cannabisnews.com: It's Right and Ethical To OK Marijuana as Medicine It's Right and Ethical To OK Marijuana as Medicine Posted by CN Staff on August 24, 2003 at 09:23:37 PT By the Editorial Board of the Union-Bulletin Source: Union-Bulletin The Bush administration apparently has some real problems with the way Oregonians choose to govern themselves. First, Attorney General John Ashcroft wages a campaign to overturn Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law that was twice approved by voters. And now the White House drug czar, John Walters, has been pounding the Portland pavement denouncing the state's medical marijuana law. ``What's really going on is that sick and dying people are being used as a political prop to legalize marijuana,' Walters said last week during his visit to Oregon. Walter's assertion is absurd. We agree with Walters that marijuana, like other mind-altering drugs, creates many problems. Marijuana use can lead to lives being destroyed. And that's why we believe the federal government - as well as state and local law-enforcement agencies - must continue to take action to stop the illegal distribution and use of marijuana as well as other drugs.But we strongly believe, as do the voters of Oregon (and seven other states including Washington), that marijuana should be legal for legitimate medical purposes. There is evidence marijuana has medical benefits for many diseases, including helping cancer patients control their suffering. Clear scientific proof has not been found, but that's mostly because the government has not allowed any substantive study.Walters said the Bush administration is currently conducting research to find out if any ingredients in marijuana have medical benefit and can be put into prescription drugs. That's where the Bush administration should be putting its energy.But Walters isn't optimistic - some might say he's downright cynical - about the prospects of finding a way to turn the ingredients from marijuana into an acceptable prescription drug. ``It's not about feeling better,' Walters added. ``It's about what is ethical and efficacious medical practice.'Actually, it is about feeling better. It's about controlling pain and nausea. It's about making a person's last days of life tolerable. Many people who were suffering have said that marijuana has reduced it.But Walters is right that it is about ethical medical practices. Medical providers have an ethical obligation to ease suffering. Drugs such as codeine, morphine or other medicines - that, by the way, are illegal on the streets - are administered by prescription. In the meantime, the approach taken in Oregon (and Washington) to make marijuana available to the sick is an ethical one. Note: The Bush administration's drug czar is off base in his criticism of Oregon's voter-approved medical marijuana law.Source: Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (WA)Published: August 19, 2003Copyright: 2003 Walla Walla Union-BulletinContact: letters ubnet.comWebsite: http://www.union-bulletin.com/Related Articles & Web Site:SOMM-NEThttp://www.somm-net.org/Patients Defend Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17028.shtmlMedical Marijuana Giving Cops a Headache http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16993.shtmlMedical Marijuana Connection Growing http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14706.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by FoM on August 24, 2003 at 21:51:24 PT Drug Policy Alliance Action Alert Unshackle Medical Marijuana Research! Urge Dr. Andrea Barthwell at the drug czar's office to unshackle governmental control on medical marijuana production and research by approving the UMass Amherst application for a license to produce marijuana for federally-approved research. Help end the monopoly on supply which is an intentional obstacle to research and FDA-approval. http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=11290The non-medical use of marijuana was criminalized (taxed out of legal existence) in the US in 1937 but medical use was still permitted until 1941, when marijuana was officially taken out of the United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary. Since that time, all legal production of marijuana for medical research has been funded (monopolized) by the federal government.The federal government does not retain a monopoly on the production of any other Schedule I drug, with multiple private producers having DEA licenses to manufacture MDMA, psilocybin, etc., for sale for use in federally-approved research. In fact, the laws regulating the licensing of producers of Schedule I drugs specifically require adequate competition, the opposite of a monopoly. Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1301.33(b), states: "In order to provide adequate competition, the Administrator shall not be required to limit the number of manufacturers in any basic class to a number less that that consistent with maintenance of effective controls against diversion solely because a smaller number is capable of producing an adequate and uninterrupted supply." At present, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) contracts to Dr. ElSohly at the University of Mississippi to grow marijuana at an outdoor, fenced facility with 24-hour armed guards. The product that is grown is seeded, leafy, low-potency material with stems included. The product is sent to Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina for rolling into standardized cigarettes, usually with about 4% THC, with the highest potency available (in small quantities) being 7% THC. A medical marijuana potency study conducted by MAPS and CaNORML showed that the most popular varieties of marijuana offered to patients at Buyers' Clubs around the country were in the range of 12-15% THC, substantially reducing the amount of smoke or vapors (if vaporizers are used) that patients need to inhale to obtain the desired dose of cannabinoids. The low potency of NIDA's material has been criticized by patients and researchers as being one reason why NIDA's material is undesirable for a serious drug development research program.Furthermore, NIDA has twice refused to provide marijuana to FDA-approved medical marijuana research protocols, claiming it didn't like the design of the studies. As long as NIDA retains its monopoly on the supply of marijuana that can be used in research, private sponsors of medical marijuana research 1) cannot select the exact strain of marijuana with the exact mix of cannabinoid content that the sponsors consider most likely to be safe and efficacious, 2) cannot manufacture the drug they wish to research and thus are not in control of either availability and cost, and 3) cannot guarantee to supply the exact drug that was researched for possible prescription use since NIDA is legally authorized to grow marijuana for research but cannot supply it on a prescription basis. No rational sponsor will invest millions of dollars in medical marijuana research while it remains dependent for its supply of research material on NIDA, whose institutional mission is diametrically opposed to exploring the beneficial uses of marijuana and which cannot in any case legally provide marijuana for prescription use.Prof. Craker originally submitted his application to DEA on June 25, 2001, with his facility to be funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS, www.maps.org), a non-profit research and educational organization working to develop marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine. For the first year, DEA claimed to have "lost" the application and refused to accept the resubmission of a photocopy because it didn't have an original signature. Then, DEA returned the original application to Prof. Craker with a DEA date stamp showing it had been received when it was sent and was never lost! Prof. Craker resubmitted the original application and, for the second year, DEA unsuccessfully tried to encourage Prof. Craker and the UMass Amherst administrators to withdraw the application. DEA also claimed that it was prohibited from licensing the privately-funded UMass Amherst facility due to US international treaty obligations. This claim was refuted in a legal analysis submitted to DEA that was prepared pro bono by DC law firm Covington & Burling and the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project. DEA's claim is also refuted by the example of the April 1998, British Home Office licensing of privately-funded GW Pharmaceuticals to produce marijuana for medical purposes, without a peep of protest from the International Narcotic Control Board which monitors compliance with international drug control treaties. (In 2002, GW Pharmaceuticals produced 5-6 tons of dried material, substantially more than the 25 pounds Prof. Craker is seeking to produce.) Finally, on June 25, 2003, DEA posted an announcement of Prof. Craker's application in the Federal Register, even though it should have posted it shortly after the license was submitted. Public comments, limited to people who have applied for or possess a similar license, must be submitted by Sept. 22,2003, with a decision from DEA expected shortly thereafter. If DEA rejects the application, which is what it has indicated will probably take place, a lawsuit will be initiated and yet another DEA Administrative Law Judge hearing will result about the medical use of marijuana. Alternatively, if enough political pressure can be brought to bear on DEA and ONDCP, DEA will approve the license. Then, as Ex-DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson stated on November 28, 2001 "the question of whether marijuana has any legitimate medical purpose should [will] be determined by sound science and medicine." A history of the efforts of MAPS and Dr. Craker to obtain a DEA license for the UMass Amherst production facility, with extensive supporting documents, can be found at: http://www.maps.org/mmj/mmjfacility.htmlTake Action: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=11290 More Tests Needed on Medical Marijuana Use [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by afterburner on August 24, 2003 at 16:41:57 PT: Feelin' Irie "Legalizing Marijuana ... would take the power from the elite and they wouldn't be able to continue their Metropolistic lifestyle to the degree they so desire. " Metropolistic, monopolistic, megalomaniacalistic, Mephistophelistic [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by RasAric on August 24, 2003 at 16:03:02 PT: not about feeling better.....cha.... You better believe it is about feeling better....Not only that it is about not being prosecuted and persecuted for doing something that is a GOD given right to any adult who chooses to do so. It's about the constitution and those of us who are in full realization that there is an organized group of wealthy Nazis who are trying their hardest to suspend our constitutional rights. The prohibition of alcohol failed because A.the vatican, who is running this bush regime uses alcohol as a sacriment. And B. The Pigs who are the wealthiest use alcohol as their drug of choice as well as religious sacriment....Oh yeah and C. Alcohol is the MOST addictive, non enlightening drug on the market making it a perfect opiate for the masses. Legalizing Marijuana is not that easy to do because then we would be a self sufficient country and we would not have a need to exert our control issues over the rest of the world. Also it would take the power from the elite and they wouldn't be able to continue their Metropolistic lifestyle to the degree they so desire. Every time I light a spliff these days It signifies the "burning of the Bush" and his administration. Rastafar-I click here to impeach bush and his administration [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Petard on August 24, 2003 at 11:12:00 PT More BS The "it's not about feeling better" ploy won't fly!!! What's Viagra other than a feel good drug? How about Rogaine, or is hair loss a debilitating disease now? How about the other prescription allergy meds, aren't those feel good meds too for most users (not the deathly allergic, but the mildly allergic ones)? Most of the Valium, Prozac, Lipitor, the list runs on and on, are ALL about feeling better. Cat dander and dog fur, or hair loss, or depression, may be uncomfortable but it ain't being cured by meds, it simply makes people feel better. It's about the control and the money, that's what it's about. Another bald faced lie or simple confusion by the facts for Pee and Asscraft and Bushit to ponder. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by afterburner on August 24, 2003 at 11:01:51 PT: You Take the High Road, and I'll Take the Low Road UK: PUB LTE: Cannabis High Aids Drug's Effectiveness 24 Aug 2003 Scotland On Sunday http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v03/n1269/a06.html?397 Excerpt: "There are always going to be sick and suffering folks using cannabis for medical purposes. They are not going to go away because a pharmaceutical solution has been provided for some of them. The House of Lords of Science and Technology Committee recommended strongly in 1998 that whole cannabis be made available for medical purposes. Holland is doing so right across the waterway. It is a political reality in countries possessed by reefer madness, like Britain, that until recreational use is fully legalised, people like Biz Ivol will continue to be persecuted." [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by afterburner on August 24, 2003 at 10:46:57 PT: Interesting Link US WA: OPED: Lock Up The Dangerous Ones, Help The Rest 23 Aug 2003 Port Orchard Independent http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v03/n1269/a10.html?397 Excerpt: "We are a society that is failing the weak among us. For a Christian country, we act very un-Christ-like concerning our drug abusers." [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Patrick on August 24, 2003 at 10:23:15 PT Hang em with their own rope… Speaking of studies.Crime rate lowest since 1973This article is currently on CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/24/crime.rate.ap/index.htmlExperts say a number of factors have driven the crime rate down, including a more mature, less violent illegal drug trade, a drop in gang membership and even improved home locks and alarms that deter would-be burglars. If a less violent drug trade is one of the major factors in reduced crime, imagine just how much further crime statistics could be reduced if the feds simply ended prohibition altogether. It's the same formula stupid. Alcohol Prohibition created the Al Capones. Marijuana Prohibition created the Illegal Drug Trade/Cartels. It's not rocket science stupid it's supply & demand. Or under the current Schedule 1 lie its Confiscate and Incarcerate. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by afterburner on August 24, 2003 at 10:19:49 PT: What about the Children? "Drugs such as codeine, morphine or other medicines - that, by the way, are illegal on the streets - are administered by prescription." Doesn't that send a mixed message to the children? Apply the same yardstick to cannabis medicine.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, mind by mind, computer by computer, the basis of cannabis prohibition is falling. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by lombar on August 24, 2003 at 10:03:13 PT Cannabis prohibition... ..has destroyed more lives than cannabis ever will. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Patrick on August 24, 2003 at 10:02:20 PT Hogwash Clear scientific proof has not been found, but that's mostly because the government has not allowed any substantive study.I disagree here. Walters and the rest of the Prohibs should look at the same study that tells them Woodstock weed has 2%THC and that BC bud has close to 30%. A comprehensive 30+ years study with that much detail should show at the least as much medical value in marijuana's "increased" potency as the main ingredient in Exlax. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by BigDawg on August 24, 2003 at 09:45:12 PT Yes it can! "Marijuana use can lead to lives being destroyed. "... by J.Pee Walters. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment