DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" Claim 4 - a rebuttal

(self) | June 8, 2012 | (self)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 4;" more to come as time permits. ("Fact 1" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858443/posts; "Fact 2" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2861557/posts; "Fact 3" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2864032/posts.)

Claim 4. "Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science."

• Claim: Medical marijuana already exists. It’s called Marinol.

• A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

  Facts: "The poor solubility of Marinol in aqueous solutions and its high first-pass metabolism in the liver account for its poor bioavailability; only 10-20% of an oral dose reaches the systemic circulation. The onset of action is slow; peak plasma concentrations are not attained until two to four hours after dosing. In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed. In a study comparing THC administered orally, by inhalation, and intravenously, plasma concentration peaked almost instantaneously after both inhalation and intravenous administration" ( http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376&page=203)

  Several other cannabinoid chemicals available in marijuana - but absent from Marinol - have also been clinically demonstrated to possess therapeutic value. Clinical data indicate that the interaction of these compounds is likely more effictive than synthetic THC alone.

• Claim: Unlike smoked marijuana—which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke— Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation’s watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective, and dangerous drugs off the market.

  Fact: This very same DEA page admits that comprehensive, scientifically rigorous study of marijuana has been done - see below.

• Claim: There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette.

  Fact: See what the Institute of Medicine says below.

• Claim: Morphine, for example, has proven to be a medically valuable drug, but the FDA does not endorse the smoking of opium or heroin. Instead, scientists have extracted active ingredients from opium, which are sold as pharmaceutical products like morphine, codeine, hydrocodone or oxycodone. In a similar vein, the FDA has not approved smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, but has approved the active ingredient-THC in the form of scientifically regulated Marinol.

  Fact: See above on the deficiencies of Marinol.

• Claim: The DEA helped facilitate the research on Marinol. The National Cancer Institute approached the DEA in the early 1980s regarding their study of THC’s in relieving nausea and vomiting. As a result, the DEA facilitated the registration and provided regulatory support and guidance for the study.

  Fact: Despite the DEA's complete lack of expertise in medical research. The DEA's "facilitation, support, and guidance" was only needed because the DEA was getting in the way in the first place.

  Claim: California, researchers are studying the potential use of marijuana and its ingredients on conditions such as multiple sclerosis and pain. At this time, however, neither the medical community nor the scientific community has found sufficient data to conclude that smoked marijuana is the best approach to dealing with these important medical issues.

  Fact: See what the Institute of Medicine says below.

• Claim: The most comprehensive, scientifically rigorous review of studies of smoked marijuana was conducted by the Institute of Medicine, an organization chartered by the National Academy of Sciences. In a report released in 1999, the Institute did not recommend the use of smoked marijuana, but did conclude that active ingredients in marijuana could be isolated and developed into a variety of pharmaceuticals, such as Marinol.

  Fact: Here's what the Institute of Medicine's comprehensive, scientifically rigorous report actually says: "for certain patients, such as the terminally ill or those with debilitating symptoms, the long-term risks are not of great concern. [...] it will likely be many years before a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system, such as an inhaler, is available for patients. In the meantime there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief. [...] Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." ( http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376&page=7 and page 8)

• Claim: In the meantime, the DEA is working with pain management groups, such as Last Acts, to make sure that those who need access to safe, effective pain medication can get the best medication available.

  Fact: The DEA is also making sure that some treatments remain unavailable - even by prescription.

[muawiyah]

So? Did you find some new sort of smack today?

If you didn't no one really wants to hear about it.

[Drill Thrawl]

More important reason the DEA is against legalization.

Loss of confisgated cars, houses, boats and money.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So? Did you find some new sort of smack today?

No.

If you didn't no one really wants to hear about it.

Since the article has nothing to do with smack, new or old, I can only conclude that you're jonesing for a new sort of smack. Sorry to disappoint you.

Any response to what the article actually does say?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

More important reason the DEA is against legalization.

Loss of confisgated cars, houses, boats and money.

Strange how the same FReepers who easily see through big-government claims of "compassion" let themselves be taken in by the DEA's hogwash.

[tacticalogic]

Strange how the same FReepers who easily see through big-government claims of "compassion" let themselves be taken in by the DEA's hogwash.

A lot of them think ending the federal drug war will suddenly make marijuana legal, too.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

You might get a dark chuckle out of this rant - that to end federal drug laws would be to “impose a Soviet-style mandate” on “every state, every county, every town, every neighborhood, every family, and every individual in the country”: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2889053/posts?page=31#31

[microgood]

The Federal Government has no credibility on the issue of marijuana. They have been lying about it for 80 years and will continue as long as they can.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The Federal Government has no credibility

I think you could have stopped there. ;-)

[tacticalogic]

A lot of people just don’t grok “republic”. I think the public schools are responsible for that, and that it’s calculated and intentional.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

A lot of people just don’t grok “republic”.

Or “free”.

[starlifter]

The vast majority of the damage from drugs comes from the government arbitrarily making them illegal. On top of that, there are so many government employees and contractors nursing on the illegal drug tit who will look out only for their own self interest, fighting tooth and nail against any relaxation of drug laws.

[Boogieman]

Speak for yourself. I like reading his articles.

[tacticalogic]

The vast majority of the damage from drugs comes from the government arbitrarily making them illegal. On top of that, there are so many government employees and contractors nursing on the illegal drug tit who will look out only for their own self interest, fighting tooth and nail against any relaxation of drug laws.

You'll have the potential for that with any government regulation. The problem with federal regulation is that the regulators are too far removed from the things they're regulating and the people those regulations affect to be be held accountable, or even identifiable.

[Wuli]

We could start by taking the “FDA” label and turning it, legally, into no more and no less than the national “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” for “drugs”, making it a requirement to show you have or don’t have it and that you must inform your patients that you (you’re “medicine”) has or doesn’t have the “FDA” seal of approval.

Together with the requirement that the doctor is responsible for providing thorough, transparent and honest knowledge to the patient regarding ANY medicine prescribed, doctors would continue, for the most part, to rely on “proven” remedies, that with or without FDA approval can be supported by medical research and experience.

Why should this be enough?

Because “FDA approval” is not even now enough to prevent a lawsuit for the prescription of a drug for its accepted use. If it is not enough, if completely following “FDA approved guidelines” is not enough, if what the FDA says is legal or not in the use of a drug is not enough, then why should it’s recommendation be more than just a recommendation - the “best one” but still, a recommendation.

It shouldn’t.

[muawiyah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689

[uncbob]

DEA trying to justify it existence PERIOD

[starlifter]

huh?

[AlmaKing]

Why don’t you let people choose for themselves? You think it’s somehow going to hurt you? Those folks are doing it anyway, whether it’s legal or not.

Your war on marijuana is over. At least 17 states have decriminalized possession and use in some form or another. I think Mass. has joined that list recently. Now, New York is thinking about it by not arresting for possession of small amounts. Even New Hampshire, with Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, has legislation pending.

It’s not a matter of if the Fed Gov would decriminalize it, it’s when.

So, stock up on your guns and butter for when the pot hippies come and put a drum circle on your front land.

[tacticalogic]

It’s not a matter of if the Fed Gov would decriminalize it, it’s when.

There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that gives them the authority to make that decision.