advertisement

SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

101 Comments
Columns

A Blunt Force to Crush Floridians’ Opposition to Marijuana

March 2, 2016 - 12:30pm

The well-funded movement to medicalize marijuana spreading across our nation calls out for caution and restraint. Activists claim that marijuana is a safe medicine but de facto, it is evolving into a gateway for marijuana legalization. The claim conflicts with current science, with intelligent public health policy, with rigorous standards of the drug approval process, and with best practices of medicine.

In 2014, Floridians wisely rejected legalization of marijuana as a medicine by their votes on a ballot initiative.  This sensible outcome was shaped by enough funds to educate the public on the realities of this critical issue and to counter misinformation circulating in Florida. But once again, the persistent marijuana industry is knocking on the gates of Florida, this time through legislative action in the Florida state House.
 
Florida Senator Rob Bradley, R-Orange Park, recently introduced an amendment to Florida Bill SB 460. In its original form, the bill limits the potency THC, of the main psychoactive, intoxicating, and addictive substance in marijuana, to 0.8%.  The spirit of the bill was to provide access to cannabidiol, a candidate anti-seizure medication that has been essentially bred out of most of the marijuana sold in dispensaries nation-wide. Cannabidiol is not intoxicating, is not addictive, does not interfere with learning and memory, and may even oppose the psychosis induced by THC in susceptible people.  In its original language, the bill allows for “low-THC cannabis”, the dried flowers of which contain 0.8 percent or less of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive and addictive component of marijuana and more than 10 percent of cannabidiol (CBD).
 
The Bradley amendment is a “Hail Mary pass” or a “cloaking device” or a “stealth bomber” –choose your metaphor. It is a furtive attempt to circumvent the decision of sage Florida voters who turned down the medical marijuana ballot initiative in 2014. The original bill wisely set THC levels at 0.8%, which are not generally intoxicating. Instead of referring to low-THC-cannabis, the amendment (line 35 onwards) now refers to low-THC cannabis and/or medical cannabis. By not defining medical cannabis, nor stating limits on THC doses, it opens the floodgates to “anything goes” – unspecified THC levels in marijuana that may range from 0.8 percent to 80 percent.  In its current amended form, SB 460 creates a marijuana industry, allowing high potency marijuana and marijuana edibles (cookies, sodas, candy), which are inherently hazardous and without any scientific evidence of medical safety or effectiveness.
 
To circumvent FDA experts and the process, the marijuana industry and their advocates devised ballot or legislative initiatives, flooded public media, engaged in extensive lobbying of legislative bodies, with scientifically barren emotional claims. Whole plant marijuana as a medicine is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the evidence is insufficient to fulfill rigorous criteria for approval. To weigh the scientific evidence within the legitimate drug approval process, the FDA convenes an expert team of chemists, pharmacologists, physicians, other scientists, statisticians who study thousands of pages of scientific data, before a decision is made to approve a drug and provide surveillance after approval. This effective and rigorous scientific process is reflected in physician and patient packet inserts of prescription drugs – they include the precise chemical composition of a drug that a patient will introduce into their body, how often to use it, evidence-based safe doses, how frequently it should be taken, what types of studies were used to show the drug’s effectiveness for a specific condition, how long it takes to have an effect and stay in the body, how the body metabolizes the drug, drug interactions, who should/should not use the drug, a list of unwanted side effects and what proportion of people manifest them, adverse events, and precautions, and other information. This type of document does not exist in marijuana dispensaries.  If a false claim is made or an adverse effect sets in, who will protect the public? If a pharmaceutical company makes a false claim for an approved drug, the FDA sweeps in and fines them. It has extracted over $10 billion from drug companies in the past few years for unapproved claims. If adverse events rise to unacceptable levels, the FDA can restrict use of the drug, or label the drug with a severe “Black Box” warning, or withdraw the drug. These protections don’t exist for marijuana; there is no recourse for patients. 
 
Why is whole plant marijuana not approved? Concerns focus on abuse liability, safety and effectiveness.

