Please show your compassion.”

If there is no bill under consideration, then your work will be a bit different. You need find out if a bill had been submitted in the past and locate the sponsor. You should contact that person or persons and tell them you are ready to advocate and ask what they need from you to help get the bill reintroduced.

Whether you have a bill submitted or are working to get one started, you want to keep the topic alive in the media, so write letters to the editor, send a written story to news and radio stations, telling them you would like to share your story and why you want to see this legalized. You will be surprised how they can respond!

Another thing you can do is also contact us via the U.S. Pain Foundation to see if we have any ambassadors in your state that have expressed interest in advocating. We are happy to connect you if we have them listed. Email us at ellen@uspainfoundation.org or stu@uspainfoundation.org

Good luck and may medical marijuana soon be legal for all.

Ellen Lenox Smith suffers from Ehlers Danlos syndrome and sarcoidosis. Ellen and her husband Stuart live in Rhode Island. They are co-directors for medical marijuana advocacy for the U.S. Pain Foundation and serve as board members for the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition.

For more information about medical marijuana, visit their website.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Americans Recognize Medical Value of Marijuana

By Pat Anson, Editor

The perception of marijuana users as pot heads and lazy stoners may finally be changing to a new one: Patient.

According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, the medicinal value of marijuana is the #1 reason why a majority of Americans now favor its legalization.

The survey of 1,500 adults found that 53% favor legalization, a dramatic shift from a decade earlier when only 32%  favored legalization.

When asked what was the main reason they support legalization now, 41% cited its medicinal benefits. Another 36% said marijuana was no worse than other drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes.

Nearly half of U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana and four states -- Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska -- and the District of Columbia have passed measures to legalize its recreational use. The federal government still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance with no accepted medical use, but in recent years has stepped back enforcement efforts in states where it is legal.

But the stigma long associated with marijuana has discouraged physicians from prescribing it and kept pharmaceutical companies from doing extensive research about its medical benefits.

Only two prescription drugs based on cannabinoids – the active ingredients in marijuana — have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Nabilone is a synthetic cannabinoid approved for treating nausea in cancer patients. Marinol is also used to treat nausea, and as an appetite stimulant. Both drugs can still be  prescribed “off label” by physicians to treat other conditions.

Some limited studies have found that marijuana is effective in relieving chronic pain and some of the symptoms of HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis.

"Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation," the Institute of Medicine said in a report.

"Smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances. The psychological effects of cannabinoids, such as anxiety reduction, sedation, and euphoria can influence their potential therapeutic value. Those effects are potentially undesirable for certain patients and situations and beneficial for others." 

Efforts to get a medical marijuana spray approved as a drug to treat cancer pain suffered a setback early this year when GW Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: GWPH) reported the results of a clinical trial showing that Sativex worked no better than a placebo in relieving cancer pain.

Sativex is getting a "fast track review" from the FDA to treat cancer pain. It is estimated that 420,000 cancer patients in the U.S. suffer from pain that is not well controlled by opioid pain medications.