cannabisnews.com: Wisconsin Should Take Lead In Marijuana Research





Wisconsin Should Take Lead In Marijuana Research
Posted by FoM on January 15, 2002 at 12:04:06 PT
By Lee Sherman Dreyfus
Source: Waukesha Freeman
With my initials, L.S.D., I have been the butt of jokes and jibes for most of my adult life. In fairness to my mother, who gave me these infamous initials, I must add that she gave birth to me 11 years before the hallucinogenic drug was invented. LSD, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy or marijuana simply were not used or available in my pre-World War II high school. However, 1942 and 2002 are very different years when it comes to sex, drugs and all sorts of risky behaviors. 
The most common illicit drug in use now is marijuana, or "pot." The Latin name for the plant is cannabis. Today it is federally illegal to grow, sell or smoke marijuana. Regulation of this drug is established by the Food and Drug Administration and enforcement is carried out by the Drug Enforcement Agency.Two Democratic representatives and one Republican have introduced a bill to legalize some use of pot. This bill, like its predecessors, is not a blanket legalization of cannabis, but authorizes physicians to prescribe its use to treat disease or relieve pain and suffering for seriously or terminally ill patients.The applicable law currently on the books here in Wisconsin was actually signed by me in 1982. My memory is hazy, but I remember the intent was to give physicians some leeway in treating their patients and to promote further research. A few years later, California passed Proposition 215, which allowed people to grow their own pot if they needed it medically. Leave it to California!Medical marijuana "clubs" soon came into being and were clearly fronts for people who wished to use pot as a recreational drug. This brought the Supreme Court into the act, and in 1994, the court ruled that marijuana was a schedule I drug, which is defined legally as highly addictive and of no medical usefulness. That last phrase is one where, in my opinion, the learned justices over-reached. I don't think we know that!The DEA says that is true, but an enforcement agency should not be our guide relative to medical possibilities. Here in Wisconsin we have a world-class research university, one that has conducted clinical studies in biochemistry for more than a century. The Wisconsin Idea has always urged our Legislature to seek help in its decision-making from the other end of State Street.Here's an opportunity for Wisconsin to again make a great contribution to the nation. Our Legislature should take the lead to fund research on the medical use of marijuana, and get FDA and DEA regulations set aside so the university can carry out a controlled, legitimate and credible clinical study in this matter. Our state's medical association would support that as well as our state's nursing association. They are already on record.It isn't simply a question of whether or not there are medical benefits. Such a study could also tell us if the risks outweigh the benefits. The first rule of medicine is "Primum non nocere," which translates to "First, do no harm." If we find this substance has substantial medical benefits, the next step would be for pharmaceutical companies to produce it in a pill or liquid form so as to control dosage and purity.The Legislature has an opportunity here to help our great university research faculty to provide this nation with definitive information about a substance used at least once by 87 million Americans. But please don't tell the DEA that a former governor with the initials L.S.D. is supporting this.Lee Sherman Dreyfus is a former Wisconsin governor who lives in Waukesha. His column runs Thursdays in the Freeman.Newshawk: Is My Medicine Legal YET? -- http://www.immly.orgSource: Waukesha Freeman (WI)Author: Lee Sherman DreyfusPublished: January 10, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Waukesha FreemanWebsite: http://www.freemanol.com/front.aspContact: http://www.freemanol.com/contact.htmRelated Articles & Web Sites:Drug Policy Forum of Wisconsinhttp://drugsense.org/dpfwiMedical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmMedical Marijuana Not Reefer Madnesshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11584.shtmlLawmakers Introduce Medical-Marijuana Billhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11552.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by Hope on May 25, 2005 at 11:55:03 PT
 Reykr
That's very interesting and, thank you, it did bring a smile with the new understanding of Mr. Lear's treasured childhood rhyme.I do hope you will continue reading CNews and perhaps add what I'm sure would be enlightening posts to our front page, http://cannabisnews.com/ where most people are likely to read them. I only realized that you had posted to this older thread because I like to keep track of the recent comments at
http://www.cannabisnews.com/newcomments.shtmlE_Johnson posted the comment that led you to this thread. As you may have noticed, she is an exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable young woman. She keeps us well informed on a variety of topics that we consider to be related to Cannabis law reform. Sadly, she is not posting as often as usual recently, because she is devoting more of her time to writing a book, a novel, I think, based somewhat on her experiences as an activist in California. She still finds the time to comment here several times a week though. She has an amazing breadth of knowledge, as do many of our posters.I have to say again that I really enjoyed reading your blog and intend to keep track of your posts there. It's been added to my bookmarks. Thank you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Reykr on May 25, 2005 at 11:01:23 PT:
Edward Lear reference to cannabis?
The 19th-Century British artist and children's poet Edward Lear once visited India, where he drew or painted many pictures. If I remember his rhyme "The Owl And The Pussy-Cat" correctly, it says in one part, "They sailed away, for a year and a day,
 To the land where the bong-tree grows."I suppose that's an allusion to "bhang," a Hindi word that means "cannabis."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Hope on May 24, 2005 at 19:40:22 PT
Reykr
How wonderful that you found us. Perhaps serendipity led you here to join us and add another heart and mind to our cause.We do find ourselves, in a new era, battling against, yet again, unjust persecution of individuals virtually powerless to resist the prevailing puritanical force that despises, demonizes, and fears them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Reykr on May 24, 2005 at 10:33:44 PT:
I found this web site by serendipity.
While doing a word search for information about the malicious 17th-Century prosecution of Johannes Kepler's mother for so-called "witchcraft," I came across this web site. I remember Governor Dreyfus from the time, in the summer of 1982, that I attended a Regional Gathering of Wisconsin Mensa, in Milwaukee. Mr. Dreyfus was a speaker at one of the events I attended there.I live in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and publish a blog at the following address. It may be of interest to some of you.http://www.livejournal.com/users/reykr/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by E_Johnson on January 16, 2002 at 09:33:56 PT
Religion vs. science
The witch hunts didn't end because the scientists all stood up and debunked the process of identifying witches or the idea of casting spells. The witch hunts ended because of new movements in religion to stop seeing God as a weak but vengeful entity besieged at every step by demons sent by Satan and ready to wreak violent retribution on humans because of it.Religion becamse less paranoid, the idea of a loving God took over, and people just didn't see that new loving God as one that would allow women to be seduced by Satan to the extent that they needed to be violently exterminated.It will be interesting in the end to see what matters most to the Bush administration in the LACRC case -- the fact that the IOM report scientifically validated the idea of medical marijuana, or the fact that Scott Imler is a faithful and respected United Methodist with as much faith in God as Bush himself claims to have.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by E_Johnson on January 16, 2002 at 07:43:59 PT
Galileo wasn't such a hero
Galileo faced the Inquisition alone, and under threats of torture and execution he muttered inaudibly that it moves. I wonder if he gave any thought to the money. He was already fairly well off. His sentence was house arrest at his swanky villa in the foothills.But this was during the witch hunts, recall. This was during Europe's first experiment with marijuana prohibition.Johannes Kepler's mother was nearly tortured as a suspected witch but people don't care so much about that because a big idea wasn't at stake, just an ordinary woman's life.She ended up beng accused of witchcraft by a prostitute whom she had been berating and harassing in the town, to the extent that everyone in the town hated her for the way she came down on this hooker.The prostitute had an abortion and then came down with an infection and so she was being accused by local authorities of having had an abortion and pressured to name the witch (i.e. midwife) who gave her the abortion. Of course this person, had she been caught, would have faced being tortured to death.So rather than give up her abortionist to the witch hunters, instead this prostitute claimed that Kepler's wife cursed her and caused her infection that way. And the townpeople went along with the accusation because everyone hated Frau Kepler because of her moral uprightness. So she ended up being charged, and they pursued the case for seven years. She was finally let go after she was taken to view the torture instruments and given a chance to confess. She said the Lord's Prayer and told them she wouldn't confess to witchcraft even if they tore every single last vein from her body. And the local Duke had intervened and was pressuring them so they let her go. She died a year later from the stress of the ordeal.That was the general climate in Europe during Galileo's oppression. So he wasn't all that oppressed comparing his situation in the scientific elite with the situation of the common people in his times.Kepler's shipping tables based on the heliocentric model were already being accepted by the European shipping industry because his model resulted in fewer late ships and lost cargoes. The Pope had no interest in ruining the profitability of the shipping industry, so the Copernican model was not going to be stopped, they knew that by the time they sentenced Galileo.So he got house arrest at his villa.Notice that Galileo is not famous for openly decrying the hunting of witches, and neither is Kepler. Nobody at that time spoke out against witch hunting. That was okay with them because it didn't interefere with science, because it was mainly women being arrested and tortured to death as witches, and women weren't allowed in sciene back then so why should they care?Note the parallel today with marijuana prohibition and race. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Lehder on January 16, 2002 at 04:18:19 PT
solidity
If we find this substance has substantial medical benefits, the next step would be for pharmaceutical companies to produce it in a pill or liquid form so as to control dosage and purity.If science at Caltech can be directed with a fist full of dollars then maybe U of W can be corrupted too. And if we are to believe this is medicine or science then it is the shameless kind of politicized junk science that wants to make you burn books and denounce your best friend. It begins with a conclusion and a plan to control and seeks not to reveal but to intimidate. And for hundreds of years it has succeeded in retarding civilization.Galileo faced the Inquisition alone, and under threats of torture and execution he muttered inaudibly that it moves. I wonder if he gave any thought to the money. The assembled scientists of Caltech, universally outgrown of their youthful misconception, retreated to their condensed state with bulk properties predictable from microscopic constituents. Bravo.Civilization grows ever more fragile.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by ekim on January 15, 2002 at 19:17:38 PT:
Ballot petition in Michigan now
The Proposal The ballot proposal devised by the Campaign for New Drug Policies would:* Allow all defendants convicted of drug possession to enter a treatment program and avoid jail.* Eliminate Michigan's mandatory minimum sentences except in the case of major drug traffickers.* Create a sentencing commission to establish new penalties that would give judges discretion.* Grant all inmates serving time for drug possession the opportunity to petition the courts for a resentencing.Complete Title: Group Proposes Treatment, Not Jail Time for Drug PossessionSource: Macomb Daily News (MI)
Author: Chad Selweski, Macomb Daily Staff Writer 
Published: Saturday, January 12, 2002 
Copyright: The Macomb Daily 2002 
Contact: webedit macombdaily.com 
Website: http://www.macombdaily.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on January 15, 2002 at 19:12:18 PT
ekim
Thanks for explaining about plants and treatment. I would much prefer being allowed to grow plants then treatment any day. As far as an Emergency Health Powers Act I thought the states had those rights already. Since 9-11 my husband and I have talked about how far he should go up into Chicago because he has some choice about that. He hasn't gone up into the city since 9-11 and takes less money to stay south east of the city. We think that way if they have to shut the city down he won't get stuck in Chicago. That's sad to think that way but if you are just passing thru and an epidemic gets confirmed if you are in the city you might not get out. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by ekim on January 15, 2002 at 18:55:55 PT:
Fom we wanted plants-- CA group wants treatment
> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 
> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 
> Washington DC 20037 
> World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org 
> =============================== 
> For release: January 14, 2002 
> =============================== 
> For additional information: 
> George Getz, Press Secretary 
> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 
> E-Mail: pressreleases hq.LP.org 
> =============================== 
> 
> 
> New 'Emergency Health Powers Act' 
> is dangerous expansion of state power 
> 
> WASHINGTON, DC -- A new proposal that would grant governors the power 
> to declare a "bioterrorism emergency" -- then seize property, order 
> public quarantines, and ration food, guns, and alcohol -- appears to be 
> a classic case of government overreaction, say Libertarians. 
> 
> "This proposed legislation, which has been introduced in a dozen states 
> already, gives governors astonishing powers, under vaguely defined 
> guidelines, to combat a bioterrorism emergency that may never happen," 
> said Steve Dasbach, executive director of the Libertarian Party. 
> 
> "Even in light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Americans should 
> be very reluctant to grant governors these sweeping powers. Just 
> because something is done in the name of 'combating terrorism' doesn't 
> make it right, or necessary, or constitutional." 
> 
> The draft Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), written by 
> the Centers for Disease Control, is designed to help state governments 
> cope with a sudden outbreak of smallpox, anthrax, or other bioterrorism 
> attack. Health experts predict that every state will consider the 40- 
> page model legislation at some point this year. 
> 
> The legislation: 
> 
> * Gives governors the power to declare a public health emergency, 
> without consulting public health officials, the legislature, or the 
> courts. 
> 
> * Defines infectious disease as any "disease caused by a living 
> organism," which "may, or may not, be transmissible from person to 
> person, animal to person, or insect to person." Some health experts say 
> the definition is so broad that it could include the outbreak of a 
> dangerous flu or virus. 
> 
> * Allows public health officials to mandate quarantines for people 
> suspected of having an "infectious disease," and require vaccinations 
> and medical exams. Doctors could be forced to provide them, and fined 
> if they refuse. 
> 
> * Permits states to mobilize the "organized militia" to seize control 
> of any private property the governor deems "reasonable and necessary" 
> to cope with the emergency, such as "communication devices, real 
> estate, fuels, food, clothing, and health care facilities." 
> 
> * Allows the governor to destroy private property alleged to be 
> hazardous to public health, in some cases without compensation. 
> 
> * Empowers the state to "control and restrict alcoholic beverages, 
> firearms, explosives, and combustibles." 
> 
> The first problem with granting governors such awesome powers is that 
> the definition of an "emergency" is so vague, said Dasbach. According 
> to MEHPA, a public health emergency is "an occurrence or imminent 
> threat of an illness or health condition...caused by 
> bioterrorism...that poses a substantial risk of a significant number of 
> human fatalities." 
> 
> "Is a significant number five, the number of Americans already killed 
> by the anthrax attacks?" he asked. "Is it 500? Is it 5,000? 
> Unfortunately, if your state passes this legislation, a bioterrorism 
> attack will be whatever your governor says it is." 
> 
> The second problem is that MEHPA appears to be an overreaction to a 
> past government failure, said Dasbach. 
> 
> "A primary function of the federal government, as defined in the 
> Constitution, is to protect Americans against foreign attack," he 
> noted. "On September 11, the government failed in that crucial role. 
> 
> "Now, instead of reflexively expanding government power at the state 
> level, perhaps it's time to ask why politicians were so unprepared in 
> the first place. 
> 
> "Perhaps, if they weren't so busy squandering tax money on things like 
> sports stadiums, museums, welfare programs, and business subsidies, 
> they might already have a sensible, practical, limited bioterrorism 
> response in place -- instead of having to scramble to pass a hastily 
> written law that, frankly, should make every American apprehensive."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by E_Johnson on January 15, 2002 at 18:54:50 PT
And the people offstage were... dying!
When that Clinton rep left the room so she would not have to hear the premiere AIDS researcher in the world, TIME magazine Man of the Year, declare that marijuana has medical value and invalidate federal marijuana policy with one little comment -- people's lives were at stake.I'm sure everyone reading this now, with MAYBE the exception of whatever DEA lackeys who read this web site here to scan for whatever or whomever, understands the supreme callousness and amorality of that Clinton aide being allowed to leave the room at that moment.This is a little snapshot of the inside of the American science establishment in regards to marijuana prohibition.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by The GCW on January 15, 2002 at 18:18:37 PT
Another test?
 For Safety? That will take many more years of wasted time! It has already been done, over and over again! In 1989: DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young concluded not only that marijuana's medical usefulness had been adequately demonstrated, but that the plant had been shown to be "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."We have safty on a Godly scale!Christ God gave us cannabis and put cannabinoid (THC) receptor sites in our brains: who prohibits man from making that connection? Hint: check 1 Timothy 4:1-5.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by CorvallisEric on January 15, 2002 at 18:00:39 PT
Gingrich URL
One of many places:
http://www.norml.org/medical/newt.endorse.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by goneposthole on January 15, 2002 at 17:45:25 PT
To guard the plant genome
Keep some seeds for yourself. A natural phenotypes can then be obtained, both staminate and pistillate.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by DdC on January 15, 2002 at 17:31:24 PT
Found this in some old files...no url though
Newt Gingrich's Support for Medical MarijuanaThe following letter by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga, now Speaker of the House) in support of medical access to marijuana originally appeared in the March 19, 1982 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).To the Editor,The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs should be commended for its report, "Marijuana: Its Health Hazards and Therapeutic Potential" (1981;246:1823). Not only does the report outline evidence of marijuana's potential harms, but it distinguishes this concern from the legitimate issue of marijuana's important medical benefits. All too often the hysteria that attends public debate over marijuana's social abuse compromises a clear appreciation for this critical distinction.Since 1978, 32 states have abandoned the federal prohibition to recognize legislatively marijuana's important medical properties. Federal law, however, continues to define marijuana as a drug "with no accepted medical use," and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures. On September 16, 1981, Representatives Stewart McKinney and I introduced legislation designed to end bureaucratic interference in the use of marijuana as a medicant. We believe licensed physicians are competent to enploy marijuana, and patients have a right to obtain marijuana legally, under medical supervision, from a regulated source. The medical prohibition does not prevent seriously ill patients from employing marijuana; it simply deprives them of medical supervision and denies them access to a regulated medical substance. Physicians are often forced to choose between their ethical responsibilities to the patient and their legal liabilities to federal bureaucrats.Representative McKinney and I hope the Council will take a close and careful look at this issue. Federal policies do not reflect a factual or balanced assessment of marijuana's use as a medicant. The Council, by thoroughly investigating the available materials, might well discover that its own assessment of marijuana's therapeutic value has, in the past, been more than slightly shaded by federal policies that are less than neutral.Newt Gingrich
House of Representatives
Washington, DC
No Medical Value$$$ Homegrown in the Garden
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on January 15, 2002 at 17:06:31 PT
It's good column BUT
My opinions are colored by the things I have witnessed in the scientific community.At Caltech a few years back there was an AIDS forum organized by David Baltimore to inform everyone about the new AIDS medications and the great successes and remaining challenges of that research program. And there was a representative from the Clinton administration on the panel. And Dr. David Ho was there, he's the great scientific hero who paved the way in the development of these new drugs.And at some point, there were questions from the audience, and someone who was taking the AIDS meds at the time, I think someone he knew, asked Dr. Ho about marijuana, is it true that marijuana helps combat the severe side effects of these new medications?And the Clinton admin rep immediately got up and excused herself and said she had to leave the room before Dr. Ho answered the question.And everyone LET HER LEAVE.This was an act of direct and conscious complicity in the lie that supports the Schedule I status of marijuana. Everyone -- all Ph.D. scientists -- very politely let the Clinton administration representative leave the room so that she could maintain her ability to deny the science.She had them all by the purse strings, that was her power. Science depends on federal funding in the same way that Blanche Dubois depends on the kindness of strangers.Just don't forget that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on January 15, 2002 at 15:53:48 PT
ekim
I'm not sure I understand what you mean but are you saying that they never offered help with the marijuana issue only treatment? I don't need treatment. I don't know anyone that does come to think of it. I don't do cocaine, heroin or even know anyone that does. Cannabis is not a drug it's an herb. It's not man made but natural. Sometimes I just don't understand things. I must stop using common sense I guess.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by ekim on January 15, 2002 at 14:35:35 PT:
E.J gets the ekim award for a no spin zone
Right now we here are being given a ballot petition from a group from CA. and its for treatment. I do not need treatment we here fought for three plants and 288,000 signed that petition. www.prayes.com 
 The CA. group is as posted here before -0-paying 75 cents a signer ---we got 88% and where were these guyes. We got no money no help. Jessie Venture said last night on Larry King States Rights are being smashed by Mr.Bush. Lets help eachother.mike
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Gary Storck on January 15, 2002 at 14:32:48 PT
A simplistic view
I hear what you are saying, E., and I agree. But the author is not really part of the problem, but trying to find a solution. Unfortunately, the solution, while logical, is not the answer because the feds won't allow any research program.The law that then Gov. Dreyfus signed in 1982 authorized "Controlled substances therapeutic research". It didn't work then because of the feds, and it won't work today because of the feds.That is why we need to pass the new bill, which goes around the federal roadblocks. But at least a Republican is weighing in with something more than the negative comments made by an aide to the GOP Assembly Speaker after the introduction of the bill was announced.And that is why I welcome this column.Gary
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on January 15, 2002 at 14:17:23 PT
Pharmaceuticalizing won't stop the culture war
This cheery optimism over the potential phrmaceuticalization of cannabinoids is alarming to me because I have come to understand marijuana prohibition as a wide-ranging cultural war waged against people regarded as social expendables or defined as socially harmful elements for no good reason or for tragically misunderstood reasons.Shifting medical marijuana to the modern pharmaceutical realm won't close that avenue of social oppression. It could just open it wider.We're at a critical juncture in the modern world because we are experiencing the limitations of the modern religion of purity and control.Technology is as David Noble has pointed out a deeply puritan project. We have an old-fashioned religious Puritan going after potheads on one hand -- John "Mullah" Ashcroft. But scientists form another puritan community whose value system is deeply tied to the modern scientific version of puritanism that replaces the church with science.If the science community cared at all about the human rights of marijuana users, if the science community cared at all about this cultural project of exterminating marijuana from America, there would be no Schedule I status of marijuana, that would have been scientifically attacked and debunked and eliminated a long time ago.The science community has been ignoring the scientific falsehoods at the foundation of marijuana prohibition because marijuana users are also people regarded as social expandables or undesirables in the puritan ideology of science. That's why this optimistic view of medical marijuana users being rescued by science and the pharmaceutical industry alarms me so. Purity and control -- just look at who gets arrested for marijuana possession, and it's obvious what we've been trying to purify and control.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 15, 2002 at 13:23:19 PT
Gary
I have no doubt about your inspiration. You are an inspiration. From my early Newshawk days I followed the articles you submitted to Map and every article that you submitted confirmed to me that I wasn't alone in my concern for marijuana issues. Thank you Gary. You are one of the best in my book!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on January 15, 2002 at 13:15:20 PT
The next battle in this war is here
The first rule of medicine is "Primum non nocere," which translates to "First, do no harm." If we find this substance has substantial medical benefits, the next step would be for pharmaceutical companies to produce it in a pill or liquid form so as to control dosage and purity.This is all pure BS and it makes me upset to see this BS repeated mindlessly by people who should really know better.The supposed first rule of medicine has been violated so often and so shamelessly by the pharmaceutical industry that it's just not even funny any more. Just name one medicine that does no harm! Aspirin can't even make the list.If we obeyed that rule, what medicine would be legal? Every single day, doctors are prescribing more and more high tech medicines whose complex and far-reaching side effects they know little or even nothing about.Just go look up the fancy new antibiotic Levaquin on the Internet There's a whole huge group of people who only learned by their own sad experience that this antibiotic has some very drastic side effects that can include permanent arthritis in the ankles and knees and tendon rupture and psychosis.I was put on this anitbiotic and when I reported the side effects to my doctor, she was surprised, she never heard of such a thing. But um well um that WAS her name on the prescription!!! She told me to take it, and didn't check it out with Hippocrates first.It appears that the new first rule of medicine is:First trust Big Pharm.And then pray you don't end up doing harm.Pharmaceutical companies are the very last organizations that should ever be allowed to touch cannabis or cannabinoids. The more experience I have with organized medicine, such as it is in its managed-care crisis state here in Southern california, the more I am convinced that it is an absolute PRIORITY to keep cannabinoids OUT of the hands of Big Pharm and keep real non-corporate people in charge of the plant and the plant genome.Most importantly -- guard the plant genome.It is a modern fallacy that people need huge corporations run by technocrats to control their medicine.The dosage of cannabinoids is best controlled by the patient, not by some highly paid technocrat with a security badge in some gated industrial park.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Gary Storck on January 15, 2002 at 13:08:49 PT
Good to see him weigh in
I'd like to think I played in role in inspiring this column, having written to the GOP ex-governor a week before this appeared, asking him to speak out so the unfinished business of the mmj bill he signed in 1982 could be completed with the passage of the new bill in 2002, AB 715.While expecting the feds to allow the University of Wisconsin to study pot is a long shot, he did make some good points, the best being, "an enforcement agency should not be our guide relative to medical possibilities (of marijuana)".I don't think I've ever seen it put so succinctly.Gary
Is My Medicine Legal YET?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment