A recent study, featured in Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes, casts doubt on the medical validity of marijuana by scrutinising the evidence supporting state-level qualifying conditions. Researchers compared these conditions with findings from a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) on marijuana’s therapeutic potential.

The NASEM report assessed marijuana’s efficacy across over 20 conditions. Surprisingly, the study revealed that only one condition from the state-approved lists boasted substantial evidence of effectiveness. Meanwhile, widely recognised uses for conditions like glaucoma, epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s held merely limited supporting evidence. These findings underscore a clear disconnect between state policies on medical marijuana and the research underpinning them.

The study’s authors argued that non-scientific factors, including voter-driven initiatives and public sentiment, appeared to have played an outsized role in determining marijuana’s medical applications. This deviation from evidence-based decision-making raises further concerns about the validity of “medical marijuana” as a legitimate treatment option, given that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not sanctioned it for any condition to date.

Such disparities not only challenge the credibility of state-level policies but also promote scepticism towards the broader portrayal of marijuana as therapeutic. Advocates maintain that consistent adherence to rigorous medical evidence remains paramount in ensuring public health is not undermined by poorly substantiated claims.

Source: Mailchi