"Paul Rons" <prons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:b5397$487a60ae$47dcce09$10175@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market
>
> By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted July 5, 2008.
>
> While the American Medical Association claims pot has no medical value,
> Big Pharma is busy getting patents for marijuana products.
>
> The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research
and
> use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point,
> few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials
> maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another story
>
> One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly
> inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US
government
> nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical
> marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.
>
> It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate nor
> persuasive. Here's why.
>
> First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for --
and
> has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of
> pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the
oral
> THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to
the
> brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists
> such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH
> paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of
> pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the
underlying
> science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs
in
> pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other
> words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming
> that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens
> of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.
>
> Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably,
> GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented
> standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily
> THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken
directly
> from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)
>
> Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and
> development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively
> sup****ting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for them.
> Let me explain.
>
> First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval
from
> federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration --
a
> process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific
> merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward
> the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning
> cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.
>
> A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health
Products
> Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in
the
> United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based
in
> London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically
> hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in
> Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of
> "lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen
> criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning
to
> up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that
> British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based
> medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex?
> Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal
> view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to
> authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription
drug.
>
> Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real
> hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again,
a
> culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic
cannabis
> is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines
than
> a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness."
>
> Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use
of
> medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes
> legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a
> fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including
> many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to
> obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal
> or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad
appeal.
>
> But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use
fewer
> pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that
> adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly most individuals
in
> the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where
medical
> pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use
> prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further, despite
the
> availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines
> such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans
> continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of
> choice.
>
> Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant
> or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from
> natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to
> move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of
marijuana-based
> pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and
> law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total
pot
> prohibition.
>
> Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to
> legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most especially
> the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention toward
the
> development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I
> won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.
>
> Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't patent
> medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.
>
>
|
