
Find a Health Sci/Medical Library and get this article:

Mikuriya, Tod H. and Aldrich, Micheal R., "Cannabis 1988 Old Drug, New
Dangers, The Potency Debate", Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol 20(1), Jan-
Mar, 1988 pg 47.

Summary and Conclusions:

Observation of the real world of social and marijuana use,
where autotitration is the norm, renders the scare tactics of
the _new marijuana_ proponets not only inaccurate but 
irrelevant (*). There is much published evidence about the
availability of highly potent varieties of cannabis from the
ninetheenth century through the present day.  The effects
attributed to the _new marijuana_ are the same ones debated
for centuries in many different cultures.  The assertion that
"all marijuana research to date has been done on 1 or 2 
percent THC material" (Cohen 1968) ignores several thousand
years of human experience with the drug.  The old 
medical cannabis extracts were stronger than most of the
forms now available, though the potency of illicit hash oils
by the mid-1970's was approaching the level of medicinal 
preparations available before their removal from the USP.
    While it may be true that sinsemilla is more widely
available than 10 or 15 years ago, its potency has not
changed significantly from the 2.4 to 9.5 percent THC
materials available in 1973-1974 (see Table I), or the five
to 14 percent sinsemilla of 1975 (Perry 1977).  The range of
potencies available then (marijuana at 0.1% to 7.8% THC,
averaging 2.0% to 5.0% THC by 1975) was approximately
the same as that reported now.  With such a range, the
evidence simply cannot support the argument by Cohen
(1986) that marijuana is "ten or more times more potent
than the product smoked ten years ago."  And to say that
marijaua potency has increased 1,400 percent since _any_
date in history is patent nonsense.
    It is not legitimate to imply that _average_ low potencies
represent the _full range_ of potencies available in reality.
Neither is it valid to cite the _low end of the range then_ as a
baseline to compare with the _high end of the range now_.
The claimed baseline for THC content in the early 1970's
would appear to be too low, probably because confiscated,
stored police samples were utilized; and this low baseline
makes the claimed difference in potency appear to be
greater than it has been in reality.
    In sum, the _new marijaua_ is not new and neither is the
hyperbole surrounding this issue.  The implications of the
new disinformation campaign are serious.  Many people,
particularly the experienced users of the 1960's and their
children, will once again shrug off the warnings of drug
experts and not heed more reasonable admonishments
about more dangerous drugs.  This is not only abusive to
those who look to science, the medical profession, and
government for intelligent leadership, but will sully the
repuatations of drug educators who wittingly cry wolf, and
will inevitably diminish the credibility of drug abuse
treatment professionals who pass on such flawed reports.

(* end quote *)

[*] my only critisism of this article is that they included this
    reference to auto-titration.  Auto-titration is irrelevant in
    light of the fact that they show that the potency has not changed.
    Mentioning autotitration only serves to cloud the issue, since 
    there is some controversy over it.    - Lamont

**************************** Article Separation *****************************
 
From:  den0@midway.uchicago.edu 

Anonymous sent me the abstract and asked that I post it.

Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and
Attitudes

by Richard Doblin and Mark A. R. Kleiman

Abstract: A random-sample anonymous survey of the members of the American
Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was conducted in the spring of 1990
measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning
the antiemetic use of marijuana in cancer chemotherapy patients.  The
survey was mailed to about one-third (N = 2430) of all U.S.-based ASCO
members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1035).  More than 44% of the
respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the
control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient.  Almost
half (48%) would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were
legal.  As a group, respondents considered (smoked) marijuana to be
somewhat more effective than the legally available (oral) synthetic THC
(Marinol) and roughly as safe.  Of the respondents who expressed an opinion,
a majority (54%) thought marijuana should be available by prescription.
These results bear on the question of whether mariujana has a "currently
accepted medical use," an issue in an ongoing administrative and legal
dispute concerning whether marijuana in smoked form should be available
by prescription along with synthetic THC in oral form.  This survey
demonstrates that oncologists' experience with the medical use of marijuana
is more extensive, and their opinions of it more favorable, than the
regulatory authorities appear to have believed.

---------

(End quote.)

The above was printed w/o permission, and I don't know where the
study will be (has been?) published.

***************************** Article Separation *****************************

