Medical? Not without being held to stricter standards

RE “Medical marijuana law takes form” (Page A1, Feb. 6): The public is outraged when a prescription medication thought to be safer and more effective than other options is found to have harmful effects. (One such example is Vioxx, a pain reliever that was associated with small increases in heart attacks among people with heart disease.) Yet marijuana is supported as therapeutic, and called “medical,” without any placebo-controlled clinical trials that would tell us the benefits and risks.

It won’t be prescribed by doctors — doctors are to “certify” patients to get it — or dispensed by pharmacists. The Food and Drug Administration won’t be able to monitor risks the same way it does for other medications. Let’s face it — it isn’t medical; or, if it is, it has somehow escaped the usual scrutiny.


Although it is possible that the benefits outweigh risks for some, we don’t know that, and surveys have found that in other states, many patients are young men suffering from substance use disorders, not just the elderly in pain or people with multiple sclerosis or glaucoma.

What is the justification for so-called medical marijuana’s not being subject to the same standards as aspirin, Claritin, Lipitor, and other medications? Patients deserve no less.

Dr. Richard Saitz


Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to Globe.com for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com