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).
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".
No, I'm correctly noting the logical implication of your position, that if the government intrudes based on health concern "A" then they must, absent sound reason to the contrary, intrude based on health concern "B" and if you don't allow them to intrude based on health concern "B" you're a hypocrite.
>>GOD MADE POT
MAN MADE PHARMIES <<
So true. Back in 1974 my grandfather had cancer. My straightlaced mom had me get marijuana for him and made him lots of brownies. She is now a BIG believer in medical marijuana.
Problem is that none of us would even know where to get it now, even if we needed it...
You want to talk about risks? Look at any drug ad in Readers Digest and check out the two pages of two point font disclaimers.
RP, you really are barking up the wrong tree here. Marijuana just isn't the evil weed it has been made out to be. I consider alcohol and most man-made drugs to be much worse.
I agree that marijuana is not as dangerous. But the negative effects of the carcinogenic compounds and psychoactive properties can be avoided in the extract. That was the only point of my analogy.
>.SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.
Where does that put YOU ? <<
Hitler liked dogs.
I like dogs.
Does that make me a nazi?
>>Probably some government studies.<<
Probably?
PROBABLY?!!!
I have been wasting my time here.
Good day.
The FDA is looking for handouts. A drug named Picovir was refused FDA approval because 2 women in 1000 who used birth control pills in conjunction with Picovir got pregnant. (the normal failure rate with the pill)
ViroPharma sold the compound to one of the big pharma companies, Merck I think, and it was immediately approved for release under a different name.
IMHO it is simply because Merck greased the right palms at the FDA.
And it is still legal!!!
The author is basically saying that but for this cozy relationship, smoked marijuana would be approved by the federal government as medicine. Do you believe this?
I believe you're elevating the medicinal properties of pot a little higher than I would.
Minimal. If tobacco was just discovered, would it be approved today as a legal product? Do you really want to compare marijuana to tobacco?
"2. Is there an offsetting health benefit to smoking tobacco comparable to those scientifically attributed to Marijuana?"
The study I read indicates that those who smoke marijuana are actually less likely to get cancer than those who smoke nothing. Do you believe that? Or do you just want to believe that?
Or, do you think it's too soon to tell if marijuana causes cancer because we don't yet have enough in the way of valid long-term statistics.
Oh please this is getting most tiresome. You know full well what the relevancy of "somewhat support" is to your claim that 41% of the people support the legalization of pot. But then when you have a losing issue, (only 41% in total), and in that number is used a large percentage of people who ONLY "somewhat" support the issue, I guess you are forced to "somewhat" stretch the quality of the strength of your support.
When you've had the decency to answer mine, I'll answer yours.
Somehow on this one, I don't believe you.........
I see no relevancy to it.
When you've had the decency to answer mine, I'll answer yours.
Somehow on this one, I don't believe you.........
Here's your golden opportunity to prove me a liar ... and to AT LONG LAST answer the simple question you've been dodging.
I have dodged no question from you. The relevancy of the "somewhat" category is obvious. I am suprised that you must have the obvious explained to you. But I will try to help......
Ok, let's take away the 17% that "somewhat" support legalization, and I will take away the 11% that "somewhat" oppose legalization, I still win, 46% oppose legalization, and only 24% support legalization. You see any relevancy there?
Why should we do either of those things?
I still win, 46% oppose legalization, and only 24% support legalization. You see any relevancy there?
No.
Ok, let's don't take away the "somewhats", you still lose. Badly.................
There goes any claim that they were relevant. Buh-bye.
you still lose.
For now.
Badly.................
Not at all. It's climbed from the low 20s (if I recall correctly) over a few decades; topping the 50%+1 mark is only a matter of time.
Isle Ike Mare Uh Wanna !!!
Does that make me a FReeper ??? ;-))
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.