Electronic letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
|
|
|||
|
Peter R. O'Loughlin NADAAC
Send letter to journal:
peteroloughlin5{at}hotmail.com Peter R. O'Loughlin
|
Whilst the writer appreciates that the pharmaceutical industry might benefit from patenting a cannanbinoid molecule, the only justification for such would be as a pain killer. However, research dating back to 2001 clearly indicates that psychotropic side effects resulting from THC were common.(1)The side effects noted are mental clouding, ataxia, dizziness, numbness, disorientation,disconnected thought, slurred speech, muscle twitching, impaired memory, dry mouth, and blurred vision. further the THC at 20mg proved to be highly sedating in 100% of patients, sufficient to prohibit its use. At 10mg THC was better tolerated, but the frequency of the above adverse effects were higher than with codeine at 60mg or 120mg. The authors of the research which appears to have been far reaching and confined to validated RCT's concluded that 'Cannabinoids are no more effective than codeine in controlling pain and have depressant effects on the central nervous system that limit their use'. Further conclusions were: 'Their widespread introduction into clinical practice for pain management is therefore undesirable. In acute postoperative pain they should not be used'.Before cannabinoids can be considered for treating spasticity and neuropathic pain,further valid randomised controlled studies are needed.' References. 1 Fiona A Campbell, consultant in anaesthetics and pain management, Martin R Tramèr, staff anaesthetist, Dawn Carroll, senior research nurse John M Reynolds, consultant clinical pharmacologist, R Andrew Moore, consultantbiochemistand Henry J McQuay, professor of pain relief British MedicalJournal: 2001 July 7; v.323(7303) 13. Conflict of Interest:Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery |
|||