Marijuana.com

Lothar121

The Politics of Pot
The Register-Guard | 05/01/06

The FDA should change its name to the Politically Approved Food and Drug Administration - PAFDA. It's a longer acronym, but it rolls off the tongue nicely and people would appreciate its greater honesty.

The agency's other option is to stop embarrassing its dedicated doctors and scientists with utterly unscientific announcements such as the recent bulletin that smoked marijuana has no medicinal value.

Since no FDA expert panel or newly published research provided the basis for the pronouncement, it's safe to assume the sloppy one-page statement was the handiwork of Bush administration political appointees. The statement is devoid of any data to support its dishonest conclusion, but it does have one thing going for it: It's a masterpiece of circular logic.

Marijuana is a dangerous drug, according to the FDA, because it is listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, where only the most dangerous drugs are listed. (Wait, there's more.) The FDA has been disinclined since the "reefer madness" days of federal pot policy to authorize any studies of marijuana's potential as medicine. That gives the FDA continuing cover to maintain that "no sound scientific studies support medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States."

Here the FDA is fibbing, because it knows full well that in 1999, the Institute of Medicine, the medical arm of the National Academy of Sciences, examined the question of medical marijuana use in considerable depth and published a 288-page report of its findings.

Among other conclusions, the report said, "For patients such as those with AIDS or who are undergoing chemotherapy, and who suffer simultaneously from severe pain, nausea, and appetite loss, cannabinoid drugs might offer broad-spectrum relief not found in any other single medication." Furthermore, the active ingredient in marijuana has long been known to reduce the intraocular pressure associated with glaucoma.

Medical marijuana has earned the endorsement of The New England Journal of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians and numerous oncologists. The anecdotal evidence of 10,000 Oregonians who've been prescribed medical marijuana by more than 2,000 licensed Oregon physicians adds to the mountain of data supporting the medicinal value of pot.

The IOM report urged further research, but very little has been done in the seven years since its findings were published. The federal government controls the only legal supply of marijuana available for research, and the administration isn't much interested in providing scientists with the means to debunk its absolutist position on pot.

The FDA is partly right about one thing: Lighting marijuana on fire and inhaling its smoke into the lungs is a crude and toxic delivery system. Smoking is a nonstarter as a way to wider acceptance of marijuana as medicine.

More research is needed into development of safe alternatives to smoking, such as Sativex, a cannabis extract that is administered by means of a spray into the mouth. It has won preliminary approval in Canada for relief of symptoms of multiple sclerosis and for treatment of severe neuropathic pain.

It's tragic to witness the FDA's credibility implosion at the hands of an administration that places politics ahead of impartial science. Combined with its disgraceful refusal to allow women nonprescription access to emergency contraception, the FDA's latest stumble into the politics of pot as medicine would be laughable, if it weren't so sad.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

dedbr

in it's attempt to keep a harmless herb from being legalized, has drawn an otherwise citizen safety-oriented government agency into it's web of deception.

The scientific minds of our time are not remaining silent for fear of retribution; there will be retribution, but it will be against the people trying to perpetuate this hoax upon the American people.

The next last, desperate gamble will be a report issued by the government that shows smoking herb causes you to vote Liberal, so therefore it must be bad for the nation.....

It's good that the press is not falling in line with this government pronouncement this time. We are winning, folks. It's just a matter of time.


Somewhere in Ded Land.....

__________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln
Happy New Year.......

Buzzby

It's a shame that the author of this otherwise-excellent article isn't aware of vaporizers as a delivery mechanism for medical marijuana. Sativex is an expensive, Big Pharma product that is a whole-cannabis extract. With a vaporizer, a medical marijuana patient can use relatively inexpensive whole cannabis and, if it's available, choose a strain that is exactly what he needs to alleviate his symptoms.


Considering its record of approving drugs that are later withdrawn because they're found to be dangerous, I'd question the idea that the FDA has been citizen-safety-oriented for a long time. Big Pharma pumps millions of dollars into (mostly Republican) political campaigns. In return, the FDA approves Big Pharma's new drugs, whether or not they have any advantage over existing medications (often inexpensive generics) or have been adequately tested to discover possible dangers to users.

Another function of the FDA in the Washington dollars/power game is to protect the interests of those giant drug companies by ignoring the efficacy and safety of cannabis (which anyone can grow nearly for free) for many medical problems. Even paying black market prices, substituting cannabis for one prescribed medication has saved me approximately $800 a year. If I could legally grow my own, I'd be saving almost twice that.

__________________

dedbr

is true Buzz, if I had to pay for prescription pain meds, it would be astronomical. Herb has saved my life, literally.

Yes, Food and Drug is politically biased, as this recent ruling shows, but I doubt we should allow the wholesale release of products on the market without some kind of safegaurds.

During a long time of herbal usage, the opportunity has come up many times to try off-topic substances, and I've said no.

When asked why, I always said the same thing, "Whats in it besides '''''''''?"

I've always been real leery of putting something in my body that I have no idea where it comes from or whats in it.

At least the FDA offers a little safety, perhaps.......


Somewhere in Ded Land.....

Buzzby

In my opinion, the FDA needs to be more stringent in their requirements for approving new drugs, not less. Many drugs that will be used by patients for years are ruled "safe" after a six-week clinical trial. The FDA needs to base its judgments on scientific evidence, not on who best lined someone's campaign coffers.

Despite the FDA/DEA/ONDCP-forced lack of new studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, 5,000 years of experience with medical cannabis and an LD50 of 20,000 to 40,000 should point to it as a strong contender for a safe and effective medication.

 

dedbr

but of course we all know that herb is a political matter now, and has nothing to do with the safety of, or the medical uses there of....

If it did, we'd all be doing something besides chatting on a herbal web site, huh partner?


Somewhere in Ded Land.....