…in most states where such programs existed, the applicant had to meet at least one of a number of “qualifying conditions” (QCs) for which there was allegedly evidence in favor of cannabis as an effective treatment. The lists often included twenty or so different medical complaints, ranging from chronic pain to Opioid Use Disorder, and a host of others in between.

When I got a first look at the list of QCs in our state (New Mexico), I emailed the state documents people and asked for a copy of the research the committee of experts had reviewed prior to approval. I got a reply to the effect that I would have to file a Freedom of Information request. Being lazy, I let it drop.

But I did wonder— why is that confidential? I mean, it’s published research, isn’t it?

Anyway, I was interested to see this recently released report from one of the Mayo Institute publications. The title may be bland, but the conclusions are substantial.

Medical Cannabis in the United States: Comparing 2017 and 2024 State Qualifying Conditions to the 2017 National Academies of Sciences Report

As it turns out, most of the qualifying conditions weren’t well-supported by science. Then or now.

I thought that should have been an obvious concern from the git-go.

It just reinforces my conviction that the process of legalizing marijuana for medical use was largely based on anecdotal reports and political advocacy, not good science. I wasn’t opposed to medical marijuana programs in principle. It was reliance on misleading science that bothered me.

At the time, however, mine was a minority viewpoint.

I’ll let the researchers speak for themselves:

“…in 2024 only 8.3% of the QCs on states’ QC lists met the standard of substantial/conclusive evidence. Of the 20 most popular QCs in the country in 2017 and 2024, one only (long-term pain) was categorized… as having substantial evidence for effectiveness. However, 7 were rated as either ineffective (eg, glaucoma) or insufficient evidence.”

To continue: ”Many states recommend QCs with little evidence (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) or even those for which MC is ineffective (depression). These findings highlight a disparity between state-level MC recommendations and the evidence to support them.”

Didn’t matter much in the end, did it? Wasn’t long before most of those same states legalized cannabis for recreational use, too.

There wasn’t much attention given to regulation,  and as a result, legal cannabis remains a Wild West saloon of competing interests.