Medical Pot Passes Senate |
Posted by CN Staff on February 21, 2006 at 07:27:59 PT By Bridget Maiellaro Source: Daily Illini Illinois -- The Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed Senate Bill 2568 legalizing medical marijuana 6-5 on Feb. 15. If the bill passes the General Assembly, Illinois will become the twelfth state to protect patients from arrest for medical marijuana with their doctor's recommendations. "It's an enormous step forward," said Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. "Similar legislation was brought to the committee before, but it went nowhere." The medical marijuana act will allow people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS to use and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes with physician approval. It will also enable patients or their caregivers to possess no more than 12 cannabis plants, each producing up to one pound of marijuana. Judy Kramer, president of Educating Voices Inc., a national not-for-profit volunteer drug prevention organization, is disappointed that the bill passed through the Illinois committee. Kramer believes that there are problems with patients growing marijuana in their back yard. "You won't know what exactly is in (the marijuana) unless you send it in to some highly sophisticated lab," Kramer said. "You don't know how well it works with any other problems you may be having. You don't know the chemical composition or quality." In 2004, there were 11,223 marijuana users admitted to treatment centers in Cook County and 32,961 marijuana treatment admissions in the state, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services, Alcoholism and Substance Abuse. No information was found for Champaign County. "It represents a dramatic increase of marijuana admissions from 2001 to 2004," Kramer said. "If you tell people (marijuana) is medicine, they become addicted. Where are the resources in the state to fund for those with addictions?" Compared to most other drugs, marijuana dependence is less severe, but it does exist, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, a non-profit science-based advice organization. Their studies also show that while other medications may be more effective in aiding those with serious illnesses, they are not equally effective in all patients. However, studies also show that regular smoking lessens a smoker's defense system by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, according to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Their research shows that marijuana use can even accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections. Anzalone-Liszt Research Inc., a national public opinion polling firm, conducted a statewide telephone poll on Feb. 10-13, asking Illinoisans if they would support the legislation. The poll found that 62 percent would support the bill, 28 percent were opposed, and 10 percent were undecided. The Marijuana Policy Project, the largest non-profit marijuana policy reform organization in the United States, funded the poll. "We wanted to confirm what the level of public support was," Mirken said. "We wanted to quantify something recent and solid to show elected officials. They think it's controversial. It's not. The recent data will show them." Kramer said she feels that the telephone poll had little significance. "If I phrase a question in a certain manner, I can get people to say what I want," Kramer said. Sen. John Cullerton (D- Chicago) introduced the Medical Cannabis Act to the Illinois General Assembly in January. "The more states that pass a law, the more likely others are to also pass the same law, as long as there are more benefits than disadvantages," said Jennifer Brown, senior in ACES. Related Article & Web Site: Marijuana Policy Project Medical Cannabis Bill Gains Momentum CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #9 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 05:07:05 PT |
from google's cache of: http://www.maps.org/mmj/craker_witness_list_7.26.05.doc 4. Email from Matt Strait to Mahmoud A. ElSohly dated July 25, 2003, attaching Federal Register application of Dr. Lyle Craker to cultivate marijuana for research 5. Email from Mahmoud A. ElSohly to Steve Gust, Hari Singh, Walt Chambliss and Larry Walker dated August 29, 2003, attaching draft response to Federal Register notice 6. Email from Mahmoud A. ElSohly to Walt Chambliss, Steve Gust, Larry Walker and Hari Singh dated September 1, 2003, attaching second draft of proposed response to UMass-Amherst’s application for manufacturer’s license to cultivate marijuana 7. Email from Hari Singh to Mahmoud A. ElSohly, Walt Chambliss, Steve Gust and Larry Walker dated September 2, 2003, suggesting small revision to second draft of DEA response 8. Email from Mahmoud A. ElSohly to Walt Chambliss, Steve Gust, Hari Singh and Larry Walker dated September 9, 2003, regarding second draft - - - from google's cache of: http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file407_23083.pdf
BY MS. CARPENTER: Q Let me ask you this question, Dr. El Sohly. If an FDA approved researcher, someone with an FDA approved protocol, wanted to do medical research with marijuana, and NIDA and the University of Mississippi both decided not to provide it, but another grower who had a bulk manufacturer's license would, having that other source available would be of benefit to that researcher, wouldn't it? MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, this calls for the witness to speculate on a totally hypothetical, which I think is, number one, out of the scope, and number two, beyond his competence to answer. JUDGE BITTNER: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Will you ask that question again? BY MS. CARPENTER: Q Sure. If a researcher has an FDA approved protocol to research with medical marijuana, and both NIDA and the University of Mississippi refuse to provide that researcher with marijuana to do that research, having another source available from another bulk manufacturer who could supply that marijuana, would be a benefit to that researcher, wouldn't it? A I would say not necessarily. Q And why would-- A First of all, the University of Mississippi does not refuse anything. University of Mississippi is not in a position to refuse or approve. Q I understand. You refuse because-- A So that's restricted to NIDA. If NIDA doesn't approve it, then another supplier who has material, would that be a benefit to the researcher? I'm going to say not necessarily because the process that that protocol goes through through NIDA is a very important process in my judgment because there could be some problems with the protocol, and it could save the researcher a lot of troubles in executing the research. The fact that it's approved by the FDA, it doesn't necessarily mean--it just has all the elements that the FDA requires for you to have in place. Okay, the elements. But not necessarily the--all the other issues that NIDA and people that have the experience with the drug reviewing that protocol, approving that protocol. Q So, but you would agree that the FDA does approve protocols for clinical research and studies, isn't that right? A That's correct. Q And for most substances other than marijuana, that's all the researcher needs in order to go ahead with the process; isn't that correct? A With the testing in humans, that's correct. Q And so if a researcher didn't want the additional benefit of NIDA's review, if they just thought that wasn't a benefit, do you think it would be a benefit to them to have a source of marijuana available to them through another licensed grower? A You know, again, I'm just saying, not necessarily. It could be, but not necessarily the case in every case, because if a researcher wants to take naive subjects and given them, you know, percent marijuana to do because that's what they want to do, and as I mentioned before, I think that's--I don't think that will be appropriate to do that. It would be too much for that subject to tolerate. Q But again, you're not a medical researcher, are you, sir? A But I'm familiar with the medical issues related to marijuana and marijuana-- Q But are you a medical researcher, sir? MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, I object. I mean, you can't ask the witness questions and then object to his competence to answer the questions after the door has been opened. MS. CARPENTER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm not asking a question about the benefits of medical research. JUDGE BITTNER: All right. The witness was answering the question posed about benefits. MS. CARPENTER: Okay, I'll move on. JUDGE BITTNER: Now, that--are you finished with that answer, Dr. El Sohly? THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm finished, Your Honor. And I said that is not necessarily a benefit. JUDGE BITTNER: Got it, okay. I got the answer. So did the court reporter. And so the next question is? BY MS. CARPENTER: Q By not necessarily, you agree that it could be, isn't that right? A I mean there is a possibility, but-- Q Okay, thank you. A --not necessarily the case. Q Okay. Now, if another bulk manufacturer could grow the materials that an FDA approved researcher needed at a lower cost than a current manufacturer, would you agree that would be a benefit to the researcher? A That could be a benefit, yes. Q And if a different grower, who had a DEA license to do so, grew a different strain of marijuana than you grow, or a different ratio of cannabinoids to THC, and had that product available when a researcher wanted to do the research, and another grower, for instance, yourself, didn't, would that also be a benefit to a researcher? A First of all, I want to, you know, tell you that in order to be able to do that, you have to have all the preclinical work done with material of similar composition to really qualify even to do that. All the material that's available that has been requested, all the material that's on the market, on the illicit market has the composition that's currently available through the program. There is no limitation in the program as far as what kind of material is being produced. If that was deemed necessary by the scientific or medical community, that process is there. It's just like, you know, Grower XYZ is going to produce material that has this particular composition. We could also grow the same composition. It's not a problem. It's not a limitation that we have. Q I understand. But my question is, if a licensed grower had that available and you did not, would that be a benefit to that researcher? A It would be a benefit, yeah. Q Thank you. And just to be clear, I think you stated this earlier, but I just want to be clear. The University of Mississippi, through the institute license, cannot provide FDA approved researchers with medical marijuana for research purposes outside the NIDA program; is that right? A That's my understanding. [Pause.] BY MS. CARPENTER: Q If I can just ask you to turn to page--and this is the last. We can stop after this one, Your Honor, if that makes sense. Page of that exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit , and again, that's the bottom of the page with the paragraph, the half of paragraph that's been X'd out of there's a line through it. And the sentence begins, "Proponents of marijuana legalization criticized that NIDA provided cigarettes for the presence of this material"--and I presume by "this material" you mean small seed and stem particles--"as well as for the potency of THC." Who were you referring to there when you said proponents of marijuana legalization? A NORML. Q NORML. Anybody else? A I'm sorry? Q Anyone else? A No. Q So you're not referring to any researchers who criticize--who criticize NIDA marijuana? A Not in this. MS. CARPENTER: I think if I just do the last two exhibits, which will be short, we'll be at a good stopping point. JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. BY MS. CARPENTER: Q If I could ask you to turn, please, to Respondent's Exhibit ? And I'll just actually give you and at the same time. If you would just look at Exhibits and , and start with Exhibit when you get ready. A Okay. Q Have you seen that exhibit before? It consists of an e-mail dated September the th from Dr. El Sohly to Walt Chambliss and others? A Yes. Q And the second page there is entitled "final draft" dated September th, ? A Yes. Q Did you send that e-mail? A Yes, I did. Q And did it have that draft attached to it? A Yes. Q I would move the admission of Respondent's Exhibit . JUDGE BITTNER: Mr. Bayly? MR. BAYLY: No objection. JUDGE BITTNER: Received. - - - see also: http://www.aclu.org/medicalmarijuana/legal/ACLU_prehearing.pdf [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 04:38:49 PT |
from: http://www.maps.org/mmj/DEAlawsuit.html#report2 January 6, 2006: DEA Hearing Report, by Rick Doblin, Ph.D., MAPS Our lawyers learned that DEA has decided not to hold the final hearing that had been scheduled for January 17, solely in order to cross-examine under oath our rebuttal witness, Al Byrne. Perhaps DEA lawyers read my commentary posted on the MAPS website on December 20, 2005, in which I suggested that it would be wise for them not to call Al as a witness since he would have persuasively testified to the low quality of NIDA marijuana and to the veracity of the picture of the seeds and stems in three NIDA marijuana cigarettes that Prof. ElSohly had foolishly challenged as being somehow not accurate. Probably, DEA lawyers were just trying to intimidate Al into withdrawing his affidavit in order to avoid having to testify under oath inside DEA headquarters. When that failed, they decided to cancel the hearings regardless of my suggestions, which they haven't taken in other instances anyway. In any case, there will now be no more courtroom drama, only dueling legal briefs. At this point, I guess that the final briefs will be due in several months and that DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner will issue her recommendation to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy in late Spring or early Summer 2006. also, from google's cache of: http://www.aclu.org/medicalmarijuana/legal/082405_transcript.pdf In the Matter of: : : Docket No. 05-16 LYLE E. CRAKER, Ph.D. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x VOLUME III Wednesday, August 24, 2005 DEA Headquarters 600 Army Navy Drive Hearing Room E-2103 Arlington, Virginia (snip) Q Okay. So this was an FDA approved protocol research? A Yes, it was. Q And NIDA approved since they provided the marijuana? A Yes, yes. Q Okay. And do you know what his thoughts were about the quality of the NIDA marijuana that he used during that study? What has he told you? I should say that. A Phil Alden personally told me that the marijuana that he smoked in the NIDA provided marijuana in the FDA approved study got, made him sick, that he got bronchitis. That he had previously been using a higher potency marijuana, legal under California law, from buyers' clubs, and that he had had no health problems and it actually had enhanced his health. And that once he had to start using the NIDA marijuana, he got ill and his doctor told him that it was from the low quality NIDA marijuana and recommended that he withdraw from the study. Q What was the illness he contracted? A Bronchitis. Q Okay. Did he withdraw from the study? A He did withdraw from the study. Q And what happened? A He was able then to return to higher potency marijuana and has been able to use that without any ill health effects, and the study itself has not proceeded very far along because they've had trouble getting subjects. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by OverwhelmSam on February 22, 2006 at 02:59:54 PT |
We don't know this, we don't know that. I smell fear of the unknown. It seems to me that with 168 million people using marijuana, if there wer a serious problem, SOMETHING would have come to light by now. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by runderwo on February 21, 2006 at 10:57:19 PT |
Exactly. What's the worst thing that could happen? It could have no effect at all. What's the worst thing that could happen with a synthetic pharm? I don't even want to think about it... "It represents a dramatic increase of marijuana admissions from 2001 to 2004," Kramer said. "If you tell people (marijuana) is medicine, they become addicted. Where are the resources in the state to fund for those with addictions?" If you tell people opiates are medicine, they become addicted. If you tell people antidepressants are medicine, they become addicted. If you tell people amphetamines are medicine, they become addicted. This argument is a red herring anyway because marijuana is not dependency forming. "However, studies also show that regular smoking lessens a smoker's defense system by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, according to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Their research shows that marijuana use can even accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections." I'm sorry, but this study sounds like complete hogwash. Does anyone have a cite for it? What the hell kind of source is "Berkman Center for Internet and Society" for a medical marijuana study? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 08:10:02 PT |
"If I phrase a question in a certain manner, I can get people to say what I want," Kramer said. Un huh, just like all of your preceding statements, "facts" and figures Ms. Kramer. It's all in the spin. Just the facts Ma'am.....all of them please. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 21, 2006 at 08:06:44 PT |
Anyone who uses medicinal herbs understands that they can vary in potency. It depends on the growing cycle and when the herb is harvested. It also depends on the curing process and packaging. Plants are not pills but since most medicinal plants aren't toxic like pills you learn what to take to accomplish the needed results. That's how I see it. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 08:04:16 PT |
"In 2004, there were 11,223 marijuana users admitted to treatment centers in Cook County and 32,961 marijuana treatment admissions in the state, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services, Alcoholism and Substance Abuse. No information was found for Champaign County." Likely, a major percentage of these numbers is from plea deals through the courts. Go to drug counseling (whether or not you need it) get out of jail free. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 08:01:20 PT |
If you were to grow it in your yard you know a lot more about what you have than if you bought it on the street via the black market. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 07:59:48 PT |
"You won't know what exactly is in (the marijuana) unless you send it in to some highly sophisticated lab," Kramer said. "You don't know how well it works with any other problems you may be having. You don't know the chemical composition or quality." Well, if you planted a cannabis seed I think it is safe to assume your plant will be cannabis. What is in it? All of the elements genetically encoded in cannabis. Nothing more, nothing less. How well will it work? Try it. The chemical composition and quality? Try it. This isn't rocket science here folks. This are feeble complaints. [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |