Medical Marijuana Faces Fed's Catch-22

Doing large studies of marijuana's potential as medicine means getting it removed from an official federal list of substances with no official medical use—which requires more proof of its potential as medicine.

BRETT LEVIN

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Medical marijuana is now available in 28 states. But a big obstacle to research on marijuana as medicine is that it’s listed by the federal government on what’s called Schedule I. Assignment to Schedule I means that the Food and Drug Administration does not recognize a legitimate medical purpose to a substance.

At a session on medical marijuana at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on February 19th, I asked researcher Ryan Vandrey, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, about getting marijuana off of the list of Schedule I substances.

RV: “Well, it can’t come off of Schedule I to a different schedule until the traditional drug development work has been done, and I don’t think the traditional drug development work really can be done while it’s Schedule I. It just makes large Phase III trials in hospital-based programs near impossible.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


SM: “So it’s a catch-22.”

RV: “It’s a catch-22. So I think the only way to really get around that is kinda two paths. One, you just unscheduled it completely. Alcohol is not scheduled, for example, so that’s the pathway that some of the states have gone, just making it available. Or treating is as like a botanical, herbal product. The other way would be to kinda wait until we get more targeted, specific products. So not whole plant cannabis, but maybe more specific formulations with specific cannabinoid profiles, would be the other way.”

SM: “Your life would be easier with it off?”

RV: “Oh, absolutely. [laughs] Without a doubt. And just to clarify, the limitations that we have in doing research is that we are limited to doing research with products that are available through the federal drug supply program. They have quite a bit, but they don’t have everything. And then the limitation is even using their product we have to go through extra levels of regulatory scrutiny and experience substantial delays in doing our research.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe