Cannabis wasn’t always a taboo topic. Hemp, a variety of the Cannabis Sativa plant, has a rich history in the United States as being a valuable and versatile crop. Hemp was booming as a “cash crop” because not only was it useful in a range of industries, but it was also very easy to grow. The fiber from the plant has many uses, ranging from textiles and clothing to sails for rafts, rope, and paper. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was originally drafted on hemp paper! Unfortunately, with the passing of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act that lumped all cannabis in the same group of regulated narcotics and the rise of inexpensive synthetic fibers in the 1950s, hemp’s popularity took a sharp decline. It wasn’t until 2018 the United States removed hemp as a Schedule 1 substance. Now, the plant is surging in popularity again for its many uses, especially the extraction of CBD for states that do not have any medical cannabis sales available.
Starting with the 2014 Farm Bill, and continuing with the 2018 Farm Bill, we have seen a dramatic shift in the landscape governing hemp. Prior to 5 years ago, hemp production was entirely illegal, as the Federal government handled industrial hemp the same as it handled high-THC marijuana. It was an established Schedule 1 controlled substance, entirely illegal to grow, harvest, or possess.
As awareness has grown, and the true benefits of the hemp plant have become more widely understood, the federal government has passed legislation to decriminalize hemp. However, although it is no longer considered a controlled substance, the questions about the process and regulatory requirements abound. This is because all plants grown in the United States are highly regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture, or the USDA, which has a complex framework of licensing, reporting, and general requirements for every specific product grown in the country.
Last week, the USDA published the draft of its regulations
for the hemp industry. Since the 2018 farm bill, we have been living in the
“wild west” for hemp. As promised, the USDA released its rules in time for
farmers to get legal and licensed for the 2020 season. However, this
long-awaited release has been met with mixed results.
Many lawmakers and industry leaders are happy that the
federal government has finally put out regulations for hemp. First, they see
this as a dramatic shift from the era of prohibition, alone a cause for
celebration. Others see the certainty that we are going to have regulations put in place means that the industry will start to
grow and develop at a much faster pace. It is certainly true that the future is extremely
bright for hemp. But other farmers and individuals have expressed concerns with
some of the regulation’s details.
The “0.3% THC” limit, which delineates the difference
between legal “hemp” and illegal “marijuana”, may be too stringent for some
growers. They report that a mature hemp plant will have a THC content that will
vary from day to day, including some spikes over the 0.3% limit. The new
regulations require strict testing to be done prior to harvest, and if the
resulting THC content is too high, the entire crop must be destroyed. This may
cause farmers to harvest before true maturity, leading to a decrease in the
potency or effectiveness of the CBD derived from such a harvest.
The regulations also allow the states to develop their own plans
and submit them for approval. Some are concerned that some states may try to
infringe on the interstate commerce occurring there, which could cause all
kinds of problems and complications for the industry. Still others are worried that
the method for disposing of “hot crops” requires just a little too much DEA
involvement, which could also cause disruption or have a chilling effect on
growth.
It is clear that these regulations are a good step in the right direction. It’s also clear that this is just the beginning, and there is still plenty of room for improvement. The USDA announced a 60-day window for submitting public comments, and then they will consider any suggestions, and then publish a final rule in the future. I encourage you to read the regulations or a summary of them. I encourage you to think about how you would be affected by these rules, and what suggestions you may have. Speak to an expert about how you can do your part to improve the landscape of the industry for the future.
Cannabis sativa: A comprehensive ethnopharmacological review of a medicinal plant with a long history
In Summary:
Although medical cannabis has only lately become more popularized, its use dates back to as early as 3,000-10,000 B.C. According to evidence in ancient texts and glyphs, Cannabis sativa was used to treat fatigue, rheumatism, and malaria, as well as numerous other common maladies. Around 60 B.C., Assyrian clay tablets and Egyptian Ebers Papyrus document ancient Egyptian women using C. sativa for pain management and to improve their mood. More recently, nineteenth-century English doctors prescribed cannabis to reduce pain, inflammation, nausea, and seizures, and to soothe difficulties of menstruation. In a shock to the human historical trend, both England and the United States moved to prohibit its use in the 1930s, creating steep barriers for its therapeutic use, and an enduring smokescreen for the memory of its historical continuity.
Dr. Caplan and the #MDTake:
The history of cannabis use is often shocking to modern consumers, who have grown up hearing the biased views of the 20th-century leaders. A testament to the powerful reach of political propaganda, even medical schools adopted the rhetoric of the age, without second-guessing. Fortunately, the march of oral history and social spread of cannabis use perpetuated a very different, much less menacing tale. Now, it is time for the sophistication of modern medicine to catch up and lift cannabis understanding and consumption to modern medical standards.
Cannabinoid receptor 2: Potential role in immunomodulation and neuroinflammation Review
Summary Info:
Previous research and characterization of cannabinoid receptors (CBs) have consistently demonstrated the therapeutic potential for many medical conditions. CB1, the receptor responsible for the intoxicating (and other psychoactive) effects of cannabis, has demonstrated the ability to modulate concentrations of certain other neurotransmitters, giving it the capability of acting as an antidepressant. Additionally, mice lacking CB1 receptors exhibited increased neurodegeneration, increased susceptibility for autoimmune encephalomyelitis, and inferior recovery to some traumatic nerve injuries. The CB2 receptor is generally attributed to support for modulating the immune system and calming some of the body’s natural, core inflammatory signaling systems. Activation of the receptor has been found to associate with neuroinflammatory conditions in the brain, and in appropriate circumstances, can result in the programming of cell death among some immune cells. This effect points toward a role in communication, inflammation and autoimmune diseases. Furthermore, evidence points to CB2 holding significant potential in HIV therapy. Binding partners of CB2 inhibit the HIV-1 infection and help to diminish HIV replication. Historically, these staggering findings have escaped traditional modern medical understanding. Further investigation into the therapeutic potential of cannabis, with respect to the treatment of inflammation, depression, autoimmune diseases, and HIV is at a minimum, clearly warranted for a more comprehensive understanding of effective medical therapy.
Dr Caplan and the #MDTake:
The main points here no longer seem to be investigational trends, but just pillars of Cannabis Medicine that are embarrassingly new, and poorly recognized by the modern medical establishment. While the bulk of consumers, including patients, may not engage with the science on a molecular basis, by iterative or intuitive science, individuals are diligently discovering what forms of cannabis serve their personal interests more effectively. This is, through a scientific lens, a trial-and-error adventure through products, which have various ratios of cannabinoid-receptor activation or inhibition, that ultimately achieves a similar result, which is a clinical relief for a particular ailment. Does the fact that the process does not begin with a clear understanding of the involved receptors and receptor modulators really matter? If one of the primary objectives of Medicine is to treat and/or ease suffering, and the products are built upon a bedrock of chemical safety (misuse, inappropriate, or misinformed production of products notwithstanding), it should not matter that people discover it by happy accident, or through more direct achievement.
Bacteria: Within facilities that lack appropriate oversight, any bacteria present during the manufacturing of a vaped product can be a source of risk for the consumer.
Fungus: Similarly, fungus can be a normal part of ambient air and life on earth, particularly around plants and soil. If production facilities do not have state-of-the-science monitoring or control mechanisms to limit mold, fungus can accumulate during the manufacturing process and can be transmitted to consumers.
Particles: Nicotine- or cannabis-containing products that are not produced in regulated facilities (home-grown and/or street-sold real or counterfeit products) may contain dangerous solvents, including solutions that contain lipid content that does not belong inside human lungs. Equally concerning, even in states with strict regulatory oversight over cannabis, the regulations may not cover particulate matter which may come into the consumer’s body from the containers that store tested cannabis products. For example, labs across the US have identified particles of vapor cartridge construction materials that become airborne during the heating process of vaporization. There is currently no testing standard for such circumstances. More, the sheer volume of particles emitted by a tool producing vapor is unregulated. With respect to its effects on the lungs, it is likely that there are meaningful differences (and potential risk differences) between a vaporizer which produces a small cloud of particles compared with one that produces a large, dense cloud.
Nicotine/E-liquids: Many nicotine vaporizers contain flavoring, coloring, preservative liquids that can be irritating to the lungs and breathing architecture. Non-nicotine liquid mixers can include sugary substances which promote dangerous growth of bacteria, inside the lungs.
Supervision: Street or home-produced products lack quality control measures to ensure that they are made safely, and/or contain safe ingredients, and are being delivered inside safe devices. In contrast, most FDA-overseen nicotine products and state-overseen cannabis production facilities limit many risk factors for currently-known threats to health
Risks on the Consumer Side of the Market:
Bacteria: Once purchased, products exposed to everyday life can acquire potentially dangerous bacteria after they are produced and sold. When used with poor maintenance practices, or by a consumer with hygiene practices that may add additional risk, bacterial infections can arise.
Fungus: Like bacteria exposure and potential infections, mold/fungus can accumulate after a vaping product is purchased. Good maintenance/cleansing practices help to prevent this risk, and appropriate hygiene around the consumption of vaping products typically minimizes this concern.
Particulate Matter: When using and re-using vaporizer tools (pens, vaporizer ovens, edibles), foreign particulate matter may break-off from cartridges, or may accidentally enter into products that were previously free of these contaminants. Many of the popular vaporizer cartridges, for example, seem to come from three facilities in China and are sold, worldwide, because of the attractive low price-point. Across the US, lab evidence has discovered evidence of small particles of the cartridges themselves (plastics, metals, other materials.) These particles can cause irritation to, or have toxic local effects on, the lungs. These reactions can certainly stimulate an inflammatory response which is sometimes equally uncomfortable as the offending irritation.
Coughing: Vaporizing a product which causes the user to cough excessively can risk the accidental aspiration of bacteria or particles from the mouth. These particles, if small enough, can cause inflammation or infection in the lungs.
Nicotine: In addition to the well-documented increased risk of cancer from the consumption of nicotine, this chemical is an irritant to the tissues with which it interacts, causing arterial wall constriction and thickening. It increases blood pressure and heart rate, promotes increased inflammation and suppresses normal immune system function. More, it also artificially elevates dopamine, norepinephrine, and acetylcholine, with poorly understood consequences that are unlikely to be healthy for the lungs.
Maintenance: Vaporizing old or poorly-kept products may ignore the very real effects of deterioration of materials which may pose health concerns. A product which is not well-maintained or regularly cleaned may contain infectious particles, irritating particles, toxic elements which may also be found in a pocket or storage container (insecticides, animal poisons, other chemicals which may preserve or protect during production or travel)
Individual Differences:
Between the production and the consumer sides of the vaporization arena, individual differences and outside influences can have a tremendous impact on the experience of vapor. Someone with a history of lung disease may tolerate a very different product than someone without such a history. Similarly, someone with a weakened immune system may have a more difficult time healing from an average exposure (to an irritant or an infectious particle) than someone with different circumstances. These are not likely to explain a large incidence of illnesses, but in addition to the concerns above, they may help explain a smaller portion.
Some of the Medical Illnesses Potentially Associated with Vaping:
Typically this is related to the components of e-cigarettes: nicotine, propylene glycol/glycerol, ethylene glycol, any of >7000 flavorings, metals including tin, lead, nickel, chromium, manganese, and arsenic (have all been found in e-cigarette liquids), also nitrosamines common to tobacco, carbonyl compounds, volatile organic compounds, and phenolic compounds.
General Recommendations for Safer Consumption:
Use state-supervised companies, including dispensaries for cannabis-related vaporizer materials, and reputable nicotine suppliers
Convection vaporizer ovens that involve safe heating materials (ceramic, glass, quartz) are preferable to vaporizer cartridges.
Any means of detaching product from direct contact with a heat source is preferable. For example, stainless-steel containers that hold product, and are then placed into a heating chamber, is likely to be safer than placing product directly against heat.
Avoid direct contact with coils, and avoid combustion
Use fresh products from state-sponsored dispensaries or stores
Avoid products that are repeatedly reused (including vaporizer pens and vaporizer heating tools that stay full of organic material for more than a brief period of time
Prefer systems that include the opportunity to easily clean and replace individual used components
Use rubbing alcohol to clean any heating tools regularly
