Marijuana is Not Medicine, Drug Czar Says
Commenting on a Food and Drug Administration statement that the FDA had not approved smoked marijuana as a treatment for any condition or disease indication, Walters stated, "Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective."
Walters accused pro-marijuana groups of preying on "the compassion of Americans to promote their political agenda and bypass F.D.A.'s rigorous standards which have safeguarded our medical supply for over 100 years."
"Smoking illegal drugs may make some people "feel better," said Walters. "However, civilized societies and modern day medical practices differentiate between inebriation and the safe, supervised delivery of proven medicine by legitimate doctors."
Also See:
Drug Czar: Medical Marijuana No Longer a Political Issue
Supreme Court Upholds Medical Marijuana Ban
CA Cities Scramble to Regulate or Ban Medical Marijuana
Comments
Then why is the FDA going ahead with trials for Sativex? Could it be some government/corporate collusion? Andrea Barthwell, former #2 at ONDCP is now involved with the developers of Sativex, GW Pharmaceuticals.
[quote]Marijuana may make some people suffering the pain of chronic illness “feel better,” but it is not and never will be “medicine,” says Drug Czar John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).[/quote]
The definition of disease means without ease. If marijuana eases pain and other symptoms then by definition it is a medicine. What about marinol, sativex, or drabinol. It seems as if medicine that is cheap and easy to make would send the drug companies in a tizzy. That it!!! The government is run for corporations not for WE THE PEOPLE.
Hello Robert,
Thanks for your quick reply.
As About.com’s editor re the US Government, do you feel obliged to publish information that is demonstrably incorrect?
Is information accurate and credible because it is from the government? If the government sent you a press release declaring cats are cows, would you publish this as well simply because it from the government?
My point here is while major editorial boards and columnists around the US pan the FDA and ONDCP for their absurd, flat earth claims regarding cannabis not being an effective therapeutic drug, About.com looks silly (if not outright bias) by uncritically publishing the government’s anti-cannabis propaganda.
If About.com visitors want to read government propaganda they should find that on the many numerous government websites not private commercial ones purporting to be unbias information sources.
Regards,
-Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML/NORML Foundation
Member, Board of Directors
NORML/NORML Foundation
1600 K St., NW
Suite 501
Washington, D.C. 20006
director@norml.org
www.norml.org
————————
NORML represents the interests and concerns of America’s 26 million cannabis consumers, since 1970, and the organization is only as strong as its supporters make it.
How strong and effective in lobbying for cannabis law reform do you want NORML to be? If you need help as a victim of misguided cannabis laws, don’t you want a group out there with an open hand and desire to assist?
https://secure.norml.org/
On 4/25/06 10:49 PM, “Robert Longley” wrote:
> No one at About.com receives money from the US Government or from anyone
> connected to it. My site is charged with presenting information from and
> about the US Government. The Times article is an editorial. I rarely do
> editorial.
>
> I would remind you that at the bottom of every one of my blog posts is a
> link through which you can enter comments. You are more than welcome to
> express your opinions, including links to supportive articles and the NORML
> Website by clicking the comments tag. There is no limit on the length of
> comments.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Robert Longley
>
>
>
> At 11:59 AM 4/25/06, you wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Does About.com receive money from the US govt to publish or promote their
>> information regarding marijuana?
>>
>> Why not provide balance to your publishing by communicating to your audience
>> another, non-governmental viewpopint?
>>
>> Why not provide a link to the New York Times’ editorial lambasting the FDA
>> and ONDCP (included below)?
>>
>> Why does About.com appear so bias when it reports on issues re cannabis?
>>
>>
>> -Allen St. Pierre
>> Executive Director
>> NORML/NORML Foundation
>> Member, Board of Directors
>>
>> NORML/NORML Foundation
>> 1600 K St., NW
>> Suite 501
>> Washington, D.C. 20006
>> www.norml.org
>>
FDA has always been careful to specify “smoked” marijuana in its statements in regard to medicinal marijuana. They have always said they would evaluate Sativex and similar non-smoked cannabis derivative drugs on the same basis they would evaluate any other drug. Consider the number of opiate drugs that have gained FDA approval in the past.
Cannabis– whether ingested as tincture, baked into brownies, OR inhaled after vaporization via Volcano OR combustion –certainly does have medical efficacy. (Ask my Ophthalmologist, please!)
Unless, of course, FDA has an alternate explanation for cannabis’ inclusion [as ethanol-extracted tincture] in the pre-1938 US Pharmacopoeia.
And an explanation for the existence of dronabinol, let alone Sativex– aka “liquid marijuana”?
Some people have argued that adult consumers deserve equal rights to use tobacco, alcohol OR cannabis. Which of these are more toxic? More effective medically?
Are whiskey and cigars FDA-approved for any “treatment”?
The inclusion of cannabis in schedule I of the CSA is patently absurd on its face. Only the “high potential for abuse” criterion is remotely applicable– yet cannabis is completely unique in its inability to maim or kill either by overdose OR serial “abuse”.
Furthermore, only “smoked ‘marijuana’” contains toxins purported to be carcinogenic– and yet recent studies have shown cannabis-only SMOKERS to have statistically negative cancer rates.
The prohibition of cannabis is perverse and counterproductive; it must be swiftly abolished, for the benefit of us all.
Let me add, in respect to Mr. St. Pierre’s letter, I support the legalized use of marijuana for medicinal purposes (only). However, as I told Mr. St. Pierre, I am really not supposed to do editorials. The Times article he referenced would be more appropriately blogged on our Politics site, a site far more dedicated to editorial. On the other hand, I sometimes try to get a point across in the way I word my blog posts. This one being a case in point. My opening paragraph, “Marijuana may make some people suffering the pain of chronic illness ‘feel better,’ but it is not and never will be ‘medicine,’ says Drug Czar John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),” purposely emphasized the frankly stupid and condescending tone of Czar Walters’ statement. The original ONDCP certainly did not emphasize his use of the words “feel better.” I intended the post to make people mad. Looks like it worked.
i’m surprised nobody commented on the phrase “F.D.A.’s rigorous standards which have safeguarded our medical supply for over 100 years.” really? rigourous standards? safeguards? wow, the marijuana lobby really is evil if they’re trying to undermine those - eveyone in america knows that undermining those rigourous standards is solely the realm of the big drug companies! (fen-fen, anyone? vioxx?)