cannabisnews.com: The Role of Cannabis - Real Agenda Nipped in Bud





The Role of Cannabis - Real Agenda Nipped in Bud
Posted by FoM on May 20, 2001 at 07:37:32 PT
By Kevin A. Sabet
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
In its resounding "no" to California organizations that distribute marijuana - supposedly for medical purposes - the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Congress' "determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception" to any prohibitions in the Controlled Substances Act. The court also rejected medical necessity as a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana. The ruling is in accord with the scientific evidence on marijuana, at least in its smoked form. 
Despite howls of outrage from legalization advocates, the truth is that smoked marijuana has never been accepted by the Food and Drug Administration or any reputable medical association for medicinal use. A 1999 study by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine concluded that "smoked marijuana is a harsh delivery system and should generally not be recommended for medical use." This, naturally, cuts little ice with medical marijuana proponents, most of whom come largely from the same circles that have attempted to legalize pot and other drugs for decades. Which is not to say that the isolated components of marijuana - currently being researched extensively - may never be found to have medical value. If they do, delivery systems such as patches, injections and pills will be developed. Unfortunately for the recreational pot users who hide behind the smoke screen of "medical use," marijuana in its smoked form will likely never be approved - even for people with HIV, often held up as Exhibit A by the legalization movement. The National Institutes of Health has warned that "people with HIV and others whose immune system is impaired should avoid marijuana use." Marijuana smoked long term has been shown to contribute to cancer and problems with the respiratory and reproductive systems. The smoke contains some of the same carcinogens found in tobacco - often in higher concentrations. Smoking just five joints per week, a NIH study showed, is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for seven days. It also impairs motor skills, a medical fact I learned firsthand when a driver high on dope killed a friend of mine in junior high school. Contrary to popular myth, marijuana can kill. Also contrary to popular myth, opponents of California's Proposition 215 and other "medical use" proposals do not lack compassion. No one I know would argue against properly conducted, tightly controlled experiments on marijuana in all its forms, if there is a chance that it can alleviate the suffering of those in pain. But we also know that marijuana, at least in its smoked form, is not a medicine, and allowing it is simply drug legalization by the back door. Ethan Nadelmann, a well-known academic and critic of current drug policy, believes that "possession of small amounts of any drug for personal use has to be legal" and that such drugs could even be "available to adults by mail order. " Under a legalization plan proposed by Nadelmann's colleague, Arnold Trebach, "addicts would be able to purchase heroin and needles they need at reasonable prices from a non-medical drugstore." The sugar daddy of the medical marijuana movement, financier George Soros, once told Nadelmann, "We are basically in agreement. I empower you to accomplish our common objectives." Nadelmann's objective, lest we forget, is to "legalize the personal use of drugs in America." Soros has said he is "comfortable with that." He must be, because he is paying for such efforts - including giving grants to Berkeley's marijuana lobby, Californians for Compassionate Use. One wonders how "comfortable" all the proponents of the loosely drawn Proposition 215 are with that. Under 215 - which now looks to be in trouble in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling - "any illness for which marijuana provides relief" is fair game, whether it be a headache or a hangnail. The city of Berkeley looks set to follow Oakland's lead and become a marijuana-safe zone, under the guise of Proposition 215, despite the volumes of scientific evidence suggesting smoked marijuana may do more harm than good. Bay Area officials should be wary of being "progressive" on this issue. By allowing smoked marijuana, they not only do something the courts are ruling illegal, but something wholly unscientific and ultimately inhumane. Kevin A. Sabet is president of Citizens for a Drug-Free Berkeley and a senior at UC Berkeley. He was a speech writer for former drug-czar Barry McCaffrey. Note: By ruling against doobies as legal pain relievers, the U.S. Supreme Court lit up debate over its no-exceptions interpretation of the federal Controlled Substance Act. Complete Title: The Role of Cannabis - Snuffing Out Medical Marijuana - Real Agenda Nipped in The Bud Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Kevin A. SabetPublished: Sunday, May 20, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page C - 8 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Sites:TLC - DPFhttp://www.lindesmith.org/O.C.B.C. Versus The U.S. Government News http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmThe Role of Cannabis - Snuffing Out Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9800.shtmlNerves Need Marijuana-Like Substance http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9799.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #16 posted by Lehder on May 22, 2001 at 09:30:57 PT
Have you no decency?
asks Dan B. Fifty years ago this question brought an anticlimactic end to the witch hunt for communists that lurked in the morphine addicted mind of Senator Joseph McCarthy. But, asked again today, we see no effect. That's because the drug wars have no decency. Can we be any more indecent than to put Robert Downey into a prison, than to blast a shotgun hole into the back of eleven-year-old ALberto Sepulveda? A government that seeks to put Bobby Fischer into prison for ten years for playing chess has no decency. The nine-year quest to imprison the former World Chess Champion, an American national treasure, shows that the government is simply hateful and insane. The war on drugs has nothing to do with drugs. Charging the Los Alamos scientist Wehn Ho Lee with fifty-nine felonies, holding him in solitary confinement for nine months and then releasing him for a lack of evidence shows again that the government is beyond any form of reason and crazed with hatred for its own citizens. The government is in the hands of criminals of the lowest form, poseurs and sick manipulators who destroy the constitution and the lives of innocent people for their personal gain.When everyone in the country has an Internet connection and has been educated to the truth of the drug war, when every single citizen outside the federal government has dispensed with her fears, realizes the truth about the evil of the war on drugs and openly opposes it, then the federal government will continue with is hateful police actions, confiscations and incarcerations. It is out of control and absolutely unresponsive to the will of the people. What is to be done?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by craig on May 21, 2001 at 10:47:31 PT:
article
If pot were legal medical marijuana or hemp for that matter would not be an issue, Duh!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Kevin Hebert on May 21, 2001 at 10:42:25 PT:
My response to the SF Chronicle
Dear Editors:Kevin Sabet's "The Role of Cannabis - Real Agenda Nipped in Bud" was an example of how addiction to drug laws can impair a person's brain.The article was so full of mistakes, exaggerations, and outright untruths that after reading it, one would think marijuana was a new drug that is destined to destroy society.This is, of course, not the case. Marijuana has been used as therapeutic, safe medicine for over 5000 years with zero deaths from use. No other medicine can attest such an exemplary record.Sabet seems to have been plucked from William Bennett's bag of puppets: pull the strings and watch the sing-song rhetoric flow.He writes that the FDA has not approved marijuana. He leaves out the reason for this: politics, not science.If you truly care about the people of San Francisco, many of whom need or one day will need medical marijuana, then please require your editorials to at least maintain some semblance of fact-based reporting.            Sincerely,              Kevin M. Hebert              Amherst, MA 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Dan B on May 21, 2001 at 07:41:27 PT:
Sent him a letter
I sent Kevin Sabet the LTE I posted below with the following additional note:"Just thought I'd let you know that your actions are not helping anyone. Your blind rage against legitimate users of medical marijuana is a solid indication of your inability to think rationally and logically regarding this issue. Your selective reading practices also limit your understanding of this issue, as is indicated by your incomplete and inaccurate representation of the IOM report. Read studies by Dr. Donald Abrams, Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, Dr. Paul Consroe, and a host of others to gain some valuable knowledge on this subject. And read the IOM report for what it says, not what you want for it to say. Speak with those who use marijuana for medical purposes, and see what they think of your position against them.Studies show that about 20% of cancer and AIDS patients do not respond favorably to any of the currently approved antiemetic medications, that about 10% of glaucoma patients do not respond favorably to currently approved medications for their conditions, and that Marinol is far inferior to smoked cannabis because it contains only one of the 60 cannabinoids found in whole cannabis and is thus inferior to the original product, it requires patients who are already nauseated to swallow a pill (think about that for a minute), if they can keep it down it takes two hours for it to begin working, and when it does begin working there is no way to titrate dosage. Smoking cannabis is a legitimate alternative to those patients who do not respond to other medications, including dronabinol (Marinol). Study after study proves this fact.Have a little compassion for the sick and dying. Have you no decency?Daniel Butterworth 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Monvor on May 21, 2001 at 04:59:23 PT
Ah another target
Would everyone and their brother join me in e-mailing this tyrant wannabe.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Rambler on May 21, 2001 at 04:49:31 PT
Sabet
Thanx for the link on this character Kap.This guy is a realdrug war darling.I could see him golfing with Bob Weiner,and James McDonough,at acountry club in Florida,guests of Bill McCollum
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on May 21, 2001 at 04:10:30 PT:
Ah, but you see, he's not a journalist.
And he really has no intention of becoming one.Mr. Sabet's writings can best be compared to an infomercial for one of those get-rich-quick schemes, which are largely about selling you a book or tapes. Which tells you how to sucker other people into buying the same book or tapes you did, and whereby recover the money you lost when you were suckered. Full of praise for his side, while conveniently ignoring the less savory espects of the trade...like misrepresentation of the facts.Nope, Mr. Sabet is a mouthpiece, studying to be a lobbyist. He has a bright future ahead of him...until he meets one of the people his efforts have harmed. which I'd very much like to see.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by fixjuxa on May 20, 2001 at 18:44:23 PT:
What?
"Smoking just five joints per week, a NIH study showed, is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for seven days"So smoking 140 cigarettes is the equivalent to smoking 5 joints, huh? How can journalist get away with this kind of bullshit?Adam
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Charlie on May 20, 2001 at 15:32:42 PT
Warrior
Apparently this drug warrior's intent is to get a pat on the back from Mr. Walters and maybe tap into the war che$t again down the road. So much more of the same tired bs...this guys head has been up his arse for a long time.Drug-free Berkeley, now there's an oxymoron...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on May 20, 2001 at 14:51:14 PT:
Presenting Mr. Sabet
The following link provides something of a biography of Mr. Sabet:http://www.atlantabahai.org/news_ctr/biographies/sabet.htmIncluded with the bio is his email address:Kevin Sabet, President INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN ACTION Email: kevinsabet hotmail.com In the following article, we learn just how well Mr. Sabet has learned the anti lessons of obfuscation and ommission of facts:Cannabis Sativa as a Medical Application: The Need to Distinguish Between Isolated Cannabinoids and Smoked Marijuana,,/B> by Kevin A. Sabet (published in Addictions magazine ca 1999)http://www.preventcrime.net/sabet.htmIn it he states:"On December 30, 1996, Gen. BarryMcCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, was joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Attorney General Janet Reno in issuing warnings to any doctor who prescribed marijuana, classified as a Schedule I drug, signaling its high potential for abuse and lack of acceptance for medical use. As of 1999 however, no medical licenses had been seized, and many counties openly provided marijuana for "patients" while the federal government looked the other way.What Mr. Sabet conveniently chooses to leave out is that fact that some California doctors, rightly incensed at the threat levied by the Reno-Shalala-McCaffrey trio against their First Amendment rights, successfully sued the Feds and made them back off. But like most antis, Mr. Sabet simply cannot admit thet he was defeated, much less admit that he was defeated for being in the wrong. Instead, in his article, he prefers to leave out this very salient fact, as it would detract from the point he was trying to make. Which in turn causes the inference that nothing untoward had happened on the part of the Feds; the Feds did not get their fingers burned for their unConstitutional threat to silence doctors, and that the failure of this sordid policy stemmed, of all things, from a seeming lack of a backbone on the part of the Federal government. I can't possibly read this any other way. If you can, please enlighten me.This tendency of playing fast and loose with the facts is a pattern of behavior that seems to be almost a character trait amongst antis. So, in addition to writing to the paper to let them know what you think of this young man's presumption to speak knowledgeably concerning medical matters - when he, himself, possesses no medical license - you can let the young Mr. Sabet know how you feel, personally.Ain't technology wonderful?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by lookinside on May 20, 2001 at 13:29:39 PT:
don'tcha love this guy?
i would be willing to place a wager that mr. sabet CANNOTprovide a verifiable incident to bolster his claim ofknowing a person killed in an automobile accident by anotherperson proven to be under the influence of marijuana...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on May 20, 2001 at 13:29:28 PT:
My Letter
Dear Editor:I appreciate the May 20, 2001 article by Kevin A. Sabet, "The Role of Cannabis: Real Agenda Nipped in Bud," because it highlights why Mr. Sabet feels so strongly against marijuana and those who use it, medicinally or socially. Mr. Sabet had the unfortunate experience of losing a friend during junior high school to a traffic accident in which a driver was high on marijuana. I know such a loss is terribly difficult to overcome, as I too lost a friend just prior to my high school years. He fell five hundred feet down a Montana waterfall and slowly died as we waited six hours for a Search and Rescue helicopter to come for him. I could have chosen to blame the late Search and Rescue helicopter, remaining angry at Search and Rescue personnel and helicopter operators for the rest of my life, trouncing them as incompetents and labeling them fools. I did not. I recognize that sometimes life is unpredictable, and we have to take the bad with the good. And I still love the beauty of a waterfall.Mr. Sabet chose to generalize his terrible experience to all marijuana users, living out his vengeance toward them through legal channels that amount to socially-approved prejudice and discrimination. He has taken his anger toward one marijuana user who made a stupid decision that ended in tragedy and turned it against the world. I find that response both misguided and hateful.  Daniel Butterworth, Ph.D.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dan B on May 20, 2001 at 11:00:54 PT:
Sabet's Motivation Revealed
It also impairs motor skills, a medical fact I learned firsthand when a driver high on dope killed a friend of mine in junior high school.We learn much about Kevin Sabet in this statement. First, we learn that he blames marijuana for the car accident that killed his friend, yet he is unwilling to provide any details as to the nature of the crash (Who was driving, the junior high kid? How long before driving had the person with marijuana in his or her system allegedly smoke? What other variables may have led to the crash?).Second, we learn the impetus for his crusade against even medical marijuana users: he is still angry because of one person's actions that supposedly resulted in the death of his friend, so he generalizes that person's actions to an entire population and actively supports a very literal war against that entire population. This is no different than the white guy who is mugged by a black guy, then holds a permanent grudge against all people with skin tone darker than his own. It is outright prejudice based on an unfair and unjust stereotype, and it is wrong.Unfortunately, the casual uninformed reader will likely be swayed by this emotional appeal, however illogical. It's up to us to make sure those people read a rebuttal in tomorrow's paper. I'm writing one as soon as I get back from the store, and I'll post it here when I'm finished.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by lookinside on May 20, 2001 at 09:53:06 PT:
don'tcha love this guy?
dear editor,thank you for publishing kevin sabet's article...itclarifies his inability to take an informed and unbiasedstand on medical marijuana...my wife has suffered from a variety of ailments over thelast 22 years, including cancer 3 times...we've foundthrough experience that cannabis is effective in relievingsymptoms for all her current medical problems...it hasallowed her to reduce dosages of necessary but harmfulpharmaceutical medications...her doctors(well knownspecialists) concur...if mr. sabet takes my wife's medicine away from her...itwill be over my dead body...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by observer on May 20, 2001 at 09:09:57 PT
MARIHUANA CAN KILL!
 Kevin A. Sabet . . . Citizens for a Drug-Free Berkeley . . . He was a speech writer for former drug-czar Barry McCaffrey. see:Goebbels' Principles of Propagandahttp://www.mcad.edu/classrooms/POLITPROP/palace/library/goebbels.htmlA 1999 study by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine concluded that "smoked marijuana is a harsh delivery system and should generally not be recommended for medical use." "Generally?" That means in specific cases, smoked cannabis is indicated.see:http://www.marijuananews.com/executive_summary_of_the_iom_rep.htmhttp://www.marijuananews.com/cowan/prohibitionism_after_the_iom_rep.htm marijuana proponents, most of whom come largely from the same circles that have attempted to legalize pot and other drugs for decades. Note the shrewd deflection from issues involving the JAILING of adults, to the bogeyman of "legalization", instead. This politico knows it is easier to whip up anger and opposition to something ("legalization"), than it is for him to have to defend jailing adults for using a plant. So, he evades the issue of jail: jailing marijuana patients, jailing users as "dealers" and conspirators. Instead, he attacks "legalization" and those evil people who disagree with him. The National Institutes of Health has warned that "people with HIV and others whose immune system is impaired should avoid marijuana use." see:CLAIM #5: MARIJUANA IMPAIRS IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTIONINGhttp://www.marijuana.com/facts/Exposing_05_1095.htmletc.Marijuana smoked long term has been shown to contribute to cancer and problems with the respiratory and reproductive systems. The smoke contains some of the same carcinogens found in tobacco - often in higher concentrations. see:Pot Shrinks Tumors - Government Knew in '74http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/5/thread5972.shtmlhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9211.shtmlANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY OF CANNABINOIDShttp://www.feist.com/~hemplady/med6.htmetc. It also impairs motor skills, a medical fact I learned firsthand when a driver high on dope killed a friend of mine in junior high school. see:UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1161/a02.htmlUniversity Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\1999\03\990325110700.htmAustralia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.htmlAustralia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html Contrary to popular myth, marijuana can kill. In picturing its soul destroying effects no attempt was made to equivocate. The scenes and incidents, while fictionized for the purposes of this story, are based upon actual research into the results of Marihuana addiction. If their start reality will make you think, will make you aware that something must be done to wipe out this ghastly menace, then the picture will not have failed in its purpose. Because the dread Marihuana may be reaching forth next for your son or daughter ...or yours ... or YOURS!"Reefer Madness" (Originally) "TELL YOUR CHILDREN", 1936http://crrh.org/hemptv/misc_reefer.html 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by observer on May 20, 2001 at 08:15:36 PT
Content/Thematic Analysis
Kevin A. Sabet is president of Citizens for a Drug-Free Berkeley . . . He was a speech writer for former drug-czar Barry McCaffrey. The following list of common prohibition propaganda themes is taken from this 1979 NIDA report: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.htmlThe drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy. organizations that distribute marijuana - supposedly for medical purposeslegalization advocatesnever been accepted by . . . any reputable medical associationmedical marijuana proponents, most of whom come largely from the same circles that have attempted to legalize pot and other drugsthe recreational pot users who hide behind the smoke screen of "medical use,people with HIV, often held up as Exhibit A by the legalization movement.people with HIVacademic[s] and critic[s] of current drug policyaddictsthe medical marijuana movementEthan Nadelmann . . . Nadelmann's colleague, Arnold Trebach . . . The sugar daddy . . .financier George Soros The drug is identified as solely responsible for many problems in the culture, i.e., crime, violence, and insanity. manufacturing and distributing marijuanaMarijuana smoked long term has been shown to contribute to cancer and problems with the respiratory and reproductive systems. The smoke contains some of the same carcinogens found in tobacco - often in higher concentrations.Smoking just five joints per week, a NIH study showed, is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for seven days. It also impairs motor skills, a medical fact I learned firsthand when a driver high on dope killed a friend of mine in junior high school. Contrary to popular myth, marijuana can kill.volumes of scientific evidence suggesting smoked marijuana may do more harm than good. The survival of the culture is pictured as being dependent on the prohibition of the drug. By allowing smoked marijuana, they not only do something the courts are ruling illegal, but something wholly unscientific and ultimately inhumane. The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino [gateway] theory" of chemical progression.  [this theme not seen] The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption.  [this theme not seen] Both the user and supplier of the drug are defined as fiends, always in search of new victims; usage of the drug is considered "contagious." . . . Efforts to reduce drug usage are referred to as the "war" on or "battle" against drug abuse. [this theme not seen] Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access. allowing it is simply drug legalization by the back door."any illness for which marijuana provides relief" is fair game, whether it be a headache or a hangnail. Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated. medical marijuana proponents, most of whom come largely from the same circles that have attempted to legalize pot and other drugsEthan Nadelmann, a well-known academic and critic of current drug policy, believes that "possession of small amounts of any drug for personal use has to be legal" and that such drugs could even be "available to adults by mail order. " Under a legalization plan proposed by Nadelmann's colleague, Arnold Trebach, "addicts would be able to purchase heroin and needles they need at reasonable prices from a non-medical drugstore."The sugar daddy of the medical marijuana movement, financier George Soros, once told Nadelmann, "We are basically in agreement. I empower you to accomplish our common objectives." Nadelmann's objective, lest we forget, is to "legalize the personal use of drugs in America." Soros has said he is "comfortable with that." He must be, because he is paying for such efforts - including giving grants to Berkeley's marijuana lobby, Californians for Compassionate Use. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: