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).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650191/posts?page=269#269
Yes, I saw that after I had posted my request to you. I apologize for not notifying you. However I must point out that only 23% strongly favor legalization, the remaining 17% of your equation, "somewhat approved". Obviously that "somewhat" is open for interpretation.
It does not support the interpretations of "neutral" or "opposed;" what's the relevance of any remaining room for interpretation?
junior bozo:
Well I guess if you can't get the people to vote in what you want, you go the judicial route.
Sounds kinda like a tactic of the libs..........
"Judicial route"? That's your bozo block talking, not me.
Answer his question, apologize for ingoring it, and make nice.
I'd like to see a few California legislators charged with sedition by the federal government for passing a state law clearly contrary to constitutional federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
Nope. Never did. I said the number was misleading, and I said why.
Now why would anyone assume that going in?
Scientist A: "Product X may cause cancer because it has similar properties to tobacco."
Scientist MrLeRoy: "That's no argument! Product X quite possibly contains cancer-repressing substances."
What a marroon.
The voters of California said they wanted medical marijuana to be legal...The Supreme Court told the voters to 'take your votes and shove 'em!'"
paulsen:
I'd like to see a few California legislators charged with sedition by the federal government for passing a state law clearly contrary to constitutional federal law in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
Yet you back up those same State legislators when they pass a seditious 'law' that bans guns:
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Whatta seditious hypocrite.
I'm sorry. Did you think I meant the government must get involved in all health concerns?
I said it is indeed proper for government to get involved in an activity that involves public health. You're wrong when you say that it's not proper.
It's ludicrous to expect people to vote for the legalization of marijuana by saying that smoking it at home harms no one when everyone knows that it's not going to be smoked at home. It isn't today.
There ought to be a law prohibiting such types from breeding. But alas, the constitution doesn't grant the power to prohibit anything. No exceptions.
Guns can be banned in any jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. The USSC decided that the Commerce Clause grants total control to government.
Yep - that's part of the communitarian 'line' as advocated by the paulsen types here on FR.
There aren't many of them, but they sure do post a lot of agit-prop.
I already did. He was in the minority. That means he was on the losing side. That means the federal government did NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.
Read Scalia's separate concurrence. Outstanding.
Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government may regulate/prohibit the interstate commerce of guns provided they have a compelling interest in doing so. The federal government may not ban guns in a particular jurisdition.
The state, on the other hand, ....
Sophomoric 'logic'.
Keep it up tho bobbie, -- it's very amusing.
Which means the Constitution is a "living document", with no fixed meaning. If a majority of the SC says it means one thing now and another thing later, then somewhere in between the Constitution changed, and no one noticed.
Simple truth...No one noticed!
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.