Abuse liability. Marijuana has high abuse potential, no currently approved medical use and is considered unsafe. At least 4.2 million Americans have a cannabis (marijuana) use disorder, with about 30.5 percent of current marijuana users harboring this problem. Long-time heavy users can experience a robust withdrawal, reflecting adaptive changes in the brain and body caused by the drug. Shortly after use, marijuana intoxicates and impairs higher brain functions, learning, memory, planning, and decision-making. Driving skills are reduced and the risk for injuries increases. Functioning at school or at work is compromised, especially because marijuana takes so long to clear from the body, days to weeks, and much longer compared with an alcohol binge. Complex human performance can be impaired as long as 24 hours after smoking a moderate dose of marijuana and the user may be unaware of the drug's influence. For 7 to 20 days, abstinent marijuana users may have impaired attention, concentration and impulse control. The most robust, durable deficits are documented in heavy, steady marijuana users. Even after one month of withdrawal, daily, heavy marijuana smokers can manifest impaired higher brain functions. Yet the indications for marijuana are for chronic medical conditions, requiring daily or more frequent use.

Safety. There is a strong association between marijuana use and psychosis or schizophrenia, in at least four ways: (1) marijuana can produce transient schizophrenia-like symptoms in some healthy individuals; (2) in those harboring a psychotic disorder, marijuana may worsen the symptoms, trigger relapse, and negatively affect the course of the illness; (3)  susceptible individuals in the general population develop a psychotic illness with heavy marijuana use, which is associated with age of onset of use, strength of THC in marijuana,  frequency and duration of use; (4) marijuana use is associated with lowering the age of onset of schizophrenia. Among youth, marijuana use is associated with poor grades and with high school drop-out rates, with those dropping out of school engaging in high rates of frequent marijuana use. Early use of heavy marijuana is associated with lower income, lower college degree completion, greater need for economic assistance, and higher unemployment.  In sum, marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of degraded brain function, increased motor vehicle crashes, emergency department visits, psychiatric symptoms, reduced educational and employment achievement, reduced motivation, increased use of, and addiction to other drugs, and adverse health effects on the developing fetus.
 
Effectiveness. The FDA is not the only body that has questioned the effectiveness of marijuana. Non-government academic physicians and scientists have extensively scrutinized biomedical research (meta-analyses) on the use of whole plant marijuana for medical indications. Independently, they have concluded that there is scant, inadequate or no evidence that whole plant medicine is valuable as a first line treatment for a myriad of medical conditions claimed by the marijuana lobby.  For edibles, rigorous evidence is at zero or near-zero levels. Indeed, many specialty medical associations (Neurology, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Pediatrics) do not endorse marijuana as a medicine.
 
Clearly, this collective information impacts the amended Florida bill! First, the amendment places no limits on THC concentration, and does not address marijuana potency to be used for a single medical condition. No potency limits for chronic conditions are incompatible with growing evidence that the stronger the marijuana and the more frequently it is used, the more likely (1) for symptoms of psychosis to appear, (2) for reduced age of onset of schizophrenia, (3) for increased impairment of driving and brain function. Second, in chronic medical conditions, daily and more frequent use of marijuana is likely and this will increase the many risks outlined above.  Third, the amendment is vague on who can use, at what dose and for which specific diseases or symptoms. Yet, the more frequently marijuana is used and the longer the period of use, the more likely (1) for susceptible persons to become addicted to marijuana; (2) to become addicted to other drugs; (3) to sustain a reduction in I.Q.; (4) to be on welfare and unemployed; (5) to have psychotic episodes; and (6) to be less likely to complete high school or college.  
 
The Bradley amendment, whether intended or not, is likely to set Florida on a well-trodden path to legalization of marijuana. Its current objective is to normalize and legalize distribution of potent, intoxicating marijuana as a medicine, in the absence of solid medical evidence.  If it passes, the safeguards in the amended bill will not protect the public from an inevitable march towards unfettered access to, and de facto legalization of marijuana. The bill has little to do with compassionate use of marijuana for health, as open-ended THC doses have no scientific basis in medicine. But it will ensure that high potency marijuana becomes available to the public at large, inevitably spreading to youth, the real target of the marijuana industry. Early onset of marijuana use greatly increases the risk of becoming addicted to marijuana and to other drugs. Efforts to shield youth from marijuana have failed in states with “medical marijuana” laws as in these states, youth use marijuana more than in nonmedical marijuana states. 
 
This amendment ignores the FDA, ignores meta-analyses completed by independent biomedical researchers, ignores the policy statements of reputable medical associations, and ignores current marijuana science.  In 2014, Floridians wisely voted not to accept THC-laden marijuana as a “medical option”. Senator Bradley’s current amendment maneuvers the bill around the will of the people. Above all, this bill ignores the voters of Florida and the democratic process.  Floridians should protest this amendment, a blunt force to suppress their opposition to marijuana.
 
Bertha K. Madras is a professor at Harvard Medical School.
 

Comments

For someone educated at Harvard... YOUR AN IDIOT!

Dr. Madras is clearly not an idiot. Ad hominem attacks won't persuade anyone about anything. "Mainstream" science has been wrong many times before: lobotomies, Thalidomide (DES) babies that were born severely deformed, bloodletting, and other failures. Science is based on the relentless questioning, persistent doubt, and ruthless pursuit of the truth - from any and all sources. What is idiotic, is to view one researcher, who's life's work has focused on addiction studies, to be the sole source of information on cannabis for medical use. Presenting dissenting opinions from other experts would have been enlightening. Her genuine concerns about the dangers of addiction and the harms that come from drugs of abuse are valid. While considering the potential harms from cannabis, we must consider the responsibility to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Florida and their families. Let's keep our focus on the the patients who deserve a dignified discussion.

The article she wrote is so full of inaccuracies I didn't even want to take the time to refute them. Marijuana is CLEARLY non-addictive, even most medical professionals acknowledge that. Just that one assertion from her alone proves she is clearly speaking with an agenda. To say 'there is NO evidence that marijuana has no medical benefits' is another stupid thing for her to say when clearly there IS evidence, just look at the anti seizure anecdotes from parents across the country just as ONE example. Sorry I stand by my assertion that she is an idiot and is clearly just anti-pot.

Here is living proof that potheads suffer brain damage.

For someone obviously not educated at Harvard...it's "you're"

My apologies, I aquiese to your apparently superior intelligence and grammatical skills, clearly I am completely out of my element here. Believe it or not I do hold a 4 year college degree and just because I hold a position of removal of marijuana prohibition for many reasons does not make me an idiot. Telling everyone florida 'wisely rejected' medical marijuana (when it was actually 57% approved) and further implying how 'dangerous' a naturally occurring plant is that is impossible to overdose on (can you say the same about other pharmecuticals?) is also apparently a position I cannot clearly argue with this crowd articularly. I simply cut to the chase. Perhaps I should have bored everyone wit actual facts to support my position and for that apparently I needed to sound more intelligent and verbose. Again my apologies.

We didn't end alcohol prohibition because doctors determined alcohol was safe. We ended it because alcohol is dangerous and only becomes more dangerous when we abdicate control - deregulation - and hand the marketplace over to violent criminals. We regulate things because they are dangerous. What other dangerous activities should we deregulate? Drugs are dangerous so get rid of the FDA? Cars are dangerous so get rid of speed limits? Henry Louis Mencken wrote the following in 1926 about alcohol prohibition: "The more obvious the failure becomes, the more shamelessly they exhibit their genuine motives. In plain words, what moves them is the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate, which is to say: upon everyone who is free from their barbarous theological superstitions, and is having a better time in the world than they are. They cannot stop the use of alcohol, nor even appreciably diminish it, but they can badger and annoy everyone who seeks to use it decently, and they can fill the jails with men taken for purely artificial offences, and they can get satisfaction thereby for the Puritan yearning to browbeat and injure, to torture and terrorize, to punish and humiliate all who show any sign of being happy. And all this they can do with a safe line of policemen and judges in front of them; always they can do it without personal risk."

To posit that an internationally respected scientist whose conclusions are based on reams of data is motivated by "the Puritan yearning to browbeat.... " people who are happily risking their brains and their mental health is ludicrous and contemptible. Do you really think that if pot were as safe as celery that this would even be an issue?

so you think arresting people for drinking alcohol is a good idea? And if the DEA kicked in your door for having a six pack that's not browbeating? It's none of your business what I put in my body and if it is, then I get to demand to know your weight and throw you in jail if you don't exercise enough because poor diet and lack of exercise is the no. 2 cause of preventable death in America (cigarettes is no 1). Whose body do you inhabit? Yours or mine? I get it. You don't value weed. Good for you. I don't value guns. They're dangerous. So what. What does that have to do with your right own one? I don't value Donald Trump. I think he's dangerous. So what? What does that have to do with his right to say what he wants, his right to run for office and your right to vote for him?

Dr Madras, a nationally and internationally respected researcher is making every effort to share her expertise and inform a public that has been assaulted by a campaign of misinformation and lies by pro-marijuana advocates with profound conflicts of interest. Their idea to give marijuana the ultimate make-over by calling it a medicine was audacious, but few considered their coronation would be accepted as truth. Sadly, the pipe dream of marijuana tokers breathed life into the bygone era of snake oil salesmen. Ask any marijuana advocate to give you a definition of “medical” marijuana. Does he mean whole plant marijuana? If so, which cannabis plant? Sativa? Indica? Ruderalis? Which strain? Train Wreck? Agent Orange? AK47? Amnesia? Black Widow? Killa Crip Kush? Kryptonite?, THC? Bomb? Tsunami Crush? Green Crack? Maybe he means edibles with 50 to 90% THC? The point is none of the marijuana or marijuana-based products sold out of dispensaries should be called “medicine”. These products were never been vetted through a rigorous scientific process to ensure safety or efficacy. Their main purpose is to produce a high in the user while conferring obscene profits to the seller. If we allow profiteers, uninformed voters, and corrupt politicians to determine what is medicine then none of us will be able to trust whether our medicines have been deemed safe and effective by research-based science or whether they are simply crude, ineffective, contaminated and harmful products deemed “medicinal” by a new generation of snake oil salesmen.

Edibles don't reach 90% THC. The most potent cannabis concentrates only rarely contain more than 80% THC. The thought that an edible could contain that great a proportion of a single chemical compound display a gross misunderstanding of how percentages work. For example, in a cannabis infused soda, the primary ingredient would be water, as it is in any soda. A cannabis brownie would have to have more flour and oil than cannabis to even look like a brownie, and the THC itself could only make up a portion of the cannabis, as there are over 80 different cannabinoids, in addition to the things found in all plants, like chlorophyll. You're right about the strain name thing. Most people who have worked with cannabis for any length of time will tell you that strain names are unreliable, at best showing about as much difference between one strain and another as between Gala and Fuji apples, at worst, showing that much of a difference between characteristics of the same strain. For this reason, as medical marijuana legislation passes, one of the first business to move into the area is generally an analytic laboratory specializing in cannabis. They are able to not only determine the relative value of the prominent cannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, but also of other compounds such as the terpenoids. Terpenes are present in many plants and often have some therapeutic benefit themselves. For example eugenol, which is also found in cinnamon and clove, has antiseptic and anesthetic properties. These compounds modulate the effects of cannabis, making different profiles work better for different conditions. Honestly, I find the anti-cannabis stance confusing. It seems to me that if the biggest problem with allowing patients to use it stems from the lack of evidence for it's efficacy, then the solution is more studies, which can only happen when the plant is no longer classified as schedule 1. If your concern is that people will use it to get high instead of as actual medicine, then why are you okay with doctors prescribing Vicodin, Percocet, or Morphine? According to the CDC, 44 Americans die of prescription opioid overdose every day. If your concern is that cannabis is associated with gangs and violence, why wouldn't you want legalization to weaken the trade of illegal drugs? Alcohol prohibition was ended to weaken the mafia, why not end cannabis prohibition to weaken the cartels? If there's even a chance that marijuana actually helps people; if it can save even one life, doesn't that make it worthwhile to risk a few people being high? Odds are good that if they're unproductive stoned, they were probably useless before the pot, too.

Every human has an Endo-Cannabinoid System. Cannabinoids from the Cannabis plant fit like puzzle pieces when ingested in the human body and help control our CB1 and Cb2 Receptors. Cannabis is medicine and has been for 1,000's of years. It was medicine here up until the 1930's. Cannabis and Hemp were made illegal years later because big corporations like alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, Timber, etc. didn't want to be put out of business. But the takeover is here and it's coming back. Trump will be President and America will grow Hemp once again. Can someone say American made products. Hemp/Cannabis is the safest and most useful plant on this planet. If you think otherwise than shove it up your a$$! Blessings to all. I know I'm healthy

Well said. Our drug approval process ensures our safety and should not be replaced with Voodoo or snake oil. However, one should consider that cannabis has already been used "medicinally," for thousands of years and there is considerable knowledge about this subject, already. Cannabis was part of the pharmacopoeia in the United States for many years prior to it's less-than-scientific prohibition. The emphasis on safety and science is well-taken.

