cannabisnews.com: The Politics of Pot The Politics of Pot Posted by CN Staff on April 22, 2006 at 22:11:00 PT Editorial Source: New York Times USA -- The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice. F.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana (April 21, 2006) Ordinarily, when the F.D.A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana. That assertion is based on an evaluation by federal agencies in 2001 that justified the government's decision to tightly regulate marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. But it appears to flout the spirit of a 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences. The institute was appropriately cautious in its endorsement of marijuana. It said the active ingredients of marijuana appeared useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS. It warned that these potential benefits were undermined by inhaling smoke that is more toxic than tobacco smoke. So marijuana smoking should be limited, it said, to those who are terminally ill or don't respond to other therapies.Yet the F.D.A. statement, which was drafted with the help of other federal agencies that focus on drug abuse, does not allow even that much leeway. It argues that state laws permitting the smoking of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation are inconsistent with ensuring that all medications undergo rigorous scrutiny in the drug approval process.That seems disingenuous. The government is actively discouraging relevant research, according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris in yesterday's Times. It's obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research that might undermine the administration's inflexible opposition to the medical use of marijuana.Source: New York Times (NY)Published: April 22, 2006Copyright: 2006 The New York Times Co.Contact: letters nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:IOM Reporthttp://newton.nap.edu/html/marimed/FDA's Report Illuminates Wide Divide on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21758.shtmlF.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21756.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #22 posted by b4daylight on April 23, 2006 at 19:41:19 PT Yeah I am happyAnother documented piece of evidence.Yes evidence in crimes people permit. Logic tends to witness the Jurours. And get this anyone ever here of Cannabis oil? You rub that dumb ass! [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by E_Johnson on April 23, 2006 at 12:25:56 PT Remember that survey about other drug use? There was a survey done on patients that showed we used only a fraction of the Big Pharm medications used by non-marijuana patients. I can't find it. Does anyone have it a link?I want to know the fraction so I can estimate how much revenue Big Pharm has already lost in California thanks to the powers of cannabis.For example, if 50,000 patients spent $100 per month less on Big Pharm meds because cannabis worked better, then Big Pharm would have lost $5 million per month in potential revenue.I think it's time to help the Times realize this conflict is economic as well as political and cultural.The economic part of the conflict might not occur to them at this point, because they still regard medical marijuana as more controversial than competitive. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on April 23, 2006 at 11:11:54 PT Hope You're welcome. I don't mention when people are gone often because they might have personal reasons as to why they stopped posting but sometimes I think we need to ask. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 11:03:12 PT FoM Thank you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on April 23, 2006 at 11:01:11 PT Hope I found an e-mail for him in the registration and I sent him an e-mail. Hopefully we will hear something. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 10:55:43 PT E-mail If anyone has his e-mail...I would sure appreciate knowing he is ok. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on April 23, 2006 at 10:44:56 PT Hope If someone has talked with him in e-mail it would be nice if they could contact him and make sure he is ok. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 10:33:25 PT Health issues... I agree. I wonder if there are any of us who can call and check on him? [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 10:31:58 PT The GCW I don't think he would get miffed over your disagreeing with his understanding of Urantia, Whig. He knows lots of people don't subscribe to Urantia. The GCW is wiser than that. Heck everyone that gets into Urantia knows that not everyone is going to agree with what it says. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on April 23, 2006 at 10:31:06 PT Hope and Whig My worry is health issues. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 10:26:24 PT Comment 8 I was thinking the same thing...but decided against saying it. It worries me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by whig on April 23, 2006 at 10:25:57 PT FoM I fear he could have withdrawn after I didn't agree to Urantia. I hope he is not upset and that he is okay. We need all of us, and Christ Stan is who is he is, like all of us we need to check our source from time to time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on April 23, 2006 at 10:19:18 PT Whig It's been about that long here too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by whig on April 23, 2006 at 10:15:18 PT GCW It looks like he hasn't posted to his own thread on the THC Ministry since Feb 5.http://tinyurl.com/orkrx [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on April 23, 2006 at 10:10:03 PT Hope You mentioned Stan. I have been concerned about The GCW. He hasn't dropped in for a long time now. I hope he is ok. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 10:00:53 PT Whig...the media change. I think it's a reaction to all the brave voices, including Cronkite's, that were willing to speak up against an entrenched public policy disaster. Over and over again until they were finally heard. It took Kirk Muse, and Stan, and so many others so long...but they have been heard and in a few cases, understood. It does take courage to disagree with the huge, rich, senseless, powerful, well armed, crude, and vindictive monster that our government has obviously become. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by whig on April 23, 2006 at 09:28:59 PT The Media There has been an inflection in the media, it has gone from being supporters of cannabis prohibition and prohibitionists to skeptics, advocates of reform. Do you think Walter Cronkite had an influential role? Could it be that the editors and publishers of the major newspapers could not dismiss one so credible, with such gravitas, within their own profession? Or is it reaction to the overreach of the Bush administration in so many areas, the clear fascistic tendencies, no not tendencies, actual policies? Some of each, perhaps. The media cannot help but follow the political mainstream if they want to have credibility with their conservative readership (using conservative in the sense that FoM does, not in the right-wing sense). When the instinct might even be to distrust the government it cannot be easy to put this into print without a great deal of cover and popular agreement that the state is wrong. The media does not break ground on issues of social importance, they are followers all the way. They translate from the leading edge to the masses of people who do not otherwise know what is going on. They help to explain and educate people about the change that is happening not what they think should happen. What the media, the mainstream media, is doing now, is telling the American people: Cannabis is going to be medicine in every part of this country soon. Get ready to change your perspective. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 09:01:03 PT The most amazing thing about cannabis, a gift from the Creator, or creation...how ever you want to see it, is that it is so completely non-toxic. It helps the body in so many ways.The FDA is lying to promote government obstruction and destruction. Cannabis is good. FDA? Not good! Not good at all.I sure don't trust them. I don't trust them because they are corrupt and dishonest as a group. Lying, corrupt, cowards is what they are. LCCFDA is how their acronym should read.God, make them give back the gift you gave to humanity and they stole! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Hope on April 23, 2006 at 08:47:45 PT Cannabis....in fact... has astounding medicinal power and use. It's amazing with pain and muscle tension. It's amazing as a mood elevator. It's a pure, true fact.The FDA is a wicked liar. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by sam adams on April 23, 2006 at 06:55:40 PT so what? "The institute was appropriately cautious in its endorsement of marijuana. It said the active ingredients of marijuana appeared useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS. It warned that these potential benefits were undermined by inhaling smoke that is more toxic than tobacco smoke. So marijuana smoking should be limited, it said, to those who are terminally ill or don't respond to other therapies"Can you imagine reading, "The Institute was cautious that non-steriodal anti-inflammatories are more toxic to the stomach, liver, and kidneys than alchohol. So it said Advil, Motrin, and Aleve should be limited to those who are terminally ill or don't respond to other therapies".That's what you'd read in the parallel universe where American leaders are actually honest. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by global_warming on April 23, 2006 at 06:33:42 PT interesting read From the article..."Guy Farmer's editorial in the April 9th edition of the Nevada Appeal, "Return of the Potheads," is littered with scare tactics and falsehoods about the Nevada campaign to tax and regulate marijuana that just can't go unanswered. I'm writing to set the record straight." Marijuana opponent missed the point on legalization initiative [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by charmed quark on April 23, 2006 at 05:17:57 PT Good! I'm glad to see the monolithic front of this insanity cracking.Quibbles - the article forgot to mention that the 1999 IOM found it may be effective for neuropathic pain, a huge area.Also, if the main problem with cannabis is "smoking", why doens't anybody ever mention vaporization. Given cannabis' safety, it would probably have huge areas of effectiveness compared to other drugs with more serious side effects. This is somthing that is hardly ever mentioned. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment