Synthetic Cannabis: What Doctors Need to Know
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Clearing the Smoke on Cannabis: Regular Use and Cognitive Functioning
6 Clearing the Smoke on Cannabis Regular Use and Cognitive Functioning Robert Gabrys, Ph.D., Research and Policy Analyst, CCSA Amy Porath, Ph.D., Director, Research, CCSA Key Points • Regular use refers to weekly or more frequent cannabis use over a period of months to years. Regular cannabis use is associated with mild cognitive difficulties, which are typically not apparent following about one month of abstinence. Heavy (daily) and long-term cannabis use is related to more This is the first in a series of reports noticeable cognitive impairment. that reviews the effects of cannabis • Cannabis use beginning prior to the age of 16 or 17 is one of the strongest use on various aspects of human predictors of cognitive impairment. However, it is unclear which comes functioning and development. This first — whether cognitive impairment leads to early onset cannabis use or report on the effects of chronic whether beginning cannabis use early in life causes a progressive decline in cannabis use on cognitive functioning cognitive abilities. provides an update of a previous report • Regular cannabis use is associated with altered brain structure and function. with new research findings that validate Once again, it is currently unclear whether chronic cannabis exposure and extend our current understanding directly leads to brain changes or whether differences in brain structure of this issue. Other reports in this precede the onset of chronic cannabis use. series address the link between chronic • Individuals with reduced executive function and maladaptive (risky and cannabis use and mental health, the impulsive) decision making are more likely to develop problematic cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. -
Medical Cannabis Q&A
Medical Cannabis Q&A 1. What is medical cannabis? The term “medical cannabis” is used to describe products derived from the whole cannabis plant or its extracts containing a variety of active cannabinoids and terpenes, which patients take for medical reasons, after interacting with and obtaining authorization from their health care practitioner. 2. What are the main active ingredients? The chemical ingredients of cannabis are called cannabinoids. The two main therapeutic ones are: THC:CBD a. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a partial agonist of CB1 and CB2 receptors. It is psychoactive and produces the euphoric effect. Each cannabis product will contain THC and CBD, however b. Cannabidiol (CBD) has a weak affinity for CB1 and CB2 receptors and appears the THC: CBD ratio will differ to exert its activity by enhancing the positive effects of the body’s endogenous depending on the product. cannabinoids. 3. Why do patients take it? Medical cannabis may be used to alleviate symptoms for a variety of conditions. It has most commonly been used in neuropathic pain and other chronic pain conditions. There is limited, but developing clinical evidence surrounding its safety and efficacy, and it does not currently have an approved Health Canada indication. 4. How do patients take it? Cannabis can be smoked, vaporized, taken orally, sublingually, topically or rectally. Different routes of administration will result in different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drug. 5. Is it possible to develop dependence on medical cannabis? Yes, abrupt discontinuation after long-term use may result in withdrawal symptoms. Additionally, chronic use may result in psychological dependence. -
Just a Little Bit of History Repeating: the California Model of Marijuana Legalization and How It Might Affect Racial and Ethnic Minorities
Just a Little Bit of History Repeating: The California Model of Marijuana Legalization and How it Might Affect Racial and Ethnic Minorities ∗ Thomas J. Moran Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................... 557 I. When Marijuana Was Marihuana, the "Killer Weed" .................. 561 II. The Whitening of Marijuana ........................................................ 566 III. The Present Day Costs of Marijuana Prohibition ......................... 570 A. Generally, Marijuana Prohibition Has Not Worked .............. 570 B. The Cost of Prohibition on Minorities .................................. 573 IV. Is Legislation such as California’s Marijuana Control Act the Answer for Minority Communities? ...................................... 576 A. Productivity Concerns ........................................................... 578 B. What About Potency Regulation? ......................................... 579 C. The Money Drain from Minority Communities .................... 581 D. Federal Collateral Sanctions Would Still Exist with State Legalization .......................................................... 583 E. Will Legalization Predispose Minority Youth for Future Use? ........................................................................... 586 V. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 589 Introduction In January 2010, a California Assembly Committee passed Assembly Bill 390, entitled the Marijuana Control, -
Up in Smoke: Removing Marijuana from Schedule I
UP IN SMOKE (DO NOT DELETE) 4/9/2018 12:38 PM UP IN SMOKE: REMOVING MARIJUANA FROM SCHEDULE I DAVID R. KATNER* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 167 II. DESCRIPTION OF MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC OPINION .......................... 170 III. HISTORY OF MARIJUANA USES AND LAWS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ......................................................................................... 174 IV. CREATION OF SCHEDULES OF DRUGS ................................................ 177 V. EVOLUTION OF MEDICINAL APPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA ............... 178 VI. ADDICTIVE? ........................................................................................ 181 VII. DISSEMINATED PROPAGANDA ABOUT MARIJUANA, AND LEGAL ARBITRARINESS .............................................................................. 184 VIII. RESCHEDULING MARIJUANA TO SCHEDULE II ................................ 190 IX. REMOVING MARIJUANA ALTOGETHER FROM FEDERAL REGULATION .................................................................................. 195 X. CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 202 I. INTRODUCTION Billions of dollars are spent each year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating Americans convicted of possession of cannabis or marijuana.1 During the 1970’s, annual marijuana arrests ranged between 420,000 and 500,000 people each year.2 By 1995, there were roughly 600,000 marijuana arrests nationwide, with more Americans being imprisoned -
Personal Use Cannabis Rules Special Adopted New Rules: N.J.A.C
NEW JERSEY CANNABIS REGULATORY COMMISSION Personal Use Cannabis Rules Special Adopted New Rules: N.J.A.C. 17:30 Adopted: August 19, 2021 by New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission, Dianna Houenou, Chair. Filed: August 19, 2021 Authority: N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 et seq. Effective Date: August 19, 2021 Expiration Date: August 19, 2022 This rule may be viewed or downloaded from the Commission’s website at nj.gov/cannabis. These rules are adopted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 24:6I-34(d)1a of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I- 31 et seq., and became effective upon acceptance for filing by the Office of Administrative Law. The specially adopted new rules shall be effective for a period not to exceed one year from the date of filing of the new rules, that is, until August 19, 2022. The Commission has provided this special adoption to the Attorney General, State Treasurer, Commissioner of Health, and Commissioner of Banking and Insurance for a consultation period, after which the Commission anticipates filing a proposal to readopt these rules with amendments reflecting the results of that consultation. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 24:6I-34(d)1b the rules, as readopted, will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Office of Administrative Law if filed on or before the expiration date of the rules published herein. The adopted amendments will be effective upon publication in the New Jersey Register. Federal Standards Analysis The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act obliges the Cannabis Regulatory Commission to promulgate rules necessary or proper to enable it to carry out the Commission’s duties, functions, and powers with respect to overseeing the development, regulation, and enforcement of activities associated with the personal use of cannabis pursuant to P.L.2021, c.16. -
(A-9-THC) Content in Herbal Cannabis Over Time
32 Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2012, 5, 32-40 Increasing Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (-9-THC) Content in Herbal Cannabis Over Time: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Fidelia Cascini*,1, Carola Aiello2 and GianLuca Di Tanna3 1Istituto di Medicina Legale, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, largo F. Vito, 1 00168 Roma, Italy 2Department of Informatics and Systemics, University ‘La Sapienza’, 00185 Rome, Italy 3Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, University "La Sapienza", 00185, Rome, Italy Abstract: Aim: The objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the data regarding changes in herbal cannabis potency over time (from 1970 to 2009). Methods: Systematic searches of 17 electronic scientific databases identified studies on this topic, within which 21 case series studies satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting the mean tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) value per number of samples per year. No language, publication date, publication type or status restrictions were imposed. The study selection and data extraction processes were performed independently but uniformly by two authors, included screening, determination of eligibility and inclusion of the eligible studies in the systematic review, and a meta-analysis of the results on THC content in herbal cannabis samples. We considered papers and not monographic scientific publications, rejecting all studies that were not focused on the subject of this review. Results: Meta-analysis by year was performed on 21 studies containing 75 total mean THC observations from 1979 to 2009 using the random effects model. The results revealed much variability between studies. Further, there was a significant correlation between year and mean THC in herbal cannabis. The combined data indicated the correlation between year and mean THC in herbal cannabis, revealing a temporal trend of increasing potency (5% above the mean THC value in the Poisson regression analysis). -
Endocannabinoid Stimulated Release of Nitric Oxide and Its Mitochondrial
A tica nal eu yt c ic a a m A r a c t Stefano et al., Pharm Anal Acta 2015, 6:6 h a P Pharmaceutica Analytica Acta DOI: 10.4172/2153-2435.1000378 ISSN: 2153-2435 Review Article Open Access Endocannabinoid Stimulated Release of Nitric Oxide and its Mitochondrial Influence Triggering Vascular Pathology George B Stefano*, Erin Quinn and Richard M Kream MitoGenetics LLC, 3 Bioscience Park Drive, Suite 307, Farmingdale, NY 11735, USA Abstract Endocannabinoids, and their respective receptors, are involved in a host of cellular regulatory activities. In part, some of these mediated effects occur by way of stimulating constitutive nitric oxide release. This occurs in endothelia, certain white blood cells, microglia, and in similar invertebrate tissues, demonstrating that this is a conserved chemical messenger system. This endocannabinoid chemical messenger system, coupled to constitutive nitric oxide release, also appears to exert regulatory effects on mitochondrial energy associated processes, further substantiating its primordial history. In this regard, it appears to offer some beneficial actions in the occurrence of reperfusion injury and stroke. The mechanism envisioned is one initiated via a hypoxic event, which does not restore normalcy, then progresses to a pro-inflammatory state, and the resultant chronic condition manifests itself in a specific disorder. This fits nicely into a vascular-associated origin for Alzheimer’s Disease, whereby the pro- inflammatory state encompasses vessels that have endothelial gaps, providing for a compromised blood brain barrier, beta amyloid deposition, and enhanced white blood cell trafficking. In time, due to the physical progression of the events, Alzheimer’s Disease occurs. -
Synthetic Cannabis
Global emergence of synthetic cannabinoids Source: https://www.unodc.org/LSS/SubstanceGroup/Details/ae45ce06-6d33-4f5f-916a- e873f07bde02 Source: UNODC questionnaire on NPS, 2012 Background The appearance of ‘herbal highs’ in the market is not a new phenomenon. Such products usually consisted of plant mixtures with little psychoactive effects. Since 2004, however, the composition of these herbal products seems to have substantially changed to include potent new psychoactive compounds known as synthetic cannabinoids. Research on the mechanism of cannabis activity dates back several decades when molecules with similar behaviour to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were first examined. A synthetic analogue of THC , ‘HU-210’, was first synthesized in Israel in 1988[1]and is considered to have a potency of at least 100 times more than THC. Due to its similar chemical structure to THC, ‘HU-210’ is regarded as a ‘classical cannabinoid’ and has been found in synthetic cannabinoids sold in the United States and other countries. Non-classical cannabinoids include cyclohexylphenols or 3-arylcyclohexanols (‘CP’compounds). ‘CP’ compounds were developed as potential analgesics by a pharmaceutical company in the 1980s. Respondents to the UNODC questionnaire on NPS have reported the emergence of CP-47,497 and CP-47,497-C8 in numerous countries in all regions except Africa since 2009. Other structurally dissimilar varieties of synthetic cannabinoids unrelated to THC have also emerged on the market. These include aminoalkylindoles, such as naphthoylindoles (e.g. JWH-018), phenylacetylindoles (e.g. JWH-250), and benzoylindoles (e.g. AM-2233).[2] JWH-018, arguably the most widely known synthetic cannabinoid, belongs to the group of aminoalkylindoles and is considered to be three times as potent as THC. -
Understanding Synthetic Cannabis: Who Uses It, Why Do They Use It, What Are the Harms and What Are the Policy Options?
Understanding Synthetic Cannabis: Who uses it, why do they use it, what are the harms and what are the policy options? Stephen Bright 1,2, Monica Barratt 3 1. Peninsula Health 2. School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University 3. National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University Background 2004: “Spice” (Deluca et al., 2010) Synthetic Cannabinoid Agonists ∆9-Tetrahydracannabinol (THC) JWH-018 Kronic 2011: Kronic emerged as a new drug in Australia Produced in New Zealand Who Uses Synthetic Cannabis? Survey of 316 Australian synthetic cannabis users in 2011 - 77% male (Barratt, Cakic & Lenton, 2013) - Median age of 27 - 78% were employed “Won’t somebody think - 96% had used cannabis VS about the children?” - Extensive Drug Histories (Maude Flanders, The Simpsons) Other drug use Extensive drug histories – Alcohol (98%), Cannabis (96%), Tobacco (91%), Ecstasy (64%), LSD (57%), Speed (56%), Mushrooms (41%), Cocaine (38%), Valium (35%) More common drugs used in past year – Alcohol (91%), Cannabis (84%), Tobacco (70%), Speed (26%), LSD (26%), Ecstasy (24%) Last month use only of common drugs – Alcohol (77%), Cannabis (61%), Tobacco (58%) Why do They Use It? Curiosity: to compare effects to cannabis (50%) Legal (39%) Easier to get than cannabis (23%) Recreational effects (20%) – Enjoyment, fun, relaxation, to ‘get high’ Alternative to cannabis (11%) Was offered in social situation (10%) Medicinal effects (9%) – Relief from pain, nausea, anxiety, insomnia To cease or reduce cannabis use (5%) Reasons for use - Drug testing 8% first -
The Advisability and Feasibility of Developing USP Standards for Medical Cannabis Gabriel I
STIMULI TO THE REVISION PROCESS Stimuli articles do not necessarily reflect the policies of the USPC or the USP Council of Experts The Advisability and Feasibility of Developing USP Standards for Medical Cannabis Gabriel I. Giancaspro, Nam-Cheol Kim, Jaap Venema, Susan de Mars, Jennifer Devine, Carlos Celestino, Christine E. Feaster, Ben A. Firschein, Mary S. Waddell, Stephen M. Gardner, and Earl Jones Jr.a ABSTRACT This Stimuli article analyzes the need for public quality standards for medical cannabis (defined herein as marijuana used for medical purposes under state laws) and the potential role of the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) in addressing that need.1 Following legalization of the medical use of cannabis in several U.S. states and internationally, USP has received requests to investigate the advisability and feasibility of developing quality standards for medical cannabis. Development of quality standards for medical cannabis requires consideration of a wide range of scientific, legal, and policy issues that reach far beyond its classification as a botanical drug or herbal medicine. This article discusses the current regulatory and scientific landscape regarding medical cannabis, identifies issues related to the lack of quality standards for medical cannabis, and explores potential options for developing quality standards. USP seeks input from stakeholders on whether USP should proceed with development of quality standards for medical cannabis and if so, what approaches should be utilized to establish such standards. LEGAL AND REGULATORY LANDSCAPE The federal and state regulatory environment surrounding the medical use of cannabis involves many federal agencies and various different state laws. The evolving legal environment is an important consideration when evaluating the advisability and feasibility of USP developing a public standard for cannabis. -
Medical Cannabis Template Policy 6-17-15
Medical Cannabis Template Policy 6-17-15 Template 1- Will not allow Medical Cannabis in hospital (page 4): XXX Hospital recognizes that while Minnesota law permits Medical Cannabis for registered patients with a qualifying condition, medical cannabis will not be permitted in XXX Hospital Template 2a: Continue use as in-patient- Continuation of medical cannabis by patients – Self-Directed Therapy Arm (pages 5-6): XXX Hospital will permit the use of medical cannabis in a manner consistent with the registry program. XXX Hospital has exempted medical cannabis from its medication use policies and procedures. The policy provides guidance on the continuation of medical cannabis within XXX Hospital according to registry program. Only patients that hold Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) patient registration number will be permitted to use medical cannabis pursuant to this policy. Nothing in this policy should be interpreted to require health care practitioner to certify a patient as eligible for the registry program or to continue medical cannabis use as in-patient. Template 2b: Continue use as in-patient-Continuation of medical cannabis by patients- incorporated into medication process (pages 7-9): XXX Hospital will permit the use of medical cannabis in a manner consistent with the registry program. The policy provides guidance on the continuation of medical cannabis within XXX Hospital according to registry program. Only patients that hold Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) patient registration number will be permitted to use medical cannabis pursuant to this policy. Nothing in this policy should be interpreted to require a health care practitioner to certify a patient as eligible for the registry program or to continue medical cannabis use as in-patient. -
Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws by Jon Gettman, Ph.D. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform www.drugscience.org September 5, 2007 Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws Executive Summary Government reports indicate that the nation's marijuana laws cost taxpayers $41.8 billion annually. This calculation is based on (a) a reconciliation of estimates of the annual supply of marijuana in the United States and estimates of its overall value and (b) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data on the share of the Gross Domestic Product diverted by regulatory taxes to US Government budgets. Government reports from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Library of Congress, and other sources indicate that the supply of marijuana in the United States is 14,349 metric tons, or 31.1 million pounds. Various price indexes from public and private sources produce a retail price of $7.87/gr or $3,570/lb, setting the overall retail value of the illicit marijuana market at $113 billion. The Office of Management and Budget reports that local, state, and the federal government receipts represent 28.7% of the gross domestic product as tax revenue. The diversion of $113 billion from the taxable economy into the illicit economy deprives taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, marijuana arrests consist of 5.54% of all arrests. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that total criminal justice expenditures in the United States in 2004, for example, were $193 billion.