Did you know that the US Government holds a patent on "Marijuana" Cannabinoids?

[court jester]

United States Patent #6,630,507
Hampson,et al. October 7, 2003
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.

Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3.

Much Much more at link...

some commentary:

The Significance of US Govt Cannabinoid Patent 6,630,507

When I was at the Patients Out of Time Medical Cannabis conference in Asilomar this last April, I overheard a remark that startled me: "The US Government has a patent on cannabis." I couldn't locate the person who made the comment, so I went home and did some online research. Sure enough, patent number 6,630,507 states unequivocally that cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson's, Alzeheimer's and HIV dementia. The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

So, why is this important? Here is a legal document, in the public domain, which flies in the face of the US Government's stated position with regard to the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance having no "currently accepted medical use". Believe me, citing this patent stops the "medical marijuana is a myth" advocates dead in their tracks. They simply cannot argue with it. The forces that would keep cannabis illegal are vocal and well funded, but they are not impervious to persistent effort. The lynch pin in the War on Drugs is cannabis. Without the suppression and interdiction of this popular and widely used substance, there simply would not be enough "illegal drug use" going on to justify the huge amount of money and resources spent on "fighting drugs."
more...

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid

So if the US Gov. says that MMJ has no use, why the hell did they file a Patent on it?

...If the Pharma Corps continue to patent Cannabis cabanoids, is anyone wondering if this will lead to ultimate controll over this? Think about it. They hate competition. Also I was not aware that a natural substance could be controlled by a patent. Herbs cannot be patened. The process of production can be patented. Correct me if I am wrong here.

...You can patent a process or an *application* if it's a distinct or novel usage. The US HHS patents are for *novel uses* of cannabinoids, not the plant itself. That's how they got their talons on patents. It's the use of cannabinoids and not the cannabinoids themselves.

...Why the hell is the government filing patents in the first place, are they competing with a free market society. So actually the taxpayers are the owners of that patent.

...If you read the patent (which was approved), you'd see that it refers to Cannabinoids (plural), and that it is aimed at a much broader target than just Marinol (which was created far before the patent was applied for).

The CSA has cannabis as a Schedule I drug, along with Heroin. It does NOT state THC.
Anything found in a psychoactive strain of cannabis is considered illegal (including CBD, CBG, terpenes, etc.)

Marinol actually has it's own place in the CSA, it is considered a Schedule III drug (go figure!).

more...

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=2084

By prohibiting the cultivation of an herb, they are just protecting their patent.

"Herb is the healing of a Nation"
Hon. Robert Nesta Marley O.M.

[msongs]

1. naturally occuring materials (including genes) should be un=patentable nt

[jberryhill]

3. They are

Isolated components of naturally occurring materials, as a product of the technological process for isolating them, are patentable.

Everything is "naturally occurring", to a certain point of view. Diesel is a constituent of petroleum, for example. You just need a refinery to get it out.

Of course, the premise in the OP that patentable medical compounds are per se therapeutic is nonsense. The FDA, not the Patent Office determines efficacy and safety. There are patents for thalidomide derivatives too, but nobody is hankering to legalize that either.

[court jester]

5. "the premise in the OP that patentable medical compounds are per se therapeutic is nonsense"

There are extensive (to say the least) footnotes in the patent grant that document the medical efficacy of the substances that were covered by the patent.

Perhaps i misunderstood your post.

[jberryhill]

6. The Patent Office and Medicines....

...have a weird history, hence the term "patent medicine" for elixirs of dubious value.

If you come up with some compound (such as by extracting it from a plant), you can pretty much simply declare it to be useful. What the USPTO is set up to do is to determine novelty, either in being the first to isolate or synthesize a so-called useful compound, coming up with a novel process of isolating or synthesizing a useful compound, or finding a new use for an old compound.

For example, if you put some tar on your head, and you think you've gotten some new hair growth, then you can file an application for "tar applied to the head to treat baldness". You may be the only one who thinks it grew hair, but if there is a shred of self-produced evidence to that effect - e.g. "I put it on my bald spot and hair grew" - then you are a-okay as far as getting through the patent office is concerned.

For a while the USPTO used to be pretty harsh on novel claims of therapeutic value, but more recently they've adopted the position that they aren't responsible for determining safety and efficacy of therapeutic claims, since the applicant is going to have to run it through the FDA before they can paint their wagon and go out selling "patent medicine".

My favorite:

United States Patent 5,281,423
Reilly January 25, 1994
Use of hydriodic acid as an aphrodisiac
Inventors: Reilly; Susann R. (Boston, MA)
Appl. No.: 07/862,454
Filed: April 2, 1992


Abstract

This invention relates to the use of hydriodic acid in an aqueous solution as an aphrodisiac to heighten sexual desire.

...

It has now been discovered that an aqueous solution of hydriodic acid has aphrodisiac activity as confirmed through its use by a female human. After the oral administration of the hydriodic acid solution, an aphrodisiac effect was experienced by said female.

The term "aphrodisiac" or "heightened sexual desire", for purposes of the present invention, refers to the following physical manifestations of ingesting the hydriodic solution, increased vaginal secretion, clitoral swelling, nipple erection, contraction of vaginal musculature and a general tingling sensation.

The invention will be further illustrated by the following non-limiting Exemplification:

EXEMPLIFICATION

Hydriodic acid solution was purchased from Eli Lilly and Company, of Indianapolis, Ind., referred to as hydriodic acid syrup. The hydriodic acid syrup is prepared by mixing 140 ml of hydriodic acid with 550 ml of purified water and dissolving 450 g of dextrose into the mixture.

The solution was orally administered to a female human 52 years age, weighing 165 lb pounds. About 0.5-3 teaspoons of the hydriodic syrup was placed into 8 ounces tap water and then ingested. An aphrodisiac effect, as defined above, was experienced within approximately 24 hours.

-----

Okay, so, the experiment consisted of giving this solution to a single 52 year old female human, who was observed to exhibit "increased vaginal secretion, clitoral swelling, nipple erection, contraction of vaginal musculature and a general tingling sensation."

Yeah, okay, I'm going to guess that female human subject was named "Susann R. Reilly", eh?

[Mr Deltoid]

2. UM, cuz it's political

[court jester]

4. What's political about patenting parts of an herb?

Isn't it more of a financial thing?

The patent was granted during The Regime of King George II, and the enforcement of ridiculous laws that seem to be protecting that patent is being carried out by a (D)emocratic Administration. Seems kinda bi-partisan, but since both parties are beholden to Big Pharma and all other manners of K Street lobbying and deception, I'm not understanding your point.

[Mr Deltoid]

7. The US holds the patent to control the drug