CMCR Medical Cannabis Research: Findings and Implications
This paper examines the 2010 report published by the Center for Medical Cannabis Research (CMCR), a state-commissioned scientific program that conducted clinical trials on the therapeutic value of marijuana. The paper reviews the program's structure, oversight bodies, and methodology, then analyzes findings from completed trials covering HIV-related peripheral neuropathy, multiple sclerosis spasticity, and neuropathic pain. It highlights the clinical rigor of the studies, discusses the significance of a 34% pain reduction in cannabis-treated HIV neuropathy patients, and considers the implications for future drug development phases and broader cannabinoid therapeutics research.
- Program Overview and Research Question: CMCR origins, funding, and guiding research question
- Study Design, Oversight, and Methodology: Institutional review boards and clinical rigor
- Clinical Trial Areas and Key Findings: Pain reduction outcomes across completed clinical trials
- Implications for Cannabinoid Therapeutics: Future phases and broader therapeutic potential
- Conclusions: Case for continued cannabis research funding
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds every claim in specific data from the source report, including exact patient counts and percentage outcomes (e.g., 34% vs. 17% pain reduction), which adds concrete evidentiary weight.
- Maintains a clear evaluative stance throughout, consistently assessing the credibility and rigor of the program rather than merely summarizing its contents.
- Contextualizes the study within a broader policy and public discourse framework, acknowledging anti-cannabis opposition and future research phases, which gives the analysis practical relevance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source-based evaluative analysis: the writer does not simply report what the CMCR found but actively assesses why the program's methodology and oversight structure lend credibility to its conclusions. This is modeled through attention to peer review, institutional review boards (RAP-C, DEA, FDA), and multi-phase research design.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the program's origins and central research question, then pivots to a detailed account of oversight and methodology to establish credibility. Clinical findings are presented next, followed by a forward-looking discussion of therapeutic implications and future research phases. The conclusion synthesizes the significance of the research and reaffirms the case for continued funding and study.
Program Overview and Research Question
In 1999, a university was commissioned to begin a scientific research program — the Center for Medical Cannabis Research (CMCR) — to "expand the public scientific knowledge on purported usages of marijuana" (Grant, Atkinson, Mattison, and Coates, 2010). The program was conducted by Igor Grant, M.D., J. Hampton Atkinson, M.D., Andrew Mattison, Ph.D., and Thomas J. Coates, Ph.D. Its findings were published on February 11, 2010, by the institution's Health Sciences division. The central question guiding the program was: "Does marijuana have therapeutic value?" (p. 2).
To answer this question, the program approved a total of fifteen studies, including seven clinical trials. At the time of the report's publication in February 2010, five clinical trials had been completed and two remained in progress (p. 2). Five clinical studies were discontinued due to an insufficient patient population for participation in the cancelled trials (p. 15).
References
Grant, I., Atkinson, J. H., Mattison, A., and Coates, T. Report to the Legislature and Governor of the State of California Presenting the Findings Pursuant to SB847 Which Created the CMCR and Provided State Funding. Health Sciences, CMCR, February 11, 2010.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.