Reefer Medicine

NY Times ^ | April 28, 2006 | HENRY I. MILLER

[neverdem]

LAST week, the Food and Drug Administration staked out its position on the long-standing controversy over the medical use of marijuana — and made a lot of people smoking mad. The F.D.A. endorsed a multi-agency study that found that "no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." This came as an affront to those who claim that cannabis is an appropriate treatment for ailments from nausea and vomiting to muscle spasticity and intractable pain.

Many news reports and commentaries accused the F.D.A. of contradicting a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine that recommended further research on marijuana's medical potential. The regulators were denounced as elevating politics over science.

But the F.D.A. did no such thing. To be sure, its one-page statement was far shorter and less detailed than the institute's book-length report, but its conclusions were essentially the same. The F.D.A. also recently gave the go-ahead for clinical trials of a new drug derived from marijuana — further demonstrating that its position is both sensible and proper.

In their 1999 report, the Institute of Medicine's panel of experts flatly rejected the idea that herbal (usually smoked) cannabis would ever be considered a safe and effective medicine for widespread use. They noted that marijuana appears to be modestly effective in treating the nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy and the wasting caused by AIDS — though not as effective as some approved medicines are. But they also said that because smoked marijuana can increase the risk of lung damage, cancer and complications during pregnancy, it is appropriate only for short-term use (less than six months) by acutely suffering patients who have failed to find relief with other therapies and who are under the close supervision of a doctor.

It is not the...

[neverdem]

Henry I. Miller, a doctor and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993.

Britain Poised to Approve Medicine Derived From Marijuana

[ansel12]

As usual the left has turned the tables.

Marijuana is an illegal drug.

Instead of the pro drug people having to jump through all kinds of hoops to change America into what they want, the media always portrays this as a right just waiting to regain it's natural place.


This is the same way the Gay marriage thing is portrayed, not as something absurd, but as the "normal" thing and all opposition is a strained minority blocking a simple right.

[A. Pole]

Marijuana is an illegal drug.

"Illegal"? You meant undocumented drug?

[muir_redwoods]

"Instead of the pro drug people having to jump through all kinds of hoops to change America into what they want, the media always portrays this as a right just waiting to regain it's natural place."

For most of human history, adults have been able to put anything they wanted into their bodies. It's only been since 1937 that marijuana has been illegal so, in that respect, it is a right that is waiting to be regained.

And, no, I don't use any drug including the worst, alcohol. I do drink black coffee though.

[robertpaulsen]

"It's only been since 1937 that marijuana has been illegal so, in that respect, it is a right that is waiting to be regained."

You still have the right. In 1937, the citizens decided, through their elected representatives, not to protect that right at the federal level.

If you wish to exercise your right to do drugs, I hear that Mexico is now protecting that right. Wait no more.

Oh, and allow me to be the first to say, Adios.

[muir_redwoods]

"If you wish to exercise your right to do drugs, I hear that Mexico is now protecting that right. Wait no more.

Oh, and allow me to be the first to say, Adios."

And if you had even half the reading comprehension expected of 10 year-olds you would have noted that I don't do drugs. By the way, the appointment of Henry Anslinger was not to an elected position, it was a patronage job for an out-of-work prohibition agent. Read your history, and try to comprehend.

[norraad]

...history,

It used to be illegal N O T to grow it.

Farmer paid it to King for tax.

Rope, sails, oil, etc..

Very useful plant.

If ADM wasn't ruthlessly in control, it would be grown for it's seed oil for fuel & food.

It's the only plant economically viable for both.

[robertpaulsen]

"the appointment of Henry Anslinger was not to an elected position"

Sorry. I didn't realize he passed that law all by himself.

[muir_redwoods]

"Sorry. I didn't realize he passed that law all by himself."

It pales to insignificance compared to the things you do not realize

[ansel12]

""Illegal"? You meant undocumented drug?"



I'm saying you need your papers.

[Conservative til I die]

For most of human history, adults have been able to put anything they wanted into their bodies. It's only been since 1937 that marijuana has been illegal so, in that respect, it is a right that is waiting to be regained

This is a misleading statement. Since states -if not the federal government- have the authority to regulate drugs, no one has a "right" to smoke pot.

Of course, this is to say nothing about how other nations view "rights" as it regards drugs.

[Conservative til I die]

It pales to insignificance compared to the things you do not realize

The fact that you did not respond to Robert's point with an argument of your own, rather than an ad hominem attack, is very, very telling. And I say this as someone who has been on both sides of this issue and could still be swayed.

I would have to give Robert the point on this one.

[muir_redwoods]

Give all the points you want. The facts about Anslinger's appointment to a made-up administrative post and the imposition of a $100/oz tax on marijuana specifically to avoid the difficulties of outlawing it legislatively are historical facts that any educated person could reserch. To do so would require an open mind.

I have long ago given up on the idea of educating Paulsen on this topic. You are welcome to try

[Know your rights]

You still have the right. In 1937, the citizens decided, through their elected representatives, not to protect that right at the federal level.

No, they decided to have their government violate that right at the federal level.

[Know your rights]

the media always portrays this as a right just waiting to regain it's natural place.

As they should ... growing, selling, buying, and using marijuana are natural rights, as they do not in and of themselves violate anyone's rights nor pose a clear and present danger of such violation.

[Know your rights]

Since states -if not the federal government- have the authority to regulate drugs, no one has a "right" to smoke pot.

Rights are not created by government.

[Know your rights]

its one-page statement was far shorter and less detailed than the institute's book-length report, but its conclusions were essentially the same. [...] In their 1999 report, the Institute of Medicine's panel of experts [...] noted that marijuana appears to be modestly effective in treating the nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy and the wasting caused by AIDS

Did the FDA statement note the same? If not, their conclusions were NOT "essentially the same."

[robertpaulsen]

And tell me how a government "violates" an unprotected right?

Pure gobbledygook, because that's all you got. You couldn't formulate a rational argument if your life depended on it.

Go away, troll.

[Know your rights]

And tell me how a government "violates" an unprotected right?

By punishing those who exercise that right.

[Sir Gawain]

How can a plant be illegal? What a joke.

"Hey now, Mother Nature, that's against the law!"