The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition (Op-Ed)

Frontiers of Freedom ^ | June 15, 2006 | Kenneth Michael White

[Wolfie]

The Science of Medical Marijuana Prohibition

USA -- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently opined that smoked marijuana has no scientifically accepted medical uses. The FDA received much criticism for this decision because in 1999 the Federal Government’s own scientists concluded that even in smoked form marijuana has medical uses. At the heart of the debate about medical marijuana is the question of science. But what, exactly, is science? Since modern civilization bases itself on a belief in the ability of science to solve any and all problems (human or otherwise), prudent people are obligated to at least try to understand just where the faith of modernity really rests.

Modern science starts with the concept of “pure reason,” as articulated by the philosopher Descartes—who said, “I think therefore I am.” In short, Descartes argues that the quest for knowledge, i.e., “science,” is based on an objective understanding of that which human beings can see, touch, smell, taste, or hear.

According to the people we call “scientists,” there are three types of activities that pass for “science,” though it is important to note that these activities are inseparably interrelated. First, there is the descriptive method. Second, there is the empirical method. Third, there is the theoretical method.

The descriptive method generally relies on case studies, which amounts to the observation of (either from afar or up close) the behavior of one or more persons and the objective reporting of what was experienced. The benefit of the case study is that a single phenomenon or event can be described “thickly” and in great detail, such that there is a “deep” appreciation for what is being studied.

The empirical method generally takes many individual case studies, gathered either by experiments or surveys, and then uses numbers (statistics) to objectively report or “model” what was experienced. The benefit of the empirical method is that it appears more objective than the case study because it can “control” for confounding explanations. The empirical method is indeed a more precise science; however, the descriptive method is reliable and valid, too.

Literally, behind both methods is the theoretical method, which provides the basis or reason for doing either descriptive or empirical science in the first place. Basically, descriptive or empirical science is a “test” of some particular theory. The irony of the theoretical method is that sometimes what a scientist assumes theoretically is exactly what a scientist finds descriptively or empirically.

In 1937, for example, the 75th Congress theorized that Spanish-speaking immigrants were “low mentally” because of “social and racial conditions” and, since some of these immigrants used medical marijuana, the Federal Government “reasoned” (over the objection of the American Medical Association) that medical marijuana should be criminalized. It is an ugly truth: racism represents the beginning of today’s Federal medical marijuana prohibition.

Anyone doubting whether racism is in fact behind the founding of today’s Federal medical marijuana prohibition should read the legislative history of The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Anyone doubting whether race still plays a role in the war on drugs should read the American Civil Liberties Union’s policy report on race and drug prohibition. That Federal medical marijuana prohibition stems from Jim Crow thinking is beyond doubt to everyone who takes the time to research and consider the issue with an open mind.

Science is only as good as the theory that drives it. Since the FDA operates from a misinformed viewpoint based in large part on the racial stereotypes of 1937, no case study or double-blind experiment could ever show that the marijuana plant in its raw form has medical utility. Why? Follow the money.

The FDA is politically prohibited from recognizing the value of a medicine that can be grown by people for free because the agency has such close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This is my “theory” because shortly after the FDA said that marijuana has no benefit in smoked form the agency recognized the medical efficacy of a pill-based marijuana medicine. Is it a coincidence that the FDA discourages the use of a medicine that can be grown for free, but endorses the use of that same medicine if produced synthetically for profit?

Soon the 109th Congress will vote on an amendment that would recognize, under Federal law, the legitimacy of the medical marijuana programs in the various states that have passed medical marijuana laws. Let’s hope—a bold hope, in these partisan times—that a majority-of-the-majority in Congress will finally end a 69-year-old error and thereby follow a more factual and compassionate theory when it comes to medical marijuana.

Call your representative now and instruct him or her to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment. In a sense, the future of science is at stake.

Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

[philman_36]

That guy reminds me of Ol' Sparky. Remember him?

[MrCruncher]

You remind me of many people I've known who try to justify their pet likings with "science."

I knew a guy once who spent a half hour telling me (with "scientific" proof) that you could lose weight by drinking beer.

[winston2]

"Research" done by groups founded for the purpose of legalizing marijuana really impress me.

I feel your pain!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reefer Madness Propaganda Through the Ages contributed by the Hempstead Company, 1534 East Edinger #7, Santa Ana, CA, 92705, 1-800-284-4367

1910: “Marihuana is the most frightening and vicious drug ever to hit New Orleans.” —New Orleans Public Safety Commission

1920s: “Makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” —H.J. Anslinger, Bureau of Narcotics

1930: “Marihuana is responsible for the raping of white women by crazed negroes.” —Hearst Newspapers Nationwide 1932: “Hasheesh goads users to blood lust.” —Hearst Newspapers

1935: “Marihuana influenced negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows, and look at a white woman twice.” —Hearst Newspapers

1937: “Marihuana is the most violent drug in the history of mankind.” —Congressional Testimony, H.J. Anslinger, FBN

1938: “Marihuana is more dangerous than heroin or cocaine.” —Anslinger, Scientific American, May, 1938

1938: “If the hideous monster of Frankenstein came face to face with marihuana, he would drop dead of fright.” —Anslinger, FBN, quoted in Hearst newspaper

1937-50: “Negro entertainers with their jazz and swing music are declared an outgrowth of marihuana use which possesses white women to tap their feet.” —statements to Congress by Anslinger, FBN

1945: “More harmful than habit-forming opium, inducing fits of temporary insanity.” —Newsweek, 1-15-45

1946: “Marihuana is an important cause of crime.” —Bureau of Narcotics, Newsweek, 11-18-46

1948: “Marihuana leads to pacifism and Communist brainwashing.” —Anslinger, before Congress

1974: “Permanent brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana.” —Ronald Reagan, LA Times

1974: “interferes with reproduction, disease resistance, and basic biological processes.” —Daily Oklahoman, 11-19-74 1980: “Marijuana leads to harder drugs.” —Reagan Administration

1985: “Marijuana use makes you sterile.” —Reagan Administration

1980s: “Marijuana leads to heroin; marijuana causes brain damage.” —the 17-week D.A.R.E. Program

1986: “Marijuana leads to homosexuality, the breakdown of the immune system, and therefore to AIDS.” —Carlton Turner 1990: “Marijuana makes you lazy.” —Partnership for a Drug-Free America

1992: “Marijuana is ten times more dangerous than 20 years ago.” —Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton

Reefer Madness Propaganda Through the Ages

I've forgotten - Why is cannabis use illegal at the U.S. Federal Government level?

[Mojave]

WOW! What a precedent.

It's a law, not a court decision. You were wrong. No surprise.

[Mojave]

Why is cannabis use illegal at the U.S. Federal Government level?

Is there a federal law against use? Cite, please.

[PaxMacian]

Please refrain from using the ignorant dysphemism'dope.'
A dope is someone that believes this plant, bearing a seed containing the most complete and absorbable combination of
amino acids of any plant on the face of Earth, should be eradicated becuase it may cause euphoria.

[PaxMacian]

True conservatism attempts to maintain and restore the
vision of liberty which our founding fathers possessed,
expressed and coalesced into our Constitution.
It should be a duty for freedom loving Republicans to
prevent government from imposing upon individuals, through
force and coercion, arbitrary puritanical beliefs that are
contrary to established religious facts, beliefs and
scripture. Only in this way can we assure the freedom of
religion envisioned in this nations’ founding.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time;
the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1774.

[Know your rights]

Think maybe there might also be a link to cancer?

It's plausible ... but the evidence says not.

It took decades of cigarette smoking by millions of Americans before the links between tobacco and lung cancer and other lung diseases were shown.

Millions of Americans have smoked marijuana over the past several decades.

[Know your rights]

Articles of clothing now have a political leaning?

By MrCruncher's "logic," yes.

Conservatism also does not equal banning non-rights-violating acts.

Oh, you bet it does equal that and it always has.

Wrong.

[Know your rights]

Show us some proof.

Proof of what?

[Wolfie]

Did you ever stop to think what our society would look like had we suffered under the "anything that isn't harmless must be banned" paradigm for more than only the last 80 odd years years?

[winston2]

Why is cannabis use illegal at the U.S. Federal Government level?(winston2)

Is there a federal law against use? Cite, please.

(snip)Tetrahydrocannabinols, the active chemicals contained in Cannabis plants, are Schedule I in the United States. This means it is federally illegal to cultivate, buy, possess, or distribute (sell, trade or give) in all forms (cannabis plants, extracts, hash, hash oil, thc, etc) except synthetic THC (Marinol) which is Schedule III. Marinol was moved from Schedule II to Schedule III in July 1999.
The federal scheduling of Cannabis was disputed in 1988 by Judge Francis Young, an administrative law judge for the DEA, who recommended that marijuana be reclassified as schedule II on the grounds that if a respectable minority of doctors endorse it, then it has a "currently accepted medical use".(snip)
Cannabis Legal Status by Erowid

UNIS/NAR/902
8 June 2005

INCB: US Supreme Court Decision on Cannabis Upholds International Law

VIENNA, 8 June (UN Information Service) -- The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for “medical” use, should be prohibited.

“INCB has for many years pointed out that the evidence that cannabis might be useful as a medicine is insufficient”, said Professor Hamid Ghodse, President, INCB. “Countries should not authorise the use of cannabis as a medicine until conclusive results based on research are available. Sound scientific evidence for its safety, efficacy and usefulness is required to justify its use in medical practice. Any research into cannabis as a medicine should involve the World Health Organization, as the responsible international health agency.”

INCB has expressed concern that organizations advocating the legalization of cannabis, and of narcotic drugs in general, are using the issue of medical cannabis as a “back door” to legalisation. “Cannabis is the most widely abused drug in the United States and in the world,” Professor Ghodse said. “Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems. It is not a ‘soft’ drug as some people would have you believe. There is new evidence confirming well-known mental health problems, and some countries with a more liberal policy towards cannabis are reviewing their position. Countries need to take a strong stance towards cannabis abuse.”

In its decision, the United States Supreme Court noted that medical cannabis statutes in California were open to abuse, and even cannabis cultivated for personal use as medicine could end up being supplied to the illicit market.

The Vienna-based INCB is an independent body, established by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to monitor governments’ compliance with the international drug control treaties. The three treaties are the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Its 13 members are elected by the Economic and Social Council to serve in their individual capacities for a term of five years.

United Nations Information Service

So - We are not so sovereign as I had thought. We are under world domination by no less than the U.N.

[Mojave]

cultivate, buy, possess, or distribute

Not use. Thanks.

[Mojave]

Please refrain from using the ignorant dysphemism'dope.'

You're the one promoting its use.

[PghBaldy]

I used to be a pothead. I loved the stuff. Smoked it everyday if I had it. Haven't touched it in nearly 20 years, along with alcohol, and assorted other drugs. There are probably things pot could help sick people with - appetite. I've heard it is better than the Marinol pills. However, it would be nearly impossible to stop people from using it for fun, if it were legalized for medicial use. I don't know what the answer is, but the drug war is not working. Drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever. However, all the statistics I've seen show that drug use is down. One thing that seems to help is people seeing what is does to others. I know kids who would never try it, cause they see what it did to their friends.

[winston2]

cultivate, buy, possess, or distribute

Not use.

Very interesting - the old catch 22.

[Know your rights]

it would be nearly impossible to stop people from using it for fun, if it were legalized for medicial use.

And fun should be illegal?

[PghBaldy]

Not necessarily, but that is what the govt wants.

[Know your rights]

Do YOU want fun to be illegal?

[PghBaldy]

I don't have a problem with people getting high, or tipsy, or drunk. I do have a problem with people being intoxicated in public. I don't know if there is anyway the govt will change course. They just seem to encroach more and more on everyone's lives, all in the name of this war.