Posted on 06/15/2006 4:53:24 PM PDT by 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).
Robert Paulsen: I welcome honest debate. 82
Which substance, when ingested, has caused more health problems to the person ingesting the substance, marijuana or alcohol?
Which substance, when ingested has caused more deaths by overdose, marijuana or alcohol?
Which person is more likely to harm another person or their property, a person under the influence of alcohol or a person under the influence of marijuana?
I contend that the answer to those three questions is alcohol. Now it is your turn to answer honestly. Remember, I have been on these threads much longer than you so I too have read many of the studies put forth on these threads.
Robert Paulsen: I welcome honest debate. 82
I contend that the act of a person sitting at home smoking marijuana harms no person but perhaps the user himself. If you think otherwise please explain how the person's act of smoking marijuana at home alone harms another person.
I contend that the act of a person sitting at home drinking beer harms no person but perhaps the user himself. If you think otherwise please explain how the person's act of drinking beer at home alone harms another person.
So, what point are you trying to make?
Well, I disagree. I believe that the actions of one person affect all those around him. Why are you limiting the argument to "harm". Do you think marijuana is prohibited only because it's harmful?
Secondly, people don't restrict their use of drugs to the home. If they did, there'd be few arrests. As it is, each year we arrest millions for drug related crimes, from possession to public intoxication to assault.
You're setting up a scenario that does not reflect the real world. I hope you don't think that's being honest.
winston2 cultivate, buy, possess, or distribute 112
Not use. Thanks.
Possession of marijuana is prohibited. I contended a pound of marijuana sitting in a person's home doesn't harm another person or their property. If you contend that possession of marijuana does harm another person or their property please explain how.
Possession of alcohol is not prohibited. I contended a bottle of whiskey sitting in a person's home doesn't harm another person or their property. If you contend that possession of alcohol does harm another person or their property please explain how.
A precedent for what?
Quote the decision.
Contend away.
Zon: I contend that the act of a person sitting at home smoking marijuana harms no person but perhaps the user himself.142Well, I disagree.
Please explain how another person or their property is harmed by the act of a person sitting at home smoking marijuana.
You're setting up a scenario that does not reflect the real world. I hope you don't think that's being honest.
Real world is many people that smoke marijuana confine that activity to their home.
I am being honest. It is you that chose not to explain how a person sitting at home smoking marijuana harms another person or their property. Instead, you redirected the discussion elsewhere. IMO, you did that intentionally. That would be dishonest, otherwise if done unintentionally it was just an error. Now please, explain how a person sitting at home smoking marijuana harms another person or their property.
Zon: I contended a pound of marijuana sitting in a person's home doesn't harm another person or their property.145Contend away.
I'm glad you agree with my contention. I thought you would contend the opposite: that a pound of marijuana does harm another person or their property.
I'm glad you admit that your contention is baseless and false.
Then how do they manage to get themselves arrested?
Second, just the act of legalizing marijuana sends a message to people, including those underage, that smoking marijuana is not so bad. Use would increase, more people would be harmed. We saw this happen with Alaskan teen use.
Third, the effects of marijuana go beyond "harm". To imply that an activity should be legal simply because you cannot see where it directly harms others is a strawman argument.
Fourth, our laws are not restricted to prohibiting activities that only harm others. They never have been based on that, and neither have the laws of any country in the history of the world. Morality plays a big factor, and our constitution was written for a moral public.
Fifth, grow up. Your "but how does it harm anyone else" argument is ignorant, lame, and childish.
Thus begins the "constitutional exemption for laws governing morality" merry-go-round.
" the government has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of recreational drugs."
The fact of the matter is that there is substantial commerce
of recreational drugs and the government has failed in its
duty to regulate it by attempting to ban that commerce altogether.
The results of this failure are increasing variety and
potency across the board, as well as, unregulated
consumables controlled by questionably patriotic parties.
Are you suggesting that we take the same approach to other laws that "fail"? You're saying that if an existing law does not completely prevent an activity from taking place, we should eliminate that law?
Exemption? Most of our laws are based on morality.
In response to the leftists who splutter that we can't legislate morality Robert Bork replied, "We legislate little else."
In response to the leftists who splutter that we can't legislate morality Robert Bork replied, "We legislate little else."
So you're saying that what we actually have is a de facto theocracy?
So you're saying that morality is threat to your dream of world communism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.