Peaceful Feeling, or Up in Smoke? Medical Marijuana in Medicolegal Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Mossman, I practice in a state that allows use. A few of my patients have asked me to help them obtain for their conditions. How risky would it be to oblige? Submitted by Dr. J In recent years, public debate about has acquired 2 new dimensions: (1) wishes and needs of people who seek for its purported health benefits, and (2) role of physicians who practice where medical is legal. This article, authors' joint effort to address J's concerns, hits 3 topics: * intersection of policy and health care in United States * risks and possible benefits of use * medicolegal problems faced by physicians who might advise patients to use Legal haze Two cannabinoids--dronabinol and nabilone--have received FDA approval as appetite enhancers and anti-nausea agents. Third-party payors usually cover these types of medications, but no insurer pays for (1) The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (2) classified as a Schedule I drug because of its abuse potential, lack of accepted applications, and uncertain safety. The FDA has not approved use for any condition. Although people commonly speak of marijuana, physicians cannot legally do this in United States. What physicians may do, in 23 states that allow marijuana, is recommend or certify a patient's use--an action that has constitutional protection under First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. (3,4) A physician may complete documentation that a patient has one of qualifying conditions for which jurisdiction has legalized Either patient or physician then submits that documentation to appropriate government agency (eg, state's department of health). If documentation receives approval, agency will issue patient a registration card that allows possession of marijuana, with which patient can obtain or grow a small amount of The cannabinoid content of products varies considerably, (5) and physicians who certify typically defer dosage recommendations to patient or dispensary. (1) In states that allow marijuana, users may assert an affirmative defense of necessity if they face criminal prosecution. (3,6) Possession of remains illegal under federal law, however, regardless of one's reason for having it. (7,8) Since October 2009, Attorney General's office has discouraged federal prosecutions of persons whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for use of marijuana. (9) But given remaining conflicts between state and federal laws, the legal implications of certifying patients for remain unclear. (10) Physicians have few resources to instruct them on legal risks of certifying When Canada legalized marijuana, organization that provides malpractice insurance to Canadian physicians told its members that cannot be compared to prescribing prescription drugs and recommended that physicians obtain signed release forms documenting that they have discussed risks of with patients. (11) For some risky approved drugs, FDA has established a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, but no such guidance is available for Highlighting benefits and risks Proponents of claim that Cannabis can help patients, and dispassionate experts acknowledge that at least modest evidence supports benefits of using marijuana for nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, specific pain syndromes, and spasticity from multiple sclerosis. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".