Cannabis News DrugSense
  FDA's Weed War
Posted by CN Staff on May 04, 2006 at 12:29:03 PT
Editorial 
Source: SHNS  

medical USA -- The federal Food and Drug Administration has fired a disturbing new salvo in the seemingly endless marijuana wars. Late last month, it announced that there was no sound evidence that the weed had medical benefits.

Its statement was a victory for (among others) the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which opposes medical use and had reportedly long sought the FDA's imprimatur.

Recently, 11 states have legalized medical use of marijuana. Marijuana's foes do not want to see the drug legalized for any reason, lest its perceived harms (including possibly leading to harder drugs) multiply. But supporters have defended its power to ease suffering not always reached by other drugs.

The FDA may be able to defend its new stance, but only narrowly. In 1999, a review by the respected Institute of Medicine declared the drug moderately helpful for certain conditions: the wasting caused by AIDS, for instance, and the nausea and vomiting that can attend chemotherapy. But it suggested that, because marijuana increased other health risks, use should be limited.

In its statement, the FDA went out of its way to criticize the states that have legalized use, fretting that they had bypassed the "rigorous scientific scrutiny" that the agency normally applies before approving a drug.

But some astonished researchers have noted that the agency repeatedly turned down requests to study marijuana. "The reason there's no good evidence is that they don't want an honest trial," Lyle Craker, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, told The New York Times.

The FDA is somewhat friendly toward drugs derived from marijuana: It has approved Marinol, a synthetic version, as well as tests on a spray form of the drug. But beyond that, the agency's evil-weed vision of marijuana now seems firmly entrenched.

In contrast, scientists widely accept the idea that smoked marijuana can have therapeutic effects. Moreover, the Institute of Medicine's report found no evidence that it functioned as a "gateway" drug.

The FDA's statement will probably do little to slow or speed resolution of the marijuana controversy. The main sticking point, at the moment, is the Supreme Court's ruling last year that federal law trumps state laws in regulating marijuana.

Thus people who use it medicinally, even with their states' permission, could conceivably be prosecuted by the federal government. Greater honesty from the FDA might have made this prospect less likely. Instead, it appears that politics has trumped science, and put sick people on the defensive.

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.

Source: SHNS (DC)
Published: May 5, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Script Howard News Service
Website: http://www.shns.com/
Contact: copelandp@shns.com

Related Articles & Web Sites:

MAPS
http://www.maps.org/

IOM Report
http://newton.nap.edu/html/marimed/

How The FDA Celebrated 4/20
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21806.shtml

Politics Dictate Disapproval Of Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21803.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 05, 2006 at 11:37:44 PT
Dankhank
This fall when it's time to go vote both my husband and I will vote. We never voted in a non presidential election ( and then only 2 times ) but we are voting for any Democrat that is running that we can vote for. It's time to turn this around.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 05, 2006 at 11:34:16 PT
Dankhank
No problem. All done.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by Dankhank on May 05, 2006 at 11:24:41 PT
haven't medicated today yet ...
http://hbaca.freeyellow.com/LINKS.html

FOM, if you like, delete previous post ...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Had Enough on May 05, 2006 at 06:16:19 PT
“rigorous scientific scrutiny”
"In its statement, the FDA went out of its way to criticize the states that have legalized use, fretting that they had bypassed the "rigorous scientific scrutiny" that the agency normally applies before approving a drug."

Well now, just why hasn’t this “rigorous scientific scrutiny” been done by FDA?

Register and Vote! Vote! Vote!!! Share the ride; take a friend with you.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by mayan on May 04, 2006 at 18:22:09 PT
Defend???
The FDA may be able to defend its new stance, but only narrowly.

Just how is the FDA defending it's "new" stance? I haven't seen a shred of scientific evidence justifying their obvious political bias.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by museman on May 04, 2006 at 17:11:43 PT
the three monkeys
See no truth, speak no truth, hear no truth.

DEA, FDA, & ATF

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on May 04, 2006 at 16:26:55 PT
Interesting
The concept of news filtering down eventually. You know, mid-Western farmers take this kind of thing seriously.

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on May 04, 2006 at 12:29:03