On Dec. 14, 2016 the Federal Register contained an item (21 CFR Part 1308) that establishes a new drug code for “marihuana extract.” This new code (RECEIVING ZERO MEDIA ATTENTION) attempts to make CBD oil (an extract from BOTH HEMP AND MARIJUANA PLANTS) illegal.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
There is much controversy over the legalization of marijuana in the U.S and around the world. To keep things simple, I’ll discuss the two main cannabinoid components in question in hemp and marijuana that affect the human brain and body. These are:
THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol – compound desired for psychoactive “GETTING HIGH” response).
CBD (Cannabidiol – compound desired for medical and health benefits WITHOUT psychoactive response.)
Until December 14th, 2016 Cannabidiol use was LEGAL as long as it contained less than 0.3% THC. Extracting this oil from hemp produced levels of THC significantly less than the legal limits. To place this amount in perspective, recreational marijuana typically contains levels of THC ranging from 18% to nearly 30%.
CBD OIL has many health benefits including:
Reducing anxiety and stress
Reducing seizure activity
Reducing systemic INFLAMMATION (Major factor in cancer, diabetes, cardiac disease, auto immune diseases, etc…)
Improving metabolic activity (assists with weight control and blood sugar levels)
Managing pain control
Improving skin health
It is important to understand this form of cannabinoid is NON ADDICTIVE and has NEVER been associated with a FATALITY. Since the THC portion produces the psychoactive component (“getting high,”) there is “NO HIGH” using cannabidiol oil extracted from hemp containing these minimal percentages of THC.
The health benefits listed above are achieved without the dangerous SIDE EFFECTS OF TYPICAL PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS. This doesn’t mean that CBD oil exclusively replaces prescription medications, but rather may provide a safer alternative BEFORE turning to drugs with potential harmful side effects. If addictive opioid medication is needed, CBD could reduce the amount required minimizing the risks that prescription pain medications are known to produce.
This post would become too long to detail the health benefits of CBD oil and the chemical mechanisms producing these benefits. For those interested, however, I have included the following LINK (it is long and technical.)
The significance that the Drug Enforcement Agency is altering current regulations regarding this product is important. It means the consumer, once again, is having his or her options to therapeutic treatments redirected to pharmaceutical intervention. The DEA’s claim for this regulation is based as follows:
“This code,” wrote DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg, “will allow DEA and DEA-registered entities to track quantities of this material (CBD) separately from quantities of marihuana.” The move, the Register entry explained, is meant to bring the US into compliance with international drug-control treaties.
Why is this information not reported to the public?
Where is the logic in creating a new federal regulation banning the legal use of a safe therapeutic compound that offers a scientifically proven alternative choice to pharmaceutical treatments?
Can you see the conflict of interests between governmental regulations and the pharmaceutical industry’s desire to control available supplies?
I have never used this product or suggested it for my patients. This, however, does not mean it isn’t a viable legitimate option. My limited understanding produced my hesitation. With better science and explanation regarding its safety and therapeutic value, I would not hesitate today to include this option as a CHOICE for patients. This regulation, however, removes this CHOICE OF TREATMENT while advancing the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda at the CONSUMER’S EXPENSE.
In case you’re not clear about potential conflicts of interest, I provide some examples:
IS CONSUMER PROTECTION STILL THE GOAL OF OUR FEDERAL GOV’T?
Can you see why it is so important to educate yourself and remain open minded about the various “TRUTHS” and the limited exposure the consumer is provided?