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).
So you're claiming it?!
I can, but I'd prefer to stay on topic. You claimed that government intrusion based on health concerns is not proper. I said you're wrong. Are you now changing your mind?
LOL, well I guess we can split hairs all day, but there is a relevancy to the difference of being strongly for something and being "somewhat" for something. Or let me ask the question, why would someone be "somewhat" for legalizing pot, why not be "strongly" for legalization? Does that mean they are kind of for it, but still have some reservations about legalizing pot?
The poll asked, Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree. It was asked that way for a reason. The poll points out that people who feel strongly about this issue oppose legalization 2:1.
You distorted the response to fit your agenda. I thought it was important to point that out.
Your dumbest statement to date. And that's saying something.
Incorrect as usual.
I can,
I'll believe it if and when I see it.
but I'd prefer to stay on topic. You claimed that government intrusion based on health concerns is not proper. I said you're wrong.
Which means one of three things:
If you'd have anyone believe the third, you got some 'splainin' to do.
So you keep claiming ... but not supporting. What is the relevancy you claim?
Or let me ask the question
When you've had the decency to answer mine, I'll answer yours.
Correct.
yet that's how you reported it.
Incorrect. I made no claims about details of the poll.
Another unsupported claim from robertpaulsen. And that's saying nothing new or surprising.
What?! You stated, "... support for that is at 41%". 41% is what I call a "detail".
You mischaracterized the results of the poll. That's dishonest.
Your semantic gyrations never fail to amuse.
You mischaracterized the results of the poll.
Rubbish. Give it up, man, that dog ain't huntin'.
Well?
Now you're trying to parse this into "if the government does "A" then they must do "B" and if you don't allow them to do "C" you're a hypocrite".
Admit you were wrong and let's move on.
I lost total respect for the FDA over 20 years ago over a similar issue. This is so "not news" that I am sorta wondering why I am even posting on this thread.
>>In this case, the extracts of the plants have a medical use, whereas the plants themselves contain dangerous compounds.<<
which is why this analogy does not work. I know where you are going with this, but the problem is that Marijuana is just not that dangerous.
I have not touched the stuff since 1977, and think it is pretty stupid (and you'll get more stupid if you do it) to smoke it for the purpose of getting high. That said, you may find it interesting what got me to open my mind to getting high in the first place:
I was a goody-two-shoes in my senior year of high school (1972) and did a report on the evils of Marijuana. Guess what I found out? Like the "theory" of evolution it was pretty much all smoke and mirrors. It was all about what was possible as opposed to what was empirically verifiable. Thre really was no remotely solid evidence for direct negative effects.
Less than a year later a really "hot" chick wanted to get high. I did...
Kinda sounds like a bong.
>>If you'll allow the author to make these unsupported claims, <<
I've been watching the FDA for quite a while. Although the author does not support the claim directly, it is like saying the earth revolves around the sun. You really don't have to support it. There is plenty of support, although some people in primitive tribes probably still think the sun revolves around the earth - unless they have google access.
>> Inhaled smoke from MJ is harmless compared to many FDA approved drugs' side effects. Pretty weak argument there.<<
Wow, I forgot about that. You nailed it. Look at all the drugs that have been forced off the market because of SERIOUS side effects in no small number of people, yet marijuana is BAAAAD. The FDA is a shilling joke, and it is quite obvious to anybody paying attention.
Two things:
1. What would the health risk of tobacco be if the average person smoked half a cigarette or less per day?
2. Is there an offsetting health benefit to smoking tobacco comparable to those scientifically attributed to Marijuana?
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.