ShareThis Page
Cannabis has record of safety, efficacy |
Letters to the Editor

Cannabis has record of safety, efficacy

Calls for further study regarding the relative safety and therapeutic efficacy of cannabis are always welcome ( “Pa. should lead medical marijuana research” ). But such calls should not inadvertently ignore or minimize the evidence that is already available.

Unlike modern pharmaceuticals, cannabis possesses an extensive history of human use dating back thousands of years, thus providing society with ample empirical evidence as to its relative safety and efficacy. Moreover, cannabis and its compounds are among some of the more studied biologically active substances of modern times. A search on PubMed using the term “marijuana” yields over 26,000 scientific papers referencing the plant and/or its constituents. This totality of peer-reviewed research is far greater than that which exists for most conventional pharmaceuticals, such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen.

Thirty states now permit physicians to recommend marijuana therapy. Some of these state-sanctioned programs have been in place for over two decades. Findings from this real-world experience are largely positive. In particular, data show that patients reduce their use of opioids and other pharmaceuticals when they have legal access to cannabis.

At a minimum, we know enough about the safety and efficacy of cannabis, as well as the failures of cannabis prohibition, to allow adults — and patients in particular — the legal option to consume a botanical product that is objectively safer than the litany of pharmaceutical and recreational substances it could replace.

Paul Armentano

Washington, D.C.

The writer is deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ( ).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.