cannabisnews.com: DEA To Argue Against UMass Growing of Cannabis










  DEA To Argue Against UMass Growing of Cannabis

Posted by CN Staff on December 05, 2005 at 08:42:46 PT
Press Release 
Source: U.S. Newswire 

Alexandra, Va. -- Lawyers representing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will make oral arguments before DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner on Dec. 12-16 to support a decision to deny Prof. Lyle Craker a license to grow medicinal cannabis for research at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, under contract to a non-profit organization.The hearings, which will last five days, will feature only DEA witnesses. Among them will be Dr. ElSohly of the University of Mississippi who is the only person in the U.S. with a license to grow "marijuana" for research. Dr. ElSohly is under contract to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which has been widely criticized for refusing to supply marijuana to some privately-funded research projects, and for the low quality and limited variety of the crop.
While the legal battle has been fought for over four years, thirty-five Members of Congress have recently signed a letter to the DEA urging the granting of Professor Craker's license. In the letter they wrote: "At present, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has an unjustifiable monopoly on the production of marijuana for legitimate medical and research purposes in the United States, grown under contract to NIDA at the University of Mississippi. Federal law clearly requires adequate competition in the manufacture of Schedule I and II substances. (See 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(1); see also 21 C.F.R. 1301.33(b).) The licensing of Prof. Craker's facility would provide privately-funded sponsors of FDA-approved research the necessary opportunity to conduct studies with a strain of marijuana of their own choosing, with immediate access to the strain for all FDA-approved studies and for possible prescription use. None of this is the case under NIDA's monopoly. Until an alternative source of supply is available, important privately-funded research into the therapeutic effects of marijuana for patients undergoing chemotherapy or suffering from AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, or other diseases will not be initiated." Other groups including Americans for Tax Reform, American Medical Students Association, California Medical Association, Lymphoma Foundation of America, New Mexico Nurses Association, North Carolina Nurses Association, United Methodist Church (with more than eight million members) and Wisconsin Nurses Association have written the DEA in support of Craker's license. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform wrote recently, "Scientific research on agricultural products should not be influenced by politics. If the test subject in question were dandelions, there would be no controversy here. The fact that some choose to abuse the cannabis plant illegally is immaterial. The use of controlled substances for legitimate research purposes is well-established, and has yielded a number of miracle medicines widely available to patients and doctors. This case should be no different. It's in the public interest to end the government monopoly on marijuana legal for research."The case is heading into a final phase and a recommendation is expected to be made early next year on whether the DEA should have approved Professor Craker's application. More background on the case including transcripts from earlier hearings may be found at: http://maps.org/mmj/congressletter_site.html#7The public may attend the hearing at the Judge's discretion. To attend, call Nicole Stodutl at 202-307-8188 for security clearance.Complete Title: DEA to Argue Against UMass Growing of Medicinal Cannabis at Hearing Dec. 12-16; Grover Norquist, Medical Groups, Members of Congress Tell DEA They Support Expanded ResearchContact: Rick Doblin, 617-484-8711, or Lyle Craker, 413-545-2347Source: U.S. Newswire (Wire)Published: December 5, 2005Copyright: 2005 U.S. Newswire Contact: info usnewswire.comWebsite: http://www.usnewswire.com/Related Articles & Web Site:MAPShttp://www.maps.org/ Medical Marijuana Research Should Be Legalizedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21098.shtmlClash Over Pot Research Gets Personalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21061.shtmlThe Right To Growhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21058.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #10 posted by runruff on December 05, 2005 at 16:35:07 PT:
An answer to observer.
Uh-hu!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by observer on December 05, 2005 at 16:14:19 PT
the real reason...
If the prohibitionists were honest, here is what they would say:
from: the DEAto: the US TaxpayerIf we let actual scientists and professionals grow cannabis that we could not control, the cannabis might not be the low-grade ditch-weed that the government controlled Mississippi plot provides. [US Govt Issued "medical" canabis: http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/images/debris.jpg ]When we provide the low-active-ingredients dirt-weed to subjects, we insure they get a whopping big load of tars, carbon-monoxide and benzene-related products of combustion. That's because we make sure that there is hardly any THC or cannabinols etc. and that there is plenty of plain old plant material. This lets us skew test results in a manner which is profitable for us, at the DEA, to do. We at the DEA, with our nice, 50k starting salery for our "agents", thank you, the American taxpayer, for your financial generosity. (As if you had any choice!)Laughing all the way to the bank,the DEA
Yeah, that would be closer to the truth, don't you think?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by siege on December 05, 2005 at 15:21:52 PT
date
1974 not 1774
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by siege on December 05, 2005 at 15:13:59 PT
Reapproval
If memory sever right in 1774 cannabis was in it's 2nd FDA approved stage. and then the last stage, it was to go to the 3rd stage to becoming a Reapproved medicine,FDA-approved research.In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the ''high."
medicine FDA-approved research.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on December 05, 2005 at 13:54:56 PT:
They sure needed the extra time, didn't they?
Quite a stretch to go from August to December; you wonder what they must have been doing with their time? Carefully rewording line after line of testimony, trying to 'weed out' (pun intended) the potentially PERJURING testimony? Good luck, guys. The entire basis of cannabis prohibition was derived from racist prejudice and simple corp-rat greed. Oh, to be a fly on the wall, because they won't be able to do a 'Francis Young' this time, there's too much at stake. They try to ignore their own information, or if the judge requires the monopoly be broken, there's political pressure standing by, waiting to come down around their heads. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on December 05, 2005 at 11:32:11 PT

runruff
Thanks for the Heads Up on Scarborough Country. I'll check it out tonight. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by runruff on December 05, 2005 at 11:17:13 PT:

Oh my job, my job!
The DEA! A Brownshirt copy created by our oh so self serving, ran out of office, criminal president. The Nixon gift that keeps on giving. Well, there aught to be a law aginst federal officials lying in a deposition. That is all these job security addicts ever do. Yea I said it! Addicts! They lie, cheat and steal worse than any heron or coke addict I've ever seen. They get $50, to $80,000 plus outrages bonuses and perks for going around killing and 
pillaging with impunity. Now they get five days to put on 
their phoney, "we are helping society", act.
I hope Dr. Craker and friends have brought along their motion sickness bags because these next five days are bound to turn some stomachs.Media alert; Scarborough tonight at 10 eastern 7 Pacific.
About Marijuana. I just caught the teaser.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by cloud7 on December 05, 2005 at 09:30:19 PT

What a sham
"Lawyers representing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will make oral arguments before DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen"
"The hearings, which will last five days, will feature only DEA witnesses."
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by legalizeit on December 05, 2005 at 09:17:15 PT

The DEA should be abolished IMMEDIATELY
DEA: Corrupt, special-interest driven, closed-minded, right-wing thugs, determined to stomp out any research that might liberate cannabis from its undeserved stigma once and for all."The hearings, which will last five days, will feature only DEA witnesses..."Five days. What a blatant waste of time and, more importantly, taxpayer money. And, Drug Warrior Cardinal Rule #1: Don't let the guy you're trying to slam the door on present his side of the issue. In any court but the DEA's, this would be illegal and unconstitutional.And, potpal, I also enjoyed the "if the test subject in question were dandelions..." line. Even stranger, you could replace "Dandelions" with "Jimson Weed," "Destroying Angel Mushrooms," "Nightshade," "Oleander," and any of a number of other potentially deadly or insanity-causing (yet completely legal) plants/fungi, and the statement would still be true.Though I liked the TaxReform statement, I took exception to the speaker's equating "use" and "abuse." This led me to believe that he still may be a Drug War sympathizer in sheep's clothing.Why the singling out of one of Nature's most benign creations for vilification? Politics and bureaucracy is mystifying and maddening.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by potpal on December 05, 2005 at 08:56:27 PT

Worth repeating!
"Scientific research on agricultural products should not be influenced by politics. If the test subject in question were dandelions, there would be no controversy here. The fact that some choose to abuse the cannabis plant illegally is immaterial. The use of controlled substances for legitimate research purposes is well-established, and has yielded a number of miracle medicines widely available to patients and doctors. This case should be no different. It's in the public interest to end the government monopoly on marijuana legal for research."

[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment