Mechoulam Called for Cannabis Clinical Trials, Noting the UK and US Took Opposite Positions on MS Research | Research

The takeaway

In a commentary, endocannabinoid discoverer Raphael Mechoulam noted that the British Medical Association recommended cannabis clinical trials for MS while the US National MS Society did not support such use, highlighting a transatlantic divide.

Read this if you are interested in how leading scientists viewed the medical cannabis debate and why different countries took different approaches.

British Medical Association called for "high priority" cannabis trials while the US MS Society opposed use

What the researchers found

Raphael Mechoulam, who first synthesized THC and later co-discovered the endocannabinoid system, responded to a cannabis health review with specific concern about the therapeutic dimension.

He highlighted a notable divergence between British and American medical authorities on cannabis for multiple sclerosis. The British Medical Association "strongly recommended carefully controlled trials of cannabinoids in patients with chronic spastic disorders which have not responded to other drugs" and stated such trials "merit a high priority." In contrast, the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society did not support cannabis use for MS.

Mechoulam expressed regret that the reviewed paper did not revisit the therapeutic aspects of cannabis, noting it would be valuable to hear analysis of the "medical marijuana" debate, the relative clinical advantages of marijuana versus THC, and the specific question of cannabis in MS, which patients were already widely using.

Why it matters

Coming from the scientist who first synthesized THC and co-discovered anandamide, this commentary carried unique authority. His call for clinical trials, particularly for MS, helped validate patient experiences and push for the research that eventually led to nabiximols (Sativex).

The numbers in context

British Medical Association recommended "high priority" for cannabis clinical trials in spastic disorders. US National MS Society did not support cannabis use.

How the study worked

Published commentary by Raphael Mechoulam responding to a health review article, drawing on his expertise as a pioneer of cannabinoid chemistry and endocannabinoid discovery.

What this study cannot tell us

A brief commentary rather than a systematic analysis. Reflects one scientist's perspective, though from a uniquely authoritative voice in the field.

How to read the evidence

A published commentary by a leading authority in the field. Provides expert perspective rather than original research.

When this study was published

Published in 1998. Nabiximols (Sativex) was later approved for MS spasticity in the UK and many other countries, vindicating Mechoulam's call for trials.

The bigger picture

The transatlantic divide Mechoulam highlighted foreshadowed the different trajectories of cannabis medicine in the UK and US. The UK would approve nabiximols (Sativex) for MS spasticity before the US, partly because the British medical establishment was more receptive to cannabinoid research from this earlier period.

Questions still open

Why did UK and US medical authorities reach different conclusions about cannabis and MS? Did the recommended clinical trials eventually happen? How has the transatlantic divide on medical cannabis evolved since 1998?

Common questions

Did clinical trials for MS happen?

Yes. The trials Mechoulam called for eventually took place, leading to the development and approval of nabiximols (Sativex) for MS spasticity in multiple countries.

Why did the UK and US disagree?

The British Medical Association was willing to recommend trials based on available evidence and patient reports, while the US National MS Society took a more conservative position. Cultural and regulatory differences likely contributed.

Read the original research

Comment on 'Health aspects of cannabis: revisited' (Hollister).

The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology, 1(1), 83-85

View on PubMed ↗

Citation

Mechoulam, R.; Golan, D.. (1998). Comment on 'Health aspects of cannabis: revisited' (Hollister).. The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology, 1(1), 83-85.