Upload
richard-rose
View
15
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Herbal Cannabis as Medicine- A Biocultural Analysis.
Citation preview
Herbal Cannabis as MedicineAbioculturalanalysis
By Vanessa Mardones
11,160 words
September 2011
A dissertation submitted to the
Department of Anthropology and Conservation at the University of Kent-Canterbury, in association with Kew Royal Botanic Gardens,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Ethnobotany.
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the people who supported me in this research endeavor. First, I would
like to thank Anna Waldstein and Cameron Adams of the University of Kent for their
encouragement, especially during the planning phase of this project when I had reservations
about taking on the subject of a marginalized botanical medicine. I would like to thank Barbara
and Mario Mardones for their unconditional support on this journey. Thanks to Kaisang Tenzin
for the invaluable brainstorming sessions, indispensible tech support, and amazing moral
support.
For their insightful correspondence, generous guidance, and inspiring work, I would like to thank
(in no particular order) Rose Habib of CannabAnalysis Laboratory, Christine McGarvin at the
Institute for Cannabis Therapeutics (ICT), Ed Glick of Healing Flowers Center, Todd Dalotto,
Cannabis Horticultural Researcher, Buckie Minor of Full Spectrum Laboratories, Mary Lynn
Mathre of Patients Out of Time, Ethan Sommer of the Medical Cannabis Association, Zachary
Jarou of Cannalytics Laboratory, Eileen Konieczy, RN Medical Oncology, Hugo de Boer of
Uppsala University, Dr. David Baker of Barts and The London School of Medicine, Dr. Jeffrey
Raber of the Werc Shop Laboratory, Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School, Dr.
Amanda Reiman of the Berkley Patients Group, Dr. Mitch Earleywine, Dr. Ethan Russo, Dr.
Julie Holland, Keith Stroup from the National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana
Laws (NORML), Amanda Feilding of the Beckley Foundation, and Rick Doblin of the
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and all the inspiring contributors
to Breaking Convention, Canterbury 2011.
This project was a collaborative effort and would not have been possible without the help of all
those named above, and especially those who remain unnamed, the survey participants who were
willing to share their experiences with using cannabis as medicine. It is my sincere hope that this
work will be of benefit to all those who seek access to safe and effective medicine without fear of
prosecution or imprisonment. It is time for change.
2
Abstract
Subsequent to the passage of the California Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215), a
voter initiative passed on November 5, 1996 permitting the cultivation, possession, and
use of cannabis for medical purposes in California, fifteen other US states and the
District of Columbia have followed suit and decriminalized cannabis for medicinal use. In
response to the emergence of this medical marijuana market, a number of analytic
chemistry labs have been established for the purpose of quantifying cannabinoid content
and testing for contaminants in cannabis to be used for therapy. Current literature has
shown that there are at least 80 cannabinoids in various strains of cannabis, and has also
shown that these constituents have unique pharmacological effects (Izzo et al 2009:515).
Does access to chemical analysis data quantifying cannabinoid content affect patients’
selection of medical marijuana cultivars and delivery methods? Literature review, semi-
structured interviews and a self-administered online survey of medical marijuana users
will be employed to address this research question from a biocultural perspective.
Keywords: Cannabis, medical marijuana, cannabinoids, therapeutic potential
3
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………1
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….2
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………..3
List of figures, tables, and
appendices...……………………………………………………………………..4
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..5
Background……………………………………………………………………...6
Botany of Cannabis……………………………………………………………...7
Cannabis and Culture……………………………………………………………10
Chemistry of Cannabis…………………………………………………………..12
Pharmacology of Cannabis………………………………………………………17
Cannabis as Medicine……………………………………………………………19
Social Science and Medical Marijuana……………………….…………………...21
Aims and Objectives.……………………………………………………………23
Research Question………………………………………………………………24
Methods…………………………………………………………………………24
Results…………………………………………………………………………...31
Analysis………………………………………………………………………….41
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………43
4
Figures:
Figure 1: Cannabaceutical facts label…………………………………………Page 14
Figure 2: Promotional flier…………………………………………………………26
Figure 3: Number of daily responses……………………………………………….31
Figure 4: Gender distribution………………………………………………………32
Figure 5: Age distribution…………………………………………………………..32
Figure 6: Geographic distribution of respondents…………………………………..32
Figure 7: Modes of administration………………………………………………….33
Figure 8: Symptom word cloud……………………………………………………...34
Figure 9: Therapeutic applications…………………………………………………..35
Figure 10: Strain preference word cloud…………………………………………….36
Figure 11: Commonly named strains………………………………………………...37
Figure 12: Strain selection criteria word cloud……………………………………….38
Figure 13: Medical cannabis cup 2011……………………………………………….39
Figure 14: Importance placed on chemical analysis………………………………….40
Figure 15: Preference for cannabinoids……………………………………………...40
Figure 16: Cannabinoids selected for therapeutic application,
grouped by symptom code…………………………………………………...42
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of Gas Chromatography and
High Performance Liquid Chromatography………………………………….14
Table 2: American Alliance for Medical Cannabis Survey Results…………………....22
Table 3: Symptom code and compound correlations………………………………...42
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Medical Marijuana Questionnaire……………………………………….47
5
Introduction:
Medical marijuana is the subject of a greatly contested discourse at the interface of science and
society. The actors involved in the issue of medical marijuana are political, economic, and
medical. At play are issues of governance, public policy, health, education, and human rights. An
integration of all these perspectives, syncretism, is needed. Syncretism, as expressed by
ethnobotanist Luis Eduardo Luna at Breaking Convention (2011), is the integration of multiple
discourses. Due to the lack of syncretism in the discourse around medical marijuana, the current
state of patient access to safe and effective medicine, without risk of persecution, is greatly
limited. Despite the fact that scientific research has shown that cannabis is both safe and
effective in the treatment of serious human pathologies such as multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and
cancer among many other valid therapeutic uses, and the fact that multiple medical associations
and legal precedents have recommended the rescheduling of cannabis, still, it is classified a
schedule I narcotic by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). A schedule I narcotic
is defined as a substance which has no accepted medical use, extremely high potential for abuse,
and high potential for psychological and physical dependency. International drug policies, with
few exceptions, follow the stance of the DEA on regulation of this botanical. These regulatory
policies deprive not only some very deserving patients of access to safe medicine, but also deny
the scientific community of access to germplasm for investigative studies which could shed
further light on the empirical basis for cannabinoid therapeutics.
The sociopolitical consequences of the current convention, as expressed by Feilding (Breaking
Convention 2011), are threefold. Firstly, it fosters the growth of a criminal underground for the
distribution of cannabis germplasm. Secondly, it undermines human rights and public health.
And third, it wastes billions of dollars a year enforcing the prohibition of a plant whose use, over
thousands of years, and across numerous cultures worldwide, has never led to a single
documented fatality. Many pharmaceutical drugs cannot claim such a safety profile. Feilding
concludes, saying “The war on drugs has failed.”
The shortcomings of the current regulatory policies on cannabis demonstrate the need for
syncretism in the discourse between science and society, and are the reason for selecting the
subject of this thesis: a biocultural analysis of medical marijuana.
6
Background:
In the last century prior to its recent re-examination as a therapeutic herb, cannabis has largely
been relegated to the class of illicit recreational drugs. As a result, the scientific knowledge of its
chemistry and effects is far from complete. Classified as a Schedule I drug according to the
Controlled Substance Act (1970) in the US, it has been very difficult for researchers to gain
permission and access to carry out clinical studies on its effects, which in turn hinders its
acceptance as a legitimate medication.
Because its contemporary use has been largely recreational, plant breeders have selected cannabis
cultivars for attributes which may or may not be related to its medicinal effects. THC (∆-9-tetra-
hydrocannabinol), the best-known cannabinoid compound due to its psychoactive properties, is
often selected for, as well as aroma, flavor, and aesthetics (i.e. visible resin crystallization, color,
size and morphology of female inflorescence). Non-THC constituents in cannabis such as
terpenoids and other terpenophenolic cannabinoid compounds such as CBD (cannabidiol) have
pharmacological effects which merit further study, as they can have useful medicinal properties
and can also modulate the effects of THC.
Patients who are using cannabis for medicinal purposes may find the psychoactive properties of
THC undesirable, as they may be seeking to increase their ability to function in society by gaining
relief from serious ailments that would otherwise interfere with their daily lives. In such cases, a
plant which has been selected for high THC content or potent psychoactivity may be less than
desirable. For example, a patient who is seeking analgesia or relief from anxiety might prefer a
variety of cannabis with a higher CBD content, which might provide greater relief from
symptoms without impairing mental function. If this patient has the opportunity to select from a
range of cannabis cultivars which have been tested for safety, as well as for potency (cannabinoid
content and ratio), and this person has the knowledge to discern which of these choices will best
achieve the desired effect, it follows that he or she will choose the cultivar(s) best suited to treat
their pathophysiology. In other words, access to chemical analysis data allows medical marijuana
patients to apply rational criteria to the selection of cannabis cultivars for medicinal use.
7
Botany of Cannabis
Cannabis originated in Central Asia and the Himalayas, where it may have been the earliest plant
to be domesticated by humans, as much as 10,000 years ago, as a “five-purpose plant”: for fiber,
oil, food, psychotropic, and therapeutic properties (Schultes 1998). Due the scope of its utility,
and its propensity for naturalization in almost any climate, Cannabis has since dispersed to nearly
every part of the globe. Its habit of escaping cultivation to naturalize in surrounding untended
landscapes led Vavilov (1926) to classify cannabis as merely semi-domesticated (in Hillig 2005).
Cannabis is a dioecious, dicotyledonous, erect annual herb of the Cannabaceae family which
exhibits extremely variable morphology. Given suitable growing conditions, some plants may
grow as much as 7 centimeters (2.5 inches) per day, and can reach a height of 6 meters (20 feet)
in a single 4-6 month growing season (Clarke 1993). Some smaller indica-type strains may barely
reach 1m at maturity. Cannabis is wind pollinated, allowing outcrossing over long distances in
wild populations and increasing potential for genetic variability.
The flowering cycle of cannabis requires an inductive photoperiod, as cannabis is short-day
flowering. During its vegetative state, cannabis can and will thrive when exposed to as much as
24 hours a day of uninterrupted sunlight. However, to induce flowering, cannabis must have a
period of uninterrupted darkness. Environmental stressors may increase the predominance of
female plants in a given wild population, and can also induce monoecious plants or
hermaphrodites in all female cultivated populations (Clark 1993).
Cannabis floral morphology is regular, 5-merous, and unisexual. Staminate (male) flowers are
cymes clustered in leafy terminal panicles which are nearly sessile, possess oblong tepals, anthers
3-4 mm, and appear to dangle in loosely clustered inflorescences. Pistillate (female) flowers are
upright spike-like inflorescences, sessile, borne in tightly clustered fascicles enveloped by bracts,
with a superior, single-celled ovary, and a filiform, cauducous style up to 7.5 mm in length,
possessing two stigmas. Protruding from the 2-6 mm long female calyx are a pair of white,
yellow, or pink pistils. The thin, membranous calyx of the female inflorescence exhibits capitate
stalked resinous glandular trichomes, which produce most of the secondary metabolites with
medicinal effects, such as cannabinoids and terpenoids. The fruit is a smooth, shiny, brown or
yellow single-seeded achene, 4-5 mm long, closely encased in bracts, and composed of 29-35%
oil, 20-24% protein, and 20-30% carbohydrates (Jansen 2006).
8
Cannabis exhibits variable phyllotaxy throughout its life cycle. Leaf orientation shifts between
opposite during vegetative growth and alternate during reproductive growth. Leaves may also
appear opposite near the base of the stem but whorled or spiraling higher up. The palmately
compound leaves display a variable quantity of leaflets (between 1 and 11, generally odd
numbered) as the plants mature. In pre-floral phyllotaxy, the number of leaflets per leaf increases
from the base of the plant to the top, while in floral phyllotaxy, the number of leaflets per leaf
decreases along the height of the plant (Clark 1993). The leaflets are hairy, lanceolate, sessile, and
coarsely toothed, possessing many sessile or peltate trichomes. The stipules are free and narrowly
subulate or filiform. The stem of cannabis possesses long bast fibers from 5-40 mm in length,
which are used in a variety of industrial applications.
Like its morphology, the secondary metabolic products of cannabis are also extremely variable.
THC content can vary between <1% and up to 30% THC in dry weight, female flowers (Clark
and Watson 2006:11). Percentages of other cannabinoids are also highly variable depending on
the genetics of the strain, and also may vary due to ecology or growing conditions. Chemical
fingerprinting systems based upon gas chromatography, thin-layer chromatography, and high
performance liquid chromatography, as well as GC/mass spectrometry may be used as tools to
ascertain the geographic origins of cannabis, based on the fact that the chemical profiles of
cannabis are consistently induced by environmental factors (ElSohly 2006).
The taxonomic treatment and speciation within the Cannabis genus are problematic and have
been contested for centuries. Early taxonomists first assigned Cannabis to the Urticaceae family,
later to the Moraceae family, and currently it is assigned to its own family, Cannabaceae, along
with just one other genus, Humulus. The extreme variability of Cannabis as seen in its
morphological characteristics, geographic range, and secondary metabolites confounds
distinctions based solely on these characters. Linnaeus espoused a monotypic concept of
Cannabis, classified as a single undivided species, Cannabis sativa L. In 1785, Lamarck divided
Cannabis into two validly published species, C. sativa and C. indica Lam., based on morphological
distinctions, geographic distribution, and physiological effects. Schultes (1998) recognized a
three-species concept of cannabis, adding C. ruderalis to the genus along with C. indica and C.
sativa. Other species have been suggested, including Cannabis afghanica (Clark and Watson 2006:9).
Further suggested taxonomic classifications occur at the sub-species, varietal level.
9
Analysis of genetic markers within the Cannabis genome has been used to shed light on the
question of speciation within the genus. Hillig (2005) conducted allozyme analysis of 157
Cannabis populations. This study examined single amino acid variations of enzymes which result
from DNA mutations, acting as genetic markers, and concluded from this data that the Cannabis
genus is divided into two species, C. sativa and C. indica. This conclusion further clarifies
taxomomic distinctions based on morphological and geographic characters, as C. indica is
generally much shorter and confers different subjective effects upon use.
However, it is unclear whether this bifurcation of the Cannabis genus occurred prior to or as a
result of domestication by humans, as humans have greatly influenced both the cross-breeding
and divergence of Cannabis gene pools. Investigation of cannabinoid genetics using RAPD
(random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis) to elucidate the taxonomic intricacies of cannabis
shows promise. As of August 19, 2011, a small company based in the US and the Netherlands,
Medicinal Genomics, has sequenced the Cannabis sativa genome using short-read sequencing
technology, and has made this phylogenetic data publically available via Amazon Cloud database,
allowing free access for scientists and others around the world with limited research access to this
highly regulated plant. These results, however, have not yet undergone peer review, and different
Cannabis strains can demonstrate a genomic variation as high as 1%, according to Kevin
McKernan, founder and head of Medicinal Genomics’ scientific operations (Kersgaard 2011)
The naming of cannabis cultivars or strains within the commercial industry and black market is
even more problematic than the continuing debate among plant taxonomists. Due to the
unregulated nature of the black market industry, growers or sellers may call their specimens
whatever they wish, as it suits economic or popular criteria. If a particular named strain (i.e
‘White Widow’) is currently in high demand, then any grower or vendor may sell their product by
that name, relying on the lack of information or alternatives available to buyers or patients to
allow latitude for such subterfuge. A lab manager interviewed for this project called it the “strain
name game”, and noted the difficulty it added to the problem of patients accessing reliable and
consistent botanical medicine. A current database of cannabis strains used for medical and
recreational (but not industrial) applications lists 2,463 strains (www.smokereports.com, accessed
on 26 August 2011) underscoring the scale of cultivation occurring despite current political
conventions.
10
Commercial breeding of cannabis which seeks to maximize psychoactive effects focuses
cultivation efforts on the female plants, as they produce the resinous glandular trichomes
responsible for biosynthesis of the secondary metabolites producing these effects. The presence
of male plants which pollinate the female flowers is generally undesirable, as fertilization of the
female flowers diverts the plant’s production of floral products to production of achene-type
fruits, popularly called seeds, that would detract from the quality of herbal cannabis, known
sometimes by an adopted Spanish term, sinsemilla, or “without seeds”. For this reason, growers
often rely upon clonal or vegetative propagation of a female plant possessing desired attributes in
order to predictably increase germplasm resources. This helps avoid the unwanted production of
achenes, and also provides a genetically uniform crop which is generally ready to harvest sooner
than crops which are sown by seed.
Cannabis and culture
Even as the discourse surrounding medical marijuana demands syncretism to resolve conflicts
between scientific and political directives, the healing practices of the medical marijuana system in
states where it is ratified in the US embody an illustration of medical pluralism described by
medical anthropologist Young (1983) as intercalation. Intercalation describes the adoption of
traditional material medica into biomedical models, exclusive of traditional practitioners. “The
cannabinoid botanical medical care system [in the state of Washington], with physicians licensed
in biomedicine authorizing treatment with a long-utilized ethnobotanical medicine, represents an
intercalation, or intertwining, of modern medicine with traditional medicine” (Aggarwal
2008:23).
Cannabis is one of the oldest medicines known to humankind, and may have been the first plant
which was domesticated by humans (Schultes 1998). The variety of uses for which it is employed
includes food, oil, medicine, material culture, ritual use, and as an intoxicant. The etymology of
the name cannabis derives from the Greek word kannabis, from which was later derived the
English word canvas (Herrer 2000:5). Cannabis is known variously in different cultures and
depending upon its usage or preparation as ganja, bhang, hashish, dagga, marijuana, hemp. It is
considered “weed” in some cultures and a holy plant in others. Rastafari of Jamaica and Sadhus
of India as well as Mahayana and Tantric Buddhists of Tibet all use some form of cannabis as a
religious sacrament (Schultes 1998).
11
Archaeological studies have uncovered evidence of cannabis in China dating back to the
Neolithic period, around 5,000 years ago (Hanus and Mechoulam 2005:23). The first written
record of its therapeutic use and properties was by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2737 BC,
where it was recommended for malaria, constipation, female disorders, beri-beri, rheumatic pains
and absent-mindedness (Li, in Ben Amar 2006:2, Schultes 1998). Classical physicians Galen and
Dioscorides recognized its therapeutic uses in their writings.
The Scythians of Central Asia have been credited with the spread of Cannabis from its origins of
domestication Westward into Europe. The Greek writer Herodotus (c. 500 B.C.E) described a
sort of sweat lodge practiced by the Scythians, in which cannabis seeds were thrown onto a
brazier containing hot stones within a confined tent of pelts stretched over a tripod frame, and
the vapors inhaled. Archeological evidence uncovered cannabis achenes in Germany dating back
to 500 B.C.E. and hemp rope at a Roman site in England dated A.D 140-180 (Schultes 1998).
Cannabis was introduced to South America in the mid- 1500’s and to North America in the early
1600’s (Schultes 1998). Cannabis use also spread to Africa, where it may be known as dagga or
kif, and has been adopted by many distinct ethnic groups for medicinal purposes including
anthrax, malaria, dysentery, and fevers. Mfengu and Hottentot use it in treating snakebites and
Sotho women use it to ease the pain of childbirth. It is also used by the Kung of South Africa,
the Pygmy and Kasai tribes of the Congo, the Kaffir, and in North Africa (Schultes 1998). The
multitude of cultures which have adopted cannabis into their pharmacopoeia and material culture
further illustrates the pluralist intertwining or intercalation of many cultures and practices
surrounding medical marijuana.
Cannabis was widely adopted in the US for both industrial and medical applications in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when it was used heavily in the textile and paper industries.
The first two drafts of the US Declaration of Independence were written on Dutch hemp paper,
and after the document was agreed upon it was then copied to parchment (Herer 2000:7).
Cannabis was listed in the United States Dispensary in 1854, and was part of the British
Pharmacopeia in both extract and tincture form for over 100 years. In 1937, the US government
introduced the Marihuana Tax Act, contrary to the recommendations of the American Medical
Association, making the use of marijuana prohibitively expensive. In 1942 cannabis was
12
eliminated from the US Pharmacopeia, drastically undermining its legitimacy as a therapeutic
medicine.
Cultural factors such as ethnic and social prejudices have undoubtedly played a role in the history
of US federal policies surrounding cannabis (Holland 2010:7, Levine 2010), and subsequently
forced transactions leading to exchange of germplasm into underground markets, driving up the
purchase price for acquiring cannabis while decreasing the safety of obtaining quality medicine by
constraining many patients to purchase medical marijuana from unknown sources, potentially
containing unsafe contaminants, and also putting consumers of at risk of legal prosecution. More
recently, in the sixteen states of the US where the use of medical marijuana is currently ratified,
patients may have greater access to cannabinoid germplasm and information about its therapeutic
properties and chemical composition.
Chemistry of cannabis
Chemical analysis of cannabinoids has several important functions. It may be used in forensics
to determine the geographic source of cannabis samples (ElSohly et al 2006). It is useful in
strategic breeding and germplasm programs, for selecting cultivars with specific medicinal or
industrial properties (de Meijer 1999). Cannabis analysis can also help to identify and improve
access to therapeutic strains with specific medicinal compounds and potencies, free from
contaminants, and aid in determining appropriate dosages and achieving repeatable therapeutic
benefits. And more broadly, reliable laboratory testing of cannabis has the potential to
contribute to the scientific and social legitimacy of cannabis as a medicine.
Labs which provide cannabinoid profiling services have the potential to contribute in all these
regards and many others. However, the emergence of cannabis analysis services may be
influenced by economic potential and perceived opportunities in states that have provisions for
medical marijuana, and there is little or no regulatory oversight which monitors cannabis analysis
labs. Methods, equipment, and results of analysis may vary considerably, and the lay consumer
may need specialists’ knowledge in order to seek out a reputable lab or provider of tested
material, as well as to interpret the results generated through chemical analysis.
First and foremost, laboratory analysis is used to ensure the safety profile of products to be used
for therapy. Although there is no industry-wide standard of purity guidelines for herbal cannabis,
13
labs will typically test for the presence of fungal, bacterial, and chemical contaminants. Improper
harvesting or curing methods can lead to fungal, bacterial, or other forms of biological
contamination. Cannabis may also contain residues of unsafe agricultural compounds such as
pesticides or fertilizers, and is occasionally adulterated to enhance its appearance. The Dutch
industry has applied pharmaceutical guidelines to its cannabis trade. Edible cannabis products
can be assessed using food-grade standards such as those which are applied to its cousin, Humulus
lupulus. In defining safety guidelines for inhaled cannabis, the standards which are applied to the
tobacco industry may be applicable (Minor, personal communication, 2011).
A number of key factors influence chemical analysis results. The method of sampling employed
by the grower: where on the plant the sample is taken from and when and how it is harvested,
processed, and stored, as some cannabinoids are subject to degradation upon exposure to heat,
light, or moisture. The sampling protocol employed at the lab is also important: how the sample
is prepared and extracted for analysis. Labs must also use reliable reference standards for each
cannabinoid.
The lab’s equipment affects results. Firstly the calibration and maintenance of lab equipment, but
also the choice of equipment and methods affects results. Labs may employ GC (gas
chromatography), HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography), or TLC (thin layer
chromatography) and each has advantages and disadvantages (See Table 1). Further potential
method variation occurs in the detector which is employed in conjunction with the
chromatography. GC may employ FID (flame ionization detector), TCD (thermal conductivity
detector), or MS (mass spectrometer). Because GC heats the sample during analysis, it does not
register heat-sensitive cannabinoid acids, which may be desirable in edible products. Liquid
chromatography, because it does not heat the sample, is useful for detection of cannabinoid acids
as well as other cannabinoids, but it produces significant solvent waste. TLC, which is basically a
test strip method is useful only for detecting the presence or absence of given cannabinoids, but
not the quantity or potency of these compounds.
14
(Source: Miller 2011)
The number of variables which can affect analysis results illustrates the need for quality control
to ensure consistency and reliability of outcomes. Method validation is a certification process
which is voluntarily taken by a lab to ensure the methods used for analysis are accurately
accomplishing what they are intended to do. As defined by Full Spectrum Laboratory in Denver,
CO, “Laboratory validation of an analytical method is the process by which it is established by
laboratory studies, that the performance characteristics of the method meet the requirements for
the intended analytical application”. Full Spectrum has achieved method validation for their
HPLC assay parameters, consisting of nine defined components: precision, accuracy, linearity,
range, ruggedness, method detection limit, extraction efficiency, selectivity, and specificity. Labs
such as the Werc Shop in California provide a label for tested material which mimics the
structure and format of the Nutrition Facts labels which the FDA requires on packaged food
labels, providing a clear, accessible presentation of chemical data in table format for consumers
(see figure 1).
Figure 1.
15
Basic pharmacognostical observations employing the human senses may be utilized by the
consumer without the use of scientific laboratory equipment. These organoleptic observations
include smell, taste, visual inspection, and tactile sensations. In evaluating cannabis, organoleptics
may be useful in identifying the presence of terpenoids, broadly speaking, as they have a distinct
odor. Visual inspection, whether unaided or under magnification, may be used for identifying the
presence, quantity, and color of trichomes, which are rough indicators of potency. Tactile
observations can determine the presence of sticky resinous secretions produced by the trichomes.
Biosynthesis of phytocannabinoids occurs in the glandular trichomes on the epidermis of the
pistillate plant, when a terpenoid compound binds with a phenolic compound. This leads to the
production of cannabigerol (CBG), which is the precursor from which over 60 of the remaining
phytocannabinoids are formed (McPartland and Guy 2004). CBG is subsequently converted via
the action of various enzymes and degradation processes into the spectrum of phytocannabinoids
which occur in the cannabis plant (McPartland and Guy 2004).
Terpenoid + phenol → CBG → CBC, CBD, THC, THCV, etc.
The most studied chemical constituents of cannabis are THC and CBD. The relative ratio of
these constituents occurring in landraces of cannabis tends towards equilibrium, while cannabis
bred for recreational consumption has a much higher THC content, and cannabis bred for
industrial uses will have THC content of <1% (Clark and Watson 2006:12). CBD is one of the
better understood non-psychotropic plant cannabinoids, exhibiting potential as an anti-
inflammatory agent, in the treatment of cancer, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases. THCV
(∆-9-tetrahydrocannabivarin) is also showing potential in the treatment of epilepsy and obesity
(Izzo et al 2009). The six compounds which the present study focused upon are the following:
Cannabichromene (CBC): Known pharmacological and therapeutic properties of CBC
include analgesia, anti-inflammatory, and potential antibiotic applications (Izzo et al 2009).
16
Cannabidiol (CBD): A non-psychoactive phytocannabinoid, CBD provides a wide range of
therapeutic actions including anxiolytic, analgesic, neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, and
anti-nausea properties (Izzo et al 2009).
Cannabinol (CBN): A mildly psychoactive cannabinoid, CBN occurs as a result of
degradation of THC. Its therapeutic properties include use as an anti-spasmodic and a sleep
aid (Izzo et al 2009).
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): The best-known cannabinoid, due to its euphoric
psychoactive properties or “high”, THC is known to have therapeutic applications in the
treatment of nausea and loss of appetite as a result of HIV, as an analgesic in cases of
neuropathic or cancer-related pain, and in the treatment of symptoms of MS (Izzo et al 2009).
17
Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV): A psychoactive cannabinoid, THCV has been shown to
reduce food intake in mice, and shows promise in the treatment of diabetes and obesity (Izzo et
al 2009).
Terpenes/Terpenoids: One of the building blocks in cannabinoid biosynthesis, terpenoids are
also responsible for much of the distinctive aromas of cannabis strains, and play a role in the
ecology of cannabis, protecting the plant against biological stressors such as bacteria and fungi, as
well as environmental stressors such as UV radiation. Many other plants including Pinus spp. and
Eucalyptus spp. produce terpenes as part of their secondary metabolic processes. Structures vary,
but are composed of isoprene subunits (see below).
Pharmacology of Cannabinoids
The bioactivity of phytocannabinoids and their ability to act upon human physiology is possible
because of the endocannabinoid system. The endocannabinoid system is composed of
endogenous ligands and corresponding specific cell receptors within the human body. These
endogenous ligands are endocannabinoid compounds, such as anandamide, produced within the
human body for a range of physiological purposes, which act upon cannabinoid receptors
throughout the human nervous and immune systems. The structure of exogenous cannabinoids
such as the phytocannabinoids produced by the cannabis plant bears certain similarities to
endocannabinoids, allowing phytocannabinoids to act as ligands binding to human cannabinoid
receptors.
