Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine

http://www.fda.gov/ ^ | 4 20 06 | fda

[freepatriot32]

The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

[freepatriot32]

ping

[P-40]

If a drug product is to be marketed, disciplined, systematic, scientifically conducted trials are the best means to obtain data to ensure that drug is safe and effective when used as indicated.

So....are cigarettes safe?

[freepatriot32]

Do you guys write press releases for the FDA now? :-)

[Sir Gawain]

Safe for taxation because it's not common to grow your own tobacco for personal use.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[freepatriot32]

There is a survey going on at aol asking if you think medical marijuana should be legal and so far out of 54,000 votes its running 90 percent yes 10 percent no and another question is was the fda report motivated by politics or sciences or both that is at politics 76 percent both 18 percent and science 6 percent

I'm not sure if non aol users can take the survey or not but the link is here

Should marijuana be legal for medical uses?

[robertpaulsen]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FDA v. Brown & Williamson that the FDA does not have the legal authority to regulate tobacco (though they do have the authority to regulate nicotine). The majority opinion concluded that if Congress intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco, it should say so.

[Lexington Green]

The War on Cancer Patients

Hell no, we won't go...

[Trampled by Lambs]

4/20 was yesterday, dood...

[P-40]

the FDA does not have the legal authority to regulate tobacco

I have always found that hilarious. A product meant for public consumption that, if used property, will kill you or impair your health...but it is legal.

[robertpaulsen]

A great follow up question would be, "Should medicine only be available to those over 21? If you answer no, then should medical marijuana be available to 11-year-olds?"

[Lexington Green]

''...should MORPHINE be available to 11-year-olds?"

Hell no. They must be good little Drug Nazis and accept their suffering. It's the American way.

[robertpaulsen]

"A product meant for public consumption that, if used property, will kill you or impair your health...but it is legal."

If you feel that strongly about it, write your Congressman. Seriously. The court didn't say that the FDA couldn't regulate tobacco -- they said they couldn't without Congressional approval.

I assume from your post that you approve of the Congressional laws against recreational drugs.

[robertpaulsen]

"''...should MORPHINE be available to 11-year-olds?"

As prescribed medicine? Of course it should. And it is.

[traviskicks]

yea, you can vote if you're not an aol member. Good to see at least 55,000 or so people are freedom loving.

I bet most of them are younger (as internet users are), and probably non voters. So their opinion doesn't count.

Us under 30 people really need to start voting on stuff like this and pesonal retirment accounts etc...

[P-40]

I assume from your post that you approve of the Congressional laws against recreational drugs.

It would be a lost cause to ask Congree to do anything with regards to tobacco. There is simply too much money involved with that drug.

I don't approve of laws against some recreational drugs as the crime does not fit the punishment in too many cases and the risk of using the drug is just not serious enough to bother when compared to a drug like alcohol. We have some serious problems with alcohol in this country but too much of the money goes to dealing with the other drugs.

[Wolfie]

The FDA statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific evaluative agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."

Dr. John Benson, co-chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that examined the research into marijuana's effects, said in an interview that the FDA statement and the combined review by other agencies were wrong.

The federal government "loves to ignore our report," said Benson, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. "They would rather it never happened."

[robertpaulsen]

OK. On this medical marijuana thread, you no longer want to talk about tobacco. Fine.

Now you bring up alcohol as the new gold standard (ie., if a drug is less risky than alcohol, why isn't it legal and if it's riskier then it's OK by you if we make it illegal -- do I have that right?).

What this has to do with medical marijuana, I don't know. When you want to get back to the topic at hand, feel free.

[robertpaulsen]

"That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."

Out of respect, I'll keep my response civil.

I believe the report stated that "cannabinoids would be moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting", not marijuana.

And three paragraphs down, in the "Conclusion" section, it states that "smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances and that (later in the same report) smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for medical use."