cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Reform Group Wins Booth





Marijuana Reform Group Wins Booth
Posted by CN Staff on April 16, 2004 at 08:08:25 PT
By Mark Ziats, Staff Writer
Source: Tiger News
The annual 3 Rivers Musical Festival, a four day outdoor event boasting the slogan "Bringing out the BEST in Columbia!" is bringing more to the State's capitol than just musicians this year. Controversy has been rampant ever since festival organizers initially denied the Columbia chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) a booth at the festival. Following the original rejection of NORML's booth, organizers received complaint letters from the South Carolina American Civil Liberties Union, demanding that NORML be allowed to attend.
3 Rivers organizers have since agreed to give NORML a booth, but the issue of marijuana is still a hot topic in the capitol. According to festival directors, several people complained last year when NORML members tried to hand them literature.NORML is a non-profit, public interest lobby group that has been in existence for more than 30 years. They claim to "represent the interests of the tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana responsibly and believe the recreational and medical use of marijuana should no longer be a crime."NORML supports the removal of all criminal penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts -- known as "decriminalization."According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, more than 83 million Americans -- 37 percent -- aged 12 and older admit to trying marijuana at least once in their lives. Using statistics such as these for rationale, NORML's argument centers around the idea that penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.Despite NORML's efforts, little progress has been made domestically to legalize the drug. In South Carolina alone, more than 14,000 adults on average are arrested yearly, according to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). Nationally there were almost 1 million marijuana arrests in the year 2000 -- more than an eighty percent increase since the 1970s. This "War on Drugs," a term coined by President Nixon in 1972, is another aspect advocates for the decriminalization of marijuana commonly cite in their arguments. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the United States Federal Government spent $19.179 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, and State and local governments spent at least another 20 billion. NORML believes these funds -- $40 billion a year -- could be spent more effectively elsewhere. Critics of the War on Drugs advocate the partial or complete decriminalization of marijuana, combined with a system of regulation, as happens with alcohol and prescription drugs. They believe that by providing legal supplies of currently illegal drugs the price will fall, leading to a collapse in the illegal drug industry and a reduction in crimes committed by both drug suppliers and users. They also argue that the reduction in the price will lead to little, if any, growth in drug addiction, due to the inelasticity of demand. Some even state that in a strictly regulated market, drug use may fall overall, by removing the marketing activities of the illegal drug industry.On the other hand, proponents of the War on Drugs claim that the system is indeed effective.For example, The Partnership for a Drug-Free America reported that drug use among teens leveled off between 1998 and 1999, and that marijuana use among teenagers declined to 41 percent in 1999, down from 44 percent in 1997.Supporters claim that widespread developments like these do not receive the same amount of publicity as do arguments for decriminalization. Recently, much controversy has surfaced surrounding the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use in the United States.To date, ten states have legalized the use of medical marijuana -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- while many others are actively debating similar bills. The medical uses of marijuana for a variety of conditions are currently being investigated. Marijuana has been proven to reduce fluid pressure in the eyes associated with glaucoma and numerous studies have shown that it can help reduce the pain and tremors of multiple sclerosis and suppress epileptic seizures.Additionally, evidence reports that it has beneficial effects, including the relief of nausea of chemotherapy patients and an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients. Even though these findings may be true and some states have even allowed medicinal use, a large portion of Americans still do not support medical use.Medicinal uses of THC (the active component in marijuana) are the principal emphasis in the research of Dr. John Huffman, a chemistry professor here at Clemson. The goals of his research include the potential development of new pharmaceutical products and an exploration of the geometry of THC receptors in the body."We are trying to develop new compounds, which will give insight into the manner in which THC interacts with mammalian organisms," Huffman said of his research. "We want to know how it interacts with the receptors, so you can pick apart the effects of THC -- be able to have something (a drug) that doesn't affect the spontaneous activity but still has the desirable benefits of THC."In essence, the drug would not produce the "bad" effects associated with marijuana, such as impairment of motor skills and memory loss, while at the same time providing beneficial effects like inflammatory suppression and pain relief -- a feat that has yet to be accomplished in the pharmaceutical industry. The American Medical Association says in its policy statement, in part, "The AMA believes that cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern." There have been no statements released by the AMA that reflect a change in their policy -- even in light of such research findings.Source: Tiger, The (SC Edu)Author: Mark Ziats, Staff WriterPublished: Friday, April 16, 2004Copyright: 2004 The TigerContact: editor thetigernews.comWebsite: http://www.thetigernews.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/3 Rivers Music Festivalhttp://www.3riversmusicfestival.org/3 Rivers To Allow Pro-Marijuana Booth at Festivalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18615.shtmlCannabisNews NORML Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/NORML.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on April 16, 2004 at 12:06:45 PT
Let's ask the AMA to back prohibition of alcohol
I am really tired of being abused and threatened with abuse by alcohol users.Let's try to make their drug illegal and see how funny they think it would be to be locked in a cage with a rapist because they had a martini at a bar.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by mamawillie on April 16, 2004 at 11:32:45 PT
OOPS!!! Here's another mistake:
The writer states: "Even though these findings may be true and some states have even allowed medicinal use, a large portion of Americans still do not support medical use."Gallup Poll Shows Americans Support Medical Marijuana By 3 To 1 MarginApril 1, 1999 - Washington, DC, USASeventy-three percent of Americans support amending federal law to allow for the legal use of marijuana as a medicine, a Gallup Poll reported Friday. "Medical marijuana is an issue where the voters are far ahead of the politicians," NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup, Esq. said. "Legislators must realize that legalizing marijuana as medicine is politically safe and supported by mainstream Americans across all political boundaries." The Gallup Poll News Service stated that, "By a three-to-one margin Americans would support making marijuana available to doctors, so it could be prescribed to reduce pain and suffering." These results mimic earlier surveys conducted by ABC News, The Luntz Research Company, CBS News, and Lake Research that indicated a majority of Americans from both parties support legalizing medical marijuana. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 16, 2004 at 11:20:04 PT
Go mamawillie!
Thank You!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mamawillie on April 16, 2004 at 11:15:55 PT
the response
I received a nice professional response from the editor saying she would look into the problems I pointed out and would let me know if/when she decided appropriate action.Here is the letter I wrote back to her:Thank you for your professional response. Your writer wrote, "...the AMA says in its policy statement, in part: 'The AMA believes that cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern.'" 
Here is the whole policy he quoted: H-95.998 AMA Policy Statement on Cannabis (Marijuana). Our AMA believes that (1) cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern; (2) sale and possession of marijuana should not be legalized; (3) handling of offenders should be individualized; and (4) additional research should be encouraged. (BOT Rep. K, I-69; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. C, A-89; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, A-00) Mr. Ziats led the reader to believe that the AMA is simply against this "dangerous streeet drug", when this is not the case at all. Let me take this policy number by number: 1) "cannabis is a dangerous drug". ALL scheduled drugs in the drug schedule are considered dangerous. That is why they are scheduled and not available over the counter. 2) "sale and possession should not be legalized"... not LEGALIZED.. the AMA believes possession should be DECRIMINALIZED 3) "handling of offenders should be individualized". This means the AMA does not agree with mandatory minimums, and that the penalty for drug use should be no more harmful to the person than the use of the drug itself and 4) "additional research should be encouraged". This means the AMA believes cannabis should remain a schedule I drug UNTIL the research proves it can be moved to schedule II or perhaps schedule III.Now, wouldn't the whole tone and point of the article change when your readers realize that the AMA policies are directly in line with the advocacy of NORML?
 
This is what happens when your writer does lazy research on the internet. It is very obvious he has no scope of the policies of the AMA. The policy he quoted was last affirmed in 2000, whereas the recommendations I quoted were accepted in 2001; so therefore, his last line is also incorrect, "There have been no statements released by the AMA that reflect a change in their policy -- even in light of such research findings...", shown by the very fact that I just proved him wrong.
 
Your credibility in on the line here. A retraction/clarification is in order, especially when anyone can access the AMA online and view the policies for themselves.
 
Mama 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by mamawillie on April 16, 2004 at 10:56:53 PT
The policy he quoted:
Notice he wrote: the AMA says in its policy statement, in part: "The AMA believes that cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern."Here is the whole policy he quoted: H-95.998 AMA Policy Statement on Cannabis (Marijuana).
 
Our AMA believes that (1) cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern; 
(2) sale and possession of marijuana should not be legalized; 
(3) handling of offenders should be individualized; and 
(4) additional research should be encouraged. (BOT Rep. K, I-69; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. C, A-89; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, A-00) 
 So he made it sound like the AMA thinks only that marijuana is a dangerous drug, when in reality:1) the AMA encourages further study of marijuana
2) the AMA believes possession should be decriminalized
3) penalities should be individualized (read: no mandatory minimums)The AMA believes marijuana should be in a medical setting and not as a "street drug", as in available to minors, etc. They believe it should be studied and then moved (whether it be the actual HERB as mentioned, or in medical pill form) from Schedule I according to the results of the studies. They prefer people vaporize it as opposed to combust it.I wrote the dude a letter. He's an idiot and so obviously SHEEP.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dankhank on April 16, 2004 at 09:43:30 PT
Love It ...
get 'em Mama ...good stuff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mamawillie on April 16, 2004 at 08:23:17 PT
AMA's 2001 report on Medicial marijuana
The whole text can be found here: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-6124.html#progress_on_settling_debateRECOMMENDATIONThe following statement, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, was adopted as AMA policy by the AMA House of Delegates at the 2001 AMA Annual Meeting:The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease; (2) The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies. (3) The AMA urges the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana. This effort should include: a) disseminating specific information for researchers on the development of safeguards for marijuana clinical research protocols and the development of a model informed consent on marijuana for institutional review board evaluation; b) sufficient funding to support such clinical research and access for qualified investigators to adequate supplies of marijuana for clinical research purposes; c) confirming that marijuana of various and consistent strengths and/or placebo will be supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to investigators registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency who are conducting bona fide clinical research studies that receive Food and Drug Administration approval, regardless of whether or not the NIH is the primary source of grant support. (4) The AMA believes that the NIH should use its resources and influence to support the development of a smoke-free inhaled delivery system for marijuana or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to reduce the health hazards associated with the combustion and inhalation of marijuana. (5) The AMA believes that effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives and that discussion of these alternatives between physicians and patients should not subject either party to criminal sanctions.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by mamawillie on April 16, 2004 at 08:18:47 PT
AMA
*****H-95.995 Health Aspects of Marijuana.
 
Our AMA (1) discourages marijuana use, especially by persons vulnerable to the drug's effects and in high-risk situations; (2) supports the determination of the consequences of long-term marijuana use through concentrated research; and (3) supports the modification of state law to reduce the severity of penalties for possession of marijuana. (CSA Rep. D, I-77; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. C, A-89; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, A-00)***** Notice 2 things:1) The AMA supports marijuana research AND2) The AMA supports DECRIMINALIZATION for possession-
 
 
 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment