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).
I always sensed that you are only looking out for my well being.
Thanks!
I welcome honest debate. I have little tolerance for debate based on emotion, anecdotes, questionable sources, "gotcha" games, or propaganda.
Meaning what? Are you suggesting that the lethality of a product determines its legality?
I'd seriously like to know the point you're trying to make. Marijuana should be legal because it won't kill you -- Is that your argument?
Did you think that's why it's prohibited? Did you think people didn't already know that -- that once that information was available to them they'd collectively slap their foreheads and say, "Well, since that's the case, then let's legalize marijuana"?
Right after her stint with the Feds, former Deputy Drug Czar Andrea Barthwell went to work as spokesman for GW in its bids to crack the market in the U.S.
Moonshine's illegal.
If you wish to surrender your right to choose
the substance from which you are made then you
will certainly be all that they want you to be.
But, then you already are submissive to the nanny
state and bow to their unconstitutional aggression.
There is no enumerated power in the Constitution
which warrants the federal government infringing
upon the natural right to determine dietary intake.
In fact, it has always been the realm of the church
as dietary laws are extent there for many millenia
and in almost every religion. The Constitution
forbids the federal government from making any laws
respecting an establishment of religion. Such laws
have long been established and are not the purview of
the federal government. But, that is not the only]
Constitutional problem with the war on drugs because
we are not to wage war against our own citizenry
either. Furthermore, we are waging a terror campaign
against our own citizenry which far outweighs any
effort made in the USA by Islamofascists.
The war on drugs can be decribed as nothing short of terrorism. We have seen no significant results from the drug war, therefore, all of these violent home invasions are significant only for the terror which they inflict upon the populace in attempt to control their appetites.
The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."--FBI definition of terrorism.
What makes anyone believe we can achieve peace or export
peace when in this free republic an individual may be imprisoned for possession of a flower from the garden of God because it may alter the thoughts in that individual in a manner deemed inappropriate by corporate pawns seeking to maintain the efficiency of their chattel?
And for dessert, smoke some dope.
"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?"
Chemicals in Tobacco
In addition to nicotine, cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals. The vast majority of these chemicals are added to the tobacco to add to its addictiveness, improve its flavor, and/or to increase burn rate, which increases sales.
Here’s one example of a chemical added specifically to make tobacco more addictive:
Ammonia (one of the 4,000 chemicals placed in cigarettes) is added solely for the purpose of enhancing the effects of nicotine. Ammonia added to commercially made cigarettes can boost the impact of nicotine 100 times. -- (The Washington Post, July 30, 1997)
Following are some of the categories of chemicals found in each cigarette:
Cancer Causing Agents
Nitrosamines
Crysenes
Cadmium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Polonium 210
Nickel
P.A.H.s
Dibenz Acidine
B-Napthylamine
Urethane
N. Nitrosonornicotine
Toluidine
Metals
Aluminum
Zinc
Magnesium
Mercury
Gold
Silicon
Silver
Titanium
Lead
Copper
Acetone
Nail Polish Remover
Acetic Acid
Vinegar
Ammonia
Floor/Toilet Cleaner
Arsenic
Poison
Butane
Cigarette Lighter Fluid
Cadmium
Rechargeable Batteries
Carbon Monoxide
Car Exhaust Fumes
DDT/Dieldrin
Insecticides
Ethanol
Alcohol
Formaldehyde
Dead Body Preserver
Fabric Preserver
Hexamine
Barbecue Lighter
Hydrogen Cyanide
Gas Chamber Poison
Methane
Swamp Gas
Methanol
Rocket Fuel
Napthalene
Mothballs
Nicotine
Insecticide
Addictive Drug
Nitrobenzene
Gasoline Additive
Nitrous Oxide Phenols
Disinfectant
Stearic Acid
Candle Wax
Toluene
Industrial Solvent
Vinyl Chloride
Ingredient of PVC
Wait a minute ...
Wait a lifetime.
Let's see. Where did I put that? Ah, here it is.
"There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category, it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?" [Abrams was referring to Tashkin¹s lung-cancer-only data for marijuana-only smokers in 1-10 j-yrs category.] "Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."
Smoke'em if you got 'em.
He-he-he...from the same article...Marijuana Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airways, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists ( most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse ).
Snip...After Abrams's presentation, a questioner bemoaned the difficulty of "separating the high from the clinical benefits." Abrams responded: "I'm an oncologist as well as an AIDS doctor and I don't think that a drug that creates euphoria in patients with terminal diseases is having an adverse effect." His study was funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
"reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society."
More "research," huh?
LOL
Any more "inane points", huh?
"Research" done by groups founded for the purpose of legalizing marijuana really impress me.
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.