cannabisnews.com: Privatizing Pot





Privatizing Pot
Posted by CN Staff on July 11, 2003 at 12:44:35 PT
By Jacob Sullum
Source: Reason Magazine 
"The question of whether marijuana has any legitimate medical purpose should be determined by sound science and medicine." That is the federal government's official response to the medical marijuana movement, as expressed in November 2001 by Asa Hutchinson, then head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Since California and Arizona passed the first medical marijuana initiatives in 1996, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have insisted that the therapeutic value of cannabis should be judged by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on careful research, not by voters or state legislatures based on emotional appeals. 
Several years ago, Rick Doblin, president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), decided to take the government at its word by promoting the kind of research that could ultimately lead the FDA to approve marijuana as a prescription drug. But along with the usual obstacles posed by the notoriously arduous FDA approval process, MAPS encountered problems unique to marijuana. In particular, it found that the only legal source of marijuana for U.S. research was the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). As its name implies, NIDA focuses on marijuana's dangers rather than its potential benefits. Hence getting its permission for research on the drug's medical utility has been tricky. Although a few researchers have managed to obtain marijuana from NIDA, two studies approved by the FDA have been rejected by NIDA, and those examples have discouraged other researchers from bothering to apply. The additional layer of approval, which is not required for any other Schedule I drug, makes an already daunting process even more intimidating. Doblin's audacious but sensible solution is to cut NIDA out of the picture by establishing a private source of cannabis for research (which already has been done in the U.K.). To accomplish that goal, MAPS needs permission from the DEA, which it has been trying to get since June 2001. The history of this effort, described in detail on the MAPS Web site, demonstrates the disingenuousness of drug warriors who say their opposition to the medical use of marijuana is based on scientific concerns. At the same time that they are complaining about the lack of adequate evidence, they are blocking attempts to obtain it. MAPS wants to fund a marijuana production facility at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst that would be overseen by Lyle Craker, a professor in the school's Department of Plant and Soil Sciences who has extensive experience with medicinal plants. In addition to eliminating the gratuitous obstacle created by NIDA's marijuana monopoly, such a facility could provide better cannabis that would meet researchers' specifications and eventually be used as a legal medicine. NIDA's pot, grown under contract at the University of Mississippi for the last three decades, is of relatively low potency and quality. Its THC content ranges from 2 percent to 7 percent. "To improve the safety profile of its product," Doblin writes, "MAPS requires marijuana with a THC content in the 12-15% range, thereby reducing the amount of particulate matter inhaled per unit of THC and improving the risk/benefit ratio of the product." The risks of marijuana use can be further reduced with vaporizers, which heat cannabis to release THC rather than burning it. Doblin says these devices, the subject of MAPS-sponsored research, work especially well with high-potency marijuana. Dr. Ethan Russo, one of the researchers whose FDA-approved protocol was rejected by NIDA, interviewed patients who receive NIDA's marijuana under the government's "compassionate use" investigational new drug program (closed to new applicants since 1992). "Each of the Compassionate Use IND patients," he reports, "indicated to me that they would prefer to have properly manicured, seedless, unfertilized cannabis of a higher grade so that they might be able to smoke less material to obtain relief of their medical symptoms." He notes that NIDA's marijuana is not comparable to the cannabis typically used by patients in Europe, Canada, or the United States. In addition to producing higher-potency, cleaner marijuana, the University of Massachusetts operation proposed by MAPS could offer strains with varying levels of cannabinoids other than THC, some of which may contribute to marijuana's therapeutic effects. More important, a new supplier would allow companies trying to get marijuana approved as a medicine to test the same product they planned to market, as required by the FDA. NIDA's mandate is to produce marijuana for research, not for medicinal use. "There is no guarantee that marijuana provided by NIDA for research would be available for commercial use," Doblin notes. "NIDA-supplied marijuana is therefore inadequate for use in a privately funded drug development plan... No rational pharmaceutical company would invest millions of dollars in Phase III clinical trials of a drug that it cannot be certain it could produce for commercial sale should safety and efficacy be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the FDA." After an 18-month delay, the DEA responded to Lyle Craker's application for a license to produce marijuana with a series of specious objections. First it said licensing the University of Massachusetts facility would violate international drug treaties, an argument demolished in an analysis prepared by Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Policy Litigation Project, and two other Washington attorneys. Then the DEA said there's no evidence the current marijuana supply is inadequate.Dismissing Ethan Russo's points out of hand, the DEA insisted on seeing complaints from researchers who are currently using NIDA's marijuana. "While I recognize that the primary researchers now receiving plant material may openly state to you that they are satisfied with the current source," Craker replied, "I am sure you appreciate that in private conversations these same researchers indicate a fear of having the current supply eliminated if they complain about the available source material." The DEA's official record also does not reflect the researchers who would be interested in studying marijuana if a better supply were available and the approval process were less cumbersome. In short, the odds of breaking NIDA's marijuana monopoly do not look good. But the attempt has at least demonstrated that the drug warriors are not really interested in the thorough scientific investigation they claim to favor. "As long as NIDA is the sole source of supply" for cannabis, Doblin observes, "the FDA process will rightly be perceived by the public as obstructed, further fueling efforts by states to circumvent federal authority over the medical uses of marijuana through ballot initiatives or state legislation." The DEA's intransigence thus will validate state attempts to make marijuana available as a medicine regardless of what the federal government says. Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason, is the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, forthcoming in May from Tarcher/Putnam. Complete Title: Privatizing Pot: Can The Marijuana Monopoly Be Broken? Source: Reason Magazine (US)Author: Jacob SullumPublished: July 11, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Reason FoundationContact: letters reason.comWebsite: http://www.reason.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:MAPShttp://www.maps.org/The Missoula Studyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16656.shtmlTranscripts: Ethan Russo MD: CNews Chat http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15220.shtmlStudy Shows Therapeutic Benefits http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10581.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on July 14, 2003 at 16:49:37 PT:
 Religious Right to research cannabis for healing!
Aloha to Rick Doblin and MAPS. The Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute has for over 5 years held an application for bulk manufacture of controlled substance from DEA with our name on the mailing label. It is supposedly legally allowed with a permit to create a supply of high grade clinical cannabis for research and medical use. We withheld submitting it until our legal due process on a state level was complete. 
I already have met the three burdens applicable to a religious defense to use cannabis for healing in court. The fourth burden was on the state as to whether or not it had a "compelling state interest" in prohibiting my right to obey the law. So far none has been offered and the decision is awaiting appeal arguments or decision at the Hawaii State Supreme Court. It has been a year already. I suggest they are not ready to hear a case they must rule on in favor of justice. It must be served. I am also assured that the medical research projects DO in fact need and want better phyto-sanitary pre-rolled indexed clinical cannabis for better research. I have spoken to several directly who verified this. We too, propose to set up a central cultivation facility with the understanding and cooperation with local, state and federal agencies, to supply the needs of the legal outlets and end users. Where better than Hawaii, which has the only federally approved hemp project legiislated by our state? Rick Doblin is welcome to compare data and conceptual approaches with us any time. Thanks again for freedom, let it ring. Rev. Jonathan Adler
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on July 11, 2003 at 15:33:29 PT
study THIS!
from: http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03189.txtReport to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives:November 2002:(snip)...Abuse of State Laws to facilitate Illegal Drug Trafficking:The GAO Draft Report does not mention that state “medical marijuana” laws are routinely being abused to facilitate traditional illegal marijuana trafficking and use. Information acquired by DEA during its investigations of cannabis clubs would provide specific examples of this abuse. The report focuses exclusively on so-called medical use of marijuana and omits any mention of the abuse of state “medical marijuana” laws. The report fails to reflect the underlying criminal arena in which marijuana is produced and consumed and the significant profitability that drives the marijuana market. Because of that factor, there is a blurred line between medical and illegal commercial markets. Further, some U.S. Attorney’s Offices have indicated that in their district violent crimes associated with marijuana cultivation (such as homicides) create significant law enforcement and social issues. Without addressing the illegal production and diversion of marijuana, the GAO Draft Report provides an incomplete analysis of the impact of the “medical” marijuana laws on the enforcement of drug control laws.The passage of Proposition 215 in California and similar legislation in other states has created unfortunate circumstances for state and local law enforcement officers. The state initiatives also have provided legal loopholes for drug dealers and marijuana cultivators to avoid arrest and prosecution. This is due in part to California state government’s lack of guidance as to the implementation of the law and their seeming unwillingness to enforce state drug laws against traffickers who claim to be involved with marijuana under the state “medical marijuana” law. Further, those counties that have taken a public position on proposition 215 have contributed to the dilemma now being experienced by state and local law enforcement. The vague guidelines established throughout the counties in California sends a message to many that anyone who has a “recommendation” from a doctor is permitted to grow and possess certain (varying) amounts of marijuana.Impact on Law Enforcement Operations and Cooperation:The GAO Draft Report states that “[s]ome of the federal law enforcement officials we interviewed indicated that the introduction of state “medical marijuana” laws has had little impact on their operations.” This statement does not accurately reflect DEA’s experience in addressing state “medical marijuana” laws. One of the major effects of the states legislation is the worsening of relations between federal, state, and local law enforcement.As a result of these circumstances the most significant issue that now appears to be occurring is the recognizable rift that the laws have created between state and local law enforcement and federal drug agents, who are mandated to enforce the federal law. There have been and undoubtedly will continue to be instances that occur in the affected states where local officers working joint investigations with DEA have been ordered or instructed not to seize contraband plants and/or marijuana by their district attorney or state’s attorney office. In some cases, DEA has been required to obtain Federal warrants to seize marijuana being held by local police agencies to prevent the return of the marijuana to persons pursuant to State court orders. This conflict has lead to several heated incidences on the West Coast.For example, in one recent case, where federal agents were cooperating with local officers to serve a state search warrant at a residence, the District Attorney of Butte County, California, advised a Butte County detective to arrest a DEA Special Agent if the agent confiscated six marijuana plants that were found during the operation. The District Attorney asserted that under California’s “medical marijuana” law the plants were lawfully possessed; however, such possession violates federal law. The plants were seized and submitted to the DEA laboratory for destruction without incident only after negotiations between the U.S. Attorney, the District Attorney, and DEA representatives to resolve the issue. In another instance, the Oakland Police Department referred to the DEA a shooting incident involving the theft of a pound of marijuana because the city of Oakland prohibits its officers from pursuing any investigation of marijuana that may be claimed to be subject to the state “medical marijuana” law. In this instance the “victim” of the robbery was a marijuana recipient under the state “medical marijuana” law who was attempting to sell the marijuana he had to his robbers. Such conflicts over individual mandates have required frequent intervention by DEA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the DOJ due to the clear lack of a coordinated drug law enforcement policy.Because state and local law enforcement cannot work on certain marijuana cases under these laws, federal seized asset sharing has been negatively impacted. In the state of Oregon, the state legislation prevents the federal government from sharing seized assets directly with state/local law enforcement entities in cases involving asset seizure without criminal prosecution initiated following marijuana grow seizures.It is much more difficult for federal and state officials to prosecute marijuana cases where medicinal use can be claimed. There is growing local sentiment that because of these laws, federal law enforcement resources should not be devoted to marijuana prosecutions. This sentiment also manifests itself injury trials where prosecutors have jury nullification concerns (as a result of softened public attitudes towards marijuana).In these states, the perception that marijuana is accepted by the public has significantly impacted law enforcement. According to Oregon State Police authorities, outlaw motorcycle gang members are now applying for marijuana caregiver status, believing that this will officially authorize their marijuana grow operations. Marijuana grow operations have always presented problems to law enforcement, and marijuana potentially subject to state “medical marijuana” laws only serve to further confuse the general public on this drug. Public perception on this issue appears to be further softened as a result of strong marketing strategies by pro-legalization/medicinal use advocates. Groups supporting the legalization of marijuana in Alaska are now preparing new proposals to legalize all marijuana. The public confusion on this issue can be demonstrated by the fact that the voters in these states approved the medical use of marijuana but do not allow use in public places (Oregon) or in medical facilities, or nearby school grounds, recreation centers or youth centers (Alaska). This sends a mixed message to the public as no other medicines are restricted in this way.Marijuana As Medicine:The GAO Draft Report’s discussion of the debate over the medical value of marijuana is inadequate and does not present an accurate picture. The draft states that “[t]he potential medical value of marijuana has been a continuing debate.” It fails to mention, however, that smoked marijuana has never been approved as medicine by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has never been proven safe and effective in sound scientific studies. Further, at its 2001 Annual Meeting, the American Medical Association (AMA)adopted the following as its policy on the medicinal use of marijuana:“The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease; (2) The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies. (3) The AMA urges the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana.... (4) The AMA believes that the NIH should use its resources and influence to support the development of a smoke-free inhaled delivery system for marijuana or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to reduce the health hazards associated with the combustion and inhalation of marijuana.”:We also believe the GAO Draft Report should at least reference DEA final orders concerning petitions to reschedule marijuana published in 1992 and 2001. These reports contain a comprehensive explanation of the scientific and legal bases for keeping marijuana in Schedule 1.In addition, the GAO Draft Report fails to mention that medical “marijuana” is legally available in the prescription drug Marinol. A pharmaceutical product, Marinol is widely available by 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 in 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. 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 FDA. Information about Marinol is necessary to understand the debate over medical use of marijuana.There is no mention in the report on the prescription of Marinol in these states, or more specifically the doctors identified in the study, as compared to doctors not prescribing marijuana under state “medical marijuana” laws versus their prescriptions authored for Marinol, if any. Although the information concerning the prescription of Marinol may not yet be available, it would be available through a longer term study by DEA Office of Diversion Control. It would be informative to determine if Marinol is sold in any quantity to pharmacies in these states by distributors for the manufacturer, both before and after state “medical marijuana” legislation was passed.As noted by the above comments, we believe that the report falls short by not adequately addressing these significant issues. I urge you will consider our concerns in preparing the final GAO report on this important subject. If you have any questions regarding the Department’s comments, you may contact Vickie L. Sloan, Director, Audit Liaison Office, on (202) 514-0469.Sincerely,Signed by Robert F. Diegelman:Robert F. Diegelman:Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration:[End of section]Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:GAO Contacts:Paul Jones (202) 512-8777John Mortin (202) 512-8777:Staff Acknowledgments:Tanya Cruz, Christine Davis, Francisco Enriquez, Evan Gilman, and Monica Kelly made key contributions to this report.
Complete Report: More proof they know drug war is crime.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on July 11, 2003 at 14:48:35 PT
Hollywood producer busted for pot
 HOLLYWOOD heavyweight Lynda Obst cooled her high-priced heels in a Texas lockup after being nabbed in a pot bust. The producer of the Kate Hudson-Matthew McConaughey vehicle "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" was arrested Wednesday after being caught with an ounce of pot at Austin Bergstrom Airport. Obst, who also produced "Sleepless in Seattle," was held for six hours at the Travis County jail and released on $1,500 bail, an airport rep confirmed. Obst didn't return calls.http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Virgil on July 11, 2003 at 13:32:42 PT
GAO report on DEA is released
Here is the release of the recent GAO report on the DEA- http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03413.pdf
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on July 11, 2003 at 13:14:36 PT
Now they are just showing their *ss
All *ss all the time America. We are sick. The rest of the world will find the right path without us. We are going in the opposite direction and all they can see if they look at us is one great big American *ss. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment