cannabisnews.com: Legal Drug Use Slowed Legal Drug Use Slowed Posted by CN Staff on July 02, 2003 at 10:34:27 PT By Reagan Haynes, News-Post Staff Source: Fredrick News-Post Medical marijuana advocates say there are two key reasons the drug is so difficult to legalize for sick people at the federal level: Money and politics. Maryland recently became the ninth state to pass a law that would relax punishment of people caught with marijuana, provided they can prove they are using it for medical reasons. "As more and more states get on board, the feds are going to have to do something. They just can't arrest everyone in every state," said Donald Murphy, chairman of the Baltimore County Republican party. As a state delegate, he championed legislation that would have legalized medical marijuana. The financial issue is tied in with pharmaceuticals, advocates said."The medical community has Marinol, which has synthetic THC, and it costs $10 to $20 to take it in pill form," Mr. Murphy said."Pharmaceuticals, they don't want to try and re-create marijuana because there's no money in it," Mr. Murphy said. "Even if you had a pill to do the same thing, how much would people pay for it? If you could pay $10 for two months' worth, would you spend the same thing for one afternoon?""The problem is, there's no financial interest to use millions of dollars to test it, because you're talking about a plant people can grow in their back yard. There's no financial incentive," said Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project.Mr. Mirken said some argue the Food and Drug Administration should approve marijuana as it would for another medicine.Kathleen Quinn, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said drugs are approved only after a company submits an application. Companies do their own testing; the FDA might ask questions, but the agency does not initiate approval.There are so many variations of opiates and opioids approved by the FDA because they're lucrative for pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Mirken said.Dr. Tony Tommasello is director of the office of substance abuse studies at University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. At one time he supported Marinol over medical marijuana."The idea that we're going to give people crude products instead of a certified product, that would be a question for a pharmacist," he said.Without quality control, patients wouldn't know the percentage of active ingredients."The rebuttal is, people with HIV are already nauseated with medications, and they don't want to take another oral product," Dr. Tommasello said. "That's a valid argument.""The whole mission behind cancer treatment is to poison you," state Sen. David Brinkley, R-Frederick, who helped push the legislation through the Senate. "Treatment can make you sicker than the disease" and make swallowing a pill next to impossible, he said.But Dr. Tommasello still believes there are potential dangers to prescribing marijuana. There is more tar than in cigarette smoke, Dr. Tommasello said, touching a debate. "The challenge for medical marijuana is to develop an alternative way of inhaling," he said. "It could be aerosolized, like nicotine."Or it can be vaporized, Mr. Mirken said, which would eliminate the risks associated with smoking. A device would heat up the leaves, enabling the patient to inhale the drug without lighting it on fire. The New York State Association of County Health Officials recently recommended legalizing traditional marijuana for medical purposes, contending that "the legalization of medical marijuana would be a step forward for the health of all New Yorkers.""I think if the market was bigger then pharmaceuticals would respond," Dr. Tommasello said. "But it's a relatively small market, because people can get it so easily through the black market. I think that's what the bill corrects, or at least addresses."Mr. Mirken rejects the traditional argument: Marijuana is the gateway drug that will lead people to become addicts."Physicians prescribe thousands of medications every day that are much more dangerous than this is," Mr. Mirken said. "Ask any heroin addict on the street what they tried first, and they probably did smoke marijuana at one time. But ask them what they started with, and it's probably alcohol or cigarettes, so marijuana is not the gateway drug.""One of the big objections is, that it still is illegal at the federal level," Mr. Brinkley said. "So the law we have goes with federal laws, but they need to change that.""It's pure politics," Mr. Murphy agreed. "Most of this comes from the federal level, and drugs are placed into certain schedules. Marijuana is a schedule one drug, so it's considered highly addictive, subject to abuse and is seen to have no medical value."Mr. Murphy said schedule two drugs, such as morphine and cocaine, are the same but are deemed to have medical merit.In 1998, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett was one of the congressmen who voted against changing marijuana's schedule. First, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bartlett said the Republican congressman had never voted on the issue and would not comment. However, after uncovering the 1998 medical marijuana bill that Mr. Bartlett voted unfavorably on, spokeswoman Lisa Wright cited two reasons for the vote: Marinol and National Institutes of Health studies.The NIH has said that smoking marijuana could cause harmful effects on the lungs, and Ms. Wright contends that Marinol can deliver the same benefits of marijuana."Democrats should know better, their base certainly approves of this," Mr. Murphy said. Mr. Murphy launched an organization called Republicans for Compassionate Access, which is dedicated to convincing representatives that "this is not political suicide, and that it is consistent with everything they have championed with votes in Annapolis," Mr. Murphy said. Source: Fredrick News-Post (MD)Author: Reagan Haynes, News-Post Staff Published: Wednesday, July 2, 2003Copyright: 2003 Great Southern Printing Website: http://www.fredericknewspost.com/Contact: http://www.fredericknewspost.com/contact/Related Articles & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Marijuana Fight To Be Continued http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16747.shtmlCanada, Maryland Going To Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16743.shtmlEhrlich Signs Marijuana Bill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16364.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by phil_debowl on July 02, 2003 at 18:38:01 PT Darwin... Check out www.kucinich.us His views are a mix of dem, and green parties. He tells exactly how he feels on most major issus if you click on the "issues" link on the top. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Trekkie on July 02, 2003 at 12:02:47 PT Yet another contradiction... "In 1998, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett was one of the congressmen who voted against changing marijuana's schedule. First, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bartlett said the Republican congressman had never voted on the issue and would not comment. However, after uncovering the 1998 medical marijuana bill that Mr. Bartlett voted unfavorably on, spokeswoman Lisa Wright cited two reasons for the vote: Marinol and National Institutes of Health studies."So, is Bartlett for the ingestion Marinol, because of the NIH study stating smoke is bad for the lungs? If this is the case, why did he not vote for a change? If he is for Marinol, the pharmicutical is still illegal because the feds have cannabis/THC listed as schedule 1 with "no medcal benefit." First, he lies about his vote, then backpedals with reasons why he SHOULD HAVE VOTED for it.You gotta love politicians. I know the devil does... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Virgil on July 02, 2003 at 11:35:03 PT Correct enough Medical marijuana advocates say there are two key reasons the drug is so difficult to legalize for sick people at the federal level: Money and politics. Close enough I guess. What I see stopping MMJ is an expensive and huge stonewall. When will American pseudo-journalists tell their readers about the stonewall that defends the Schedule One Lie? Since it is customary to furnish the best formulated answer I have to my own questions, I would say right before it is downgraded to a Schedule 2 narcotic. Now should it be really classified as Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 on an intellectual v political level? I would think those with the knowledge to decide would divide on the answer. As for me, I say dismantle the DEA like the CATO report suggested and quit playing the DEA game of scheduling cannabis. Get on with regulation and get over prohibition. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by darwin on July 02, 2003 at 10:42:22 PT well written I thought this was a well written article. Esp. the part about Democrats should know better than to oppose a policy shift that the majority of their voters support. If they'd adopt this issue as well as the renewable energy issue, they'd reclaim the voters they've lost to third party. This isn't going to happen with Leiberman or Gephardt. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 02, 2003 at 10:38:15 PT Correct Contact Information I made a mistake with the contact information so here is the correct link. Contact: http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/contact/index.htm [ Post Comment ] Post Comment