Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:42 AM
RainDog (28,784 posts)
NIDA official admits agency has harmed scientific inquiry
Go to the link to read part of her exchange with Virginia Democrat Gerry Connelly.
Volkow acknowledges that the NIDA places tighter controls on marijuana than it does heroin or meth, and that the agency holds a monopoly on production of cannabis only, while other drugs the U.S. creates for studies are produced by license to other entities.
Further, in order for clinical investigators to access NIDA’s limited pot supply, researchers must first obtain permission from multiple agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Public Health Service (a division of the Department of Health and Human Services), NIDA, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Yet federal approval of all of these multiple agencies is not a necessary requirement for researchers seeking to clinically investigate any substance besides cannabis.
Rep. Connolly: “But (in) studies involving marijuana, additional approval also has to be sought from NIDA and HHS. Is that not correct?...Is that true about heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines? Do they have to go through that triple-tier approval process for research as well for human studies?”
Nora Volkow: “No. The approval for those human studies mostly comes from review committees at the NIH and if the DEA approves of giving them the drug (then) it’s a simple, it’s a different process.”
Rep. Connolly: “Yes, it’s a different process and it’s less cumbersome.… And we’ve created all kind of special barriers with respect to marijuana as if it was the über alles of all drug abuse when, in fact, it is not. And we’ve impeded the ability to have legitimate research that could benefit human health. And it’s very hard for me, frankly, to understand why we continue to insist it is a class I substance.”
Connolly also noted Volkow's agency is not dedicated to scientific inquiry. Its entire goal is prevention of drug use. Therefore, it's goal is not aligned with reality - because reality doesn't require suppression of evidence in order to be "true."
As has been noted here, the NIDA cannot even mention a possible benefit from a drug that has been restricted by Congress. This is also the case with the Drug Czar's office.
We have entire bureaucracies whose purpose is to propagate a drug war, not seek out truths that may be contrary to their mission statements.
Why does the U.S. taxpayer fund agencies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda directed at them?
This is craziness. This is reefer madness.
It seems to me Congress needs to change the law regarding various federal agencies to align with reality-based views of scientific inquiry. More to the point, Congress should dissolve the Drug Czar's office and remove cannabis from the oversight of any political entity, since Congress has demonstrated it was willing, in the past, to use federal agencies to target populations in the U.S. for arrest based upon Congress' own willingness to suppress evidence available from scientific research, as well as prevent the research itself.
Let the National Academy of Sciences have oversight on drug policy and access for research, as well as licensing. Decriminalize marijuana at the federal level and allow states to make their own laws, as was the case with the end of prohibition of alcohol.
Interestingly, spite of various agencies tasked with suppressing evidence or preventing research, a body of research exists. As one doctor who has done research into the therapeutic value of marijuana explained in a video (Donald Abrams), scientists and doctors have to word their grant and research proposals in such a way that they indicate their goal is to show harm, not merely test a hypothesis based upon observable evidence.
Nevertheless, when your research indicates no harm, as PhD/Dean of Nurses Melanie Dreher found in her studies of children in Jamaica whose mothers used cannabis throughout pregnancy as part of folk medicine, your research may often be denied future funding.
That's not how good science operates.
3 replies, 810 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
NIDA official admits agency has harmed scientific inquiry (Original post)
|Uncle Joe||Jun 2014||#3|