Medical Pot Passes Senate

  Medical Pot Passes Senate

Posted by CN Staff on February 21, 2006 at 07:27:59 PT
By Bridget Maiellaro 
Source: Daily Illini 

Illinois -- The Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed Senate Bill 2568 legalizing medical marijuana 6-5 on Feb. 15. If the bill passes the General Assembly, Illinois will become the twelfth state to protect patients from arrest for medical marijuana with their doctor's recommendations."It's an enormous step forward," said Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. "Similar legislation was brought to the committee before, but it went nowhere."
The medical marijuana act will allow people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS to use and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes with physician approval. It will also enable patients or their caregivers to possess no more than 12 cannabis plants, each producing up to one pound of marijuana. Judy Kramer, president of Educating Voices Inc., a national not-for-profit volunteer drug prevention organization, is disappointed that the bill passed through the Illinois committee. Kramer believes that there are problems with patients growing marijuana in their back yard. "You won't know what exactly is in (the marijuana) unless you send it in to some highly sophisticated lab," Kramer said. "You don't know how well it works with any other problems you may be having. You don't know the chemical composition or quality."In 2004, there were 11,223 marijuana users admitted to treatment centers in Cook County and 32,961 marijuana treatment admissions in the state, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services, Alcoholism and Substance Abuse. No information was found for Champaign County. "It represents a dramatic increase of marijuana admissions from 2001 to 2004," Kramer said. "If you tell people (marijuana) is medicine, they become addicted. Where are the resources in the state to fund for those with addictions?"Compared to most other drugs, marijuana dependence is less severe, but it does exist, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, a non-profit science-based advice organization. Their studies also show that while other medications may be more effective in aiding those with serious illnesses, they are not equally effective in all patients. However, studies also show that regular smoking lessens a smoker's defense system by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, according to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Their research shows that marijuana use can even accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections.Anzalone-Liszt Research Inc., a national public opinion polling firm, conducted a statewide telephone poll on Feb. 10-13, asking Illinoisans if they would support the legislation. The poll found that 62 percent would support the bill, 28 percent were opposed, and 10 percent were undecided. The Marijuana Policy Project, the largest non-profit marijuana policy reform organization in the United States, funded the poll. "We wanted to confirm what the level of public support was," Mirken said. "We wanted to quantify something recent and solid to show elected officials. They think it's controversial. It's not. The recent data will show them."Kramer said she feels that the telephone poll had little significance. "If I phrase a question in a certain manner, I can get people to say what I want," Kramer said.Sen. John Cullerton (D- Chicago) introduced the Medical Cannabis Act to the Illinois General Assembly in January. "The more states that pass a law, the more likely others are to also pass the same law, as long as there are more benefits than disadvantages," said Jennifer Brown, senior in ACES. Source: Daily Illini, The (U of IL at Urbana-Champaign, Edu)Author: Bridget Maiellaro Published: February 21, 2006Copyright: 2006 Daily IlliniContact: opinions dailyillini.comWebsite: http://www.dailyillini.comRelated Article & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Project Cannabis Bill Gains Momentum Medical Marijuana Archives 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #14 posted by Hope on February 22, 2006 at 11:21:13 PT
It does, and thank you, again.I've missed your informative comments.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 11:05:10 PT
Hope, it helps.
Thanks, apologies for all the typos.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Hope on February 22, 2006 at 10:01:46 PT
Great work. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 07:13:57 PT
Reason, Per se.
A Question of Science:
Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal? Steve Gust, NIDA Hari Singh: Chambliss: wchambli olemiss.edufrom: are cheaper in Canada and Europe primarily because of socialized medicine; the government runs health care and then puts in price controls to limit what government health plans have to pay. Over the past 20 years, such price controls have driven the lion's share of research into the United States.Today, that concentration of research is poised to bring on the era of biotechnology, but could be derailed."This is just importing price controls from Canada; there can't be anything positive that can come from an R&D perspective on re-importation," says Walt Chambliss, associate director of the National Center for Natural Products Research at the University of Mississippi. He's also a professor of pharmaceutics.Ole Miss has already licensed 12 products to drug companies, including three in the past fiscal year. The facilities are full and the center has a planning grant as part of an expansion.Federal laws that encourage technology transfer are remaking the face of research taking place at American universities like Ole Miss and the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. Federal grants fund promising research, with the best eventually licensed and commercialized by private companies.That's what was envisioned in the Bayh-Dole Act: harnessing academic creative research with capitalist firms. Licensing money provides new revenue to universities, while their discoveries improve the lives of everyone. Because of the long lead times in drug development, the benefits of that law are just now being felt.Before going to Ole Miss, Chambliss worked for Schering-Plough Healthcare Corp., evaluating licensing opportunities. Already, he says, the threat to profit margins is showing up in the behavior of drug companies. and from:" . . . another blockbuster natural ingredient," says Walt Chambliss, Ph.D
 from: "Although it is not illegal to have a monopoly, a single company cannot monopolize or try to monopolize an industry through unfair practices –tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. For example, it would likely be illegal for a company with a monopoly in one market to attempt to use its power in that market to interfere with competition in another market."from: State(s) Code
  CHAPTER 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADESec. 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or
combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize
any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with
foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on
conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or
by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said
punishments, in the discretion of the court.especially, from google's cache of: Act of 1890 Clayton Act of 1914 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act of 1914 Robinson-Patman Act of 1930
 47 - Antitrust Enforcement The federal antitrust statutes are broadly drafted to:   reflect the government’s enforcement policy   allow the government to respond to economic, business, and technological changesEach administration adopts an enforcement policy for antitrust laws.Antitrust laws are enforced more stringently at some times than at other times.
 47 - Antitrust Penalties Federal antitrust laws provide the following penalties:   Criminal sanctions   Civil penalties   Private civil actions   Effect of a government judgment 47 - Section 1 of the Sherman Act: Restraints of Trade Prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade.To violate Section 1, the restraint must be found to be unreasonable under either of two tests:   Rule of reason   Per se ruleRequires the concerted action of two or more parties
 47 - Rules to Determine Lawfulness of a Restraint Rule of ReasonA rule that holds that only unreasonable restraints of trade violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Per se RuleA rule that is applicable to those restraints of trade considered inherently anticompetitive. - - -Contact:ElSohly Laboratories, Inc. (ELI)            Bettye H. Galloway            662-236-26095 Industrial Park Drive                Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly        (FAX) 662-234-0253Oxford, Mississippi 38655                  e-mail: elimae watervalley.netWeb page:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy,"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 07:09:34 PT
evidence: NIDA/DEA/ElSohly - anticompetitive
I received a letter from my Senator relaying the DEA claim that they were unable to precisely determine my complaint from the affidavit I supplied, including voluminous and fact checked evidenciary footnotes. As part of my ongoing independent investigation into drug war fraud and in support of the Million Marijuana Lawsuits ( ), here are strikeouts of ElSohly's NIDA/DEA exposed on, from: Exhibit: Correspondence Between Dr. ElSohly and Federal Agencies (9/8/2003)From: "Gust, Steve (NIH/NIDA)" To: Mahmoud A. ElSohly Ph.D." CC: Singh, Han (NIH/NIDA)" Sent: Monday September 08, 2003 12:09 PMAttach: DEA RESPONSE.docSubject: FW: DEA Response, Draft#2thank you. i have made a few suggested changes. please take a look. I also added one sentence that you should feel free to change. it is the one about the lack of complaints. it would be good to have something in the statement about overall acceptability of the marijuana to the researchers.-------Original Message-------From: Mahmoud A. ElSohly Ph.D.[mailto:elimae]Sent: Monday, September 01, 20035:03 PMTo: Walt Chambliss; Walt Chambliss; Gust, Steve (NIH/NIDA); Steve Gust; Larry Walker; Singh, Hart (NIH/NIDA)Subject: DEA Response, Draft #2Attached is a second draft of our proposed response to the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's application for a manufacturer's license to manufacture (cultivate) marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinoilsHari and Steve, please note that this revised draft will have no graphs or tables attachedLarry and Walt, I have incorporated your suggestions and, in addition, I have inserted the fact that the contract with NIDA is advanced through an iopen competetive bidding process and that the University of Massachusetts-Amherst can file a competetive bid for the next contract which is up for renewal in 2004.I look forward to hearing from all of you before I finalize the response..MAEMahmoud A. ElSohly Ph.D., BCFE BCFMPresident ElSohly Laboratories, Incorporated (ELI)5 Industrial Park DriveOxford, Mississippi 38655                  TEL: 662-236-2609FAX: 662-234-0253www.elsohly.comFrom: Mahmoud A. ElSohly Ph.D. To: "Steve Gust" , "Walt Chambliss" ; "Walt Chambliss" ;"Larry Walker" Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:06 PMAttach: DEA RESPONSE.docSubject: RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICEAttached is a draft response to the Federal Register notice regarding the University of Massachusetts-Amherst application for DEA registration to manufacture marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols for distribution to researchers.Please go over this draft and provide me with any comments you might have to finalize the response. I understand, Dr. Gust and Singh, that I may have information there that NIDA would not want me to include, and I'll certainly remove it if that is the case, and there might be additional information you might want to have included, and I'll be glad to add it.Larry and Walt, I am not sure whether or not this should go through Dr. Clark's office or the University Attorney, but I'll leave this up to you to give me tha final feedbackI hope to receive your response sometime early this week so that I may be able to submit the final draft to DEA before my trip to Germany leaving on the 9th of September.Please not that this email is coming from my private lab since that is where I am right now!Have a good, long weekend.Mahmoud A. ElSohly Ph.D., BCFE BCFMPresident ElSohly Laboratories, Incorporated (ELI)5 Industrial Park DriveOxford, Mississippi 38655                  TEL: 662-236-2609FAX: 662-234-0253www.elsohly.comSeptember 1, 2003Deputy Assistant AdministratorOffice of Diversion ControlDrug Enforcement AdministrationU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20537ATTN: Federal Register Representative (CDD)The Honorable Deputy Assistant AdministratorThis is a response to the Federal Register Notice dated July 24, 2003 (FR/Vol 68, No 142/Thursday, July 25, 2003 (Notices)) relative to "Manufacture of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application."In the above referred notice it is stated that "the University of Massachusetts-Amherst plans to bulk manufacture (cultivate) marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols for distribution to approve researchers."As a present registrant with the DEA to manufacture such substances (DEA Registrations #RN0281369 and RN0253574), I hereby provide comments and objections to the approval of the University of Massachusetts application. The University of Mississippi, National Center for Natural Products Research, has two registrations with the DEA to manufacture (cultivate) marijuana and tetrahydro-cannabinols. One of these registrations (#RN0281369) is specific to manufacturing these materials for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the federal agency in charge of overseeing research activities with marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols as Schedule I substances.Under NIDA's registration, materials are made available to researchers, with proper registration with the DEA (strike)and FDA(/strike), to carry out their research activities. (strike)Those researchers are required to provide proposals and protocols for their studies to NIDA for review.(/strike) Those researchers with projects approved _and gunded_ by _NIH (including_ NIDA) receive marijuana at no cost to them or their institutions. Those researchers with projects that (strike)do not meet the(/strike)_are not funded by NIH but have received_ scientific approval (strike)criteria by NIDA(/strike) receive marijuana at the cost of production. Therefore, approved researchers already have access to research meterials, and approval of another registrant is unnecessary.The University of Mississippi has been under contract ith NIDA, through a competetive bidding process where the contract is re-advertised every three to five years, since the late 1960s to grow, harvest, and analyze marijuana for research, and NIDA has been providing marijuana from Mississippi to researchers from that time until today. Under the current contract with NIDA, we at the University of Mississippi (the primary contractor) ave in stock an ample supply of marijuana (hundreds of pounds) at different potencies ranging from less than 1 % THC content to 10% THC content and greater. These materials are enough both qualitatively and quantitatively to satisfy any possible needs of the research community. In addition, through our subcontractor (research Triangle Institute - RTI), we have thousands of marijuana cigarettes manufactured under eGMP for use in research projects under the NIDA program. Again, these cigarettes are provided at no charge if their project is approved by _NIH or_ NIDA or at cost if the project is (strike)not approed by NIDA(/strike)_funded by other sources_ and the investigator(s) wish to pursue the project. The potency of the cigarettes available in the program ranges from )% THC (placebo) to over 6% THC, and we have prepared a special batch over 8% THC. There is absolutely no shortage of material for use by approved investigators at any of the THC levels (low, medium and high potency).Since the inception of the program and implementation of the process of making marijuana and marijuana cigarettes available for research, the objective was to make cigarettes at potencies comparable to that of average marijuana potency being used by the general population. A potency monitoring program was put in place where samples of confiscated marijuana from around the country are analyzed for their THC content, and the data generated are used by NIDA and DEA for policy-making decisions. In fulfillment of the requirements of this program, the Universty of Mississippi has reeived and analyzed over 49,000 confiscated marijuana samples over the last 35 years.The Uiniversity of Mississippi has been responsive to the changing needs of the research community. For years, the THC level of confiscated marijuana was consistently below 4% and, therefore, marijuana cigarettes were manufactured for NIDA with potencies ranging from 1.5% to 4% to allow for dose ranging studies.Over the last few years, we have noticed a gradual rise in THC content in excess of 4%. We have responded by making higher potency marijuana available for investigators. Our current inventor has over 50,000 cigarettes with potencies above 6%. In addition, our bulk marijuana inventory has hundreds of pounds of high potency material ready to be processed into cigarettes if need be.For your further information, in the early stages of the program and up until the last four years, the process of manufacturing the cigarettes in bulk was such that other plant parts (other than the leaves), such as small seeds and small stem particles, occassionally made their way into the cigarettes. (strike)Proponents of marijuana legalization criticized the NIDA provided cigarettes for the presence of this material as well as for the potency of THC. These criticisms are largely unfounded and arise more from the resentment of federal enforcement laws than from actual problems with the materials available. As mentioned above, we have addressed the issue of potency even though there are few investigators using the high potency cigarettes at this time since most research subjects are not capable of tolerating the high potency material. (/strike) Although we do not believe the occasional presence of small seeds and stem particles in the NIDA cigarettes was a significant issue, we responded to this issue by installin custom-manufactured de-seeding equipment that rids the plant material of any seeds aor small stems prior to the manufacturing of the cigarettes. We are currently providing our subcontractor with plant material that has absolutely no seed or heavy stem particles. _It is important to note that we have not received any (inserted by hand: formal) complaints from researchers about the adequacy of the marijuana for research purposes._(strike)In addition to the above described NIDA program and the availability of materials through that program, we at the University of Mississippi have a separate DEA registration (#RN0253574) to manufacture (cultivate) marijuana and manufacture tetrahydrocannabinols. Materials could be made available to researchers outside the NIDA program if they are properly registered with the DEA and for some reason do not wish to receive or are not qualified to receive materials under the NIDA program. We are prepared to meet any nees qualitatively and quantitatively, in this area.(/strike)Therefore, we strongly feel that it is absolutely unnecessary to approve another manufacturer's registration to manufacture (cultivate) marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols for distribution to approved researchers. Approval of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst would result in a duplication of existing resources without any foreseeable benefits.Should the University of Massachusetts-Amherst feel they have the capability, resources, and know-how to manufacture (cultivate) marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols to distribute to researchers, perhaps they should compete for the next cycle of renewal of the current NIDA contract. (strike)This contract is up for renewal through an open competetive bidding process sometime in 2004. Consequently, for all the reasons cited above, we object to the issuance of a manufacturer's registration to the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.We shall be glad to answer any questions or to provide specific data related to our response.Sincerely, Mahmoud A. ElSohly, Ph.D. 
Research Professor
"asked by the author about his assertion, quoted in antihemp literature" 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 05:07:05 PT

the witness
from google's cache of:       4. Email from Matt Strait to Mahmoud A. ElSohly dated July 25, 2003, attaching Federal Register application of Dr. Lyle Craker to cultivate marijuana for research       5. Email from Mahmoud A. ElSohly to Steve Gust, Hari Singh, Walt Chambliss and Larry Walker dated August 29, 2003, attaching draft response to Federal Register notice       6. Email from Mahmoud A. ElSohly to Walt Chambliss, Steve Gust, Larry Walker and Hari Singh dated September 1, 2003, attaching second draft of proposed response to UMass-Amherst’s application for manufacturer’s license to cultivate marijuana       7. Email from Hari Singh to Mahmoud A. ElSohly, Walt Chambliss, Steve Gust and Larry Walker dated September 2, 2003, suggesting small revision to second draft of DEA response       8. Email from Mahmoud A. ElSohly to Walt Chambliss, Steve Gust, Hari Singh and Larry Walker dated September 9, 2003, regarding second draft - - -from google's cache of:  BY 
  Q Let me ask you this question, Dr. El
Sohly. If an FDA approved researcher, someone with
an FDA approved protocol, wanted to do medical
research with marijuana, and NIDA and the
University of Mississippi both decided not to
provide it, but another grower who had a bulk
manufacturer's license would, having that other
source available would be of benefit to that
researcher, wouldn't it?
  MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, this calls for the
witness to speculate on a totally hypothetical,
which I think is, number one, out of the scope, and
number two, beyond his competence to answer.
 JUDGE BITTNER: Overruled.
 THE WITNESS: Will you ask that question
 Q Sure. If a researcher has an FDA approved
protocol to research with medical marijuana, and
both NIDA and the University of Mississippi refuse
to provide that researcher with marijuana to do
that research, having another source available from
another bulk manufacturer who could supply that
marijuana, would be a benefit to that researcher,
wouldn't it?  
A I would say not necessarily.
  Q And why would--  
A First of all, the University of
Mississippi does not refuse anything. University
of Mississippi is not in a position to refuse or
  Q I understand. You refuse because--  
A So that's restricted to NIDA. If NIDA
doesn't approve it, then another supplier who has
material, would that be a benefit to the
researcher? I'm going to say not necessarily
because the process that that protocol goes through
through NIDA is a very important process in my
judgment because there could be some problems with
the protocol, and it could save the researcher a
lot of troubles in executing the research. The
fact that it's approved by the FDA, it doesn't
necessarily mean--it just has all the elements that
the FDA requires for you to have in place. Okay,
the elements. But not necessarily the--all the
other issues that NIDA and people that have the
experience with the drug reviewing that protocol,
approving that protocol.
  Q So, but you would agree that the FDA does
approve protocols for clinical research and
studies, isn't that right?  
A That's correct.
  Q And for most substances other than
marijuana, that's all the researcher needs in order
to go ahead with the process; isn't that correct?  
A With the testing in humans, that's
 Q And so if a researcher didn't want the
additional benefit of NIDA's review, if they just
thought that wasn't a benefit, do you think it
would be a benefit to them to have a source of
marijuana available to them through another
licensed grower? 
A You know, again, I'm just saying, not
necessarily. It could be, but not necessarily the
case in every case, because if a researcher wants
to take naive subjects and given them, you know,   
percent marijuana to do because that's what they
want to do, and as I mentioned before, I think
that's--I don't think that will be appropriate to
do that. It would be too much for that subject to
  Q But again, you're not a medical
researcher, are you, sir?  
A But I'm familiar with the medical issues
related to marijuana and marijuana--
  Q But are you a medical researcher, sir?
  MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, I object. I mean,
you can't ask the witness questions and then object
to his competence to answer the questions after the
door has been opened.
 MS. CARPENTER: Excuse me, Your Honor.
I'm not asking a question about the benefits of
medical research.
 JUDGE BITTNER: All right. The witness
was answering the question posed about benefits.
 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, I'll move on.
  JUDGE BITTNER: Now, that--are you
finished with that answer, Dr. El Sohly?
  THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm finished, Your
Honor. And I said that is not necessarily a
  JUDGE BITTNER: Got it, okay. I got the
answer. So did the court reporter. And so the
next question is?
  Q By not necessarily, you agree that it
could be, isn't that right?  
A I mean there is a possibility, but--
  Q Okay, thank you.
A --not necessarily the case.
 Q Okay. Now, if another bulk manufacturer
could grow the materials that an FDA approved
researcher needed at a lower cost than a current
manufacturer, would you agree that would be a
benefit to the researcher?
A That could be a benefit, yes.
 Q And if a different grower, who had a DEA
license to do so, grew a different strain of
marijuana than you grow, or a different ratio of
cannabinoids to THC, and had that product available
when a researcher wanted to do the research, and
another grower, for instance, yourself, didn't,
would that also be a benefit to a researcher?  
A First of all, I want to, you know, tell
you that in order to be able to do that, you have
to have all the preclinical work done with material
of similar composition to really qualify even to do
that. All the material that's available that has
been requested, all the material that's on the
market, on the illicit market has the composition
that's currently available through the program.
There is no limitation in the program as far as
what kind of material is being produced. If that
was deemed necessary by the scientific or medical
community, that process is there. It's just like,
you know, Grower XYZ is going to produce material
that has this particular composition. We could
also grow the same composition. It's not a
problem. It's not a limitation that we have.
 Q I understand. But my question is, if a
licensed grower had that available and you did not,
would that be a benefit to that researcher?  
A It would be a benefit, yeah.
  Q Thank you. And just to be clear, I think
you stated this earlier, but I just want to be
clear. The University of Mississippi, through the
institute license, cannot provide FDA approved
researchers with medical marijuana for research
purposes outside the NIDA program; is that right?  
A That's my understanding.
  Q If I can just ask you to turn to page--and
this is the last. We can stop after this one, Your
Honor, if that makes sense. Page  of that
exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit  , and again, that's
the bottom of the page with the paragraph, the half
of paragraph that's been X'd out of there's a line
through it. And the sentence begins, "Proponents
of marijuana legalization criticized that NIDA
provided cigarettes for the presence of this
material"--and I presume by "this material" you
mean small seed and stem particles--"as well as for
the potency of THC." Who were you referring to
there when you said proponents of marijuana
  Q NORML. Anybody else?  
A I'm sorry?
  Q Anyone else?  
A No.
  Q So you're not referring to any researchers
who criticize--who criticize NIDA marijuana?  
A Not in this.
  MS. CARPENTER: I think if I just do the
last two exhibits, which will be short, we'll be at
a good stopping point.
 Q If I could ask you to turn, please, to
Respondent's Exhibit  ? And I'll just actually
give you  and  at the same time. If you would
just look at Exhibits  and  , and start with
Exhibit  when you get ready.  
A Okay.
  Q Have you seen that exhibit before? It
consists of an e-mail dated September the  th from
Dr. El Sohly to Walt Chambliss and others?  
A Yes.
  Q And the second page there is entitled
"final draft" dated September  th,     ?  
A Yes.
  Q Did you send that e-mail?  
A Yes, I did.
  Q And did it have that draft attached to it?  
A Yes.
  Q I would move the admission of Respondent's
Exhibit  .
 MR. BAYLY: No objection.
 JUDGE BITTNER: Received. - - -see also:
Is NIDA Marijuana Bunk?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by jose melendez on February 22, 2006 at 04:38:49 PT

synthetic farm
from: 6, 2006: DEA Hearing Report, by Rick Doblin, Ph.D., MAPSOur lawyers learned that DEA has decided not to hold the final hearing that had been scheduled for January 17, solely in order to cross-examine under oath our rebuttal witness, Al Byrne. Perhaps DEA lawyers read my commentary posted on the MAPS website on December 20, 2005, in which I suggested that it would be wise for them not to call Al as a witness since he would have persuasively testified to the low quality of NIDA marijuana and to the veracity of the picture of the seeds and stems in three NIDA marijuana cigarettes that Prof. ElSohly had foolishly challenged as being somehow not accurate. Probably, DEA lawyers were just trying to intimidate Al into withdrawing his affidavit in order to avoid having to testify under oath inside DEA headquarters. When that failed, they decided to cancel the hearings regardless of my suggestions, which they haven't taken in other instances anyway. In any case, there will now be no more courtroom drama, only dueling legal briefs. At this point, I guess that the final briefs will be due in several months and that DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner will issue her recommendation to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy in late Spring or early Summer 2006.also, from google's cache of: In the Matter of: :
: Docket No. 05-16
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
DEA Headquarters
600 Army Navy Drive
Hearing Room E-2103
Arlington, Virginia(snip)Q Okay. So this was an FDA approved protocol research?A Yes, it was.Q And NIDA approved since they provided the 
marijuana?A Yes, yes.Q Okay. And do you know what his thoughts were about the quality of the NIDA marijuana that he used during that study? What has he told you? I should say that.A Phil Alden personally told me that the marijuana that he smoked in the NIDA provided marijuana in the FDA approved study got, made him sick, that he got bronchitis. That he had previously been using a higher potency marijuana, legal under California law, from buyers' clubs, and that he had had no health problems and it actually had enhanced his health.And that once he had to start using the NIDA marijuana, he got ill and his doctor told him that it was from the low quality NIDA marijuana and recommended that he withdraw from the study.Q What was the illness he contracted?A Bronchitis.Q Okay. Did he withdraw from the study?A He did withdraw from the study.Q And what happened?A He was able then to return to higher potency marijuana and has been able to use that without any ill health effects, and the study itself has not proceeded very far along because they've had trouble getting subjects.
More ElSohly Interviews
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by OverwhelmSam on February 22, 2006 at 02:59:54 PT

168 Million World Wide Use Marijuana
We don't know this, we don't know that. I smell fear of the unknown.It seems to me that with 168 million people using marijuana, if there wer a serious problem, SOMETHING would have come to light by now. 

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by runderwo on February 21, 2006 at 10:57:19 PT

Exactly. What's the worst thing that could happen? It could have no effect at all. What's the worst thing that could happen with a synthetic pharm? I don't even want to think about it..."It represents a dramatic increase of marijuana admissions from 2001 to 2004," Kramer said. "If you tell people (marijuana) is medicine, they become addicted. Where are the resources in the state to fund for those with addictions?"If you tell people opiates are medicine, they become addicted. If you tell people antidepressants are medicine, they become addicted. If you tell people amphetamines are medicine, they become addicted. This argument is a red herring anyway because marijuana is not dependency forming."However, studies also show that regular smoking lessens a smoker's defense system by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, according to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Their research shows that marijuana use can even accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections."I'm sorry, but this study sounds like complete hogwash. Does anyone have a cite for it? What the hell kind of source is "Berkman Center for Internet and Society" for a medical marijuana study?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 08:10:02 PT

no kidding
"If I phrase a question in a certain manner, I can get people to say what I want," Kramer said.Un huh, just like all of your preceding statements, "facts" and figures Ms. Kramer. It's all in the spin.Just the facts Ma'am.....all of them please.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 21, 2006 at 08:06:44 PT

Herbal Medicine
Anyone who uses medicinal herbs understands that they can vary in potency. It depends on the growing cycle and when the herb is harvested. It also depends on the curing process and packaging. Plants are not pills but since most medicinal plants aren't toxic like pills you learn what to take to accomplish the needed results. That's how I see it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 08:04:16 PT

another myth
"In 2004, there were 11,223 marijuana users admitted to treatment centers in Cook County and 32,961 marijuana treatment admissions in the state, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services, Alcoholism and Substance Abuse. No information was found for Champaign County."Likely, a major percentage of these numbers is from plea deals through the courts. Go to drug counseling (whether or not you need it) get out of jail free.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 08:01:20 PT

fact is......
If you were to grow it in your yard you know a lot more about what you have than if you bought it on the street via the black market.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dongenero on February 21, 2006 at 07:59:48 PT

silly arguments
"You won't know what exactly is in (the marijuana) unless you send it in to some highly sophisticated lab," Kramer said. "You don't know how well it works with any other problems you may be having. You don't know the chemical composition or quality."Well, if you planted a cannabis seed I think it is safe to assume your plant will be cannabis. What is in it? All of the elements genetically encoded in cannabis. Nothing more, nothing less.How well will it work? Try it.The chemical composition and quality? Try it.This isn't rocket science here folks. This are feeble complaints.
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment