Author Archives: adminoacido

  • -

HIV-infected cannabis users have lower circulating CD16+ monocytes and IP-10 levels compared to non-using HIV patients.

Category : Antiinflamatorio

HIV-infected cannabis users have lower circulating CD16+ monocytes and IP-10 levels compared to non-using HIV patients.

AIDS. 2017 Nov 30;:

Authors: Rizzo MD, Crawford RB, Henriquez JE, Aldhamen Y, Gulick P, Amalfitano A, Kaminski NE

OBJECTIVE: Chronic immune activation and elevated numbers of circulating activated monocytes (CD16) are implicated in HIV-associated neuroinflammation. The objective was to compare the level of circulating CD16 monocytes and interferon-γ-inducible protein 10 (IP-10) between HIV-infected cannabis users (HIV+MJ+) and non-cannabis users (HIV+MJ-), and determine whether in vitro Δ-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a constituent of cannabis, affected CD16 expression as well as IP-10 production by monocytes.
DESIGN: The levels of circulating CD16 monocytes and IP-10 from HIV+MJ- and HIV+MJ+ donors were examined. In vitro experimentation using THC was performed on primary leukocytes isolated from HIV-MJ-, HIV+MJ- and HIV+MJ+ donors to determine if THC has an impact on CD16 monocyte and IP-10 levels.
METHODS: Flow cytometry was used to measure the number of blood CD16 monocytes and serum IP-10 from HIV+MJ- and HIV+MJ+ donors. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated from HIV-MJ- and HIV+ (MJ- and MJ+) donors for in vitro THC and IFNα treatment, and CD16 monocytes and supernatant IP-10 were quantified.
RESULTS: HIV+MJ+ donors possessed a lower level of circulating CD16 monocytes and serum IP-10, compared to HIV+MJ- donors. Further, monocytes from HIV+MJ+ donors were unable to induce CD16 expression when treated with in vitro IFNα, while HIV-MJ- and HIV+MJ- donors displayed pronounced CD16 induction, suggesting anti-inflammatory effects by cannabis. Lastly, in vitro THC treatment impaired CD16 monocyte transition to CD16 and monocyte-derived IP-10.
CONCLUSIONS: Components of cannabis, including THC, may decelerate peripheral monocyte processes that are implicated in HIV-associated neuroinflammation.

PMID: 29194121 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

The Origins of Reefer Madness [Book Excerpt]

Category : Noticias

On August 11, 1930, Harry Jacob Anslinger became the director of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) in Washington, D.C. The Voldemort of vipers, he would run the FBN with an iron fist through six presidential administrations spanning more than three decades.
By Martin A. Lee On October 15, 2017

The War on Cannabis "Reefer Madness"

Excerpted from Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana—Medical, Recreational and Scientific. Reprinted at FAIR online.

Yellow Journalism and the Anti-Cannabis Crusade

On August 11, 1930, Harry Jacob Anslinger became the director of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) in Washington, D.C. He would run the FBN with an iron fist through six presidential administrations spanning more than three decades.

An imposing, husky, bull-necked figure nearly six feet tall, he looked like a tough law-and-order drug buster. With a large square head, huge ears, a cleft chin, and glowering eyes, Anslinger took great pride in his role as the archnemesis of marijuana smokers. He was the godfather of America’s war on drugs, and his influence on public policy would be felt long after death stiffened his fingers in 1975.

When Anslinger grabbed the reins at the FBN, marijuana had already been banned in 24 U.S. states, but there still was no coordinated federal attempt to outlaw the plant. During its first few years, the FBN issued annual reports that minimized the marijuana problem, which Anslinger believed was best dealt with by state and local officials.

The stuff grows “like dandelions,” he complained. Trying to stamp out a plant that flourished everywhere in the world except Antarctica and the Arctic Circle seemed like a dubious proposition. Anslinger had only 300 G-men on his roster, hardly enough to tackle heroin and cocaine, let alone a common weed.

Anslinger didn’t pay much attention to cannabis until 1934, when the FBN was floundering. Tax revenues plummeted during the Great Depression, the bureau’s budget got slashed, and Harry’s entire department was on the chopping block. Then he saw the light and realized that marijuana just might be the perfect hook to hang his hat on. A savvy operator and an extremely ambitious man, he set out to convince Congress and the American public that a terrible new drug menace was threatening the country, one that required immediate action by a well-funded Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Determined to criminalize the herb and build his bureaucratic fiefdom, America’s top narc promoted all the hoary myths about marijuana-induced mayhem and sexual depravity—stories of pot-crazed axe murderers, playground pushers, sordid drug dens and buxom reefer babes whose lives were ruined by the drug.

“If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face-to-face with the hideous monster Marihuana, he would drop dead of fright,” declared the FBN chief (Washington Herald, 4/1⅔7). Anslinger pulled no punches as he orchestrated a nationwide campaign against marijuana, “the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

In the world according to Anslinger, cannabis was a deadly, addictive drug that enslaved its users and turned them into deranged criminal freaks. He fed titillating tidbits to reporters, who wrote articles that the FBN chief would then cite in making the case that society was in imminent danger of moral collapse because of marijuana.

Anslinger whipped up enthusiasm for the cause in speeches to temperance organizations, religious groups and civic clubs around the country. His anti-cannabis confabulations were given credence by hellfire-and-brimstone preachers who castigated hemp smokers as fallen sinners. A plant that provided the paper on which Gutenberg first printed the Bible was denounced as “the Devil’s weed.”

Perhaps it was the constant pressure from waging war against a figment of his imagination, or maybe his job was simply too demanding, but on April 1, 1935, an angst-ridden Anslinger checked into the U.S. Marine hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. The FBN chief complained of exhaustion and insomnia—he woke up too early and couldn’t get back to sleep, a condition, ironically, which was treatable with cannabis.

While Anslinger convalesced, others picked up the slack. The FBN chief had a strong ally in the press baron William Randolph Hearst, a megalomaniac obsessed with marijuana, whose newspaper chain stretched across the nation. With an instinc-tual grasp of mass psychology, Hearst used his media empire to influence public policy (as when he pushed the U.S. government into war with Spain in 1898). His contempt for facts, his penchant for fabricated stories and doctored photos, and the hysterical tone of his newspapers gave rise to the pejorative expression “yellow journalism.”

Hearst launched a smear campaign against Mexican migrants and their herb of choice. “Murder Weed Found Up and Down Coast—Deadly Marihuana Dope Plant Ready for Harvest That Means Enslavement of California Children,” the Los Angeles Examiner (1⅕/33) screeched in 1933.

By stigmatizing marijuana and the “foreigners” who smoked it, Hearst succeeded in exacerbating anti-Mexican sentiment during the Great Depression, when many Anglos felt they were competing with brown-skinned migrants for scarce jobs. More than 2 million Mexicans, who had been welcomed while the U.S. economy boomed in the 1920s, were deported when it faltered in the 1930s—a policy of ethnic cleansing vociferously championed by the Hearst conglomerate.

Hearst also cheered the rise of fascist forces in Europe. “Mussolini Leads Way in Crushing Dope Evil” was the headline of a Hearst press screed (3/9/28) that combined two of the owner’s pet passions—his support for fascism and the war on narcotics. Hearst Sunday papers published columns by German Nazi leaders, who conveyed Hitler’s point of view to 30 million readers without space for rebuttal.

During the Third Reich, the verminization of religious and ethnic minorities went hand in hand with Rauschgiftbekämpfung, the “combating of drugs” to promote racial hygiene. Nazi racialist policies and the demonization of marijuana by Anslinger and Hearst were parallel historical phenomena—both exploited fear and hatred of the Other.

The FBN commissioner understood that the likelihood of prohibitory legislation increased if the substance in question was associated with ethnic minorities. Thus Anslinger disclosed in 1936 that 50 percent of violent crimes committed in districts occupied by “Mexicans, Greeks, Turks, Filipinos, Spaniards, Latin Americans and Negroes may be traced to the use of marihuana.” The headlines and the plotlines were antidrug and anticrime, but the subtext was always about race.

Anslinger brandished the non-English term like a truncheon to emphasize the weed’s connection to alien elements that crept over the Mexican border into the United States. Popularized during the Depression, the new name marihuana was, in effect, the evil twin of cannabis, a word familiar to Americans as a medicinal ingredient.

Anslinger eschewed references to benign-sounding cannabis and hemp, while calling for a federal ban on marihuana. Very few Americans knew that marijuana, the weed that some blacks and Chicanos were smoking, was merely a weaker version of the concentrated cannabis medicines that everyone had been taking since childhood.

To gain public support for his crusade, Anslinger depicted marijuana as a sinister substance that made Mexican and African-American men lust after white women. One of the worst things about marijuana, according to the FBN chief, was that it promoted sexual contact across color lines. “Marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes,” Anslinger frothed. He rang alarm bells in segregated America, warning that blacks and whites were dancing cheek-to-cheek in tea houses and nightclubs, where pot-maddened jazz bands performed what the Hearst papers called “voodoo-satanic music.”

In addition to hexing blacks and Mexicans, Anslinger’s antimarijuana diatribes served as a not-so-subtle reminder to white women, who had only recently won the right to vote, that they still needed strong men to protect them from the “degenerate races.” He never tired of telling new versions of the same morality tale, which featured a vulnerable young white woman whose tragic downfall is triggered by smoking marijuana with dark-skinned rogues.

During the run-up to federal legislation that banned cannabis, Anslinger pounded home the message: White women are in mortal peril because of marijuana—and so are American children. That was the upshot of a July 1937 American Magazine article by Anslinger, entitled “Assassin of Youth,” which led with the usual purple prose:

“How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries and deeds of maniacal insanity it causes each year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured,” the FBN chief warned.

With Anslinger pitching script ideas, cannabis was demonized in several low-budget exploitation flicks, some of which were financed by major distilling companies that stood to lose sizable sums if marijuana were a legal competitor.

The film Marijuana! (1935) featured the lurid tagline “Weird orgies! Wild parties! Unleashed passions!” But when it came to ridiculous anti-marijuana propaganda, nothing could top Hot Fingers Pirelli, the bug-eyed piano player who pounds out jazz tunes in Tell Your Children (1936), better known by its later title Reefer Madness.

A perverted pot addict, Pirelli sneaks into a closet and fires up the Devil’s doob, prompting frightful facial twitches as he morphs into an insane killer. Drug-policy critic Jacob Sullum (Saying Yes) calls it “voodoo pharmacology”—the idea that certain substances are molecularly program-med to compel weird, immoral behavior.

Although it bombed at the box office, Reefer Madness was destined to become a cult humor classic among American college students in later years. A vivid example of the national frenzy that set the stage for federal pot prohibition, this film epitomized the synchronicity among Washington, Hollywood and mainstream media in the war against cannabis.

In April 1937, Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina introduced House Bill 6385, which sought to prohibit the use of marijuana by imposing an exorbitant tax on the drug. When he testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, Harry Anslinger trotted out examples from the “Gore File,” his infamous scrapbook full of Hearst press editorials, racial slurs and anecdotal accounts of horrific murders falsely attributed to marijuana smokers. Bereft of actual scientific data to back up his reefer madness claims, the FBN director presented no evidence of a statistical correlation between marijuana use and criminal behavior.

Members of Congress held only two one-hour hearings to consider the Marihuana Tax Act. The final witness and lone voice of dissent was Dr. William Woodward, the legislative counsel for the American Medical Association, who challenged Anslinger’s claim that cannabis was a dangerous drug with no therapeutic value. AMA doctors, Woodward asserted, were wholly unaware that the “killer weed from Mexico” was actually cannabis. He accurately predicted that federal legislation banning marijuana would strangle any medical use of the plant.

Just four years after relegalizing the consumption of liquor, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Marihuana Tax Act by a voice vote without a recorded tally. Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt without fanfare, the law went into effect on October 1, 1937. It was a day of infamy for pot smokers everywhere. Yellow journalism, racial bias and political opportunism had triumphed over medical science and common sense.

Get Book

Copyright, Project CBD. May not be reprinted without permission.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 0

Simple and fast gas-chromatography mass spectrometry assay to assess delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in dogs treated with medical cannabis for canine epilepsy.

Category : Epilepsia

Simple and fast gas-chromatography mass spectrometry assay to assess delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in dogs treated with medical cannabis for canine epilepsy.

Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2017 Nov 21;:

Authors: Rotolo MC, Graziano S, Pellegrini M, Corlazzoli D, Antinori L, Porcarelli L, Pichini S

BACKGROUND: To date, an increasing number of pet owners, especially in the USA, are using cannabis-derived products containing generally delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) to help their animals’ health. Unfortunately, studies on the clinical use of cannabinoids in veterinary medicine are still limited, and the application of analytical methodologies for the determination of cannabinoids in animal (especially dog) biological matrices such as plasma, is still missing.
METHODS: A reliable, fast, accurate, simple gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method was developed and validated for the quantification of THC and CBD in plasma samples of eight dogs under therapeutic treatment for epilepsy and receiving oral administration of medical cannabis (Bediol).
RESULTS: The method was linear for both the analytes under investigation with coefficients of determination (r2) of at least 0.99. Absolute analytical recovery (mean ± SD) ranged from 80.6 ± 6.2% for THC and 81.7 ± 4.3% for CBD. The matrix effect showed less than 10% analytical suppression due to endogenous substances for both the analytes. The intra-assay and inter-assay precision values ranged from 4.9% to 12.7%, and from 5.2% to 8.7% respectively. The intra-assay and inter-assay accuracy values ranged from 2.3% to 9.6% and from 3.4% to 13.0% respectively. The validated method was successfully applied to real samples; moreover to assess the potential of the method applicability and robustness in future veterinary clinical studies on cannabinoids therapy, we attempted to follow the kinetic of THC and CBD in the plasma of two dogs under therapy at different times after Bediol administration.

PMID: 29173160 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

Bugs, Mold and Excrement

Category : Noticias

Welcome to the Brave New World of California Cannabis
By Adrian Devitt-Lee On November 26, 2017

Project CBD critiques the new regulations for America’s largest marijuana market

On November 16, 2017, California officials released a new set of regulations for cannabis manufacturing, testing, and growing. In many respects, these updates are a significant improvement to the initial draft regulations, however, some major problems remain. 

Two important issues pertain to regulations on mold and foreign filth, which are absurdly loose. And unlike the initial proposal, no statement as to the rationale behind the new regulations has been released.

Safety requirements

Allowable limits for contaminants including pesticides, solvents, and microbes are described in sections 5718-5723 of the new regulations. These regulations have fixed a major issue in the initial draft where two different units were confused – parts per million by weight (µg/g) and parts per million by volume. Now solvent and pesticide limits are given in µg/g.

Other significant changes:

  • Solvent limits are largely improved. Certain class 2 solvents have been banned, as Project CBD had previously suggested.
  • Pesticide limits have swung from being very strict to being overly lax. The environmental concerns related to pesticide overuse appear more problematic than the health effects for consumers.
  • Many pesticide safety limits are still based on regulations for tobacco, which is entirely inappropriate.
  • Required tests for microbial contamination are minimal.
  • Limits on mold – one of the most common contaminants of cannabis – are nearly nonexistent. A product is deemed to pass regulations if less than 1/4th of it is covered in mold.

Solvents – §5718

Solvents are broken into two categories for the purpose of regulations. Category 1 solvents are banned and are not permissible at any detectable levels in cannabis products. Category 2 solvents are allowed up to set action limits that depend on the solvent in question and whether the product is inhaled or not. Action limits for non-inhaled products were appropriate in the initial draft proposal and have not changed.

The initial proposed regulations allowed for the use of highly dangerous solvents, including benzene, which Project CBD suggested be banned from use in cannabis manufacturing. We also suggested that regulators consider banning “class 2” solvents such as chloroform, since they are unnecessary for producing most kinds of cannabis extracts.The new regulations now ban the use of benzene and some class 2 solvents like chloroform, but allow other class 2 solvents, including hexane. (Hexane is rarely used to extract oil from cannabis, but is sometimes used to clean the oil of pesticides or other adulterants.) Although Project CBD hopes that cannabis manufacturers avoid using hexane to extract or clean oil, we believe these regulations are appropriate.

Each permissible solvent has a maximum allowable concentration in inhaled cannabis products (e.g. vape cartridges). In the initial draft proposal, these limits were based on safety data from California’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), although the limits were improperly calculated due to confusion with units. (“Parts per million” can have multiple meanings, as mentioned above. See the previous Project CBD statement for more detail.) The new limits are particularly stringent for some class 2 solvents and are overly lenient for ethanol residues.2   On the whole, the new limits are sensible.


Pesticides – §5719

Similar to solvents, pesticides are broken into banned pesticides, which are not allowed at any detectable concentration, and allowed pesticides. The action limits for permitted pesticides depend on whether the product is inhaled or not.

The regulations were released with only 5 days for public comments – including the weekend – and were not accompanied by any statement of reasons explaining how new safety limits were determined. As such, Project CBD’s comments on the new pesticide regulations point out potential problems without necessarily suggesting how these issues could be fixed or their extent.

In the new regulations, the list of banned pesticides has shrunk dramatically, from 42 to 21. One of these now-allowed pesticides is a neonicotinoid (acetamiprid) and four others have “high acute toxicity” to humans, according to the initial statement of reasons (bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, naled, and abamectin). Most of the rest of the now-allowed pesticides were banned in the original proposal due to environmental concerns, including myclobutanil (often sold Eagle-20).

The initial set of draft regulations on pesticides were very strict in some regards. The limit of detection (LOD) – which is the lowest concentration of a compound that can be detected reliably – was arbitrarily set at 0.01 – 0.02 µg/g. This is lower than the actual LOD of pesticides in cannabis for most labs. This has changed – now labs will determine their LODs scientifically and list these LODs on lab reports.3 This is an important fix.

To reiterate: because no statement of reasons has been released, we do not know the rationale behind the limits for pesticides on non-inhaled products. But we can say with some certainty that it is not based on the relative safety of these pesticides.

Safe limits for pesticide ingestion are given as the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or acute reference dose (ARfD), and are reported by the World Health Organization. The ADI indicates a level of pesticide ingestion that is considered safe for chronic daily use, which makes sense for food or medicine. Converting the ADI into a limit for a pesticide in cannabis products depends on the amount of product that is consumed. If the limits were based on safe ingestion limits, the ratio of the ADI to the action limit would be constant. In the current proposal, this ratio varies from 2.5 to 750, a 300-fold difference. Pesticides like trifloxystrobin, bifenazate, and permethrin have very high action limits compared to their toxicity when ingested.

It appears that the limits were not based on environmental concerns either: Of the seven least regulated pesticides (i.e. those with the highest allowable limits), five were originally banned due to potential ground water contamination.

For inhaled products, the limits still appear to be based on tobacco, as described in the initial statement of reasons. This may be because very little is known about the effects of heating or burning pesticides (an information vacuum attributable to lobbying from the tobacco industry). Some pesticides will, in fact, become safer when burned, while many others will break down to much more toxic compounds.

The EPA has previously stated that it need not study the health effects of burning pesticides at concentrations below 0.1 µg/g in cigarettes because those individuals are already smoking tobacco. After all, nicotine is the insecticide upon which neonicotinoids are based.

It may be true that inhaling less than 0.1 µg/g of most pesticides is safe. But regulations need to be based on scientific data. If safety data on burning and inhaling pesticides is not available, then the law should include provisions to be updated as new data emerges.

The outcomes of the tobacco industry’s war against science should never be used as the basis of safety regulations for another industry. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States, killing roughly half a million people every year. This is precisely because the tobacco industry lobbied to ensure that scientific data on health and safety was not used to inform laws or regulations. That should not be the starting point for any aspect of the emerging cannabis industry.


A sample could pass with one rodent hair

Foreign material – §5722

The foreign material testing, described in §5722, is beyond the pale. §5722(e) states that:

A sample shall be deemed to have passed the foreign material testing if the presence of foreign material does not exceed:
(1) 1/4 of the total sample area covered by sand, soil, cinders, or dirt;
(2) 1/4 of the total sample area covered by mold;
(3) 1 insect fragment, 1 rodent hair, or 1 count mammalian excreta per 3.0 grams; or
(4) 1/4 of the total sample area covered by an
imbedded foreign material.

A small piece of chocolate weighs about 3.5 grams. Under the new regulations, a 16-piece chocolate bar would be considered acceptable if four pieces were covered in dirt, four more were covered in mold, and each of the 16 pieces had an insect part or rat poop on it.


Labs are not required to test for mold

Microbes – §5720


There is an unprecedented change in regulations on microbial contamination. Cannabis is not required to be free of mold nor are labs required to test for mold. The only limit on mold is given in (2) of the foreign filth section quoted above, which states that up to 1/4th of a product can be covered in mold.

Under the new proposal, products only need to be screened for three microbes: pathogenic E. coli, salmonella, and in the case of inhaled products, aspergillus. Since no statement of reasons were released with the regulations, it is not clear why California is so loose with microbes. Giving regulators the benefit of the doubt, it may be that they are trying not to restrict the use of beneficial microbes, an organic growing practice that uses non-harmful microbes as an alternative to pesticides. But mold is one of the most common contaminants on cannabis. It is absolutely essential to test for mold on cannabis, particularly when grown indoors.


Testing will be phased in over the course of a year

Phase in of safety testing – §5715

The regulations have been released with just over a month before they will be implemented. To ease the burden on labs, testing will be phased in over the course of a year. This gives labs time to develop and validate methods for each kind of product and each kind of test.

On January 1, 2018, all legal products must be tested for cannabinoids, allowed solvents, banned pesticides, microbes, and product homogeneity.4  On July 1, 2018, three additional tests will be required: banned solvents, allowed pesticides, and foreign material. On January 1, 2019, heavy metals, mycotoxins, and possibly terpenes will also be tested before sales.

Project CBD hopes that terpene testing will become more commonplace, as this will help to illuminate the therapeutic properties of these important plant components.

Other regulations

There are many important aspects of the new regulations that address issues beyond consumer safety. Here are some key points:

  • There is effectively no longer a limit on the size of grows. Each license allows a group or individual to grow up to one acre of cannabis, but there is no limit on the number of licenses a group can get. Project CBD shares the concerns of farmers who are worried that this will allow large-scale agriculture to push out smaller, more sustainable gardens. Privileging wealthy out-of-state investors and big players at the expense of family farmers is bad policy with unhealthy long-term implications for California’s economy and environment.
  • Law enforcement are allowed to copy the materials, records, and books of any employee of any licensed cannabis business. See §5800(a)(4).
  • Recreational products can’t be given away for free. Medical patients can be given free products through a compassionate care program, but this program must be run by a local jurisdiction, not a cannabis business. Moreover, only licensed retailers (e.g. a legal dispensary), not product manufacturers, can provide free products to patients. See §5411.
  • Medical patients under the age of 18 cannot be served at a dispensary. Their caregiver must buy product for them. See §5400(b).
  • Edibles are required to contain no more than 10 mg THC per serving and 100 mg THC per package. Other products must contain less than 1000 mg or 2000 mg THC per package, depending if the product is recreational or medical. See §40306.
  • Edibles cannot contain any other addictive substances, including caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine. Exceptions are made for cannabis chocolate, tea, and coffee. See §40300(b).
  • Labs are required to be certified by one of two groups (the International Standard Oganization or International Electrotechnical Commission). This will help ensure the accuracy and consistency of lab tests, which has been problematic in the past.
  • It is now much easier to get a license to do ethanol extraction, since it is considered a “nonvolatile solvent.” See the definition of “nonvolatile solvent” in §40100.

Adrian Devitt-Lee, a Project CBD contributing writer, is a research associate at CannaCraft, Inc., a Northern California-based medical marijuana company.

Copyright, Project CBD. May not be reprinted without permission.

1 Solvents are classified into one of three groups by the FDA. Class 1 solvents like benzene are either very toxic or environmental hazards and should be avoided in manufacturing if at all possible. Class 3 solvents like ethanol and butane are fairly safe at low concentrations. Class 2 solvents like chloroform and dichloromethane are less dangerous than class 1 solvents, but should be avoided if the use of a class 3 solvent is possible.
2 This is not to say that the allowable limits are wrong. But compared to safety data from OSHA, limits are disproportionately lax for ethanol and strict for class 2 solvents.
3 A second number to be listed on lab reports is the limit of quantification (LOQ), which is at least as large as the LOD. The LOQ is the limit at which the concentration of a chemical can be accurately discerned. The range between the LOD and the LOQ is the range of concentrations where a test can show that a chemical is present, but cannot determine its exact concentration.
4 Products with multiple servings (e.g. a chocolate bar) will be tested every 6 months to ensure that every piece has roughly the same amount of cannabinoids in it. Specifically, the relative standard deviation must be less than 10% of the mean amount of each cannabinoid.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

Epilepsy, Endocannabinoids and Phytocannabinoids

Category : Noticias

Cannabidiol and several other cannabis components can help patients with seizure disorders, and sometimes it’s best to combine CBD with conventional anti-epileptic meds.
By Stacey Kerr, M.D. On November 25, 2017


• More than 5 million Americans suffer from epilepsy.
CBD is helping many patients, including children with seizure disorders.
THCA, the unheated form of THC, and linalool, an aromatic terpene present in many varieties of cannabis, are potent anticonvulsant compounds.
• Oftentimes, patients must experiment with different cannabis products to find the best remedy for their condition.

“David,” a 10 year old boy, had his first seizure at 2 months of age. The convulsions were photosensitive generalized tonic-clonic seizures that occurred 1-4 times each day. These events were occurring daily, even though he was being treated with two anti-seizure medications – lamotrigine (Lamictal) and valproic acid. But they had already tried carbamazepine, phenobarbital, zonisamide and levetiracetam (Keppra) without success.

On the recommendation of his physician, THCA was added to his medication at 0.05mg/kg/day and his parents immediately noticed a reduction in seizure frequency. They then increased the THCA dosage to 2.2mg/kg/day, and even though there was no benefit noted to this increased dosage, the parents continued at this higher amount. After three months of THCA treatment, his parents reported to his physician a 40% reduction in seizure activity, shorter seizures, and the ability to discontinue the anti-seizure medication Diastat, which they had been using for seizure rescue.  Hoping for even more control, they began a formula that contained THC at a THCA:THC ratio of 4:1. This caused transient side effects of somnolence but did nothing to improve the frequency of seizures.

Even if it did not completely resolve his seizure disorder, the phytocannabinoid THCA was able to make a significant difference in David’s quality of life. He is not alone. Cannabis holds hope for many, like David, who suffer from seizure disorders.

Epilepsy is a complex medical, economic, and social issue that affects at least 5.1 million of the US population by 2013 population reports. In Hawaii, there are an estimated 15,000 patients with seizure disorders. The total indirect and direct cost of epilepsy in the United States is estimated to be $15.5 billion yearly. 1, 2 For the individuals and families of those patients with seizure disorders, life can be limited and extremely complicated depending on the type and frequency of seizures and on the effects of anti-seizure medications, both therapeutic and undesirable.

Seizures occur when a part of the brain becomes overly excited or when nerves in the brain begin to fire in an abnormal way. An abrupt imbalance between the triggers of excitatory signals and inhibitory signals causes the excitatory forces to take over. This excitation then spreads to surrounding cells which all start firing in the same abnormal way. Increased excitation of nerve cells, or decreased inhibition of nerve cells due to a variety of potential insults can lead to a seizure. Balance, or homeostasis, is disrupted.

Most epileptics have no known cause for their seizures. The minority have numerous identified causes that include trauma, infections, inborn metabolic errors, drugs (or withdrawal from drugs), and inherited conditions.

Conventional treatment

There are no treatments for the underlying causes of seizures, and no treatments to reliably prevent the development of seizures after head traumas. There are only medications to limit the seizure intensity or frequency, and these medications are not always effective. In fact, a third of epileptic patients fail to become seizure free even after trying and tolerating two or more appropriately prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs).3

More than 20 new seizure medications have been developed over the past few decades, but the percentage of patients with uncontrolled seizures has not changed as much as we would hope or expect. Patients who are resistant to AEDs have a higher risk of complications and sudden death due to epilepsy.  The need for multiple AEDs also increases the occurrence of significant side effects. The need for better, safer, and more effective treatment is clear.

Safety profile

Cannabis is a safe medication with no incidence of fatalities due to the lack of cannabinoid receptors in the brainstem. The most common side effects reported among patients using cannabis for seizure control are fatigue, decreased appetite, and somnolence, all of which resolve when cannabis is discontinued. AEDs can have significant side effects, and contrary to cannabis some of these can be fatal.

It is important to note that there are some drug-drug interactions when using cannabis with AEDs because cannabinoids are primarily metabolized by the Cytochrome P-450 system in the liver. Competition for these enzymes can affect the serum levels of AEDs, so patients using cannabis in addition to prescribed AEDs should be monitored, and dosage adjustments may be needed.


The endocannabinoid system in epilepsy

The job of the endocannabinoid system is to maintain homeostasis, so it is no surprise that cannabis has been used to help control seizures for centuries. Well-designed studies on rats have shown that the endocannabinoid system is a significant part of the brain’s response to seizure disorders.

We know that cannabinoid receptors are particularly dense in the central nervous system, and while we do not yet completely understand all the mechanisms that explain the anti-seizure effects of cannabis, we do have theories.

There are cannabinoid receptors in the hippocampus, that part of the brain that handles emotions and memory encoding. Abnormal changes in cells in the hippocampus are a cause of medial temporal lobe epilepsy, which is one of the most common forms. In this type of epilepsy, hippocampal cells create an excitatory feedback loop that causes seizures. Animal and human studies show that cannabinoids seem to be protective of the normal hippocampal cells, and may make the abnormal cells less active.4

In acutely seizing animals, the endocannabinoid 2-AG was significantly increased compared to controls. By testing the levels of both anandamide and 2-AG we have seen that both are synthesized on demand when seizures occur, thus activating the CB1 receptors. It also appears that there is a significant increase in CB1 receptor expression in epileptic animals, a receptor increase that is prolonged and probably permanent.

In studies done on rats with refractory seizures, it was noted that THC completely terminated those seizures without causing sedation, while maximal levels of phenobarbital or phenytoin were unable to do the same. This indicates that phytocannabinoids may offer advantages in treating refractory seizures compared to currently prescribed anti-convulsants.5

In more recent years research on animal models and human clinical observations have rekindled interest in using cannabis to control epilepsy. Cannabinoids decrease glutamate synthesis throughout the central nervous system, which in turn decreases inflammation and seizure activity.6 Regardless of the mechanism, human clinical observations are promising for the use of cannabis as an anti-epileptic medication, either alone or as adjunctive therapy.

Specific cannabinoids as medicine

The evidence continues to indicate that whole-plant usage is more effective than any single isolated constituent, perhaps due to the entourage effect. Cannabis contains many cannabinoids, THC and CBD being only two of over 80 possibles. In addition, the plant contains terpenes which are medically active chemicals that give the plant its fragrance. Combining these constituents can decrease side effects from any single cannabinoid and together, and may be more effective in controlling seizures. 7 We do not yet know what the best combination is for any specific type of seizure but the evidence is strong enough to encourage more research efforts for answers.

CBD: Is CBD the primary cannabinoid that treats seizure disorders? It seems so if you consider the recent reports of use in severely affected children. CBD is certainly a major player, but not the only one. CBD has been clinically proven as an anticonvulsant for many and at worst, for a minority of patients with epilepsy, it gave no benefit. Its anti-convulsive effects are probably due to a combination of beneficial activities. CBD blocks NMDA receptors (similar to the AED Felbamate) and enhances GABA receptors (similar to phenobarbital and Depakote). It stabilizes ion channels (similar to Dilantin and Keppra), acts as an anti-inflammatory, and also as a neuroprotectant.8

THC: In some study models, THC reduced seizure frequency and intensity, but in others there was no effect. Some patients treated with THC had increased seizure activity.6

THCA: THCA, the acidic raw form of THC is non-psychoactive and also appears to have anti-seizure qualities.9

CBDV: Cannabidivarin or CBDV, is a non-intoxicating cannabinoid that also has significant anti-convulsant properties which were even more effective when combined with CBD.6,10

Alpha-linalool: The terpene alpha-linalool has been shown to have anti-seizure activity in pre-clinical models, especially when combined with cannabinoids.7,9


Cannabis has a biphasic dose-response, meaning that more is not always better or more effective. This is more prevalent in THC than in CBD but patients and clinicians are cautioned to avoid the assumption that if a dose is not working, it should be increased. It very well may need to be decreased, especially if THC is part of the preparation.

Dosing for adults has been noted at amounts as small as .02 mg cannabinoids/kg/day, but the clinical trials done on Epidiolex (a purified CBD product made by GW Pharmaceuticals) tested a range of 2-50mg/kg/day. While dosing cannabis for seizures is still an evolving science, an experienced physician treating children for intractable seizures shares the following guidelines. First, an EEG is recorded prior to starting CBD oil and then repeated at 1-3 months if the child is showing improvement. Oral or sublingual dosing of a quality-controlled, lab-analyzed CBD oil with a ratio of at least 10:1 CBD:THC is started at 1mg/kg/day divided into every 8 hour doses. These doses are increased every 1-2 weeks depending on the child’s results. She notes that the therapeutic range for many patients appears to be between 4-9 mg/kg/day. As the seizures decrease in frequency, it is possible that the AEDs can be slowly weaned.10

The latest publication on the use of cannabis for the treatment of epilepsy comes from three physicians with experience in the states of Maine, Washington, and California. Of their 272 combined patients, fourteen percent found cannabis to be ineffective at reducing seizures, fifteen percent experienced a 1-25% reduction in seizures, twenty-eight percent experienced a 76-99% reduction, and ten percent had a complete clinical response.

CBD made the difference

When Sam was 4, he had his first myoclonic seizure, and those progressed to myoclonic absence seizures. Sam did not fall to the floor and twitch. Instead, sometimes 100 times a day, he lost consciousness for 20-30 seconds at a time. He stopped, stared vacantly, his head bobbed rhythmically and then it would all be over. He didn’t even notice these seizures, only that when he would come to, everything around him had shifted slightly. But it kept him from a normal life: having full conversations, from learning in school, and from participating in sports.

Sam had tried almost two-dozen treatments including intravenous immunoglobulin and a ketogenic diet. Few of these were effective, and those that were either had worrisome side effects (hand tremors, hives, zombie consciousness, etc.) or they quit working after a short while. By the time he was 11, he was on massive doses of corticosteroids – the only thing they’d found that made any difference – but the side effects were devastating. He’d been hospitalized twice and seen six neurologists in three states.

Then, as a last resort, his parents decided to try CBD. The effects were profound, but the road was “not a straight line,” to quote his father. CBD had immediately helped – dropping the seizure rate from 68 on a Thursday to 6 on the following Monday. A few years after starting the CBD, Sam was down to between 0 and 5 seizures a day on 1000mg of CBD and taking no other seizure medications. Then, he had his first-ever generalized tonic-clonic seizure. Three weeks later he had another, so Depakote was added to his regimen. The Depakote worked.

Sam is now 15 years old and has had 15 months without a seizure. To his parents, this is a relief and a miracle. He is taking 875mg of Depakote a day, and 250mg of CBD twice a day. Now active in sports, fly fishing and rock climbing, Sam gets to be a normal boy.

Clearly, there is promise in the use of cannabis to manage epilepsy and still much to learn.

Stacey Kerr MD is a teacher, physician, and author living and working in Northern California. Dr. Kerr was in private practice until she decided to write and educate full-time. After several years working with the Society of Cannabis Clinicians, and co-developing the first comprehensive online course in cannabinoid medicine, she is now serving as the Medical Director for Hawaiian Ethos, an evidence-based cannabis company on the Big Island of Hawaii.

This article was reprinted by Project CBD with permission. It may not be reproduced in any form without approval from the source.

1.     (

2.     (

3.     Kwan P. Brodie MJ. Early identification of refractory epilepsy. N Engl J Med 2000;342(5):314-9

4.     Gloss, Vickrey. Cannabinoids for Epilepsy. The Cochrane Library, 2012

5.     Wallace M.J. et al. The Endogenous Cannabinoid System Regulates Seizure Frequency and Duration in a Model of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Vol. 307:129–137, 2003

6.     Devinsky et al. Cannabidiol: Pharmacology and potential therapeutic role in epilepsy and other neuropsychiatric disorders. Epilepsia, 55(6):791–802, 2014

7.     Rosenberg EC, Tsien RW, Whalley BJ, Devinsky O. Cannabinoids and epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics. 2015;12:747–768

8.     Jones NA, et al. 2010. Cannabidiol displays anti-epileptiform and anti-seizure properties in vitro and in vivo. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 332(2):569-577

9.     Sulak D, et al. The current status of artisanal cannabis for the treatment of epilepsy in the United States, Epilepsy Behav (2017),

10.  Hill et al, Cannabidivarin is Anticonvulsant in Mouse and Rat, Br J Pharmacol. 2012 Dec;167(8):1629-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02207.x.

11.  Elisabetsky E, Brum LS, Souza DO. Anticonvulsant properties of linalool in glutamate related seizure models. Phytomedicine 1999;6(2):107-13

12.  Bonnie Goldstein MD.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

Pharmacological Foundations of Cannabis Chemovars.

Category : Antiinflamatorio

Pharmacological Foundations of Cannabis Chemovars.

Planta Med. 2017 Nov 21;:

Authors: Lewis MA, Russo EB, Smith KM

An advanced Mendelian Cannabis breeding program has been developed utilizing chemical markers to maximize the yield of phytocannabinoids and terpenoids with the aim to improve therapeutic efficacy and safety. Cannabis is often divided into several categories based on cannabinoid content. Type I, Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol-predominant, is the prevalent offering in both medical and recreational marketplaces. In recent years, the therapeutic benefits of cannabidiol have been better recognized, leading to the promotion of additional chemovars: Type II, Cannabis that contains both Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, and cannabidiol-predominant Type III Cannabis. While high-Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and high-myrcene chemovars dominate markets, these may not be optimal for patients who require distinct chemical profiles to achieve symptomatic relief. Type II Cannabis chemovars that display cannabidiol- and terpenoid-rich profiles have the potential to improve both efficacy and minimize adverse events associated with Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol exposure. Cannabis samples were analyzed for cannabinoid and terpenoid content, and analytical results are presented via PhytoFacts, a patent-pending method of graphically displaying phytocannabinoid and terpenoid content, as well as scent, taste, and subjective therapeutic effect data. Examples from the breeding program are highlighted and include Type I, II, and III Cannabis chemovars, those highly potent in terpenoids in general, or single components, for example, limonene, pinene, terpinolene, and linalool. Additionally, it is demonstrated how Type I - III chemovars have been developed with conserved terpenoid proportions. Specific chemovars may produce enhanced analgesia, anti-inflammatory, anticonvulsant, antidepressant, and anti-anxiety effects, while simultaneously reducing sequelae of Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol such as panic, toxic psychosis, and short-term memory impairment.

PMID: 29161743 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

Current evidence of cannabinoid-based analgesia obtained in preclinical and human experimental settings.

Category : Dolor

Current evidence of cannabinoid-based analgesia obtained in preclinical and human experimental settings.

Eur J Pain. 2017 Nov 21;:

Authors: Lötsch J, Weyer-Menkhoff I, Tegeder I

Cannabinoids have a long record of recreational and medical use and become increasingly approved for pain therapy. This development is based on preclinical and human experimental research summarized in this review. Cannabinoid CB1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the nociceptive system. Their activation by endogenous or exogenous cannabinoids modulates the release of neurotransmitters. This is reflected in antinociceptive effects of cannabinoids in preclinical models of inflammatory, cancer and neuropathic pain, and by nociceptive hypersensitivity of cannabinoid receptor-deficient mice. Cannabis-based medications available for humans mainly comprise Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and nabilone. During the last 10 years, six controlled studies assessing analgesic effects of cannabinoid-based drugs in human experimental settings were reported. An effect on nociceptive processing could be translated to the human setting in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies that pointed at a reduced connectivity within the pain matrix of the brain. However, cannabinoid-based drugs heterogeneously influenced the perception of experimentally induced pain including a reduction in only the affective but not the sensory perception of pain, only moderate analgesic effects, or occasional hyperalgesic effects. This extends to the clinical setting. While controlled studies showed a lack of robust analgesic effects, cannabis was nearly always associated with analgesia in open-label or retrospective reports, possibly indicating an effect on well-being or mood, rather than on sensory pain. Thus, while preclinical evidence supports cannabinoid-based analgesics, human evidence presently provides only reluctant support for a broad clinical use of cannabinoid-based medications in pain therapy.
SIGNIFICANCE: Cannabinoids consistently produced antinociceptive effects in preclinical models, whereas they heterogeneously influenced the perception of experimentally induced pain in humans and did not provide robust clinical analgesia, which jeopardizes the translation of preclinical research on cannabinoid-mediated antinociception into the human setting.

PMID: 29160600 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

Availability and approval of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management and palliative/supportive care in Europe: A survey of the status in the chapters of the European Pain Federation.

Category : Dolor

Related Articles

Availability and approval of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management and palliative/supportive care in Europe: A survey of the status in the chapters of the European Pain Federation.

Eur J Pain. 2017 Nov 13;:

Authors: Krcevski-Skvarc N, Wells C, Häuser W

BACKGROUND: There is considerable public and political interest in the use of cannabis products for medical purposes.
METHODS: The task force of the European Pain Federation (EFIC) conducted a survey with its national chapters representatives on the status of approval of all types of cannabis-based medicines, the covering of costs and the availability of a position paper of a national medical association on the use of medical cannabis for chronic pain and for symptom control in palliative/supportive care.
RESULTS: Thirty-one out of 37 contacted councillors responded. Plant-derived tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) oromucosal spray is approved for spasticity in multiple sclerosis refractory to conventional treatment in 21 EFIC chapters. Plant-derived THC (dronabinol) is approved for some palliative care conditions in four EFIC chapters. Synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) is approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting refractory to conventional treatment in four EFIC chapters’. Eight EFIC chapters’ countries have an exceptional and six chapters an expanded access programme for medical cannabis. German and Israeli pain societies recommend the use of cannabis-based medicines as third-line drug therapies for chronic pain within a multicomponent approach. Conversely, the German medical association and a team of finish experts and officials do not recommend the prescription of medical cannabis due to the lack of high-quality evidence of efficacy and the potential harms.
CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences between the countries represented in EFIC in the approval and availability of cannabis-based products for medical use. EFIC countries are encouraged to collaborate with the European Medicines Agency to publish a common document on cannabis-based medicines.
SIGNIFICANCE: There are striking differences between European countries in the availability of plant-derived and synthetic cannabinoids and of medical cannabis for pain management and for symptom control in palliative care and in the covering of costs by health insurance companies or state social security systems.

PMID: 29134767 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

More FDA Warnings, Mislabeled CBD Products & Police Raids

Category : Noticias

A series of police raids in North Dakota has set the stage for a courtroom showdown regarding the legal status of cannabidiol (CBD), the non-intoxicating cannabis component with significant medical properties. Thus far, it’s not going well for purveyors of the claim that hemp-derived CBD is legal in all 50 U.S. states.
By Martin A. Lee On November 10, 2017

  • The FDA has issued more warning letters to hemp CBD companies for making unsubstantiated medical claims.
  • A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that 69 percent of hemp CBD products tested did not contain the amount of cannabidiol indicated on the label.
  • Sporadic police raids continue to target CBD retailers in several states.
  • A legal battle over the status of hemp-derived CBD looms in federal court.

A series of police raids in North Dakota has set the stage for a courtroom showdown regarding the legal status of cannabidiol (CBD), the non-intoxicating cannabis component with significant medical properties. Thus far, it’s not going well for purveyors of the claim that hemp-derived CBD is legal in all 50 U.S. states.

In October 2017, Northwest District Judge Robin Schmidt refused to dismiss drug trafficking charges against Falesteni Abuhamda, the owner of two North Dakota tobacco stores, which allegedly sold products containing CBD with very little or no psychoactive THC [tetrahydrocannabinol]. Abuhamda’s attorney argued that the CBD products were legal because the CBD oil was extracted from the stalk of industrial hemp.

But a forensic scientist with the state’s crime lab easily debunked this argument by stating the obvious: CBD is not found in any appreciable amount in hemp stalk. Rather it exudes from the resinous flowers and leaves of the cannabis plant. And, therefore, CBD is forbidden under the Controlled Substances Act, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

FDA saber-rattling

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which defers to the DEA on cannabis-related matters, considers CBD to be an experimental pharmaceutical undergoing evaluation. In early November, the FDA sent letters to several companies selling hemp-derived CBD products warning that they were violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts.

This was the third time in recent years that the FDA has issued warnings to CBD manufacturers and retailers, which market hemp-derived CBD products as nutraceuticals or food supplements. The most recent round of FDA warning letters did not involve false statements about the source of the CBD extracts. Instead, the agency objected to unsubstantiated medical claims allegedly made by four CBD oil producers: Greenroads Health, Natural Alchemist, That’s Natural! Marketing and Consulting, and last but not least, the Stanley Brothers.

Some of these unsubstantiated claims, according to the FDA, included patient testimonials and assertions that CBD “may be effective in treating tumors from cancer” and other diseases. Thus far, however, there have been no FDA-approved clinical trials that might validate preclinical studies and anecdotal accounts of CBD’s anti-cancer properties.

Today one can easily purchase unregulated CBD products online and at some supermarkets and storefronts across the nation. For the most part, it’s a crapshoot for consumers: A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association disclosed that only 31 percent of 84 lab tested hemp-derived CBD products contained the amount of CBD indicated on the label. And who knows what else was in some of these products.

Sporadic raids

While CBD currently seems to be a low priority for federal law enforcement agencies, in recent months there have been sporadic local police raids against CBD retailers in several states besides North Dakota, including (but not limited to):


Ongoing polics raids
  • Indiana. In April 2017, Governor Eric Holcomb signed a bill allowing people with treatment-resistant epilepsy who register with the state to possess CBD products that contain less than 0.3 percent THC. Shortly thereafter, a law enforcement crackdown on CBD retailers resulted in the seizure of more than 3000 CBD products from about 60 stores throughout the Hoosier State. In August, Indiana’s Alcohol and Tobacco Commission declared a moratorium on CBD raids “unless the products clearly violate Indiana law.” Since the moratorium announcement, Indiana excise police have continued to issue citations to stores selling CBD.
  • Missouri. Vince Sanders, owner of American Shaman, a Kansas City-based wholesaler, supplied CBD products to several stores in Missouri and Kansas. He says his products are legal because they are made from industrial hemp and contain hardly any THC. But Missouri law only allows for low-THC cannabis oil to be sold by manufacturers that are licensed by the state health department, which is not the case for American Shaman.
  • Kansas. Kansas is a zero tolerance state when it comes to THC – hardly any is too much in Kansas. Eddie Smith, owner of Into The Mystic, was surprised when police officers showed up at his alternative medicine store in Mission, Kansas, in May 2017 and confiscated an array of hemp-derived CBD products. During a previous visit, an undercover cop purchased some CBD from Smith’s store. A 22-year-old U.S. Army veteran, Smith protested that he had been told “with 100 percent certainty that [CBD] is totally legal in all 50 states.”
  • Wisconsin. In May 2017, police raided several gas stations in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, which sold CBD products. A month later, police busted two storefronts in Franklin, Wisconsin, for retailing CBD-infused gummies that contained traces of THC. The store owners said that they had been assured by the wholesale CBD vendor that the products were legal to sell and possess. But Wisconsin law stipulates that CBD can only be dispensed by a pharmacist or physician – not a gas station – to a patient who has been certified to possess cannabidiol for treating a specific medical condition.
  • Ohio. In August 2017, police returned 18 bottles of hemp-derived CBD to Poor Boys Smoke Shop in Marysville, Ohio, after a Union County prosecutor declined to press charges stemming from a law enforcement raid two years earlier. Medical marijuana is technically legal in Ohio, but corrupt licensing procedures have stymied patient access to cannabis and CBD-rich products.
  • Nebraska. In September 2017, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson declared that CBD sales in the Cornhusker State are flat-out illegal. But under state law, the University of Nebraska Medical Center has the authority to distribute CBD to certified patients who participate in an experimental research program. CBD commerce outside of the university program is strictly forbidden. “To date no drug products containing CBD have received FDA approval,” Peterson noted.
  • Massachusetts. Two detectives visited Jay’s Smoke Shop in Taunton, MA, to inform the proprietor that it was not okay to sell CBD products at his store, even though residents in the Bay State had voted to legalize cannabis both for medical and adult use. It’s currently legal to possess and use cannabis, including CBD-rich products, in Massachusetts, but not in public or while driving a vehicle. Storefront sales won’t be authorized until 2018 at the earliest.

Complicated laws


Source: Wikipedia “Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction”

Currently eight states plus the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for both medical and adult use; twenty-one more states allow the therapeutic use of cannabis to some degree, but not recreational use; and 18 states have legalized CBD, but not the whole plant or cannabis products containing higher levels of THC. Only three states consider every part of the cannabis plant, including CBD, to be illegal.

Does this mean that cannabidiol is actually legal in most of the United States?

Yes, sort of … maybe.

Confusion regarding CBD’s status stems in part from the patchwork of complicated laws that vary from state to state. But the main problem is Uncle Sam’s abject refusal to acknowledge what has been known throughout the world for centuries: cannabis has significant medical value. Cannabis prohibition, a draconian, racist relic, is based on a mountain of lies, and until this anachronistic policy is terminated, attempts to sort out the legal status of CBD will be mired in contradiction and uncertainty.

Most so-called CBD-only states allow possession of very low or no-THC cannabis products, but do not allow licensed dispensaries, production facilities or home cultivation. In other words, one can possess CBD, but one can’t legally buy it or sell it. Overly restrictive laws in CBD-only states often limit the use of CBD products to children with treatment-resistant seizure disorders.

But even in states with legal protections for CBD users, the substance is still technically forbidden under federal law. Several bills are pending in Congress to extricate CBD from the Controlled Substances Act. Such efforts would not be necessary if CBD was federally legal.

No resin, no THC, no CBD

Undaunted, some CBD proponents believe that cannabidiol is already legal by virtue of a 2004 Ninth Circuit U.S. Appeals Court decision (Hemp Industries Association v. DEA) that struck down the DEA’s attempt to ban hemp food products. But this decision never mentioned CBD and the reasoning behind it undermines the notion that hemp stalk is a viable source of CBD.


No resin, no THC, no CBD

The Ninth Circuit rejected the DEA’s argument because hemp food products aren’t made from the resin-bearing parts of the plant – the flower tops and leaves – that contain THC and other proscribed cannabinoids.

Hemp-derived protein powder and nutritional supplements are made from hempseed, which has no resin, no THC and no CBD; thus hemp food, according to the Ninth Circuit ruling, is exempt from the Controlled Substances Act.

The DEA lacked credibility when it argued that hemp food should be banned because it comes from hempseed (which is resin-deficient). And today’s CBD hemp companies lack credibility when they try to skirt the law by arguing that their CBD comes from hemp stalk (which is resin-deficient).


2014 Farm Bill

The Farm Bill exception

The 2014 Farm Bill also makes no mention of CBD, but it is often cited by domestic hemp producers as the reason why CBD is federally legal. The Farm Bill defines industrial hemp as cannabis that contains 0.3 percent THC or less. Cannabis with more than 0.3 percent THC in any part of the plant is considered marijuana and is therefore illegal under federal law.

Most significantly, the Farm Bill carved out an exception to the Controlled Substances Act for industrial hemp that is cultivated under the auspices of a state-sanctioned agricultural or academic research program. (The Farm Bill doesn’t specify what constitutes “research.”) Thus far, twenty-three states have enacted laws pertaining to industrial hemp. And for the first time since World War II, industrial hemp is being grown – supposedly for research purposes –in many parts of the United States.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2016 gave another boost to the fledgling domestic hemp industry by stipulating that federal funds could not be used “to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in accordance with [the Farm Bill]” – in other words, neither the DEA nor state law enforcement can prevent interstate commerce involving industrial hemp.

Does this mean that CBD oil extracted from hemp grown in Kentucky or Colorado is legal to process, sell and transport across state lines, as long as it doesn’t have more than 0.3 percent THC?

The Hemp Industries Association says yes. The DEA says no.

Legal battle looming

In December 2016, the DEA issued an administrative tracking code for cannabis oil extracts, including CBD concentrates and isolates derived from hemp biomass as well as from marijuana leaves and flower tops. This tracking code did not ban CBD because CBD has always been illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which forbids any preparation made from cannabis resin.  All the phytocannabinoids, including CBD and THC, reside in the resinous trichomes of the cannabis plant.

The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) maintains that the DEA failed to recognize the legal distinction between marijuana and hemp, as defined by the Farm Bill, when it announced the new tracking code for cannabis oil extracts. So in January 2017, the HIA filed a judicial review petition that challenged the DEA’s churlish administrative maneuver.

Until a federal judge weighs in, robust CBD commerce will continue in a confusing legal environment, while sports stars and celebrities sing the praises of CBD and medical patients clamor for quality cannabis oil extracts.

About the Author:

Martin A. Lee is the director of Project CBD and author of Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational and Scientific.

1 Even though 0.3 percent THC is an arbitrary political number with no scientific basis, it has become the current standard that much of the world uses to distinguish hemp from marijuana. The 0.3 percent legal limit for THC is based on the work of Canadian cannabis researcher Ernst Small, who wrote The Species Problem with Cannabis. In this book, Small acknowledged that there isn’t a natural dividing point at which cannabinoid content could be used to distinguish hemp from other kinds of cannabis. Nevertheless, he chose 0.3 percent THC as where to draw the line on the continuum of cannabis types.
2 The 1970 Controlled Substances Act defines “marihuana” as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L. [sic], whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”

Powered by WPeMatico

  • -

CBD as Preventative Medicine

Category : Noticias

An excerpt from CBD: A Patient’s Guide to Medicinal Cannabis by Leonard Leinow & Juliana Birnbaum
By By Leonard Leinow & Juliana Birnbaum On November 07, 2017

A new book discusses seven ways CBD-rich cannabis can be used to prevent disease
  • CBD has anti-inflammatory properties and studies suggest that it can reduce the risk of cancer, metabolic disorders and neurodegenerative disease
  • Low doses of cannabinoids can stimulate the creation of new nerve cells in animal models, even in aging brains
  • CBD has been shown to block an enzyme that destroys bone-building compounds in the body, reducing the risk of age-related bone diseases like osteoporosis and osteoarthritis
  • When applied topically as an infused lotion, serum, oil, or salve, the antioxidants in CBD (a more powerful antioxidant than vitamins E and C) can repair damaged skin

Cannabinoid therapy is connected to the part of the biological matrix where body and brain meet. Since CBD and other compounds in cannabis are so similar to the chemicals created by our own bodies, they are integrated better than many synthetic drugs. According to Bradley E. Alger, a leading scientist in the study of endocannabinoids with a PhD from Harvard in experimental psychology, “With complex actions in our immune system, nervous system, and virtually all of the body’s organs, the endocannabinoids are literally a bridge between body and mind. By understanding this system, we begin to see a mechanism that could connect brain activity and states of physical health and disease.”

Reduced Risk of Diabetes and Obesity


Regular cannabis users have a lower BMI.

Several studies have shown that regular cannabis users have a lower body mass index, smaller waist circumferences, and reduced risk of diabetes and obesity. One 2011 report published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, based on a survey of more than fifty-two thousand participants, concluded that rates of obesity are about one-third lower among cannabis users. This is despite the findings that participants tend to consume more calories per day, an activity that is potentially related to THC’s stimulation of ghrelin, a hormone that increases appetite but also increases the metabolism of carbohydrates. CBD on its own was shown in 2006 to lower the incidence of diabetes in lab rats, and in 2015 an Israeli-American biopharmaceutical collective began stage 2 trials related to using CBD to treat diabetes. Research has demonstrated that CBD helps the body convert white fat into weight-reducing brown fat, promoting normal insulin production and sugar metabolism.

In studying over 4,600 test subjects, researchers found that current cannabis users had fasting insulin levels that were up to 16 percent lower than their non-using counterparts, higher levels of HDL cholesterol that protects against diabetes, and 17 percent lower levels of insulin resistance. Respondents who had used cannabis in their lifetime but were not current users showed similar but less pronounced associations, indicating that the protective effect of cannabis fades with time.

Excess insulin promotes the conversion of sugars into stored fat and leads to weight gain and obesity. The research emerging about the interplay between cannabinoids and insulin regulation may lead to some major breakthroughs in the prevention of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Better Cholesterol Profiles and Lowered Risk of Cardiovascular Disease


Regular cannabis users had increased levels of HDL-C and slightly lower levels of LDL-C.

A 2013 study that measured data from 4,652 participants on the effect of cannabis on metabolic systems compared non-users to current and former users. It found that current users had higher blood levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) or “good cholesterol.” The same year, an analysis of over seven hundred members of Canada’s Inuit community found that, on average, regular cannabis users had increased levels of HDL-C and slightly lower levels of LDL-C (“bad cholesterol”).

Linked to diet and lifestyle, atherosclerosis is common in developed Western nations and can lead to heart disease or stroke. It is a chronic inflammatory disorder involving the progressive depositing of atherosclerotic plaques (immune cells carrying oxidized LDL or low-density lipoproteins). A growing body of evidence suggests that endocannabinoid signaling plays a critical role in the pathology of atherogenesis. The condition is now understood to be a physical response to injuries in the arterial walls’ lining, caused by high blood pressure, infectious microbes, or excessive presence of an amino acid called homocysteine. Studies have demonstrated that inflammatory molecules stimulate the cycle leading to atherosclerotic lesions. Existing treatments are moderately effective though carry numerous side effects. CB2 receptors triple in response to inflammation, allowing anandamide and 2-AG, the body’s natural cannabinoids, to decrease inflammatory responses. The CB2 receptor is also stimulated by plant-based cannabinoids.

A 2005 animal trial showed that low-dose oral cannabinoids slowed the progression of atherosclerosis. Researchers the following year wrote that the immunomodulatory capacity of cannabinoids was “well established” in science and suggested they had a broad therapeutic potential for a variety of conditions, including atherosclerosis.

A 2007 animal study with CBD showed it had a cardioprotective effect during heart attacks, and more details were published that year about the involvement of the CB1 and CB2 receptors in cardiovascular illness and health.

Reduced Risk of Cancer


Several studies had already shown that THC prevents tumors and reduces them.

Could cannabidiol help prevent tumors and other cancers before they grow? A 2012 study showed that animals treated with CBD were significantly less likely to develop colon cancer after being induced with carcinogens in a laboratory. Several studies had already shown that THC prevents tumors and reduces them, including one in 1996 on animal models that found that it decreased the incidence of both benign and hepatic adenoma tumors. In 2015, scientists analyzed the medical records of over eighty-four thousand male patients in California and found that those who used cannabis, but not tobacco, had a rate of bladder cancer that was 45 percent below the norm. Topical products can be used to treat and prevent skin cancers. Continuing research is focused on the best ratio of CBD to THC and the most effective dose level in cancer prevention and treatment.

Cannabinoids Help Maintain Brain Health and Create Resilience to Trauma and Degeneration


Cannabinoids help maintain and regulate brain health.

Cannabinoids are neuroprotective, meaning that they help maintain and regulate brain health. The effects appear to be related to several actions they have on the brain, including the removal of damaged cells and the improved efficiency of mitochondria. CBD and other antioxidant compounds in cannabis also work to reduce glutamate toxicity. Extra glutamate, which stimulates nerve cells in the brain to fire, causes cells to become over-stimulated, ultimately leading to cell damage or death. Thus, cannabinoids help protect brain cells from damage, keeping the organ healthy and functioning properly. CBD has also been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect on the brain.

As the brain ages, the creation of new neurons slows down significantly. In order to maintain brain health and prevent degenerative diseases, new cells need to be continuously created. A 2008 study showed that low doses of CBD– and THC-like cannabinoids encouraged the creation of new nerve cells in animal models, even in aging brains. CBD also helps prevent other nerve-related diseases like neuropathy and Alzheimer’s disease.

Protects against Bone Disease and Broken Bones


CBD helps spur the process of new bone-cell formation.

Cannabinoids are facilitative of the process of bone metabolism—the cycle in which old bone material is replaced by new at a rate of about 10 percent per year, crucial to maintaining strong, healthy bones over time. CBD in particular has been shown to block an enzyme that destroys bone-building compounds in the body, reducing the risk of age-related bone diseases like osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. In both of those diseases, the body is no longer creating new bone and cartilage cells. CBD helps spur the process of new bone-cell formation, which is why it has been found to speed the healing of broken bones and, due to a stronger fracture callus, decrease the likelihood of re-fracturing the bone (bones are 35–50 percent stronger than those of non-treated subjects).

Protects and Heals the Skin


CBD can an repair damage from free radicals like UV rays and environmental pollutants.

The skin has the highest amount and concentration of CB2 receptors in the body. When applied topically as an infused lotion, serum, oil, or salve, the antioxidants in CBD (a more powerful antioxidant than vitamins E and C) can repair damage from free radicals like UV rays and environmental pollutants. Cannabinoid receptors can be found in the skin and seem to be connected to the regulation of oil production in the sebaceous glands. Cannabis-based topical products are being developed to treat related issues from acne to psoriasis and can promote faster healing of damaged skin. In fact, historical documents show that cannabis preparations have been used for wound healing in both animals and people in a range of cultures spanning the globe and going back thousands of years. The use of concentrated cannabis oils to treat skin cancer is gaining popularity with a number of well-documented cases of people curing both melanoma and carcinoma-type skin cancers with the topical application of CBD and THC products. Cannabis applied topically is not psychoactive.



CBD is a known anti-inflamatory.

Cannabinoids have been proven to have an anti-inflammatory effect in numerous studies. CBD engages with the endocannabinoid system in many organs throughout the body, helping to reduce inflammation systemically. The therapeutic potential is impressively wide-ranging, as inflammation is involved in a broad spectrum of diseases.

This article has been adapted from CBD: A Patient’s Guide to Medicinal Cannabis by Leonard Leinow & Juliana Birnbaum (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2017).

Powered by WPeMatico

Translate »