The Politics of Pot, New York Times, 4/22/2004

[Coastie for Truth]

The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice.

Ordinarily, when the F.D.A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana.

That assertion is based on an evaluation by federal agencies in 2001 that justified the government's decision to tightly regulate marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. But it appears to flout the spirit of a 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences.

The institute was appropriately cautious in its endorsement of marijuana. It said the active ingredients of marijuana appeared useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS. It warned that these potential benefits were undermined by inhaling smoke that is more toxic than tobacco smoke. So marijuana smoking should be limited, it said, to those who are terminally ill or don't respond to other therapies.

Yet the F.D.A. statement, which was drafted with the help of other federal agencies that focus on drug abuse, does not allow even that much leeway. It argues that state laws permitting the smoking of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation are inconsistent with ensuring that all medications undergo rigorous scrutiny in the drug approval process.

<<<snip>>>


Comment: I have always felt that the primary purpose of criminalizing marijuana was to enrich the few rotten apples in the criminal justice system barrel.

[scot]

1. This is a great Dem issue

as it cuts into the libertarian side of the conservative coalition. Even the National Review supports decriminalization. Bill Buckley, call your office.

[Syrinx]

2. even here in Alabama...

I saw a poll about a year ago that said the vast majority (I don't remember the figure) of Alabamians favor medical marijuana. They're still against blanket legalization though, which I don't really understand.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

3. What a joke...

..."It argues that state laws permitting the smoking of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation are inconsistent with ensuring that all medications undergo rigorous scrutiny in the drug approval process."

Did they just say we need more corporate doctors?

[bemildred]

4. The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding

Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

A Final Comment

"In this Chapter, we have carefully considered the spectrum of social and legal policy alternatives. On the basis of our findings, discussed in previous Chapters, we have concluded that society should seek to discourage use, while concentrating its attention on the prevention and treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective. We have attempted to balance individual freedom on one hand and the obligation of the state to consider the wider social good on the other. We believe our recommended scheme will permit society to exercise its control and influence in ways most useful and efficient, meanwhile reserving to the individual American his sense of privacy, his sense of individuality, and, within the context of ail interacting and interdependent society, his options to select his own life style, values, goals and opportunities."

[Coastie for Truth]

5. I realized criminalization of marijuana was a cash cow for bad apples

when I saw how "Forensic Scientists" lied on the stand about the old Dugenois test - saying they extracted the purple solution with acetone (to differentiate cannabis from wool and catnip) - when they never did. Routinely lied - case after case. And the "operatives" (i.e., bad apples) shook down parents for "special fees" (i.e., bribes).

As a prank, somebody once submitted catnip to the Customs Lab -- and the report came back "positive" for marijuana. Sheeesh.

[bemildred]

6. Ah yes, the 70s.

I think that was all opportunistic. Ultimately, Anslinger's original purpose was racist and police state oriented. The whole drug war, from it's very beginning, has been an invaluable asset for enemies of Constitutional protections. Consider the variety of ways that the plain English meaning of the various parts of the Bill of Rights have been violated in the name of drug prohibition and catching "pushers".

It is no accident that drug prohibition was cranked up right about the time alcohol prohibition was abandoned.

[teryang]

7. Racist and police state oriented - drug offenses

...particularly marijuana because it opens wide the door to erosion of 4th Amendment guarantees. The odor of burnt cannibis, is the mantra that places so many persons of color in prison. That smell justifies detainment and search of anyone, but it just so happens that 75 percent of males in prison for drug offenses are minorities.

I posted an article from globalresearch.org on the discussion board that has stunning data on drug offenders in prison:

Jim Crow Incarceration Nation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1002356&mesg_id=1002356