cannabisnews.com: NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- July 27, 2006 





NORML's Weekly News Bulletin -- July 27, 2006 
Posted by CN Staff on July 27, 2006 at 12:44:47 PT
Weekly Press Release 
Source: NORML 
Ruling Expected Shortly In Legal Challenge To US Government's Pot Monopoly July 27, 2006 - Washington, DC, USAWashington, DC: A DEA Administrative Law Judge is expected to rule imminently on whether the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can maintain exclusive control of the production and distribution of cannabis for clinical research.
At issue in the case is whether the DEA in 2004 improperly rejected an application from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to manufacture cannabis for FDA-approved research. The DEA waited more than three years before officially denying the University's request, stating that the establishment of such a facility "would not be consistent with the public interest." Respondents in the case - the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) and Lyle Craker, director of the UMass-Amherst Medicinal Plant Program are challenging the DEA's denial. Respondents argued in administrative hearings last year that a private production facility is in the public interest (as defined by the US Controlled Substances Act) because it would encourage competition in the marketplace and promote technological and scientific advancement in the field of medicine.Currently, all federally approved research on marijuana must utilize cannabis supplied by and grown under contract with the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The UMass-Amherst proposal sought to provide clinical investigators with an alternative, independent source of cannabis for FDA-approved clinical trials.Several US researchers have complained in recent years that the low quality of NIDA-grown marijuana is insufficient to use in clinical studies evaluating cannabis' therapeutic potential. Others have criticized NIDA's unwillingness to provide cannabis for clinical protocols seeking to investigate the drug's medical uses. In 2004, the agency's Director Nora Volkow stated that it is "not NIDA's mission to study the medical uses of marijuana."Under federal law, even if the DEA's Administrative Law Judge rules against NIDA's marijuana monopoly, DEA head Karen Tandy can still elect to set aside the ruling.For more information, please contact either NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at: (202) 483-5500. Additional background regarding MAPS' administrative law challenge is available online at: http://www.maps.orgDL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6962Europe Approves Cannabinoid Blocking Agent For Prescription Use - 'Anti-Cannabis' Pill To Be Marketed As Anti-Obesity DrugJuly 27, 2006 - Paris, FranceParis, France: European regulatory authorities have approved the prescription use of the cannabinoid receptor antagonist SR 141716A, to be marketed by Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals as an anti-obesity drug under the trade name Acomplia (Rimonabant). The cannabinoid blocker, to be sold as an oral 20 milligram pill, is the first cannabinoid antagonist to be approved for human consumption.Acomplia will initially be available by prescription in the United Kingdom, though the drug is not expected to become widely available in that country until after it receives market approval from Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), a process that could take up to two years. Sanofi-Aventis is also planning product launches of Acomplia in Demark, Ireland, Germany, Finland, and Norway later this year.In clinical trials, daily use of Acomplia led to an average 14 pound decrease in subjects' weight after one year and an additional loss of 2.4 pounds the second year. However, subjects typically regained the weight after they ceased using the drug. Commonly reported side effects of the drug include depression, anxiety, and nausea. More than 15 percent of subjects who tried Acomplia discontinued its use because of the drug's adverse effects. Acomplia blocks the natural binding of endogenous cannabinoids to the neuronal CB1 receptors, causing subjects to lose their appetites. It is not known whether Acomplia blocks exogenous cannabinoids such as THC from binding to the cannabinoid receptors or whether the body moderates its production of endogenous cannabinoids in patients taking Acomplia. Because the endocannabinoid receptor system is involved in the regulation of several primary biological functions including appetite, body temperature, mood elevation, blood pressure, bone density, reproductive activity, learning capacity, and motor coordination some experts are concerned that the long-term use of Acomplia may eventually contribute to significant adverse health effects.NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre called the regulatory approval of Acomplia ironic."Despite decades of clinical and anecdotal reports demonstrating the therapeutic safety and efficacy of inhaled, natural cannabinoids, European regulators have instead rushed to approve a drug that is essentially 'anti-marijuana' without giving serious thought to its potential health and safety risks if used long-term," St. Pierre said.Sanofi-Aventis is also seeking US approval for Acomplia to market the drug as both a weight loss pill and as a smoking cessation agent. Though the US Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the drug this past February, the company is hopeful that it will receive US approval by 2007.Sales of Acomplia in Europe are expected to generate $3 billion dollars in revenue, according to company officials. Sanofi-Aventis is the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world.For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, or Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 483-5500.DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6961Source: NORML Foundation (DC)Published: July 27, 2006Copyright: 2006 NORML Contact: norml norml.org Website: http://www.norml.org/CannabisNews NORML Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/NORML.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #24 posted by FoM on July 30, 2006 at 11:21:25 PT
afterburner
I have been totally absorbed with stuff and work around the house and what's going on in the Holyland. I haven't listened to LWW for a few days but I have it cranked up now and gosh it make me feel better then how the news has been making me feel. I haven't seen Toker00 in a while. I wonder where he is. I hope he's getting excited about the CSNY tour too.Pictures from Portland, Oregon.
http://www.csny.com/photos/18
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by afterburner on July 30, 2006 at 10:27:44 PT
FoM
You have mail.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by whig on July 30, 2006 at 10:02:17 PT
FoM
Tobacco isn't really that expensive unless someone has a pack a day or more habit. Even when I was a regular smoker I rarely went over a half-pack. This is probably in part due to the particular cigarettes I smoked, which were tobacco without adulterants or fillers -- American Spirits and Nat Shermans and MYO loose tobacco. For a brief while I smoked Camel Turkish Gold and occasionally Kamel Reds.The thing is that these are relatively "expensive" cigarettes, especially compared to the generic and Waves and things that many poor nicotine addicts smoke, but in the long run the cheaper cigarettes cost way more because they addict more strongly and they burn really fast. I could nurse a good smoke along for ten minutes or longer compared to two minutes on one of those foul things. Think about how much time someone might spend smoking and how many cigarettes a day it's even practical for someone to go through. A two-pack a day habit is certainly possible for someone that spends two minutes on each cigarette, but not really practical if each takes ten minutes.Also with the loose tobacco even the most expensive cigarettes cost less than the cheapest of the store brand packs. I was probably spending a buck a day, maybe. Less than a Starbucks habit, anyhow.Anyhow I quit tobacco, and my sinuses are nearly recovered.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on July 30, 2006 at 07:18:56 PT
John Tyler 
They are slowly making tobacco illegal. The cost of cigarettes is so high that it is hard for people to afford but people will pay the price and it is just tax that makes it so high. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by John Tyler on July 30, 2006 at 07:18:38 PT
big pharma II
Speaking of big pharma did anyone see where they wanted to make their pill coatings prettier, using pearly finishes? This would make them more attractive and boost sales. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by John Tyler on July 30, 2006 at 07:12:22 PT
in the news
A couple of weeks ago it was reported in my local paper that health care statisticians estimate that up to 1 million people a year worldwide would die from tobacco related illnesses. Now assuming that this is correct, why is tobacco still legal if is so dangerous, and cannabis which has never caused the death of anyone, illegal and not dangerous?  The only reason I can tell is that it is crass, ruthless, greedy politics.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by global_warming on July 28, 2006 at 15:52:16 PT
stonewalling until the end
the de agency is pushing to far into absurdity, when will a peach pit or avocado seed become a crime, it seems that is only a matter of time, the enforcement of what human beings eat and enjoy pleasure has reached Gestapo Levels, like them good old days, when some knock on your door, in the middle of the Night, would find you in some secret holding camp.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Global_Warming on July 28, 2006 at 14:40:55 PT
re:14...
"But somebody always has to (ahem) 'improve' it. ", of course for a profit.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on July 28, 2006 at 12:43:15 PT
potpal
Have a nice weekend too! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by potpal on July 28, 2006 at 12:25:58 PT
Ruling Expected
Ruling Expected Shortly 
July 28, 2006 - Washington, DC, USAWashington, DC: A DEA Administrative Law Judge is expected to rule imminently on whether the US National Institute on 
Drug Abuse (NIDA) can impose a prohibition on all sun bathing in light of current research. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5219540.stm) Current threads show that those who spend time sun bathing on the beach and in some cases even parks have a 60,000% greater chance of dying from the activity than those that smoke cannabis and like stay in the shade, man. At issue in the case is whether sun bathing leads to harder drugs. Studies have determined that sun bathing may be a gateway to a cold beer and the loss of productivity associated with it has prompted some calls to clear the beaches. Some find the euphoria associated with the activity unexceptable. A proposed DEA solution will be to build prisons in place of the beaches then lock up all of the sun worshippers before their loathing ways sends the wrong message to the children …wink wink nudge nudge... Have a nice weekend!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on July 28, 2006 at 10:10:58 PT:
Always, the same problem
Commonly reported side effects of the drug include depression, anxiety, and nausea. More than 15 percent of subjects who tried Acomplia discontinued its use because of the drug's adverse effects...Because the endocannabinoid receptor system is involved in the regulation of several primary biological functions...some experts are concerned that the long-term use of Acomplia may eventually contribute to significant adverse health effects.They just can't get it through their big heads. They just can't accept the idea that the entire package is far more beneficial than their attempts to break it down into its basic components. And they are in such mortal terror of the 'high' that they strive feverishly to find a way to squelch it, at the cost of who knows how many beneficial synergistic compounds."If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's the way it is for a reason. But somebody always has to (ahem) 'improve' it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by whig on July 28, 2006 at 08:58:08 PT
Historical precedent
I seem to recall that there was a whole administrative hearing on the rescheduling of cannabis years ago, in which the judge ruled that cannabis should be removed from Schedule 1. It was set aside by the DEA and that was as far as it apparently went. These administrative courts don't have any real power because they are part of the executive branch and subservient to the president and his appointees.Ah, here... check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_L._Young
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Wayne on July 28, 2006 at 04:42:31 PT
Re: WW
Looks like they have the power of signing statements too, just like Dubya!The government really should call them on that if they do. I mean they're not following their own judge's orders...sounds to me like they're being willfully dysfunctional. That's a waste of money. At least the media should call them on it, anyway. If Ms. Tandy decides to do that, we should flood her with letters asking her why she doesn't follow her own courts' rulings. It's just a government agency, she has to answer to SOMEONE.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by WolfgangWylde on July 28, 2006 at 03:02:09 PT
The DEA...
...is just going to set aside the ruling.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by lombar on July 27, 2006 at 18:07:49 PT
More suffering OK...
" Commonly reported side effects of the drug include depression, anxiety, and nausea. More than 15 percent of subjects who tried Acomplia discontinued its use because of the drug's adverse effects."Look at the nastiness they approve of yet consider 'euphoria' to be an unnacceptable side effect. That is twisted.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by global_warming on July 27, 2006 at 16:22:32 PT
To man’s blind In difference to his fellow man
if you have a soulif you have no soul, 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by global_warming on July 27, 2006 at 16:08:14 PT
Oh Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene?
Did they beat the drum slowly, did they play the fife lowly,
did they sound the death march, as they lowered you down?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by global_warming on July 27, 2006 at 15:54:26 PT
and my brother in law
is a longtime employee of an international banking industry, i have not brought up the matters of Cannabis, he was a master sargent in the us army, in his older days, he is wrestling with his failing health, of course he has wed one of my lovely sisters, yet i sense some disturbance, it may more have to do with higher taxes and a foolish runaway government, and the costly war on drugs and drug users.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by whig on July 27, 2006 at 15:47:29 PT
gw #5
Good observation!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Global_Warming on July 27, 2006 at 15:12:42 PT
#4...
that sounds like the same crap that bought Manhattan Island from the original occupants, for some mere sparkling baubles, the natives have somehow got some smarts, now adays, they have to use the best bombs and munitions that man has made.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Wayne on July 27, 2006 at 14:21:10 PT
Re: Sam #2
They would tell you the difference between the AAFP and the AAP is that the first one focuses on all ages, the latter just on children.That's what they will say. We will say that they focus on pill profits. Your analogy about the whoring is DEAD ON.My brother-in-law is a family doctor. I don't know what his stance on MMJ is, we've never had a chance to discuss. I will say he is a good man and he will always try do what is right. But I see him come home with all sorts of free gifts from the umpteen conferences he goes to every year. You need any free pens? He's got boxes full of them. By the way, that's what all the money we pay those companies is going towards: useless sh**.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 27, 2006 at 13:08:24 PT
Sam
I remember when my grandmother's doctor made house calls. I would sit on the end of the bed and watch him open his medical bag and so many aromas came out of it. It was casual and caring and I never forgot it. Things are so different now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on July 27, 2006 at 13:02:58 PT
whoops
I just checked, it was the American Academy of Pediatrics that was featured in the Karen Tandy press release.What's the difference? It must hurt the real doctors who are forced to watch their profession turn into career prostitution, with the drug reps as the pimps.  How many pills did ya sell today, sweetie? Here's your cut - another $10,000 speaking engagement.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on July 27, 2006 at 12:59:23 PT
Big Pharm
Had a very interesting deja vu experience today. I was reading an article in The Atlantic Monthly called "The Drug Pushers" (april issue). The paper is a study and condemnation of how much influence the drug reps now wield within the health care industry. Look at this passage - talking about how most doctor organizations have been totally corrupted by Big Pharm:Which is not to say that pockets of resistance can’t be found, especially among younger physicians and medical students. The American Medical Student Association may be the only mainstream medical organization with a principled position against taking industry gifts. It stands in striking contrast to the American Academy of Family Practice, which last year refused to grant exhibition space at its annual conference to No Free Lunch, a physician-led advocacy group that advises physicians to “Just say no to drug reps.” The AAFP said that the group’s goals were “not within the character and purpose” of the conference. But it allowed pharmaceutical companies, McDonald’s, and the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States to exhibit. (It reversed its decision about No Free Lunch after protests by a number of AAFP members.)end quote. Well, well, well. Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were reading an article with all sorts of the usual anti-medical MJ BS from the AAFP?  Turns out they're a bunch of whores in white coats. The AMA is in bed with Big Pharm, as are all the rest.  Apparently, only the young docs retain their idealism.After reading the excellent Atlantic article, I'm forced to recognize that Big Pharm is far, far more of a player against medical MJ than I ever imagined. Now we know why Congress continues to vote in favor of raiding people in California.  No wonder the AAFP is again cannabis altogether: they're the good men and woman who are responsible for the 6 million kids on Prozac. The 4 million on Ritalin. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment