From: [den 0] at [quads.uchicago.edu] (funky chicken)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Medical Marijuana
Date: 20 Aug 91 20:33:11 GMT

Anonymous sent me the abstract and asked that I post it.

Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and
Attitudes

by Richard Doblin and Mark A. R. Kleiman

Abstract: A random-sample anonymous survey of the members of the American
Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was conducted in the spring of 1990
measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning
the antiemetic use of marijuana in cancer chemotherapy patients.  The
survey was mailed to about one-third (N = 2430) of all U.S.-based ASCO
members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1035).  More than 44% of the
respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the
control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient.  Almost
half (48%) would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were
legal.  As a group, respondents considered (smoked) marijuana to be
somewhat more effective than the legally available (oral) synthetic THC
(Marinol) and roughly as safe.  Of the respondents who expressed an opinion,
a majority (54%) thought marijuana should be available by prescription.
These results bear on the question of whether mariujana has a "currently
accepted medical use," an issue in an ongoing administrative and legal
dispute concerning whether marijuana in smoked form should be available
by prescription along with synthetic THC in oral form.  This survey
demonstrates that oncologists' experience with the medical use of marijuana
is more extensive, and their opinions of it more favorable, than the
regulatory authorities appear to have believed.

---------

(End quote.)

The above was printed w/o permission, and I don't know where the
study will be (has been?) published.  It is an important article for
legalization activists.  Kleiman, BTW, has written a book on
Marijuana regulation (title escapes me) and is working on one on
drug policy in general.  He has some unusual views, but is very
well spoken.  Believes that cocaine should remain illegal.  Believes
that everyone should need a license to drink in bars (card everyone)
and that there should be a limit to how much a person can purchase
at a liquor store.  Convicted DUI drivers would have their license
to drink in bars taken away, so that they can only drink at home.
With the limit on personal purchases of alcohol, people would be
unwilling to buy for minors, although several people could still
pool their credits together for parties.  Believes in loosening
restrictions on MJ, although I don't know what that means.  Believes
in seizing cars of people who caught driving from crack neighborhoods
with crack.  I may be misrepresenting and I am certainly simplifying
his views.  As I said, he's a persuasive speaker.  When I saw him,
he began by explictly arguing against the J. S. Mill type of
paternalism arguments which Grinspoon used in _Drug Control in a
Free Society_.  

    --Matt F.