cannabisnews.com: Up In Smoke: A Setback for Medical Marijuana





Up In Smoke: A Setback for Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on December 15, 2004 at 16:40:11 PT
By Mike Milard
Source: Boston Phoenix 
Two weeks ago, while hearing arguments in the landmark Supreme Court case Ashcroft vs. Raich — which by this spring will decide whether federal agents can arrest medical-marijuana users even in states where such use is legal — Justice Stephen Breyer questioned the logic of having a patchwork of disparate state laws. Instead, he suggested, medical-marijuana proponents would be better off petitioning the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reclassify pot as a prescribable drug. "That seems to be the obvious way to get this done," he said. "Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum."
Would that it were so easy. As it happens, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) late last week effectively blocked the only proposed project that might lead to FDA-approved marijuana, rejecting a petition by Dr. Lyle Craker, professor of plant and soil sciences at UMass Amherst, to obtain DEA approval to grow pot for FDA-approved research. "In practical terms, this really does mean that the door is shut to pursuing FDA approval of marijuana as a medicine in any reasonable time frame," says Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project.Currently, all marijuana used for research in the United States comes from a Mississippi farm overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. But researchers have complained that the stuff is of poor quality, and that the feds are stingy distributing it. More important, says Mirken, "The NIDA crop is grown for the specific purpose of research. There’s absolutely no indication that it could ever be available for prescription sale, should the FDA ever authorize that. The reason that’s critical is that the FDA, if they’re going to approve something as a prescription drug, needs to know how that drug is going to be manufactured, and needs to review clinical trials on the same product that’s going to be sold." Craker’s facility would have offered an alternative source for FDA study and, perhaps, a strain that could someday be prescribed.The DEA’s decision comes grudgingly. Craker first submitted his application in June 2001, and this past July, after more than three years without an answer, Craker and the Belmont-based Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which would have financed the UMass facility, filed suit, charging the agency with stalling unreasonably.In a December 10 letter to Craker, the DEA’s William J. Walker reasoned that granting approval "would not be consistent with the public interest," since "current marijuana research has not progressed to Phase II of the clinical trials [exploratory research into safety and efficacy, with human subjects] because current research must use smoked marijuana...."DEA spokeswoman Rogene Waite declined to comment, pointing instead to the text of Walker’s letter. But MAPS president Rick Doblin, PhD., charges the DEA with essentially prejudging a study that has yet to take place. "They’re making this decision, before the research is done, that the research would show that it can’t work." Moreover, he says, their claim is simply not true. State-funded Phase II research is indeed taking place right now in California. Also, the feds have stalled approval of MAPS-funded work with vaporizers, an alternative to smoking, for almost a year and a half."We knew that they would rather delay, as long as they could, than to explicitly telegraph to everybody that they’re not going to permit the research to be done," Doblin says. But now that they have, "we get to argue them on the merits." The next 30 days will find Craker, possibly in conjunction with MAPS, filing for an administrative-law hearing to appeal the decision once and for all — a process that, all told, could take more than a year.Mirken, for one, isn’t holding his breath. "As long as the DEA appears to have a deep prejudice against the medical use of marijuana, which their letter certainly suggests, the game will always be rigged. They will make you jump through these bureaucratic hoops, but they know what the outcome will be, because they’ve decided in advance what it’s going to be." Moreover, he says, what this finding means in the near term is that "the only way that [medical marijuana] patients are going to be protected is through changes in state law and changes in federal law. The Supreme Court might help us out some in Ashcroft v. Raich, but nobody’s betting the farm on that. And even that would only provide protection to patients in states that have medical-marijuana laws." Still, there may be a silver lining. "Now, what’s going to happen is that this is gonna fuel more effort to pass state laws, even if the Supreme Court says the feds have primacy," says Doblin. Mirken, too, thinks state lawmakers will be compelled to pay more attention to medical marijuana once they "realize what [the DEA] has done. I think a lot of people have taken the view that Justice Breyer expressed in the Supreme Court two weeks ago when he said, ‘Why don’t you guys just go to the FDA?’ With that door shut, legislators should see — and our job is to make sure they understand — that the actions they can take are the only protections available to patients for the foreseeable future.""We’re disappointed, but we’re not surprised," says Mirken. "This simply illustrates, very clearly, how deep the official prejudice is against considering that marijuana might be a medicine. In the DEA’s letter, they essentially pass judgment on research that hasn’t occurred yet, saying that the deleterious effect would be too great. Isn’t that for the FDA to judge? But I think in some ways it’s probably helpful to the cause to have that naked prejudice out there in black and white. It’s clear that there’s this whole anti-drug bureaucracy that just has no interest in science." Source: Boston Phoenix (MA) Author: Mike MilardPublished: December 17 - 23, 2004Copyright: 2004 Phoenix Media Communications GroupContact: letters phx.com Website: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:MAPShttp://www.maps.org/ Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/U.S. Puts Brake on 'Pot' Studieshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20034.shtmlNo Room To Growhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20033.shtmlDEA Rejects Professor's Bid To Grow Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20029.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by afterburner on January 18, 2005 at 06:58:11 PT
Nanny Nation, Paternalism toward Natives Continues
Off-Topic???Federal Indian Affairs minister conflicted over reserve smoking rules 
13/01/2005 7:45:00 PM{REGINA (CP) - The federal Indian Affairs minister acknowledged he's in a dilemma when it comes to dealing with smoking bylaws enacted by First Nations that attempt to do an end run around provincial rules.{Speaking in Regina on Thursday, Andy Scott said there are two conflicting issues at play - health and aboriginal self-government. "We would wish that communities have more authority over decisions," Scott said. "At the same time I believe strongly that we should do what we can to mitigate the health risks associated with smoking." {Scott made the comments when he was asked about the problems Saskatchewan is having with its tough new anti-smoking law. {Effective Jan. 1, smokers have had to butt out in all public buildings in the province or face fines. The law was meant to apply across the board, both on reserve and off. {But under the Indian Act, if a band were to pass a bylaw that conflicts with the provincial law, the band bylaw would prevail. For a bylaw to come into force, however, it must be first forwarded to the federal minister, who has 40 days to object. {Earlier this week, the Saskatchewan government came forward asking Scott to quash any bylaws that are weaker than the provincial anti-smoking legislation. {Scott said that he wants to consult with all of the stakeholders as well as his cabinet colleagues before he makes a decision. {But that will have to be done quickly. {The White Bear First Nation in the southeast corner of the province submitted a bylaw for approval on Dec. 9. It would allow smoking in bingo halls and casinos. {That means Scott's decision will have to come within a week. {Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations vice-chief Morley Watson said it should be up to native people to decide what is best for their health.}more... http://tinyurl.com/5elzv
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on December 17, 2004 at 11:45:52 PT:
The Classic Mistake
Anyone who has lived long enough has seen when some blowhard politician or bureaucrat finally puts his foot in his mouth by expressing deepest-held prejudices publicly. The result is usually destructive towards the person's career and also results in some much needed reform caused by public backlash.Consider: Most Supreme Court justices, personified by Breyer, seem to be completely oblivious to the situation regarding the antipathy of the Federal drug-control agencies towards actually studying the drug they so loudly pontificate against...and the stonewalling to prevent that studying that has been engaged in from the very beginning. By publicly making that statement, in the wake of so much publicity regarding Raich/Monson, they have opened the possibility for debate even wider.Now, almost on cue, we have the DEA making the lamest, most mealy-mouthed assertion that they are concerned that the single most common means of ingestion - inhalation by smoking - is too 'risky' to undertake for any volunteers. Awwww, how cute of them, to be soooooo concerned.This is the kind of tale an 8 year old comes up with, on par with 'the dog ate my homework'...and it's about as credible. I have no doubt the great wits down in DEA HQs are yukking it up and giving each other high-fives about how foxy they think themselves to be...over something that the most wet-behind-the-ears defense lawyer would rip to shreds in a heartbeat. *This* is the best they can come up with? THIS? As I said, I'd expect this from a none-too-smart juvenile; an adult making this statement is ludicrous to the extreme.They used to have some breathing room; not anymore. They have painted themselves into the last tiny corner they had left. After this, their credibility is shot. Any court case now that allows the defense to bring in the history of cannabis prohibition will blow this and any other flimsy construction out of the water...and they have made that case inevitable.If this was chess, this would be 'check', just short of 'checkmate'. Given the latest revelations regarding those pharmas like Vioxx and now Celebrex, the cachet of those supposedly watchdog agencies like FDA have suffered much. Breyer's remarks, and now the DEA's, have put even more unwanted (by the agency) public scrutiny on an process which is being revealed as corrupt - and inept! - as any Third World satrapy. And they are supposed to be trusted with objective research? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by lombar on December 16, 2004 at 00:23:11 PT
13th step
It's the same kind of science that they use to say cannabis leads to schizophrenia. There are too many other variables to link it to just one thing. Not to say that people should not avoid second hand smoke but I often wonder how many of the 'anti-smoking' zealots jump into cars??? A car emits more poison on the way home from work for the average person than a smoker can emit in a month. The (psuedo)'science' is used to justify the political position, whatever the truth is, and is encapsulated into a nice simple package or 2-minute soundbyte for the uninformed to nod their heads to when they hear it. Create the prejudice with half-truths, fan the flames of hatred and fear with pseudo-science, then pass whatever draconian laws that are required. I am an ex-tobbacco smoker and agree that smoking it has absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever but I do not agree with the health-nazi approach of blanket bans as we are seeing here in Canada. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by 13th step on December 15, 2004 at 20:45:40 PT
This is meant to be humorous..
(b4daylight, this isn't directed at you, so please, don't take offense.)"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. killing 38,000 to 65,000 nonsmokers every year."You know, this whole "secondhand smoke" thing kind of bugs me. Bear in mind, I'm no tobacco addict (not anymore!), and I think it's a pretty bad habit, but come on. THis is all based on a vaguely worded 1993 World Health Organization report.I only have one thing to say, "Show me the bodies!"If secondhand smoke is so bad, and is enough to kill you, then how come no one is addicted to secondhand smoke? If you are taking it in in a quantity enough to kill you, then it would have to be that you are taking in enough to get you hooked on the nicotine.Meh?I think a fairer assessment could be done on this, than the aforementioned WHO report. I mean, was emissions from automobiles taken into consideration? How about emissions from industry? How about work environment? Bah.I think one day, we are all going to find out that a lot of these radioactive (petrol based!)fertilizers that are used on a lot of the foods we consume & plants we smoke are going to factor a lot into the cancer rates.It's a thought, anyway.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by b4daylight on December 15, 2004 at 20:22:10 PT
well done
so true"This simply illustrates, very clearly, how deep the official prejudice is against considering that marijuana might be a medicine. In the DEA’s letter, they essentially pass judgment on research that hasn’t occurred yet, saying that the deleterious effect would be too great. Isn’t that for the FDA to judge? But I think in some ways it’s probably helpful to the cause to have that naked prejudice out there in black and white. It’s clear that there’s this whole anti-drug bureaucracy that just has no interest in science."Yet they allowTobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of death in the United States. More than 400,000 Americans die each year from tobacco-related disease.Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. killing 38,000 to 65,000 nonsmokers every year.An estimated 63,718 deaths were attributable to harmful drinking in the U.S. in 2000.
3,326 people died from DWI drivers in 2002clearly I do not see how dangerous Pot is to this. Just look over at holland to find the answer.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment