Cannabis News Media Awareness Project
  DEA Rejects UMass Request To Grow Med Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on January 12, 2009 at 16:54:28 PT
By Bina Venkataraman, Globe Correspondent 
Source: Boston Globe 

DEA Washington, DC -- The US Drug Enforcement Administration has rejected the bid of a UMass Amherst researcher who wants to create the second laboratory in the nation authorized to grow marijuana for medical research.

The ruling released today came nearly two years after a federal administrative law judge recommended that Lyle Craker, a horticultural professor who specializes in medicinal plants, be allowed to grow marijuana for medical research.

The DEA decision, which is a final rule not subject to public comment, called the current supply of marijuana for research "adequate and uninterrupted,” and said that a second laboratory would not be in the public interest.

Since 1968, a federally approved laboratory at the University of Mississippi’s School of Pharmacy has grown nearly a hundred varieties of marijuana plants. Access to the plants has been limited to researchers who gain federal permits, and plants from the lab’s farm have been used for clinical studies across the country to test marijuana for treating glaucoma, pain, nausea, and other illnesses.

But some researchers complain that access to the laboratory's supply is thwarted by a contract the lab holds with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which must approve permits issued by the Food and Drug Administration or the DEA in a process that can take months to complete. Other drugs listed by the DEA as "Schedule 1," such as heroin and ecstasy, do not require this additional approval for researchers to access them.

Rick Doblin, president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a Belmont-based drug research group that wants to fund Craker’s marijuana cultivation and sponsored the lawsuit that spurred the administrative law judge’s recommendation in 2007, calls the Mississippi lab a "monopoly."

Doblin said that his group will now either file another lawsuit or appeal to the incoming Obama administration to reverse the decision. "We’re not giving up," he said.

Craker, who first applied for the DEA permit in 2001, said he was disappointed that the agency appears to want to limit medicinal marijuana research. "We’ve seen a big upsurge in the use of medicinal plants to treat illnesses," he said.

DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney said the agency had no additional comment on the decision other than what was written in the ruling.

Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Author: Bina Venkataraman, Globe Correspondent
Published: January 12, 2009
Copyright: 2009 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: letter@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/xxXn6s44

Related Article & Web Site:

MAPS
http://www.maps.org/

DEA Rejects Professor's Bid To Grow Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24421.shtml

CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #21 posted by runruff on February 02, 2009 at 05:33:33 PT
Now a word from stoner headquarters!
Um, ugh, DEA bad!

Craker good!

Pot good!

Law bad!

Pass chips!



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #20 posted by FoM on January 19, 2009 at 08:11:40 PT
LTE: Rick Doblin
Marijuana Monopoly

January 19, 2009

The US Drug Enforcement Administration dealt a major blow to science with its decision to preserve the National Institute on Drug Abuse's monopoly on the supply of marijuana available for FDA-approved research ("UMass loses marijuana lab bid," Health/Science, Jan. 13). The decision is an inappropriate injection of political ideology into what should properly be a question of science.

Pharmaceutical companies interested in making marijuana a prescription medicine are stopped dead in their tracks by the institute's monopoly. If a company gained access to the institute's tightly guarded stash, spent millions on research, and obtained FDA approval, it would then be forced to pay the institute's supplier whatever the asking price. As a result, not a single company is investing in marijuana research.

Thirteen states have been forced to turn to the political process to provide patients with the medical use of marijuana. Prompted by the DEA's support for the institute's monopoly, that number will surely grow.

Sick people who prefer to get their medicine from the corner pharmacy, not the corner dealer, are hoping that Obama's DEA will bring an end to this farce.

Rick Doblin, Belmont

The writer is president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies.

Copyright: 2009 Globe Newspaper Company

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/01/19/marijuana_monopoly/

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #19 posted by Hope on January 13, 2009 at 20:01:20 PT
Unkat27
Good!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #18 posted by unkat27 on January 13, 2009 at 16:34:46 PT
Hi Hope!
Yes, I had to get back online to help make sure Obama keeps some of those promises he made.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #17 posted by Hope on January 13, 2009 at 14:21:54 PT
Hey, Unkat27!
Good to see you're back online.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by josephlacerenza on January 13, 2009 at 14:04:25 PT
Do no forget
That we currently have an ever on going war on terror!!! This too, is a war against no tangible foe. We, as a the American public, seem to love the idea of endless wars. It keeps the coffers full, and gives us a sense of moral superiority.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #15 posted by unkat27 on January 13, 2009 at 13:56:31 PT
FOM
Hi FOM, thanks for the welcome. I just got back online yesterday.

I agree with you completely. We've all said such things many times before. My comment, however, is an attempt to get straight to the most valid point that i believe could be used against the DEA. I really do think it is illegal and, I should add, unconstitutional. But I suppose these points hardly make any difference in dealing with some of the biggest criminals in the world.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 13, 2009 at 12:51:18 PT
unkat27
It's really good to see you. I will add to what you said. I believe the drug war was a way of putting people from the 60s, that were against their agenda, in their place. I think the same thing about how it has put African Americans in prison and that was a way to keep their slaves. I know that's extreme but I do feel that way sometimes.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #13 posted by unkat27 on January 13, 2009 at 12:33:52 PT
Drug war is illegal
I believe the drug war is an illegal war and it should never have been declared to begin with. The main reason why i believe this is because wars are generally declared on tangible entities which can be defeated and won, and any declaration of a war that cannot possibly be won is nothing more than a monstrous tax-payer cash-cow for the government to milk, which does nothing but build a huge war-chest for the executives in power. This is what the drug war has become and it does nothing but put more and more tax-payer money into the war-chest for the executives to abuse for their own selfish, greedy ways.

Furthermore, I think Nixon and the right-wingers knew this from the very beginning and had lots of laughs about it after it passed through the US Congress and was made official. It was never intended to be anything but an endless resource of easy money for the right-wing fascists to build their empire upon.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #12 posted by tintala on January 13, 2009 at 09:16:37 PT:

SLAVES WERE SEGREGATED ONCE
Now pot smokers and growers are. But now we have a black prez. But black ppl used to have to go to a dif bathroom, or sit at the back of the bus. Now, a black person is prez. cannabis smokers are segregated just the same.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by BGreen on January 13, 2009 at 06:39:08 PT
No Public Comment isn't really true
We're commenting here in public but they just refuse to listen to us.

I guess the lust for the blood of the cannabis user has taken over any hope of rehabilitation of the agents of the DEA.

It's a good thing they're not actually dogs because when a dog lusts for blood it has to be put down. The DEA dogs just get promoted and try to take our lives.

The Reverend Bud Green

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by afterburner on January 12, 2009 at 22:21:16 PT
Nightmarish DEA Dream World
"The DEA decision, which is a final rule not subject to public comment"

They may think they are above the law, but their lack of transparency and failure to follow best practices of scientific research makes them nothing but taxpayer-paid thugs. They cannot continue this typical Bush-era secret government unresponsiveness.

They may think they are "not subject to public comment," but that will not stop the public from commenting on the arbitrary and contrary use of public power by one of USA's most tax-dollar wasteful federal agencies!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 19:22:42 PT
US CO: City's pot fine takes a hit
US CO: City's pot fine takes a hit

Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11431336

Pubdate: 12 Jan. 2008

- Source: Denver Post (CO)

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 19:17:12 PT
FoM,
I thought it was $100 too. I don't know...

-0-

Here's another one.

US CO: Federal heights lowers penalty for pot possession

Webpage: http://www.aurorasentinel.com/articles/2009/01/12/news/state_and_region/doc496b856877844219583799.txt

Pubdate: 12 Jan. 2008

Source: Aurora Sentinel (CO)

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on January 12, 2009 at 19:07:36 PT
this decision
A terrible decision but of course no surprise here.

The only question to me is, did Bush do it as a favor to Obama and Big Pharma, since he will never face election again --- or was it more of an F-you from Bush to Obama, sabotaging Obama's possible reform of medical MJ??

only time will tell

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 18:39:31 PT
The Law Should Be Like Ohio's Law
It just seems right to me.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4557

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 18:31:33 PT
The GCW
I thought it was $100 fine for everyone in Colorado.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 18:28:41 PT
The GCW
I love it! I love it! I love it!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #3 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 18:28:06 PT
Another w/ more info
Calling fines ‘too harsh,’ Colorado town cuts marijuana penalties in half

http://coloradoindependent.com/19301/calling-fines-too-harsh-colorado-town-cuts-marijuana-penalties-in-half

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 18:24:58 PT
US CO: Federal heights lowers penalty for pot poss
US CO: Federal heights lowers penalty for pot possession

Webpage: http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090112/NEWS/901129963/1078&ParentProfile=1055&title=Federal%20heights%20lowers%20penalty%20for%20pot%20possession

Pubdate: 12 Jan. 2008 - Source: Summit Daily News (CO)

FEDERAL HEIGHTS — The Federal Heights City Council has decided to cut the city’s marijuana fines in half and eliminate jail time, a decision marijuana advocates say is a response to harsh economic times.

But the council says the city prosecutor suggested reducing the fine for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana from $1,000 to $500 to bring local laws more in line with state laws.

A similar offense under state law draws a $100 fine but no jail time.

Marijuana advocates say the city will save money and time by making the change.

Councilwoman Tanya Ishikawa wanted to lower the fine to $100. She says a $500 fine is too expensive given the economic times.

-0-

Here's one showing the economy is forcing choices.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by observer on January 12, 2009 at 17:59:40 PT
No Public Comment - Dictatorship, Despotism
The DEA decision, which is a final rule not subject to public comment

Um, that's basically a dictatorship, but with the added twist of an unanswerable and self-serving bureaucracy, which isn't answering, and is instead proceeding to serve itself. Certainly not the public.

See: "As Bad For Your Lungs As Smoking 20 Normal Cigarettes? Why does the US Government make cannabis researchers use only Government-issued marijuana?" http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/nida_stems_n_seeds.htm

The DEA knows darn well that normal, decent cannabis has lots of medicinal value, so they make US researchers use the bud-free stem/seed-rich dirtweed you'd toss out as rubbish in an instant. That way, the "research" will maximize the harmful effects of smoking, and minimize the medicinal effects, so prohibitionists can then crow: "See? It doesn't have medicinal effect and it causes bad bronchitis!" That's it in a nutshell.

Ultimately, other countries like Spain and Israel and Holland will do the research, so this is a DEA and prohibitionist bet that they can keep Americans as ignorant as they have in the past.

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on January 12, 2009 at 16:54:28