Any candidate that says he needs a study on marijuana is lying!

[plurality]

Here is a study that was done by the NIXON Administration in 1972. It recommended FULL LEGALIZATION for possesion and non-commercial transfer of marijuana. Nixon buried this so he could keep locking up 'pot smoking hippies'. Any person who says there's no medical evidence that marijuana is not harmful and that no studies have reccomended legalization is lying!

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

The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding
Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972

snip

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncrec.htm
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL LAW

The Commission recommends only the following changes in federal law:

POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE, BUT MARIHUANA POSSESSED IN PUBLIC WOULD REMAIN CONTRABAND SUBJECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE.
CASUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION, OR INSIGNIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

snip

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE LAW

Private Activities

POSSESSION IN PRIVATE OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

DISTRIBUTION IN PRIVATE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION OR INSIGNIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING A PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. i'll be glad

to help them with their studies. Anything for science.

[plurality]

9. I'd rather

the fuckers quit locking people up and follow the studies that have already been done!

[fertilizeonarbusto]

16. don't we all?

but if they did that, prison builders and administrators couldn't give tons o' dough to the rethugs........

[Kazak]

2. Freedom is...

NORML

[Eloriel]

3. Dean on MM

POSTED TO BLOG:
Anyway since there seems to be some confusion over Deans stance on medicinal marijuana I thought you folks might to see a post made by the Doc himself in answer to an 18 year olds query on the subject.

"Jeremy(from previous thread). I'm impressed that an 18 year old would spend time on a political blog site. Here is a short summary of my drug policy. 1) drug abuse ought to be treated as a public health problem not a judicial problem. I do not favor legalization because we already have enough problems with the two drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco. I also believe that if people are dealing heroin to kids or shooting people that jail is more than appropriate. But if your "crime", is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab, not jail. 2)I will order the FDA to study marijuana to see what medicinal effects it may have. I do not think marijuana should have a process different than every other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value. Based on the studies I have read, my guess is that the FDA may find that is useful in patients with HIV/Aids, and various forms of cancer, but not for such things as treating glaucoma, where there are other drugs available, and where the risks outway the benefits. I';m on the way back from New York, so i got to read alot of the blogging that went on today. You folks are terrific!! Thank you for an incredible day, and an incredible quarter. Howard Dean

[plurality]

4. so he says he needs studies

Studies have already been done. Why is he continuing to beat a dead horse? Studies have ALREADY PROVEN that there is no reason for marijuana prohibition, much less holding back medical marijuana, so why is Dean ignoring the volumes of evidence already out there?

[SeattleDem]

6. no studies are published in the "normal" medical channels

I just this morning did a Medline search from 1966 to present to look for published results of marijuana studies (done with smoking, not with oral THC) and only found one randomized, controlled, clinical trial (done in people with asthma).

I would imagine Dr. Dean, as a physician, has access to the same sources of peer-reviewed medical literature that I do, and in that case, he would find what I find: not much published in the medical literature as far as controlled clinical trials go, which would allow one to conclude that studies are needed.

[plurality]

8. but this is just medical marijuana

what about people who just want to smoke it? this GOVERNMENT report says that all marijuana use should be LEGAL! Medical or otherwise. If all use is legal, you don't need to wait for the FDA do waste ten years studying it to use it. You can try it on your own and use it and if it works keep using it. This waiting for the FDA crap is just back-peddling and waffling when the studies have already been done that say ALL marijuana use should be legal.

[SeattleDem]

10. I agree - if you want to smoke it, have at it

it's a plant and you should be able to grow your own and do what you want with it. Same with tobacco or psilocyban mushrooms. If it's found in nature and not being marketed by someone, you should have a right to grow, harvest etc.

However, you said in post 1 that no studies show it's not harmful (or something to that effect). That isn't necessarily true. In order to "prove" something safe and effective, it has to be studied in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Just because you or your friends haven't experienced any negative consequences doesn't mean something is generally safe for everyone.

If someone were going to "sell" or "market" marijuana as a sedative, as an anti-nausea drug, as a treatment for glaucoma, it would have to go thru standard drug approval channels.

I would also go so far as to say tobacco is a drug and Phillip Morris and their ilk should have to do safety and effectiveness studies too.

That is the difference to me - let people do what they want in the privacy of their own home. Once the "market" comes into play and someone wants to sell a natural product for a purported health benefit, then safety and efficacy studies are needed.

[plurality]

11. no I stated in post #1

that studies have been done that prove the effects don't warrant prohibition, much less keeping people from using it medically. That's the point. Studies have been done, this study in particular should be given particualr weight since it's members were chosen by someone I think it's safe to say was quite against laxing marijuana restrictions. Anyone who says they need more studies is stalling plane and simple. How many more people have to rot in prison so some politician fuck can commission another 78 studies to pile on top of the several hundred ones that have already been done.

[SeattleDem]

13. epidemiologic studies are not clinical trials

your original link is all epidemiologic or observational studies, which aren't as "good" at determining safety and efficacy of anything.

There is no medicine sold in the US based on epidemiologic evidence alone.

Why the anger directed in response to me? I'm not advocating that people continue to rot in jail for using a plant product. I am simply advocating that if someone wants to sell and market marijuana, they are going to need some data from appropriate clinical trials.

[plurality]

15. not directed at you, but politicians who continue these bankrupt policies

The thing about marijuana is you don't need companies to sell and market it. People who want it can grow it themselves. I'm angry because I'm tired of the political cowardice of candidates who say we need studies. This isn't the only study that's been done, I just think it's one that proves my point the best since it came from such a hostile source. I don't have the link yet, but I'll find it, but the AMA (AMerican Medical Association) said there was no medical reason to prohibit marijuana when it was first outlawed. The need for studies in this area is pointless. Look at the history of the Drug War. Marijuana prohibition was built on racism, anti-Mexican and anti-black parnoia, and industrial greed, not medicine. That alone should show that we shouldn't need science to prove that it should be legalized.

[plurality]

18. here's some info about the AMA and early marijuana prohibtion

http://www.ukcia.org/research/fruit/fruit4.htm

The brief three days of hearings on the Act24 present a case study in legislative carelessness. At no time was any primary empirical evidence presented about the effects of the drug, and the participating congressmen seem never to have questioned the assumed evils. Furthermore, the only real concerns seem to have been that farmers would be inconvenienced by having to kill a plant which grew wild in many parts of the country, and that the birdseed, paint and varnish, and domestic hemp industries would be damaged by passage of the law.25 Finally, the one witness appearing in opposition to the bill, Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel of the American Medical Association and an early and respected participant in the drafting of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act,26 was roundly insulted for his audacity in daring to question the wisdom of the Act.

http://www.taima.org/jp/krumm.htm

While this was considered in passing federal anti-marijuana legislation, the opinion of the American Medical Association was ignored. Dr. William C. Woodward was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. The AMA was aware of the therapeutic potential of marijuana (or as they knew it, cannabis) and did not want it to be removed from medical use. Dr. Woodward came to testify for the AMA testifying that, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug." One of the Congressmen said in response, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." (38)

38. Charles H. Whitebread, II, The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States (last modified April 6, 1997)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm.

[Mairead]

30. Did you miss these, then?

Beaconsfield, D., Ginsburg, J., and Rainsbury, R. "Therapeutic potential of marihuana." New England Journal of Medicine 289(24) 1973: 1315.

Bhargave, H. "Potential therapeutic application of naturally occurring and synthetic cannabinoids." General Pharmacology 9 1978: 195-213.

Council on Scientific Affairs. "Marijuana: Its health hazards and therapeutic potentials." Journal of the American Medical Association 246(16) 1981: 1823-1827.

Grinspoon, L., Bakalar, J. "Marihuana as medicine, a plea for reconsideration." Journal of the American Medical Association 273(23) 1995: 1875-1876.

Hall, WD, Degenhardt, LJ, Currow, D. "Allowing the medical use of cannabis." Medical Journal of Australia 175(1) 2001: 39-40.

Joy, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson, and John A. Benson. Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

Kassirer, Jerome P., M.D. "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana." New England Journal of Medicine 336(5) 1997: 366-367.

