California Cannabis Research Medical Group


O'Shaughnessy's Home

This Issue Home







Summer 2003
Journal of the California Cannabis Research Medical Group

Mikuriya Asks Medical Board to Drop Charges and Clarify Practice Standards re Cannabis July 11 Hearing Update / September 10 Hearing Update Defence Update / Hearing Ends Update

What Every Doctor Should Know About Cannabinoids

Which Medical Conditions Are Californians Using Cannabis to Treat by Fred Gardner

Notes on Learning What to Look For by Tom O'Connell, M.D.

Cannabis As a Substitute for Alcohol by Tod Mikuriya, M.D.

Ring Lardner, Jr., on Cannabis as a Substitute for Alcohol

Recommendation to Patients: "Don't Smoke, Vaporize" by Dale Gieringer

Marijuana Smoking Doesn't Lead to Higher Death Rate, Kaiser Study Report

CMA, Patients Join Push for Guidelines

Proposed Practice Guidelines by David Hadorn, M.D.

CMA to MBC: More Evidence Coming in Every Day

The Marijuana Problem, by Lester Grinspoon, M.D.

Bayer Buys Rights to Market GW's Cannabis Extract

Bayer's Original Blockbuster

A Predecessor to The Indian Hemp Drug Commission Report by Tod Mikuriya, M.D.

In This Issue

As California physicians take advantage of the unique research opportunity afforded by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, there is renewed interest in studies carried out in the pre-prohibition era.
The 1873 Report of British tax officials evaluating the alleged deleterious effects of cannabis (see related article) addresses the relationship of cannabis and mental disorder in terms that are relevant in California in 2003.
The report’s conclusion —that the harm caused was small and the tax revenue significant— was affirmed in a massive study 20 years later, The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report of 1893-94.
The IHDC Report was my introduction to the pre-prohibition medical literature on cannabis. In 1966, when I was in charge of setting up research funding patterns and priorities for the National Institute of Mental Health, I ordered and received the eight-volume report from the National Library of Medicine archives. For the next six months I carried the documents with me and photocopied selected sections.
It was only recently, however, that I learned of this predecessor report that in four and a half pages reached strikingly similar conclusions.
Perhaps we in California will come to similar conclusions, too. Neither human physiology nor the effects of cannabis have changed.
The CCRMG is in an optimal position for studying of the costs and benefits of longterm medicinal cannabis use. Despite the continuing political controversy surrounding cannabis, actual monitoring and supervison of patients will afford experience to improve treatment of chronic illnesses.




O'Shaughnessy's is the journal of the CCRMG/SCC. Our primary goals are the same as the stated goals of any reputable scientific publication: to bring out findings that are accurate, duplicable, and useful to the community at large. But in order to do this, we have to pursue parallel goals such as removing the impediments to clinical research created by Prohibition, and educating our colleagues, co-workers and patients as we educate ourselves about the medical uses of cannabis.
The Society of Cannabis Clinicians (SCC) was formed in the Autumn of 2004 by the member physicians of CCRMG to aid in the promulgation of voluntary standards for clinicians engaged in the recommendation and approval of cannabis under California law (HSC §11362.5).

As the collaborative effort continues to move closer to issueing guidelines, this site serves as a public venue for airing and discussing these guidelines.

Visit the SCC Site for more information.