Shane, regarding the footnote that evaded redaction, here is my theory.
In the process of HHS opining on the reasons for rescheduling, provided data to the DEA on the benefits of cannabis. This footnote may have been part of an analysis or explanation for how cannabis mitigated pain as a secondary outcome or condition.
Observational studies are regularly used to make causal connections and determinants in the field of epidemiology. As someone who has a graduate certificate in public health from UT Health Sciences Center, we talked about the benefits of using observational studies. They can be in case control studies or cohort, allowing parties to draw conclusions in a direct and more simple fashion on a topic that can be complex and nuanced.
I think HHS was likely telling the DEA that certain results from observational studies concluded that cannabis helped mitigate pain as a condition, which was found in multiple studies, including ones related to anorexia and anxiety. Just my theory for what it is worth.
Id be curious if they did find a way around “known and repeatable chemistry”...in the bit we do get to read, they spend a fair amount of time being specific about what marijuana actually means, and how it doesn't mean "any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp.". Therefore, they don't really need to reproduce all the different chemicals, just the ones unique to their definition of 'marijuana' (which by definition, is just the various forms of THC)
50+ years of research, a trillion dollar drug war...to figure that when marijuana is compared in context to other drugs, it doesn't belong in schedule I or II. Seems like they could have figured that out with a dab of objectivity.
The amount of data collected since the 2016 decision, has to be astronomical. I'm not sure any of that data proves efficacy, or at least does not isolate any molecule and focus on that efficacy, but it would surely show a low abuse potential. The "intrastate" use was recognized back in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA (1st Cir.), and the state authority to define what medical "use" of a Schedule II substance is were recognized in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon (U.S.), so I'm glad to see you caught both of those. Thanks for the review. I agree with your analysis.
Shane, regarding the footnote that evaded redaction, here is my theory.
In the process of HHS opining on the reasons for rescheduling, provided data to the DEA on the benefits of cannabis. This footnote may have been part of an analysis or explanation for how cannabis mitigated pain as a secondary outcome or condition.
Observational studies are regularly used to make causal connections and determinants in the field of epidemiology. As someone who has a graduate certificate in public health from UT Health Sciences Center, we talked about the benefits of using observational studies. They can be in case control studies or cohort, allowing parties to draw conclusions in a direct and more simple fashion on a topic that can be complex and nuanced.
I think HHS was likely telling the DEA that certain results from observational studies concluded that cannabis helped mitigate pain as a condition, which was found in multiple studies, including ones related to anorexia and anxiety. Just my theory for what it is worth.
Id be curious if they did find a way around “known and repeatable chemistry”...in the bit we do get to read, they spend a fair amount of time being specific about what marijuana actually means, and how it doesn't mean "any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp.". Therefore, they don't really need to reproduce all the different chemicals, just the ones unique to their definition of 'marijuana' (which by definition, is just the various forms of THC)
50+ years of research, a trillion dollar drug war...to figure that when marijuana is compared in context to other drugs, it doesn't belong in schedule I or II. Seems like they could have figured that out with a dab of objectivity.
The amount of data collected since the 2016 decision, has to be astronomical. I'm not sure any of that data proves efficacy, or at least does not isolate any molecule and focus on that efficacy, but it would surely show a low abuse potential. The "intrastate" use was recognized back in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA (1st Cir.), and the state authority to define what medical "use" of a Schedule II substance is were recognized in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon (U.S.), so I'm glad to see you caught both of those. Thanks for the review. I agree with your analysis.