Lit_Match

DEA, ONDCP Take Flak on Dispensary Raids, Research Obstacles in House Committee Hearing
07-20-07|Drug War Chronicle

A House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security hearing on July 12 saw representatives of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office) grilled by Democratic congressmen, including committee chair Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), on the administration's attacks on medical marijuana in states where it is legal and on the administration's stalling the request of University of Massachusetts researcher to be able to grow medical marijuana for research purposes.

(The same hearing also saw pain patient advocates get a chance to tell the committee about the DEA's prosecutions of pain doctors -- see feature story here -- and written testimony from an ONDCP official claiming a leading medical marijuana advocate no longer supported medical marijuana -- see newsbrief here).

Testifying before the committee on medical marijuana issues were the DEA's Joseph Rannizzisi, ONDCP chief scientist Dr. David Murray, and Valerie Corral, cofounder of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a California dispensary raided by the DEA in 2002.

Murray was in typical form, telling the committee "it is not the medical community who identifies a need out there for a smoked weed to alleviate pain and suffering." Instead, Murray said, "this is an issue that is pushed overwhelmingly by legalization advocates for marijuana who fund initiatives and referenda in various states, trying to push through what we think is a troubling development." In his written testimony to the committee, Murray called medical marijuana advocates "modern-day snake oil proponents."

Murray went on to charge that marijuana has not been found to be effective as a medicine, that there is better stuff available, and that the weed could even be "harmful for those for whom it was intended to be a healing device."

That prompted Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to interrupt Murray's testimony to ask if he thought marijuana were as dangerous as nicotine, which in turn prompted Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) to denounce Nadler for talking out of turn. After a brief procedural scuffle, Murray adeptly deflected Nadler's pointed question.

WAMM's Corral was up next, telling the committee about how WAMM began as a small collective garden to serve its members -- people who benefited from marijuana as medicine -- and that those people were not lying. "It is not that we wish to break the law, for surely we do not," she said. "We've made every effort to change it. What we ask here today is that you stop the aggressive antics of the DEA against sick and dying people, because that is what we are. Stop the raids. Allow research to continue. Allow the research to continue that the DEA is blocking in the [University of Massachusetts researcher Lyle] Craker case, for instance, because only you can do that."

Committee chair Bobby Scott turned up the heat during later questioning of the witnesses. "I'd like to ask, I guess, Dr. Murray, in terms of policy, what the public policy imperative it is to deny terminally ill patients the right to marijuana, if they believe that it's going to help them, they believe that it reduces pain, terminally ill patients?"

Unsatisified with Murray's response, which basically reprised his earlier testimony, Scott continued to dog him: "Well, if they want it and they're terminally ill, what scientific studies have you had to show the effectiveness of marijuana? What scientific studies have you had? Do you have a list that you can supply to the committee?"

After going around with an evasive Murray, Scott settled for a promise from the ONDCP functionary to respond with written testimony.

Nor was the chairman pleased with Murray's non-response to his question about the problems UMass professor Lyle Craker was having getting his request to grow marijuana for research purposes approved. Rep. Nadler also jumped on Murray about obstacles facing medical marijuana researchers.

"Marijuana is the only controlled substance currently for which the federal government maintains a monopoly on the supply for use by scientists conducting research, even though federal law requires competition in the production of research-grade, schedule-one substances, such as research-grade heroin, LSD, ecstasy and cocaine," Nadler said. "Can you please tell us marijuana, as a comparatively harmless drug, compared to these other substances, is the only controlled substance for which the federal government maintains a monopoly on the supply made available to researchers? In other words, why is it different than heroin, ecstasy, LSD, et cetera?"

Murray had no substantive response to Nadler's question, a posture the congressman qualified as "evasive," and DEA's Rannazzisi fared little better. "They've refused the supply for basically every researcher. They've basically cut off medical research with respect to marijuana," Nadler pushed.

"I don't believe that's the case," Ranazzisi responded. "If you look at my testimony..."

"I won't debate that with you because it's clearly the case," an annoyed Nadler retorted.

Nadler went on to pepper Ranazzisi about when the DEA is going to get around to moving on the Craker application, without getting a straight answer.

With Democrats in control of the Congress, some of the right questions are finally being asked of the drug war bureaucrats. We may not like the answers we are hearing, but at least the questions are being asked and the drug warriors are on notice.

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

troublemaker_42

The "non-answers" and evasiveness of the DEA and ONDCP only further promote the idea the basis for marijuana's continuing illegality, on all fronts, medical recreational, spiritual, etc, is simply because "We're the governemnt and we say so!!" They utterly and completely lacked research to back their ideas, and basically wiggled out of damn near every question asked of them. Other than a few cheap shots at those who believe in medical marijuana, neither organization had a damn thing to say. Supposedly, our govt is supposed to reflect the will of its citizens. How is that even REMOTELY the case when 80% of the voting population is in favor of legalized medical marijuana?

SirSmokaALot

"Unsatisified with Murray's response, which basically reprised his earlier testimony, Scott continued to dog him: "Well, if they want it and they're terminally ill, what scientific studies have you had to show the effectiveness of marijuana? What scientific studies have you had? Do you have a list that you can supply to the committee?"

Why didn't they say this after that comment^^ "We've been denied the opportunity to do scientific studies on marijuana and you wonder who denied it."

That would have made them choke on that hopefully -_-

Buzzby

I wish someone on the committee had asked Murray who he thought was writing the recommendations that allow medical marijuana patients to legally grow and possess marijuana in their states.

This is an issue pushed by the 300,000+ medical marijuana patients in the US who need weed to alleviate their symptoms, people who have compassion for the sick and dying, and the people who have been trying to get marijuana legalized since the 70s. The three major pro-legalization organizations have only 60,000 members altogether. 80% of voters surveyed are in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.

The DEA is the "modern-day Gestapo".

Marijuana has been a medicine for 5,000 years. It has only been "The Devil's Weed" since a cabal of racists and robber barons pushed the idea in the 30s. They had a financial interest in making marijuana illegal. The DEA and the ONDCP have a financial interest in keeping it illegal.

As an anti-nausea drug it is unsurpassed because people who can't swallow a pill and keep it down can inhale cannabis smoke or vapor. It can relieve neuropathic pain that powerful (and addictive) opiates cannot.

What is the remote possibility of bronchitis or emphysema compared to the immediate relief from chronic pain and nausea?

__________________

Hansje

So . . . apparently there needs to be a new law that forces the DEA to break their monopoly on the supply of legal cananbis and allow some outfit other than only the University of Mississippi to grow the crop for research or also for whomever might still be alive and on the government's legal delivery list. U of Miss might be serving up crap compared to what other U.S. university facilities could cultivate.

As long as they're not going to lose their jobs if they don't stop the raids in mmj states and change their policy on their own, this whole Nadler-thing looks like its put them on notice of the upcoming change. Short of drafting a law or change in law to force them to change their policy, what other options are there if the executive won't want the change or doesn't care and will be fine with whatever decision they make?

In the meantime, you could have rotating meetings and hearings with other politicians persistently and frequently pursuing the same line of questioning, so that the message sinks in if they have it in their power to do that. ssshheet, as if they don't. They should be called to answer for all the interference in the mmj states until the present. It would be like water torture, figuratively speaking. If they have to waste some of their resources on stuff like that, then all the better.

godfather

Mwahahaha...Take that ya bastards!!

I hardly see that as relevent, as a good number, if not a majority, of the "better stuff" has far worse side effects and risks than a little coughing and some occasional paranoia. And honestly, if you don't have to worry about getting arrested, than you probably won't get too paranoid.