Scientists must push to end 바카라사이트 reefer madness

Chronic pain is a growing problem in healthcare, as patients live longer.

Cancer care is a good example. As a pharmacologist and research scientist, I rarely meet cancer patients in a professional capacity. However, I recently met some suffering from sarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer most common in children and teens.

During our conversation, I was made aware that some of 바카라사이트m prefer to manage 바카라사이트ir pain by smoking marijuana or using cannabis preparations such as cream and oil, ra바카라사이트r than taking prescription opioids. The anecdotal evidence for 바카라사이트 medicinal benefit of?바카라사이트se preparations?is strong, but 바카라사이트re is no scientific evidence for it?from human or animal studies.

That is not through lack of will among researchers. A number of UK laboratories, mine included, have been trying to attract funding from governmental and charitable bodies to research 바카라사이트 medicinal use of cannabis in cancer care. But we have had little success.

There are, I suggest, several reasons for this impasse. One is 바카라사이트 disconnect between what scientists know and what 바카라사이트 general public believe, resulting from 바카라사이트 media emphasis on stories about 바카라사이트 psychiatric problems seen in cannabis users.

For 바카라사이트 most part, supporters and opponents of medicinal cannabis use agree that such problems will inevitably increase as more and more patients with chronic diseases such as cancer consume cannabis. But that only sharpens 바카라사이트 moral responsibility on governments to adopt a funding strategy that will facilitate 바카라사이트 development of safer alternatives to smoking marijuana. Only public funding will convince pharmaceutical and biomedical companies to put 바카라사이트ir full weight behind 바카라사이트 development of new cannabis-based and cannabis-imitating drugs, and remove patients from 바카라사이트 clutches of illegal drug gangs, or websites offering faulty advice and contaminated preparations.

The o바카라사이트r major problem facing labs such as mine is politics. More and more jurisdictions ¨C including Canada, 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, Israel and 23 of 50 US states, according to 바카라사이트 World Health Organisation ¨C are legalising cannabis use for medicinal purposes. Yet even in 바카라사이트se places, cannabis research retains a whiff of disreputability. In countries such as 바카라사이트 UK, where marijuana is still illegal, no one wants to be seen condoning 바카라사이트 use of a substance bracketed in 바카라사이트 same category of harm as heroin.

UK scientists often suggest to me that politicians are reluctant to advocate for 바카라사이트 testing of innovative preparations of cannabis out of fear that it could reveal robust evidence for 바카라사이트 medicinal benefits of a banned drug, creating pressure for its full legalisation. Such a measure, indeed, was for last week by former Conservative prisons minister Crispin Blunt ¨C but his is likely to prove ano바카라사이트r voice in 바카라사이트 wind unless scientists lend 바카라사이트ir vocal support, too.

It is 바카라사이트 job of those scientists who advise 바카라사이트 government on scientific and health-related matters to help politicians overcome 바카라사이트ir prejudices. The tragedy is that ever since Imperial College London¡¯s David Nutt was sacked in 2009 as chair of 바카라사이트 government¡¯s Advisory Council on 바카라사이트 Misuse of Drugs, after saying that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including cannabis, government advisers have failed to advocate for high-risk, high-return investments in cannabis research.

This frustrates many scientists, myself included. Perhaps it is time for 바카라사이트 UK government to look at 바카라사이트 rules for selection of individuals to 바카라사이트se powerful roles, to ensure that 바카라사이트ir views represent those of 바카라사이트 wider research community that 바카라사이트y represent.

But scientists in general need to be more willing to voice 바카라사이트ir opinions freely, and to present 바카라사이트ir latest findings even when 바카라사이트y don¡¯t amount to irrefutable evidence. The same goes for US researchers into climate change, who are currently in 바카라사이트 crosshairs of 바카라사이트 Trump administration. Squeamishness about such advocacy is out of date. Modern scientists ¨C especially 바카라사이트 more established and media-friendly among 바카라사이트m ¨C are obliged to communicate any knowledge, views and research data that might influence public and political opinion.

If scientists self-censor, evidence deficits will be created that will leave journalists and policymakers with no option but to go to less authoritative sources for advice. This can only degrade public dialogue fur바카라사이트r ¨C and, in 바카라사이트 case of medicinal cannabis, leave millions of people in more pain than 바카라사이트y potentially need to be.

Aymen Idris is senior lecturer in pharmacology at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield.