A Beginner’s Guide to Hemp Oil, the Cannabis Product That’s Legal Right Now

posted in: Industrial Hemp 0

 

 

By Hannah Sentenac Thu., May 29 2014 at 7:00 AM

With medical marijuana on everyone’s lips (in more ways than one), people are buzzing about weed, hemp, cannabis, THC, CBD, and all kinds of other related terms that you might or might not understand. It’s OK — this is confusing stuff.

Leave it to Cultist to offer a little clarity about one such topic you’re probably hearing a lot about: hemp oil. From “cannamoms” to Whole Foods salespeople, lots of folks are touting the benefits of this product. But what is it, exactly, and what does it do?

See also: How to Become a Medical Marijuana Millionaire in Ten Easy Steps

So what is this stuff?
Let’s start with what hemp oil is not. It is not marijuana. It does not get people high. Both originate from the same plant, but marijuana is cultivated for the buds (which have to be carefully raised for that specific purpose). They’re also grown differently.

The oil has only trace amounts of THC, the psychotropic component in weed. Instead, it has higher concentrations of cannabidiol, or CBD, which is the medicinal boon people are all atwitter over.

“You’ll see two kinds — hemp oil drawn from the plant and hemp oil drawn from the seeds. Ours is drawn from the mature stalks of the hemp plant,” says Andrew Hard, director of public relations for HempMeds, a California company whose hemp oil products are sold all over the world. The stalk and seeds don’t fall under the definition of what the U.S. government dubs marijuana, he says; that’s why the products are legal in all 50 states.

Aw, man. So it won’t get me stoned?
Sorry, man. Let’s put it this way: The medical marijuana bill that recently passed the Florida House would allow patients with cancer and conditions that result in chronic seizures or severe muscle spasms to use marijuana pills, oils, or vapors that contain 0.8 percent THC or lower and 10 percent CBD or higher. Right now, those things are illegal.

HempMeds’ Real Scientific Hemp Oil (RSHO), as a comparison, has 15.5 to 25 percent CBD by volume but only trace amounts of THC.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>

SOURCE LINK

Despite Legalization, Not Much Known About Effects

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Even though 20 states, including Illinois, have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana, swayed in part by thousands of personal testimonies, current research hasn’t nailed down exactly if, and how, marijuana alleviates all the specific diseases the drug is being legalized to treat, experts say.

A number of proponents believe marijuana could benefit people with everything from glaucoma to cancer, and it’s been legalized in Illinois to aid patients with some 40 medical conditions. But opponents of its medicinal use believe the risks of smoking medical marijuana outweigh the benefits, while others question whether patients really improve or only feel like they improve.

Marijuana’s best-known compound is THC, but the plant actually has 105 unique cannabis compounds with potential for medicinal use, proponents say. THC has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in synthetic form to help patients with nausea and decreased appetite.

Some scientists believe the plant’s other compounds — called cannabinoids — could have equal promise. Although research has increased in recent years as more states legalize medical marijuana, solid evidence of how individual cannabinoids could help people with specific diseases has been significantly lacking, a review of medical literature and interviews with experts shows.

Researching the potential effects of marijuana’s various components on conditions such as multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia or lupus could have serious implications for doctors who want to prescribe medical marijuana to patients.

If the specific benefits could be proved, experts say, doctors ultimately would be able to assign particular strains — with varying chemical mixes — to people, depending on their condition. Further research also may help determine optimal doses and whether marijuana works better than other medicines, experts say.

While most medicines derived from nature are tested before they reach the masses, the process to evaluate marijuana has been confounded by its longtime status as an illegal drug, which it retains in the eyes of the federal government. A complicated federal approval process and limited availability of research-grade marijuana add to the difficulty.

The only study specifically cited in Illinois’ law, signed by Gov. Pat Quinn in August and set to go into effect next year, is a 1999 Institute of Medicine report. But Dr. John Benson, a lead editor of the report, said legislators stretched the conclusion of the book-length study when it said modern medical research “has confirmed the beneficial uses of cannabis.”

While the report did say there was promise that marijuana could have medical benefits, it also suggests researchers need to continue to dig deeper into the issue. It also says marijuana should not be smoked, he said.

“Smoking marijuana is not recommended,” the report states. “The long-term harm caused by smoking marijuana makes it a poor delivery system.”

The 14-year-old article has become a primary source for both critics and supporters of medical marijuana — the Drug Enforcement Agency and advocacy groups have cited it to prove opposite points.

“I don’t think whatever the legislature is saying (in the law) is in effect untrue,” Benson, now retired, said from his California home, “but it needs to be qualified.”

Medicine by Legislation

Illinois legislators knew they had an uphill battle getting the medical marijuana bill passed last summer, Rep. Lou Lang said. Lang worked at swaying his colleagues for five years and said he compromised on the list of about 40 conditions — some of which are closely related — that will qualify people for medical marijuana once it becomes available sometime next year.

Illinois legislators, he said, did “a substantial amount of reading,” but they did not evaluate each condition on the list with any scientific methodology.

“I can’t point to specific studies that we used,” Lang said. “Much of it was done by patients telling us what worked and what didn’t. … It became crystal clear some of these things that ought to be in the bill.”

The legislators relied mostly on personal testimonies and compared notes with states that have also passed medical marijuana laws.

“When thousands of people come to me and say they’re using this drug illegally because it’s the only thing that works,” Lang said, “that’s good enough for me.”

Mike Graham, of Manteno, was one person who shared his story with legislators. A little more than a decade ago, he was using 14 different pharmaceuticals. Living with an extremely painful degenerative spine disease, he has been through multiple surgeries in efforts to remedy it. But doctors feared one more could paralyze him, so he took medications for pain instead.

“I didn’t even know my name,” Graham said. “It was horrid.”

When he was in his late 30s, doctors sent him home with a hospice care nurse. After reviewing his medications, she told him he would die early if he continued taking all of them. To his surprise, she recommended pot, he said.

“I almost fell out of bed laughing,” Graham, 51, said. “I come from a law enforcement family.”

Increasingly desperate, in 2002, he decided to give it a try. He was able to cut back on all his previous medications except a morphine pump under his skin. Now, he takes three or four puffs of marijuana in the morning and at night. Once down to 135 pounds, the more than 6-foot-tall Graham now says he’s back up to 250 after regaining his appetite.

“What it comes down to here (is) I wouldn’t be here if I hadn’t made that decision,” Graham said.

While stories like Graham’s are plentiful, doctors and researchers say the nonmedical elements of the plant could have sometimes serious adverse effects.

Dr. Eric Voth, a Topeka, Kan., internist and pain specialist and chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy, said relying on anecdotal evidence is dangerous because other factors could influence why patients start to feel better.

“It’s very hard to differentiate whether somebody feels better because they’re stoned or because they’re getting a true therapeutic benefit from the drug,” Voth said.

Health Risks

Smoking marijuana could increase the risk of cancer because of inhalation of tar and other carcinogens in the plant, Voth said. While proponents of its use point to the 105 unique compounds, as detailed in a soon-to-be published report by leading cannabinoid researcher Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly and his colleagues, that may be useful for medicine, there are hundreds more compounds in marijuana that some scientists believe not only have no use but may be harmful.

“You’ve still got (hundreds of other) substances in there,” Voth said. “It just (shouldn’t) be smoked. That is a crazy precedent.”

Illinois’ law allows dispensaries to sell marijuana-infused baked goods in addition to joints, but advocates say it takes longer to feel the effects of marijuana when it’s ingested instead of smoked.

Several papers in scientific journals have found that marijuana use over a long period of time can have negative cognitive effects too. Users can’t concentrate or remember as well as before, in some cases years after they have quit.

Joe Friedman, a Deerfield pharmacist, said the chemical makeup of marijuana could be tested at independent labs, and he hopes it will be in Illinois. Marijuana is designated as a Schedule I drug, defined by the DEA as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Changing it to a Schedule II drug, which means it is considered dangerous but could have potential medicinal value, Friedman said, would help research progress in learning which type of marijuana is best for which patient.

“When a drug comes on the market, you take the active ingredients, you figure out what these drugs do,” said Friedman, who wants to open a dispensary in Illinois. “You want to be able to identify the active ingredients and the concentrations … and then down the line (after more research is done), you’ll be able to say, ‘OK this one is good for MS,’” Friedman said.

But Voth said he doubts that even identifiable benefits would be enough to outweigh the negative effects, because of other potentially harmful components that are mixed in.

“Essentially what they are, are toxic chemicals,” Voth said. “None of those things would you ever mix with medicine.”

What Some Call a Cure-All

In 1937, the U.S. criminalized marijuana, and today it’s considered a Schedule I drug, along with heroin and LSD.

The FDA approved a synthetic THC pill called Marinol in 1985, acknowledging the drug’s benefits for people with nausea and decreased appetite. In Canada and some parts of Europe, a similar drug called Sativex — containing synthetic THC and cannabidiol — has been approved in recent years, offered as an oral spray. In the late 1980s, scientists discovered a previously unknown biological system called the endocannabinoid system, which proponents for marijuana theorize could show how it works.

The National Institutes of Health reported in 2006 that the system holds “therapeutic promise in a wide range of disparate diseases.”

But experts say more research is needed before determining exactly what the system may be able to do.

Mary Lynn Mathre, a founding partner of Patients Out of Time, a marijuana advocacy group that focuses on health issues, said the leading theory regarding the system is that the human body has cannabinoid receptors — essentially key holes that cannabis compounds fit into, helping the body regulate.

“You take cannabis, which has similar chemicals that we need, and you put it in the body and they work if we’re not making the cannabinoids that we need,” explained Mathre, a longtime registered nurse. “You can liken this to a diabetic. Their pancreas isn’t making insulin, so we give them insulin. If our body can’t make this chemical, there happens to be this plant on earth that is there to supply us.”

A Call for Research

Many prominent health organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society — support researching cannabinoids’ potential but don’t endorse the legalization of medical marijuana. The American Nurses Association and the American College of Physicians support medical marijuana’s legalization, while also calling for more research.

“Science has been doing this kind of thing for years,” Voth said. “They find a (naturally) occurring substance and then they try to dissect down to what really works, isolate it and synthesize it. That’s what pharmaceutical companies do all the time.”

While THC has a few proven medical benefits, it’s possible that other compounds that don’t have the same euphoric effect could relieve symptoms just as well or better than THC, researchers and pharmacists say.

Pritesh Kumar, a researcher who specializes in cannabinoid pharmacology and is a consultant for Chicago-based Quantum 9, a medical marijuana technology firm, has focused on CBD, a compound in marijuana some scientists believe could have significant benefits.

Research like Kumar’s, studying isolated compounds in marijuana, has picked up in recent years, but widespread research looking at how specific diseases and cannabinoids interact has not been done.

Friedman, the Deerfield pharmacist, said he’s hopeful that with medical marijuana legalization on a faster track than ever, disease-specific research in the U.S. will pick up.

“As marijuana gains popularity and (if it) moves from Schedule I to Schedule II, research will really kick in,” Friedman said. “This is a whole new industry, and this is going to get bigger and stronger as time goes on.”

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Author: Ellen Jean Hirst, Tribune Reporter
Published: October 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Flying High on The Fourth

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The flag flying over the Capitol on the Fourth of July might look like your typical Old Glory. But you probably won’t notice the fibers that make it special. It’s believed to be the first hemp flag to flutter over the dome since the government began outlawing marijuana’s less-recreational cousin back in the 1930s.

Colorado hemp advocate Michael Bowman is the man responsible for getting the flag, made from Colorado-raised hemp and screen-printed with the Stars and Stripes, up there.

He cooked up the idea while lobbying Congress this year to include pro-hemp measures in the massive farm bill. That legislation failed last month, of course, but the seed of the hemp flag had been planted.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) gave Bowman an assist with the details, which included working with the Capitol’s flag office. (The flag program allows people to buy flags flown over the Capitol, so they rotate in new Old Glories nearly every day.)

“It’s a powerful symbol,” Bowman says, adding that the red, white and blue flying over the Capitol is a reminder of the role that hemp played in the founding and early days of the country. Betsy Ross’s flag was made of hemp, he notes, and Colonial settlers even paid their taxes in the crop, which was used for all kinds of goods, from rope to fabric to paper. Those Conestoga wagons heading west were covered in canvas fashioned from hemp fibers.

So, he thought having it fly on America’s birthday seemed pretty appropriate.

After its Capitol flight, the flag will make its way back to Colorado, where it will fly over the state capitol building in Denver. After that, Bowman is sending it on a tour of statehouses in states where legislation is pending that would legalize hemp. One of the first up: Vermont.

And while advocates are quick to point out that hemp lacks the THC content beloved by stoners, this will still be one high-flying flag.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Al Kamen
Published: July 3, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

A Smarter Federal Path on State-Voted MJ Laws

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The time is at hand for the Obama administration to stop dithering, to take a clear position on the rights of Washington state and Colorado — and by precedent all others — to experiment with legalized marijuana.

That’s what Govs. Jay Inslee of Washington and John Hickenlooper of Colorado are asking the Justice Department to do — even though they personally opposed the marijuana legalization measures their voters approved last November.

The governors insist they can make their states’ new laws work well through responsible regulations that license, regulate and tax the production and sale of marijuana. New state labeling laws, say supporters, will also remove confusion and dangerous use levels by showing the potency in terms of THC, the psychoactive component of the cannabis plant, analogous to the labeling of alcoholic beverages.

Clearly it’s a direction the American people — who favor marijuana legalization 52 to 41 percent in recent polling — would approve.

A collaborative approach would be consistent with President Obama’s own marijuana history — a substance he tried himself as a youth. Asked last December about the Colorado and Washington legalization votes, he told Barbara Walters “It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal,” because “we’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

But Mr. President, there are serious issues to resolve. As personal purchase and use of marijuana are permitted in some states, can the practice really be contained at state borders? Will television, Web and print advertising be allowed? Will the legalizing states allow many small or just a few large suppliers? How much marijuana will be eligible for sale at one time? How will “marijuana tourism” — out-of-state visitors coming just to stock up — be handled? Will retail outlets be allowed near a state’s borders?

And then questions that undecided states may want to hear answered: Will the big tax revenues that marijuana supporters predict actually come true? Will driving under the influence of marijuana prove a real problem — and if so, how will it be controlled? Or on the health front: Will freely available marijuana help returning veterans suffering from PTSD? And generally, will it lead to more or less use of a substance we know is clearly dangerous: alcohol?

Those are the types of intriguing questions that journalist-scholar Stuart Taylor Jr. probes in a newly released Brookings Institution policy paper — “Marijuana Policy and Presidential Leadership: How to Avoid a Federal-State Train Wreck.”

Central to his case: the argument for an early, upfront agreement by the Obama administration and the states. Because the opposite — a fierce federal crackdown on Colorado and Washington state’s licensed marijuana producers and sellers — could well “backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain.”

And back to Obama — what about the U.S. Justice Department? It could use threats of conspiracy prosecutions to scare off applicants for state licenses to grow and sell marijuana. But there are federalism barriers: Washington can’t directly force states to enforce federal law. And there are only 4,400 federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents — “nowhere near enough,” Taylor suggests, “to restrain the metastasis of the grow-your-own-and-share marijuana market” — with small-time criminals crowding in — “that state legalization without regulation would stimulate.”

The recent precedents aren’t good. Faced by 18 states’ laws already allowing marijuana for medical use, the Justice Department has swung back and forth from general permissiveness to cracking down unmercifully in individual cases.

A crux of the problem is the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which insists that marijuana has no medicinal properties — an assertion “on its face nonsensical,” says Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.

But the law’s criminal sanctions for cultivating, possessing or distributing marijuana aren’t alone, notes Taylor. The statute also instructs that the attorney general “shall cooperate” with states on controlled substances, with power “to enter into contractual agreements … to provide for cooperative enforcement and regulatory activities.”

This is the opening, Taylor argues, that the Obama administration should take to negotiate with the states legalizing marijuana use — a process that would lead them toward careful regulation and standards, and away from the threat of irrational federal prosecutions.

In a more sensible world, Congress would be rewriting the Controlled Substances Act to reclassify marijuana as the relatively low-risk drug it clearly is. But who’d expect this Congress to do anything so rational?

That leaves states to regulate carefully on their own. And a clear challenge for Obama. Here’s a president who’s been bold enough to jump ahead of Congress on issues ranging from gay marriage to amnesty for DREAM Act immigrants. So now, why not smooth the way to marijuana reform when states choose it?

Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Writers Group

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Neal Peirce, Syndicated Columnist
Published: April 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/