Medical marijuana patients report reduction in use of prescription drugs

Via ChicagoTribune.com - Some medical marijuana patients in Illinois say the drug has allowed them to reduce or eliminate their use of other prescription medication, a new study reports.

The study by DePaul and Rush universities was small, with 30 participants, and involved only those who volunteered to respond to the topic, so researchers conceded the results might be biased in favor of marijuana. But it's believed to be the first peer-reviewed, published research of medical marijuana patients in Illinois.

And it provides direct anecdotal evidence of what has been suggested by previous studies, that marijuana may contribute to reduced use of opioid drugs, lead author Douglas Bruce said.

"One of the most compelling things to come out of this is that people are taking control of their own health, and most providers would agree that's a good thing," said Bruce, assistant professor of health sciences at DePaul. "But the lack of provider knowledge around what cannabis does and doesn't do, the difference in products and ingestion methods and dosing, is all kind of a Wild West."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared opioid abuse an epidemic. Overdoses from prescription opioids like methadone, oxycodone and hydrocodone killed more than 15,000 people in 2015, and President Donald Trump called it a "national emergency."

And the study results come as the Medical Cannabis Alliance of Illinois, a trade group of growers and sellers, is starting a push for legislation allowing marijuana for any condition for which a doctor would give opioid drugs.

"This study confirms exactly what we know from patients," said alliance Chairman Ross Morreale. He also founded Ataraxia, which runs a cultivation center and a dispensary. "A patient could use both (marijuana and prescription drugs) and see what works — that's between the doctor and the patient."

But Kevin Sabet, a former White House adviser on drug policy who now runs Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes broad legalization of medical marijuana, said the study "reeks of problems."

"One of the worst I've seen in a while," he said via email. "It was an uncontrolled observation of 30 people who were mixing pot with other drugs."

Since marijuana contains numerous compounds, some of which have medicinal properties, Sabet said they should be isolated, tested and approved individually through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, like any other legal drug.

Bruce, the study's lead author, responded that Sabet has his own bias against marijuana.

"There's power in people telling their stories in a way you can't get in a survey," Bruce said. "It's important to do qualitative research to understand how people are using cannabis, then figure out how to measure it."

Illinois is one of 29 states that have legalized medical marijuana, despite a federal prohibition on the drug.

About 25,000 people have been certified as having at least one of about 40 serious medical conditions that qualify them to receive medical cannabis in Illinois. Patients bought about $8 million worth of marijuana in August, the most recent month reported by the state.

The most common conditions for which cannabis was certified were fibromyalgia and cancer, the Illinois Department of Public Health reported. Those were followed by post traumatic stress disorder, which was just added to the list of qualifying conditions last year.

In the DePaul-Rush study, the average age of participants was 45 and typically used marijuana to treat pain, seizures or inflammation.

The patients, who were anonymous, reported concerns about side effects, addiction and tolerance with prescription drugs, and said they believed marijuana managed certain symptoms better and was faster-acting and longer-lasting.

The researchers concluded that more patient study is needed to determine what doses relieve symptoms and to assess patients' medical conditions. (ontinueReading

Back to school 2016: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

(Time) - In a letter, the incoming class at the University of Chicago were given a strong mandate by the institution they have elected to join: “Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”

One way to ensure this, writes Dean of Students Jay Ellison in the letter obtained by Intellectual Takeout, is to eliminate “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” two topics of frequent discussion in recent years. A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see; a safe space is a place they can go to avoid those subjects or heal after confronting them. Often used at least with the stated attempt of avoiding inflicting further trauma on victims, particularly those of sexual assault, the methods have also been criticized as means of preventing students and lecturers from exploring difficult issues together. As TIME reported in May, a Knight Foundation surveyshowed that “54 percent of students said the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because they are fearful of offending others.”

At Brown in 2015, a debate about sexual assault was questioned. At Oberlin, students have sought trigger warnings for Antigone; at Columbia, for Ovid’s Metamorphoses; at Rutgers, for Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway. At Brandeis, an installation by the Asian American student association to show microaggressions often made against them (like remarks “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?”) was shuttered after other Asian American students protested that the display itself was a microaggression. A professor at Harvard Law School has written about the near-impossibility of teaching rape law with trigger warnings.

The University of Chicago writes that it believes such actions do not foster intellectual freedom, but intellectual fear:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.\

(Source)