Experts say more scientific data could help policymakers decide whether to legalize marijuana at least for medical purposes and perhaps for broader use. Colorado and Washington state have legalized the sale and possession of small quantities of the drug for general consumption by adults, having previously legalized medical marijuana. More research evidence also could help healthcare providers decide whether to recommend marijuana for their patients.
“Those will fill a void,” said Dr. Sue Sisley, a researcher formerly at the University of Arizona who heads a federally approved marijuana trial that's stalled in part because she doesn't have access to government-provided marijuana for research even though her study was approved in March.
The federal government reportedly is funding more than 100 studies of marijuana, but critics say many of them focus on the negative aspects of the drug. Still, the Drug Enforcement Administration said last month that the federal government would increase research-grade marijuana production from 46.3 pounds to 1,433 pounds this year.
In May, Colorado lawmakers authorized the $9 million in grant funding, which comes from state-collected medical marijuana fees. Legislators in Minnesota included the state study provisions to evaluate additional indications for medical use of marijuana and to evaluate which chemicals in marijuana are effective for specific conditions.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In the past, California has conducted state-backed research into the effectiveness of marijuana. That money eventually dried up. “They really set the stage for state-funded medical marijuana research,” said Dr. Ken Gershman, who manages the medical marijuana grant program at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “I guess we're the next to try to pick up the baton.”
Unlike California researchers, who navigated arduous federal hurdles to conduct randomized clinical trials, researchers in Colorado and Minnesota could be restricted to conducting observational studies.
Manny Munson-Regala, who is supervising the setup of the medical marijuana program at the Minnesota Health Department, said it's unclear what his state's research will look like. The state will have access to patients' medical records, and a team of researchers could review patient surveys or provider and producer reports.
But Dr. Gavin Bart, director of the division of addiction medicine at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, questioned the usefulness of observational studies. “Garbage in, garbage out,” he said.
Still, experts and public officials say some research evidence is better than none.
It will require more scientific evidence to win over organized medicine. Dr. Alfred Gilchrist, CEO of the Colorado Medical Society, and Dr. David Thorson, chair of the Minnesota Medical Association, both said additional investigation is critical to evaluate marijuana's effectiveness. “The jury's still out on this,” Gilchrist said. “I think it's going to be helpful all across the country for Minnesota and Colorado to get these studies underway so that we can start getting some good evidence.”
Munson-Regala said Minnesota's program is designed to move beyond a reliance on anecdotes about pot's medical effectiveness. “There are a lot of claims that cannabis is the wonder drug for all these ailments,” he said. “That might actually be true, but it would be nice to know and get some data around that.”
Sisley agreed that observational studies aren't ideal. But, she said, they could provide some pressure to break down federal obstacles to studying marijuana and might inspire additional research. “This is the only way we have to move forward, so we have to get going,” she said. “Even observational studies can have a world of influence.”
James Nord is a freelance writer based in Minneapolis.
