cannabisnews.com: Long-Term Pot-Use Study: No Ill Health Effects





Long-Term Pot-Use Study: No Ill Health Effects
Posted by FoM on August 04, 2001 at 18:23:00 PT
By Peter Gorman, Special To HighWitness News
Source: High Times
In the first study of its kind, four recipients of federally provided medical marijuana were examined for the health effects of their long-term cannabis use-and none showed any serious adverse effects.The Missoula Chronic Clinical Cannabis Use Study-headed by Montana neurologist Dr. Ethan Russo and Virginia nurse Mary Lynn Mathre, cofounder of Patients Out of Time-investigated "the therapeutic benefits and adverse effects" among patients receiving cannabis through the department of Health and Human Services' Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. 
That program was closed to new applicants in 1991, but continues to supply medical marijuana to seven patients. The four patients studied-one with glaucoma, one with chronic musculoskeletal pain, one with spasm and nausea, and one with spasticity from multiple sclerosis-were run through a battery of tests, including magnetic-resonance-imaging brain scans, chest X-rays, and neuropsychological, immunological and pulmonary-functions tests. The study provided the first opportunity to investigate the long-term physical effects of cannabis-smoking on patients who used a "known dosage of a standardized, heat-sterilized, quality-controlled supply of low-grade marijuana for 10-19 years."The results, which will be published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics in January 2002, showed "all four patients are stable with respect to their chronic conditions, and are taking many fewer standard pharmaceuticals than previously." Mild changes in pulmonary function were found in two of the four, but no cancer cells were detected. No other negative functions were discovered.The study, conducted at St. Patrick's Hospital in Missoula, Montana, was sponsored by Patients Out of Time and funded by outside individuals."This is a positive result using a poor-quality medicine. What could we expect using a better quality cannabis?" Al Byrne, Patients Out of Time's other cofounder, told HT. Asked whether he thought the study would result in a reopening of the Compassionate IND program, Byrne bristled. "No. I don't think it will, but it should. I think the study's effect on the government will be that they will no longer be able to say that long-term therapeutic cannabis use is bad for you. But will the federal government pay it any heed? Probably not."When asked why it took a nonprofit to organize the study rather than the government, Byrne noted that "I suppose because they suspected the result of the study would be positive and the government does not want anything positive said about cannabis use as medicine. That's the bottom line."Note: The government says smoking pot is bad for your health, particularly in the long run. But four of the seven people it supplies have been looked at from every angle, and researchers conclude that their marijuana use hasn't hurt them a bit.Newshawk: Ethan Russo, MDSource: High Times (US)Author: Peter Gorman, Special To HighWitness NewsPublished: August 1, 2001Copyright: 2001 Trans-High CorporationContact: letters hightimes.comWebsite: http://www.hightimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Patients Out of Timehttp://www.medicalcannabis.com/Missoula Chronic Cannabis Use Research Studyhttp://www.maps.org/mmj/russo.4-2001.htmlJournal of Cannabis Therapeutics http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8466.shtmlHerbal Answers http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8337.shtmlCannabisNews Search - Ethan Russo M.D.http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=ethan+russo
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #28 posted by FoM on September 20, 2004 at 11:09:33 PT
Hope
I'm sure that's what he was. I didn't block him from posting so he just did a hit and run. I don't often respond to such posts. They are so far off base that it takes too much energy on my part to even try to explain. If someone reads CNews they know that we aren't the way he portrayed people who are working to reform cannabis laws.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Hope on September 20, 2004 at 11:01:58 PT
It looks like, maybe
I've been snagged by a "troll"er, again. Why in the world would D Dietz post on an article over three years old? Strange...but it should have given me a hint that D Dietz might be a troll. Perhaps all his "memory loss" caused him to forget he posted.Running in here and calling us "fools" and running off isn't very nice.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Hope on September 20, 2004 at 00:21:58 PT
Denver Dietz
You said, “I have been doing a lot of study on marijuana from both sides of the board and as a former heavy marijuana user, I feel compeled (sic) to speak my peace. I see where everyone is coming from but to make it simple marijuana is a mind altering substance. Other than possible medical uses there is absolutely no reason for it to be used. If you need to relax take a nap or meditiate (sic) don't put some kind of foreign substance in your body.”Does food, water, vitamins, or medicine count as a foreign substance?
 “Anyone who says there are no negative side effects to marijuana is a damn fool. It's obvious that everyone here is a heavy pot smoker” (once again, I’d like to ask you how you came to this conclusion?) “and you're lying to yourself if you say there isn't any ill effects.” Talk about “ill effects”, did you smoke any paraquat laced pot during the seventies? That particular “toxin”, added to marijuana fields at the behest of the government we support with our tax money, had terribly "ill effects" on many people. “Being clean for four years now I can honestly say that I have issues with pot and pot smokers.” Smoking pot, you are saying, made you “unclean” and not smoking pot makes you “clean”? Are you talking about clean and unclean drug tests? I'm glad, for your sake, that you feel "clean" now.It is fairly obvious that you have "issues about pot and pot smokers". Most of us here do. I have a serious issue over people being mistreated and abused for use of a RELATIVELY BENIGN herb. "RELATIVELY BENIGN", RELATIVE to whisky, heroin, processed cocaine, aspirin, Tylenol, Advil, incarceration, prison rape, a criminal record, abusing the human dignity of others…or even the constipation that accompanies opium use. In fact, I know people who are downright allergic to cannabis. No one, that I’m aware of who posts regularly to this site has ever intimated that cannabis is agreeable as medicine or is always beneficial for everyone. It is obviously beneficial to some in many ways. You must be one of the people who cannabis disagrees with…as alcohol disagrees completely, in any amount, with some people’s systems.You know, peanut butter can kill. Should we make it illegal and prosecute those who wish to enjoy this deadly, for some people, legume? “Not only was my life and the lives of the fellow pot smokers around me hibitually (sic) (expletive deleted) up but there were times I was so incapasitated (sic) I would have found it easier to drive and function after downing a 5th of Jack.”Talk about “mind altering”. “A 5th of Jack” would be “mind snuffing”. That could kill you! It's never wise to drive inebriated on anything. I believe most people are more likely to recognize their shortcomings and the inadvisability of driving while under the influence of cannabis than they are to recognize their limitations when they are drunk. I, personally, have never even heard of anyone having any sort of positive experience involving “A 5th of Jack”. Other perhaps than in having a well stocked bar…locked, I might add, if there are children in the home.You went on to say, “To add to my recollection I can honestly say that my short-term memory is fried and getting worse as the years go on.”I’m sorry to hear that. May I ask how old you are? “There is this idea in Psychology called "falacy (sic) of positive instances". This is the tendancy (sic) to only accept information that proves you right while forgetting the information that would prove you wrong.”Sounds like prohibitionists and the ONDCP! “Not that I feel the need to defend myself but THC is a steroid and is one of 400 different types of toxins that you pump into your body each time you smoke pot. These toxins damge (sic) neurons in your brain, killing them, and they damage your cannabis (sic) receptors. Your body can't repair any of these.”This statement sounds rather garbled to me and is in direct conflict with what we have been reading lately in recently released scientific papers which you can probably locate by typing "neurons" in search.“You can say marijuana is without danger or harm but I will always refer to fallacy of positive instances.” Is there an idea or theory of fallacy of negative instances?“Debate me if you will but you will never accept anything unless you are this side of the bridge.”The bridge? Do you mean sober? Many of us here, including myself, are "sober as judges".“Thanks for your time.”I hope you feel better and less agitated. I'm sorry you had such a bad time using cannabis and that it's use did you so much harm. It's not about using cannabis, Denver Dietz, it's about binding peoples hands behind their backs...forcing them to the floor. Humiliating and frightening them, sometimes to death. It's about killing people, and hating people, and taking their properties, families, and sometimes their freedom and lives.I think lightening and hurricanes might ought to be against the law...oh I forgot...they are natural. They are a part of nature. Making nature against the law doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Hope on September 19, 2004 at 13:14:43 PT
Denver Dietz
You said, “It's obvious that everyone here is a heavy pot smoker”.I’m curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Jose Melendez on September 18, 2004 at 17:01:26 PT
correct me if I'm wrong . . .
1. THC is not a steroid.2. THC is not a toxin.3. THC has neuro-protective and anti-carcinogenic properties.4. Alcohol is a poison. 5. Thank you for your anecdote, and opinions. Wage peace.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on September 18, 2004 at 12:51:35 PT
BGreen
I agree that Cannabis isn't for everyone. Alcohol can kill a person and does. I don't like alcohol but I would never deny someone the right to drink. It's all about personal responsibility. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by BGreen on September 18, 2004 at 12:41:05 PT
Some Can't Handle Cannabis, Some Can
denver_dietzWhat's your point? If you can't handle cannabis don't use it. It's not for everybody. My mom can't even take aspirin, but she doesn't act self-righteous and "holier-than-thou" in trying to get others to stop taking aspirin or go to jail.That's our point here, no caging humans for possessing or using a plant, not cannabis for all of those who don't want it.BTW, your so-called "facts' about cannabis are easily refutable and fly in the face of the conclusions of MANY of the top cannabis researchers in the world.So, why don't you just go and post on the W04 website where your sanctimonious ignorance of the truth will be welcomed.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by denver_dietz on September 18, 2004 at 12:23:30 PT:
Former pot smoker with something to say...
I have been doing a lot of study on marijuana from both sides of the board and as a former heavy marijuana user, I feel compeled to speak my peace. I see where everyone is coming from but to make it simple marijuana is a mind altering substance. Other than possible medical uses there is absolutely no reason for it to be used. If you need to relax take a nap or meditiate don't put some kind of foreign substance in your body. Anyone who says there are no negative side effects to marijuana is a damn fool. It's obvious that everyone here is a heavy pot smoker and you're lying to yourself if you say there isn't any ill effects. Being clean for four years now I can honestly say that I have issues with pot and pot smokers. Not only was my life and the lives of the fellow pot smokers around me hibitually fucked up but there were times I was so incapasitated I would have found it easier to drive and function after downing a 5th of Jack. To add to my recollection I can honestly say that my short-term memory is fried and getting worse as the years go on. There is this idea in Psychology called "falacy of positive instances". This is the tendancy to only accept information that proves you right while forgetting the information that would prove you wrong. Not that I feel the need to defend myself but THC is a steroid and is one of 400 different types of toxins that you pump into your body each time you smoke pot. These toxins damge neurons in your brain, killing them, and they damage your canabis receptors. Your body can't repair any of these. You can say marijuana is without danger or harm but I will always refer to fallacy of positive instances. Debate me if you will but you will never accept anything unless you are this side of the bridge. Thanks for your time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by cool_dude on February 13, 2002 at 22:57:35 PT:
Society is afraid!
The modern american society is afraid of what the medical use of marijuana might bring. They say that it is a "gateway drug" which is probably not true. The only reason users of marijuana go to other drugs is strictly because they want to not because their baggie of weed grew a face and told them to do some cocaine. 
The only reason that marijuana is not legal in america is because for this country it is a moral issue. Although the only two drugs legal in this country (tobacco and alcohol) are the two drugs that kill the most people every year. How many times have you heard of someone dying from smoking a Bob Marley road cone. It is really sad that the only reason America legalizes drugs is to make tax revenue off of them due to the extremely high level of addiction that they posses. Hopefully one day this country will open up its eyes and realize that not everything depends on the "morality" of the situation. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Headqtrs on September 18, 2001 at 16:51:57 PT
Indiginous to the Earth. We have a right to it.
My argument is simply this: HOW can ANY Government deny ANY human being ANYTHING that grows naturally on this planet? It isn't being "cooked" or altered in any way. Would we stand for the Government telling us we couldn't possess Collard Greens, Squash, Tomatoes, Aloe or any other plant? Surely not. Then HOW CAN THEY LEGALLY DENY THE PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD THE RIGHT TO GROW AND POSSESS SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THIS PLANET BEFORE WE WERE? I strongly believe that if that attitude was pursued in the courts, with good financial backing, that it would fly. No need to convince anyone of the benefits of it, just demand to know on what LEGAL GROUNDS they have to restrict it at all, since it is a naturally occurring herb. Am I alone in this way of thinking?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by freedom fighter on August 07, 2001 at 19:32:41 PT
American hero
Dr. Ethan RussoMay you and your family live a long life.Respectfully Yours,ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by lookinside on August 06, 2001 at 16:20:17 PT:
thanks dan...
much appeciated...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Dan B on August 06, 2001 at 09:00:51 PT:
BTW, You Can Order Them, Too!
There is an address on the first link from which you can order that brochure. $10 will get you 100 copies. Pretty good, really (10 cents a flyer), and it will look more professional that way than if you just copy it from the website. The second one appears to be available only online.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Dan B on August 06, 2001 at 08:56:41 PT:
Lookinside: Here are some flyers
Here are a couple of flyers that may be of some use to you. Just print them off the web and pass them out!Best to you.Dan Bhttp://www.welcomehome.org/cohip/PAGES/CANAB/10THINGS.HTMhttp://www.welcomehome.org/cohip/PAGES/CANAB/MJMYTHS.HTM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by lookinside on August 05, 2001 at 11:42:12 PT:
a request...
thank you, dr. russo...the world is a better place becauseof you...those of you, here, who have read much more and thought moreabout our war against the WoD than i...i would like to havea thoughtfully written synopsis of the arguments against thegovernment's anti-drug stand...about 3 pages withfootnotes...short enough to distribute freely with theexpectation that joe sixpack would read it and understandit...in 15 months, we are having a congressionalelection...we need ammo to convince those who are onlyvaguely aware of the issues that our government is currentlydestroying our rights...we need to defeat many incumbentswho support the war on drugs because they don't believe thevoters are organized or informed enough to defeat them...if anyone is interested in this project, i'd appeciatehearing from you...my own congressman has repeatedly sentreplies to my letters stating his support for thegovernment's current policies...i want that A****** out ofoffice...my email addy: "lookinside excite.com"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by CannabisDave on August 05, 2001 at 11:21:59 PT
Pharmaceutical Companies
It is probably unfair to include the pharmaceutical companies among our enemies. Fully legalized cannabis sold through legal distribution channels would allow the pharmaceutical companies to open up new channels of research. They would undoubtedly use cannabis as the base for very likely hundreds of new presciption and/or over the counter drugs. There's money to be made here, and they know it!If you must place blame for prohibition an US industries (and some of them surely do desrve some of the blame for all of this), then look to timber, energy and liquor. These industries truly do fear the competition.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Rainbow on August 05, 2001 at 07:47:15 PT
Psychological effects?
Dr. RussoMaybe some of the "embargoed" information relates to the psychological effects or lack thereof of marijuana over the years.I am sure that the antis will say yea but it makes people do wierd things like laugh a lot LOL.Hopefully you will address those concerns before they have a chance to discredit the report with more propaganda.BTW I really like the term "embargoed". I sure hope it is making the antis nervous. I can't wait this is so much fun.Thanks for your help and scientific endeavour.CheersRainbowcarivore eat this one ha ha ha
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Poisoned4ForYears on August 05, 2001 at 07:16:36 PT
FORTUNATE TO HAVE ETHAN HERE
I think it is a nice thing to have Dr. Russo stopping by here.If I am not mistaken he has been on the side of the good guys for a long time.Doctors are also one of the most importantmembers of the anti-prohibition movementbecause they cannot be dismissed so easily.Now that we have in writing that long term cannabis inhalation is fairly innocuous ( although personally I feel brownies are far superior )does anybody know of any published materialon the long term effects of being PosinedByThePedowatchSuperMafiaForFourYears?
Greed and Jealousy will find a way to kill the good
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 05, 2001 at 06:15:21 PT:
Jose and Friends
It is unfortunate fact of life that journal publications require a long queue. The material has to be checked, scanned, typeset, etc., and just plain wiat in line.It is not "real" until it is published. If all the data is presented elsewhere, it cannot be presented as new.The reason that I am providing the "Preliminary Report" is that there has been intense interest in the subject. Our patients have been contacted by the press, and need something to say as well. Additionally, I presented some of this material at the International Cannabinoid Society meeting in Madrid in June.Please accept my assurances that there is considerably more ammunition in this article, which extensively documents the patients' histories, their current status, compares our results to past chronic use studies, and discusses issues in the current Compassionate IND Program.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on August 05, 2001 at 06:05:30 PT:
embargoed?
Dr. Russo,I join others here in applauding your consistent and credible message against the War on Some Drugs. Sometimes, while looking for info to fight the antis, I come across something marked: embargoed until some date in the future. So, my question is: Why withhold the info at all? I mean, if something is true, why wait until it is no longer news before it is released? Why not fax the info to Reuter's and UPI and email a copy to the DrudgeReport? Usually when I see this, it seems as if someone is waiting for some politically safe time to release the info... but that could just be an indication of paranoia, which is probably increased or at least complicated by my self-induced short term memory loss :)Anyway, thanks very much for your work on the above study and for being here on cannabisnews.com; your words have helped me maintain a shred of credibility when discussing the legal status of Cannabis with folks in the "real" world.
Jose Melendez - owner/founder of narcosoft.com - Buy Sell Quit Drugs Online!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 05, 2001 at 05:02:42 PT:
Clarification/Much More to Come
Thanks for the comments. This story was provided by High Times, but I was not interviewed for it. Naturally, there are a couple of things I would have said differently. There is a lot more news here. For better or worse, the full information has to be embargoed until the article is released in Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics in January.    Here is what we are saying officially:Preliminary Report: Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis.Ethan Russo, Mary Lynn Mathre, Al Byrne, Robert Velin, Paul J. Bach, Juan Sanchez-RamosThe Missoula Chronic Clinical Cannabis Use Study was proposed to investigate the therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of prolonged use of “medical marijuana” in a cohort of seriously ill patients approved through the Compassionate IND (Investigational New Drug Program) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for legal use of cannabis obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), under the supervision of a study physician. The aim was to study the overall health status of 4 of the 7 surviving patients in the program. Unfortunately, its first patient, Robert Randall passed away of complications of AIDS during the course of the study. The program began in 1976 when Randall successfully won a legal case demonstrating the medical necessity of cannabis to treat his progressive glaucoma. This project provides a unique and important opportunity to scrutinize long-term effects cannabis on patients who have used a known dosage of a standardized, heat-sterilized quality-controlled supply of low-grade marijuana from 11 to 27 years. Preliminary results demonstrate clinical effectiveness in these patients in treating glaucoma, chronic musculoskeletal pain, spasm and nausea, and spasticity of multiple sclerosis. All 4 patients are stable with respect to their chronic conditions, and are taking many fewer standard pharmaceuticals than previously. Mild changes in pulmonary function were observed in 3 patients, while no significant attributable sequelae were noted in any other physiological system examined in the study, which included: MRI scans of the brain, pulmonary function tests (spirometry), chest X-ray, neuropsychological tests, hormone and immunological assays, electroencephalography (EEG), P300 testing (a computerized EEG test of memory), and neurological history and clinical examination. These results would support the provision of clinical cannabis to a greater number of patients in need. We believe that cannabis can be a safe and effective medicine with various suggested improvements in the existing Compassionate IND program.This study was supported by the generous assistance of MAPS, John Gilmore, Preston Parish in memory of W. Erastus Upjohn, and the Zimmer Family Foundation. It is dedicated to the memory of Bob Randall.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by aocp on August 05, 2001 at 05:00:10 PT
But, but, but...
... it's not SAFE, dammit!!The results, which will be published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics in January 2002, showed "all four patients are stable with respect to their chronic conditions, and are taking many fewer standard pharmaceuticals than previously."The pharmcos and their stockwhores will go hungry!! Won't somebody think of the special interests?!Mild changes in pulmonary function were found in two of the four, but no cancer cells were detected. No other negative functions were discovered.When in doubt, block it out. The feds have dissed us, ignored and dismissed us, but as Richard Cowan always asks, "What have you done for freedom today?" we can proudly say at cannabisnews.com that Dr. Ethan Russo, MD has really put antis' king in check. Like Imprint said, send this to the guys in power, 'cause with "anecdotal" evidence like this, we're in the driver's seat.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by SWAMPIE on August 05, 2001 at 01:41:51 PT
Dr.Russo....
Dr.Russo,you have become a guiding light in a tunnel of darkness for your devotion to the issues we all stand for!You are admired and hopefully will be rewarded for your sensible approach to this insane war that we are a part of!!I hope someday to personally meet you at the annual"Freakers'-Ball"and shake your hand!!!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Imprint on August 05, 2001 at 01:29:02 PT
This is way cool!
Way to go Doctor Russo. Thank you, this is significant. This gives us all one more solid thing to point to when making a common sense case for legalization. I’m going to be taking a copy of this finding and I’m going to send it to my Senators here in California.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Patrick on August 04, 2001 at 23:04:02 PT
Thanks doc
For doing the quality work that proves what most of us believe is true! Living in smog filled Houston is probably more detrimental to ones health than smoking pot! Sorry Houston folk, last report I read said you beat LA out for the worst air in the country.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Toker00 on August 04, 2001 at 20:50:14 PT
Doc at his finest.
Dr. Ethan Russo steps up to the plate, and puts it over the fence, center feild. Way to go, doc. You confirm what most of us hoped, or had suspected. Preciate ya, mon!Peace. Realize, then Legalize.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 04, 2001 at 20:14:56 PT
Way To Go Dr. Russo! Thanks for All You Do!
Dr. Russo is doing what needs to done. We are very fortunate to have him a part of Cannabis News. I've learn a lot from his comments plus he is a very nice person. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Robbie on August 04, 2001 at 19:45:21 PT
Way To Go, Ethan!!!
Keep it up my good Doctor! Send the antis scurrying for cover in the light of day!"I suppose because they suspected the result of the study would be positive and the government does not want anything positive said about cannabis use as medicine. That's the bottom line."And he hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement. No wonder the government says more research should be done...they don't ever want it to stop.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment