Cannabis Education In Medical School

[MajorDoobage]

Hello FC!

I just finished listening to a lecture on "Substance Abuse" in my pharmacology class. I'm currently a 2nd year med student and a cannabis enthusiast/activist (for personal and medicinal use).

I was really excited to hear about this topic presented in class. I've spent hours and hours researching the pharmacology of cannabinoids. I'm almost done reading The Pot Book, which is authored by several medical doctors and PhDs in various fields of science who all share their expertise on the subject. I thought discussing cannabis in an academic setting would exonerate the plant of its fallacious reputation. Boy was I wrong.

First of all, there were three whole slides devoted to covering cannabis (out of 69). Next, those three slides donned the title "Marijuana," so right off the bat the teacher goes with propaganda terminology.

The content of the slides is even worse. According to the information presented in class, cannabis consumption leads to:

• lung cancer[/*]

• apathy[/*]

• decreased personal hygiene[/*]

• impaired memory, cognition, and functionality in offspring of cannabis-using mothers[/*]

I can't tell you how disappointed I was! Multiple evidence-based scientific papers have refuted the carcinogenic and teratogenic effects of cannabis. Furthermore, saying that decreased personal hygiene and apathy are signs of cannabis use is unsubstantiated and bad science. I challenge anyone to present scientific evidence showing that prolonged use of cannabis leads to poor hygiene. Maybe some stoners are dirty fucks, but correlating the two is disingenuous. The same goes for apathy. I'm sure some stoners are lazy, and they would have been lazy with or without the drug. Plus I think some people confuse introspection and a deep perception/appreciation of sensory stimuli as apathy.

This is very unfortunate. It is unfortunate that my less enlightened colleagues are imbibing these fallacies as fact. I recently got into an argument with a neuroscience PhD student who was ignorant to the endogenous cannabinoid pathway. He tried telling me that pot destroys brain cells and that flooding the brain with cannabinoids will put excess strain on neurons (implying that it is neurotoxic in high doses). Both of those statements couldn't be more incorrect, and this is from a PhD candidate in neuroscience!

The teacher NEVER mentions the therapeutic aspects of cannabis. Yahweh-forbid they include how cannabis can be used to successfully treat hundreds of ailments. I guess presenting such information would contradict cannabis's schedule 1 status (schedule 1 drugs are defined as being highly addictive and having no therapeutic properties), despite the fact that big pharmaceutical companies have developed Marinol and Sativex. SO MUCH HYPOCRISY!

Oh well it just goes to show the level of cannabis education in graduate programs . This rant is now over, sorry just needed to vent.

 

[Elluzion]

^I totally feel you. I am an undergrad currently working on my BS in Kinesiology exercise science pre-pt and then I plan on going to a 3 year grad school for my pHD, but currently I am in Physiology and we learned about Marijuana and how it effects the central nervous system and how its bad bad bad, no good. I hate how it is seen as a "drug". If it was seen as medicine I think people would take it more seriously.

 

[LivingInSpin]

Does your school get funding from the Feds or donations from pharmaceutical companies?

Teach something the money suppliers don't like, and the cash could dry up.

 

[MajorDoobage]

I hate how it is seen as a "drug". If it was seen as medicine I think people would take it more seriously.

I think its fine for cannabis to be seen as a drug, because it is a drug. It alters normal physiologic biochemistry. It just needs to be seen as a therapeutic drug, much in the same way morphine is. You're right though, the word "drug" has a bad connotation to it. Good luck in your studies!

Does your school get funding from the Feds or donations from pharmaceutical companies?
Teach something the money suppliers don't like, and the cash could dry up.

**OT** have you guys signed up for the free Amazon Prime for students with a .edu email? Free 2 day shipping on fulfilled by Amazon items. It's very nice. I'm lovin it.

I don't believe we get funding from the gov't or big pharma companies, but who knows how many hands are in the pockets of medical schools . I guess the curriculum is based off of "widely accepted" beliefs, and right now gov't propaganda has permeated science and pharmaceutical literature.

Thanks for the Amazon Prime tip! I had no idea.

 

[Elluzion]

I hate how it is seen as a "drug". If it was seen as medicine I think people would take it more seriously.

I think its fine for cannabis to be seen as a drug, because it is a drug. It alters normal physiologic biochemistry. It just needs to be seen as a therapeutic drug, much in the same way morphine is. You're right though, the word "drug" has a bad connotation to it. Good luck in your studies!

Does your school get funding from the Feds or donations from pharmaceutical companies?
Teach something the money suppliers don't like, and the cash could dry up.

**OT** have you guys signed up for the free Amazon Prime for students with a .edu email? Free 2 day shipping on fulfilled by Amazon items. It's very nice. I'm lovin it.

I don't believe we get funding from the gov't or big pharma companies, but who knows how many hands are in the pockets of medical schools . I guess the curriculum is based off of "widely accepted" beliefs, and right now gov't propaganda has permeated science and pharmaceutical literature.

Thanks for the Amazon Prime tip! I had no idea.

Yeah I feel you completely. It is definitely a drug due to its effects on the mind and body. A therapeutic "drug" would be a lot better. I think that it comes down to seeing a "drug" as being beneficial. Most drugs are seen as "harmful", how can society break that barrier? Are they ready? hmm

And YES <3 amazon prime. I found out about this a couple of months ago, thank you for the heads up. Too bad I never order anything off amazon anymore ha.

 

[Nycdeisel]

I have always wondered about how that goes down, I figured most doctors were not being told the facts.

You probably already know about this, but the National Cancer Institute, a federal agency, has recently 'discovered' the value of cannabis, at least for a severe disease like cancer, which I think is a good step forward.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/c...rijuanas-Medical-Benefit-People-Living-Cancer

 

[Magic9]

Please tell me that even though they teach bullshit, most Med students are competent enough to do their own research? Even if they don't, could you just lie and say they do to make me feel better?

 

[hereatlast]

Sorry to hear about your disappointment MajorDoobage...it doesn't seem all that surprising that this type of propaganda continues however. Well-rounded information about the medicinal use of cannabis doesn't seem to be widely proliferated, and for good reason (big pharma's special interest, contradicting its status in the eyes of the Federal Gov't, etc.).

IMO, its unfortunate to see how this debate commonly takes form. Often, the anti-cannabis faction is unwilling to admit any medicinal or non-recreational validity to the drug. On the other hand, sometimes medicinal cannabis proponents go a little overboard with their defense of the drug IMO/E. I went to a debate a couple years back that faced Steve Hager (pro-canna) against Robert Stutman (retired DEA agent arguing against canna-legalization) and was utterly disappointed. Hager's facts, reasonings and arguments weren't at ALL convincing to me...he continually appealed to what I thought were irrelevant anecdotes. Stutman wasn't much different in his techniques. While this was a debate largely about the possibility of legalization many medicinal facts were thrown out, misused and abused. I left feeling angry that neither party relied on ALREADY substantiated scientific evidence.

In any case, it is promising to me to know that cannabis research (while underfunded, over-politicized and all-too-often ignored) continues on.

Oh well it just goes to show the level of cannabis education in graduate programs .

Please don't write off all graduate programs however, I know at least one person (personally) that is researching seriously cannabis in a graduate level program at a local institution. FWIW, her work is concerned with C2 receptors and her orientation is that of an immunologist as far as I can tell...its worth mentioning that this institution is one that gets serious funding from the state as well. The real snag however seems to consistently be: "how to properly research a substance that is illegal?" I know that often-times programs that are funded as such or operate within the context of the wider law must resort to synthesizing cannabinoids or deal with quite a bit of hullabaloo to properly research the substance.

 

[LivingInSpin]

Please tell me that even though they teach bullshit, most Med students are competent enough to do their own research? Even if they don't, could you just lie and say they do to make me feel better?

I don't know, I've met some pretty strange doctors.

 

[colly]

LOL it's like unis in Iowa saying cows naturally eat corn LOL i heard ISU fired a professor for telling his class they eat grass naturally, which is fact.

edit- added source

 

[MajorDoobage]

Unfortunately I think most students who are ignorant about cannabis now, will continue to be ignorant about it after they graduate. They've learned their whole life that marijuana is another drug that will lead them down a path of destruction, and that only dumb loser potheads smoke weed. Many doctors will retain anti-cannabis sentiments until the government changes their fallacious view that cannabis has no medicinal value. Here's a fun fact: did you know that the government only approves studies on cannabis that demonstrate the drug's harm? If a researcher tried to write a proposal for a study showing the therapeutic effects of cannabis, then they'll get flat out rejected. So here's a summary of how the gov't views cannabis:
-They've listed it as a schedule 1 controlled substance, meaning it has "no currently accepted medical use."
-They maintain this position by not allowing studies to prove otherwise.
-Despite these claims, they've allowed companies to synthesize cannabinoids, throw them in pill/aerosol form (Marinol and Sativex), and that's completely fine!

Pardon my french, but FUCK the government and their never-ending quest to maximize profits at the expense of constituents. It's 2011. The internet has been around in a huge way since the new millennium. How on earth are injustices like these still perpetrated in this age of knowledge? How can the will of the people and of the scientific community be trumped by a handful of douchebags in Washington? Please allow me to digress before I suffer an aneurysm...

While studying for boards, I found this nice little gem connecting marijuana usage to gynecomastia (male breast enlargement)!

And that's from a nationally distributed book. The propaganda continues...
Oh and here's a link that refutes the above claim that marijuana causes gynecomastia: http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/content/nova_report/part2b.html#hormonal

 

[VWFringe]

i believe you are correct, that they will not change their minds after graduation, but that there are probably a lot of people in the room with you who know better already.

I assume income and revenue is at the bottom of it, and that that accounts for why it's not challenged more.

I'm trying to get my dentist to try lesion sterilization and tissue repair (LSTR, a root canal alternative that just uses propylene glycol as the anti-biotic carrier instead of water), but that would mean he doesn't get to do a root canal, so he's obviously resistant. In fact, the whole industry is resistant. think about how many root canals are done in America today, and consider that more than half don't need to be done, and by not doing them the patients teeth will remain viable and not require as many procedures over their life-time if kept healthy.

But, noooooo....

 

[NiceLungs]

Wow. In psychology undergrad and grad I had numerous professors talking about cannabis, coke etc.

In fact in grad school a professor told me to smoke green lol

That sucks that a smart dude going to med school has to listen to that BS rhetoric. Ignant maaaafuckas.