1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

DEA torpedoes work toward FDA-approved marijuana

Rating:
5/5,
  1. chillinwill
    Back in February 2007, medi-pot advocates were feeling optimistic that access to research-grade pot for use in Food and Drug Administration-approved studies might soon be opening up – and for good reason. That month, Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner ruled in favor of allowing University of Massachusetts-Amherst professor Lyle Craker to begin growing a new crop of pot that would be available for research into the medicinal value of marijuana, with the ultimate goal of developing an FDA-approved medi-pot.
    View attachment 7086
    Craker initially applied to the Drug Enforce*ment Administration for permission to grow the test crop in 2001. After three years of bureauczratic delays, the agency concluded in 2004 that Craker's request should be denied. Craker, backed by the Multidisci*plin*ary Assoc*i*ation for Psychedelic Studies (a research outfit that aims to develop government-approved prescription drugs from controlled substances such as LSD, MDMA or Ecstasy, and pot), appealed that decision, which was heard by Bittner during nine days of testimony spread out over two months in 2005. A year and a half later, Bittner weighed in, agreeing that Craker should be granted permission to grow.

    That pleased medi-pot advocates but wasn't the end of the story. Bittner's findings were nonbinding, so it would ultimately fall to DEA administrators to decide whether to accept her conclusions. On Jan. 7, Michele Leonhart, a DEA dep*uty administrator, finally weighed in on the matter, rejected Bittner's conclusions, and again denied Craker's application. Craker said the DEA decision was a "disappointment," but, "I don't think we need to be surprised" by it.

    In a 118-page rejection letter, Leonhart concludes that Craker's bid to grow research pot is "precluded under Federal law," because, among other related reasons, he was unable to demonstrate to the agency that an additional source of research marijuana was actually needed to meet demand. (Read the DEA's rejection letter with this story below.) Indeed, since 1968, the University of Mississippi has held the only contract to grow pot for government-approved purposes – including providing pot for remaining participants of a federal medi-pot study group and for research approved by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of the National Institutes of Health), which actually doles out the dope to researchers. The arrangement means the dope is essentially under constant control of the feds, which is what is called for under the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which the U.S. is a party.

    Moreover, Leonhart writes in her opinion that no one much has complained about the quantity or quality of the Ole Miss dope and notes that as of 2005, the university had under its control some 1,055 kilograms (2,326 pounds) of the stuff in storage. In fact, she writes, there's so much in reserve that they haven't actually had to cultivate any new dope since 1997. "For the reasons indicated above, I have determined that [Craker's] proposed registration [to grow] is inconsistent with United States obligations under the Single Convention and with the public interest," Leonhart concluded.

    While the DEA may not see a need to grow additional pot for research, Crak*er, head of the UMass Medicinal Plant Program; Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies founder and President Rick Doblin; at least 47 members of Congress (including Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy); and a broad swath of public health organizations – including the Lymphoma Foun*dation of America, the National Assoc*ia*tion for Public Health Policy, the Multiple Scler*osis Foundation, and the California Med*ical Assoc*iation – disagree. Despite what the DEA thinks, the product provided by the University of Missis*sippi is inconsistent in quality, and the manner by which the government determines who will get pot for research is confounding. "We believe that marijuana should be treated like any other potential therapeutic medicine, with researchers having the ability to obtain it and test it, within federally-approved scientific research protocols," Dr. Jack Lewin, former CEO of the California Medical Association, wrote in a 2005 letter of support for Craker. "To date, it has generally not been treated that way, causing significant problems in the research into marijuana as a potential medicine. It is in the public interest to allow the scientific process to determine whether marijuana should be available as a medicine for sick patients who may need it, and DEA licensing of appropriate and qualified researchers is crucial to facilitate that process."

    Craker finds the entire process frustrating. On one hand, the government remains skeptical about medical marijuana until solid research can prove otherwise, yet it continues putting up roadblocks to prevent progress on that front. "If there is no medical benefit [from marijuana], then it would be to [the government's] advantage to have it tested," Craker told the Chronicle.

    Allen Hopper, the litigation director for the ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project, which is representing Craker, said the attorneys are still reviewing the DEA decision. Whether they will now appeal the decision directly to the U.S. appeals court for the District of Columbia circuit or will seek additional review within the DEA has not been decided. Hopper said that in her decision, Leonhart raises "evidence" never addressed in the hearings with Bittner, which may need to be addressed with the agency before moving the case to the federal court.

    As frustrating as the entire experience has been, Craker vows not to give up: "The struggle is still in its beginning stages."

    BY JORDAN SMITH
    January 29, 2009
    The Austin Chronicle
    http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/issue/column?oid=oid:729456

Comments

  1. Greenport
    There should be some sort of thing where people can donate money to an underground drug research instutute. The institute would perform tests to see the health effects of drugs and publish all of their results directly into the public's hands.

    Because we're sitting around waiting for years for approval to do studies on the most important issues facing humanity, only to be denied in the end. Eff approval, let's just do the studies anyways!
  2. Makesmartchoices
    THE WAR ON POT: AMERICA'S $42 BILLION ANNUAL BOONDOGGLE

    What else could we spend $42 billion each year on? Health insurance for kids? Better paid teachers? It's our choice.
    What would you buy if you had an extra $42 billion to spend every year? What might our government buy if it suddenly had that much money dropped onto its lap every year?
    For one thing, it might pay for the entire $7 billion annual increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush is threatening to veto because of its cost -- and there'd still be $35 billion left over.
    Or perhaps you'd hire 880,000 schoolteachers at the average U.S. teacher salary of $47,602 per year.
    Or give every one of our current teachers a 30 percent raise ( at a cost of $15 billion, according to the American Federation of Teachers ) and use what's left to take a $27 billion whack out of the federal deficit.
    Or use all $42 billion for a massive tax cut that would put an extra $140 in the pockets of every person in the country -- $560 for a family of four.

    The mind reels at the ways such a massive sum of money could be put to use.

    Why $42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September. The new FBI stats show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006, 43,000 more than in 2005.
    That's like arresting every man, woman and child in the state of North Dakota plus every man, woman, and child in Des Moines, Iowa on marijuana charges ... every year. Arrests for marijuana possession -- not sales or trafficking, just possession -- totaled 738,916. By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.
    Basing his calculations mainly on U.S. government statistics, Gettman concludes that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion dollar business. That's a huge chunk of economic activity that is unregulated and untaxed because it's almost entirely off the books.
    Of course, the cost of our marijuana laws goes far beyond lost tax revenues and money spent on law enforcement. By consigning a very popular product -- one that's been used by about 100 million Americans, according to government surveys -- to the criminal underground, we've effectively cut legitimate businesspeople out of the market and handed a monopoly to criminals and gangs.
    Strangely, government officials love to warn us that some unsavory characters profit off of marijuana sales, while ignoring the obvious: Our prohibitionist laws handed them the marijuana business in the first place, effectively giving marijuana dealers a $113 billion free ride.
    All this might make some sense if marijuana were so terribly dangerous that it needed to be banned at all costs, but science long ago came to precisely the opposite conclusion. Compared to alcohol, for example, marijuana is astonishingly safe. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, with just nine percent of users becoming dependent, as opposed to 15 percent for booze. And marijuana is much less toxic. Heavy drinking is well-documented to damage the brain and liver, and to increase the risk of many types of cancer. Marijuana, on the other hand, has never caused a medically documented overdose death, and scientists are still debating whether even heavy marijuana use causes any permanent harm at all. And then there's violence. Again, the scientific findings are overwhelming: Booze incites violence and aggression; marijuana doesn't.

    Despite all that, we now arrest one American every 38 seconds on marijuana charges. And we do so at a staggering cost in law enforcement expenses, lost tax revenues, and staggering profits for criminal gangs
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!