Pubdate: Sat, 03 Nov 2012
Source: Northwest Arkansas Times (Fayetteville, AR)
Copyright: 2012 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Contact: http://nwanews.com/nwat/Editorial/68570/letter/
Website: http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/828
Author: Denele Cambpell

MARIJUANA RESEARCH STIFLED BY DRUG POLICIES

The choice facing voters on Issue No. 5, the Arkansas Medical 
Marijuana Act, is complicated by key points that are not widely 
known. A common argument is that more research is needed to prove 
marijuana an effective medicine, and if that research could be done, 
and Food and Drug Administration approval granted, then everything 
would be fine.

In fact, this is a classic Catch 22. The scientific community has 
struggled for years to gain permission to conduct this research. Such 
studies are never approved. Approval must come from multiple federal 
agencies including the Drug Enforcement Agency, which has billions of 
dollars of vested interest in the status quo.

FDA approval requires millions of dollars in studies with test 
subjects, including humans. Not only are such studies blocked by 
federal policy, no pharmaceutical company will make that investment 
for financial reasons. How could they recoup their cost when the drug 
in question can be grown by the patient at almost no expense?

After state medical marijuana laws began passing in the 1990s, 
increasing pressure for scientific information caused the federal 
government to commission a study through the National Academy of 
Sciences, which produced "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the 
Science Base," a thorough investigation of all scientific research on 
marijuana from before the federal bottleneck. The study concluded 
that while "there is a broad social concern that sanctioning the 
medical use of marijuana might increase its use among the general 
population ... at this point there are no convincing data to support 
this concern."

The study stated that "Present data on drug use progression neither 
support nor refute the suggestion that medical availability would 
increase drug abuse. However, this question is beyond the issues 
normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and should not be a 
factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana."

Subsequently, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services 
promulgated new rules regarding marijuana research that require that 
any studies must either be structured to show harm resulting from the 
use of marijuana or to develop a derivative (new pharmaceutical). 
Researchers are not allowed to obtain a supply of marijuana for 
research purposes if their project goals have to do with the safety 
or medical use of the natural substance.

For a review of scientific research on medical marijuana, see 
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/section.php?id=125.

The government continues to refuse research requests that would prove 
natural marijuana safe and effective for medical use, while at the 
same time urges opposition to medical use with the argument that 
marijuana hasn't been proven safe and effective.

This is similar to the government's refusal to reschedule marijuana 
to a different classification than Schedule I, which by definition 
refers to substances "without medical value." Yet at the same time, 
an ingredient of marijuana (a synthetic version of the key ingredient 
THC, sold under the brand name Marinol) is approved for medical use.

Marijuana prohibition was never based on scientific information. 
Cannabis was widely used as medicine for more than four thousand 
years, as recently in this country as the 1940s. It was the zealot 
Harry Anslinger who in 1937 stood before Congress in support of 
proposed legislation to outlaw cannabis and stated the following 
reason for marijuana prohibition: "There are 100,000 total marijuana 
smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and 
entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from 
marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual 
relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

This kind of racism about marijuana, as well as social pressures from 
the 1960s, are responsible for the hysteria around marijuana that 
prevents its legal medical use.

To see major studies commissioned on marijuana law since 1894, visit 
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/studies.htm.

The essential information for voters to consider in this matter is 
that sick and dying people need legal protection to use marijuana; 
that anyone who wants to abuse marijuana can do so now; that anyone 
with a vested interest in status quo is not a neutral source of 
information about this subject (pharmacists, law enforcement, 
prosecutors); and that in 17 states where state law protects 
patients, the federal government follows its stated policy not to 
arrest medical marijuana patients.

If you or a loved one faces a critical medical situation where 
marijuana helps, should you be arrested for using it? That is the 
nightmare Issue No. 5 seeks to remedy.

Denele Campbell of West Fork is executive director of the Drug Policy 
Education Group, a nonprofit educational organization, and co-founder 
of Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, a nonprofit 
political lobbying group.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom