Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

FDA Plays Politics with Pot

By Michelle Chen, The NewStandard. Posted April 26, 2006.


Last week's ludicrous governmental report, which denied the efficacy of medical marijuana, is the Bush administration's latest attempt to divorce science from policy.
Advertisement

Clashing with drug-policy reform groups and a growing body of scientific research, the federal government has stepped up its effort to invalidate marijuana as medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a statement last Thursday asserting that smoked marijuana has no proven medical benefits. The assessment sparked criticism from both the scientific community and activists pushing for changes in drug laws, who say it exposes the White House's effort to spin science in order to push its agenda of criminalizing drug use.

The statement concluded that based on existing research, "no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States." The agency further argued that laws permitting marijuana use as a medical treatment "are inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process."

Reform groups call the declaration a thinly veiled attempt to preempt both state and federal initiatives to de-criminalize the use of medical marijuana to relieve symptoms related to glaucoma, cancer and other illnesses.

Bruce Mirken, director of communications with the reform group Marijuana Policy Project, told The NewStandard that the FDA's position is "the final proof, if anybody still needed it, that the FDA has become completely politicized, that they're doing politics instead of science. And that, frankly, should frighten everybody, whatever your feelings about medical marijuana."

Organizations advocating for drug-policy reform have railed on the government for ignoring a wealth of clinical studies demonstrating the positive impacts of the drug. In a 1999 report, the federal Institute of Medicine recommended further research on risks and benefits of smoked marijuana, but concluded overall, "Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation," particularly for AIDS and chemotherapy patients.

The FDA's opinion folds into an intensifying discussion in Congress over the potential benefits of medical marijuana and the costs of trying to control the drug.

Representative Mark Souder (R-Indiana) has led the push for tightening federal restrictions on medical marijuana through stringent FDA regulation. "Denying the federal government the power to set and enforce uniform standards would simply open up an alternative route for illegal drug trafficking and abuse," he said in a statement following a Supreme Court ruling last June that permitted federal crackdowns on medical marijuana.

But a spate of recent raids on medical-marijuana distribution centers has also sparked resistance from lawmakers and the public. In each legislative session since 1997, Representative Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) has introduced the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which would relax the ban on marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act and bar federal penalties on patients or medical professionals involved in the administration of medical marijuana.


Digg!

Michelle Chen is a staff journalist for The NewStandard.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
cannabis once grew free and wild throughout America
Posted by: eileenflmng on Apr 26, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of USA Government beauracracy, the need for a scapegoat during The Depression and the ludicrous movie Reefer Maddness cannibas was outlawed...


From Chapter II
The Revolution Has Begun

Wednesday, July 20, 2005: Berkeley, California


The Times they have a ‘changed;

"The Revolution starts now, when you rise above your fear and tear The WALLS around you down."-Steve Earle, 2004

Jack intuitively sensed opportunity blowing in the wind as he rounded the corner from Durant and Telegraph on his way to UC Berkeley’s MLK Student Union building for TIKKUN’s first annual conference on spiritual activism. As he crossed Bancroft Way, a young beatifically smiling latte skinned youth handed him an electric green slip of paper announcing:

Compassionate Caregivers: Medical Cannabis
2 Locations 8 AM to 8 PM 7 days a week.



Read more...
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

could it be
Posted by: brasilaron on Apr 26, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that there is no scientific evidence about the benefits of smoked marijuana b/c the Feds actively prohibit any such studies? What a shocker. What about the Federally recognized patients who receive the herb DIRECTLY from the feds for their various medical symptoms? Is that just a myth?What about studies from Europe confirming the benefits of marijuana? Wouldn't want GlaxoSMithKline to lose some of their profits while people grow their own medicine now would we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One or the other
Posted by: Ming on Apr 26, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either legalize marijuana or prohibit alcohol and tobacco. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, but... Posted by: radnar
» RE: One or the other Posted by: aussidawg
» Addendum... Posted by: aussidawg
» And Viagra too Posted by: TerryW
» RE: And Viagra too Posted by: jimidee
FDA in the Pharmaceutical Co's Pockets!!
Posted by: lively56 on Apr 26, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the Pharmaceutical Co.'s don't want the public to know the true benefits of Marijuana. This way they can continue to push these poisonous pills down the American public's throats. Also, our court systems stand to lose billions of dollars. So there is real incentive to keep marijuana illegal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marijuana
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Apr 26, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
decreases the intelligence of those opposed to its use

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.........REMOVE THE SICK & WOUNDED FROM BATTLEFIELD!!!!
Posted by: picket on Apr 26, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The group Americans For Safe Access, with the goal of defending patients access to medical Cannabis, along with several US Congressmen, are sending a letter to the Medical Director of the FDA, tomorrow Thursday.

The Congressmen, Maurice HincheyD-NY, Ron Paul R-Tx, Barney Frank,Mass, and Sam Farr ,are asking all Congressmen to co sign on to the letter to the FDA BY NOON 4/27/06.

They are asking the FDA, for scientific evidence, to back up their claim that MJ has no medical use, and also to ask why the FDA has deferred MEDICAL decisions to Drug Enforcement.

Please hold your Congressional Representative accountable. Call and ask them to sign-on to this letter. How to contact them easily?????? See below.

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marijuana users, come out of the closet
Posted by: tooldoc60 on Apr 26, 2006 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if all users of herb, whether it be for medical or recreational use would get enough balls to come out of the closet, be honest, and stand up for your right to use this wonderful plant, things might change. as long as you allow fear to control you and your life, it will. i do believe that in our time, the pharmaceutical company lobbyists drive the continued prohibition, but the honesty of the citizenry of this country should be able to overcome this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How Far Out of the Closet?!! Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
Anti-Pot Propaganda
Posted by: rudystahrman on Apr 26, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-marijuana propaganda campaign foisted on the American public, is probably the most effective propaganda effort ever undertaken by the U.S. govt.
When marijuana was illegalized, the penalties for use were extremely harsh (as they are today). And the general perception of pot smokers, by the public, thanks to that propaganda effort, became a picture of either a lazy Mexican, or a hardened criminal.
It is the feds we are fighting; as said in other replies, the Feds have a vested interest in suppressing any beneficial info about marijuana and its benefits. The drug companies, are making millions out of poison, and as such, have no interest in studying marijuana for substances contained within the plant that may be effective in helping people with medical problems.
An aside: Your Great-Grandmother used marijuana as a spice in some of her cooking.
Yours,
Rudystahrman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anti-Pot Propaganda Posted by: aonghus36
If Marijuana has no medical benefits...
Posted by: aussidawg on Apr 26, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY the hell is Marinol, a prescription THC substitute legal? The answer...it is manufactured by a pharmacutical company in pill form, and costs the consumer who uses it a FORTUNE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Code of Sound Science
Posted by: Joycelyn on Apr 26, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever the Bush administration doesn't agree with the scientific community, it claims it follows "sound science". The phrase should serve as a warning that an attack on truth is about to be launched. Remember that Bush and his minions also believe that evolution, global warming, and condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS are not "sound science."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FDA hypocriscy
Posted by: charemor on Apr 26, 2006 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too think it is extremely hypocritical for the FDA to prohibit marijuana while allowing tobacco and alcohol to be freely purchased by anyone of legal age. The other extreme hypocriscy by the FDA is their insistence that they are doing this to "protect" us while putting their stamp of approval on many drugs that are actually harmful and creating additional health problems. It is all about money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Souder Is A Goddamn Bible Thumping Politician
Posted by: doneman2000 on Apr 26, 2006 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a hypocrit like all politicians. I hope that son-of-a-bitch gets cancer and screams until he dies then goes directly to Hell. A guy who wants to keep the sick, injured, and dying, from Gods medicine just because of some hysterical belief that "they'll legalize it". So phucking what you jerk. If enough people want it you're right it will be legalized. That's the way it's supposed to be in a democracy you sanctimonious piece of GOP dung. Goddamn GOP fascist....Indiana it figures....is there any intelligence out there in red state land?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The resounding overwhelming consenses is......
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Apr 26, 2006 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smoke a little weed from the back yard! After all...its a fun "protest" to our so lovingly protective government!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be Fair
Posted by: jeydid on Apr 26, 2006 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it's not just the Drug companies. Hemp can be used to make paper, cloth, and over 400 other products. So you have to point the finger at the Lumber industry and Chemical companies too. BTW, it is more likely the Lumber people and Chemical ppl had more to do with the initial banning of hemp, given the time it happened and all. The Drug ppl are just doing their best to keep it illegal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are there studies?
Posted by: iremember on Apr 26, 2006 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are there studies executed in foreign countries that support medical marijauna?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the other hand,
Posted by: iremember on Apr 26, 2006 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that marijauna is the most efficacious treatment available for "Restless Leg Syndrome". And I don't think we need a clinical trial to prove that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legalise Please - enough is enough..
Posted by: the poet on Apr 26, 2006 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the comment about smoking a little weed from the back yard as a form of dissent. When I light up tonight I'll think about John Howard (I'm Australian) and all the other fruit cakes in power, and have a good laugh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proof of FDA/DEA/ONDCP collusion
Posted by: nemo on Apr 27, 2006 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Former DrugCzarina Andrea Barthwell, who once took the taxpayer's money to act as the ONDCP's spokesperson to rail against all forms of medical marijuana as being a 'cruel hoax', has since taken a position with GW Pharmaceuticals, which produces a liquid marijuana spray called Sativex. Since then, the 'party line' has changed; according to Dear Doctor Andrea, it is only - as the FDA blurb went - 'smoked marijuana' that is to be verboten from now on.

The intent is obvious: to restrict legal access to cannabis products through using the DEA to whup up on home-grown cannabis growers, suppliers and users and enforce the Federally sanctioned monopoly on only FDA-approved cannabis.

It's been an article of faith among drug law reformers that one of the main reasons for the continuance of cannabis prohibition has been the idea that until Big Pharma can make some bucks off of it, medicinal cannabis will be maintained in illegal status Federally. Seeing as that can't happen without government collusion, I believe that we have just seen this theory proven as fact, as Sativex has entered Schedule III trials, and is, just as with Marinol, expected to breeze through with flying colors.

The hypocrisy is so thick, you need a laser to cut it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More proofs of de facto conspiracy
Posted by: nemo on Apr 27, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if anybody doubts that that is what GW Pharma is intending to do, namely, get government to act as it's bully-boys to do that whupping on home-grown cannabis suppliers, I offer the following from an interview found here:Corporate Cannabis:

Last May, Lucas received a foretaste of possible legal battles to come with GW, Bayer AG, and its subsidiary Bayer Canada, when he described Cannamist at a medical marijuana conference held by a group called Patients Out of Time, at the University of Virginia. Geoffrey Guy happened to be in the audience, and afterward approached Lucas and asked him if he'd had a chance to look at the any of the many patent applications GW has for Sativex. "He said it with a twinkle in his eye," recalls Lucas, "but with firmness in his voice."

There is no question that GW plans to enforce its patents on Sativex, which is a precisely dosed medicine. Warns Guy: "To protect our extensive investment, we have sought to identify and patent certain inventions throughout the growing, extraction and manufacturing process. My comments to Mr. Lucas were made as a friendly and, hopefully, helpful gesture as I did not wish him to invest a great amount of effort into obtaining approval for a product as a prescription medicine only to find that he did not have the freedom to operate in the first place."

Guy's warning was reiterated shortly after I arrived in England to interview him, when Mark Rogerson, GW's grey-templed, elegantly dressed, public-relations man, met me at the Oxford train station. "Once it's approved and Sativex becomes a medicine under the law, there needs to be a minor change in legislation so it can be prescribed," he said, as he steered his Hyundai (his Audi was in the shop) into near-gridlock.

"The Home Office has already said they will do that, and then patients will be taking a legal medicine. But if you are an MS sufferer, it would still be illegal for you to grow cannabis at the bottom of the garden to treat your symptoms. Our medicine will be legal, but anything else will not be."


I always thought government had anti-trust laws to prevent unfair corporate pressures against competition?

"By their fruits, ye shall know them." But you might not want to.
Reeeeeal humanitarians, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pot is not benign
Posted by: blueneck on Apr 28, 2006 4:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is quite good evidence that marijuana is carcinogenic, in much the same way that cigarettes are, causing lung, mouth and bladder tumors among others. There was an article in the Journal of Urology a couple of months ago linking marijuana use to more aggressive bladder cancers. From the published data it may be a bit worse than tobacco perhaps because it's smoked unfiltered, but I guess this might be counterbalanced by the fact that potheads dont usually smoke the quantity of joints daily that tobacco addicts smoke.
While this probably is irrelevant to someone dying of HIV or terminal cancer, it should not be to someone who is healthy.
There's a lot of wrong info out there about addiction, etc with pot, but it should be looked on as no more healthy than smoking cigarettes, which everyone knows is as unhealthy as can be.
You should be able to check these facts out easily with google.
Blueneck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pot is not benign Posted by: fixitt
» RE: Pot is not benign Posted by: nemo
» RE: Pot is not benign Posted by: blueneck
Prison fodder
Posted by: Sushi on Apr 28, 2006 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana is an easy bust to keep minorities and dissidents 'in their place', off the voter rolls and into our corporate-run prison system, to be used as cheap labor for phone banks, travel agencies, etc. Most of the U.S. criminality involves drugs and marijuana users are typically non-violent 'clients' for the ever growing prison industry. Make pot legal and they might have to release those prisoners, substantially reducing the need for prisons, guards, clothing, food, etc. They've got contracts, dammit! Keep those clients coming! Keep those who have been through the system in low-paying jobs because of their 'criminal record' and, of course deny them their voting rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]