10 recommendations for future medical cannabis studies from a pot insider

For a long time, “marijuana” was considered pathological in the eyes of the research community. This was not because the researchers believed in it, but because the vast majority of the grants were given to studies that supported this premise.

Today we are changing our minds and some scientists and medical researchers are calling for a new standard in cannabis research.

In fact, the author Dr. John Miller pointed out some glaring problems in cannabinoid research that need to be addressed, according to this article published in the Psychiatric Times.

I’ll walk you through the basics of the article and focus on its 10 suggestions for cannabinoid research.

A problem in current cannabis research

One of the problems that Dr. Miller pointed out is that “cannabis” is not a single drug. Unlike all other drug research that focuses on one substance, cannabis is made up of over 500 compounds, including cannabinoids, terpenoids, and flavonoids.

Testing for “cannabis” but not for the proportions of these various compounds therefore means that the standardization of the tests is flawed.

Perhaps there is a greater THC: CBD ratio in one strain compared to another, which would undoubtedly affect the outcome of a study. Perhaps there is a greater presence of myrcene – a monoterpene that is often found in cannabis.

Scientists, however, know about the “net effect” or “entourage effect” of cannabis – this is excluded from research when testing “cannabis” and thus creates flawed evidence.

“Interestingly, the smells (skunk is a common description) that are often associated with cannabis are largely due to the complex combination of terpenes, another compound that makes cannabis difficult to study. (Cannabinoids are odorless.) A large body of literature documents the essential role of terpenes in the biology of the cannabis plant, the production of cannabinoids by the plant, and the properties of a particular strain of cannabis that determine its market value. Terpenes are also likely to contribute to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects that affect the neuropsychopharmacology that result from ingestion of each different strain of cannabis.

The section mentioned above comes from the article published in Psychiatric Times and suggests that terpenes also contribute to the pharmacodynamic effects of cannabis. In other words, you cannot study cannabis without also studying the interactions between these “other” substances.

And so the good doctor has made an extensive list of suggestions for scientists to consider the next time they decide to study the effects of cannabis.

Below we will examine the various proposals.

Use of the word “cannabis”

The word cannabis should not be used casually in the medical literature as it is non-specific and encompasses different molecular combinations of different cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids.

This is probably one of the first things to address in any modern study. We often see that “cannabis” is responsible for X, Y, or Z, but that’s a blanket statement.

Which specific properties of cannabis besides the “dose” are responsible for it. Could it be a combination of different cannabinoids and how they interact with a host body?

All of these questions below are equally important, especially when trying to create scientific protocols.

Single strain research

Future research on cannabis should use a single strain in each study; each strain used should be analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively for biologically active components.

As each strain has its own genetic sequences, it should be noted that “X Strain” helped with the “X Condition” and understanding the combinations of terpenes, cannabinoids, and flavonoids should be considered.

In this way, researchers identified certain strains that show promise in combating Covid-19.

Multiple master studies should be categorized and examined separately

If multiple strains are used in a clinical study, they should be analyzed (as mentioned in # 2) and each strain should be evaluated as a separate arm versus placebo.

This is standard in modern research and should be applied to all future studies. Using different strains is almost like using different drugs. They shouldn’t be lumped together.

More funds are needed for discovery research!

Increased resources are required to accurately characterize the over 500 molecular components of the cannabis plant, including the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of each component.

Since 95% of studies are funded to find out what’s wrong with cannabis, more funding is needed for discovery research – that is, research focuses on understanding the various molecular components of cannabis.

Better education

A public education campaign should aggressively spread the molecular facts about cannabis, especially the opposing effects of THC and CBD. Similarly, the risks of increased psychosis and cognitive impairment with regular heavy use of THC in the developing brain should be explained, much like the alcohol disclaimers during pregnancy.

It really should always be practiced. We need a robust education program that enables people to make insightful decisions about their own actions and consumption choices.

If you can do this for alcohol, tobacco, and virtually any other drug, you should do the same with cannabis.

Cannabis should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco

Cannabis should be legalized nationwide and regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco products.

Amen!

Cannabis SHOULD NOT be regulated by the FDA

Cannabis should not be regulated by the FDA due to its extreme heterogeneity of components and associated unpredictable pharmacological properties.

The FDA is simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of cannabis. They are more of a wing of pharmaceutical drugs and should therefore be used for cannabinoid medicine with certain cannabinoid combinations. The entire facility goes beyond the scope of the FDA.

Cannabis should NOT be prescribed by a doctor!

Cannabis should not be prescribed by doctors. However, as molecular components of cannabis are being developed and receiving FDA approval, these components should be prescribed accordingly.

Once a cannabis drug has passed the tests, it should be considered a “cannabis-based drug,” but doctors should not prescribe cannabis. You might recommend it like yoga or meditation, but unless it’s a real drug that passed the tests – doctors shouldn’t interfere.

Continuous research into cannabinoids

Pharmacological research and development of cannabis components showing medicinal benefits should continue. CBD is a successful model for this.

There is so much more to discover, it’s a shame it’s so slow.

Doctors need to be educated about cannabis

Medical professionals should only discuss cannabis with their patients after they have acquired competence in understanding the scientific and factual risks / benefits / side effects of cannabis, similar to the way a doctor would talk about alcohol or tobacco consumption.

The fact that a doctor knows a lot about health doesn’t mean they know a lot about cannabis and its health effects. Many practitioners “guess” and until research is more standardized their recommendations should be taken very lightly at this time.

We know doctors are the gatekeepers right now, but this article outlines the need for a separation between “cannabis” and “cannabis medicine”.

The sticky end result

Ultimately, we are on the verge of a change in cannabis research, and once the transition is complete and the protocols in place, we will see a whole new face of “medical cannabis”.

What do you think of these suggestions, would you add or remove certain points? Let us know in the comments!

PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA, READ THIS …

CANNABIS AND PUBLIC HEALTH – WHY WE SHOULD DO FAST TRACK RESEARCH!

OR..

HOW FAUX CANNABIS STUDIES ARE WASTING TAX MONEY!