Connect with us

Cannabis News

HHS’ New 2-Step Test to See if Marijuana Has Medicinal Benefits Crushes the DEA’s Rational for Weed Being a Schedule 1 Drug

Published

on


2-step medical marijuana test

Despite some critics of marijuana reform challenging the review process that led federal health officials to recommend rescheduling cannabis, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is now recognizing the validity of the new two-part test used to determine a substance’s accepted medical use.

 

This acknowledgement was included as a footnote in a notification on Tuesday about a decision to categorize two synthetic opioid medicines under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which had nothing to do with the original decision.

 

A Schedule I substance is one that has no contemporary recognized medical use (CAMU), according to federal law. In the past, the government has used a five-part test to determine if a chemical satisfies this requirement by looking at its chemistry, health statistics, and other pertinent details. However, earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) introduced a simplified two-step analysis when reviewing the proposed rescheduling of marijuana, ultimately concluding that cannabis should be placed in Schedule III.

 

The New Two-Part Test for Determining Medical Use

 

The newly adopted two-part test introduced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) focuses on two fundamental questions when determining whether a substance has an accepted medical use. First, it asks whether licensed healthcare providers currently use the substance in medical treatment within jurisdictions where such use is legally authorized. Second, it examines whether there is credible scientific evidence supporting the drug’s efficacy for at least one recognized medical condition.

 

This streamlined approach stands in stark contrast to the previous five-part test, which required a more complex and detailed evaluation of a substance’s chemistry, safety data, clinical efficacy, expert consensus, and the availability of published scientific studies. The older model was seen as more restrictive, often limiting substances from being considered for rescheduling despite emerging evidence of their therapeutic benefits.

 

The novel examination stands out for its ability to lower administrative obstacles and provide a simpler means by which drugs such as cannabis can be reassessed in light of current scientific research and practical medicinal uses. In spite of the lack of FDA clearance, the two-part exam recognizes the increasing acceptability of some medications in clinical practice by emphasizing their practical medical usage in legally permitted circumstances.

 

In a footnote to its latest scheduling notice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) admitted that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) deemed the standard five-part criteria “impermissibly narrow.” The OLC also stated that the simplified two-part examination is adequate to assess if a medicine has a genuine medical purpose, emphasizing that FDA clearance should not be the main factor in rescheduling decisions. During the rescheduling process, the DEA must now defer to the HHS’s scientific and medical determinations, representing a substantial shift in how federal agencies approach restricted drug regulation.

 

This novel technique may have far-reaching repercussions beyond marijuana. With increasing interest in the medicinal potential of psychedelics such as psilocybin and MDMA, the streamlined test may also facilitate the categorization of these compounds. If healthcare practitioners can establish medicinal usage in certain areas and back it up with reputable scientific research, these drugs may benefit from the less stringent regulation procedure that now applies to cannabis.

 

Resistance and Criticism of the Two-Part Analysis

 

The implementation of the two-part study has aroused strong protest from marijuana rescheduling opponents, who claim that the new criterion is unreasonable and politically driven. Some opponents argue that the simplified test was designed to enable a predetermined conclusion supporting cannabis reform rather than being based on strong scientific considerations.

 

One prominent prohibitionist group, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), has labeled the two-part analysis a “novel test” that was “recently invented by HHS and embraced” as a means to move marijuana into Schedule III. SAM and similar groups argue that the simplified framework lacks the rigor of the former five-part test, accusing policymakers of shaping the new approach to fit a political agenda.

 

Some legal experts believe that challenging the validity of the two-part test could become a central argument in any legal contest against the rescheduling of marijuana. Opponents may attempt to undermine the process by claiming that the test is an arbitrary departure from established regulatory practices, designed solely to ease the path for marijuana reform.

 

Despite this criticism, the DEA’s recent scheduling notice for two synthetic opioid drugs—N-pyrrolidino metonitazene and N-pyrrolidino protonitazene—suggests that the agency views the two-part analysis as legitimate. The acknowledgment of the new test in unrelated drug scheduling decisions could signal that the DEA is fully committed to using this simplified framework moving forward, which may complicate efforts to challenge it.

 

Implications for Future Drug Scheduling Decisions

 

Beyond only moving the legalization of marijuana, the DEA’s support of the new two-part exam may have a big impact on how future drug tests for other substances—like psychedelics—will be conducted. The streamlined test may offer a more accommodating framework for evaluating the medicinal use of substances like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD in contexts where they are permitted by law, as interest in their therapeutic potential develops.

 

The DEA is expected to use the same two-part approach if these compounds are subject to review; the focus will be on the substances’ present medicinal use and the availability of reliable scientific backing. This change might lead to the reclassification of psychedelics, particularly because ongoing clinical research indicate that they can effectively treat diseases including anxiety, PTSD, and depression.

 

The widespread adoption of this reduced technique suggests a possible change in federal drug policy away from the normally strict five-part examination. The two-part test may allow for a more science-driven and practical assessment of developing medicines, increasing access to alternative treatments.

 

While the rescheduling of marijuana is still being reviewed, the DEA plans to have an administrative hearing in December 2024 to gather further feedback before making a final rule. The process might last until early 2025, allowing the next presidential administration to decide the future of drug policy, including how the two-part test is applied to additional substances.

 

Bottom Line

 

The DEA’s endorsement of a simplified two-part test to determine the medical use of substances, which was recently applied to marijuana rescheduling, represents a significant shift in federal drug policy. This new framework focuses on current medical use and credible scientific evidence, bypassing the more stringent five-part test previously used. While critics argue that the new test is politically motivated, it could open the door to reclassifying other substances like psychedelics, offering a more practical and science-driven approach to drug scheduling decisions.

 

NO MEDICINAL BENEFITS? READ ON…

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER ON MEDICAL BENEFITS OF CANNABIS

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER SAYS CANNABIS HAS MEDICINAL BENEFITS



Source link

Cannabis News

ADR’s Vital Role in Cannabis Industry Disputes

Published

on

By


As a mediator specializing in cannabis-related conflicts, I’ve witnessed firsthand the increasing need for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in this rapidly evolving industry. With three-quarters of Americans now living in states where recreational or medical marijuana use is legal, the landscape of potential disputes has expanded dramatically. Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, while 14 states permit its use for medicinal purposes. Yet cannabis with more than .3 percent THC by dry weight remains illegal under federal law. This has created a complex legal environment, ripe for controversy.

Participants in the cannabis industry deal with a wide array of legal disputes. These include conflicts over intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and the ownership and management of cannabis farms, processing and distribution companies, and dispensaries. We’re seeing an increase in employee claims, personal injury cases, water rights disagreements, and land use and environmental regulation violations. Violations of the ADA and federal safety laws, local code enforcement targeting landlords, and conflicts between neighboring farmers over odors and pollen drift are all part of the growing list of legal issues in this sector.

The cannabis industry faces unique challenges when it comes to resolving disputes through traditional legal channels. Federal courts are generally unavailable due to cannabis’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. State laws are often evolving and conflicting. Lingering stigma can affect litigation outcomes with state court judges and juries. And the cost and outcome of litigation can destroy cannabis companies, which typically have tight cash flow, limited assets, and a lot of debt.

Recent high-profile cases among competitors highlight these challenges. We’ve seen lawsuits accusing state-licensed labs of providing false, favorable test certifications to attract business. Disputes over dispensary licensing processes have emerged, often halting the entire procedure for all applicants.

Given these circumstances, ADR has become not just an option, but a necessity for the cannabis industry. ADR typically costs less than traditional litigation, offering a more economical path to resolution. Unlike public court proceedings, ADR provides a degree of confidentiality that appeals to cannabis investors wary of public scrutiny. As regulations and market dynamics evolve, mediation’s adaptability allows it to address novel disputes effectively. Neutrals with specific expertise with cannabis industry can help parties develop solutions that address the needs of all involved, often preserving business relationships and even laying the groundwork for future collaboration. Even in competitive situations, dispute resolution can help stabilize market and regulatory issues, benefiting all industry participants.

The best mediators for cannabis disputes are neutrals who truly know the business, its products and customers, the regulatory and financial milieu, and the plant itself. As I write this, we are seeing growing tension between those in the highly regulated and taxed state marijuana markets and those in the federally legal hemp market. Many disputes involve subjective judgments, such as the rejection of cannabis flower or oil based on quality, while others stem from objective testing and cannabinoid profiles. Having to educate a neutral about the subject matter during mediation is inefficient and dramatically reduces the prospect of settlement.

Experienced neutrals can guide parties toward innovative resolutions that may not involve monetary settlements. These creative solutions can potentially avoid insolvency or unsatisfiable judgments that might result from years of litigation. This approach is particularly valuable in an industry where traditional financial remedies may be exceedingly complicated or completely unavailable because of the law or the difficulty enforcing contracts.

As we move forward, several factors may impact dispute resolution in the cannabis industry. The potential rescheduling of cannabis containing significant quantities of THC to Schedule III by the federal government could improve the financial situation for cannabis businesses by allowing them to write off most business costs. However, this would not fully align state recreational cannabis laws with federal regulations. The evolving landscape of hemp-based products with chemically derived psychotropic properties may lead to unfair business practices claims between the licensed high-THC cannabis industry and the hemp industry.

In conclusion, as the cannabis industry continues to grow and face complex legal challenges, ADR stands out as an indispensable tool for resolving disputes efficiently, creatively, and with an eye toward the unique needs of this dynamic sector. Its flexibility and ability to provide tailored solutions make it particularly well-suited to navigate the complex and rapidly changing landscape of cannabis law and business. Those who effectively utilize alternative dispute resolution methods will be better positioned to address legal challenges efficiently and successfully. For cannabis entrepreneurs, investors, and legal professionals, understanding and leveraging ADR may well be the key to successfully navigating the complex legal terrain of this burgeoning industry.

Note: This post was first published October 17, 2024 on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Is Pam Bondi as Attorney General Just Jeff Sessions Part 2 for the Cannabis Industry?

Published

on

By


Pam Bondi on marijuana

Who is Pam Bondi and what does her being AG mean for cannabis?

 

Well folks, just when we thought we had Matt Gaetz lined up as the next Attorney General of the United States, the political winds shifted faster than smoke in a hurricane. Within hours of Gaetz withdrawing his name from consideration, Donald Trump announced his new pick: Pam Bondi, Florida’s former Attorney General.

I’ll be honest with you – while my knowledge of Gaetz was limited (though his pro-cannabis stance was well documented), I knew even less about Pam Bondi. As someone who keeps a close eye on cannabis policy and the characters who shape it, this knowledge gap needed filling. After all, the Attorney General holds significant sway over federal drug policy, and with cannabis reform hanging in the balance, understanding Bondi’s stance on our favorite plant becomes crucial.

So I did what any curious cannabis journalist would do – I dove deep into the digital archives, combed through news reports, and analyzed her track record in Florida. What I found was… well, let’s just say it’s complicated. Unlike Gaetz, who wore his pro-cannabis credentials on his sleeve, Bondi’s history with marijuana reform is more nuanced, and at times, concerning for those of us who care about cannabis freedom.

For those who don’t know who Pam Bondi is (and I suspect that’s quite a few of you), buckle up. We’re about to take a journey through her career, her stance on cannabis, and what her potential appointment might mean for the future of marijuana reform in America. From her time as Florida’s top prosecutor to her role in Trump’s first term, there’s quite a bit to unpack here.

So pack a bowl, get comfortable, and let’s dive into who Pam Bondi really is – and what her nomination could mean for the cannabis community.

Let’s start with the basics – Pam Bondi served as Florida’s first female Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, making her mark as a tough-on-crime prosecutor with nearly two decades of experience. During her tenure, she gained recognition for her aggressive stance against prescription drug abuse and her efforts to combat the opioid crisis. Trump even tapped her to serve on his Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis during his first term.

When it comes to cannabis, however, Bondi’s record is about as clear as bong water. Back in 2014, she opposed Florida’s medical cannabis amendment, arguing it would make the Sunshine State “one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states.” She even tried to keep the measure off the ballot entirely, though that effort failed. Fast forward to 2018, and we find her defending Florida’s ban on smokable medical cannabis, claiming smoking was “antithetical to good medicine.”

But here’s where things get interesting. Despite her previous opposition, Bondi remained notably quiet during Florida’s successful 2016 medical cannabis amendment, which passed with a whopping 71% of the vote. This suggests she might be more pragmatic than ideological when it comes to cannabis policy.

Her work fighting the fentanyl crisis could actually bode well for the cannabis community. Unlike some hardline drug warriors, Bondi seems to understand the importance of regulated markets in reducing harm. As Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers (who knows a thing or two about Florida cannabis politics) pointed out, Bondi’s experience shutting down pill mills and advocating for safe, regulated markets could translate into a more nuanced approach to cannabis policy.

Under a Trump presidency, Bondi could potentially align with his recently stated support for cannabis banking reform and federal rescheduling. Trump has signaled his intention to work with Congress on “common-sense” cannabis laws, and having an AG who understands regulated markets could help advance these goals.

However, there’s also reason for concern. Bondi’s previous opposition to medical cannabis and her involvement with Trump’s opioid commission (which expressed concerns about marijuana legalization) suggest she might not be the strongest advocate for reform. Unlike Matt Gaetz, who had a clear pro-cannabis record, Bondi’s position remains something of a mystery.

The reality is, Bondi isn’t going to be another Matt Gaetz when it comes to cannabis policy. While Gaetz was an outspoken supporter of legalization, voting twice for Democratic-led cannabis reform bills, Bondi’s approach is likely to be more measured and less predictable.

What we’re really looking at here is someone who seems to follow the political winds rather than charging ahead with a fixed ideology. If Trump maintains his current cannabis-friendly stance, Bondi might well fall in line. But if the winds shift… well, let’s just say we’ll need to keep a close eye on which way this smoke blows.

You know what keeps me up at night these days? The increasingly real possibility that the Republican Party might just pull off the biggest plot twist in cannabis history by becoming the party of legalization. While there’s no smoking gun evidence of this happening yet, the political tea leaves are starting to form an interesting pattern.

Let’s consider the pieces on this chess board. Trump has already promised to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of Health and Human Services – a move that could significantly impact cannabis policy. Kennedy, despite his controversial positions on other matters, has consistently supported cannabis reform and understands its medical benefits. That’s one interesting piece in play.

Then there’s Trump himself, who’s been making surprisingly cannabis-friendly noises on the campaign trail. He’s talking about “common sense” cannabis laws, banking reform, and respecting states’ rights. That’s a far cry from the “Just Say No” era of Republican drug policy.

Here’s what really keeps me wondering – what if the Republicans are playing the long game here? Democrats have been trying to legalize cannabis for years, with mixed success at best. They’ve introduced bills, made promises, and yet federal prohibition remains firmly in place. What if Republicans, seeing an opportunity to make history (and win some votes), decide to sweep in with a comprehensive legalization plan that addresses all the concerns that have held up previous efforts?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – if someone comes forward with a well-crafted, thorough approach to legalization that addresses everything from banking to interstate commerce to social equity, Republicans might just get on board. They’ve shown they can be pragmatic when it suits their interests, and the political benefits of being the party that ended federal prohibition could be substantial.

Of course, we’re still dealing with a lot of “ifs” and “maybes” here. The appointment of Pam Bondi as AG adds another layer of uncertainty to this equation. But here’s what we do know – Trump’s administration isn’t showing signs of wanting to crack down on cannabis. In fact, they’re talking about expanding access to banking services and implementing reasonable regulations. That’s something the industry can work with.

For now, it seems the cannabis industry isn’t facing an existential threat from a second Trump term. If anything, we might see some significant progress, particularly on the banking front. And who knows? Maybe, just maybe, the Republicans will decide to make history and become the unlikely champions of federal legalization.

Strange things have happened in politics, folks. And while I’m not betting my last gram on it happening, I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if the GOP decides to snatch this victory from the Democrats’ hands. After all, politics makes for strange smoking buddies sometimes.

Well folks, if there’s one silver lining in all of this, it’s that we’re not getting another Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Remember him? The guy who thought “good people don’t smoke marijuana”? Yeah, those were some nerve-wracking times for the cannabis industry.

Instead, we’re getting Pam Bondi – someone who, while not exactly a champion of cannabis reform, at least seems to understand the importance of regulated markets. The cannabis industry should remain relatively stable under her watch, and I’ve got a sneaking suspicion we might see some significant reforms in the coming years.

Now, how extensive these reforms will be is anyone’s guess. The Biden administration’s push for Schedule III rescheduling? That’s probably dead in the water. Despite some Democrats urging Biden to flex his executive order muscles in these final months, I doubt we’ll see any last-minute cannabis reform miracles. Let’s be real – the Democrats took a beating in this election, and they’ll need to do some serious soul-searching before 2028 if they want another shot at the White House.

As for Bondi herself, she remains something of an enigma when it comes to cannabis policy. Like a political weathervane, she seems to shift with the prevailing winds. If Trump maintains his “common sense” approach to cannabis reform, she’ll likely follow suit. If he changes course… well, that’s a different story.

What we’re looking at here is a period of uncertainty, but also opportunity. The cannabis industry has survived and thrived through far worse than a Bondi Justice Department. With Republicans potentially eyeing cannabis reform as their next big move and Trump talking about banking reform, we might just see some interesting developments in the next four years.

For now, though, we’ll have to wait and see which way the political winds blow. As always in the cannabis world, we’ll keep rolling with the changes and hope for the best. Stay tuned, folks – this ride’s far from over.

 

Sources:

https://natlawreview.com/article/gaetz-out-possible-attorney

-general-pam-bondi-new-nominee-discussion-still-limited

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trumps-new-attorney-genera

l-pick-opposed-legalizing-medical-marijuana-in-florida/

 

TRUMP MARIJUANA REFORM? READ ON…

WILL TRUMP LEGALIZE WEED

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT WITH A TRUMP 2.0 PRESIDENCY?

 



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

FDA Approves Landmark Clinical Trial for Veterans with PTSD and Smoking Cannabis

Published

on

By


veterans with PTSD and marijuana

For decades, veterans and civilians alike have turned to cannabis to manage their PTSD symptoms, often finding relief where traditional pharmaceuticals fell short. Walk into any VA hospital, and you’ll likely find patients being prescribed a cocktail of medications – SSRIs like sertraline and paroxetine, anti-anxiety drugs like alprazolam, sleep aids like zolpidem, and sometimes even antipsychotics. Yet many vets report these medications leave them feeling like zombies, trading one set of problems for another.

As someone who’s been following cannabis policy for years, I’ve watched countless researchers bang their heads against the wall trying to study this plant’s potential for PTSD treatment. The roadblocks have been numerous and, frankly, ridiculous. Despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence and desperate pleas from the veteran community, getting approval for clinical trials involving smokable cannabis has been about as easy as teaching a cat to swim – theoretically possible, but practically impossible.

That’s why the FDA’s recent approval of a landmark clinical trial has caught my attention. After three years of back-and-forth negotiations, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) finally got the green light to conduct a Phase 2 study examining smoked cannabis for PTSD in veterans. This isn’t just another sterile laboratory experiment – it’s designed to reflect real-world usage patterns, something we’ve desperately needed in cannabis research.

In this article, we’ll dive deep into what this study means for veterans, the cannabis community, and the future of federal legalization. We’ll explore why this research is groundbreaking, how it might reshape our understanding of cannabis as medicine, and what it could mean for the millions of Americans living with PTSD.

Let’s dive into what makes this study so groundbreaking. MAPS isn’t just dipping their toes in the water – they’re diving in headfirst with a comprehensive Phase 2 clinical trial involving 320 veterans suffering from moderate to severe PTSD. What makes this study particularly fascinating is its focus on “real-world” cannabis use, allowing participants to self-titrate their dosage of high-THC flower within certain limits.

Now, for those who aren’t familiar with the FDA’s clinical trial phases, let me break it down. Phase 1 typically focuses on safety and involves a small group of people. Phase 2 – where this study sits – is where things get interesting. It’s designed to test both effectiveness and side effects, involving a larger group of participants. If successful, Phase 3 would follow with an even larger group, and finally, Phase 4 would monitor long-term safety after FDA approval.

The fact that this study reached Phase 2 is a big deal, folks. It means we’ve cleared the initial safety hurdles and are moving into territory that could actually influence medical policy. But what really sets this research apart is its focus on smokable flower. This wasn’t an easy win – MAPS had to fight through five partial clinical hold letters from the FDA just to get here.

Why does the smoking aspect matter so much? Well, think about it – most FDA-approved medications come in neat little pills or carefully measured doses. Smoking cannabis? That’s been a major sticking point for regulatory agencies. By including smoking as a delivery method, this study acknowledges how most veterans actually use cannabis in the real world. No fancy pharmaceutical extracts or synthetic compounds – just the plant in its most basic, smokable form.

The implications here are huge. If this study demonstrates positive results, it could fundamentally change how we approach cannabis as medicine. It might force regulatory bodies to reconsider their stance on smokable cannabis, potentially opening doors for more research and eventual federal approval of whole-plant medicine. This could be particularly significant for veterans, who often prefer smoking or vaping cannabis for its rapid onset and ease of dose control.

But perhaps most importantly, this study could provide the hard scientific evidence we’ve been missing. While thousands of veterans have testified about cannabis helping their PTSD, the lack of controlled clinical trials has been a major roadblock in changing federal policy. A successful outcome here could be the wedge we need to finally crack open the door to federal legalization.

Of course, we shouldn’t count our chickens before they hatch. Clinical trials are complex beasts, and there’s still a long road ahead. But for the first time in a long while, I’m feeling optimistic about the direction we’re heading. This study could be the game-changer we’ve been waiting for in the fight for cannabis legitimacy.

Let’s talk about PTSD – a condition that affects roughly 12 million American adults annually. That’s more people than the entire population of New York City, folks. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder isn’t just about being scared or anxious; it’s a complex psychological condition where traumatic experiences get stuck in an endless replay loop, like a scratched record that keeps skipping back to the same devastating track.

But here’s where cannabis enters the picture, and it’s fascinating how it works. Our endocannabinoid system plays a crucial role in how we process and store memories, particularly emotional ones. When someone consumes cannabis, it can help disrupt those stubborn neural pathways that keep trauma loops running. Think of it like hitting the pause button on a horror movie that’s been playing on repeat in someone’s head.

However – and this is crucial – cannabis isn’t a magic eraser for trauma. I’ve spoken with countless veterans who use cannabis, and they’re the first to tell you: the plant helps manage symptoms, but it doesn’t “cure” PTSD. Real healing requires doing the hard work of processing and integrating traumatic experiences. Cannabis is more like a helpful companion on that journey rather than the destination itself.

What makes cannabis particularly interesting in PTSD treatment is its ability to increase neuroplasticity – the brain’s ability to form new neural connections and reorganize existing ones. This is where the real magic happens. When someone’s brain becomes more “plastic,” they’re better equipped to process traumatic memories and potentially create new, healthier neural pathways.

Speaking of neuroplasticity, we can’t ignore the elephant in the room – psilocybin. Recent studies have shown remarkable promise in treating PTSD with psilocybin-assisted therapy, often producing profound and lasting changes in just a few sessions. The fact that both cannabis and psilocybin increase neuroplasticity while offering different therapeutic approaches suggests we might be onto something big in trauma treatment.

What drives me crazy is how long it’s taken to get here. We’ve known about cannabis’s potential benefits for PTSD for decades. Veterans have been telling us. Trauma survivors have been telling us. Heck, even some forward-thinking psychiatrists have been telling us. Yet we’re only now getting around to serious clinical research? It’s a testament to how prohibition hasn’t just restricted access to cannabis – it’s actively delayed our understanding of this plant’s therapeutic potential.

But hey, better late than never, right? As we move forward with studies like the MAPS trial, we’re finally starting to piece together the scientific puzzle that veterans and other PTSD survivors have known about all along. Cannabis isn’t just helping them sleep better or feel calmer – it’s potentially giving them the neurological flexibility they need to process and integrate their trauma in a healthy way.

Like most things in the cannabis reform movement, progress moves at a snail’s pace. But as frustrating as it might be, we’re undeniably moving forward. The FDA’s approval of this MAPS study, focusing on smokable cannabis no less, marks a significant shift in how our regulatory bodies view cannabis research.

The beauty of this study lies in its real-world approach. No artificial laboratory settings or synthetic cannabinoids – just veterans using cannabis the way they already do. This authenticity could provide invaluable data about how cannabis actually functions as a medicine in everyday life, not just in theory.

Let’s be real though – regardless of what this study finds, veterans and others suffering from PTSD who’ve found relief with cannabis aren’t going to stop using it. The plant has been their lifeline when traditional pharmaceuticals failed them. But positive findings could open doors for countless others who might benefit from cannabis but have been hesitant due to its federal status or lack of clinical validation.

This is particularly crucial for our veteran community. With veteran suicide rates remaining tragically high – averaging around 17 deaths per day – we desperately need more treatment options. It’s no coincidence that veteran groups have been among the loudest voices calling for cannabis research and reform. They’ve seen firsthand how this plant can offer hope where traditional treatments have fallen short.

As we await the results of this groundbreaking study, I remain cautiously optimistic. Sure, progress is slower than we’d like, but each step forward brings us closer to a future where veterans and others with PTSD can access the medicine they need without stigma or legal barriers. And for the countless individuals struggling with PTSD, that future can’t come soon enough.

Source:

www.marijuanamoment.net/fda-approves-long-awaited-clinical-trial-of-smoked-marijuana-to-treat-ptsd-in-veterans/

 

ARE PSYCHEDELICS JUST WEED 2.0? READ ON…

PSYCHEDELICS SHOW BENZINGA

ARE MAGIC MUSHROOMS THE NEW WEED 2.0? WE ASKED THE EXPERTS!

 



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media