18
The endocannabinoid system is involved in many of the human body’s physiological processes,
including modulation and regulation of neurotransmitters, pain perception, and functioning of
the cardiovascular system, liver, and digestion (Izzo et al 2009). There are two types of
cannabinoid receptors known to exist in humans: CB1 and CB2 receptors. CB1 receptors are
found primarily in the central and peripheral nervous system, and account for the majority of the
psychotropic effects of cannabinoids. CB2 receptors are found mainly in the immune system,
and exert immunomodulatory effects.
The presence of specific cell receptors which are activated by cannabinoids, whether of
endogenous or plant origin demonstrates a unique connection between the cannabis plant and
human physiology. The secondary metabolites of the cannabis plant are particularly suited to act
at cannabinoid receptor sites, allowing the cannabis plant to have a direct effect on the human
nervous system and other physiological processes. The biochemical communication between
cannabis and cannabinoid receptors in the human body suggests that the coevolution of human
physiology and the secondary metabolism of the cannabis plant may be interconnected via a
coevolutionary process, though it is difficult to know how this came to pass. Phytocannabinoids
may have initially been produced by plants as deterrents to insects, pathogens, or herbivory.
These compounds, however, became attractive to animals, notably to humans, in what Pollan
(2001) describes as “the botany of desire”. This represents an evolutionary strategy in which the
plant ensures its survival by making itself desirable to humans, thus ensuring its continued
propagation. Consequently, this has catalyzed the domestication and dispersal of the cannabis
plant by humans far beyond its native range, and has encouraged extensive selection, breeding,
hybridization, and cultivation of the cannabis plant for its effects and uses.
Modulation of the endocannabinoid system via the 80 or so phytocannabinoids synthesized by
the cannabis plant produces a wide range of pharmacological effects in addition to the well-
known psychotropic effect or “high” produced by the action of THC upon the CB1 receptors of
the brain. The bioactivity of phytocannabinoids with little or no psychotropic effects, such as
CBD (cannabidiol), CBC (cannabichromene) and THCV (tetrahydrocannabivarin) nonetheless
exert pharmacological effects upon the endocannabinoid system and present potential for a range
of therapeutic applications. CBD in particular has been well-studied, and shows activity as an
analgesic, neuroprotective, anxiolytic, and anti-inflammatory agent, as well as potential for the
treatment of diabetes, cancer, and ischemia (Izzo et al 2009). Lesser-studied cannabinoid
19
compounds merit further investigation as to their effects, due to the widespread action of the
endocannabinoid system on human health, and the scale of therapeutic effects described
anecdotally by medical marijuana users.
Cannabis as Medicine
Each state in the US with medical marijuana provisions has its own list of acceptable or
recognized ailments which may be treated with cannabis. Some states are very restrictive in this
regard, depriving even needy patients of medication if their ailment, such as post-traumatic stress
disorder, is not recognized as one which responds to cannabis therapy. In contrast, other states’
regulatory systems may be under-structured, allowing patients with arguably tenuous
symptomatic justifications to obtain marijuana for purported medical purposes, and facilitating
extensive proliferation of commercial medical marijuana enterprises.
Much research still needs to be done on the therapeutic properties of cannabis, but is difficult to
accomplish in the US due to the restricted access to product for research, which is stringently
regulated by NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which dictates distribution of
cannabis germplasm from the only federally-sanctioned repository in the US, the National Center
for Natural Products Research in Oxford, MS.
Despite the difficulty of gaining approval or materials to carry out controlled studies of cannabis’
clinical efficacy, in the period between 1975 and 2009 at least 110 such studies have been
published, evaluating the efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses
from a sample population of over 6100 patients (Hazekamp and Grotenherman 2010). It is
important to note that these reviews of the clinical studies on cannabinoids also included
synthetic and pharmaceutically derived cannabinoids and did not exclusively examine herbal
cannabis.
The Journal of Ethnopharmacology published a meta-analysis of clinical studies on contemporary
therapeutic applications of cannabinoids in 2006, showing statistically significant potential for the
application of medical marijuana as an antiemetic, an appetite stimulant, analgesic, and in the
treatment of glaucoma, epilepsy, spinal cord injuries, Tourette’s syndrome, and multiple sclerosis
(Ben Amar 2006). A follow-up review of research conducted since 2005 was published,
confirming the evidence-base of cannabinoids’ therapeutic potential in the treatment of
20
neuropathic and chronic pain, nausea, vomiting, and anorexia resulting from cancer treatments or
AIDS, as well as muscle spasticity and symptoms of multiple sclerosis (Hazekamp and
Grotenherman 2010).
A wide range of delivery methods exist for the administrations of cannabinoids, from
pharmaceutical products which contain a single isolated cannabinoid taken as a pill, an oral spray
or a sublingual spray, to whole herbal products and concentrates which may be smoked,
vaporized, ingested as food, tea, or tincture, or applied externally as oil, cream, salve, or essential
oil. The chemical composition of these preparations will vary depending upon the variety of
cannabis and the extraction methods employed. Chemical analysis methods employed for
assessing these products must be tailored to the type of product under investigation. The most
common form of use is combustion, either by pipe, rolled cigarette, or water pipe, but medical
practitioners are often hesitant to recommend this mode of administration, as it is difficult to
control from the prescriber’s standpoint, and carries concerns of carcinogens due to tars created
during oxidative combustion.
Practitioners are generally much more familiar with and comfortable prescribing a
pharmaceutically produced product, such as a pill or spray. Given the irregularities of the herbal
cannabis industry, this position is hardly unjustified. However, inhalation of herbal cannabis is
much easier for the patient to regulate via a process known as self-titration. Because inhalation
of cannabis’ active constituents produces effects which are nearly immediate, the user can
determine if the appropriate amount of medicine has been consumed and can adjust their dose
accordingly. However, pills and other edible cannabis products act more slowly, due to their
passage through the digestive system prior to taking effect. This delay in onset makes it difficult
for the patient to regulate dosage, and the patient may find themselves sedated or intoxicated to
an undesirable degree by the time the medicine takes effect. Additionally, whole herbal cannabis
contains a wide spectrum of compounds with synergistic and modulating effects, while synthetic
pharmaceutical preparations may contain one or two cannabinoids such as THC or CBD, and so
are extremely concentrated and lack the range of synergistic compounds which may act to
modulate THC’s psychoactive effect, and therefore may result in a greater sense of dysphoria
than use of herbal cannabis. A commercially produced nebulizer (similar to the mode employed
in many asthma pharmaceuticals) containing a full-spectrum herbal extract of a carefully selected
cannabis cultivar could integrate the standardized repeatability of a pharmaceutical with the fast-
21
acting pharmacology which allows the patient to self-titrate, without the tar and carcinogens of
combustion.
The therapeutic effects of cannabis may differ as a result of chemotaxonomic variability and
mode of administration, but also the influence of set and setting on the subjective experience of
cannabis use must be noted. The effects of personal expectations, which are influenced by the
mindset and personality of the user and their sociocultural background, will shape their
perception and experience of cannabis use, whether for medicinal, recreational, or sacramental
purposes. Additionally it must be noted, the distinction between these uses is not clearly defined.
A patient who is using cannabis for its modulation of pathophysiology may also experience a
euphoric sense of mind which may have effects that are interpreted through meditative or
otherwise spiritual perspectives. Physical and mental effects are intertwined and largely
inseparable, although a patient’s choice of strain can influence the balance of effects experienced.
Some patients who are seeking only pain relief may choose strains which exert little cognitive
effect and act mainly on the peripheral nervous system, likely by activating CB2 receptors. Still
other patients, whose pathophysiology also includes anxiety, depression, mental suffering, or end-
of-life fears may choose a cultivar with greater perceived cognitive effect or euphoric “high”.
Social Science and Medical Marijuana
A review of existing ranking systems and surveys of medical marijuana use by practitioners and
patients was conducted to inform the present study. Several tools for selecting medicinal
cannabis cultivars were found on web sources. One key informant for this project mentioned the
M-Scale system, (http://www.m-scale.com/), established by an Oregon medical marijuana
proponent, which utilizes a standardized worksheet designed to assist patients in choosing
marijuana strains based on three categories of desired effects: health concerns, activity level, and
medicinal effects. The stated purpose of the m-Scale Project is to provide “tools and a common
language to create an effects-based system to clarify, classify and communicate the effects of
marijuana.” Upon filling out the m-Scale worksheet, the result is an “Mx” (like a marijuana Rx or
prescription) which includes an “M-number” to quantify the desired degree of activation or
sedation, as well as sub-categories with codes for other medicinal effects.
22
Another tool for choosing strains available to medical marijuana patients provides access to data
on chemical analysis results, ranking cannabis cultivars by various parameters, and making
available information on sources for obtaining tested material. This search tool is provided by
Full Spectrum Laboratory (http://fullspectrumlabs.com) and assists clients in selecting cannabis
cultivars based on a database of tested products from dispensaries in the state of Colorado,
sorted by parameters such as name of strain, percentage of a specific cannabinoid, ratio of
cannabinoids, medicinal effects, or type of product (consumable, raw plant material, plant extract,
or body care). Test results are updated frequently, and results are only valid for a period of
several months to ensure reliability.
Addressing the question of species preferences among medical marijuana patients, a survey of
over 500 patients conducted by the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis examined stated
preferences for medical marijuana species Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica as well as indica- or
sativa- predominant hybrids (See table 2). Twenty-five percent of respondents preferred Cannabis
indica, and the next largest response group, nineteen percent of respondents, did not know what
species or ratio they preferred. In the discussion of results, it was noted that “without laboratory
analysis of cannabinoid profiles, a scientific finding is impossible. What is evident, though, is that
most patients do know what works for them and it varies depending upon condition(s)”.
Species or hybrid
ratio preferred
Number of
respondents
Percentage of total
respondents
Indica 127 25%
Mostly Indica 66 13%
Indica/Sativa 90 18%
Mostly Sativa 64 13%
Sativa 68 13%
Don't Know 96 19%
Table 2
Another patient study of medicinal use of cannabis was conducted in the UK using a self-
administered questionnaire survey and found that 25% of patients were using cannabis for
chronic pain, 22% each were using cannabis for depression and multiple sclerosis, 21% for
arthritis, and 19% for neuropathy (Ware 2004). 68% of reported users stated that cannabis made
23
their symptoms overall much better. 45% said that cannabis worked much better than prescribed
medications, and 34% stated that the side effects of prescribed medications were much worse.
Subsequent clinical trials have provided evidence which supports the therapeutic efficacy of some
of these patients’ anecdotal experiences. Suggesting the utility of natural use surveys for
informing clinical use studies, Ware concludes, “Patients’ reports of the effectiveness of cannabis
should not be discounted as purely anecdotal, but rather could serve as a valid indicator of target
diseases and symptoms for cannabinoid drug development” (Ware 2004).
Examining the data on clinical use of medical marijuana from a practitioner’s standpoint, a survey
conducted by the American Herbalists’ Guild found that the legal prohibitions surrounding
medical marijuana significantly limited practitioners’ clinical use of the botanical, and possibly
also their knowledge of the scope of its therapeutic potential. 90.5% of respondents cited legal
prohibition as the reason for avoiding cannabis recommendations in their practice, and 79.5% of
practitioners surveyed said that they would use cannabis in their clinical practice if legal
prohibitions did not prevent them from doing so (Romm 2011).
This review of existing popular ranking tools and patient and practitioner surveys made it
apparent that medical marijuana patients increasingly have access to information and tools to
guide them in making informed decisions in the selection of cannabis cultivars. Further, the scale
of knowledge and experience among patients who are self-medicating with cannabis may not be
reflected to a proportionate degree among practitioners due to legal restrictions, indicating that
syncretism and a greater degree of intercalation between practical use knowledge and biomedical
knowledge is needed.
Aims and Objectives
The goal of this research project was to contribute to the rationalization of herbal cannabis in
medical applications, to intercalate popular therapeutic uses among patients with biomedical
approaches and foster syncretism in the discourse surrounding medical marijuana. Until this
highly versatile and variable botanical can be better understood through evidence-based science,
it will remain a politicized drug which is evaluated based heavily on moral prejudices rather than
empirical data.
24
In order to address this goal, the aim was to examine how the emerging practice of cannabis
chemical analysis affects peoples’ use of medical marijuana, and whether medical marijuana users
are applying rational criteria to the selection of cannabis cultivars as a result of these new
information resources. The aim in conducting this research was to investigate the choices made
by patients in the selection of therapeutic grade cannabis and their preferences for cannabinoid
compounds and strains.
The objectives were to gather data on patients’ preferences for cannabis cultivars, cannabinoid
compounds, and modes of administration for therapeutic purposes. Information on patients’
perceptions of and preferences for the therapeutic effects and uses of cannabis strains was
examined in combination with preferences for chemical compounds such as THC and CBD.
It is this author’s hypothesis that access to information on cannabinoid content informs patient
choices in the selection of medical marijuana cultivars, allowing for more precision and
predictability of therapeutic effects, and contributing in a broader sense to the rationalization of
marijuana in medical science and practice.
The Research Question(s)
Does access to chemical analysis data quantifying cannabinoid content affect patients’ selection
of medical marijuana cultivars and delivery methods? How does the quantification of
cannabinoid content in medicinal product affect patient preferences for different strains and
delivery methods in the use of medical marijuana? How does this correlate with the symptoms
for which medical marijuana is used to treat?
Methods
This project utilized a mixed methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative data
collection in order to address the aims and objectives of the research question. Quantitative
approaches focused on variables and values, while qualitative methods included the use of semi-
structured interviews with key informants and descriptive data collected from open-ended survey
questions. Literature review, semi-structured interviews and a self-administered online
questionnaire survey of medical marijuana users were conducted.
25
In reviewing and designing survey research, it is important to consider the context validity:
questionnaires can create an artificial situation which may lead respondents’ stated behavior to
differ from their actual behavior (Newing 2010:54). However, in the case of cannabis, a highly
restricted botanical medicine, a natural use study such as this survey questionnaire also presents
benefits, as it circumvents the need for the lengthy and difficult permission process required by
NIDA and the DEA for a controlled study. Additionally, a natural use survey measures the
existing knowledge of experienced medical marijuana users to gather behavioral data which
would not be available through a controlled study. And so it was concluded that for the present
research, the limiting factors of using a questionnaire study were outweighed by the benefits of
using survey methods to conduct a natural use investigation.
For this paper, a self-administered questionnaire was designed to survey self-reported medicinal
use of cannabis, and the role of chemical analysis data in strain selection (see appendix 1). Key
informants were recruited from known contacts, and further participants recruited using the
snowball method. The survey design was informed by semi-structured interviews conducted by
telephone with a cannabis analysis lab director, a clinical nurse, and a cancer patient and director
of a medical marijuana non-profit organization, as well as written correspondence with a
horticulturist and several other cannabinoid scientists. Feedback on the survey design was sought
from several lab managers, and the survey was piloted by two respondents, on a PC and three
different mobile devices (a BlackBerry, an iPhone, and an Android smartphone). Once the
design was finalized, the questionnaire was distributed to patients via existing social networks
among non-profit groups, industry leaders (such as lab and dispensary managers), and
collaborating scientists in the field of cannabis research. These social networks included Patients
Out of Time, the Canadian Cannabis Coalition, the Association of Reform Networks, the
Medical Cannabis Association, and the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines.
An online survey format was selected due to low cost and ease of data collection and distribution.
Google docs (www.docs.google.com) was selected for this purpose, as it easily integrated into
emails, facilitated sharing of results with collaborators, and interfaced well with Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets. A link to the survey, as well as PDF files of the survey and a promotional flier (see
figure 2) were sent to collaborators, who shared the link via their professional networks, listservs,
newsfeeds, and websites, while also distributing the flier at trade shows, conferences and medical
26
marijuana dispensaries. Some collaborators requested paper copies of the survey, which were
mailed along with return postage for completed surveys.
The survey consisted of 13 items and employed a variety of question types, including binary
responses, 5-point Likert rankings, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Basic
demographic data was collected, data on preferences, behavior, and knowledge of varieties of
cannabis, specific symptoms for which cannabis was used, modes of administration, and chemical
constituents. In designing the survey questions and layout, consideration was given to the
survey’s internal validity and question phrasing, as well as the variables and values which the
survey was intended to measure.
Figure 2.
The online format facilitated conditional structuring of the questionnaire, such that the
individual’s responses to certain questions determined the subsequent questions which were
posed. For example, if a patient responded yes to the question “Do you choose medical
marijuana strains that have been tested for cannabinoid content?” then they were subsequently
asked “What cannabinoids or compounds do you give preference to in selecting medical
marijuana strains?” while patients who answered no to the first question were not asked the
27
second question. This method had advantages, as it limited the number of inapplicable questions
posed to a respondent, thereby favoring completion of the survey.
The questionnaire was designed to be brief and concise, in order to garner as many responses as
possible. The first several questions were formulated to gather basic demographic information
about respondents, including age, gender, and place of residence. Due to the sensitive nature of
collecting data on regulated substance use, names were kept confidential and not gathered as part
of the survey. Each survey respondent was instead identified by a unique time stamp issued at
the moment of submission.
Demographic questions:
1. What is your age? (write-in)
2. What is your gender? (Male or Female)
3. What state or province do you live in? (write-in)
Conditional formatting or question logic was utilized, which in effect acted as a filter or sorting
mechanism based on participants’ responses to certain questions. The first sorter question
determined if the survey respondent was currently a medical marijuana user. If the respondent
replied no, they were directed to the conclusion of the survey. If the respondent replied yes to
this question, then they continued to the next question.
First sorter question:
4. Are you currently a medical marijuana user? (Yes or No)
If the respondent replied that they were currently a medical marijuana user, the following
question aimed to identify the symptoms for which medical marijuana was employed. The
format chosen for this question was open-ended, as the range of therapeutic applications for
which marijuana is utilized would be too great to distill into five or six multiple choice options,
even with a write-in option for “other”. The advantage of using an open format for this question
was that there were no limitations as to how respondents could reply, and as a result allowed for
28
unanticipated responses. Several disadvantages to using this format were difficulty in coding the
wide range of responses for later analysis, and occasional difficulty in deciphering the intended
meaning of the response due to misspelling or phrasing. Because the survey was self-
administered and contact data was not gathered for respondents, there was no opportunity to
seek clarification if a response was unclear. However, this was rarely a problem.
Open-ended question:
5. What symptoms are you using medical marijuana to treat? (write-in)
The next question was intended to gauge whether patients were seeking other modes of
conventional biomedical or alternative therapy for their symptoms. Due to health privacy
considerations, it was not asked what specific types of prescriptions or treatments patients were
using for symptom relief, simply whether or not cannabis was the only medicine employed.
Behavioral question:
6. Are you using other treatments for these symptoms? (Yes or No)
To further explore the role of medical marijuana as a therapeutic agent, respondents were asked
about their perceptions or experience of medical marijuana as compared with other available
modes of therapy.
Binary response question:
7. Do you find that medical marijuana has advantages over other treatments?
The next question was designed to gather data on mode of use. This question was posed in a
multiple choice format, where the respondent could choose as many options as were applicable,
as well as a write-in option for “other”.
29
Multiple choice question:
8. What is your preferred form for using medical marijuana? (Choose all that
apply)
Smoke, Vaporizer, Liquid extract, Pill, Edible, External, or Other (Please specify)
Next the survey attempted to gather data on strain preferences. This question was posed as an
open-ended question, because the number of cannabis cultivars would be too numerous to list
comprehensively as a multiple choice question. As this question was write-in, it also assessed to
some degree the knowledge of the survey respondents, but it required more time in coding
reponses.
The use of the term “strain” was susceptible to varying interpretations by respondents. This is
partially due to the fact that speciation of cannabis is contested and nomenclature variable, even
within the scientific community and especially in the medical marijuana market. In this case, its
vagueness was not altogether undesirable in phrasing the survey question, as it allowed
respondents to speak to both species and cultivar preferences as they perceived the distinction.
Open-ended question:
9. What strains of medical marijuana do you prefer?
As a follow up to this question, the next question was aimed at exploring selection criteria.
Although there are some common variables that tend to influence selection (taste, smell, effect,
price, and availability), an open-ended format was chosen to allow respondents to be specific in
generating descriptions of their own personal preferences without being influenced by the
provision of multiple choice options.
Open-ended question:
10. What criteria do you use in selecting a medical marijuana strain?
30
At this point, another sorter question was utilized as the survey began to explore the role of
chemical analysis data in respondents’ choice of medical marijuana alternatives. This sorter
question asked whether the patient chooses marijuana strains which have been chemically
analyzed. If the respondent replied affirmatively, or “sometimes”, then they continued to the
next question. If the respondent replied negatively, then they skipped the next question and went
directly to the conclusion of the survey.
Second sorter question:
11. Do you choose medical marijuana strains that have been tested for
cannabinoid content? (Yes, Sometimes, or No)
If the respondent replied “yes” or “sometimes” to this sorter question, then they were questioned
as to the importance of chemical analysis data as a selection criteria. The question was posed as a
five-point Likert ranking response, with indicating “very important:, and indicating “not
important at all”.
Ranking question:
12. How important to you are chemical analysis results in choosing a strain of
medical marijuana? (Very important Not at all)
The final question in the questionnaire was posed as a multiple choice question, intended to
assess which chemical compounds in cannabis the patient sought preferentially. A multiple
choice format was chosen due to the complexity involved in requiring participants to spell out
desired compounds. Although there are at least 80 known cannabinoids in cannabis, current
research has only illuminated the therapeutic properties of a handful of these. The most
commonly tested for compounds were listed in the multiple choice answers for this question.
One disadvantage to providing the names of the cannabinoids rather than allowing respondents
to write in responses is that it did not assess respondents’ knowledge of cannabinoid chemistry,
as a respondent could just check off a few options that sounded familiar, without demonstrating
31
knowledge of the compounds and it also did not allow for freelist analysis of named compounds.
Respondents were also given the option to answer “I don’t know”, or to write in “other”.
Multiple-choice question:
13. What cannabinoids or compounds do you give preference to in selecting
medical marijuana strains?
Cannabichromene (CBC), Cannabidiol (CBD), Cannabinol (CBN),
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), Terpenes, I don't
know, Other: (Please specify)
(See appendix 1 for the complete survey)
Results
Responses were collected for a two month period between June 20, 2011 and August 20, 2011.
Response rates were initially slow but increased toward the end of the study period (see figure 3).
figure 3.
Due to the recruitment methods employed, the online survey was distributed more widely than
anticipated. The initial intent was to survey just US medical cannabis patients, but because of the
span of social networks which collaborated in dispersing the questionnaire, responses also came
from Canada, the UK, and the EU. The paper surveys did not yield any responses. The total
number of responses was 112. These responses were filtered to include data only from
respondents who were currently medical marijuana users. This totaled 96 respondents, 30 of
whom were female, and 66 of whom were males (see figure 4). Average age (mean) of
respondents was 46 years (see figure 5 for age distribution).
32
Figure 4. Figure 5.
The greatest number of responses, 19%, came from the state of Oregon, with 14% of responses
from Michigan and 11% of total responses from California. See figure 6 for geographic
distribution.
Figure 6.
In corresponding and speaking with key informants prior to designing the survey, it was found
that the language that is used from state to state to describe the players in the medical marijuana
industry and the connotations associated with that language seem to vary much more than
anticipated. One patient in Oregon who was interviewed for this project shared with me that the
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80
Number o
f Respondents
Age of Respondent in Years
Age
02468101214161820
Alberta, C
anada
British
Columbia,…
California
Colorado
Florida
France
Illinois
Iowa
Louisiana
Marlborough
Massachusetts
Mexico
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New
Jersey
New
York
North
Carolina
Ohio
Ontario, C
anada
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
Island
Scotland
Spain
Sweden
Texas
UK
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Number o
f Survey
Respondents
State (US), Province (Canada), or Country (EU/UK)
Geographic Distribution
33
word "dispensary" has negative connotations for some patients and advocates, and the term
“resource center” is used to describe establishments which aid in the distribution of cannabis for
medical use. A contact in California, of the Medical Cannabis Association, wrote in email
correspondence, “When you think of medical patients, what comes to mind for you? You should
know that the term marijuana patient [out here in California] is more political than you may
realize. The law in California allows a doctor to recommend the use of marijuana ‘for any
ailment for which marijuana provides relief.’” The need for syncretism in the discourse
surrounding medical marijuana is such that the language that is used to describe practices
becomes politically charged.
Modes of Administration
The results of inquiring of survey respondents as to preferred mode of administration (see figure
7) showed that smoking of cannabis was the preferred mode of administration in the majority of
cases. 67% of respondents preferred smoke inhalation. This is likely due to the fact that
smoking of cannabis is fast-acting, providing immediate results, and allows the patient to self-
titrate dosage. Note that respondents were instructed to choose as many modes as they liked, so
the sum total of responses is greater than 100%. Write-in responses included concentrate, juicing
fresh green leaves, encapsulated oil infusion, tea, creams, massage oil, and topical application.
The use of the term “liquid extract” in the survey question was slightly vague, and in hindsight
could have been more specific. This term was intended to indicate a tincture, which is a liquid
extract in alcohol or glycerin. The term “tincture” was not used because it was uncertain whether
respondents would understand the meaning. However, “liquid extract” could also be interpreted
to indicate an infusion, tea, or tisane, the juice of the fresh plant, or an essential oil, and so the
term was not as specific as intended. However, several respondents wrote in “tea” and “fresh
juice” under the choice “other”, so perhaps the intended meaning was clear to some.
Figure 7.
34
Intended Therapeutic Uses
Figure 8.
In order to aid in visualization of reported symptoms for which cannabis was employed, a word
cloud was created, by pasting the raw text generated by survey respondents in response to the
question “What symptoms are you using medical marijuana to treat?” onto
http://www.wordle.net. Word clouds were found to be a useful tool in this project for
visualizing repeated terms, concepts, and themes in the language generated by open-ended
questions. In addition, wordle.net supplies a case-sensitive frequency tool which was employed
for measuring the number of times each specific word is used. See word cloud in figure 8.
An overwhelming majority, 80% of respondents replied “yes” to the question, “Do you find that
medical marijuana has advantages over other treatments?” while 1% replied “no”, and 3% replied
“not sure”.
The symptom for which cannabis was most commonly cited as a therapeutic agent (see figure 9)
was pain, with 67% of respondents citing its use for this purpose. This included chronic and
intractable pain of multiple etiologies. 15% of respondents specified neuralgia and neuropathies
in using cannabis to relieve their symptoms. Muscle spasms or spasticity (18%) were also
commonly cited. Migraines (11%), back problems (11%), and arthritis (8%) were other specific
forms of pain cited.
35
The second most commonly cited symptom, at 25% of respondents, was insomnia and
sleeplessness. Other mental health symptoms such as anxiety (22%), depression (16%), stress
(10%), and post traumatic stress disorder or PTSD (10%) were also commonly cited. Many
patients employed cannabis to relieve both physical pain and improve mental health complaints.
Gastrointestinal concerns such as nausea (9%), irritable bowel disorders (8%), and appetite
stimulation (6%) were cited less frequently than physical pain or mental complaints. Central
nervous system disorders cited included multiple sclerosis or MS (4%) and epilepsy or seizures
(4%).
Figure 9.
Strain Preferences
To visualize the responses generated by the open-ended question “What strains of medical
marijuana do you prefer?”, the raw text was used to form a word cloud using wordle.net, with the
results displayed in figure 10.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pain
Insomnia/sleeplessness
Anxiety
Muscle spasms, spasticityDepression
Neuropathy/neuralgia
Migraines
Back problems
PTSD
Stress
Nausea
Arthritis
ADHD/ADD
Inflammatory bowel disordersAppetite
MS
Epilepsy/seizures
Asthma
Fibromyalgia
Number of Respondents
Symptoms
Most commonly reported therapeutic applications
36
Figure 10.
The total number of strains named by respondents was n=259. The number of unique strains
that were named was n= 136. The most commonly named strain was indica, which was named by
22% of respondents. Sativa was named by 17%, White Widow was named by 14%, and
Blueberry was named by 8%. Blu-berry was named once, but it couldn’t be assumed that this
was the same as Blueberry, so this was not added to the Blueberry count. Grand Daddy Purple
was named by 6% of respondents. 9% of respondents specified OG as a modifier to certain
strain names (e.g. OG Kush). This was assumed to indicate organically cultivated strains, but
strains named with modifiers were not grouped along with the same strain without the modifier.
For example, the frequency of OG Kush was measured separately from the frequency of Kush.
Similarly, if a respondent specified Kush varieties, this was not grouped with Kush, which was
taken to be a discrete strain while Kush varieties was taken to indicate hybrids of Kush. Kush
was named by 6%, OG Kush was named by 5%, and non-specific “Kush varieties” was named
once. The frequency of Purple Kush and other specific Kush varieties were also measured
separately. Other frequently named cultivars were Sour Diesel (6%), AK-47 (5%), and Super
Silver Haze (5%). See figure 11 for the top most frequently named strain preferences.
37
Figure 11
A comprehensive cannabis strain library exists, http://www.kindgreenbuds.com, which lists
horticultural profiles for a large database of cannabis strains. Included in the strain profiles is
data on ratios of species predominance (indica:sativa, expressed as a percentage) for hybrids.
This database was accessed <8 September 2011> to determine the species predominance of the
top 10 most frequently named strains by survey respondents in order to determine if there was a
general trend indicating preference for indica or sativa predominance. Determined to be indica-
predominant strains were: Blueberry, Grand Daddy Purple, OG Kush, and Kush. Strains which
were determined to be sativa predominant were White Widow, Sour Diesel, and AK-47. Super
Silver Haze was found to be a 50:50 hybrid, so it was not included in determining preference for
indica or sativa-rich strains. In examining the top 10 most frequently named strains, it was found
that 47% of respondents specified a preference for an indica or indica-predominant strain, and 40
% of respondents specified preference for a sativa or sativa-rich strain. This is in comparison
with the previously cited survey conducted by the American Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics
which found that 31% of respondents preferred indica or indica-rich hybrids while 26%
preferred sativa or sativa-rich strains for therapeutic purposes.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Indica
Sativa
White Widow
Blueberry
Grand Daddy PurpleKush
Sour DieselAK‐47
OG KushSuper Silver Haze
Green CrackIndica‐SativaBlue Dream
Haze
Jack HererLemon Skunk
New York City DieselNorthern lights
Purple KushSuper Lemon Haze
Number of respondents
Most Commonly Named Strains
38
In the present results, 15% of respondents addressed their perception of the subjective
therapeutic differences between sativa-predominant and indica-predominant strains, saying that
sativa was uplifting, anti-depressive, energizing, useful for fatigue or exhaustion and better for
daytime use, while indica was said to be useful for pain, lack of appetite, insomnia, and generally
for nighttime use, but impeded daytime function. Similarly, 7% of respondents addressed their
preferences for CBD and THC while discussing strain preferences, with parallels noted between
the therapeutic effects of CBD and indica-dominant strains for pain and insomnia.
4% of respondents commented upon the fallibility of nomenclature which exists in the
commercial medical marijuana market, saying things like “strains are made up words,” “in Ohio,
you get what the street offers,” and “the black market doesn't tell you what you're getting and I
hate that.”
3% of respondents volunteered germplasm source information, specifying the seed company or
source which provided the specific strains they preferred. Several respondents also discussed
hybrid strains which they had selectively crossed to meet their own preferences.
General criteria in cannabis cultivar selection which was listed by respondents in answer to the
open-ended question, “What criteria do you use in selecting a medical marijuana strain?” was
again depicted using a word cloud with the results shown in figure 12.
Figure 12.
39
20% of respondents stated that smell, aroma, or fragrance was a criterion they used in strain
selection. 15% specified taste, flavor, or palatability in strain selection criteria. 18% stated that
effects, effectiveness, or efficacy was a criterion in strain selection. Related criteria such as
potency and results were also frequently mentioned, by about 10% of respondents. Availability
was also mentioned by 5% of respondents. In semi-structured phone interviews, it was stated
that patients in the state of Oregon are “self-selecting for strains that work for them”, and that
selection of cannabis cultivars occurs through a combination of trial and error, availability, and
social networking (Glick, personal communication, 2011). Another interviewee in Oregon stated
the significance of social gatherings such as the Medical Cannabis Cup in shaping the cannabis
market by formalizing social networking and in turn facilitating the exchange of information and
novel germplasm (McGarvin, personal communication, 2011). Begun only recently in San
Francisco, California in 2010, the Medical Cannabis Cup has since occurred in Denver, Colorado,
and will occur in Detroit, Michigan in October 2011 (see figure 13), all states in the US which have
provisions for medical marijuana. Similar to the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam, at the Medical
Cannabis Cup, medical marijuana strains are evaluated for their merits and awarded accordingly
with a cannabis cup.
Figure 13.
Patients’ use of Cannabinoid Analysis Information
18% of respondents felt that chemical analysis of cannabis was very important. 3% of
respondents felt that chemical analysis was not important at all. See figure 14.
40
Figure 14.
The most commonly sought cannabinoid, by 80 % of respondents, was THC. Nearly as highly
sought was CBD, sought by 70% of respondents. Note that patients listed as many cannabinoids
as they liked in this mutiple-choice question, so the sum total of responses is greater than 100%.
44% of respondents also selected for terpenes, and 39% for CBN in choosing medical marijuana.
See figure 15.
Figure 15.
20, 18%
15, 13% 15, 13%
7, 6%
3, 3%
0
5
10
15
20
25
1‐VeryImportant
2 3 4 5‐Not at all
Number o
f Respondents
Importance Placed on Chemical Analysis
9, 15%
43, 70%
24, 39%
49, 80%
16, 26%
27, 44%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
CBC CBD CBN THC THCV Terpenes
Number o
f Respondents
Preference for Cannabinoids
41
Analysis
The under-regulated nature of the medical marijuana industry presented several limiting factors in
the execution of the present study. The inconsistency of popular nomenclature can be a critical
limiting factor in identifying patient preferences for cultivars. The lack of standardization of
medicinal marijuana products makes it difficult to accurately assess potency and cannabinoid
content of germplasm employed for therapeutic purposes. And lastly, patients’ access or lack
thereof, to accurate information about cannabinoid properties, to strains with known
chemotaxonomic profiles, and especially the lack of patient choice altogether in states where
cannabis use is not ratified, limits the ability of the present study to measure knowledge and its
effect on choice. Because patients may not always have access to consistent, tested cannabis and
cannabis products, selection of cultivars can sometimes be guided more by availability of product
or incomplete information. However, in US states where medical marijuana use is decriminalized,
increasing access to chemical analysis data and the tools to apply this information for
cannabinoid strain selection suggest that many patients may apply rational criteria to strain
selection.
The potential for correlations between reported symptoms and cannabinoid preferences was
examined. The data on reported therapeutic applications (see figure 9 above) was coded into 4
categories:
1. Pain of multiple etiologies
2. Mental Health (including ADHD, depression, anxiety, PTSD, and insomnia)
3. Gastrointestinal health (including appetite, nausea and irritable bowel disorder)
4. Other neuropathy (including MS and epilepsy)
The four symptom codes and six cannabinoid compounds measured in the survey were cross-
referenced. See results displayed in table 3 and figure 16.
42
Table 3.
Figure 16.
The results of examining natural use patterns of cannabis as medicine indicate that cannabis is
used most frequently for pain of multiple etiologies as well as mental health complaints. The
compounds patients sought most for pain were THC and CBD, with 70% of pain patients
seeking cannabis high in THC, and 63% seeking cannabis high in CBD. The compounds which
were most sought by patients with mental health complaints were again CBD and THC, with
48% choosing cannabis strains tested to contain CBD, and 45% choosing strains high in THC.
Compound
Symptom Pain Mental GI Other Pain Mental GI Other Pain Mental GI Other
Total reported 8 6 3 1 38 29 14 2 22 17 10 3
Percentage 13% 10% 5% 2% 63% 48% 23% 3% 37% 28% 17% 5%
Compound
Symptom Pain Mental GI Other Pain Mental GI Other Pain Mental GI Other
Total reported 42 27 15 4 15 9 4 0 23 13 9 2
Percentage 70% 45% 25% 7% 25% 15% 7% 0% 38% 22% 15% 3%
CBC CBD CBN
THC THCV Terpenes
8
6
3 1
38
29
14
2
22
17
10
3
42
27
15
4
15
9
4 0
23
13
9
20
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pain Mental GI Other
Number o
f Respondents
Therapeutic Application
Cannabinoids Selected for Therapeutic Application
CBC
CBD
CBN
THC
THCV
Terpenes
43
Conclusions
Because patients are selecting the strains of cannabis which yield the desired results for specific
therapeutic complaints, targeted investigation of specific strain properties is recommended
(including indica/sativa predominance, cannabinoid content), as indicated by frequent patient
reports of anecdotal therapeutic success with a particular strain. Controlled use studies which
further explore therapeutic indications resulting from natural use studies such as the present
survey are needed, for example in the application of herbal cannabis for the treatment of pain
and mental health complaints, and may be used to inform clinical use protocols of medical
marijuana. Continued chemotaxonomic and genetic analysis of cannabis cultivars is greatly
needed to resolve discrepancies and debates in popular and scientific nomenclature and to aid in
the development of standard naming conventions for cannabis.
Modes of administration which de-emphasize cultural associations and assumptions surrounding
cannabis merit further investigation. A nebulizer for inhalation, juicing fresh plant matter for
consumption, utilizing cannabis essential oils, external applications, and employing cannabis
strains which are high in non-psychotropic cannabinoids such as CBD, CBN, and terpenes could
all offer potential therapeutic benefit without the emphasis on smoking cannabis for its THC
content.
The trend towards decriminalization of medical marijuana at the state level in the US continues to
be a contentious issue. Policies which regulate the licensing and distribution of medical
marijuana are founded as much on moral and political considerations as they are on scientific
data, a deficiency which the present research attempted to address by examining the link between
rational criteria (chemical composition) and user behavior (selection of medical marijuana
cultivars and modes of administration). Because of the complexity of issues involved in the use
of medical marijuana, this survey can have ramifications for public health policy, government
regulations, economics and trade, medical anthropology, horticulture, and phytotherapy. The
data gathered may also inform policy recommendations for public interest or activist groups.
It is apparent that syncretism among all these discourses continues to be much-needed to address
the complexity of issues surrounding the problem of medical marijuana. Although there is some
intercalation of medical models exemplified by the growing state-level US medical marijuana
44
system and biomedical research priorities, still the restriction of cannabis as a Schedule I drug
continues to impede the full potential of scientific research contributing to the safety and efficacy
of cannabis as medicine.
References
Aggarwal, S. (2008) “The medical geography of cannabinoid botanicals in Washington state:
access, delivery, and distress”, PhD dissertation, the University of Washington.
Aggarwal, S., G. Carter, M. Sullivan, C. ZumBrunnen, R. Morrill, and J. Mayer. (2009)
“Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: Historical perspectives, current trends, and
future directions”, Journal of Opioid Management.
Alghanim, H. and J. Almirall. (2003) “Development of microsatellite markers in cannabis sativa
for DNA typing and genetic relatedness analyses”, Annals of Bioanalyticchemistry, 376:1225-1233.
Baker, D., G. Pryce, G. Giovannoni, and A. Thompson. (2003) “The therapeutic potential of
cannabis”, The Lancet Neurology 2:291-298.
Ben Amar, M. (2006) “Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential”, Journal
of Ethnopharmacology, 105:1–25.
Clark, R. (1993) Marijuana Botany, Ronin.
Clark, R. and D. Watson (2006) “Cannabis and natural cannabis medicines”. In M. ElSohly (ed.)
Forensic Science and Medicine: Marijuana and the Cannabinoids, Totowa: Humana Press Inc, 1-15.
Cohen, P. (2010) “Medical Marijuana 2010: It’s Time to Fix the Regulatory Vacuum”, Journal of
Law, Medicine & Ethics, 654-666.
Dahl, H., and V. Asmussen. (2009) “Cannabis cultivation and cannabis use from the perspective
of home growers”, Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the European Society for Social
Drug Research. Belfast.
de Meijer, E. (1999) “Cannabis germplasm resources”. In Ranalli, P. (ed.) (2009) Advances in
Hemp Research, New York: Haworth Press, 133-152.
ElSohly, M. (ed). (2006) Forensic Science and Medicine: Marijuana and the Cannabinoids, Totowa:
Humana Press Inc.
ElSohly, M., D. Stanford, and T. Murphy. (2006) “Chemical fingerprinting of cannabis as a
means of source identification”. In ElSohly, M. (ed). (2006) Forensic Science and Medicine: Marijuana
and the Cannabinoids, Totowa: Humana Press Inc.
Fischedick, J., A. Hazekamp, T. Erkelens, Y. Choi, and R. Verpoorte. (2010) “Metabolic
fingerprinting of Cannabis sativa L., cannabinoids and terpenoids for chemotaxonomic and drug
standardization purposes”, Phytochemistry, 71:2058–2073.
45
Grotenhermen, F. and E. Russo (eds.) (2002) Cannabis and cannabinoids: pharmacology, toxicology, and
therapeutic potential, Routledge.
Guy, G., B. Whittle, and P. Robson. (2004) The medicinal uses of cannabis and cannabinoids,
Pharmaceutical Press.
Hanus, L. and R. Mechoulam. (2005) Cannabinoid chemistry: an overview. In R. Mechoulam
(ed) Cannabinoids as Therapeutics (pp. 23-45), Birkhauser Verlag.
Hazekamp, A. and F. Grotenhermen. (2010) “Review on clinical studies with cannabis and
cannabinoids 2005-2009”, Cannabinoids, 5(special issue):1-21.
Hillig, K. (2005) “Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)”, Genetic Resources and
Crop Evolution, 52:161-180.
Hillig, K. and P. Mahlberg. (2004) “A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in
Cannabis (Cannabaceae)”, American Journal of Botany, 91(6):966-975.
Holland, J (ed). (2010) The Pot Book: A complete guide to Cannabis, Park Street Press.
Izzo, A., F. Borrelli, R. Capasso, V. Di Marzo, and R. Mechoulam. (2009) “Non-psychotropic
plant cannabinoids: new therapeutic opportunities from an ancient herb”, Trends in Pharmacological
Sciences, 30(10):515-527.
Jansen, P.C.M., 2006. Cannabis sativa L. [Internet] Record from Protabase. Schmelzer, G.H. &
Gurib-Fakim, A. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales
de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands. (available online at:
http://database.prota.org/search.htm. accessed 23 August 2011).
Joy, J (ed). (1999) Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, National Academies Press.
Kersgaard, S. (2011) “Cannabis genome sequenced by American research company”. The
Colorado Independent (available online: http://coloradoindependent.com/96981/cannabis-
genome-sequenced-by-american-research-company. accessed 26 August 2011).
Korf, D., A. Benschop, and M. Wouters. (2007) “Differential responses to cannabis potency: A
typology of users based on self-reported consumption behavior”, International Journal of Drug Policy,
18:168-176.
“Laboratory validation of an analytical method” Full Spectrum Laboratory (available online at:
http://fullspectrumlabs.com/validation/, accessed 7/21/2011).
Lambert, D. (ed). (2009) Cannabinoids in Nature and Medicine, Wiley.
Levine, H. (2010) “Arrest statistics and racism”. In Holland, J (ed). (2010) The Pot Book: A complete
guide to Cannabis, Park Street Press.
Makriyannis, A., R. Mechoulam, and D. Piomelli. (2005) “Therapeutic opportunities through
modulation of the endocannabinoid system”, Neuropharmacology, 48:1068-1071.
46
Miller, S. (2011) “Cannabis laboratories: the testing landscape in America”, (available online at:
http://www.freedomisgreen.com/cannabis-laboratories-the-testing-landscape-in-america/.
accessed 11 August 2011).
Newing, H., C. Eagle, R. Puri, and C. Watson. (2010) Conducting Research in Conservation: Social
Science Methods and Practice, Routledge.
Pollan, M. (2001) The Botany of Desire, New York: Random House.
Reiman, A. (2006) “Cannabis care: medical facilities as health service providers”, PhD
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Romm, A. and T. Romm. (2011) “AHG professional member survey: medicinal use of
cannabis”, Journal of the American Herbalists Guild, 9(2): 25-36.
Russo, E. and G. Guy. (2006) “A tale of two cannabinoids: The therapeutic rationale for
combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol”, Medical Hypotheses, 66:234–246.
Schultes, R., A. Hoffman, and C. Ratsch. (1998) Plants of the Gods, Rochester: Healing Arts Press.
Stafford, L. (2010) “The state of clinical cannabis research in the United States”, HerbalGram,
85:64-68.
Starks, M. (1993) Marijuana Chemistry: Genetics, Processing, and Potency, Berkeley: Ronin.
Taylor, S. (2008) “Medicalizing cannabis-science, medicine and policy, 1950-2004: An overview
of a work in progress”, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 15(5):462-474.
Ware, M., H. Adams, and G. Guy. (2005) “The medicinal use of cannabis in the UK: results of a
nationwide survey”, International Journal of Clinical Practice, 59(3):291-295.
“What is the best medical cannabis strain?”, American Alliance for Medical Cannabis. (available
online at http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/articles/poll020611.htm. accessed 11 September
2011).
Young, A. (1983) “The relevance of traditional medical cultures to modern primary health care”,
Social Science & Medicine, 17(16):1205-1211.
47
Appendix 1: Survey
Medical Marijuana Research Survey
By filling out the following brief (five minute) survey, you will be participating in a graduate research project aimed at examining the use of chemical analysis services among medical marijuana patients. The survey responses will be coded for confidentiality, and results will be used in writing a master's thesis. What state do you live in?
What is your gender?
Male Female
What is your age?
Are you currently a medical marijuana user?
Yes
No
What symptoms are you using medical marijuana to treat? (List all that apply)
Are you using other treatments for these symptoms?
Yes
No
Do you find that medical marijuana has advantages over other treatments?
Yes
No
What is your preferred form for using medical marijuana? (Choose all that apply) Smoke Vaporizer Liquid extract Pill Edible External Other: (Please specify)
Survey continues on the other side →
48
What strains of medical marijuana do you prefer? (List all that apply) What criteria do you use in selecting a medical marijuana strain? (List all that apply) Do you choose medical marijuana strains that have been tested for cannabinoid content?
Yes No Sometimes
How important to you are chemical analysis results in choosing a strain of medical marijuana?
What cannabinoids or compounds do you give preference to in selecting medical
marijuana strains? (Check all that apply)
Cannabichromene (CBC) Cannabidiol (CBD) Cannabinol (CBN) Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) Terpenes I don't know Other: (Please specify)
Your participation is much appreciated!
Please return completed surveys to the lab or care center where you picked it up. Responses will be kept confidential and used to compile data toward a graduate thesis in ethnobotany for the University of Kent - Canterbury, U.K. For results of the study, or to participate further, contact [email protected].
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.