I am on the record in opposition of Ohio’s system for authorizing the use of medical marijuana. While I am not an expert on the issue, my reading over several years has informed me that persuasive medical evidence of safety and efficacy – the legal and regulatory standard used for prescription drug approval - is lacking for nearly all ‘approved’ uses of this drug. And while it is true that there is some evidence that marijuana offers benefit in a very narrow range of medical conditions, the broad claim of efficacy for a panoply of illnesses is unfounded scientifically. Champions of medical marijuana use should want, if not demand, that the drug is vetted and tested under the auspices of the Food and Drug Administration. Wouldn’t you want to be assured of any drug’s safety and efficacy? Should anecdotes of benefit or beliefs of benefit be sufficient to release a medication for general use? Is this the standard that we use to approve drugs used to treat hypertension and cancer?
Beyond the lack of rigorous medical evidence, I strenuously object
to legislatures commandeering the medial marijuana approval process. The notion of politicians granting medical approval
of a drug for an ever-enlarging list of ailments is preposterous. Of course, such a process should be wholly under
the control and authority of medical professionals and appropriate governmental
agencies. Not only are lawmakers unqualified
for this task, but the political process is contaminated with conflicts of
interests, business concerns, lobbying influences and upcoming elections. For example, if a medical marijuana company
wants to build a large dispensary in a certain district, might this make the legislator
representing that district likely to vote in support of any medical marijuana
measure?
Look how ridiculous the situation has become here in
Ohio. This past December the Ohio Senate
passed a bill that aims to legalize medical marijuana for a patient whose condition
may reasonably be expected to be relieved by the drug. Think of that absurd language! Doesn't this seem just a mite too broad? Who defines what constitutes reasonable? What if a patient or even a doctor reasonably
expects that medical marijuana will be effective against acne or arthritis or
asthma or hair loss? Remember, even now
there are folks who believe that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.
This horse has left the barn and there is no turning back. How
did we let this happen? The political
and economic forces who favor (read: stand to benefit from) expanded medical marijuana
use outmaneuvered medical professionals and enjoyed strong public support from ordinary people who
truly believe in the product’s promise of healing. But belief in benefit should not be the
standard used to determine safety and efficacy of medical drugs and devices. Politicians should rank dead last or lower on the list of folks who should be in charge of drug approval.
Comments
Post a Comment