vol1 - Page 347
Page 347
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
but also-includes marijuana. I_4/ Chang concluded that smoked
marijuana resulted in a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting
than oral THC. if-x/
Furthere DEApoints out thai'Chang discussed some
drawbacks to marijuana_s route of administration which would
hinder Łtswide clinical acceptability_ Howevers Chang was
referrinq most importantly to oral THCo In facts Chang remarked
that the inhalation method avoided the _ineffective _ route of
oral drug administration in a nauseated or vomiting patient. I!_/
Clearly the Chang study suggests that the inhalation route,
although having some drawbacks_ is more effective than the oral
route. It is difficult to see what point DEA intends to
formulate by raising these drawbacks other than to require
marijuana to be a-perfect drug. The evident drawbacks in oral
o
THC's route of administration did not preclude its rescheduling.
And, most importantly, DEA overlooks the significant conclusions
reached by Chang on marijuana's efficacy in a double-blind,
randomized study: NThe data show that _al or smoked THC
[marijuana] is an effective antiemetic in patients receiving
high-dose methotrexate chemotherapy. NIl//
Finally, DEA points out that Chang concluded additional
studies were needed to confirm.the correctness, of his conclu=
sions. The state-authorized studies conducted in New Mexico,
ii_/ I d. at 819
i_15_/ I__. at 823_
_/ _. (emphasis added) Q_ .... z
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index