cannabisnews.com: Response To Medical Marijuana Response To Medical Marijuana Posted by FoM on July 10, 2000 at 18:21:14 PT By James R. McDonough Source: St. Petersburg Times I read with interest the St. Petersburg Times editorial, "Reefer madness remains," (June 24) which argues for more research on the potential benefits of so-called "medical marijuana." Madness is the appropriate word to describe the current trend of state ballot initiatives that puts seriously ill people at risk of getting even sicker by advocating the smoke of burning leaves as medicine. To advocate a liberalization of policy on marijuana research, the Times has trotted out the tired myth that the federal government is blocking research on the possible medicinal benefits of marijuana. In fact, the opposite is true. The Institute of Medicine study, which recognized that cannabinoids - the active components in marijuana - have potential medical use and was cited in the editorial was funded with federal dollars. The conclusions of its expert panel were very skeptical about the promise of smoked marijuana as medicine. Indeed, analysis of the marijuana research submissions to the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the past decade shows that almost none were able to pass peer review, an indication that medical experts - not government bureaucrats - could not see the validity in the proposed studies.The Food and Drug Administration's approval of Dronabinol, an oral medication that contains a synthetic form of THC, the relevant chemical in marijuana, dispels the notion that the federal government is opposed to researching the plant. What the government does oppose - and rightfully so - is the idea of smoked marijuana. There is strong evidence that smoking marijuana has detrimental health effects to the degree that it is unlikely ever to be approved by the FDA as a medicine. Unrefined marijuana contains approximately 400 chemicals that become combustible when smoked, producing in turn more than 2,000 impure chemicals. The IOM report states that, when used chronicalIy, "marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes."The IOM report concluded that cannabinoid drugs have potential for therapeutic use. It specifically named pain, nausea, vomiting, and lack of appetite as symptoms that might be alleviated. According to the report, cannabinoids are "moderately well suited" to combat AIDS wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and "probably have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory." Another report, by the National Institutes of Health, recognized the potential benefit of marijuana to help with appetite stimulation and AIDS wasting. These studies present a consistent theme: Cannabinoids in marijuana do show potential for symptom management of several conditions. But the finding most important to the debate is that the studies did not advocate smoked marijuana as medicine. To the contrary, the NIH report called for a non-smoked alternative as a focus of further research. The IOM report recommended smoking marijuana as medicine only in the most extreme cases, and then only under medical supervision.Unfortunately, many who advocate smoked marijuana as medicine do so only as a ruse in order to enable the legalization of marijuana. They reject scientific findings indicating that smoking a burning leaf does not measure up to modem standards of medicine. And they ignore the safeguards provided by established drug-approval procedures. This debate should be driven by science, not the ballot box. I agree with the Times that marijuana research be kept within the parameters of medical science. I disagree with the Times that this has not been done.Note: James R McDonough Is Director Of The Florida Office Of Drug Control.News Article Courtesy Of MapInc.http://mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n956/a07.htmlContact: letters sptimes.com Published: Monday July 10, 2000 Copyright: 2000 St. Petersburg TimesRelated Article & Web Site:I.O.M. Reporthttp://www.mpp.org/science.html Reefer Madness Remainshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6166.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by zion on July 11, 2000 at 15:58:38 PT Science verses Politics > This debate should be driven by science, not the ballot box. I agree with the Times that marijuana research be kept within the parameters of medical science. I disagree with the Times that this has not been done.> If police-state warriors truly believe that science should drive the drug debate, then:1. Why did the DEA refuse to reclassify marijuana from schedule I (no medical value)? The DEA is not a group of medical scientists.2. Why is it nearly impossible for universities across this nation to obtain marijuana and conduct scientific research? They have to apply to the DEA for permission. The DEA is not a group of medical scientists.3. Why is the emerging HEMP industry desperately struggling to survive admist DEA seizures of their products? This has nothing to do with smoking or the medical profession. The DEA is not a group of agriculture/natural resources scientists.I agree with Mr. McDonough, please let the scientists and medical experts handle drug control. Not the police-state warriors who are political appointees. Perhaps we'd see considerably less lives ruined through treating drug abuse as a medical problem than by throwing people in prison, seizing their possessions, breaking up their families, and trampling over constitutional liberties.Please, Mr. McDonough, REMOVE THE POLITICS FROM THE DRUG DEBATE. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dan Hillman on July 11, 2000 at 14:59:33 PT They're down to one argument. That smoking is bad. But, as Thomas points out, cannabis doesn't need to be smoked to be used as medicine.I think this article is a great sign! Because they're down to one (count-em) exactly one argument against medical cannabis, an argument that can be easily answered with 1) education (eat-up folks!)2) equipment (vaporizers) [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on July 11, 2000 at 04:53:15 PT: You may have something, there 4D and DCP have probably hit the nail squarely on the head. Come January, Barry leaves government service. (And that's *all* he's served - the government. Certainly not the public he was supposed to serve, but those who buttered his political bread.) Of course, I expect Barry to select his replacement mouthpiece, and McDonough used to work for McCaffrey, so I imagine that this is the latest in a round of political maneuverings to see who becomes the next "Czar". Something to ponder: in Article One, section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, it says that the US will confer no titles of nobility:Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state Pretty straightforward, no? So what do we need a Czar for? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by DCP on July 10, 2000 at 21:16:54 PT: McDonough has talent! This guy has talent! He can stuff more half-truths, distortions, and lies in seven paragraphs than anyone! He must be headed for Washington. DCP [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dddd on July 10, 2000 at 18:58:40 PT My Favorite Of all the idiots who write this type of article,this guy is my favorite.His writings are consistantly fabulous,and dazzlingly full of twisted crap.He has a certain style of heaping on the rubbish so blatantly,,it makes you wonder if he's just kidding. I think he's trying to be considered next in line for the next national czar..........dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Thomas on July 10, 2000 at 18:55:50 PT Could Have Called That One A Mile Away Note: James R McDonough Is Director Of The Florida Office Of Drug Control.I was into this article about two sentences when I knew this was one of those government supportive "opinions" sent in by one of McCaffrey's junior henchmen. By the way Mr. junior Nazi, pot doesn't have to be smoked. This is never discussed, however, because the only arguement they have is 'smoke contains carcinogens.' How pathetic! By the way - Yes the government does fund marijuana research sparingly. However, if your looking for negative effects you get to move to the front of the line. How many people have died from Viagra. Of course, this is different because Viagra addresses a 'real' medical emergency. Better put it on the fast track for FDA approval. It truly sickens me. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: