|
|
| U.N. Rebuts Arguments for Legalizing Pot |
|
Posted by FoM on February 27, 2002 at 10:07:53 PT By Betsy Pisik, The Washington Times Source: Washington Times 
The U.N. agency in charge of drug policy yesterday rejected arguments that marijuana should be legalized, but it called for further study of its potential medical uses. "Adding another drug to the same category as alcohol and tobacco would be a historical mistake," given public health policies aimed at fighting abuse of both substances, the U.N. International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in its annual report. But it urged further research "into the possible therapeutic properties and medicinal uses of cannabis or cannabis extracts," emphasizing that any decision be based on scientific and medical evidence. So far, eight U.S. states have approved marijuana for medical use, and a half-dozen nations are considering similar exemptions to anti-drug laws. "We have to decide this on the merits, not on whether Aunt Sally wants to light up," said Herbert Okun, the U.S. representative on the Vienna-based INCB. Medical marijuana has become a divisive political issue in the United States and many other developed nations, as governments attempt to update their drug laws. Proponents of medical marijuana say it eases pain and stimulates the appetite, making it valuable in countering the side effects of cancer, chemotherapy, some AIDS symptoms and glaucoma. Opponents say that approval for medical use is a first step toward legalization, which they fear will divert drug use from a fringe group into the general population. The United States is one of a half-dozen nations that are currently engaged in government-sponsored research into the medicinal properties of marijuana. In November, two University of California researchers received approval from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration "to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds as an alternative for treating certain debilitating medical conditions." The researchers will use marijuana cigarettes supplied by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said at the time that the study is consistent with established U.S. policy "that the question of whether marijuana has any legitimate medical purpose should be determined by sound science and medicine." But Mr. Hutchinson also said: "Historically, the research has shown no medical benefit from smoking marijuana." At the United Nations yesterday, Mr. Okun warned that no study was likely to be accepted as definitive in such a highly politicized atmosphere. "The findings won't be accepted by everyone," he said. In the United States, eight states — Oregon, California, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Colorado and Nevada — have passed laws that allow patients to smoke marijuana with a doctor's prescription. The Supreme Court said in May that it is illegal to distribute marijuana for medical purposes. But the ruling hasn't settled the issue in the United States. This month, DEA agents raided a San Francisco buyers club, confiscating 600 plants and arresting four persons. Many in the city reacted with outrage, and Mr. Hutchinson was heckled during a speech that afternoon. The Bush administration also announced recently that it will revoke student aid for any applicant who fails a drug test. Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II Related Articles & Web Site: DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Club Medical Marijuana Information Links UN Challenges Blunkett Cannabis Plan Federal War Against The Sick Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #12 posted by Julia on May 13, 2002 at 18:09:29 PT:
|
| I think marijuana is like alcohol. You can be a social smoker and you can be a social drinker. You can also be an alcoholic and you can be an addict. You legalized alcohol but not marijuana when alcohol has more harmful effects than marijuana. I'm sorry but can anyone understand this concept. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 27, 2002 at 19:26:02 PT |
| Don't forget to check out Dr. Russo's New PDF file on Chronic Cannabis Use. I have it on my medical page with a few more pdf files. http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/ccu.pdf http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by FoM on February 27, 2002 at 17:38:59 PT |
| You're not the brightest crayon in the box! That's so funny! LOL! That's not true at all but funny just the same! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by mayan on February 27, 2002 at 17:04:48 PT |
| I think FoM explained it before but I couldn't figure it out...I think I was spacing too! I'm obviously not the brightest crayon in the box! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by mayan on February 27, 2002 at 17:02:52 PT |
| testing testing [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Dave in Florida on February 27, 2002 at 15:41:23 PT |
| use a < i > to start and a < / i > to end .. dont't put spaces in like i did.. use b for BOLD !! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by idbsne1 on February 27, 2002 at 14:15:44 PT |
| "Opponents say that approval for medical use is a first step toward legalization, which they FEAR will divert drug use from a fringe group into the general population." I use this quote at OG: 'quick to judge, quick to anger....slow to understand. Ignorance and prejudice, and FEAR walk hand in hand.'- Witch Hunt, RUSH So, what they are saying, is that the only reason they don't medical marijuana or marijuana legalized is because they are AFRAID? Oh yeah, that's a good reason to ruin people's lives. Self-righteous a**holes. Hey buddy, if the "general population" wants to light up, if it isn't bothering anyone....why should you care? I FEAR not being able to smoke a bowl SAFELY in the PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME!!! idbsne1 PS...how do you post in italic? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on February 27, 2002 at 11:27:56 PT |
| I guess the UN INCB can say or state what it wants. I doubt very much that by saying so they will stem the flow of anything from anywhere to anyone. The facts have good footing. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 27, 2002 at 11:25:50 PT |
| International Narcotics Control Board http://www.incb.org/
U.S. Loses Seat on U.N. Drug Policy Panel
U.S. Has Lost Not 1 but 2 Seats on Key U.N. Panels
UN Cut US Off As Drug Monitor
U.S. Loses Seat on U.N. Narcotics Control Board [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by PonziScheme on February 27, 2002 at 11:14:34 PT:
|
| This dreck is at least three years old! Must have been an exceedingly slow news day at the Times to go back to this dribble. Check out this NORML release from 1999:
U.N. Calls for Medical Marijuana Research, Maintains Hardline on Recreational Use
http://www.norml.org/news/archives/99-02-25.shtml
stating "The report also said that new technologies like the Internet pose a significant threat to drug prohibition. 'Governments ... should work in close cooperation with the Internet industry, community organizations, families and educators to set up a framework that will ensure that such emerging technologies are not misused for the proliferation of drug abuse,' it said." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Morgan on February 27, 2002 at 10:31:28 PT |
| "Opponents say that approval for medical use is a first step toward legalization, which they fear will divert drug use from a fringe group into the general population." This little statement here clearly shows just how far out of touch these people are from the real world around them. "Fringe group"? Buddy, we are "the general population". You are the fringe group. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on February 27, 2002 at 10:21:42 PT |
| >>"Adding another drug to the same category as alcohol and tobacco would be a historical mistake,"<< Think about this argument for a second. Does he mean that having alcohol and tobacco legally regulated has been a historical mistake? Then he must argue for their prohibition. I thought prohibition itself was the historical mistake - in which case, it's more absurd for cannabis to be in the prohibited category than it would be for alcohol or tobacco. Why does every seeming advance in the war on prohibition get met with such sickening squealing like the above article? Filled with spin and propaganda... and meanwhile, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the rest continue to virtually ignore the issue. Heck, I haven't even seen anything about it on the occasions I've had to watch the BBC! Does cable TV have to grow to the point where we get TV from the Netherlands for people in the US to get unbiased reporting? Heck, for that matter, are the Dutch TV networks any better? (I've never seen Dutch TV.) [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |