I would imagine it is only big science oriented Universities and Pharmaceutical companies that have the know how, resources and chemist, in general, to unearth whether or not canna has authentic medicinal uses.
And those uses will be compared with existing drugs etc. targeting whatever medical conditions being evaluated. They isolated the THC synthetically for some specific purposes (appetite/nausea). Then we have the UK firm with CBD's etc.
All the information most medical patients rely on is anecdotal. Historical reports of use long ago and in the late nineteenth century is the impetus of yesterday and today's strategy towards medical use. So what we really have is putative medical uses based on subjective opinions. Take a look at Amazon herb/supplement reviews. They can be so outlandish. Claims of relief and claims of--it doesn't work. If these herbs really had great medicinal power the compound(s) would be synthesized and reworked. Just like the Willow Tree and aspirin.
Take a look at some of the sites and US dispensary reviews. That is the suggestion that a specific strain helps with this and that. Sometimes it is a list, other times, it is a specific aliment or two. Of course, there are those who seem to benefit "subjectively" from a strain with unlisted medical purposes. And we hear about it in forum reviews etc.
Truly, not a one is medically verified. The validity increases when in the instance of children with epilepsy, we see and hear stories, of its great benefit. Children's improvement in health is "objective" the parents see the results in diminished seizures. Canna use for migraine/headache prevention and amelioration of symptoms is validated by its use for many many generations. However, have never come across a study substantiating such. It is still just anecdotal as is my use for such a condition. Anecdotal just like the use of so many herbs being marketed as alternatives. It is just talk and subjective opinion.
Personally, I am a bit disillusioned by what--now, does appear to have been a long term well thought out plan to gain a legalization foothold thru medicinal use. But, there was no alternative.
It is a very complicated political process. That is why the states incorporate these kind of laws as amendments to their state constitutions via ballots/voting.
What the politicians like about it is they do not have to, necessarily, make a yea or nay pitch to constituents. They can just say--that is the will of the people.
In the end, all are pleased, with the added revenue justifying the voters positions.
The state of medical legalization is almost humorous now. It truly is a form of "doctor" recommended general use. We have to face facts. When so many medical users are young (they do comprise most med cardholders). Are we to, truly, believe these young adult users--all, have the kind of issues that canna can verifiably address. There are many older med cardholders who use as a buffer to tolerate (but not take away) age related (past injuries) aches and pains and as an alternative to dangerous substances like booze. With "great pain" canna can't even get close to controlling it as does opiates (the nature form of opium is a better choice because of the tempering interactions and synergistic effects of the alkaloids).
We have a ready comparison between natural opium and refined pain killers. Morphine and all its synthetic cousins are exceedingly addictive because only one "alkaloid" is provided in great concentration. Opium is demonized yet the plant as a whole is safer and better for ones health then a single alkaloid agent. Pure morphine (e.g., injections) is plant based most being produced in Tasmania--
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/agsci/alkalo/popindus.htm. However the real dangerous ones are synthetic analogs (oxycodone--derived from the opium plants alkaloid--thebaine). The opium plant includes in its natural state these 13 alkaloids all of which have a medicinal quality --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Natural_opium_alkaloids
The opium discussion is for the purpose of analogy. What is best--cannabis in its natural state with verifiable medicinal uses or should we even tinker with the compounds as was done with opium alkaloids as "pain medicine." Dentists use procaine a synthetic form of a cocaine analogue--thank goodness and was discovered in 1905. This is an example of a synthetic drug that is used localized and does make procedures both medically and in dentistry--tolerable. Yet it is not abused (as far as I know).
The point is care has to be taken in isolating cannabis and all of its cannabinoids. For they--too--work in harmony. The out breeding of CBD in favor of nearly pure THC is an example of early breeders, general lack of understanding, as to, how cannabinoids work. So, with the big push for CBD rich plants--breeders are reversing course and incorporating CBD back via crosses.
Synthesizing is like taking the vitamin C out of an orange. We all know the orange eaten is nutritionally and medically better than a vitamin C pill. It only takes a teaspoon of lime juice a day to provide the amount of C we need to avoid scurry.
What we need to know is what does the US government have research wise to justify continued prohibition in light of their patent--
http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507. If there is a serious health issue with its use for any reason, then, it is incumbent upon the government to tell its citizens exactly what is is. No--they have not--they have a patent based on beneficial uses. In the end, they will have to base their position on verifiable data. Mercy they have been growing and testing canna for decades. If it is a conspiracy by business interests teaming up with government--then in the US, we have proof the US government is engaged in unscrupulous activity and it is the citizens job to take whatever action is necessary (legally and with ethical/morally integrity) to straighten them out. That is find the smoking gun.
What may happen is that the US government will assign (sell) their patent to a third part. If so, we will then understand their true motives. However, if this patent stays dormant then the question becomes why is the US withholding a beneficial medication(s) to its financial backers--the citizens who pay for its continued operation. But, to get an understanding think the whole patent application has to be read and not just the summary. It is possible that the board/committee notes for approval can provide more information. Don't know if patent office or US agency has or if a open records request would have to be made.
Cheers
