A 1985 Review Assessed Cannabis for Nausea, Glaucoma, and Muscle Spasticity | Research

The takeaway

A review summarized the evidence for medical cannabis across three conditions, nausea control, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis spasticity, while noting the moral and ethical controversies surrounding its therapeutic use.

Read this if you want a snapshot of where medical cannabis evidence stood at the time of the first FDA-approved THC medication.

Three medical applications had accumulated clinical evidence by 1985

What the researchers found

By 1985, sufficient clinical evidence had accumulated to assess cannabis and THC across three primary medical applications.

For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, THC had demonstrated efficacy in multiple controlled trials. For glaucoma, cannabis consistently lowered intraocular pressure, though delivery and side effect challenges remained. For multiple sclerosis spasticity, preliminary evidence suggested benefit.

The review noted that the primary barriers to medical cannabis were not scientific but moral and ethical, reflecting the broader cultural controversy around marijuana that complicated both research and clinical access.

Why it matters

Published the same year dronabinol received FDA approval, this review captures the state of medical cannabis evidence at a watershed moment. Its observation that the barriers were primarily moral and ethical rather than scientific foreshadowed decades of ongoing debate about medical cannabis access.

The numbers in context

Three therapeutic applications reviewed: nausea/vomiting, glaucoma, and MS spasticity.

How the study worked

Narrative review summarizing clinical evidence for medical cannabis across three therapeutic areas: antiemetic use in chemotherapy, intraocular pressure reduction in glaucoma, and spasticity reduction in multiple sclerosis.

What this study cannot tell us

The abstract describes a summary review without methodological details. The three conditions covered represent only a portion of the therapeutic claims made for cannabis.

How to read the evidence

A narrative review summarizing the state of evidence across multiple conditions. Useful for historical context but limited by the evidence available at the time.

When this study was published

Published in 1985, the same year dronabinol (Marinol) received FDA approval. The medical cannabis landscape has transformed dramatically since.

The bigger picture

This review appeared at a pivot point: dronabinol was approved by the FDA in 1985, validating the antiemetic evidence. But the broader question of medical cannabis access, as distinct from single-molecule pharmaceutical approval, remained unresolved and would drive the state medical marijuana movement that began a decade later.

Questions still open

Have the moral and ethical barriers the authors identified been resolved in the decades since? How did dronabinol approval that same year affect the broader medical cannabis debate?

Common questions

What medical uses had evidence by 1985?

The strongest evidence was for controlling chemotherapy nausea. Evidence also existed for lowering eye pressure in glaucoma and reducing muscle spasticity in multiple sclerosis.

Why was medical cannabis controversial?

The review noted the primary barriers were moral and ethical rather than scientific, reflecting the cultural debate around marijuana that persisted despite accumulating medical evidence.

Read the original research

Therapeutic issues of marijuana and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).

The International journal of the addictions, 20(5), 691-9

View on PubMed ↗

Citation

Ungerleider, J T; Andrysiak, T. (1985). Therapeutic issues of marijuana and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).. The International journal of the addictions, 20(5), 691-9.