Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

But cannabis can help!

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

Anecdotal Evidence

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!

The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

• removes background check requirements;
• instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
• develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dariosabaghi/2024/11/12/researcher-sues-dea-over-marijuana-rescheduling-process/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/researcher-asks-federal-court-to

-halt-dea-marijuana-rescheduling-hearings-over-allegations-of-illegal-proceedings-and-agency-bias/

When the Biden administration announced plans to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III, many cannabis advocates celebrated what they saw as a step toward legitimacy. I wasn’t among them. From the beginning, I’ve argued that Schedule III is nothing more than a sweet spot for Big Pharma – allowing them to maintain control while giving the illusion of progress. Cannabis doesn’t belong on the Controlled Substances Act at all, and frankly, the CSA itself is an outdated relic that needs to be abolished.

But even for those who embraced the Schedule III proposition, reality is about to hit hard. A researcher has just filed a lawsuit against the DEA, alleging multiple violations in the rescheduling process – from ignoring Native American tribes to sidelining small businesses. This is just the beginning of what promises to be a lengthy legal battle from all sides. Prohibitionists will fight to maintain strict control, while reform advocates will push for complete descheduling. Big Pharma, meanwhile, will work behind the scenes to ensure any changes benefit their bottom line.

The DEA’s rescheduling process was never going to be smooth sailing. Cannabis is too complex, too deeply woven into our culture and commerce to be neatly categorized under the CSA’s rigid framework. It’s a plant that’s been used medicinally and spiritually for millennia – trying to force it into the same regulatory box as synthetic pharmaceuticals is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

There’s only one sensible path forward: complete descheduling coupled with a comprehensive national framework for legalization. Anything less will result in years of legal battles, regulatory confusion, and continued barriers to access. Those hoping Schedule III is just around the corner are in for a rude awakening. The lawfare is just beginning, and it’s going to be a long, messy fight.

Let’s look at how this legal battle is shaping up and why Schedule III may be dead on arrival…

David Heldreth’s lawsuit against the DEA marks the opening salvo in what promises to be a protracted legal battle over cannabis rescheduling. As CEO of Panacea Plant Sciences, Heldreth’s grievances strike at the heart of the DEA’s process, alleging multiple violations that could potentially derail the entire rescheduling effort.

The core complaints are substantial: The DEA failed to consult Native American tribes, despite the significant impact rescheduling would have on tribal law enforcement and health services. They’ve effectively shut out small businesses from the process, favoring larger entities already positioned for Schedule III licensing. Perhaps most damning, Heldreth claims the DEA deliberately excluded his company from scheduled hearings despite timely requests to participate, suggesting potential bias in the selection process.

These allegations come after a whirlwind of activity from the DEA. Following Biden’s directive to reconsider cannabis classification, the agency received over 43,000 public comments and scheduled hearings for December 2nd. However, only 25 participants were selected to testify – a suspiciously small number given the industry’s size and scope.

While Heldreth’s legal arguments appear sound – particularly regarding tribal consultation requirements and constitutional questions about DEA judge appointments – the judiciary’s historical deference to administrative agencies might prove challenging. Courts typically give agencies broad latitude in implementing federal law, making this an uphill battle.

But here’s the crucial point: whether Heldreth’s lawsuit succeeds may be less important than its role as a blueprint for future legal challenges. Prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) are already sharpening their legal knives, preparing to challenge every aspect of the rescheduling process. They’ve made it clear they’ll use every available legal tool to keep cannabis in Schedule I.

We’re likely to see challenges from multiple angles: constitutional arguments, administrative procedure violations, environmental impact concerns, and public health disputes. Each lawsuit, regardless of merit, will add months or years of delays to the process. Even if most fail, it only takes one successful challenge to throw the entire rescheduling effort into chaos.

Schedule III isn’t just facing a single legal battle – it’s staring down the barrel of a full-scale legal war. In the labyrinthine American court system, determined opponents with deep pockets can keep issues tied up in litigation almost indefinitely. This is where Schedule III will likely meet its end – not through a single knockout blow, but through death by a thousand legal cuts.

Let’s be frank – Schedule III was never going to be the victory cannabis advocates needed. Its death by litigation, while frustrating, might be exactly what we need to push for real, meaningful reform. Sometimes good things have to fail for better things to emerge.

The next four years present a unique window of opportunity. With Republicans poised to control significant portions of government, we’re entering a period where comprehensive cannabis reform could actually happen – if approached correctly. The key is framing reform in terms Republicans can embrace: states’ rights, economic opportunity, and reduced federal overreach.

There’s buzz about Trump potentially descheduling cannabis completely. While this would be revolutionary, I’ve learned to temper expectations when it comes to campaign promises. Until I see the executive order signed or legislation passed, I’ll maintain healthy skepticism. We’ve been burned by political promises before.

However, what’s genuinely exciting is the potential for Republican-led cannabis reform. With proper framing – emphasizing personal liberty, economic growth, and dismantling bureaucratic overreach – we could see a conservative-friendly cannabis bill that actually addresses the core issues rather than dancing around them like Schedule III would have.

Think about it: Republicans could simultaneously stick it to their Democratic rivals while claiming a major policy win that’s increasingly popular with their base. It’s the kind of political opportunity that doesn’t come along often. Young conservative voters overwhelmingly support legalization, and older conservatives are increasingly seeing the economic and medical benefits.

The public support is there – recent polls show over 70% of Americans favor legalization. If there was ever a time for bold action rather than half-measures like Schedule III, it’s now. We need legislation that respects the complexity of cannabis while ensuring access and promoting innovation.

Perhaps the Schedule III debacle will prove to be a blessing in disguise, forcing lawmakers to confront the reality that the Controlled Substances Act itself is the problem. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before real change can happen. In cannabis policy, we might finally be reaching that point.

The death of Schedule III could be the birth of something much better – if we’re ready to seize the opportunity.

The imminent death of Schedule III in the courts isn’t a tragedy – it’s the predictable end to a political charade. Biden’s administration dangled cannabis reform like a carrot before voters, but Schedule III was never going to deliver the comprehensive changes our communities need. It was theater, designed to appear progressive while maintaining the status quo that benefits big pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, the Biden administration made history by initiating the rescheduling process. But let’s be honest about what they actually achieved: pardons that affected virtually no one currently incarcerated, rescheduling proposals that would primarily benefit corporate interests, and plenty of talk about reform while people continue sitting in cells for cannabis offenses.

Looking ahead to Republican control, I’m not holding my breath for meaningful cannabis reform. But politics makes strange bedfellows, and the cannabis issue doesn’t fit neatly into partisan boxes anymore. There’s a slim chance – maybe out of genuine belief in personal freedom, maybe just to spite Democrats – that Republicans could deliver real reform.

The death of Schedule III in endless litigation could force both parties to confront an uncomfortable truth: the Controlled Substances Act itself is the problem. Cannabis doesn’t belong in any schedule – it’s a plant that humans have cultivated and used for millennia. Trying to force it into the CSA’s framework is like trying to regulate tomatoes as pharmaceuticals.

What we need now isn’t another bureaucratic reshuffling, but a complete rethinking of how we approach cannabis policy. Whether that comes from Republicans seeking a win, Democrats finally embracing real reform, or a bipartisan recognition that the current system is broken doesn’t matter. What matters is that we stop accepting half-measures and start demanding real change.

The Schedule III saga may be ending, but the fight for sensible cannabis policy continues. The only question is whether our politicians will finally listen to the 70% of Americans who support legalization, or if they’ll keep playing games with rescheduling while real people suffer under prohibition.

WHO WINS WITH SCHEDULE 3? READ ON…

WINNERS AND LOSERS FROM SCHEDULE 3? LET’S DIG IN!