How many deaths from "approved and safe" drugs that the FDA has "studied". Hundreds of thousands. How many deaths from cannabis? ZERO Just because a government puts its stamp on it does not mean it has been studied appropriately nor does it mean that it is safe. How do you suppose synthetic drugs make it to trial. Do you think its because they will be profitable or because they will help the sick and dying? The most profitable are for Male ED and one of the side effects can be possible death. Priorities people.

Great to see the science presented on this very important issue, which the media is too often remiss in reporting. Very important to have the clarification and the delineation about scientifically approved medical use of cannabinoids and non approved, non scientific marijuana being promoted by the pot lobby. It is so not compassionate to try to fool people who are sick with fake, unproven substances. Bravo to Dr. Madras for getting the science out!!

Excellent opinion piece based on facts and solid scientific evidence. Sadly, the Florida legislation that Dr. Madras refers to is based on emotions, anecdotal stories and profit motives. Whole plant marijuana has not been proven to be safe or effective for any medical condition or disease. That is why marijuana remains in DEA schedule 1. Dr. Madras, thanks for speaking the blunt truth!

definitely an opinion loaded with made up statistics, Cannabis is schedule 1 because the management at DEA wants it that way, an ideology not science, there is an LD50 for cannabis 15,000 lbs consumed in 30 minutes. that is pretty safe so stop with the lies pretty please

Thank you to Berta Madras for her thoughts and concerns about the Florida Bill SB 460 where our leaders are trying to convince the public that marijuana is safe at any level of THC s. One would have to wonder what they're smoking...how could something that has not been proven scientifically get the green light to be called a medical drug? Shame on all of you who think that if this is passed, you'll be 'smoking' your way to bliss! Have we not learned anything from our past mistakes? Marijuana possession remains a federal offense! I certainly do not want my grandchildren to ingest edibles that will surely make the rounds of elementary schools if this is passed. WAKE UP AMERICA...it's a Federal Offence for a reason.

Bertha Badras is right on target. I was addicted to Drugs for Seven long years. Just the same way these Pot Heads fight for the right to get high and stay high so did i. Unfortunately I seem to understand what you're marijuana addiction is taking you through! Pot addiction is a bad thing. Marijuana is highly addictive! Many of you Need professional medical help!

Marijuana, is absolutely NOT addictive. Perhaps, psychologically, but not physically. If you don't believe me, then take this comparison test. smoke 3 joints a day, for 60 days, and then, try stop smoking for just 48 hours. You will find, it is very easy to do. Now, take three oxycontins a day, for 60 days. Since the drug, is completely out of your system after just 12 hours, I highly doubt you will make it to 24 hours, without crawling the wells, and offering to sell your should for just one pill. As for making it to 48 hours, like you can easily do with pot. Forget it: You may still be alive: but you won't want to be. I don't want pot ingested by our youth anymore than any other adult. But the fact is, nothing our government has done, in their war on drugs, has kept access to pot in all types of forms, including edibles, difficult for almost any age..Especially teenagers. I am sick and tired, of wasting tax dollars on a losing war, that turns millions of otherwise normal people into criminals, because they get, "busted". Legalize it, regulate it, and at least, put the profits, in law abiding citizens hands, rather than criminals. Illegal pot sales, has for years, funded organized crime, and terrorism. And currently, in Florida, an awful lot of sellers, are big time gangs, who are extremely violent. People against legalization, are living in a moral bubble neighborhood, in Fantasy land, u.s.a.

There is no legislation needed to get CBD to folks that might need it. The NIH has a CBD-program available right now for qualified patients. I find the double speak always comes from pro-pot and marvel at how conclusively pro-pot folks move to discard anything that comes to them from science with references to "camel noses" and "sugar" and claims of "propaganda." It always strikes me as "impaired higher brain function." To try to be clear, no one is arguing about whether or not cannabinoids might have medicinal value. Evidence all over the place is indicating that some cannabinoids do (like CBD). Evidence is also all over the place that some cannabinoids do great harm (like THC). The argument is against legalizing a Schedule 1 drug, in its native form, for broad commercial use and availability. The argument stands if marijuana is moved to a Schedule 2 status - until the commercial hoax of medi-pot, there were no Schedule 1 or 2 drugs prescribed by lay people and sold to the general public. The 20+ states that saw medical marijuana for the hoax it is, have much to be proud of.

It amazes me that every article that is based on science and medical opinion is dismissed so quickly by " pro-pot " proponants. They are not only quick to respond but most of the time their responce reflects hostility and rudeness. If all the major medical societies are saying this should not be legalized for Medical use, and the experts like Dr Madras are telling us the facts, I think its time that those who are favoring legalization take another look at the facts. Marijuana needs to go through the scientific process of finding out what longterm use will do to a brain, find out what are side effects when taking it along with precribed drugs that are necessary for certain diseases. What about testing so dosages can be determined for toddlers with epilepsy, adolecents and adults. MJ is just not a one size fits all drug. I want my medicine coming from the pharmacy, with the proper labels, dosage listed, information on use, side effects and drug interactions. It should be sold in a controlled environment, by someone with a medical degree, like every other precription that is written, not just by anyone from off the streets who can happen to grow and sell it with a purchased liscence. Lets get real here, the facts are being presented, but they are not being received by those who want to legalize it. If we are really concerned about patient safety, then use the medications already derived from MJ while providing for further testing to see what else can be extracted from the plant that can be used instead of passing out joints and MJ infused candy, sodas, cakes etc. that children can and have accidently injested. Last time I looked, my medicine comes in a bottle, labled and picked up at a pharmacy, not grabbed in a baggy at a marijuana warehouse with who knows what chemicals in it. Safety first people!

I agree with you 100%. Smoking marijuana for medicine is the same as eating moldy bread to get your penicillin. No one in their right mind would do that. However persons smoking pot are under the influence of a mind altering drug and therefore not in their right mind. Dr. Madras article is filled with facts

Amazing how all of these potheads think they know better than an esteemed researcher and professor from Harvard Medical School. Dr. Madras has done an excellent job of raising legitimate concerns about pot abuse and harms.

Amazing huh, have you ever looked at this because this proves you and the Doc WRONG! Our own Fed. Gov't. has a Patent on it! Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants US 6630507 B1 ABSTRACT Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3

Funny how the pro pot crowd always use the same arguments. Evoke "Reefer Madness" or try to disparage the reputation of the professionals looking out for public safety. The pro-pot playbook and their worn out talking points are in full force by the angry bloggers here. I thought potheads were friendly fun folks. I guess that's also an untrue deception they are trying to sell.

Camel's nose under the tent. Time to bop the camel on its nose rather than debate whether 8 inches or 9 inches of the nose is the acceptable amount. I appreciate the author telling it like it is.

As always when it comes to this issue, this Colorado resident knows Bertha Madras' explanations are firmly grounded in reputable science, public health policy and the law. It's obvious that people who stand to profit from another addictive, mind-impairing drug industry -- this one cloaked as "medicine" and "recreation" -- haven't been able to buy off science, so they're working overtime to force weed into the marketplace through media and politics, which ARE easily bought. Good thing more people are waking up to these legislative shenanigans and spin. Just today, Maine rejected efforts to put marijuana legalization on its 2016 ballot. People who are accurately informed about pot tend to make that decision.

See below: "The FDA has already approved two cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals: Nabilone and Dronabinol."

Dr. Madras nailed it. She is an expert in this area. Those who are complaining and comparing MJ to Sugar clearly have nothing more than an agenda and don't want to hear the truth due to the fact it's not in their favor. Pot is bad for the body and the only thing that is showing any promise is the CBD portion, which is being tested hopefully will gain FDA approval. Thanks Dr. Madras for being bold in this matter and helping to save America from itself.

Pages

Comments are now closed.

columns
advertisement

Opinion Poll

Generally speaking, do you like the caliber and policy positions of choices so far for the DeSantis team?
Older pollsResults
advertisement

Chatterbox

Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.

advertisement
advertisement
advertisement