Kumar, RN, Chambers, WA, Pertwee, RG. "Pharmacological actions and therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids." Anaesthesia 56(11) 2001: 1059-68.

Mechoulam, R, Hanus, L. "Cannabidiol: an overview of some chemical and pharmacological aspects Part I: chemical aspects." Chemistry and Physics of Lipids 121(1-2) 2002: 35-43.

Mikuriya, M.D., Tod, Ed. Marijuana: Medical Papers (1839- 1972). Oakland, Calif.: MediComp Press. 1973. 465 p.

Morgan, David R.; Ashton, C. Eds. "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis." British Medical Association, Ed. 1998.

Robson, P. "Therapeutic aspects of cannabis and cannabinoids." British Journal of Psychiatry. 178 2001:107- 15.

Schurr, A. "Marijuana: Much ado about THC." Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 80(1) 1985: 1-7.

Snyder, Solomon H. Marijuana: Its Effects on Mind and Body, Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs. Series 1, 1991.

Taylor, HG. "Analysis of the medical use of marijuana and its societal implications." Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association 38(2) 1998: 220-7.

Ungerleider, J. and Andrysiak, T. "Therapeutic issues of marijuana and THC." International Journal of Addictions 20(5) 1985: 691-699.

Voth, EA, Schwartz, RH. "Medicinal applications of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol and marijuana." Annals of Internal Medicine 126(10) 1997: 791-8.

Watson, SJ, Benson JA Jr, Joy JE. "Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base: a summary of the 1999 Institute of Medicine report." Archives of General Psychiatry 57(6) 2000: 547-52.

Zinberg, N. "On cannabis and health." Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 11(1-2) 1979: 135-144.

Beal JE, Olson, RLL, Morales, JO, Bellman, P, Yangco, B, Lefkowitz, L, Plasse, TF, Shepard, KV. "Dronabinol as a treatment for anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS." Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 10 1995: 89-97.

Beal JE, Olson, R, Lefkowitz, L, Laubenstein, L, Bellman, P, Yangco, B, Morales, JO, Murphy, R, Powderly, W, Plasse, TF, Mosdell, KW, Shepard, KV. "Long-term efficacy and safety of dronabinol for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome- associated anorexia." Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 14 1997: 7-14.

Bredt, BM, Higuera-Alhino, D, Shade, SB, Hebert, SJ, McCune, JM, Abrams, DI. "Short-term effects of cannabinoids on immune phenotype and function in HIV-1- infected patients." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42(11 Suppl) 2002: 82S-89S.

Haney, M. "Effects of smoked marijuana in healthy and HIV + marijuana smokers." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42(11 Suppl) 2002: 34S-40S.

Kosel, BW, Aweeka, FT, Benowitz, NL, Shade, SB, Hilton, JF, Lizak, PS, Abrams, DI. "The effects of cannabinoids on the pharmacokinetics of indinavir and nelfinavir." AIDS 16(4) 2002: 543-550.

Kotler, DP, Gaetz, HP, Klein, EB, Lange, M, Holt, PR. "Enteropathy associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." Annals of Internal Medicine 101 1984: 421-428.

Timpone, JG, Wright, DJ, Li N, Egorin, MJ, Enama, ME, Mayers, J, Galetto, G, DATRI 004 Study Group. "The safety and pharmacokinetics of single-agent and combination therapy with megestrol acetate and dronabinol for the treatment of HIV wasting syndrome: The DATRI 004 study group." AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses 13 1997: 305315.

Cooler, P, Gregg, JM. "Effect of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in humans." Southern Medical Journal 70 1977:951-954.

Crawford, WJ, Merritt, JC. "Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol on arterial andintraocular hypertension." International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy 17 1979:191-196.

Green, K. "Marijuana smoking vs cannabinoids for glaucoma therapy." Archives of Ophthalmology 116(11) 1998: 1433-1437.

Green, K, Roth M. "Ocular effects of topical administration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man." Archives of Ophthalmology 100 1982: 265-267.

Green, L. "Marijuana effects on intraocular pressure." Applied, Pharmacology in the Medical Treatment of Glaucomas 1984: 507-526.

Hepler, RS, Frank, IR. "Marihuana smoking and intraocular pressure." Journal of the American Medical Association 217(10) 1971:1392.

Jay, WM, Green, K. "Multiple-drop study of topically applied 1%, A9-tetrahydrocannabinol in human eyes". Archives of Ophthalmology 101 1983: 591-593.

Jones RT, Benowitz NL, Heming RI. "Clinical relevance of cannabis tolerance and dependence". Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21 1981:143S-152S.

Kaufman, PL. "Marijuana and glaucoma." Archives of Ophthalmology 116(11) 1998: 1512-1513.

Merritt, J. "Glaucoma, hypertension, and marijuana." Journal of the National Medical Association 74(8) 1982: 715- 716.

Merritt, J. et al. "Topical delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol as a potential glaucoma agent." Glaucoma 4 1982: 253-255.

Merritt, J., Crawford, W., Alexander, P., Anduze, A. and Gelbart, S. "Effect of marihuana on intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma." Ophthalmology 87(3) 1980: 222- 228.

Merritt, J., Perry, D., Russell, D. and Jones, B. "Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and aqueous dynamics in glaucoma." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21(8-9) 1981: 467S-471S.

Porcella, A, Casellas, P, Gessa, GL, Pani, L. "Cannabinoid receptor CB1 mRNA is highly expressed in the rat ciliary body: implications for the antiglaucoma properties of marihuana." Brain Research Molecular Brain Research 58(1- 2) 1998: 240-245.

Porcella, A, Maxia, C, Gessa, GL, Pani, L. "The synthetic cannabinoid WIN55212-2 decreases the intraocular pressure in human glaucoma resistant to conventional therapies." European Journal of Neuroscience 13(2) 2001: 409-412.

Shapiro, D. "The ocular manifestations of the cannabinoids." Opthalmologica 168 1974: 366-369.

Zimmerman, T. "Efficacy in glaucoma treatment -- the potential of marijuana." Annals of Ophthalmology 12(4)1980: 449-450.

Bateman, D.C., Rawlins, M. "Therapeutic potential of cannabinoids." British Medical Journal 284 1982: 1211-1212.

"Cannabinoids for nausea." The Lancet 1(8214) 1981: 255- 256.

Chang, A. et al. "Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in cancer patients Receiving high- dose methotrexate." Annals of Internal Medicine 91(6) 1979: 819-824.

Doblin, R., Kleiman, M. "Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: A survey of oncologists' experiences and attitudes" Journal of Clinical Oncology 9(7) 1991: 1314-1319.

Gralla, RJ, Tyson, LB, Borden, LB, et al. "Antiemetic therapy: A review of recent studies and a report of a random assignment trial comparing metoclopramide with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol." Cancer Treatment Reports 68 1984: 163-172.

Jenkins, P. "Cannabis used in new cancer technology." Financial Times 26 Aug. 2002, late ed.: 18+.

Kutner, Michael H. "Evaluation of the Use of Both Marijuana
and THC in Cancer Patients for the Relief of Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Cancer Chemotherapy after Failure of Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity" as prepared for the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners, Georgia Department of Health, by physicians and researchers at Emory University, Atlanta, (January 20, 1983).

Levitt, M, Faiman, C, Hawks, R, et al. "Randomized double- blind comparison of delta-9-THC and marijuana as chemotherapy antiemetics." Proceedings of the American Society for Clinical Oncology 3 1984: 91.

Noyes R Jr, Brunk, SF, Baram, DA, Canter, A. "Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 15(2-3) 1975:139-43.

Noyes R Jr, Brunk, SF, Baram, DA, Canter, A. Sallan, S.E., Cronin, C. Zelen, M., Zinberg, N.E. "Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer: A randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prochlorperazine." New England Journal of Medicine 302(3) 1980: 135-138.

Parker LA, Mechoulam, R,Schlievert,C. "Cannabidiol, a non- psychoactive component of cannabis and its synthetic dimethylheptyl homolog suppress nausea in an experimental model with rats." Neuroreport 13(5) 2002: 567-70.

Parker LA, Mechoulam R, Schlievert, C, Abbott, L, Fudge, ML, Burton, P. "Effects of cannabinoids on lithium-induced conditioned rejection reactions in a rat model of nausea." Psychopharmacology 166(2) 2003: 156-62.

Sallan, S.E., Zinberg, N.E., Ferei, E., III, "Antiemetic effect of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy." New England Journal of Medicine 293(16) 1975: 795-797.

Schwartz, RH, Beveridge, RA. "Marijuana as an antiemetic drug: how useful is it today? Opinions from clinical oncologists." Journal of Addictive Diseases 14(1) 1994: 5- 14.

Ungerleider, J., Andrysiak, T., Fairbanks, L., Goodnight, J., Sama, G. and Jamison, K. "Cannabis and cancer chemotherapy: A comparison of oral delta-9-THC and prochlorperazine." Cancer 50(4) 1982: 636-645.

Vinciguerra, V., Moore, T., Brennab, E. "Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy." N.Y. State Journal of Medicine 1988: 525-527.

Ames, F. and Cridland, S. "Anticonvulsant effects of cannabidiol." South Africa Medical Journal 69 1986: 14.

Campbell, FA, Tramer, MR, Carroll, D, Reynolds, DJ, Moore, RA, McQuay, HJ. "Are cannabinoids an effective and safe treatment option in the management of pain? A qualitative systematic review." British Medical Journal 323(7303) 2001:13-6.

Clifford, D.B. "Tetrahydrocannabinol for tremor in multiple sclerosis." Annals of Neurology 13 1983: 669- 671.

Consroe, P, Musty, R, Rein, J, Tillery,W, Pertwee, R. "The perceived effects of smoked cannabis on patients with multiple sclerosis." European Neurology 38(1) 1997: 44-8.

Consroe, P., Wood, G., and Buchsbaum, H. "Anticonvulsant nature of marijuana smoking." Journal of the American Medical Association 234 1975: 306-307.

Dunn, M. and Davis, R. "The perceived effects of marijuana on spinal cord injured males." Paraplegia 12 1974: 175.

Greenberg HS, Werness, SA, Pugh, JE, Andrus, RO, Anderson, DJ, Domino, EF. "Short-term effects of smoking marijuana on balance in patients with multiple sclerosis and normal volunteers." Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 55 1994: 324-328.

Killestein J, Hoogervorst EL, Reif M, Kalkers NF, Van Loenen AC, Staats PG, Gorter RW, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH. "Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered cannabinoids in MS." Neurology 58(9) 2002:1404-7.

Maurer, M., Henn, V., Dittrich A., Hoffamn, A., 1990. "Delta- 9-tetrahydrocannabinol shows antispastic and analgesic effects in a single case double-blind trial." European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 240 1990: 1-4.

Meinck, H.M., Schonle, P.W., Conrad, B. 1989. "Effect of Cannabinoids on Spasticity and Ataxia in multiple sclerosis." Journal of Neurology 236: 120-122.

Muller-Vahl, KR, Kolbe, H, Schneider, U, Emrich, HM. "Cannabis in movement disorders." Forsch Komplementarmed 6(Suppl 3) 1999: 23-7.

Petro, D. "Marihuana as a therapeutic agent for muscle spasm of spasticity." Psychosomatics 21 1980: 81, 85.

Petro, D., Ellenberger, C., Jr. "Treatment of human spasticity with delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21(8-9 Suppl.) 1981:413S-416S.

Smith, PF. "Cannabinoids in the treatment of pain and spasticity in multiple sclerosis." Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs 3(6) 2002:859-64.

Turkanis, S., Cely, W., Olsen, D. and Karler, R. "Anticonvulsant properties of cannabinol." Research Communications in Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology 8, 1974: 231-246.

Volicer, L, Stelly, M, Morris, J, McLaughlin, J, Volicer, BJ. "Effects of dronabinol on anorexia and disturbed behavior in patients with Alzheimer's disease." International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 12 1997: 913-919.

[plurality]

31. thank you

was that at the end of the report. that thing is soo big it's easy to miss something, but it's so comprehensive, I don't see how it can be discounted.

[Mairead]

52. No, this is from a different source. But there are tons of studies

so nobody's ever going to completely collect them in one place, I don't think. When a single literature review can aggregate SIXTY PAGES of citations, I think it'd probably want a book the size of a telephone directory to capture them all.

[plurality]

53. do you have a link for that source for future reference? n/t

[Mairead]

66. I pm'd you (nt)

[SeattleDem]

73. a published paper is NOT necessarly a "study"

there are all sorts of medical publications out there. Getting 60 pages of citations does NOT mean that there are 60 well done studies.

Your 60 pages of citations probably contains:

Animal studies
Pharmacology studies and lab studies
Studies done with marinol/dronabinol/oral THC
Case reports
Epidemiologic studies, such as case control studies where people self-reprt marijuana use and researchers correlate use w/outcomes
Review articles/opinion pieces

Filter your search strategy to look for human clinical trials then delete all the Marinol studies and tell us what you get.

[plurality]

75. did you read this citations?

They were studies from medical journals. Medical journals don't publish opinions that aren't based on anything, they publish well researched and performed studies. They are often used as evidence in lawsuits, such as many of the pharmaceutical lawsuits the law firm I work for is involved in. Since you didn't look at the whole list I'll cull it down for you some.

"Therapeutic potential of marihuana." New England Journal of Medicine

"Marihuana as medicine, a plea for reconsideration." Journal of the American Medical Association

"Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis." British Medical Association

"Analysis of the medical use of marijuana and its societal implications." Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association

"Effects of smoked marijuana in healthy and HIV + marijuana smokers." Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

[SeattleDem]

88. this is my field - I can tell a lot reading the titles

I analyze research and write and submit papers every single day.

NEJM and JAMA do in fact print Review articles. They also print editorials. I've had some of my own published in these journals!

The first 4 items you've listed I can tell from the titles are review articles or opinion pieces. Key words include "potential" and "plea for reconsideration".

The last one MIGHT be a study, but it could just be an observational study, where they asked people with and without HIV specific questions to examine differential effects. Either way, there is no "control" group, meaning no group that DIDN'T use marijuana to allow an assessment of the actual medicinal benefits of the drug.

[plurality]

89. how about this?

While this was considered in passing federal anti-marijuana legislation, the opinion of the American Medical Association was ignored. Dr. William C. Woodward was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. The AMA was aware of the therapeutic potential of marijuana (or as they knew it, cannabis) and did not want it to be removed from medical use. Dr. Woodward came to testify for the AMA testifying that, "

http://www.taima.org/jp/krumm.htm

Granted it's not some study, but it is based on the organization of doctors who at the time were well versed in the benefits of prescribing marijuana. You know sometimes, you don't have to have clinical studies to prove something, observational experience can be just as useful. And it seems that it wasn't medical or scientific fact that caused prohibition but hysteria so why should it be neccesary to repeal this nonsense?

[Terwilliger]

83. I get somebody

that doesn't want to see the facts at hand so they find excuse after excuse like most prohibitionists

[SeattleDem]

68. long list of reviews, opinions, case reports

and studies of oral THC (marinol), not inhalational THC.

Please point out which ones are specifically randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated marijuana administered by inhalation in humans with a sufficient sample size to detect statistically significant differences between treatment groups. That's the type of study that the FDA will require to "approve" smoking marijuana for certain conditions.

[Mairead]

76. Sorry, no. You want to filter the reasearch, be my guest.

I gave you some cites, now it's your turn.

[SeattleDem]

87. and I already did, in message #6

which you then responded to with your long list of citations that you claimed were all relevant studies that I somehow missed.

[Terwilliger]

84. I dont understand...do we need studies on aspirin?

Ya see, aspirin kills 1000 more people in the US than does pot. Maybe its time to let doctors prescribe something that shouldn't even be considered in terms of its toxicity, since it has none.

Then we can get to the question of why the government has decided that cannabis is Schedule I (no medicinal value, high potential for abuse) when NONE of ANY data supported that.

So marijuana is illegal due to non-medicinal, non-scientific moralizing, but you have to go through clinical trials to let a doctor prescribe pot?

That would be rampant hypocrisy all rolled into one.

Dean is a liar. The evidence is clear.

[dsc]

96. There have been several studies on aspirin

Even without searching I know this due to the several warnings aspirin has on it. Why do you think they have those?

[dsc]

5. There is a huge difference

between deciminalizing a drug (and that not legalization is what you are describing here) and suggesting a drug has some benefitial properties relative to treating disease. Nothing you site suggests that pot is benefitial toward treating diseases because that isn't what Nixon had them do. I happen to agree with you on the merits but Dean isn't lying here. These are two completely different issues. And I do agree with him on the notion that before pot or anything else is marketed as a medicine the FDA should be approving it.

[plurality]

7. check out the contents of the report

I didn't cite all of it because it's HUGE! They also looked at medicinal aspects of the drug. And in Deans statement he said he didn't favor legalization. (I believe that's what you'd call it when you remove the penalties for possessing and selling it, but if not then that's semantics) So he's willing to follow Nixon and continue jailing people even when it's not useful.

[dsc]

19. That is utter BS

In the statement, which as been reposted at least 10 times in just the last few days, he clearly states that if a persons 'crime' is using marijuana in his or her home he favors treatment not jail. That is utterly false to say he favors jail. I didn't read the link I had assumed since this was in regards to medical marijuana you would have posted whatever was said on that subject. I will look later but dont' have time to wade through what you describe as a huge report right now.

I never said Dean favored legalization nor that I agree with his stance. But I do think that even if marijuana were legal an FDA approval would be needed for marijuana to be advertized for medical use. A study from 1971 may or may not be enough.

[plurality]

21. it wouldn't need FDA approval

there are TONS of herbal remedies on the market that aren't FDA approved that are used for medical purpose. Ever heard of St. John's Wart, Ginseng, Gingko Biloba? And forcing people to treatment might as well be jailing them. Tell me, what do you think would happen if me, a responsible recreational marijuana user was cited and forced to go to treatment that I don't need. I'd tell them to shove their treatment up their ass. Do you think they'd let me get away with that? No, they either force me to go to rehab (also known as forcible detention) or send me to jail. So how does this change anything?

[dsc]

23. some things

First I don't think so called herbal remedies should be allowed to do this either. I note you left out ephedra from your list of herbal remedies. If pot has medical uses, and I think it probably does, let them do what other drugs do. BTW I can honestly say that in three years of AA and one trip in rehab I have never, ever met a person forced into rehab on the basis of marijuana use alone. It has been either hard drug use (with marijuana), a crime committed under the use of marijuana, or DWI of marijuana. In the second and third case I think we both agree with the idea that those people should be in treatmeent or jail. The first is something else. I am not saying that never in the history of the law has your senario occured but I am saying it is so rare that basing ones vote for President on it is just absurd.

[plurality]

25. Most people that get treatment for marijuana don't go to AA

Many of my friends in college have been busted for marijuana possesstion. For acts such as being at a party where the music was too lound. Cop knocks on door, occupant opens door, cop says it smells like weed I'm coming in, and busts people. In order to not go to jail they had to get 'drug treatment' and also go to probation. These 'treatment' sessions are very expensive, so I wonder what happens to those who can't afford them. (Sorry states won't pay for it) And this is not rare at all. In fact the DEA uses the fact that enrollment of tons of young people in 'drug treatment' programs 'proof' that marijuana is addictive and should remain illegal. What they don't bother to mention is that most of these young people are in 'treatment' on court orders so they don't go to jail. I can understand you not thinking this happens alot since you probably don't know many people this affects. (I'm assuming you're not in the 18-25 age group here) In my experience about 65% of the people I've met smoke weed, and of them, at least 50% have had some interaction with the law over it, and all of them had to go to forced 'treatment' because of it. None of them are addicts, none of them are depraved, none of them are commiting crimes (aside from smoking weed), and none of them deserve the state sticking its nose in their shit.

[dsc]

26. Most places require a 12 step program

after the center. Around here that is generally AA (our NA and CA programs are both sparse and of poor quality). I haven't a clue where you live but I suspect that you live in a very rigid place in regards to enforcement. I am 35 but am a teacher and therefore know many, many high schoolers via that and know a decent number of the 18 to 25 set in AA. I will conceed though that I did leave out one other instance of forced rehab and that is people under 18 who are caught with marijuana. I don't know what my opinion of that is to be honest.

[plurality]

28. I'm from Dallas

which is where most of the people I refer to are from. But I imagine that most people in rehab for marijuana are there because of the law and not because marijuana was an addiction they couldn't kick that was destroying their lives. Granted this is annecdotal, but weed doesn't work where you have 'cravings' and 'withdrawals' like heroin, cocaine, nicotine, or alcohol. People that continue to smoke it do it because they like it, not because they 'need' it, so I don't see where many people would go to rehab for it by choice.

[dsc]

33. but forced rehab

for doing criminal or criminally dangerous things is not a bad thing. I agree that rehab for simple smoking is a problem (if for no other reason than rehabs don't have space for that) but rehab for the things I site is justified. I can't speak to the craving or lack thereof for marijuana it literally didn't do squat for me. I was a booze lover.

[plurality]

41. I haven't come out against forced rehab for those things

But Dean's position implies that rehab would be forced for ALL marijuana infractions, including possestion and use, since he would decriminalize/legalize it. So he's saying if some cops comes across me smoking a joint (maybe he sees me through a window) the state can force me to waste my time and upwards of $1000 to listen to some mindless brainwashing that smoking weed is a disease and is destroying my life, when a cursory examination of my life would reveal that to be utter bullshit.

[Mairead]

57. "First I don't think herbal remedies should be allowed to do this either"

Sounds as though you, like Dr Dean, are a moralist. Perhaps you should work on a better set of boundaries? Not everyone becomes an addict or loses control of their life. That you did so was unfortunate for you and those around you, but you were and are in a small minority. The restrictions you need to brace up your will are not needed by more fortunate people.

[dsc]

61. My problem with herbal remedies

is that ones like ephedra are killing people. If some pharmacutical company put out that product no one here would think that it was a good thing. But since it is an 'herbal' remedy it is ok if it kills droves to enrich someone. If those herbial remedies are any good then let them prove it just like other stuff has to. Taking advantage of kids and the ill, which is what many of these perveyors of herbal remedies do is about as immoral, and more relevantly harmful as it gets. BTW not that you bothered to ask I am in favor of legalize all drugs but I am one of those quaint people who think that it is the government's job to protect the ill and the young from greedy people who would sell them snake oil.

[Mairead]

64. "Ones like ephedra are killing people"

Perhaps you should dial down your hyperbole? People aren't dropping like flies. Aspirin also kills people, as do penicillin, peanuts, sugar, steak, and bee stings. If you're allergic, or overdose, you're done for.

The idea that we as a society need to--or should have the right to--dictate to people about purely personal behavior is highly moralistic and inappropriate. We have an obligation to one another to provide the best, most accurate information we have, but that's the limit. Past that boundary it's their life, not ours.

[dsc]

67. Here we have to agree to disagree

I am looking at wealthy people who are making false claims and exploiting people, you are looking at people controlling their own medical care. It is probably impossible to reconsile those views though it should be stated that morality isn't my problem it is the fact that these companies are causing real harm to real people. And unlike asparin companies it is virtually impossibe to get the companies that put these things out to pay any damages to their victims.

[Mairead]

71. Then you should be stumping for better quality control

not usage restrictions.

[dsc]

92. Why oh why

do you think I want the FDA involved? All drugs be they perscription or not go through the FDA. Wanting FDA approval for something isn't necessarily the same as having restrictions on its use. I do think ephedra should have some but that is more detail than I wish to get into. My point is that the FDA should be involved anytime medical claims are made be it an herb, drug, or what have you. After all Taxil (to use one example) is pretty much an herb.

[DrGonzoLives]

70. "Herbal" medicine should have to stand up

to the same scrutiny that other drugs do. It's ridiculous to say that they should skate on by because of some arbitrary "herbal" or "natural" designation. Once upon a time aspirin was a "natural" drug as well.

These "herbal" companies can make any claim about the product, are not required to label it properly (i.e., possible side effects, cross-effects with other drugs, and so on), and their production methods are not held to any kind of standard whatsoever. If Pharmacia or Eli Lilly put out a product like that, people here would be screaming bloody murder. Why do "herbal" drugs get a free pass?

[Mairead]

74. Then, as I suggested to dsc, you should be stumping for

better quality control and truth-in-advertising, not usage restrictions or fraudulent 'studies'. These are not artificial compounds whose efficacy and safety are unknown. These substances exist in nature and there is a body of traditional knowledge about them that has been compiled over tens of thousands of years.

Hyperbolic or false claims should be forbidden, but there is no more reason to do de-novo studies on, e.g., ephedra/ma huang than there is to do studies on bee stings. We already know what we need to know about them both. What we need to do is get the information to the people who might be affected, so that they can make informed choices (carry an anti-anaphylactic-shock jab if you're allergic to stings, and minimise exposure by wearing long sleeves and avoiding perfumes. Don't take big doses of ma huang without knowing what your tolerance level is, because if it isn't good you could kill yourself)

[DrGonzoLives]

77. Explain why

"herbal" medicine should not stand up to scientific scrutiny? "Fraudulent studies"? That's a joke. How are studies about the dangers of Ephedra "Fraudulent"? Because you disagree with them? Give me a break.

Hate to tell you this, but two of the biggest things that the FDA regulates are....quality control and labeling (truth-in-advertising as you call it). That is exactly what I'm wanting to see. And, frankly, I'm going to trust a study accepted by the FDA and the scientific community as a whole long before I accept some 70-year-old study whose methods are questionable.

Traditional knowledge is not scientific knowledge. There is an enormous difference between the two. Besides, the "body of knowledge" you mention does not exist written down; what good is it, then?

[Mairead]

79. I think I'm going to stop trying to have a dialog with you

Anyone who can, with a straight face, say 'traditional knowledge is not scientific knowledge' betrays that he doesn't understand what science is all about.

Some parting food for thought: do you really believe that the only proper physicians are the ones who graduated from a formal medical school? Why?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mairead]

82. I'm not an "asshole", and you don't understand what science is about

Science is not about documenting things, it's about determining how things work, by careful experiment. THAT is what science is about.

And if the only proper physicians are the ones who graduated from formal medical schools, then where did the first medical-school faculty come from?

[Mairead]

32. And if the smoker won't do treatment, what then?

He doesn't say, does he.

There is tons of science on marijuana. It goes back decades. Marijuana has been used since time out of mind, and the safety record of marijuana is better than the safety record of aspirin--you can kill yourself dead with aspirin. Not so with mj.

Moreover, until recently it wasn't even understood how aspirin worked--but that didn't stop physicians from prescribing it!

Dr Dean's position is totally at odds with the science he tries to hide behind, and you do him and yourself no favor by not owning up to that.

[dsc]

43. I take it you didn't bother to read

any post beneath that one before replying. If after reading those you still have this question then, and only then shall I respond.

[Mairead]

49. Why don't you want to be clear about Dean's position?

Forced treatment is imprisonment. It's very simple. Why can't you acknowledge that?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mairead]

54. Were you forced to go? Could you leave whenever you liked?

If you were and couldn't, then it was a prison. A country-club prison, perhaps, but your life was not your own.

If you went voluntarily, on the other hand, then that's not relevant to this issue, which is enforced treatment.

[plurality]

55. did you want to go to treatment, did you actually need it?

I'm sorry but if my life is perfectly normal and I'm forced to go to some propaganda center for simply enjoying myself that's close enough to prison. Treatment can be very useful for those who need it. But if you're not an addict and have to go because the state says you do, you're not only wasting your time and money, but the treatment facilities time and money. Where are they going to get the time to help REAL addicts if they're wasting all their time with responsible recreational pot smokers. You also didn't answer my question. What will happen to me if I refuse to go to treament because I'm not an addict? Do you think the state would allow me to thwart their will? Or do you think the more likely option is that they would put me in jail? I think we all know what the answer would be. So there you have it, even with Dean's ground breaking policy you'll have marijuana USERS going to jail for consumption.

[dsc]

59. It should be noted

that treatment centers assess people coming in (I was and so was all the other people I met) and if they as medical professionals don't think treatment is necessary they won't take you. In my case it hardly took the second coming of Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. Presuming your case of a responsible pot smoker the majority of places if not all places would refuse to take him.

[plurality]

60. they would if the state forced them

as I said, the courts don't look at whether you're really an addict or not, if some cop finds you with a sack that's all they need to send you to rehab or jail. and believe me, the court doesn't care if the treatment center say you don't need it.

[dsc]

63. treatment isn't prision

and people who say it is are perverocators.

[Mairead]

65. You missed the word 'forced' I presume

(and it's 'prevaricators')(just fyi)

[plurality]

69. you're avoiding the questin

what will happen to the people who refuse forced treatment they don't need?

[Terwilliger]

86. treatment is prison when you dont want it

[Terwilliger]

85. you dont have the facts at hand

Dean should. He knows what marijuana does and doesn't do (if he really is sych a great doctor) He's equivocating when it comes to this issue because it frightens so many pols.

http://www.mpp.org/science.html

[dsc]

93. Thanks for the link

As you well know it is very lengthy. I will save the link and look at it later. I will say this one thing though. I fail to see why someone like Soros (who is clearly willing to spend millions on this) wouldn't be willing to just take this stuff to the FDA and follow through with what ever else the FDA may need. He spend tens of millions in California alone on this issue. This would give him the ability to affect this change nationally. I actually think drug companies probably would step forward anyhow but if they didn't clearly Soros would.

[Mairead]

98. No one is claiming that it's useful for "treating disease"

The claim is that it's useful for giving symptomatic relief for certain conditions. Such as intraocular pressure in glaucoma. It doesn't treat the underlying glaucoma, but it does relieve the intraocular pressure, preserving sight.

[TNOE]

12. Admittedly - A book I haven't read, but would love to

you might be interested.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir500/index541.html

The Emperor Wears No Clothes
(The Original Hemp Bible)
by Jack Herer

Jack Herer has updated his authoritative history of hemp's myriad uses and of the war on this plant, just as it has become high-profile news, with supporters such as Woody Harrelson and Willie Nelson. Herer thoroughly documents the petrochemical industry's plot to outlaw this renewable source of paper, energy, food, textiles, and medicine. Photos, illustrations & charts. 10 tables.

The book that literally started the Hemp movement! The best selling Hemp
book of all time, over 650,000 copies in print!

Contents



1 Overview Of The History Of Cannabis Hemp
2 Brief Summary Of The Uses Of Hemp
3 New Billion Dollar Crop
4 The Last Days Of Legal Cannabis
5 Marijuana Prohibition
6 Medical Literature On Cannabis Medicine
7 Therapeutic Use Of Cannabis
8 Hempseed As The Basic World Food
9 Economics Energy & Environment
10 Myth, Magic & Medicine
11 The (Hemp) War Of 1812, Napoleon & Russia
12 Cannabis Drug Use In 19th Century America
13 Prejudice: Marijuana And Jim Crow Laws
14 More Than Sixty Years Of Suppression
15 The Official Story: Debunking "Gutter Science"
16 The Emperor's New Clothes

Excerpt:

1: Overview of the History of Cannabis Hemp

For the Purpose of Clarity in this Book: Explanations or documentations marked with an asterisk (*) are listed at the end of the related paragraph(s). For brevity, other sources for facts, anecdotes, histories, studies, etc., are cited in the body of the text or included in the appendices. The facts cited herein are generally verifiable in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which was printed primarily on paper produced with cannabis hemp for over 150 years. However, any encyclopedia (no matter how old) or good dictionary will do for general verification purposes.

Cannabis Sativa L.

Also known as: Hemp, cannabis hemp, Indian (India) hemp, true hemp, muggles, weed, pot, marijuana, reefer, grass, ganja, bhang, "the kind," dagga, herb, etc., all names for exactly the same plant!

What's in a Name? (U.S. Geography)

HEMPstead, Long Island; HEMPstead County, Arkansas; HEMPstead, Texas; HEMPhill, North Carolina; HEMPfield, Pennsylvania, among others, were named after cannabis growing regions, or after family names derived from hemp growing.

American Historical Notes

In 1619, America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia, "ordering" all farmers to "make tryal of" (grow) Indian hempseed. More mandatory (must-grow) hemp cultivation laws were enacted in Massachusetts in 1631, in Connecticut in 1632 and in the Chesapeake Colonies into the mid-1700s.

Even in England, the much-sought-after prize of full British citizenship was bestowed by a decree of the crown on foreigners who would grow cannabis, and fines were often levied against those who refused.

Cannabis hemp was legal tender (money) in most of the Americas from 1631 until the early 1800s. Why? To encourage American farmers to grow more.1

You could pay your taxes with cannabis hemp throughout America for over 200 years.2

You could even be jailed in America for not growing cannabis during several periods of shortage, e.g., in Virginia between 1763 and 1767. (Herndon, G.M., Hemp in Colonial Virginia, 1963; The Chesapeake Colonies, 1954; L.A.Times, August 12, 1981; et al.)

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew cannabis on their plantations. Jefferson,3 while envoy to France, went to great expense - and even considerable risk to himself and his secret agents - to procure particularly good hempseeds smuggled illegally into Turkey from China. The Chinese Mandarins (political rulers) so valued their hempseed that they made its exportation a capital offense.

The United States Census of 1850 counted 8,327 hemp "plantations"* (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton. Most of these plantations were located in the South or in the border states, primarily because of the cheap slave labor available prior to 1865 for the labor-intensive hemp industry.

(U.S. Census, 1850; Allen, James Lane, The Reign of Law, A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields, MacMillan Co., NY, 1900; Roffman, Roger, Ph.D. Marijuana as Medicine, Mendrone Books, WA, 1982.)

*This figure does not include the tens of thousands of smaller farms growing cannabis, nor the hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of family hemp patches in America; nor does it take into account that well into this century 80 percent of America's hemp consumption for 200 years still had to be imported from Russia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland, etc.

Benjamin Franklin started one of America's first paper mills with cannabis. This allowed America to have a free colonial press without having to beg or justify the need for paper and books from England.

In addition, various marijuana and hashish extracts were the first, second or third most- prescribed medicines in the United States from 1842 until the 1890s. It's medicinal use continued legally through the 1930s for humans and figured even more prominently in American and world veterinary medicines during this time.

Cannabis extract medicines were produced by Eli Lilly, Parke-Davis, Tildens, Brothers Smith (Smith Brothers), Squibb and many other American and European companies and apothecaries. During all the time there was not one reported death from cannabis extract medicines, and virtually no abuse or mental disorders reported, except for first-time or novice users occasionally becoming disoriented or overly introverted.

(Mikuriya, Tod, M.D., Marijuana Medical Papers, Medi-Comp Press, CA; Cohen, Sidney & Stillman, Richard, Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, Plenum Press, Ny, 1976.)

World Historical Notes

"The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp, which began to be worked in the eight millennium (8,000 - 7,000 B.C.)" (The Columbia History of the World, 1981, page 54.)

The body of literature (i.e., archaeology, anthropology, philology, economy, history) pertaining to hemp is in general agreement that, at the very least:

From more than 1,000 years before the time of Christ until 1883 A.D., cannabis hemp - indeed, marijuana - was our planet's largest agricultural crop and most important industry, involving thousands of products and enterprises; producing the overall majority of Earth's fiber, fabric, lighting oil, paper, incense and medicines. In addition, it was a primary source of essential food oil and protein for humans and animals.

According to virtually every anthropologist and university in the world, marijuana was also used in most of our religions and cults as one of the seven or so most widely used mood-, mind-, or pain-altering drugs when taken as psychotropic, psychedelic (mind-manifesting or -expanding) sacraments.

Almost without exception, these sacred (drug) experiences inspired our superstitions, amulets, talismans, religions, prayers, and language codes. (See 10 on "Religions and Magic.")

(Wasson, R., Gordon, Soma, Divine Mushroom of Immortality; Allegro, J.M., Sacred Mushrooms & the Cross, Doubleday, NY, 1969; Pliny; Josephus; Herodotus; Dead Sea Scrolls; Gnostic Gospels; the Bible; Ginsberg Legends Kaballah, c. 1860; Paracelsus; British Museum; Budge; Ency. Britannica,, "Pharmacological Cults;" Schultes & Wasson, Plants of the Gods, Research of R.E. Schultes, Harvard Botanical Dept.; Wm EmBoden, Cal State U., Northridge; et al.)

Great Wars were Fought to Ensure the Availability of Hemp

For example, the primary reason for the War of 1812 (fought by America against Great Britain) was access to Russian cannabis hemp. Russian hemp was also the principal reason that Napoleon (our 1812 ally) and his "Continental Systems" allies invaded Russia in 1812. (See 12, "The (Hemp) War of 1812 and Napolean Invades Russia.")

In 1942, after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines cut off the supply of Manila (Abaca) hemp, the U.S. Government distributed 400,000 pounds of cannabis seeds to American farmers from Wisconsin to Kentucky, who produced 42,000 tons of hemp fiber annually until 1946 when the war ended.

Why Has Cannabis Hemp/Marijuana Been So Important in History?

Because cannabis hemp is, overall, the strongest, most-durable, longest-lasting natural soft-fiber on the planet. Its leaves and flower tops (marijuana) were - depending on the culture - the first, second or third most important and most-used medicines for two-thirds of the world's people for at least 3,000 years, until the turn of the century.

Botanically, hemp is member of the most advanced plant family on Earth. It is a dioecious (having male, female and sometimes hermaphroditic - male and female on the same plant), woody, herbaceous annual that uses the sun more efficiently than virtually any other plant on our planet, reaching a robust 12 to 20 feet or more in one short growing season. It can be grown in virtually any climate or soil condition on Earth, even marginal ones.

Hemp is, by far, Earth's premier, renewable natural resource. This is why hemp is so very important.

[plurality]

14. further example

that politicians who think we need to make war on this plant are pathetic, cowardly hypocrits.

'And I give unto thee all the seed bearing plants' - Book of Genesis

[fertilizeonarbusto]

17. excellent book

Will make your hair stand up straight. I have an autographed first edition. Bless you, Jack!

[Q]

20. U.S. Government Repressed Marijuana-Tumor Research

U.S. Government Repressed Marijuana-Tumor Research

Alternet
May 31, 2000
Title: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in `74
Author: Raymond Cushing
www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=9257

Faculty Evaluator: Mary King M.D.

Student researchers: Jennifer Swift, Licia Marshall,

Corporate media coverage: AP and UPI news wires 2/29/00

A Spanish medical team's study released in Madrid in February 2000 has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in marijuana, destroys tumors in lab rats. These findings, however, are not news to the U.S. government. A study in Virginia in 1974 yielded similar results but was suppressed by the DEA, and in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade U.S. universities and researchers to destroy all cannabis research work done between 1966 and 1976, including compendiums in libraries.

The research was conducted by a medical team led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutence University in Madrid. In the study, brains of 45 lab rats were injected with a cancer cell, which produced tumors. On the twelfth day of the experiment, 15 of the rats were injected with THC and 15 with Win-55, 212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. The untreated rats died 12-18 days after the development of the tumors. THC treated rats lived significantly longer than the control group. Although three were unaffected by the THC, nine lived 19-35 days, while tumors were completely eradicated in three others. The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. "I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by theses people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said. His response wasn't surprising, considering that in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966/76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer. "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared," he says.

Guzman provided the title of the work—"Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute—and author Raymond Cushing obtained a copy at the UC Medical School Library in Davis, California, and faxed it to Madrid. The 1975 article does not mention breast cancer tumors, which were featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study in the local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. The headline read, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," and was followed in part by, "The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered. The researchers found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Drug Enforcement Agency officials shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on these events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies. These companies set out—unsuccessfully—to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high." (Continues...

[GobGoober]

22. LEGALIZE IT!

OVERGROW THE GOVERNMENT!!!

[ChadCoffman]

24. Okay, that's it, fuck Dean.

Anyone who thinks harmless pot-smoking college students should be locked in small cages with killers and rapists is a fucking heartless moralist. And anyone who hides that belief from potential supporters is a lying opportunist and a fucking heartless moralist.

I admit, Dean's energy is infectious. The way he excites my anger and riles my hatred is almost Hitler-like. But that's what demogogues do, so I'm not really surprised. However, what does surprise me is that my hatred for Bush is such that I find myself supporting someone whose social and political views are not reflective of my own.

Let's hope my hatred doesn't subside, so I can continue to avoid thinking about such irrelevant things.

Let's also hope that at least 51% of the public will also be angry at Bush in 2004, otherwise the 'Kill Bush' ticket doesn't stand a chance.

[LuminousX]

27. Your Rant

Makes little sense, so maybe you can clarify.

1. In what ways is Dean "Hitler-like"? Does anyone who gets popular support "Hitler-like"?
2. How does Dean's stance on marijuana make him a heartless moralist and which other candidate on either side of the aisle has a better plan?
3. Is marijuana an important issue in this election? (This is directed more to the original poster of the thread.)

[plurality]

29. it's not but it should be

It may not affect you, but it certainly has an impact on the millions of people who lose their property and their freedom because of an idiotic prohibition that was based on racism, not science. Tell this guy marijuana isn't an important issue.

In perhaps the most extraordinary case of this kind, Jim Montgomery, a parapalegic immobilized from the waist down who smoked marijuana to relieve muscle spasms, was arrested in Sayre, Oklahoma, when sheriffs found two ounces of pot in the pouch on the back of his wheelchair. Montgomery was tried and convicted by a jury for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute , for possession of parapernalia, for unlawful possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime (two handguns inherited from his father, a police officer), and for maintaining a place resorted to by users of controlled substances. His sentence was life in prison, plus sixteen years. Schlosser, Eric, Reefer Madness p. 28

And Dean's tance on marijuana makes him a moralist because he's said, 'I do not favor legalization because we already have enough problems with the two drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco.', which means he think's it's his right to determine what people can or cannot do with their bodies. A classic moralist position.

[El Mariachi]

37. Dean's stance

I agree on the basis of dean's stance. He does have a point :)

[Mairead]

50. No, he doesn't. (nt)

[Mairead]

45. "In what ways is Dean 'Hitler-like'?"

Chad said: "The way he excites my anger and riles my hatred".

Dr Dean draws people emotionally, and they defend him emotionally. And he relies on that. That's more or less the definition of demagoguery.

Why do you suppose he doesn't simply say 'nope, I don't believe in marijuana for any use at all and that's that'? Because he knows it would burst the bubble, as apparently it's done (or partly done?) with Chad. The same reason underpins his 'that's all I can get' on healthcare--he doesn't want non-profit single payer, but he knows he can't say that, so he offers a fig leaf, knowing that those of his supporters whom he has in thrall will accept his 'reason' uncritically, because they want to believe. Oy, do they want to believe!

That's not the act of an honest person, in my opinion. But it is very Hitler-like (also Churchill-like and Roosevelt-like, I think).

[DemBones DemBones]

47. Since you asked. . . KUCINICH has a better plan about this:

"Most Americans believe that medical marijuana should be available to help relieve the suffering of seriously ill patients, and eight states have passed laws to allow it. But the Bush administration has harassed medical marijuana patients in an effort to assert federal authority. This is another aspect of the drug war that should be ended."

:kick:

If the FDA studies and approves marijuana for medical use, as Dean seems to want, it will mean that the pharmaceutical companies take over production, charging exorbitant prices to consumers. (Monsanto will come up with a genetically modified marijuana that they can patent and laws will probably prohibit the sale of any non-GM marijuana, guaranteeing high prices. Non-GM marijuana will be characterized as "unsafe.") Physicians will be strongly encouraged to prescribe it for as many patients as possible (to increase profits for the drug companies) but there will also be pressure to prescribe the expensive painkillers now being widely prescribed. Take more drugs, pay more for your drugs.

(Edit: Just to be clear, this paragraph -- between the kicking donkeys -- is my own opinion. Dennis Kucinich's opinions are in the other paragraphs, and are mostly direct quotes, enclosed in quotation marks. DB DB)

:kick:

About the drug war as a whole, Kucinich says:

"A safe, free and just America is undermined, not bolstered, by the costly and ineffective War on Drugs. While well-intentioned, this misguided policy -- which emphasizes criminalization over treatment -- has led to increased violent crime, misdirected resources of law enforcement and restricted Constitutional liberties."

He points out that the drug war "benefits only the prison-industrial complex," is racist , and, despite billions spent on it each year, addiction is up. He suggests that addiction should be treated, not criminalized.

[DrGonzoLives]

35. Where did he argue that again?

A study is not tantamount to saying that marijuana users should be locked up. Please get a sense of perspective in life.

[plurality]

38. he stills says marijuana should be illegal

Yes he says he would reccomend 'treatment' instead of jail. But what happens to those who won't or can't spend the money for this government mandated 'treatment'? I smoke weed, and I'm not an addict. I'm not got to waste upwards of $1,000 on worthless 'treatment' for a disease I don't have because some cowardly politician can't admit that this policy is morally bankrupt and destroys lives.

[DrGonzoLives]

42. Your thread was about a study

and that's what I answered. The FDA would be the ones regulating it, and they are very, very picky about clinical trial things. I find nothing wrong with that statement. It doesn't necessarily mean that in the future the results of that would preclude its use recreationally; neither nicotine nor alcohol are regulated in this manner.

[plurality]

48. it's medical uses have already been known

When Congress was having hearings on prohibition waaaay back in the 1930's the AMA objected because they would no longer be able to prescribe it. It's medical uses are know, they have been. More studies are stalling tactics, that's the way all prohibtion candidates that don't want to seem that way avoid the issue. Here's some info about the AMA, I already posted it in this thread, but maybe you missed it.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/fruit/fruit4.htm

The brief three days of hearings on the Act24 present a case study in legislative carelessness. At no time was any primary empirical evidence presented about the effects of the drug, and the participating congressmen seem never to have questioned the assumed evils. Furthermore, the only real concerns seem to have been that farmers would be inconvenienced by having to kill a plant which grew wild in many parts of the country, and that the birdseed, paint and varnish, and domestic hemp industries would be damaged by passage of the law.25 Finally, the one witness appearing in opposition to the bill, Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel of the American Medical Association and an early and respected participant in the drafting of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act,26 was roundly insulted for his audacity in daring to question the wisdom of the Act.

http://www.taima.org/jp/krumm.htm

While this was considered in passing federal anti-marijuana legislation, the opinion of the American Medical Association was ignored. Dr. William C. Woodward was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. The AMA was aware of the therapeutic potential of marijuana (or as they knew it, cannabis) and did not want it to be removed from medical use. Dr. Woodward came to testify for the AMA testifying that, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug." One of the Congressmen said in response, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." (38)

38. Charles H. Whitebread, II, The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States (last modified April 6, 1997)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm.

[DrGonzoLives]

34. Technically, he's correct

Anything used for medical treatment should be studied and regulated, including all those bullshit "herbal" medicines that get away with selling shit and not getting called on it.

To date, no regulatory study has been performed that would meet with FDA guidelines for a clinical trial. That is likely what he is referring to (he's a doctor, he actually knows about these things).

[plurality]

36. but he still favors criminalizing other uses

He still thinks that people should be railroaded through the criminal justice system for enjoying a god given plant that has never killed anyone and has been reccomended by GOVERNMENT studies be legalized. Unconscionable.

[DrGonzoLives]

39. Which candidates support decriminalization?

I think Kucinich is for it, but no one else. If he doesn't win the nomination, what then? Still voting Democrat, or not going to bother?

[plurality]

44. I'll vote Dem...

but for now I'm going to do everything I can to get Kucinich the nod, that includes educating others one some of the bankrupt stances of other candidates.

[the_sam]

56. I'd assume Sharpton

I don't think any others are.

[plurality]

58. Kucinich is.

n/t

[Egnever]

40. Wrong!

"I also believe that if people are dealing heroin to kids or shooting people that jail is more than appropriate. But if your "crime", is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab, not jail.

railroading people through the criminal justice system?

where do you get that from?

[plurality]

46. so whose going to force me to go to rehab?

My mom? I imagine it would be a judge. And what will happen when I tell that judge I'm not going to waste my time or money on worthless rehab. To me, forcing me to sit through bullshit rehab, for responsibly enjoying my intoxicant of choice might as well be jail.

[DemBones DemBones]

72. "... if your 'crime' is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab"

So all pot smokers BELONG in rehab? What about tobacco smokers? People who drink alcoholic beverages? Do they all belong in rehab, too?

For the record, I don't use any of these substances (marijuana, tobacco, alcohol) but I don't think marijuana use is worse than tobacco use or alcohol use. I've seen one member of my immediate family (family of origin) die from the results of longterm tobacco use and another die from the results of longterm alcohol use. Meanwhile, the family stoner, after more than thirty years of marijuana use, is in better health than I am, has worked for the same company for some twenty years, owns a home, pays taxes, etc.

I find it particularly outrageous that our government is harassing sick people who use marijuana to releive pain and/or nausea and to facilitate sleep.

I suggest reading "Queer as Grass" at

http://www.counterpunch.org/engel07042003.html

"What not everybody knows--or what many pretend not to know--is that, though it couldn't be more obvious, THE MAN doesn't care if you develop cancer, or blow out your liver, or get drunk and rob a convenience store--he's got a whole prison industrial complex just waiting to serve you. What really bothers THE MAN is that YOU--this goes for YOU as well as me, Boob--might harbor illusions that you own your lungs, brain, genitals or any other part of your soul or person, when really it all belongs to HIM."

[Mairead]

62. I bet he prescribed aspirin though, right?

And at the time he did it, its mechanism of efficacy was totally unknown. No one had a clue how it worked. All they knew was (1) it relieved minor pains in small doses and (2) there is a toxic dose...as in kill-you-dead-as-rat-poison toxic.

What aboriginal Americans have known about mj for thousands of years, and now Europeans for at least a hundred years, is (1) it relieves the symptoms of a number of problems and is enjoyable for its own sake, too, and (2) there is no such thing as a toxic dose for non-allergic people.

[dsc]

95. to be technical

he didn't prescribe asparin. It isn't a prescription drug. He may have told his patients to take it but he didn't prescribe it. I do know what you are getting at though.

[Mairead]

99. um, to 'prescribe' simply means to specify a course of action

which action can very well be to take aspirin, a hot shower, drink fluids, or whatever. The use of the term 'prescription' for the dispensary order is a misnomer.

[Nikia]

78. They're all afraid

I do not think that any serious presidential candidate is going to come out for legalization. Prescription drug companies and alcohol and tobacco companies have a strong monetary interest in keeping it illegal. The opposition will also make the candidate look bad saying that he is soft on crime and play on ignorant people's fears about the drug. Medical marijuana is becoming popular though and it will be accepted as federal law when a drug company gets to patent and market it. As far as marijuana's side effects outweighing treatment, I say that it a bunch of s**t. There are many dangerous prescription drugs that kill people or cause serious health problems. The side effect "promotes a false sense of well being" is not bad unless you run a marathon or something else strenuous that you shouldn't be doing in your condition or you are dying and need to get medical treatment. It is a good side effect for the sick.

[Mairead]

80. Dennis Kucinich is a completely serious presidential candidate

If you can't see that, then so much the worse for you and for us all.

[Sterling]

90. DK has a great position on pot Dean's sucks but..

It's better than Bush's and it is a start.

I would love to have the luxury of voting on pot above other issues out of personal interest but there are bigger issues at the moment to me and I honestly think Dean would beat Bush and as much as I like him DK can't.

Maybe in a future America where Bush has been discredited a man like DK can be prez but not yet.

I agree with everything you have wrote about the issue though and share your goals.

[DemBones DemBones]

91. If you think anyone is supporting Kucinich just because of one

issue, I think you are quite mistaken. Go to his web page and check out what he stands for.

http://www.kucinich.us

If everyone who knows Dennis has the right positions -- not the kind-of-right positions, not the almost-right positions, not the maybe-it'll-be-alright positions, but the 100% right positions -- if everyone who knows his views would vote for him, he could be president starting January 20, 2005.

[dsc]

94. I am afraid my central point got lost here

I really am not a guru on medical marijuana but my major point was and is that Dean isn't lying. My point isn't that I like his position on this (in point of fact I don't). Nor is it that forced treatment is good (it is mixed at best). My point is that the Dean is calling not for studies about the bad effects that recreational marijuana may or may not have but studies about the effecacy that medical marijuana may or may not have. Even Terwiller's link appears to say that they are short of what the FDA would require. I haven't read all of it to be fair but the part I read seemed to say that. Thus, assuming both that my reading of the link is correct and that the link itself is correct then Dean is correct here. I mean correct in the sense that if the FDA is going to approve marijuana for medical use then studies are needed. That, and only that, needs to be disproven if you are going to call the man a liar. That doesn't make his position good. It simple makes him honest.

[Allah Akbar]

97. I really don't need a study

I have smoked for over 30 years and it has caused me absolutely no trouble what so ever. I have also drank alcohol and it is hands down much, much worse for you than smoking a joint could ever be, and it gets you much more wasted besides.

I guess I have a problem that in a supposedly FREE country I have to wait for someone to give me permission to do what I know is not harmful in any way shape or form. I'm in my 40's, I don't need a frewaking mommy.

And I get so pissed I could jsut about lose my mind knowing that at any time I could lose ALL of my possessions, my job and be ARRESTED for not doing any thing to anybody and not doing a damn thing in the world wrong.

[Mairead]

101. Vote for Dennis, then. Get your friends and family to vote for him too

Send him money now.

[Mairead]

100. He's a liar in saying that science hasn't spoken. Science HAS spoken.

Repeatedly, internationally, and longitudinally. Lots and lots and lots of science. With loud voices.

Dr Dean is lying.

[Le Taz Hot]

102. I'm really sick of these inflammatory threads

Pardon me for not getting in the middle of another pissing contest (we NEEDED another one -- 4,386 a day isn't quite enough). /sarcasm

Look, in a utopian world, marijuana would be legal. I would LOVE to see it legal. I worked with parolees for 5 years and probably 80% of them had been convicted of drug-related crimes. It unnecessarily clogs up our prison system and makes felons out of otherwise productive citizens. DOCTOR Dean is correct -- substance abuse is and always has been a MEDICAL issue, not a penal one. He's on the right track.

Second, ANY politician advocating legalization of marijuana (or any other currently illegal drug) is committing political suicide. That's reality. Its not pretty, but there it is. I can see EXACTLY what Dean is doing -- he's opening the door. You do not move from Point A to Point Z in one fell swoop -- its done in incriments. CA decriminalized marijuana in 1978. We lost our minds for several years and voted in Republican governors (Dukmajian, Wilson) and the process ceased. We FINALLY got MM on the ballot in 2000 and it passed. Of course Asscroft and his stormtroopers have invaded our state on several occasions to make examples of several MM growers.

Commissioning a study by the FDA makes sense. If the results of an FDA study says marijuana has certain medical benefits, its going to be difficult for the "hook 'em, book 'em, and cook 'em" crowd to argue with those results. The door is then open for FEDERALLY decrimilizing marijuana.

I am a HUGE supporter of NORML, but the fact is, there are too many people who are still convinced that "Reefer Madness" was actually real. Those people trust the FDA and if the FDA says that marijuana has beneficial medicinal benefits, I think they'll be more likely to go along with it.