Medical Marijuana: The Drug Czar is Wrong (Again)

In its official response to the AMA’s recent call for a review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug (barring any medical use) under federal law, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that it would defer to “the FDA’s judgment that the raw marijuana plant cannot meet the standards for identity, strength, quality, purity, packaging and labeling required of medicine.”

While we’re not used to factual accuracy from ONDCP, in this case they’re wrong not once, but twice.

potje_bedrocan_400

First, there is absolutely no reason that plant medicines can’t be standardized and controlled for purity and potency. Indeed, the Netherlands has been doing just that for years, with medical marijuana distributed in Dutch pharmacies that is “of pharmaceutical quality and complies with the strictest requirements,” according to the Dutch government.

Second, the FDA has never said that a natural plant product can’t be a medicine. Indeed the agency has a lengthy “Guidance for Industry: Botanical Drug Products,” specifically designed to aid developers of plant medicines. The document not only doesn’t rule out plants as medicines, it even states, “In the initial stage of clinical studies of a botanical drug, it is generally not necessary to identify the active constituents or other biological markers or to have a chemical identification and assay for a particular constituent or marker.” Given that the active components of marijuana are already well-known and extensively researched, marijuana is well ahead of where the FDA says plant products need to be to start the process of seeking FDA licensing.

Yes, the FDA did put out a press release in 2006 saying that “smoked marijuana” had not been shown to be a safe and effective medicine. That statement was utterly unscientific, as we pointed out at the time, but it was absolutely not a declaration that the plant could never be a medicine.

53 thoughts on “Medical Marijuana: The Drug Czar is Wrong (Again)”

  1. Something occurred to me. I have to air out. I was recently called a hero by one of our postees here. I thought about it for sometime and never have I been called a hero for anything I say or thoughts I convey. I dont concider myself a hero,nor do I really want that title(my head is big enough). I am just an average joe,a somewhat ..”cough”.. noraml American,what ever normal is. I have strong veiw points on many issuses,some very strong. I do my best to get people to understand my veiw points because I love life and my country. I feel our country is under attack by the very people who run it.

    With that said,if I get people to see whats going on in this country,If those that what to call me a hero,well ok fine. Just as long as freedom is saved from these wolves in sheep clothing.

    But the bigger point is this. I am no hero,just an average American with a veiw point. I have seen I do influence people with my thoughts and words. You can be a hero too. You can influence people also. If an average joe like me can do this…well then.. Imagine what a REAL hero can do.

    Who are my heros? Our founding fathers.

    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
    Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

    A little rebellion now and then…is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
    Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826), Letter to James Madison, 1787

    So please,if you must,call me a hero but, I wont allow being put on a pedestal, for I am …just one of you.

  2. Here is a question for everyone. Isn’t there some kind of law that says if a law was passed under false pretenses that that law is null and void? Shouldn’t there be?The subject matter of false pretenses is not limited to tangible personal property – statutes include intangible personal property and services. For example the North Carolina false pretense statute applies to obtaining “any money, goods, property, services, choses in action, or any other thing of value …”[1] ALSO Under common law, false pretense is defined as a representation of a present or past fact, which the thief knows to be false, and which he intends will and does cause the victim to pass title of his property. That is, false pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact. AND False pretences as a concept in the criminal law is no longer used in English law. It used to refer to the means whereby the defendant obtained any chattel, money or valuable security from any other person with intent to defraud. It used to be an indictable misdemeanour under the Larceny Act 1861 as amended by the Larceny Act 1916. The modern concept is a deception and it is used as the common basis of the actus reus (the Latin for “guilty act”) in the deception offences under the Theft Act 1968 and in the Theft Act 1978.
    Now Wait A Minute! Marijuana Laws were Passed under False pretenses. Why is it still a law and why isn’t anyone in trouble for lying to the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!! Not to mention the BILLIONS of dollars that we have had stolen from us by this FAKE LAW. As I stated previously. Marijuana is NOT Cannabis. Therefore the way I see it and the way our entire country should see it is Cannabis is not illegal (and NEVER has been), A Mexican tobacco plant by the name of marijuana is/has been illegal. Why hasn’t anyone used this argument in the debates about legalizing HEMP or CANNABIS. I refuse to call it “marijuana”, especially now that I know that it isn’t even the same plant. The American People should SUE Congress for all the money we have lost because of “Marijuana” prohibition, and all the money we have paid in fines on a law that was never actually passed in the first place. THANK YOU…. Answers anyone? Questions Anyone?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>