There are only three application deadlines per year and it takes about eight months or so from the application deadline to the availability of funding. The Panel should propose other peer review processes that can respond to state and privately funded projects, that will act more rapidly than the NIH process, and that will still satisfy NIDA's concerns that the protocols be well designed. The specification of alternative routes to NIDA marijuana is the most difficult litmus test to determine if the Panel, and NIDA, are really serious about expediting medical marijuana research. Marijuana smoke contains compounds that are neither therapeutic nor without health risks. This research determined that water pipes were counterproductive and selectively filtered out more cannabinoids than particulate matter but that vaporizers did improve the ratio of cannabinoids to particulate matter.
Vaporizers are existing technology that can be rapidly tested and improved.
Their political downside is that they are designed to improve the safety profile of smoked marijuana. Aerosol technology is also important to support but will take more time and cost more money to develop. Its political advantage, and medical advantage as well, is that it can utilize only the therapeutic cannabinoids and need not involve the delivery of any extraneous substances. MAPS has tried to continue this research, but a research proposal that I submitted to RTI has not been accepted.