THE ANTIQUE CANNABIS BOOK Chapter 3 - (2nd Edition) CENSORED MEDICAL STUDIES CENSORSHIP AT THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE PAGE 7 4.1 – THE COVER UP TAKES PLACE (or none will dare call it censorship) Dealing mostly with fixing the exact wording changes.   Making sure that no implication of support for Medical cannabis can be interpreted, yet at the same time trying not to sound like a bunch of idiots ignoring all reality. Subject: RE: New PDQ Cannabis and Cannabinoid Summary Jeff, To assist in the Board’s deliberations, here is a link to NIDA’s information.   Please note that NIDA lists distorted perceptions, memory impairment, and difficulty thinking and solving problems as adverse effects, in addition to euphoria.   Also, in terms of addiction, the following is what is claimed.   Long-term marijuana use leads to addiction in some people.  That is; they cannot control their urges to seek, out and use marijuana, even though it negatively effects their family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities (9).  According to one Study, marijuana use by teenagers who have prior antisocial problems can quickly lead to addiction (3).  In addition, some frequent, heavy marijuana users develop “tolerance” to its effects.   This means they need larger and larger amounts of marijuana to get the same desired effects as they used to get from smaller amounts. It seems to me that what is being descried for addiction is more psychological dependence than physiologic addiction.  It also seems to me that politics has played a role in shaping NIDA’s information i.e., it is not purely evidence based. Anyway, I think some tweaking of the language is the summary is appropriate in light of these concerns. Best wishes, Rick Lenora, We can pass their concerns on to the PDQ CAM Board, but the Board is the final arbiter of what gets included in the summary.   By design, the PDQ Boards are editorial independent, of the institute.   As for the points raised by NIDA: Because of the overall sensitivity and controversy surrounding this topic, we think that the document should include, right at the outset, a statement reminding readers that cannabis is not an FDA-approved therapeutic for any medical condition. The General information section states: “In the practice of clinical oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct anti tumor effect” This statement suggests that NCI is recommending that health providers prescribe cannabis (not just cannabinoids) for medical purposes – a recommendation that we believe goes beyond the evidence base and, as mentioned above, is not sanctioned by the FDA. In the Adverse Effects section, the only non-cancer adverse effect mentioned for cannabis is euphoria.   We feel strongly that there should be a brief discussion about other non-cancer adverse effects of cannabis use, including addiction.   This could be accompanied by hyperlinks to the appropriate points on NIDA’s website for further detailed information. I think the first two can be addressed. However, with regard to the third, I am unaware of any convincing evidence indicating that marijuana is addictive. I have Cc’d Jeff white, the Editor-in-Chief of the CAM Board on this response. Thanks! Rick Subject: Cannabis Last thing about the Summary, I don’t think we should link to the NIDA website regarding adverse effects of cannabis.   We can identify independent literature support for specific adverse effects and add them into the summary with citations to the original or review articles. Jeff Subject: FW: concern about information on NCI’s website Hi Donald It seems that our Cannabis and Cannabinoids summary has attracted a fair amount of attention and apparently some concern.   NCI has received an email from someone at the National Institute for Drug Abuse (see the first email at the bottom of this message).   In part, NCI’s response will be to explain that the PDQ Editorial boards are editorially independent from the institute and thus do not produce official NCI opinions or recommendations on any topic. . . . . more on the changes . . 4.2 – CLOSING Thoughts on the subject: Obviously this museum, being a pro Medicinal Cannabis group, is NOT an uninterested third party.   However, be that as it may, it is very sad to see what has become of the N.C.I.   After all wasn’t this supposed to be a premier medical institute; -- One devoting itself solely to finding treatments and hopefully a cure for Cancer.   And as such, one would think that they would have been above all of this, but I guess not. But please, no ridicule is intended here.   This author himself has been forced in the past to make moral compromises in the name of existence.   And let’s face it, most of us are only six or seven paychecks away from total financial destitution.   Thus it would be unfair to criticize without first walking a thousand steps in their footsteps. If there is a problem it lies NOT with the N.C.I. but with our present day anti-Medical Cannabis laws, which forces such groups into such moral dilemmas.   What these internal emails (all forcibly obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act) show is that NOT ONE of us is immune from the horror. O.B.A.M.A. ONE BAD ASS MISTAKE AMERICA * [ I lied ] *Editorial opinion NOT necessarily that of all museum members (but hey, someone has got to say it). WANT TO KNOW MORE: ===================== Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed.   If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum.   All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.   CONTACT PAGE Previous SECTION   N.C.I. MAIN PAGE