Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market

Tag : all pharmaceutical

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuanaresearch and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt publicpolicy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the questionof "why" federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumanepolicy, well that's another story
One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds'seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neitherthe US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow forthe use of medical marijuana because they can't patent it or profitfrom it.
It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accuratenor persuasive. Here's why.
First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for-- and has already received -- multiple patents for the medicalproperties of pot. These include patents for synthetic potderivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol ), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain'sendocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant . This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf) , "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target ofpharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in theunderlying science has been matched by a growth in the number ofcannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to27 in 2004." In other words, at the same time the American MedicalAssociation is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, BigPharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-basedmedicines to market.
Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Mostnotably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex , is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts.(The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD , are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed,company warehouse.)
Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research anddevelopment of pot-based medicines mean that the industry isproactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they knowwhat's good for them. Let me explain.
First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be grantedapproval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food andDrug Administration -- a process that remains as much based onpolitics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that agovernment that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plantwill also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-basedpharmaceuticals.
A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and HealthProducts Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom.(Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.)In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypicallyhard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminatingin Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot isnow of " lethal quality ." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to fiveyears in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder thatBritish regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccablesafety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators-- who take a much more liberal view toward the use of naturalcannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.