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).

[xpertskir]

"Typical stoner response":

GOD MADE POT
MAN MADE PHARMIES

LMAO

This is a fun thread

[MrCruncher]

Will never happen.

I leave it for "scientists" like you to destroy your brain cells and lungs.

[robertpaulsen]

"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."

Science? Science? The amendment has nothing to do with science:

"None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington from implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States."

This amendment is attached year after year. Last year it was defeated 60%-37%.

Federal law trumps state law. Those states are violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, those state legislators should be tried for sedition.

[robertpaulsen]

"No Seriously all day long. LOL"

Actually, for glaucoma, you would have to smoke it all day and all night since the effects only last 2-3 hours.

[MrCruncher]

Federal law trumps state law.

But the drug "legalzation" crowd pretend they don't know that.

[pageonetoo]

Good afternoon, RP. I see you are out dispensing your usual insanity. You seem to think that we care what you think, just because you are able to get response.

It doesn't matter what study you cite, they are typically as useless as your farts. I am pretty sure they are all biased, rather its from one side or the other. But, that is irrelavant to the central issue. It is your need for attention, and control that I am addressing.

You are a typical "village idiot". You hear something you agree with, and believe it is Gospel. You don't have to have proof, when it already fits your agenda. You fit into the mold of a proper "sheeple"

After almost half a century of real time experience, (and I'll bet I can get a few amens, right brethern and sistern?), I am convinced there is no more harmful effects from the use of marijuana, than from rising from my bed in the morning.

I am 58, reasonably healthy, reasonably wealthy, and no less wise, though I have probably smoked bales of the stuff. I have a great family, and live a comfortable fulfilled life. I own lots of properties and possessions and am grateful to a sweet wife who loves me, and a good dog who likes to go hiking and kayaking together. I spend as much time playing, as working, and still manage to have a greater tax bill than most people's incomes. I am a conservative, politically, and feel that speaks to true libertarian values, not just the crap we get from uour 'Pubbies of today.

Up yours, and please go away. Give these threads some space for their reality, instead of your consistently deceitful posits and bickering... I don't know whether you really have no idea what you are talking about, or you just wish to be abrasive. You NEVER have anything new to add, just your same old shiite! Respond is you must, but you will convince nobody herein, of anything you wish to debate! You don't tell us what to do, and neither does this stinkin' gum't , when it comes to the privacy of our homes. Check your Constitution, and call yourself "gay" for a minute!

We KNOW better than to listen to your crap! It smells too highly!

[xpertskir]

Then don't post. Conservatism is based on experience, Liberalism is based in theory. Perhaps you should got to Daily Kos.

[headsonpikes]

Federal law trumps state law.

And natural law trumps federal law.

Shuffle and deal.

[MrCruncher]

SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

Where does that put YOU ?

LOL.

HINT--CONSERVATISM does not equal smoking marijuana.

[Know your rights]

SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

And he wears pants. Does that make pants unconservative?

CONSERVATISM does not equal smoking marijuana.

Who said it did? Conservatism also does not equal banning non-rights-violating acts.

[Know your rights]

Federal law trumps state law.

Federal law exercising legitimate constitutional authority trumps state law.

[Know your rights]

Of course, you know the side effects of those drugs because the FDA requires it. Marijuana, the wonder drug, somehow gets a pass.

I'm all for requiring marijuana to be labelled with its side effects.

You tell me. Why shouldn't marijuana have to go throught the same approval process as any other prescription drug? Why is marijuana so special?

It's not ... no adult should need the government's permission to ingest any substance.

[pageonetoo]

HINT--CONSERVATISM does not equal smoking marijuana.

According to whom? It isn't about smoking marijuana, duh! It is about the RIGHT to smoke marijuana. That is right in line with classic and current conservatism. It is statists such as you who wish to confuse the issue and make it into a health issue. It is not unhealthy to smoke anything. It is life in action... and shiite happens!

With folk like you, it is all about your own selfish interests, which have NOTHING to do with conservative principles...

yYou are a control freak, which is a common psychosis, and that can be treated, with the proper medication. Just ask your Doc!

[Know your rights]

WHO DOES bankroll the "scientific" industry?

Mostly the anti-drug federal government ... which by the principle of 'statement against interest' makes anti-WOD scientific results more credible than pro-WOD ones. Thanks for asking!

[Know your rights]

So you're stating as a fact that marijuana doesn't cause cancer? Or that this particular study didn't find a link?

This particular study didn't find a link ... are there any that did (and controlled for other carcinogenic activities like smoking tobacco)?

[robertpaulsen]

"This particular study didn't find a link ... are there any that did"

Probably some government studies. So I won't waste my time looking them up for you.

But, let's have some fun and guess.

On the one side we have tobacco, linked to cancer. Then we have homegrown marijuana with 50% more carcinogens than tobacco, 4X the tar, unfiltered smoke drawn deep into the lungs and held there, smoked allllll the way down to the last crud-filled molecule ... I don't know. Whaddya think? Think maybe there might also be a link to cancer?

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

[robertpaulsen]

What is this, This is Your Life? I'm guessing the reason I have to be made aware of your life history is that you want me to think you're typical of marijuana smokers?

Well, I don't.

[tacticalogic]

SOROS bankrolls the drug legalization movement.

Where does that put YOU ?

The RWJF is bankrolling the prohibition movement. Where does that put you?

[tacticalogic]

They proved a link between saccharin and bladder cancer, too.

[robertpaulsen]

"And he wears pants. Does that make pants unconservative?"

Articles of clothing now have a political leaning? Like right-wing-tip shoes?

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

Oh, you bet it does equal that and it always has. Libertarianism does not equal banning non-rights-violating acts. Let's get that straight.