Marijuana On The Ballot

Marijuana On The Ballot
Posted by FoM on April 10, 2000 at 09:49:02 PT
By James R. McDonough
Source: Policy Review 
While it has long been clear that chemical compound found in the marijuana plant offer potential for medical use, smoking the raw plant is a method of delivery supported neither by law nor recent scientific evidence. The Food and Drug Administration's approval process, which seeks to ensure the purity of chemical compounds in legitimate drugs, sets the standard for medical validation of prescription drugs as safe and effective. 
Diametrically opposed to this long-standing safeguard of medical science is the recent spate of state election ballots that have advocated the use of a smoked plant - the marijuana leaf - for "treating" an unspecified number of ailments. It is a tribute to the power of political activism that popular vote has displaced objective science in advancing what would be the only smoked drug in America under the guise of good medicine. Two recent studies of the potential medical utility of marijuana advocate development of a non-smoked, rapid onset delivery system of the cannabis compounds.But state ballot initiatives that seek legalization of smoking marijuana as medicine threaten to circumvent credible research. Advocates for smoking marijuana appear to want to move ahead at all costs, irrespective of dangers to the user. They make a well-financed, emotional appeal to the voting public claiming that what they demand is humane, useful, and safe. Although they rely largely on anecdote to document their claims, they seize upon partial statements that purport to validate their assertions. At the same time, these partisans - described by Chris Wren, the highly respected journalist for the New York Times, as a small coalition of libertarians, liberals, humanitarians, and hedonists - reject the main conclusions of medical science: that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.A Dearth Of Scientific SupportCompounds found in marijuana may have medical potential, but science does not support smoking the plant in its crude form as an appropriate delivery system.An exploration of two comprehensive inquiries into the medical potential of marijuana indicates the following:o Science has identified only the potential medical benefit of chemical compounds, such as THC, found in marijuana. Ambitious research is necessary to understand fully how these substances affect the human body. o Experts who have dealt with all available data do not recommend that the goal of research should be smoked marijuana for medical conditions. Rather, they support development of a smoke-free, rapid-onset delivery system for compounds found in the plant.In 1997, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) met "to review the scientific data concerning the potential therapeutic uses of marijuana and the need for and feasibility of additional research." The collection of experts had experience in relevant studies and clinical research, but held no preconceived opinions about the medical use of marijuana. They were asked the following questions: What is the current state of scientific knowledge; what significant questions remain unanswered; what is the medical potential; what possible uses deserve further research; and what issues should be considered if clinical trials are conducted? Shortly thereafter, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to execute a similar task: to form a panel that would "conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids." Selected reviewers were among the most accomplished in the disciplines of neuroscience, pharmacology, immunology, drug abuse, drug laws, oncology, infectious diseases, and ophthalmology. Their analysis focused on the effects of isolated cannabinoids, risks associated with medical use of marijuana, and the use of smoked marijuana. Their findings in the IOM study stated:"Compared to most drugs, the accumulation of medical knowledge about marijuana has proceeded in reverse. Typically, during the course of drug development, a compound is first found to have some medical benefit. Following this, extensive tests are undertaken to determine the safety and proper dose of the drug for medical use. Marijuana, in contrast, has been widely used in the United State for decades .... The data on the adverse effects of marijuana are more extensive than the data on effectiveness. Clinical studies of marijuana are difficult to conduct." Nevertheless, the IOM report concluded that cannabinoid drugs do have potential for therapeutic use. It specifically named pain, nausea and vomiting, and lack of appetite as symptoms for which cannabinoids may be of benefit, stating that cannabinoids are "moderately well suited" for AIDS wasting and nausea resulting from chemotherapy. The report found that cannabinoids "probably have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory," but that this role "is likely to be multi-faceted and remains unclear."In addressing the possible effects of smoked marijuana on pain, the NIH report explained that no clinical trials involving patients with "naturally occurring pain" have ever been conducted but that two credible studies of cancer pain indicated analgesic benefit.Addressing another possible benefit - the reduction of nausea related to chemotherapy - the NIH report described a study comparing oral administration of THC (via a drug called Dronabinol) and smoked marijuana. Of 20 patients, nine expressed no preference between the two, seven preferred the oral THC, and only four preferred smoked marijuana. In summary, the report states, "No scientific questions have been definitively answered about the efficacy of smoked marijuana in chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting."In the area of glaucoma, the effect of marijuana on intraocular pressure (the cause of optic nerve damage that typifies glaucoma) was explored, and smoked marijuana was found to reduce this pressure. However, the NIH report failed to find evidence that marijuana can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure enough to prevent optic nerve damage." The report concluded that the "mechanism of action" of smoked marijuana or THC in pill form on intraocular pressure is not known and calls for more research.In addressing appetite stimulation and wasting related to AIDS, the NIH report recognized the potential benefit of marijuana. However, the report also noted the lack of pertinent data. The researchers pointed out that the evidence known to date, although plentiful, is anecdotal, and "no objective data relative to body composition alterations, HIV replication, or immunologic function in HIV patients are available." Smoking marijuana as medicine was recommended by neither report. The IOM report called smoked marijuana a "crude THC delivery system" that is not recommended because it delivers harmful substances, pointing out that botanical products are susceptible to problems with consistency, contaminations, uncertain potencies, and instabilities. The NIH report reached the same conclusion and explained that eliminating the smoked aspect of marijuana would "remove an important obstacle" from research into the potential medical benefits of the plant. These studies present a consistent theme.- Cannabinoids in marijuana do show potential for symptom management of several conditions, but research is inadequate to explain definitively how cannabinoids operate to deliver these potential benefits.Nor did the studies attribute any curative effects to marijuana; at best, only the symptoms of particular medical conditions are affected. The finding most important to the debate is that the studies did not advocate smoked marijuana as medicine.To the contrary, the NIH report called for a non-smoked alternative as a focus of further research.The IOM report recommended smoking marijuana as medicine only in the most extreme circumstances when all other medication has failed and then only when administration of marijuana is under strict medical supervision. These conclusions from two studies, based not on rhetorical conjecture but on credible scientific research, do not support the legalization of smoked marijuana as medicine.The Scientific Community's ViewsThe conclusions of the NIH and IOM reports are supported by commentary published in the nation's medical journals. Much of this literature focuses on the problematic aspect of smoke as a delivery system when using cannabinoids for medical purposes. One physician- authored article describes smoking "crude plant material" as "troublesome" to many doctors and "unpleasant" to many patients. Dr. Eric Voth, chairman of the International Drug Strategy Institute, stated in a 1997 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "To support research on smoked pot does not make sense. We're currently in a huge anti-tobacco thrust in this country, which is appropriate. So why should we waste money on drug delivery that is based on smoking?" Voth recommends non-smoked analogs to THC. In September, 1998, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, in a coauthored piece with Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote:"Until the 20th century, most remedies were botanical, a few of which were found through trial and error to be helpful. All of that began to change in the 20th century as a result of rapid advances in medical science. In particular, the evolution of the randomized, controlled clinical trial enabled researchers to study with precision the safety, efficacy, and dose effects of proposed treatments and the indications for them. No longer do we have to rely on trial and error and anecdotes. We have learned to ask and expect statistically reliable evidence before accepting conclusions about remedies."Dr. Robert DuPont of the Georgetown University Department of Psychiatry points out that those who aggressively advocate smoking marijuana as medicine "undermine" the potentially beneficial roles of the NIH and IOM studies.As does Dr. Voth, DuPont discusses the possibility of nonsmoked delivery methods.He asserts that if the scientific community were to accept smoked marijuana as medicine, the public would likely perceive the as influenced by politics rather than science.Dupont concludes that if research is primarily concerned with the needs of the sick, it is unlikely that science will approve of smoked marijuana as medicine.Even those who advocate smoking marijuana for medicine are occasionally driven to caution.Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a Harvard University professor and advocate of smoking marijuana, warned in a 1994 JAMA article: "The one area we have to be concerned about is pulmonary function. The lungs were not made to inhale anything but fresh air." Other experts have only disdain for the loose medical claims for smoked marijuana.Dr. Janet Lapey, executive director of Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, likened research on smoked marijuana to using opium pipes to test morphine.She advocates research on isolated active compounds rather than smoked marijuana.The findings of the NIH and iom reports, and other commentary by members of the scientific and medical communities, contradict the idea that plant smoking is an appropriate vehicle for delivering whatever compounds research may find to be of benefit.Enter The FDAThe mission of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is "to assure that safe and effective drugs are available to the American people." Circumvention of the FDA approval process would remove this essential safety mechanism intended to safeguard public health.The FDA approval process is not designed to keep drugs out of the hands of the sick but to offer a system to ensure that drugs prevent, cure, or treat a medical condition.FDA approval can involve testing of hundreds of compounds, which allows scientists to alter them for improved performance. The IOM report addresses this situation explicitly: "Medicines today are expected to be of known composition and quantity.Even in cases where marijuana can provide relief from symptoms, the crude plant mixture does not meet this modern expectation." For a proposed drug to gain approval by the FDA, a potential manufacturer must produce a new drug application. The application must provide enough information for FDA reviewers to determine (among other criteria) "whether the drug is safe and effective for its proposed use(s), whether the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks [and] whether the methods used in manufacturing the drug and the controls used to maintain the drug's quality are adequate to preserve the drug's integrity, strength, quality, and purity." On the "benefits" side, the Institute of Medicine found that the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids are "generally modest" and that for the majority of symptoms there are approved drugs that are more effective. For example, superior glaucoma and antinausea medications have already been developed.In addition, the new drug Zofran may provide more relief than THC for chemotherapy patients. Dronabinol, the synthetic THC, offers immunocompromised HIV patients a safe alternative to inhaling marijuana smoke, which contains carcinogens.On the "risks" side, there is strong evidence that smoking marijuana has detrimental health effects.Unrefined marijuana contains approximately 400 chemicals that become combustible when smoked, producing in turn over 2,000 impure chemicals. These substances, many of which remain unidentified, include. carcinogens. The IOM report states that, when used chronically, "marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes." A subsequent study by Dr. Zuo-Feng Zhary of the Jonsson Cancer Center at UCLA determined that the carcinogens in marijuana are much stronger than those in tobacco. Chronic bronchitis and increased incidence of pulmonary disease are associated with frequent use of smoked marijuana, as are reduced sperm motility and testosterone levels in males. Decreased immune system response, which is Rely to increase vulnerability to infection and tumors, is also associated with frequent use. Even a slight decrease in immune response can have major public health ramifications. Because marijuana by-products remain in body fat for several weeks, interference with normal body functioning may continue beyond the time of use. Among the known effects of smoking marijuana is impaired lung function similar to the type caused by cigarette smoking. In addressing the efficacy of cannabinoid drugs, the IOM report - after recognizing "potential therapeutic value" - added that smoked marijuana is "a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances." Purified cannabinoid compounds are preferable to plants in crude form, which contain inconsistent chemical composition. The "therapeutic window" between the desirable and adverse effects of marijuana and THC is narrow at best and may not exist at all, in many cases. The scientific evidence that marijuana's potential therapeutic benefits are modest, that other approved drugs are generally more effective, and that smoking marijuana is unhealthy, indicates that smoked marijuana is not a viable candidate for FDA approval.Without such approval, smoked marijuana cannot achieve legitimate status as an approved drug that patients can readily use. This reality renders the advocacy of smoking marijuana as medicine both misguided and impractical. Medicine By Ballot Initiave ?While ballot initiatives are an indispensable part of our democracy, they are imprudent in the context of advancing smoked marijuana as medicine because they confound our system of laws, create conflict between state and federal law, and fail to offer a proper substitute for science. Ballot initiatives to legalize smoking marijuana as medicine have had a tumultuous history.In 1998 alone, initiatives were passed in five states, any substantive benefits in the aftermath were lacking.For example, a Colorado proposal was ruled invalid before the election. An Ohio bill was passed but subsequently repealed. In the District of Colombia, Congress disallowed the counting of ballot results. Six other states permit patients to smoke marijuana as medicine but only by prescription, and doctors, dubious about the validity of a smoked medicine, wary of liability suits, and concerned about legal and professional risks are reluctant to prescribe it for their patients. Although voters passed Arizona's initiative, the state legislature originally blocked the measure.The version that eventually became Arizona law is problematic because it conflicts with federal statute.Indeed, legalization at the state level creates a direct conflict between state and federal law in every case, placing patients, doctors, police, prosecutors, and public officials in a difficult position. The fundamental legal problem with prescription of marijuana is that federal law prohibits such use, rendering state law functionally ineffective. To appreciate fully the legal ramifications of ballot initiatives, consider one specific example.California's is perhaps the most publicized, and illustrates the chaos that can result from such initiatives. Enacted in 1996, the California Compassionate Use Act (also known as Proposition 215) was a ballot initiative intended to afford legal protection to seriously ill patients who use marijuana therapeutically. The act explicitly states that marijuana used by patients must first be recommended by a physician, and refers to such use as a "right" of the people of California. According to the act, physicians and patients are not subject to prosecution if they are compliant with the terms of the legislation. The act names cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, and migraine as conditions that may be appropriately treated by marijuana, but it also includes the proviso: "or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."Writing in December 1999, a California doctor, Ryan Thompson, summed up the medical problems with Proposition 215:As it stands, it creates vague, ill-defined guidelines that are obviously subject to abuse.The most glaring areas are as follows:o A patient does not necessarily need to be seen, evaluated or diagnosed as having any specific medical condition to qualify for the use of marijuana. o There is no requirement for a written prescription or even a written recommendation for its medical use.o Once "recommended," the patient never needs to be seen again to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and potentially could use that "recommendation" for the rest of his or her life. o There is no limitation to the conditions for which it can be used, it can be recommended for virtually any condition, even if it is not believed to be effective.The doctor concludes by stating: "Certainly as a physician I have witnessed the detrimental effects of marijuana use on patients and their families. It is not a harmless substance."Passage of Proposition 215 resulted in conflict between California and the federal government. In February 1997, the Executive Office of the President issued its response to the California Compassionate Use Act (as well as Arizona's Proposition 200). The notice stated: "[The] Department of Justice's (D. O. J.) position is that a practitioner's practice of recommending or prescribing Schedule I controlled substances is not consistent with the public interest (as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act) and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to revoke the practitioner's registration."The notice indicated that U.S. attorneys in California and Arizona would consider cases for prosecution using certain criteria. These included lack of a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, a "high volume" of prescriptions (or recommendations) for Schedule I drugs, "significant" profits derived from such prescriptions, prescriptions to minors, and "special circumstances" like impaired driving accidents involving serious injury.The federal government's reasons for taking such a stance are solid. Dr. Donald Vereen of the Office of National Drug Control Policy explains that "research-based evidence" must be the focus when evaluating the risks and benefits of any drug, the only approach that provides a rational basis for making such a determination. He also explains that since testing by the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies is designed to protect public health, circumvention of the process is unwise. While the federal government supports FDA approved cannabinoid-based drugs, it maintains that ballot initiatives should not be allowed to remove marijuana evaluation from the realm of science and the drug approval process - a position based on a concern for public health. The Department of Health and Human Services has revised its regulations by making research-grade marijuana more available and intends to facilitate more research of cannabinoids. The department does not, however, intend to lower its standards of scientific proof.Problems resulting from the California initiative are not isolated to conflict between the state and federal government. California courts themselves limited the distribution of medical marijuana. A 1997 California appellate decision held that the state's Compassionate Use Act only allowed purchase of medical marijuana from a patient's "primary caregiver," not from "drug dealers on street corners" or "sales centers such as the Cannabis Buyers' Club." This decision allowed courts to enjoin marijuana clubs.The course of California's initiative and those of other states illustrate that such ballot-driven movements are not a legally effective or reliable way to supply the sick with whatever medical benefit the marijuana plant might hold. If the focus were shifted away from smoking the plant and toward a non-smoked alternative based on scientific research, much of this conflict could be avoided.Filling "Prescriptions"It is one thing to pass a ballot initiative defining a burning plant as medicine.It is yet another to make available such "medicine" if the plant itself remains - as it should - illegal. Recreational use, after all, cannot be equated with medicinal use, and none of the ballots passed were constructed to do so.Nonetheless, cannabis buyers' clubs were quick to present the fiction that, for medical benefit, they were now in business to provided relief for the sick. In California, 13 such clubs rapidly went into operation, selling marijuana openly under the guise that doing so had been legitimized at the polls.The problem was that these organizations were selling to people under the flimsiest of facades.One club went so far as to proclaim: "All use of marijuana is medical. It makes you smarter. It touches the right brain and allows you to slow down, to smell the flowers."Depending on the wording of the specific ballots, legal interpretation of what was allowed became problematic. The buyers' clubs became notorious for liberal interpretations of "prescription," "doctor's recommendation," and "medical." In California, Lucy Mae Tuck obtained a prescription for marijuana to treat hot flashes. Another citizen arrested for possession claimed he was medically entitled to his stash to treat a condition exacerbated by an ingrown toenail.Undercover police in several buyers clubs reported blatant sales to minors and adults with little attention to claims of medical need or a doctor's direction.Eventually, 10 of the 13 clubs in California were closed. Further exacerbating the confusion over smoked marijuana as medicine are doctors' concerns over medical liability. Without the Food and Drug Administration's approval, marijuana cannot become a pharmaceutical drug to be purchased at local drug stores. Nor can there be any degree of confidence that proper doses can be measured out and chemical impurities eliminated in the marijuana that is obtained. After all, we are talking about a leaf, and a burning one at that. In the meantime, the harmful effects of marijuana have been documented in greater scientific detail than any findings about the medical benefits of smoking the plant.Given the serious illnesses (for example, cancer and AIDS) of some of those who are purported to be in need of smoked marijuana for medical relief and their vulnerability to impurities and other toxic substances present in the plant, doctors are loath to risk their patients' health and their own financial well-being by prescribing it. As Dr. Peter Byeff, an oncologist at a Connecticut cancer center, points out: "If there's no mechanism for dispensing it, that doesn't help many of my patients. They're not going to go out and grow it in their backyards." Recognizing the availability of effective prescription medications to control nausea and vomiting, Byeff adds: "There's no reason to prescribe or dispense marijuana." Medical professionals recognize what marijuana-as-medicine advocates seek to obscure.The chemical makeup of any two marijuana plants can differ significantly due to minor variations in cultivation. For example, should one plant receive relative to another as little as four more hours of collective sunlight before cultivation, the two could turn out to be significantly different in chemical composition. Potency also varies according to climate and geographical origin; it can also be affected by the way in which the plant is harvested and stored.Differences can be so profound that under current medical standards, two marijuana plants could be considered completely different drugs. Prescribing unproven, unmeasured, impure burnt leaves to relieve symptoms of a wide range of ailments does not seem to be the high point of American medical practice.Illegal Because HarmfulCannabinoids found in the marijuana plant offer the potential for medical use. However, lighting the leaves of the plant on fire and smoking them amount to an impractical delivery system that involves health risks and deleterious legal consequences. There is a profound difference between an approval process that seeks to purify isolated compounds for safe and effective delivery, and legalization of smoking the raw plant material as medicine. To advocate the latter is to bypass the safety and efficacy built into America's medical system.Ballot initiatives for smoked marijuana comprise a dangerous, impractical shortcut that circumvents the drug-approval process. The resulting decriminalization of a dangerous and harmful drug turns out to be counterproductive - legally, politically, and scientifically. Advocacy for smoked marijuana has been cast in terms of relief from suffering. The Hippocratic oath that doctors take specifies that they must "first, do no harm." Clearly some people supporting medical marijuana are genuinely concerned about the sick. But violating established medical procedure does do harm, and it confounds the political, medical, and legal processes that best serve American society.In the single-minded pursuit of an extreme position that harkens back to an era of home medicine and herbal remedies, advocates for smoked marijuana as medicinal therapy not only retard legitimate scientific progress but become easy prey for less noble-minded zealots who seek to promote the acceptance and use of marijuana, an essentially harmful - and, therefore, illegal - drug. MAP Posted-by: Richard Lake NewsHawk: John ChasePubdate: April-May 2000Copyright: 2000 Policy ReviewContact: polrev Address: 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002Fax: (202) 608-6136Note: James R. McDonough is director of the Florida Office of Drug Control.Also: At least two articles have been published which reference this article. They are at: News Article Courtesy Of MapInc. Related Articles:The False Promise Of Marijuana Case Against Marijuana as Medicine MapInc. Archives: Medicial Marijuana Archives:
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #14 posted by Gansterboo_696969 on January 30, 2001 at 14:21:05 PT:
somke bud 
Ilove to somke bud every day and all day I wake up and somke bud I call it Wake-n-bake bud is for everyone so somke it and share peace out to all the bud somkers out their
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on April 11, 2000 at 13:04:52 PT:
Good To See You John R. Bills!!!
I agree! Thanks John for your post. It seems like along time since I've seen you and your back and that's great! I can work on your page now just let me know. Peace, FoM!PS: Just email me if you want me to do anything on your page. I got Front Page 2000 for Christmas and that is what I do in my spare time. I have fun learning how to make pages. I must like computers! I am building a little drug news type board that I use to help me locate current articles. I don't have a search tool except google and all the web so I use my boards. I named it Drug Policy Talk but I just archives news in it and use the other boards for different things.
Drug Policy Talk 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Puritan on April 11, 2000 at 12:44:44 PT
John R. Bills
Kudos to anyone who would take the time and effort to refute this quite monotonous and tiring piece of propaganda. Sir, thank you very much for exposing this bit of trite for exactly what it is. Salute....
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by John R. Bills on April 11, 2000 at 10:25:03 PT:
A Rebuttal - Part 4
In the following piece, the original article will be found between . Comments will be between [ and ] or will have none.Part 4 -A Rebuttal [Or, the People's Right to self-remedy slowly encroaching on the government's need to control] [And ending federal control, which is only interested in grandstanding on the issue, will stop this conflict. If 69% or more of the people want something to happen in a democracy, is it not prudent to at least an honest debate?] [This is highly dubious, because there are studies that show that there is no comparable increase in the recreational use of marijuana in California; and in Arizona, that treatment is at least SEVEN times more effective than the drug war cure (incarceration, suspension, severance of livelihoods, and demonizing drug use as basically EVIL; something that should only sputter from the mouth's of puritan hypocrites!]  [Oh, and just leave out the fact that this decision may be overturned based on the fact that many signatures that were deemed invalid, were, in fact, valid. Make sure not to give US too much information, lest we make up OUR minds for ourselves.]  Yes, for the first time in the history of our country, a valid election result was usurped; extinguished by the Congress of the United States. Initiative 59 in Washington D.C., which passed by a margin of over 69% of the voters, after a judge ruled that the actions of the Congress was unconstitutional, will NOT be allowed to go into effect. Look up totalitarianism and fascism and tell me that the means with which these two types of governments use for political gain are not similar in nature to that of these actions by our Congress? [Again, no mention of a federal crackdown on physicians licensure (money) on a subject that should be only in the purvey of medical men and NOT legislators. I read a recent poll at the hospital that as much as 40% of physicians are afraid of prosecution by the so-called "Drug Enforcement Administration" because of the "over-medication" of victims of severe, debilitating pain!]  [A measure voted on twice, and reworded the second time in an attempt to deceive the voting populace into another "YES" vote, which would have overturned the first initiative.] Need I say more? END THE DRUG WAR
The Media Awareness Project
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by John R. Bills on April 11, 2000 at 10:22:25 PT:
Part 3 - A Rebuttal
In the following piece, the original article will be found between . Comments will be between [ and ] or will have none.Part 3 -A RebuttalThe mission of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is "to assure that safe and effective drugs are available to the American people." Circumvention of the FDA approval process would remove this essential safety mechanism intended to safeguard public health."> [There is no credible, documented case of death caused by marijuana. But some would say that only one life is too much to lose. Is it? Then we will have to ban a myriad of sports and recreational activities, like skydiving and racecar driving, both of which have many documented deaths over the years.] [But, if they kill, like aspirin (approx.1000 deaths annually; or Tylenol, hundreds dead) that is another story. Actually, it has been estimated that prescription, "FDA approved" medications kill a combined total of over 100,000 Americans annually.] [But kills infinitesimally less than even J-walking.] [Although NIDA continues to stall any legitimate call for marijuana study.] [Or like whether it throws coals into the engine of the Drug War gravy train.]  [Please tell US something that we don't know! So does mountaineering, rock-climbing, and scuba-diving!] [I dare anyone to continually, day-in-day-out smoke as much marijuana as the average "smoker" smokes cigarettes and not be hurt by it in much the same way; That is, if you can get off the carpet long enough to do so.] Among the known effects of smoking marijuana is impaired lung function similar to the type caused by [legal] cigarette smoking."> [Moderate-to-heavy exercise and prolonged emotional stress (like prison) can cause a similar decrease in immune function!]  [The stronger the pot, the larger the 'therapeutic window'. Also, many people do not realize that the stronger the marijuana, the LESS you have to smoke to obtain the "desired" effect, and therefore, by reason of sheer logic, the less harmful to the smoker.]  [No mention of NON-SMOKED marijuana!] [Unless you are opposed to the State that would strip you of any right to self-medication in ANY form!] End Part 3
The Media Awareness Project
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by John R. Bills on April 11, 2000 at 10:18:56 PT:
Part 2 - A Rebuttal
Part 2 -A Rebuttal [A statement that could have come straight from Chevy Chase's Divine Church of Holy Confusion.] Then don't smoke it, but do not suppose that you can steal away the right of a consenting adult to self-medicate as he and/or his doctor see fit in order to relieve a medical condition. Smoking, smoking, smoking, all about smoking. [Vaporization, concentrated inhaler maybe?] [No preconceived notions; only 80 years of yellow journalism, baseless "studies", and outright lies spoon-fed, over time, until it becomes middle-American household dogma.] [Wait, this IS scientific research!] Then, of course let's stall, I mean "call" for more research. That's because the government will not ALLOW adequate research! Too many drug warrior/prison/industrial complex jobs at steak in the hideous joke of the "DRUG WAR"! The prison guard union membership is second only to GM! [Very misleading: The IOM did suggest that smoked marijuana could be used in the interim, before those that need cannabinoid relief urgently make more complete scientific studies.] [The author is the one steadily pounding away at that smoking thing: WE KNOW ALREADY! SMOKE ANOTHER CAMEL, lunger. It's legal, but this article is stressful.] [Those that can be patented and profited from by an oligarchic plutocracy.] [Americans] [The State] End Part 2
The Media Awareness Project
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by John R. Bills on April 11, 2000 at 10:16:47 PT:
A Rebutal(Part 1)
In the following piece, the original article will be found between . Comments will be between [ and ] or will have none.Part 1 -A Rebuttal This a very bold statement that tends to suggest to the reader that he just sit back, grab that new flavor of buy-one-get-one-free Doritos, hit the remote for a proscription of tax-money bought anti-drug "messages" on your favorite sit-com. Then on to lots of drug commercials for medications with the lists of side-effects at the end that sound like the legal speed-read at the end of an auto sales commercial. Oh, and most hypocritically, the recreational drug, ethyl alcohol that you may have in your hot little hand, or a nearby table, or perhaps sitting by that "smoked" recreational drug, nicotine, smoldering to fill the room, killing a combine estimate of roughly 600,000 Americans (all of which once were "the children") per year, more than all illicit drugs combined in the last century. [ethyl alcohol: the alcohol in beer, wine, hard liquor, and liqueurs is a drug by scientific evidence, as well as nicotine, whose only use as a prescription medication is to wean you off of itself!] Letting the government shovel in its daily quota of bureaucratic bait -and - switch, circular reasoning, and correlation/causal chicanery, etc… so that you quietly acquiesce all adult American's individual, inalienable right to their own bodies as long as they do not harm others to that of the state without so much as a question or nod of the head is a miscalculation of untold dread proportions. The writer is assuming that if we have gotten this far in the article, then we must have already assumed that the state makes the decisions here, not the people. [like good and evil?] [drug prohibition, call it like it is]  Notice the bait-and switch, ballot measures (free elections) against the dreaded "smoked plant" thing? Pick up that muleboro for another quick kick while you're perusing and do another 12-ounce curl. [Classic bait-and-switch: popular vote against "objective science", the likes of which I have really only seen for "smoking" (i.e., roman candles, road flares, marijuana…) Propaganda lending "credence" to more propaganda. You mean like eating it, using a vaporizer, in which the plant material is not burned, or just plain holding to the odd joint on weekends, that's about equal to the mount of petroleum byproducts that you breathe in on a normal day on a walk around in an average metropolitan area? [We all should know that smoking anything (, cloves, rodent hair,) is hazardous to health]>  [As the federal government stands by to persecute doctors bold enough to advocate states rights and prescribe marijuana and harass, and jail people, mostly the poor, and minority populations for plant use.]  End Part 1
The Media Awareness Project
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by DontArrestMe on April 10, 2000 at 18:51:57 PT
Blah Blah Blah
Yes Zofran is very effective for controlling nausea although its side effects include diarreaha and the like. Oh did I mention that a bottle of 100 retails for over $3000 for those who dont have decent insurance? The equivalent doses in weed, probably an ounce of quality bud, costs only a few hundred dollars or even less if you grow your own.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by LioHsah on April 10, 2000 at 15:26:42 PT
re: Drinking cannabis
Yes ... raw cannabis may be added to a great many dishes. And if that's too gritty for the recipe, then use hash oil. You can make hash oil from whatever you have... Not as efficient as smoking, but better for you, and usable in situations where one cannot smoke. Active oral dose for a 120 lb person seems to be about 250mg of oil. Effects are felt in about 2 hours after eating.Yes, the "smoking" objection is a total red-herring.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by dr.fist on April 10, 2000 at 14:45:26 PT
Drinking cannabis
I do not know why this is never brought up but in India only the poor smoke cannabis, mostly it is made into a drink called bhang, when it is cheap and plentiful it is made into candies, beverage. Very effective , if legal use we would see the same thing, people who can afford it will drink it. What all this B.S. about 'smoked marijuana" being so bad, a real smoke screen, you can eat it, drink it! no need to smoke, in the first place. Illegality causing the smoking vrs. the more costly drinking of bhang. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Doctor Dave on April 10, 2000 at 13:41:39 PT
A point about vaporizers
Too often the mention of vaporizers (devices which heat cannabinoids, but do not burn cannabis) goes up in smoke in the discussion of cannabis. A few months ago, I traded my waterpipe for a heat-gun vaporizer. My lungs have never felt better.Doctor Dave
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Doctor Dave on April 10, 2000 at 13:38:25 PT
It boils down to one and only one point
Either you believe that people should be jailed and/or prosecuted for their use of a plant, or that they should not be jailed and/or prosecuted for their use of a plant. Self-medication is still medication, whether smoked, taken orally, or via suppository.I have seen many articles with slants on how "good" or "bad" smoking marijuana is, with the conclusions being used to justify calling marijuana "good" or "bad". It's not about whether smoking marijuana is good or bad, it's about whether or not we create criminals out of marijuana users, who often are otherwise law-abiding citizens.Doctor Dave"A nation that makes war on huge numbers of its own people can never truly be free."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Freedom on April 10, 2000 at 13:32:44 PT
I read this last night at MAP.It would take two hours to clarify it's multitudinous half-truths... I think James knows exzactly what he is doing, there is no mistake or spin here. Borderline lying would be accurate.As just one example, why did he forget to mention the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the buyer's clubs meet the federal medical necessity exception clause, and that they refered the case back to district court with the recomendation that the judge strongly reconsider his closure order? Ooops, selective memory at work again. I also see he forgot to mention the IOM Report clearly stated smoked marijuana should be allowed in n-1 trials until an equal or superior non-somke delivery system is developed (i.e. which already exists- vaporizers).Well, we would not want to undermine the narc's control, would we?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Alexandre Oeming on April 10, 2000 at 11:35:05 PT:
Ballot initiatives
>Ballot initiatives to legalize smoking marijuana as medicine have had a tumultuous history.Yea, threatening doctors with loss of their livlihood should they even *talk* about MJ use as therapy didn't help much, did it?>In 1998 alone, initiatives were passed in five states, any substantive benefits in the aftermath were lacking.Uh-huh.>For example, a Colorado proposal was ruled invalid before the election. Didn't they find a bunch of signatures in the former Sec of State's desk following her death? Methinks the paper shredder would've been more appropo, but drug warriors aren't really known for clear thinking.>An Ohio bill was passed but subsequently repealed. Really? I didn't hear hither or thither of anything of the sort happening in Ohio. Anyone?>In the District of Colombia, Congress disallowed the counting of ballot results.And thusly invalidated our democratic process. That scumbag bobbarr should be hanged.>Although voters passed Arizona's initiative, the state legislature originally blocked the measure.Yup, and then the people put them back in their place. If only the legislators of AZ had the "power" of people like bobbarr so they could just override the peasants when they don't know what's good for them. *sigh*>The version that eventually became Arizona law is problematic because it conflicts with federal statute.Too bad for the feds. Without state and local cop support, they can try to enforce their laws and watch the whole house of cards come crashing down. Timmmmmm-berrrrrrr!!!>Indeed, legalization at the state level creates a direct conflict between state and federal law in every case, placing patients, doctors, police, prosecutors, and publicofficials in a difficult position. Cry me a river.>The fundamental legal problem with prescription of marijuana is that federal law prohibits such use, rendering state law functionally ineffective.And as i said above, when enough states stop supporting the feds' laws and go along with the will of their own populaces, we can all watch as the feds' agents flounder about trying to enforce their laws themselves. Either that, or have state and local enforcement ignore the will of the people and their own laws. Either will bring the WOsD to a screeching halt and we can all exhale a simultaneous sigh of relief.Out.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: