Nearly All Hemp Products Could Get You High

uy Crystal Lindell

The promise of legalized hemp products was always that you couldn’t high on them, and they would be more regulated and thus safer for consumers. But a new white paper reveals that most hemp products contain intoxicants like THC, synthetic cannabinoids, kratom or even hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Hemp products have only been sold legally in the United States since 2021, the result of hemp being legalized as part of the 2018 Farm Bill. The thinking at the time was that hemp contained such minuscule amounts of THC that farmers could grow hemp again as a cash crop to make things like rope, fuel and horse feed. 

But it didn’t take long for the cannabis industry to figure out how to tweak the chemical composition of hemp to make delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other potent synthetic cannabinoids, which you can get high on.

The white paper, called The Great Hemp Hoax, examined the composition and potency of hemp products sold in two southern California counties, focusing on chemically synthesized cannabinoids. The results reveal the hemp market has evolved far beyond what lawmakers and regulators intended. 

In an analysis of 104 hemp-based products from 68 brands, researchers found that 95 percent contain synthetic cannabinoids, which are illegal in California. These compounds are often far more potent than naturally occurring THC.  

More than half of the tested products exceeded the federal 0.3 percent THC limit, technically classifying them as cannabis rather than hemp under federal law. In fact, researchers found that many of these products vastly exceeded THC potency limits imposed on regulated cannabis products. 

Some hemp gummies contained up to 325 milligrams of synthetic THC per serving — which is way over the 10mg cap in California’s legal market.

You could also get high on hemp-derived vape products, which had an average THC equivalency level 268% above the state’s threshold for adult-use cannabis.

Some hemp products — such as Cheech & Chong’s “Kosmic Chews” — even contain psychoactive additives like kratom, while others include hallucinogenic mushrooms.

THE GREAT HEMP HOAX

“Much of what’s being sold as ‘hemp’ today isn’t hemp at all — it’s a cocktail of synthetic intoxicants and illicit THC masquerading as a natural, legal product. It's essentially the ultra-processed junk food of cannabis, but far more dangerous," said Tiffany Devitt, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Groundwork Holdings, which helped establish the cannabis industry in California and is trying to protect it from hemp competitors. 

"These companies aren't just skirting regulations – they're putting consumers at serious risk with designer drugs that look a whole lot more like ‘Spice’ than natural hemp."

Devitt and other authors of the white paper believe the contamination is not accidental. They said that filtering out or reducing the amount of delta-8 or delta-9 THC in hemp products is inefficient and cost-prohibitive, incentivizing companies to not do it.

“Because of these inefficiencies, most so-called ‘hemp-derived’ THC products are, in reality, synthetic cannabis — reminiscent of illegal products like ‘Spice’ that flooded California a decade ago,” they wrote. 

The lack of oversight also results in tax evasion. Over 90% of the hemp products analyzed were sold without collecting California’s sales tax, and none of the vendors paid the state’s cannabis excise tax. 

“The failure to ensure tax accountability allows unregulated ‘hemp’ products to undercut the legal cannabis market while depriving the state of revenue meant for public health, environmental mitigation, and enforcement,” the authors concluded. 

The white paper calls for all hemp products containing THC to be regulated as cannabis within California, to protect consumers and workers.

“These illicit operations aren’t just dangerous — they’re undercutting California’s regulated cannabis businesses and workers,” said Kristin Heidelbach, Legislative Director of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which helped pay for the white paper.

“While licensed cannabis businesses provide good union jobs and comply with strict labor standards, many synthetic ‘hemp’ producers manufacture out-of-state or import from overseas, dodging California’s labor laws and tax obligations.”

This isn’t just a California issue. A recent study found that nationwide sales of hemp products reached $2.8 billion in 2023. They are legally sold to minors in many U.S. states, even in those where cannabis is illegal. In 2023, about 11% of 12th graders said they had used hemp products containing Delta-8 THC.  

Experimental Cannabis Extract Has ‘Potential to Replace Opiates’

By Pat Anson

A German biotech company says it is seeking regulatory approval in Europe for an experimental cannabis extract that could be an alternative to opioid pain medication.

Vertanical recently completed two Phase 3 studies of its new drug – called VER-01 – on over 1,000 patients with chronic low back pain who didn’t get sufficient relief from non-opioid analgesics.

One study compared VER-01 to a placebo, while the second trial compared the drug’s safety and tolerability to patients treated with opioids. The company told The Times it was awaiting publication of the studies’ findings in The Lancet before making them public.

“VER-01 reduces pain without creating dependency or having an abuse potential,” said Clemens Fischer, MD, Vertanical’s CEO. “It has the full potential to replace opiates as it’s more effective. It’s a real alternative for chronic patients — the first one.

“Pain patients around the world are trapped in a vicious cycle of pain, insomnia, limited mobility, and depression. VER-01 has the potential to successfully break this cycle.”

VER-01 is a “full-spectrum” extract derived from cannabis sativa leaves and flowers. Although it contains THC, the main psychoactive substance in cannabis, Fischer says patients enrolled in the studies didn’t become high or intoxicated. About 25 percent did “feel a bit dizzy” for two weeks after they started taking it.

Participants also didn’t get “the munchies” or gain weight, a well-known side effect of cannabis.

“We were looking very carefully, because that’s what we hear from cannabis smokers — that the appetite increases as well their weight. But we haven’t seen any increase in weight,” Fischer told The Times.

Vertanical is seeking regulatory approval of VER-01 in Europe and with the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. If granted, VER-01 would be the first cannabis-based medicine approved for chronic pain. It would be sold under the brand name Exilby and be taken orally in drops.

“We are seeking regulatory approval in the US and are in talks with the FDA. For approval in the US, a further phase 3 study with US patients in the indication of chronic low back pain will start in Q2 2025,” Merit Renner, Senior Manager of Business Development at Vertanical, told PNN in an email. “This, together with the phase 3 study successfully conducted in Europe, will form the basis for approval in the US.”

Vertanical also plans further studies of VER-01 on patients with osteoarthritis and peripheral neuropathy.

Research into the pain-relieving properties of cannabis has been slow in the U.S., in large part because of marijuana’s status as a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, the same classification as LSD and heroin. The DEA recently allowed more marijuana to be used for research purposes, but has dragged its feet about reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule 3 substance that could be used for medical purposes. Until marijuana is rescheduled, VER-01 is unlikely to get FDA approval.

Some recent studies have shown that certain cannabinoids found in marijuana -- cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabinol (CBN) – block pain signals in the peripheral nervous system, not the brain, and don’t have a psychoactive effect that could lead to abuse.

“These findings open new avenues for the development of cannabinoid-based therapies,” said Mohammad-Reza Ghovanloo, PhD, lead author of a study published in PNAS and a research scientist at Yale School of Medicine. “Our results show that CBG in particular has the strongest potential to provide effective pain relief without the risks associated with traditional treatments.”

The cannabinoids in the Yale study interact with a protein in cell membranes called Nav1.8, which blocks peripheral nerves from transmitting pain signals. Inhibiting Nav1.8 is the same method used by Journavx (suzetrigine), a non-opioid analgesic recently approved by the FDA for relieving moderate to severe acute pain in adults.

You Can Get High on Hemp, Even Where Cannabis Is Illegal

By Katharine Neill Harris

In Texas, where I live, marijuana has long been illegal. Yet on a busy street in my Houston neighborhood, at least five stores within a half-mile of each other sell cannabis products that promise a strong high.

Texas isn’t alone. Due to a mix of recent legal changes and an uncertain policy landscape, residents in roughly half of American states have easy access to impairing hemp products that bear a strong resemblance to marijuana and are far less regulated.

As hemp sales soar – reaching nearly US$3 billion in 2023 – a number of states are tightening their restrictions, while experts are analyzing the public health implications. That’s why I analyzed hemp policies in all 50 states with some of my colleagues at Rice University’s Baker Institute, where I’m a drug policy fellow.

Same Plant, Different Policies

Marijuana and hemp are both varieties of cannabis sativa, a plant with many uses that produces thousands of compounds. Among them is the popular intoxicant delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or delta-9 THC.

Hemp is widely valued as an industrial crop, and for most of American history, farmers freely cultivated it. But by the mid-20th century, lawmakers had grown increasingly opposed to marijuana and were concerned by hemp’s similarity to its impairment-causing cousin.

In an effort to permit hemp cultivation while prohibiting production of a psychoactive plant, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 defined hemp as all parts of the cannabis plant with less than 0.3 percent concentration of delta-9 THC by dry weight. Cannabis that exceeded this threshold was considered marijuana.

The 1970 Controlled Substances Act ushered in the modern era of prohibition of marijuana and other drugs. Hemp remained technically legal, but because of its similarity to marijuana, it was listed as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and other substances deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no medical value.

Because of hemp’s Schedule I status, the Drug Enforcement Administration tightly regulated its production. But hemp farmers have long argued that these regulations were excessive – and in 2018, Congress agreed. That year, lawmakers passed a farm bill that removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act and legalized the manufacture and sale of hemp and its derivatives.

Crucially, the 2018 bill still defines hemp as all parts of the plant and its derivatives that have less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. But it left a loophole: While delta-9 is the most well-known form of THC, it’s not the only one.

Other forms of THC, known as THC isomers, have similar effects. These isomers, like delta-8 and delta-10 THC, can be derived from the hemp plant, and like delta-9 THC, they can cause impairment. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized all of them.

In 2023, sales of hemp-derived cannabinoids reached US$2.8 billion. Market growth has been accompanied by a rise in adverse health events. Chemists have expressed alarm at how some hemp products are made, and analyses of commercially available products have found them to contain heavy metals, residual solvents and pesticides.

Given the lax regulatory environment, many public officials now question the lack of guardrails on this burgeoning hemp industry. As a result, officials and governments across the country are now enacting or considering policy changes.

Some States Have Age, Advertising and Potency Limits

In 2023, 11.4% of 12th graders said they had used hemp-derived delta-8 THC in the past year. Easy access to any substance can encourage use, and THC can have negative impacts on the adolescent brain.

While federal law prohibits the sale of tobacco and alcohol to individuals under 21, there is no similar national requirement for hemp. But at least 27 states that permit the sale of hemp-derived products now have minimum age requirements, and several others have pending legislation.

Lessons from the tobacco market also demonstrate that advertising restrictions can reduce the use of legal but potentially harmful products. Most efforts to curtail hemp advertising focus on youth. Sixteen states restrict the use of packaging and marketing materials that may appeal to minors. Meanwhile, federal regulations also limit youth-targeted marketing.

There are fewer restrictions on advertising to adults. The Food and Drug Administration does prohibit using unverified health claims to sell hemp products, but this standard gives the industry plenty of leeway. Hemp ads often tout their purported physical benefits, like reducing pain or improving sleep, or portray them as mood-boosters that can make one feel euphoric and aroused, with few downsides.

The use of products high in THC has been linked to greater risk of cannabis dependence and adverse mental health outcomes. Concerns about product potency have led all states with recreational marijuana markets to limit the amount of delta-9 THC in edible products. This threshold is typically around 10 milligrams, a dose that’s strong enough to affect most people.

Hemp is a different story. To satisfy federal requirements, hemp just has to have less than 0.3% delta-9 THC by weight. This limit sounds low, but the weight-based metric does not account for heavier products, like food and drinks.

For example, a 50-gram candy bar – roughly the size of a Snickers bar – with 150 milligrams of hemp-derived delta-9 THC is legal in the 34 states that don’t have milligram caps on hemp products. This is a dose 15 times higher than what any recreational marijuana market allows. Meanwhile, states that only restrict hemp’s delta-9 content also leave the door open to products with high amounts of other forms of THC.

At least 13 states have responded to potency concerns by adding milligram caps on the total THC permitted in a single serving of a hemp product. Some of these limits are so low – 1 milligram or less in Connecticut, New York, Montana and Rhode Island – that one serving is unlikely to cause impairment.

Enforcement Is a Wild Card

Only regulations that are enforced are effective, and states differ in the level of energy they devote to industry oversight.

In Virginia, the Office of Hemp Enforcement has issued over $12 million in fines to noncompliant hemp retailers since its creation in 2023. On the other end of the spectrum, Massachusetts considers hemp-derived THC products illegal, but it has not provided local jurisdictions with funding for enforcement, resulting in continued availability of prohibited products.

Some states with legal hemp markets have added additional sales taxes to help fund enforcement. In Nebraska, Missouri and Connecticut, attorneys general have sued hemp retailers for selling illegal items, marketing to minors and engaging in deceptive trade practices.

As the hemp industry expands, so will concerns about how to protect public health. The demand for THC, and the market to supply it, continues to grow. If lawmakers want to develop industrywide safety standards or deal with the challenges of online marketplaces that sell hemp products to minors, it will take action from Washington. In the meantime, many states and policymakers are exploring an expansive middle ground between unfettered access and blanket bans.

Katharine Neill Harris, PhD, is a Fellow in Drug Policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her current research focuses on cannabis policy and the response to the overdose crisis.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

Anxiety Medications Decline in States Where Marijuana Is Legal

By Ashley Bradford

In states where both medical and recreational marijuana are legal, fewer patients are filling prescriptions for medications used to treat anxiety. That is the key finding of my recent study, published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

I am an applied policy researcher who studies the economics of risky behaviors and substance use within the United States. My collaborators and I wanted to understand how medical and recreational marijuana laws and marijuana dispensary openings have affected the rate at which patients fill prescriptions for anti-anxiety medications among people who have private medical insurance.

These include:

• Benzodiazepines, which work by increasing the level of gamma-aminobutyric acid, or GABA, a neurotransmitter that elicits a calming effect by reducing activity in the nervous system. This category includes the depressants Valium, Xanax and Ativan, among others.

• Antipsychotics, a class of drug that addresses psychosis symptoms in a variety of ways.

• Antidepressants, which relieve symptoms of depression by affecting neurotransmitters such as serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine. The most well-known example of these is selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

We also included barbiturates, which are sedatives, and sleep medications – sometimes called “Z-drugs” – both of which are used to treat insomnia. In contrast to the other three categories, we did not estimate any policy impacts for either of these types of drugs.

We find consistent evidence that increased marijuana access is associated with reductions in benzodiazepine prescription fills. “Fills” refer to the number of prescriptions being picked up by patients, rather than the number of prescriptions doctors write. This is based on calculating the rate of individual patients who filled a prescription in a state, the average days of supply per prescription fill, and average prescription fills per patient.

Notably, we found that not all state policies led to similar changes in prescription fill patterns.

Why It Matters

In 2021, nearly 23% of the adult U.S. population reported having a diagnosable mental health disorder. Yet only 65.4% of those individuals reported receiving treatment within the past year. This lack of treatment can exacerbate current mental health disorders, leading to increased risk for additional chronic conditions.

Marijuana access introduces an alternative treatment to traditional prescription medication that may provide easier access for some patients. Many state medical laws allow patients with mental health disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, to use medical cannabis, while recreational laws expand access to all adults.

Our findings have important implications for insurance systems, prescribers, policymakers and patients. Benzodiazepine use, like opioid use, can be dangerous for patients, especially when the two classes of drugs are used together. Given the high level of opioid poisonings that also involve benzodiazepines – in 2020, they made up 14% of total opioid overdose deaths – our findings offer insights into potential substitution with marijuana for medications where misuse is plausible.

What Still Isn’t Known

Our research does not clarify whether the changes in dispensing patterns led to measurable changes in patient outcomes.

There is some evidence that marijuana acts as an effective anxiety treatment. If this is the case, moving away from benzodiazepine use – which is associated with significant negative side effects – toward marijuana use may improve patient outcomes.

This finding is critical given that about 5% of the U.S. population is prescribed benzodiazepines. Substituting marijuana has the potential to result in fewer negative side effects nationwide, but it’s not yet clear if marijuana will be equally effective at treating anxiety.

Our study also found evidence of a slight – albeit somewhat less significant – increase in antipsychotic and antidepressant dispensing. But it’s not clear yet whether marijuana access, particularly recreational access, increases rates of psychotic disorders and depression.

While we found that, overall, marijuana access led to increased antidepressant and antipsychotic fills, some individual states saw decreases.

There is a lot of variation in the details of state marijuana laws, and it’s possible that some of those details are leading to these meaningful differences in outcomes. I believe this difference in outcomes from state to state is an important finding for policymakers who may want to tailor their laws toward specific goals.

Ashley Bradford, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research focuses on how public policies shape health outcomes within the United States.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

12 Holiday Gifts for People with Chronic Pain and Illness

By Pat Anson

Are doctors and pharmacists helping the DEA spy on pain patients? Does Big Pharma control how healthcare news is reported? Is the Epstein-Barr Virus the hidden cause of your chronic pain? Can kratom be used safely? Are you buzzed that Willie Nelson wrote a cannabis cookbook?

The answers to these and other questions can be found in PNN’s annual holiday gift guide. If you live with chronic pain and illness or have a friend or family member who does, here are 12 books that would make great gifts over the holidays. Or you can always “gift” one to yourself. Click on the book cover or title to see price and ordering information.

The Epstein-Barr Virus: A New Factor in the Care of Chronic Pain

Dr. Forest Tennant examines the Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) and its hidden role in causing chronic pain. We are all carriers of EBV, which is normally harmless and dormant. But when the virus reactivates, it is carried throughout the body, infecting and damaging body tissues. Dr. Tennant says anyone with chronic pain severe enough to require daily pain medication may have EBV reactivation, and should take steps to diagnose and treat it. 

Policing Patients: Treatment and Surveillance of the Opioid Crisis

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were launched across the country to help prevent drug abuse and save lives. In actuality, author Elizabeth Chiarello says PDMPs are “Trojan horse” surveillance tools used by law enforcement to spy on patients. PDMPs interfere with the practice of medicine by turning doctors and pharmacists into undercover agents — often pitting them against their own patients.

Greed to Do Good: The CDC’s Disastrous War on Opioids

Dr. Charles LeBaron worked for nearly three decades as an epidemiologist for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although not directly involved in the CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline, LeBaron recognized the disastrous consequences it had on patients. In this book, he gives an insider’s perspective on the CDC’s institutionalized arrogance and how its misguided strategy to reduce overdoses only made the opioid crisis worse.

Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson exposes how the pharmaceutical industry infiltrated government and academia, enabling it to put profits over people by controlling how healthcare is covered by the news media. “We exist largely in an artificial reality brought to you by the makers of the latest pill or injection,” Attkisson writes. “Invisible forces work daily to hype fears about certain illnesses, and exaggerate the supposed benefits of treatments and cures.”

Lies I Taught in Medical School

Inspired by his own health problems, Dr. Robert Lufkin wrote this book to expose the “medical lies” that contribute to chronic illness — some of which he taught as a professor at UCLA and USC. Lufkin believes pills and procedures are prescribed too often to mask symptoms, when diet and lifestyle changes can resolve many chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

The Big Book of Kratom: The Ultimate Manual to Understanding and Using Kratom

Author Fallon J. Smith takes a deep dive into the pros and cons of kratom, gleaned from many years of using it himself. New kratom users can learn about the various strains and methods of ingesting the herbal supplement to treat everything from chronic pain and anxiety to addiction and depression. Smith also shares important lessons about dosing, side effects, and the potential risks of kratom withdrawal and addiction.

Willie & Annie Nelson’s Cannabis Cookbook

Legendary singer/songwriter Willie Nelson and his wife Annie share their favorite recipes for getting high and full at the same time. Part travelogue and part cannabis cookbook, there’s a colorful story behind every recipe, such as Baked Eggs & Asparagus (with 17mg of THC), Vegan Cannabis Butter, Cannabis Chocolate Cake, and Buttermilk Fried Chicken (no THC).

On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service

In this memoir, Dr. Anthony Fauci shares some of the highlights — and lowlights — from nearly 40 years working for the National Institutes of Health, including the crucial roles he played in fighting AIDS, the Ebola virus, SARS, anthrax and, of course, Covid-19. Fauci grew up in modest circumstances, living above his father’s Brooklyn pharmacy, to become a health advisor to seven presidents and one of the most famous doctors in world.

Grown Woman Talk: Your Guide to Getting and Staying Healthy

Dr. Sharon Malone is an OB/GYN who wrote this book to help older women deal with the complexities of aging. Often ignored or gaslighted by the healthcare system, older women may have their chronic pain and discomfort dismissed as female hysteria caused by menopause. Dr. Malone has tips to end this “normalized suffering” and empower grown women to live better, age better, and get better medical treatment.

Long Illness: A Practical Guide to Surviving, Healing and Thriving

Drs. Meghan Jobson and Juliet Morgan wrote this book to give patients and providers a better understanding of long-lasting illnesses such as autoimmune disease, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, inflammation and Long Covid. They take a holistic approach to managing symptoms through cognitive behavioral therapy, traditional Eastern medicine, mindfulness and self-care — emphasizing that recovery is a process and not always a destination.

Toxic Stress: How Stress Is Making Us Ill

Dr. Lawson Wulsin is a psychiatrist who has found that toxic stress and childhood trauma often play hidden roles in the development of heart disease, diabetes, depression and chronic illnesses in midlife. In this book, Dr. Wulsin offers practical advice and tools to recognize signs of toxic stress in our lives, and learn how to help your mind and body recover from it.

The Long Covid Reader

Author Mary Ladd shares the stories of 45 people living with Long Covid, who recount in essays and poems how COVID-19 continues to impact their lives long after their initial infections. A long-hauler herself, Ladd spent a year gathering personal stories about Long Covid in an effort to humanize the neglected suffering of millions of people who live with a mysterious chronic illness from the “world's biggest mass-disabling event.”

These and other books about living with chronic pain and illness can be found in PNN’s Suggested Reading page.  PNN receives a small amount of the proceeds -- at no additional cost to you -- for orders placed through Amazon.

Pain Patients More Likely Than Doctors to Favor Greater Access to Cannabis

By Pat Anson

Americans living with chronic pain are significantly more likely to support greater access to cannabis than the physicians who treat them, according to a new survey that found broad support for cannabis education in medical schools.

Rutgers Health surveyed over 1,600 adults with chronic pain and 1,000 physicians in states with medical cannabis programs. The survey results, recently published in JAMA Network Open, show that 71% of  pain patients support federal legalization of medical cannabis, compared to 59% of physicians.

Patients are also more likely to support nationwide legalization of recreational cannabis (55%), compared to about a third of physicians (38%).

"Cannabis is unique in terms of the complicated policy landscape," said lead author Elizabeth Stone, PhD, an Instructor at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. "Depending on what state you're in, it could be that medical cannabis is legal, it could be that medical and recreational use are legal, it could be that neither is legal, but some things are decriminalized.”

Currently, 38 states and Washington, DC have legalized medical cannabis and 23 of those states (plus DC) have legalized its recreational use. Cannabis remains illegal under federal law as a Schedule I controlled substance, but the DEA is considering a proposal from the Biden Administration to reclassify cannabis as Schedule III substance, which would allow for limited use of cannabis-based medication.

Personal experience plays a significant role in shaping attitudes about cannabis. The Rutgers survey found that people who used cannabis for chronic pain had the highest levels of support for expanding access, while physicians who don’t recommended cannabis for pain management had the lowest levels of support.

Although they have different attitudes about legalization, about 70% of patients and physicians favor requiring medical schools to train future doctors on cannabis treatment of chronic pain. There is also broad support for training that would allow physicians and nurse practitioners to recommend cannabis to their patients.  

"I think it points to the need for future guidance around cannabis use and efficacy," Stone said. "Is it something they should be recommending? If so, are there different considerations for types of products or modes of use or concentration?"

Nearly two thirds of patients (64%) and about half of physicians (51%), favor requiring insurance companies to cover cannabis treatment of chronic pain.

Support for Cannabis Policies

JAMA NETWORK OPEN

Previous surveys have also found distinct differences in patient and physician attitudes about cannabis. A recent survey of primary care doctors found that nearly one in five (18%) would not accept a new patient using medical cannabis. And 40% said they would not accept a patient using non-medical or recreational cannabis.

Many doctors are worried what their colleagues will think or what law enforcement will do if they prescribed or recommended cannabis. A 2019 survey of oncologists and pain management specialists found that nearly two-thirds (65%) were concerned about the legal repercussions of recommending medical cannabis to their patients. And 60% were worried about professional stigma.

Many patients who live with chronic pain are turning to cannabis as an alternative to opioids. A recent PNN survey found that over 30% of pain patients said they had used cannabis for pain relief. Many did so because they couldn’t get an opioid prescription or had problems getting one filled.

Should CDC Be Involved in Cannabis Regulation?

By Pat Anson

If you think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bungled its handling of COVID-19 tests and misled the public about the risks of opioid pain medication – then you’re probably not going like a new recommendation from a federal advisory panel.     

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) wants the CDC to play a much larger role in setting federal policy on cannabis, such as expanding its surveillance of cannabis use and establishing “best practices” for states to follow in cannabis regulation.

In other words, a CDC cannabis guideline that would be used as a model for state laws and regulations, much like the agency’s opioid prescribing guideline was. Only this guideline would go much further.

“The best practices should encompass marketing restrictions, age restrictions, physical retail and retail operating restrictions, taxation, price restrictions, product design, and measures to limit youth access,” NASEM said in a 312-page report released this week. “Once the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s best practices have been developed, they should be incorporated into the model legislation.”

Cannabis is currently illegal under federal law, but 38 states and the District of Columbia allow its medical and/or recreational use. At the urging of the Biden Administration, the DEA is considering a proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III controlled substance, which would allow for some medical use of cannabis under federal law. A final decision is not likely until sometime next year.    

But with a major change in federal policy on the horizon and a hodgepodge of state regulations already in place, NASEM wants federal agencies and Congress to get more involved in setting policy for legalized cannabis.

“There is an urgent need for a coordinated public health approach to cannabis policy in the U.S.,” said Steven Teutsch, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California and chair of the committee that wrote the NASEM report. “Our report shows that cannabis policy often focuses on regulating sales and revenue first, and protecting public health second. Now is the time for the federal government to create guidance for states that have legalized cannabis in the interest of protecting the public’s health.”

The first recommendation from NASEM is for Congress to overhaul the regulation of hemp, which was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.  That opened the door for cannabis companies to tweak the chemical composition of hemp-derived Delta-8 THC to make it more potent. Intoxicating edibles containing Delta-8 THC are now widely sold as candy, cookies, gummies and beverages – even in states where medical and recreational cannabis are illegal.

NASEM wants Congress to close that loophole by changing the definition of hemp so that Delta-8 THC is regulated the same way as other cannabis products.

Public Health Campaigns

The report also calls for the CDC to develop “targeted public health campaigns” to warn about the risks of cannabis use by children, pregnant women and older adults.  

The latter is one of the fastest growing segments of the population using cannabis, according to a recent survey that found 12% of Americans over 50 had consumed a THC-containing product in the past year. Only 3% were using cannabis in 2006. Ironically, many older adults use cannabis to manage chronic pain because they are no longer able to obtain opioids after the widespread misapplication of the CDC’s opioid guideline.

The NASEM report also warns about the lobbying influence of the cannabis industry, which it blames for the weakening of cannabis regulations in Colorado and Washington, as well as conflicts of interest and “financial entanglements” that some state regulators have with the industry.

“The influence of the burgeoning legal cannabis industry on policy development raises concern about potential bias. Lobbying efforts by the industry have demonstrably impacted regulation,” the report states.

That’s pretty rich when you consider the many biases and conflicts the CDC had when it secretly developed the opioid guideline, and how CDC insiders hijacked a public hearing to silence anyone who might oppose it. Some CDC consultants were later paid millions of dollars testifying as expert witnesses in opioid litigation.

Conservative critics of the CDC are unlikely to support any effort to get the agency involved in cannabis regulation.  The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 calls for the CDC’s budget to be slashed and its ability to set healthy policies severely restricted.

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” wrote Roger Severino, former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Trump administration.

“Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions.”

A CDC spokesperson told the Associated Press the agency would study NASEM’s recommendations, but more money would be needed to implement them.

Cannabis Advocates Push Back on California Plan to Ban Hemp THC

By Crystal Lindell

The cannabis industry is pushing back on plans by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to impose emergency regulations that would effectively ban all food and beverage products containing Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) derived from hemp.

The proposed regulations would require that any products intended for human consumption have no detectable levels of Delta-8 THC or other intoxicating hemp cannabinoids; establish a minimum age to purchase hemp products at 21; and limit the number of servings of hemp products to five per package.

When hemp was legalized by Congress in 2018, the thinking was that hemp had such minimal amounts of THC that no one could possibly use it to get high. But cannabis companies soon found ways to tweak the chemical composition of hemp-derived THC and other cannabinoids (CBD) to make them more potent. Edibles containing delta-8 THC are now widely sold as candy, cookies, gummies and beverages – even in states where medical and recreational cannabis are still illegal.

“We will not sit on our hands as drug peddlers target our children with dangerous and unregulated hemp products containing THC at our retail stores,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re taking action to close loopholes and increase enforcement to prevent children from accessing these dangerous hemp and cannabis products.”

But the advocacy group Cal NORML says Newsom’s regulations go too far and would make it impossible to sell any products containing hemp-derived CBD. It wants the rules modified to allow for non-intoxicating levels of THC. . 

“In practice, it’s impossible to eliminate detectable but non-intoxicating traces of THC from natural hemp extracts,” the group said. “THC is readily detectable at levels of 1 billionth of a gram, far below the threshold of human sensitivity.”

Cal NORML says the practical result of Newsom’s proposal would be to ban a host of hemp products that some people use to treat health conditions. It wants California to adopt Colorado’s definition of non-intoxicating hemp. That state allows hemp extracts with a CBD:THC ratio of at least 15:1 and no more than 1.75 milligrams of THC per dose. 

“There’s no danger that minors will try to get high on hemp products with less than 2 mg of THC, especially when other, much more potent marijuana products are readily available at bargain prices on the illegal market,” the group said.

“[Cal NORML] does not take issue with the regulations’ intent to block the sale of hemp products with intoxicating levels of THC in liquor stores, gas stations, smoke shops and convenience outlets, often with inadequate labeling and in a manner accessible to minors.”

As currently drafted, Cal NORML says the proposed regulations would violate the mandate of California’s medical marijuana law to provide “safe and affordable” access to cannabis for all patients in medical need.

Another advocacy group – One Hemp – is threatening a lawsuit against Newsom for exceeding his authority to enact emergency regulations without the approval of the state legislature.

“Newsom’s overreach is shameful,” said Jared Stanley, founding member of One Hemp.  “Other states have successfully banned Delta 8 products while also protecting natural hemp products through a simple solution that would safeguard ALL California’s children, not just some.”

“These rules signify that the Governor intends to turn his back on my daughter and millions in the disabled community,” says Stephanie Bohn, whose 10-year old daughter recently marked one year without seizures after she started taking natural hemp CBD.

“Governor Newsom, please acknowledge children like my daughter – the ones with intractable seizures and debilitating insomnia that conventional pharmaceuticals don't help. The only thing that offered rescue was full-spectrum CBD. This is more than a policy issue, this is a life-or-death issue.”  

One Hemp says parents of disabled children in California are “panic buying CBD products” before the proposed regulations take effect. 

The hemp rules await final approval from the California Office of Administrative Law. If they are approved, sellers of hemp products will be required to immediately impose purchase restrictions and remove items with detectable THC levels.

DEA Delays Decision on Reclassifying Marijuana Until After the Election

By Crystal Lindell

The Drug Enforcement Administration has likely eliminated any possibility of marijuana being rescheduled until after a new president is sworn into office next year. The agency will hold a public hearing on the matter on December 2nd —  nearly a month after the presidential election —  according to a notice published yesterday in the Federal Register. 

The hearing will help determine if marijuana should be re-classified under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) from its current status as an illegal Schedule I substance. 

Moving marijuana to schedule III would place it in a category of drugs that are considered to have an accepted medical use. Rescheduling would also indicate that cannabis has less potential for abuse than Schedule I and II substances, with only moderate to low risk of physical or psychological dependence. 

But the DEA has also made it clear that rescheduling does not equal legalization, noting that “the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA.” 

To make a cannabis-based medicine legal under Schedule III, the Food and Drug Administration would first have to approve it for a specific medical condition, which would likely require a lengthy clinical trial process that could take years to complete.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), an advocacy organization that has long fought for cannabis to be legalized, says it’s not surprised that the DEA wants to have public hearings. 

“Hearings are an integral part of the rescheduling process. To think that the DEA, which historically has opposed any changes to cannabis’ prohibitive status, would sign off on the most significant proposed change in federal marijuana policy in over fifty years absent such hearings was always wishful thinking,” said NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano.

“That said, the scientific evidence in favor of removing cannabis from Schedule I remains overwhelming. Cannabis clearly has legitimate therapeutic value and it possesses a superior safety profile compared to other Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances.”

The Biden Administration initiated the regulatory process to review the scheduling of cannabis in late 2022, a review that has dragged on for nearly two years. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended marijuana be moved to Schedule III in August 2023.

But the Justice Department and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram – who has the final say on rescheduling – have yet to approve the HHS recommendation.  The DEA published the proposed change in cannabis’ classification in May in the Federal Register. That notice drew over 43,000 responses during a 60-day public comment period, with numerous requests for a public hearing.

Seeing the process take so long is frustrating. With 38 states and the District of Columbia allowing medical cannabis, it’s clear that marijuana has a legitimate medical use – a fact confirmed by the HHS recommendation to reschedule. So why are the DOJ and DEA dragging their feet?  

Holding the public hearing after the presidential election also risks that it won’t be done at all, depending on who wins and what their policy preference is on the matter. 

Although Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is likely to continue President Joe Biden’s push to have marijuana reclassified, we can’t be sure what she would do. Republican nominee Donald Trump has also indicated in recent days that he favors “decriminalizing” marijuana, but we also don’t know with certainty what he would do. 

With so many states having already legalized the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it’s become increasingly clear that there are no compelling health-related reasons to continue classifying cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. And the longer the DEA delays changing marijuana’s status, the more it should make all of us question how much health concern there really is behind the Controlled Substances Act.

Many Doctors Hesitant to Accept Patients Using Opioids or Cannabis

By Crystal Lindell

Chronic pain patients who use either opioids or cannabis are still finding it hard to find new primary care physicians, according to new research at the University of Michigan.

Lead author Mark Bicket, MD, and his colleagues surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. primary care physicians about whether they were accepting new patients with chronic non-cancer pain. The physicians were all based in states with medical cannabis programs.

Of the 852 physicians who said they were taking new patients, 20% said they would not accept patients taking prescription opioids. Nearly a third (32%) said they would not accept a patient using opioids daily.

In contrast, only 18% of doctors said they would not take a pain patient using medical cannabis. And 40% said they would not accept a patient using cannabis “obtained from other sources” — meaning the cannabis probably came from the black market.

Primary Care Doctors Willing to Take New Patients Using Opioids or Cannabis

HEALTH AFFAIRS SCHOLAR

“There’s a group of legacy patients with chronic pain who have been on long-term opioids for some time, and they may have to find a doctor, maybe because they’ve moved or their doctor has retired,” said Bicket, who is an anesthesiologist and pain researcher at Michigan Medicine. “For those patients in particular, finding someone else to help with their care is challenging.”

Making matters worse, pain patients are at higher risk of having a substance problem if they don’t have access to pain medication.

“This lack of access could inadvertently encourage patients to seek nonmedical treatments for their chronic pain, given that relief of pain is the most commonly reported reason for misuse of controlled substances,” Bicket wrote. “I empathize a lot with the patients, as well as the prescribers out there, trying to treat people in pain because we’re trying to do the right thing, and yet, we’re flying in the dark when it comes to having access to high quality evidence to guide next steps for cannabis and opioids.”

While the study didn't assess the reasons for physician reluctance, it adds to a growing body of evidence that patients using cannabis or opioids have less access to care. 

In a 2019 PNN survey of nearly 6,000 chronic pain patients, almost three out of four (72%) said it was hard to find a doctor willing to treat their pain. More than a third of patients (34%) said they’ve been abandoned by a doctor and 15 percent said they haven’t been able to find a doctor at all.

That same year, another survey by researchers at the University of Michigan found that only 40% of primary care practices would take a new patient on opioids. That survey used a "secret shopper" method, with researchers posing as the adult children of patients taking the opioid Percocet calling primary care clinics in Michigan to see if they could schedule an appointment for their parent.

Less than half of the clinics (41%) were willing to schedule an initial appointment and 17 percent said they needed more information before making a decision.

Rates of Cannabis Use Disorder Rising for Medicare Patients

By Pat Anson

A new FDA study is documenting the growing use of cannabis by seniors and how some are being diagnosed as having “cannabis use disorder” by their doctors.

A research team led by FDA epidemiologist Silvia Perez-Vilar, PharmD, analyzed the health data of nearly 56 million Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older. They looked for Medicare claims that included at least one of the many billable diagnostic codes for cannabis use disorder (CUD).

There are over three dozen such codes, which include everything from cannabis intoxication and dependence to delusions, psychosis and “perceptual disturbance” – a diagnosis that can mean anything from not being able to recognize words to seeing things that aren’t there. There are even CUD codes for “unspecified” symptoms of cannabis use and for being in remission.

The research findings, recently published in JAMA Network Open, found that Medicare claims for CUD have steadily risen in recent years, especially in states where cannabis was legalized for medical or adult recreational use.

“Rates of cannabis-related disorder encounters increased from 2017 through 2022 among US Medicare-insured older adults. We observed the highest rates in states or territories that legalized adult and medical use of cannabis,” they wrote. “Overall, data suggest that increasing rates of health care encounters documenting cannabis-related disorders among older adults might be associated with the type of cannabis legalization.”

What were these “increasing rates” documenting CUD? In states where cannabis is legal, about 45 CUD cases were filed in 2022 for every 10,000 Medicare claims. That’s about 0.45% of all claims – not a large amount by any means. The CUD rate was even lower in states where cannabis is illegal, less than 0.28%.

Those may be rock bottom rates, but the researchers noted that “differences in cannabis use patterns and perception of risk may influence policy changes.” Exactly what kind of policy changes are warranted aren’t spelled out, but it implies there should be more screening for CUD.  

Another recent JAMA study called for U.S. primary care physicians to start screening all patients for CUD, regardless of age or even whether they currently use cannabis. Patients identified as high risk cannabis users should then be referred for “possible addiction treatment.”

Treatments for CUD are currently limited to counseling and cognitive behavioral therapies. Unlike opioid use disorder, there are no FDA-approved pharmaceutical treatments for CUD, although there are several such drugs in the pipeline. One is being tested in clinical studies by Indivior, the company that makes Suboxone for opioid use disorder.

Cannabis vs. Opioids

Many patients who live with pain are turning to cannabis as an alternative to opioids, which are increasingly difficult to obtain. In a recent PNN survey, over 30% of pain patients said they had used cannabis for pain relief. Many did so because they couldn’t get an opioid prescription or had problems getting one filled.

“I have a medical marijuana referral and my doctor at the Cleveland Clinic flat out refuses to write me any prescriptions for any opioids. Bunch of BS,” one patient told us.

“I am very lucky. My pain management doctor supports medical cannabis,” said another. “Since my (opioid) dose has been cut in half, it does provide a bit of relief and helps me sleep a few hours.”

“My pharmacy ran out of oxycodone & hydrocodone. My pain doctor switched me over to hydromorphone and so far I've been able to get that filled. If I'm no longer able to get that, I'll have to consider medical marijuana,” wrote another pain patient.

About 10% of U.S. adults over age 50 reported using cannabis within the past year, a number that’s expected to rise when the federal government reschedules cannabis as a less dangerous drug. As more seniors experiment with cannabis, they’ll have to get used to the fact that it carries a stigma, just like opioids. And there’s a good chance their doctor will be evaluating them for signs of CUD.  

“Many older adults are turning to cannabis for help with increased pain syndromes—osteoarthritis, degenerative joint diseases, as well as insomnia,” Brooke Worster, MD, an associate professor and cannabis expert at Thomas Jefferson University, told Fortune.   

“The question really is, how do we recognize and avoid abuse or CUD, which is important and only now being recognized and discussed in the medical community more regularly.” 

Should Every Patient Be Screened for Cannabis Use Disorder?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

With the federal government on the verge of rescheduling cannabis as a less dangerous drug, and 38 states and the District of Columbia already allowing its medical and/or recreational use, it seems likely we’ll be hearing a lot more about cannabis use disorder.

A case in point is a large study, recently published in JAMA Network Open, that calls on primary care physicians to start screening all patients for cannabis use disorder (CUD).  It’s estimated that about 14.2 million Americans have CUD, a number that’s expected to grow as legal cannabis becomes more widely available.

The study found that 17% of primary care patients reported using cannabis in the last three months, usually to manage pain and other symptoms. Researchers say over a third of them (34.7%) used cannabis so frequently they were at moderate to high risk of CUD.

"Given the high rates of cannabis use, especially for symptom management, and the high levels of disordered use, it is essential that health care systems implement routine screening of primary care patients," wrote lead author Lillian Gelberg, MD, from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.

“This group could benefit from a primary care clinician–based brief intervention to prevent those at moderate risk for cannabis use disorders from developing more serious CUD and to evaluate and refer high-risk users for possible addiction treatment.”

What is cannabis use disorder and how is it assessed? For the UCLA study, researchers used a screening tool known as ASSIST (Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test) that was originally developed by the World Health Organization and then modified to include cannabis.

Patients were asked if they’ve used cannabis in the last three months. If they said “yes,” five more questions were asked to assess why they use cannabis; how often they use it; if they’ve experienced tolerance or withdrawal; if they’ve tried unsuccessfully to reduce or stop using cannabis; and if it has interfered with any aspect of their lives.

Answer “yes” to one or two of those additional questions and a patient could then be diagnosed with CUD, even if they’ve used cannabis safely and responsibly for years. Their doctor could then select from dozens of diagnostic codes for CUD, ranging from cannabis dependence and intoxication to psychosis and hallucinations. All of the codes are billable for the doctor, so there is an incentive to use them.

Critics say this way of diagnosing people with CUD is fraught with problems, not unlike the way many pain patients have been diagnosed with opioid use disorder and forced into addiction treatment.

“This is my take too,” says Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, which advocates for full marijuana legalization. “Given that more than three-quarters of the (UCLA) cohort acknowledged consuming cannabis products ‘to manage symptoms,’ it’s hardly surprising that many if not all of these respondents would also report long-term regular use of the substance, as well as other criteria that overlap with signs of so-called cannabis use disorder.”

Armentano says several studies have documented declines in CUD, even after states legalized cannabis use.  

“To date, not a single legalization state has ever repealed or even rolled back their marijuana laws. This speaks to the reality that these regulations are working largely as intended and that the majority of those who consume cannabis do so in a responsible manner that poses little risk to either themselves or to others,” Armentano said in an email. 

In Washington State, one of the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, a recent study estimated that one in every five primary care patients had CUD, with 6.5% having moderate to severe CUD. Like the UCLA study, researchers said their findings underscore “the importance of assessing patient cannabis use in clinical settings.” 

“Knowledge of patient use provides an opportunity to discuss risks and limited benefits of cannabis use and potentially safer treatment alternatives for those using cannabis for medical reasons. For patients with higher risk cannabis use (eg, daily), psychometrically valid brief assessments for (diagnostic) symptoms of CUD can identify and gauge CUD severity,” they concluded. 

CUD Medications in the Pipeline

Treatments for CUD are currently limited to counseling and cognitive behavioral therapies such as meditation. Unlike opioid use disorder, there are no FDA-approved pharmaceutical treatments for CUD. That could soon be changing, as more drug companies recognize the potential value of CUD medication to their bottom lines.  

Indivior, the maker of Suboxone and Subutex for treatment of opioid use disorder, is conducting clinic trials on a synthetic drug -- called AEF0117 – that is designed to treat CUD by inhibiting a cannabinoid receptor in the brain that makes people feel “high.”

Indivior bought the worldwide rights to AEF0117 from a French pharmaceutical company for $100 million — which tells you how much value they think the drug could have. Indivior executives call AEF0117 “a unique opportunity to address a growing unmet public health need.”

“We have tested over a dozen potential treatment medications in our Cannabis Research Laboratory, and this is the first to decrease both the positive mood effects of cannabis and the decision to use cannabis by daily smokers,” said Margaret Haney, PhD, a professor of neurobiology at Columbia University who supervised the trials for Indivior.

According to ClincalTrials.gov, over a hundred clinical trials are currently underway or recruiting participants for a variety of potential CUD therapies. Most are treatments that already exist for other conditions and would be repurposed for CUD. One is gabapentin, a nerve drug currently used to treat seizures, shingles and pain. Other treatments being tested for CUD include transcranial magnetic stimulation, high blood pressure medication, and drugs used to help people stop smoking tobacco. 

Another anecdotal sign about the growing awareness of CUD can be found in the Federal Register, which has received over 17,000 comments so far about the Justice Department’s proposal to reclassify marijuana as a less restrictive Schedule III substance.

Nearly 700 of the comments mention CUD, with many containing boilerplate language claiming that “1 in 3 past year marijuana users met the clinical criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder.”

That theme is widely promoted by the addiction treatment industry, which maintains there is no clinical evidence “that the therapeutic benefits of medical cannabis or medical marijuana outweigh the health risks.”

There are currently no established medical guidelines or a “standard of care” that specifically address how to screen for CUD. But with cannabis use growing and healthcare providers coming under scrutiny for how they deal with substance abuse issues, future guidelines that require doctors to screen for CUD may be inevitable.

“How much longer will clients, families, social workers, and other mental health clinicians continue to be shortchanged by this situation? The time is well overdue to undertake formal cannabis use screening with well-established instruments during the mental health intake evaluation process, especially with adolescents and young adults,” wrote Jerrold Pollak, PhD, a clinical neuropsychologist, in Social Work Today.

One of the biggest hurdles for routine CUD screening may be patient reluctance to discuss their cannabis use. A survey of older U.S. adults found that less than 40% had discussed their cannabis use with a healthcare provider. Many fear being dropped by their doctor or being cut off from medication if they disclose that they’re using cannabis.

A Compound Found in Cannabis Could Make Opioids Safer

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

What gives the cannabis sativa plant it’s pain-relieving properties?

Most people will tell you it’s cannabidiol (CBD) and/or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the two most well-known chemical compounds found in cannabis.  

But researchers at University of Arizona Health Sciences say terpenes -- aromatic compounds that give cannabis its distinctive “skunky” smell – have analgesic effects as well. In fact, in a new study published in the journal PAIN, they report that cannabis terpenes are just as effective as morphine in reducing neuropathic pain in laboratory animals.

“A question that we’ve been very interested in is could terpenes be used to manage chronic pain?” lead researcher John Streicher, PhD, a Pharmacology Professor at UA’s College of Medicine in Tucson, said in a press release. “What we found is that terpenes are really good at relieving a specific type of chronic pain with side effects that are low and manageable.”

Terpenes are found in all plants and are the main component of essential oils. Terpenes give lavender, sage and eucalyptus oils their distinctive smells, which are used to promote relaxation or even reduce pain and inflammation. In nature, terpenes help plants attract pollinators such as bees or to protect themselves from predators.

Most plants have only two dominant terpenes, but cannabis has up to 150 terpenes. Streicher and his colleagues tested five of the cannabis terpenes by injecting them into mice with chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain.

They found that each of the five terpenes reduced nerve pain significantly, at levels similar to or even better than morphine. And when combined with morphine, the analgesic effects were enhanced even further.

Perhaps the most striking discovery is that the mice showed no signs of euphoria or “liking” terpenes – a sign that they may not have abuse potential.

“We looked at other aspects of the terpenes, such as: Does this cause reward? Is this going to be addictive? Is it going to make you feel awful?” Streicher said. “What we found was yes, terpenes do relieve pain, and they also have a pretty good side effect profile.”

In addition to injections, researchers also administered terpenes to the mice orally and through inhalation from a vaporizer. The results were the same. The mice had significant pain relief with no side effects or signs of addiction.

More research is needed, but some cannabis companies are already incorporating terpenes into their products. Lemon Kush, for example, is a marijuana strain that contains limonene, a terpene that smells like lemon, while the hybrid Blue Dream has a terpene that’s also found in blueberries.

“A lot of people vape or smoke terpenes as part of cannabis extracts that are available commercially in states where cannabis use is legal,” Streicher said “We were surprised to find that the inhalation route didn’t have an impact in this study, because there are a lot of at least anecdotal reports saying that you can get the effects of terpenes whether taken orally or inhaled.”

The next step for Streicher and his research team is to study whether terpenes can block the abuse potential of opioids, while at the same time enhancing their analgesic effects.

“This brings up the idea that you could have a combination therapy, an opioid with a high level of terpene, that could actually make the pain relief better while blocking the addiction potential of opioids,” Streicher said.

Public Comments Sought on Marijuana Rescheduling

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. public is finally getting a chance to comment on the federal government’s historic decision to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I substance with a “high potential for abuse” to a less restrictive Schedule III drug with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.”

After months of foot dragging, the Justice Department published a notice in the Federal Register today giving the public 60 days to comment on the proposed rescheduling. Written comments must be submitted or postmarked on or before July 22. Online comments can be made here.

Every step in this process has been fraught with delays. And there may be more.

The Food and Drug Administration completed a review last August – nearly a year after it was requested by President Biden -- finding “credible scientific support” for marijuana’s rescheduling. But the FDA report was not made public until January, after a lawsuit was filed by two pro-cannabis lawyers seeking its release when the agency didn’t respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Another four months passed before the Justice Department, which oversees the Drug Enforcement Administration, submitted to the Federal Register a notice about the proposed rescheduling. Since the DEA is charged with enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and determines how drugs are scheduled, public notices involving the CSA are almost always signed by the DEA administrator.

This one, however, is signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram – a sign that her agency is not yet on board with marijuana’s rescheduling.

“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” Garland wrote. “The CSA vests the Attorney General with the authority to schedule, reschedule, or decontrol drugs… The Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA Administrator, but also retains the authority to schedule drugs under the CSA in the first instance.”

According to an Associated Press report, Milgram told her staff in March that marijuana’s rescheduling “had been taken over” by Garland and the DOJ. The DEA wanted more time for studies to determine whether marijuana has an accepted medical use, a request that was rejected.

Former DEA Administrator Tim Shea believes the rescheduling process was hijacked by DOJ for political reasons.

“If she (Milgram) had supported it she would have signed it and sent it in,” Shea told the AP. “DEA was opposed to this and the politics entered and overruled them. It’s demoralizing. Everybody from the agents in the streets to the leadership in DEA knows the dangers this brings.”   

Asked recently during a congressional hearing what her views are on marijuana. Milgram ducked the question.

“Since DEA is ultimately the decider of scheduling and rescheduling, and the DEA administrator is in that role, it would be inappropriate for me to make comments about this process or parts of that process,” Milgram said.

‘Evidence Supports Marijuana for Pain’

Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III substance – in the same category as codeine and ketamine – may be historic, but it’s not the full “legalization” that many cannabis supporters have been calling for.  

Under the CSA, legal access to Schedule III substances requires a prescription from a licensed doctor that is filled at a licensed pharmacy. Any new medical marijuana products would also have to go through a lengthy and costly clinical trial process to assess their safety and effectiveness. Even if they pass that test, they would likely only be approved by FDA for certain conditions.  

Garland’s notice in the Federal Register is largely based on the FDA’s 2023 review, which states there is good evidence that marijuana is helpful in treating chronic pain and mixed evidence it could be useful in relieving nausea, anxiety, epilepsy and PTSD.

“FDA’s review of the available information identified mixed findings of effectiveness across indications, ranging from data showing inconclusive findings to considerable evidence in favor of effectiveness, depending on the source. The largest evidence base for effectiveness exists for marijuana use within the pain indication (in particular, neuropathic pain). Numerous systematic reviews concluded that there exists some level of evidence supporting the use of marijuana for chronic pain,” Garland wrote.

As for marijuana’s potential for abuse, Garland cited findings that marijuana poses less of a health risk than illicit drugs and even some legal medications such as oxycodone and benzodiazepines.

“The rank order of the comparators in terms of greatest adverse consequences typically ranked heroin, benzodiazepines, and cocaine first or in immediately subsequent positions, with marijuana in a lower place in the ranking,” Garland wrote.

“For overdose deaths, marijuana is always in the lowest ranking among comparator drugs. These evaluations demonstrate that there is consistency across databases, across substances, and over time. HHS thus concluded that although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of a risk to public health, that risk is relatively lower than that posed by most other comparator drugs.”

The opening of a public comment period does not mark the end of the rescheduling process. The DEA/DOJ will need time to review and evaluate thousands of comments, which will be followed by an administrative hearing and a final ruling that is subject to presidential review. Even then, the final rule has to be published in the Federal Register, followed by a 30 or 60-day wait period before the rule takes effect. 

During that process, and until a final rule is published, marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance that is illegal under federal law. About three-quarters of states have already legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

Regulations Should Be Eased for Cannabis and Psilocybin

By Dr. Kevin Boehnke  

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency announced in late April 2024 that it plans to ease federal restrictions on cannabis, reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug to the less restricted Schedule III, which includes drugs such as Tylenol with codeine, testosterone and other anabolic steroids. This historic shift signals an acknowledgment of the promising medicinal value of cannabis.

The move comes in tandem with growing interest in the use of psilocybin, the active component in magic mushrooms, for treatment of depression, chronic pain and other conditions. In 2018 and 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted a breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin, meant to expedite drug development given that preliminary studies suggest it may have substantial therapeutic value over currently available therapies for treatment-resistant depression and major depressive disorder.

Both of these developments represent a dramatic change from long-standing federal policy around these substances that has historically criminalized their use and blocked or delayed research efforts into their therapeutic potential.

As an assistant professor of anesthesiology and a pain researcher, I study alternative pain management options, including cannabis and psychedelics.

I also have a personal stake in improving chronic pain treatment: In early 2009 I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a condition characterized by widespread pain throughout the body, sleep disturbances and generalized sensory sensitivity.

I have seen and experienced firsthand the ways that clinicians and patients talk about chronic pain medications, and find them to generally be disempowering to the patient, clinician, and drugs themselves. My goal in this article is to help provide a new and more useful lens to think about medications, especially given the poor treatment outcomes for people with chronic pain, the frustration providers express about treating these ‘challenging patients,’ and the ongoing opioid overdose crisis.

I see cannabis and psilocybin as promising therapies that can contribute to bridging that need. Given that an estimated 50 million Americans have chronic pain – meaning pain that persists for three months or more – I want to help understand how to effectively use cannabis and psilocybin as potential tools for pain management.

Cannabis History

Cannabis, also known as marijuana, is an ancient medicinal plant. Cannabis-based medicines have been used for at least 5,000 years for applications such as arthritis and pain control during and after surgery.

This use extended through antiquity to modern times, with contemporary cannabis-based medications for treating certain seizure disorders, promoting weight gain for HIV/AIDS-related anorexia and treating nausea during chemotherapy.

As with anything you put in your body, cannabis does have health risks: Driving while high may increase risk of accidents. Some people develop cyclical vomiting, while others develop motivation or dependence problems, especially with heavy use at younger ages.

That said, lethal overdoses from cannabis are almost unheard of. This is remarkable considering that nearly 50 million Americans use it each year.

In contrast, opioids, which are often prescribed for chronic pain, have contributed to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths over the past few decades. Even common pain medications like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen, cause tens of thousands of hospitalizations and thousands of deaths each year from gastrointestinal damage.

Furthermore, both opioids and nonopioid pain medications have limited effectiveness for treating chronic pain. Medications used for chronic pain can provide small to moderate pain relief in some people, but many ultimately cause side effects that outweigh any gains.

These safety issues and limited benefit have led many people with chronic pain to try cannabis as a chronic pain treatment alternative. Indeed, in survey studies, my colleagues and I show that people substituted cannabis for pain medications often because cannabis had fewer negative side effects.

However, more rigorous research on cannabis for chronic pain is needed. So far, clinical trials – considered the gold standard – have been short in length and focused on small numbers of people. What’s more, my colleagues and I have shown that these studies employ medications and dosing regimes that are far different from how consumers actually use products from state-licensed cannabis dispensaries. Cannabis also causes recognizable effects such as euphoria, altered perceptions and thinking differently, so it is difficult to conduct double-blind studies.

Despite these challenges, a group of cannabis and pain specialists published a proposed guideline for clinical practice in early 2024 to synthesize existing evidence and help guide clinical practice. This guideline recommended that cannabis products be used when pain is coupled with sleep problems, muscle spasticity and anxiety. These multiple benefits mean that cannabis could potentially help people avoid taking a separate medication for each symptom.

Since the Controlled Substance Act was passed in 1970, the federal government has designated cannabis as a Schedule I substance, along with other drugs such as heroin and LSD. Possession of these drugs is criminalized, and under the federal definition they have “no currently accepted medical use, with a high potential for abuse.” Because of this designation and the limits placed on drug manufacturing, cannabis is very difficult to study.

State and federal regulatory barriers also delay or prevent studies from being approved and conducted. For example, I can purchase cannabis from state-licensed dispensaries in my hometown of Ann Arbor, Michigan. As a scientist, however, it is very challenging to legally test whether these products help pain.

Reclassifying cannabis as a Schedule III drug has the potential to substantially open up this research landscape and help overcome these barriers.

Emerging Role of Psychedelics

Psychedelics, such as psilocybin-containing mushrooms, occupy an eerily similar scientific and political landscape as cannabis. Used for thousands of years for ceremonial and healing purposes, psilocybin is also classified as a Schedule I drug. It can cause substantial changes in sensory perception, mood and sense of self that can lead to therapeutic benefits. And, like cannabis, psilocybin has minimal risk of lethal overdose.

Clinical trials combining psilocybin with psychotherapy in the weeks before and after taking the drug report substantial improvements in symptoms of psychiatric conditions such as treatment-resistant depression and alcohol use disorder.

Risks are typically psychological. A small number of people report suicidal thoughts or self-harm behaviors after taking psilocybin. Some also experience heightened openness and vulnerability, which can be exploited by therapists and lead to abuse.

There are few published clinical trials of psilocybin therapy for chronic pain, although many are ongoing, including a pilot study for fibromyalgia conducted by our team at the University of Michigan. This treatment may help people develop a healthier relationship with their pain by eliciting greater acceptance of it and decreasing rumination often related to negative thoughts and feelings around pain.

As with cannabis, some states, such as Colorado and Oregon, have decriminalized psilocybin and are building infrastructure to increase accessibility to psilocybin-assisted therapy. One recent analysis suggests that if psychedelics follow a similar legalization pattern to cannabis, the majority of states will legalize psychedelics between 2034 and 2037.

Challenges Ahead

These ancient yet relatively “new” treatments offer a unique glimpse into the messy intersection of drugs, medicine and society. The justifiable excitement about cannabis and psilocybin has led to state policies that have increased access for some people, yet federal criminalization and substantial barriers to scientific investigation remain. In the years ahead, I hope to contribute toward pragmatic studies that work within these difficult parameters.

For example, our team developed a coaching intervention to help veterans use commercially available cannabis products to more effectively treat their pain. Coaches emphasize how judicious use can minimize side effects while maximizing benefits. Should our approach work, health care providers and cannabis dispensaries everywhere could use this treatment to help clients in chronic pain.

Approaches like these can supplement more traditional clinical trials to help researchers determine whether these drug classes offer benefit and whether they have comparable or less harm than current treatments. As our society connects to the rich history of healing using these ancient drugs, these proposed changes may offer safer and substantive options for the 50 million Americans living with chronic pain.

Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan.  He receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Michigan Veteran Marijuana Research Program, and has received grants from Tryp Therapeutics and Journey Biosciences.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.