In Pot We Trust ~ Showtime documentary

Without a doubt, the best medical marijuana documentary we have ever seen.  Enjoy!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

We couldn’t have said it better:

In Pot We Trust doesn’t make you want to smoke pot. It will make you want to give all your pot to Jacqueline Patterson. Jacqueline has celebral palsy, which manifests itself most notably in the form of a severe stutter. When she uses medical marijuana, Jacqueline can speak much more quickly and clearly, because the drug relieves her muscle tension. The difference is so obvious, I don’t know how anyone could watch this and say marijuana isn’t medicine.

In Pot We Trust tells the story of four medical marijuana patients, against the backdrop of last year’s Hinchey-Rohrabacher vote. The filmmakers follow MPP‘s Aaron Houston through the halls of Congress, then join the DEA as they uproot marijuana plants in the hills of California. Marijuana experts such asLester Grinspoon provide insight into the drug’s benefits, while prohibitionists Joe Califano and Robert Dupont explain why they’ve dedicated themselves to criminalizing sick people.

The film is invaluable because patients themselves make the best spokespeople for medical marijuana. The ulterior motives so often attributed to the medical marijuana legalization effort become irrelevant here, as we meet the actual people whose health and wellbeing lies at the center of this controversy.

I won’t ruin the ending, but in case you haven’t heard, patients who rely on medical marijuana to maintain their quality of life are still criminals under federal law. (from “Stop the Drug War“)


If you only have a moment or two, be sure to watch the effects of marijuana on Jaqueline’s cerebral palsy, a clip from “In Pot We Trust”:

Vodpod videos no longer available.


Then again, if you have only 2 minutes and need a good laugh, here is the issue taken up by Larry David on HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm”:

Vodpod videos no longer available.


Puffing is the best medicine

Customers Smoke in the BC Marijuana Bookshop

“I have yet to see a patient who preferred Marinol to smoked marijuana. Similarly, the commercial success of Sativex will largely depend on how vigorously the marijuana laws are enforced. It is not unreasonable to believe that drug companies have an interest in sustaining the prohibition against the herb.”

by Lester Grinspoon M.D.

The Food and Drug Administration is contradicting itself. It recently reiterated its position that cannabis has no medical utility, but it also approved advanced clinical trials for a marijuana-derived drug called Sativex, a liquid preparation of two of the most therapeutically useful compounds of cannabis. This is the same agency that in 1985 approved Marinol, another oral cannabis-derived medicine.

Both Sativex and Marinol represent the “pharmaceuticalization” of marijuana. They are attempts to make available its quite obvious medicinal properties — to treat pain, appetite loss and many other ailments — while at the same time prohibiting it for any other use. Clinicians know that the herb — because it can be smoked or inhaled via a vaporizer — is a much more useful and reliable medicine than oral preparations. So it might be wise to consider exactly what Sativex can and can’t do before it’s marketed here.

A few years ago, the British firm GW Pharmaceuticals convinced Britain’s Home Office that it should be allowed to develop Sativex because the drug could provide all of the medical benefits of cannabis without burdening patients with its “dangerous” effects — those of smoking and getting high.

But there is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk. Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. I suspect that a day’s breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day’s dose — which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint — of marijuana.

Further, those who are concerned about the toxic effects of smoking can now use a vaporizer, which frees the cannabinoid molecules from the plant material without burning it and producing smoke.

As for getting high, I am not convinced that the therapeutic benefits of cannabis can always be separated from its psychoactive effects. For example, many patients with multiple sclerosis who use marijuana speak of “feeling better” as well as of the relief from muscle spasms and other symptoms. If cannabis contributes to this mood elevation, should patients be deprived of it?

The statement that Sativex, “when taken properly,” won’t cause intoxication hinges on the phrase “when taken properly.” “Properly” here merely means taking a dose — by holding a few drops of liquid under the tongue — that is under the level required for the psychoactive effect. As with Marinol, people who want to use Sativex to get high will certainly be able to do so.

One of the most important characteristics of cannabis is how fast it acts when it is inhaled, which allows patients to easily determine the right dose for symptom relief. Sativex’s sublingual absorption is more efficient than orally administered Marinol (which requires 1 1/2 to two hours to take effect), but it’s still not nearly as fast as smoking or inhaling the herb.

That means “self-titration,” or self-dosage, is difficult if not impossible. Further, many patients cannot hold Sativex, which has an unpleasant taste, under the tongue long enough for it to be absorbed. As a consequence, varying amounts trickle down the esophagus. It then behaves like orally administered cannabis, with the consequent delay in the therapeutic effect.

Cannabis will one day be seen as a wonder drug, as was penicillin in the 1940s. Like penicillin, herbal marijuana is remarkably nontoxic, has a wide range of therapeutic applications and would be quite inexpensive if it were legal. Even now, good-quality illicit or homegrown marijuana, which is, at the very least, no less useful a medicine than Sativex, is less expensive than Sativex or Marinol.

The “pharmaceuticalization” of marijuana has promise. No doubt the industry could produce unique analogs of the naturally occurring cannabinoids that would be useful in ways smoked cannabis is not. But for now, medicines such as Sativex provide only one advantage over the herb: They’re legal.

I have yet to see a patient who preferred Marinol to smoked marijuana. Similarly, the commercial success of Sativex will largely depend on how vigorously the marijuana laws are enforced. It is not unreasonable to believe that drug companies have an interest in sustaining the prohibition against the herb.

Geoffrey Guy, who founded GW Pharmaceuticals, claims his aim was to keep people who find marijuana useful out of court. There is, of course, a way to do this that would be much less expensive — both economically and in terms of human suffering.

LESTER GRINSPOON is an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the author of “Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine” (Yale University Press, 1997).

Los Angeles Times
May 5, 2006

The DEA Position On Marijuana

The campaign to legitimize what is called “medical” marijuana is based on two propositions: that science views marijuana as medicine, and that DEA targets sick and dying people using the drug. Neither proposition is true. Smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science – it is not medicine and it is not safe. DEA targets criminals engaged in cultivation and trafficking, not the sick and dying. No state has legalized the trafficking of marijuana, including the twelve states that have decriminalized certain marijuana use.


There is no consensus of medical evidence that smoking marijuana helps patients. Congress enacted laws against marijuana in 1970 based in part on its conclusion that marijuana has no scientifically proven medical value. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency responsible for approving drugs as safe and effective medicine based on valid scientific data. FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease. The FDA noted that “there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful,” and “that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.”


Lester Grinspoon, M.D. interview (audio) it from us, this interview with Lester Grinspoon could very well be the best thing you hear regarding Cannabis – we can’t recommend it highly enough:

>>listen to the interview

Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, served for 40 years as Senior Psychiatrist at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center in Boston. A Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Psychiatric Association, he was the founding editor of both the ‘Annual Review of Psychiatry’ and the ‘Harvard Mental Health Letter’. He is the author or coauthor of over 170 journal articles or chapters and 12 books.

A major area of interest has been “illicit” drugs. In 1990 he won the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award of the Drug Policy Foundation for “achievement in the field of drug scholarship.” His first book, ‘Marihuana Reconsidered’, originally published in 1971 by Harvard University Press, was recently republished as a classic. His latest book, ‘Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine’, co-authored with James B. Bakalar, was published by Yale University Press in 1993 (revised and expanded edition, 1997) and has now been translated into 14 languages.

an excerpt from “Marihuana, the forbidden Medicine“:

When I began to study marihuana in 1967, I had no doubt that it was a very harmful drug that was unfortunately being used by more and more foolish young people who would not listen to or could not understand the warnings about its dangers. My purpose was to define scientifically the nature and degree of those dangers. In the next three years, as I reviewed the scientific, medical, and lay literature, my views began to change. I came to understand that I, like so many other people in this country, had been brainwashed. Me beliefs about the dangers of marihuana had little empirical foundation. By the time I completed the research that formed the basis for a book, I had become convince that cannabis was considerably less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, the most commonly used legal drugs. The book was published in 1971; its title, Marihuana Reconsidered, reflected my change in view.

At that time I naively believed that once people understood that marihuana was much less harmful than drugs that were already legal, they would come to favor legalization. In 1971 I confidently predicted that cannabis would be legalized for adults within the decade. I had not yet learned that there is something very special about illicit drugs. If they don’t always make the drug user behave irrationally, they certainly cause many non-users to behave that way. Instead of making marihuana legally available to adults, we have continued to criminalize many millions of Americans. About 300,000 mostly young people are arrested on marihuana charges each year, and the political climate has now deteriorated so severely that it has become difficult to discuss marihuana openly and freely. It could almost be said that there is a climate of psychopharmacological McCarthyism.

One indication of this climate is the rise in mandatory drug testing, which is analogous to the loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era. Hardly anyone believed that forced loyalty oaths would enhance national security, but people who refused to take such oaths risked loss of their jobs and reputations. Today we are witnessing the imposition of a chemical loyalty oath. Mandatory, often random testing of urine samples for the presence of illicit drugs is increasingly demanded as a condition of employment. People who test positive may be fired or, if they wish to keep their jobs, may be involuntarily assigned to drug counseling or “employee assistance” programs.

All this is of little use in preventing or treating drug abuse. In the case of cannabis, urine testing can easily be defeated by chemical alteration of the urine or substitution of someone else’s urine. Even if the urine sample has not been altered, the available tests are far from perfect. The cheaper ones are seriously inaccurate, and even the more expensive and accurate ones are fallible because of laboratory error and passive exposure to marihuana smoke. But even an infallible test would be of little use in preventing or treating drug abuse. Marihuana metabolites (breakdown products) remain in the urine for days after a single exposure and for weeks after a long-term user stops. Their presence bears no established relationship to drug effects on the brain. It tells little about when the drug was used, how much was used, or what effects it had or has. Like loyalty oaths imposed on government employees, urine testing for marihuana is useless for its ostensible purpose. It is little more than shotgun harassment designed to impose outward conformity.

Another aspect of psychopharmacological McCarthyism is suggested by the response to a publication in the May 1990 issue of American Psychologist. Two psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley, reported the results of a rigorous longitudinal study of 101 eighteen-year-olds whom they had been following since the age of five to examine the relation between psychological characteristics and drug use. The results showed that adolescents who had engaged in some drug experimentation (mainly with marihuana) were the best adjusted. The authors comment:

Adolescents who used drugs frequently were maladjusted, showing a distinct personality syndrome marked by interpersonal alienation, poor impulse control, and manifest emotional distress. Adolescents who had never experiment with any drug were relatively anxious, emotionally constricted, and lacking in social skills. Psychological differences between frequent drug users, experimenters, and abstainers could be traced to the earliest years of childhood and related to the quality of their parenting. The findings indicate that (a) problem drug use is a symptom, not a cause, of personal and social maladjustment, and (b) the meaning of drug use can be understood only in the context of an individual’s personality structure and developmental history. (J. Shedler and J. Block, “Adolescent Drug Use and Psychological Health: A Longitudinal Inquiry,” American Psychologist 45 (May 1990): 612-630).

This study suggests that the current anti-drug campaign (“Just Say No”) is misguided because it concentrates on symptoms rather than underlying problems.

A hue and cry began immediately. The director of a San Francisco drug prevention program said that it was irresponsible for researchers to report that “dabbling with drugs was ‘not necessarily catastrophic’ for some youths and may simply be a part of normal adolescent experimentation.” A physician who directs the adolescent recovery center of a metropolitan hospital asked, “What does this do to the kids who made a commitment to be abstinent? Now they’re being told they’re a bunch of dorks and geeks. You can imagine how much more peer pressure is going to be put on them.” An author writing in Pride Quarterly (Summer 1990) stated: “Based on the experiences of only 101 subjects, all living in San Francisco, the study still drew national attention due to its outrageous conclusion.” Unfortunately,” continued the writer, “the permissive thinking which surfaced in the California study will continue to exist in the United States until truly effective drug education reaches beyond the elementary classroom. However, too few educators themselves have seen the latest discoveries about the health consequences of drug use.” (J. Diaz, “Furor over Report of Teenage Drug Use,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 15, 1990; Pride Quarterly (Atlanta), Summer 1990, pp. 1, 8.) It was all reminiscent of Stalinist party-line criticism of science.

In spite of the illegality of marihuana and the prejudices against it, large numbers of Americans continue to use cannabis regularly. Once considered a youthful indulgence or expression of youthful rebellion, marihuana smoking is now a common adult practice. Millions have smoked marihuana for years, and many of them will continue to smoke it for the rest of their lives. They are convinced that they are harming no one else and not harming themselves, if at all, as much as cigarette smokers or alcohol drinkers are.

Most users, in fact, believe that marihuana enhances their lives — a subject rarely discussed in print. In more than two decades of research, I have read a great deal about the potential harmfulness of cannabis (much of it nonsense) and very little about its value. Although this value has several aspects, medical use is one of the most important and one that has been seriously neglected. I have come to conclude that if any other drug had revealed similar therapeutic promise combined with a similar record of safety, professionals and the public would have shown far more interest in it. The largely undeserved reputation of cannabis as a harmful recreational drug and the resulting legal restrictions have made medical use and research difficult. As a result, the medical community has become ignorant about cannabis and has been both an agent and a victim in the spread of misinformation and frightening myths.