REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2011/obama-advocates-curbing.html

An article that summarizes Obama's comments from the YouTube Q&A session referred to earlier. 

[Telarus]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150111337848656&id=1414312703

Medical Marijuana, A Cure for Cancer?

Robert Melamede, Ph.D.

Biology Dept. UCCS, Cannabis Science Inc, Phoenix Tears Foundation

ABSTRACT

Every vertebrate, from the time of conception till the time of death, literally has all body systems homeostatically regulated by endocannabinoids (marijuana-like compounds produced by the body). Illnesses are biochemical imbalances, failures of homeostasis. By being alive, all organisms suffer from the common biochemical imbalances that underlie aging and all age-related illness, including autoimmune, cognitive, cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancers.

Over 600 peer reviewed articles show that numerous cancer types (lung, breast, prostate, glioma, thyroid, leukemia, lymphoma, basil cell carcinoma, melanoma, etc) are killed by cannabinoids in tissue culture and animal studies. Furthermore, cannabinoids inhibit the biochemical pathways involved in metastasis and drug resistance. The question that naturally arises is "Why is a plant that inhibits aging, kills cancers, and whose activity is found in mother's milk illegal?

Because federal and state governments have failed to implement marijuana policies that are reflective of modern scientific knowledge and thousands of years of medical history, the people have demanded, and gained access to this miraculous medicine through direct vote with the initiative process. In effect, marijuana clinical efforts are now in the hands of the people and the medical marijuana community. This poster provides dramatic photographic evidence of cannabis extracts curing basal-cell carcinoma via it's topical application.

HISTORY

This Australian woman grew up in Queensland where the population suffers from the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Basal cell carcinoma is the most common form of cancer with over 800,000 cases occurring each year in the US. 

She had a number of surgeries to remove previous lesions diagnosed as basal cell carcinomas.

After a new lesion appeared on her right cheek, alternative therapies that included the topical application of cannabis extracts were tried.

Cannabis extracts were applied daily until her surgeon stated that there was no need for surgery since the lesion on her cheek was gone, However,  a new lesion had appeared on her right nostril.

The series of photos below documents the disappearance of the lesion on the nostril after ten days of self-administering topical cannabis extracts.

REFERENCES

Toth, B. I. et al. Endocannabinoids Modulate Human Epidermal Keratinocyte Proliferation and Survival via the Sequential Engagement of Cannabinoid Receptor-1 and Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid-1. J Invest Dermatol (2011).

Bilkei-Gorzo, A. et al. Early onset of aging-like changes is restricted to cognitive abilities and skin structure in Cnr1(-/-) mice. Neurobiol Aging (2010).

Van Dross, R. T. Metabolism of anandamide by COX-2 is necessary for endocannabinoid-induced cell death in tumorigenic keratinocytes. Mol Carcinog (2009).Biro, T.,

Toth, B. I., Hasko, G., Paus, R. & Pacher, P. The endocannabinoid system of the skin in health and disease: novel perspectives and therapeutic opportunities. Trends Pharmacol Sci (2009).

Wilkinson, J. D. & Williamson, E. M. Cannabinoids inhibit human keratinocyte proliferation through a non-CB1/CB2 mechanism and have a potential therapeutic value in the treatment of psoriasis. J Dermatol Sci 45, 87-92 (2007).

http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/220-cannabis-science-extracts-kill-cancer-cells.html

[Telarus]

White House Requests Meeting with Seattle Times to Bully Against Pro-Pot Editorials
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/25/white-house-requested-meeting-with-seattle-times-editorial-board-to-bully-against-pro-pot-articles

The Stranger has learned that immediately after the Seattle Times ran an editorial last week supporting a bill to tax and regulate marijuana, the newspaper got a phone call from Washington, D.C. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske wanted to fly to Seattle to speak personally with the paper's full editorial board.

The meeting is scheduled for next Friday, an apparent attempt by the federal government to pressure the state's largest newspaper to oppose marijuana legalization. Or at least turn down the volume on its new-found bullhorn to legalize pot.

Bruce Ramsey, the Seattle Times editorial writer who wrote the unbylined piece, says the White House called right "right after our editorial ran, so I drew the obvious conclusion... he didn't like our editorial."

"MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed," the newspaper wrote on February 18. "The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington."

This isn't the first time the Obama Administration has campaigned to keep pot illegal. Kerlikowske, who is also Seattle's former police chief, also traveled to California last fall to campaign against Prop 19, a measure to decriminalize marijuana and authorize jurisdictions to tax and regulate it.

Is the Seattle Times the more reticent to speak up? Apparently not. It ran another pro-pot editorial in today's paper.

Kerlikowske's office has not yet responded to a request for comment.

-----------------------
Petition to Webcast the meeting:
http://control.mpp.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3951

[Telarus]

Some interesting developments on this front.

Dr. Melamede has received verbal confirmation from the above woman's physician that the cancer on her nose is completely gone. Currently waiting on written confirmation for a press release.

Also:

Schizophrenia link to cannabis denied
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Schizophrenia-link-cannabis-denied/article-1288926-detail/article.html

By dblackhurst

A STUDY by North Staffordshire academics has rejected a link between smoking cannabis and an increase in mental illness.

The research found there were no rises in cases of schizophrenia or psychoses diagnosed in the UK over nine years, during which the use of the drug had grown substantially.

Pro-cannabis campaigners seized on the results as supporting the legalising of cannabis, and claimed the report had been suppressed.

But the leading expert behind the study said it could be too low-key to re-ignite the debate on whether restrictions should be removed from soft drugs.

From their base at the Harplands Psychiatric Hospital in Hartshill, the four experts reviewed the notes of hundreds of thousands of patients at 183 GP practices throughout the country to look for any changing rate in cases of schizophrenia.

The work had been set up to see if earlier forecasts from other experts had been borne out, that the mental disorder would soar through the growing popularity of cannabis.

Published in the Schizophrenia Research journal, a paper on the study said: "A recent review concluded that cannabis use increases the risk of psychotic outcomes.

"Furthermore an accepted model of the association between cannabis and schizophrenia indicated its incidence would increase from 1990 onwards.

"We examined trends in the annual psychosis incidence and prevalence as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005 and found it to be either stable or declining.

"The casual models linking cannabis with schizophrenia and other psychoses are therefore not supported by our study."

The research was conducted by Drs Martin Frisher and Orsolina Martino, from the department of medicines management at Keele University; psychiatrist Professor Ilana Crome, from the Harplands academic unit, who specialises in addiction; and diseases expert Professor Peter Croft, pictured below, from the university's primary care research centre.

Its findings come shortly after the Government reclassified cannabis from Class C to Class B, which invokes heavier penalties.

Yet Dr Frisher revealed last night that the study had been partly commissioned by the Government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs.

He said: "We concentrated on looking into the incidence of schizophrenia during those years and not specifically at cannabis use.

"It was relatively low-key research so I don't believe it will re-ignite the debate on whether the drug should be legalised."

Hartshill-based Dilys Wood, national co-ordinator of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, said that so far the report had been published in medical journals and would have a far-reaching reaction if it surfaced more widely.

She added: "I believe that if it had found a causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia it would have been all over the press.

"The public needs to know the truth about drugs; not more Government-led propaganda."

And Alliance press officer Don Barnard said: "It is hard to believe the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith did not know of this very important research when deciding to upgrade cannabis to Class B."

The team said a number of alternative explanations for the stabilising of schizophrenia had been considered and while they could not be wholly discounted, they did not appear to be plausible.

(EDIT:: This study apparently came out around the same time as one claiming the opposite. I'll check into it.)



Also (from December, but relevant considering the above):

http://www.bouldernaturesmedicine.com/Blog/2010/12/04/american-psychiatric-association-assembly-unanimously-backs-medical-marijuana/

[Iron Sulfide]

Thanks for all that digging Telarus. I just learned a fuckton of things I previously didn't know about Pot. It's pretty crazy that there could be viable evidence that an external application could actually have an effect on cancerous growths.

as for meth- the AMC show "Breaking Bad" has incredibly realistic depictions of both the chemical processes that are used to make meth, and the international/local politics that surround the drug. A rare, horribly good show with a hell of a lot of research.

My understanding of the effects of meth are that clean, laboratory grade meth has a lot less of the physical deleterious effects (premature aging, tooth decay, bone decay, your skin rotting while it's still on your face, etc...), but actually has a much sharper slice of psychological fuck-your-shit-up, and you will go batshit insane...fast.

I wouldn't know about that first or second hand, though, and have no supporting evidence. All the friends and enemies I used to have that did meth were poor as fuck, and usually bought and smoked whatever was cheapest, so I doubt they ever had the "good" stuff.

[Telarus]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/tylenol-and-the-war-drugs

What has all this to do with the war on drugs?

In the early days of the misguided, counterproductive and massively expensive "war on drugs", Richard Nixon signed the Drug Control Act that established "schedules" that doctors and patients must deal with today. The schedules range from IV to I, in order of their "abuse potential".

Just don't get confused and think that this had something to do with safety. Toxic chemotherapy agents, the blood thinner warfarin and many other very dangerous drugs are not on the schedule at all, but pretty much any drug someone might take at a party is.

It was decided that drugs should be made more difficult to obtain based on their potential for "abuse". In keeping with the moralistic and authoritarian origins of all this, "abuse" means "getting high" and has little to do with how dangerous the given drug is to your health. Some drugs, like cannabis, are schedule I and legally unavailable to anyone in most states. Does anyone really think cannabis is deadlier than Jim Beam?

This is how you end up with an unnecessary liver toxin in your narcotic. The government figures it has a lower potential for abuse because you will be dissuaded from taking enough of it to "get high' by the potential for hepatotoxicity due to the added acetaminophen! The manufacturer quite naturally responds to the perverse incentives of the Drug Control Act by adding the acetaminophen to get a schedule III classification. This makes it less onerous for the prescribing physician, and easier for the patient, resulting in greater sales for the drug company.

Make the potential party drug more toxic so it is less likely to be "abused".

In case you think my reasoning on this is overly cynical, have you ever purchased denatured alcohol at the hardware store? This is ethanol - the same kind found in your gin and tonic - which has been purposefully engineered to kill you if you drink it. "Denatured" implies there has been some chemical alteration of the alcohol, but in fact it is just intentionally contaminated with toxic industrial solvents like methanol or acetone.

The manufacturer goes to extra effort and expense to add poison for the sole purpose of escaping burdensome government regulation and taxation. And the government dissuades you from getting high with a legal drug by threatening you with death.

Still doubt that your government might be willing to burn the village in order to save it?

Much more at the link.

[AFK]

With all due respect, that article is a pond full of red herrings. 

[Telarus]

With all due respect, that article is a pond full of red herrings. 

I appreciate that take on it (I mostly post these thing in this thread to hear _all_ of the opinions around here).

What jumped out at me was the recognition by the FDA that adding a substance with a low LD50 rating (the LD50, for anyone else out there is the "amount per Kilogram of test subject" at which 50% of the test animals die from toxicity) as not addressing the problems of Vicodin diversion, and was in fact causing preventable deaths from liver toxicity. They have demanded that drug manufacturers lower the amount of acetaminophen in 'mixed' drugs.

Maybe these are some better sources. I still think that this shows the overall "thrust" in the current federal policy is biased towards corporate profits and leaves "preventable harm" behind. The fact that PRESCRIPTIONS that included acetaminophen were NOT REQUIRED to warn of liver damage until now.... Hmmmm.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/tylenol/tylenol-overdose-liver-damage-acetaminophen-3-16183.html

Oh and look at this... the Companies have 3 years to comply with the reduced levels. This won't lead to more liver toxicity AT ALL.

http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Policy&d_id=51&i=March%2B2011&i_id=716&a_id=16865

Charles Seifert, PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, described it as a thoughtful approach. "If you reduce the amount of acetaminophen in those products, that's a really nice middle ground, if you will," said Dr. Seifert, professor of pharmacy practice in the School of Pharmacy at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock. "Now you can still get them as Schedule III. But you hope that, as you increase the narcotic component, the acetaminophen doesn't exceed 4 g a day."

OK, so that backs up the accusation that Acetaminophen is only included in order to take the "Product" down to a Class III CSA schedule.

The original article definitely had it's own bias, and I'm finding exaggerations, allegory and emotional language in the first Article. Much of the factual details, tho, are being backed up with the other news  sources.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_4f4e973a-bc22-5839-99c2-3392f92304f0.html

The bigger problem isn't the lack of adequate warnings so much as the abundance of ways in which to get acetaminophen, Barlow said. Many countries in Europe do not bundle the drugs together; a patient would have to take a painkiller and an acetaminophen tablet separately, so there's less worry about unintentional overdoses. Stores also don't sell the medication in 1,000-tablet bottles but in individual dosages.

As a result, the overdose rates are significantly lower, Barlow said.

"The easy way to handle it is to do like they do in Europe, but that makes too much sense, so we're not going to do it," he said.

In just don't understand how adding something that increases Toxciticy (by lowering the LD50 of the blended product), allows the substance to be places in a LOWER Schedule than the substance alone. It doesn't make sense to me within the stated "prevention of harm" context of the CSA.

Finagling it to a Class III substance makes perfect sense when I think about it with Corporate Profits as the context. I guess that's my problem.

[Telarus]

Hahaha. Now that I go back and read it (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/tylenol-and-the-war-drugs), I can see what RWHN was talking about. Never be afraid to change your opinion, people.


I still think the new Acetaminophen rules are a big deal, and probably an improvement. I just don't get why the Rx companies get to have 3 years to sell existing stock (which the FDA just said carries a higher risk of complete liver failure.... something which I just learned a good friend of mine is in surgery for today  ).


Anyway, with all that hub-bub I missed this:

http://washingtonindependent.com/106943/federal-agency-proclaims-medical-use-for-marijuana

Federal agency proclaims medical use for marijuana
By Kyle Daly | 03.24.11 | 4:08 pm

As federal battles over medical marijuana across the country heat up, a statement from one federal agency may be a huge asset for medical marijuana dispensaries that have been targeted by the various arms of the U.S. Department of Justice and the IRS.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is a division of the National Institute of Health, which is itself one of the 11 component agencies that make up the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, the NCI quietly added to its treatment database a summary of marijuana's medicinal benefits, including an acknowledgment that oncologists may recommend it to patients for medicinal use.

The summary cites clinical trials demonstrating the benefit of medical marijuana. Part of it reads:

The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

Although 34 states have passed laws recognizing marijuana's medicinal properties and 15 states, plus Washington, D.C., have legalized it for medical use, this is the first time a federal agency has recognized it as medicine. Despite recent developments, Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2009 that the Justice Department would not raid medical marijuana facilities, but at no point did he acknowledge their legitimacy as distribution centers for medicine. A 2001 Supreme Court ruling, meanwhile, declared that medical use of marijuana cannot be considered in any federal court deliberating on a marijuana possession or distribution case.

The new NCI assessment could have an impact on the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the harshest possible drug classification, which has resulted in a prison population in which 1 in 8 prisoners in the U.S. is locked up for a marijuana-related offense. One of the principal criteria for a Schedule I determination is that there be "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The U.S. Justice Department may have a hard time maintaining that claim if challenged, considering a federal agency now recognizes marijuana's medical use in cancer treatment.

From the other side of the argument comes a new white paper (PDF) from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) censuring the prescription of marijuana by doctors in states where its medical use is legal. The ASAM takes issue with the fact that marijuana is not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore not subject to the same standards as other medicines. The white paper also cites as a health risk the fact that the most common method of using marijuana is smoking it.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, believes that the ASAM paper is a direct response to the new NCI evaluation and that ASAM physicians have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal in all cases.

"These doctors are making a fortune off of marijuana prohibition," he says. "They have a financial, proprietary interest to maintain the status quo."

St. Pierre argues that addiction specialists would be losing a major revenue source if marijuana were legalized, decriminalized or simply recognized as medicine in federal court. Without the massive number of arrests and convictions based on marijuana-related offenses, there would be a sharp drop in the number of patients referred to a doctor for marijuana addiction counseling by judges.

"The NCI statement? Fascinating. The AMAS reply? Pathetic. And predictable," says St. Pierre.

Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former president of AMAS, claimed in an AMAS press release that the white paper had its origins in a concern for doctor liability and responsibility.

"Allowing cannabis to circumvent FDA approval sets a dangerous precedent and puts us on a slippery slope," she said.

The back and forth at the end of the article aside, this is actually pretty huge, legally speaking.

[BabylonHoruv]

Thanks for all that digging Telarus. I just learned a fuckton of things I previously didn't know about Pot. It's pretty crazy that there could be viable evidence that an external application could actually have an effect on cancerous growths.

as for meth- the AMC show "Breaking Bad" has incredibly realistic depictions of both the chemical processes that are used to make meth, and the international/local politics that surround the drug. A rare, horribly good show with a hell of a lot of research.

My understanding of the effects of meth are that clean, laboratory grade meth has a lot less of the physical deleterious effects (premature aging, tooth decay, bone decay, your skin rotting while it's still on your face, etc...), but actually has a much sharper slice of psychological fuck-your-shit-up, and you will go batshit insane...fast.

I wouldn't know about that first or second hand, though, and have no supporting evidence. All the friends and enemies I used to have that did meth were poor as fuck, and usually bought and smoked whatever was cheapest, so I doubt they ever had the "good" stuff.

Meth accelerates your metabolism.  That's the main thing perfectly pure, clean meth does so laboratory grade meth would still accelerate aging.

[BabylonHoruv]

With all due respect, that article is a pond full of red herrings. 

I appreciate that take on it (I mostly post these thing in this thread to hear _all_ of the opinions around here).

What jumped out at me was the recognition by the FDA that adding a substance with a low LD50 rating (the LD50, for anyone else out there is the "amount per Kilogram of test subject" at which 50% of the test animals die from toxicity) as not addressing the problems of Vicodin diversion, and was in fact causing preventable deaths from liver toxicity. They have demanded that drug manufacturers lower the amount of acetaminophen in 'mixed' drugs.

Maybe these are some better sources. I still think that this shows the overall "thrust" in the current federal policy is biased towards corporate profits and leaves "preventable harm" behind. The fact that PRESCRIPTIONS that included acetaminophen were NOT REQUIRED to warn of liver damage until now.... Hmmmm.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/tylenol/tylenol-overdose-liver-damage-acetaminophen-3-16183.html

Oh and look at this... the Companies have 3 years to comply with the reduced levels. This won't lead to more liver toxicity AT ALL.

http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Policy&d_id=51&i=March%2B2011&i_id=716&a_id=16865

Charles Seifert, PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, described it as a thoughtful approach. "If you reduce the amount of acetaminophen in those products, that's a really nice middle ground, if you will," said Dr. Seifert, professor of pharmacy practice in the School of Pharmacy at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock. "Now you can still get them as Schedule III. But you hope that, as you increase the narcotic component, the acetaminophen doesn't exceed 4 g a day."

OK, so that backs up the accusation that Acetaminophen is only included in order to take the "Product" down to a Class III CSA schedule.

The original article definitely had it's own bias, and I'm finding exaggerations, allegory and emotional language in the first Article. Much of the factual details, tho, are being backed up with the other news  sources.

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_4f4e973a-bc22-5839-99c2-3392f92304f0.html

The bigger problem isn't the lack of adequate warnings so much as the abundance of ways in which to get acetaminophen, Barlow said. Many countries in Europe do not bundle the drugs together; a patient would have to take a painkiller and an acetaminophen tablet separately, so there's less worry about unintentional overdoses. Stores also don't sell the medication in 1,000-tablet bottles but in individual dosages.

As a result, the overdose rates are significantly lower, Barlow said.

"The easy way to handle it is to do like they do in Europe, but that makes too much sense, so we're not going to do it," he said.

In just don't understand how adding something that increases Toxciticy (by lowering the LD50 of the blended product), allows the substance to be places in a LOWER Schedule than the substance alone. It doesn't make sense to me within the stated "prevention of harm" context of the CSA.

Finagling it to a Class III substance makes perfect sense when I think about it with Corporate Profits as the context. I guess that's my problem.

Not including a warning about liver damage seems to be counterproductive.  If the reason there is aceteminophen in it is to damage your liver so you won't abuse it then they'd want the warning to be nice and big so you don't abuse it anyways.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Hahaha. Now that I go back and read it (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/tylenol-and-the-war-drugs), I can see what RWHN was talking about. Never be afraid to change your opinion, people.


I still think the new Acetaminophen rules are a big deal, and probably an improvement. I just don't get why the Rx companies get to have 3 years to sell existing stock (which the FDA just said carries a higher risk of complete liver failure.... something which I just learned a good friend of mine is in surgery for today  ).


Anyway, with all that hub-bub I missed this:

http://washingtonindependent.com/106943/federal-agency-proclaims-medical-use-for-marijuana

Federal agency proclaims medical use for marijuana
By Kyle Daly | 03.24.11 | 4:08 pm

As federal battles over medical marijuana across the country heat up, a statement from one federal agency may be a huge asset for medical marijuana dispensaries that have been targeted by the various arms of the U.S. Department of Justice and the IRS.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is a division of the National Institute of Health, which is itself one of the 11 component agencies that make up the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, the NCI quietly added to its treatment database a summary of marijuana's medicinal benefits, including an acknowledgment that oncologists may recommend it to patients for medicinal use.

The summary cites clinical trials demonstrating the benefit of medical marijuana. Part of it reads:

The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

Although 34 states have passed laws recognizing marijuana's medicinal properties and 15 states, plus Washington, D.C., have legalized it for medical use, this is the first time a federal agency has recognized it as medicine. Despite recent developments, Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2009 that the Justice Department would not raid medical marijuana facilities, but at no point did he acknowledge their legitimacy as distribution centers for medicine. A 2001 Supreme Court ruling, meanwhile, declared that medical use of marijuana cannot be considered in any federal court deliberating on a marijuana possession or distribution case.

The new NCI assessment could have an impact on the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the harshest possible drug classification, which has resulted in a prison population in which 1 in 8 prisoners in the U.S. is locked up for a marijuana-related offense. One of the principal criteria for a Schedule I determination is that there be "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The U.S. Justice Department may have a hard time maintaining that claim if challenged, considering a federal agency now recognizes marijuana's medical use in cancer treatment.

From the other side of the argument comes a new white paper (PDF) from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) censuring the prescription of marijuana by doctors in states where its medical use is legal. The ASAM takes issue with the fact that marijuana is not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore not subject to the same standards as other medicines. The white paper also cites as a health risk the fact that the most common method of using marijuana is smoking it.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, believes that the ASAM paper is a direct response to the new NCI evaluation and that ASAM physicians have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal in all cases.

"These doctors are making a fortune off of marijuana prohibition," he says. "They have a financial, proprietary interest to maintain the status quo."

St. Pierre argues that addiction specialists would be losing a major revenue source if marijuana were legalized, decriminalized or simply recognized as medicine in federal court. Without the massive number of arrests and convictions based on marijuana-related offenses, there would be a sharp drop in the number of patients referred to a doctor for marijuana addiction counseling by judges.

"The NCI statement? Fascinating. The AMAS reply? Pathetic. And predictable," says St. Pierre.

Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former president of AMAS, claimed in an AMAS press release that the white paper had its origins in a concern for doctor liability and responsibility.

"Allowing cannabis to circumvent FDA approval sets a dangerous precedent and puts us on a slippery slope," she said.

The back and forth at the end of the article aside, this is actually pretty huge, legally speaking.

Apparently, the UK may be starting to come to their senses about it too!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html

[Telarus]

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS SHIT?

http://coloradoindependent.com/81475/first-federal-agency-to-acknowledge-medical-marijuana-removes-anti-tumor-information-from-database

[AFK]

Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect".  So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact. 

I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage.  Which I think is perfectly reasonable.  Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance.  Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect.  But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect".  So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact. 

I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage.  Which I think is perfectly reasonable.  Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance.  Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect.  But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors. 

You mean like the kind of definitive science that occurred in 1974 which the DEA shut down because it didn't prove what they wanted it to prove?