Federal government says marijuana has no accepted medical use

[Bosonic]

Source: LA Times

Marijuana has been approved by California, many other states and the nation's capital to treat a range of illnesses, but in a decision announced Friday the federal government ruled that it has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a dangerous drug like heroin.

The decision comes almost nine years after medical marijuana supporters asked the government to reclassify cannabis to take into account a growing body of worldwide research that shows its effectiveness in treating certain diseases, such as glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

Advocates for the medical use of the drug criticized the ruling but were elated that the Obama administration had finally acted, which allows them to appeal to the federal courts, where they believe they can get a fairer hearing. The decision to deny the request was made by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and comes less than two months after advocates asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to force the administration to respond to their petition.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/federal-government-rules-that-marijuana-has-no-accepted-medical-use-.html

[Taverner]

1. Jesus fuck...tell me again why I should send money to this administration?

Tell me what the fucking point of voting "D" is again?

[izquierdista]

2. Because (R) is so scary!

Boo! :hide:

[No Elephants]

45. Isn't trying to scare someone into voting your way a form of domestic terrorism?

There. Boo, right backatcha.

[Occulus]

77. Not really.

It's a well-worn and very very old Republican tactic, though.

[arcane1]

5. To rid the world of weed and poker, of course! n/t

[jmowreader]

6. You know what the fucking point of voting "D" is

These men belong to the Muttawa, Saudi Arabia's religious police.

If you want a similar organization in the United States, just dedicated to Christianity instead of Islam, vote Republican.

[krabigirl]

41. like it isn't already like that now.

[jmowreader]

42. No. It isn't already like that now.

Please tell me the last time a woman in the United States was bent over a rail by the police and beaten with a rattan cane because you could see her ankles under her dress or because the police caught her driving a car or going to the store without one of the men in her family escorting her. That shit happens all the time in Saudi Arabia, but it doesn't happen here.

Yes, we like to joke about the Christian Taliban in this country, and talk about the abrogation of abortion rights, women's rights and civil rights not-Christian-enough people are forced to endure. It's nowhere near as bad as it is in Saudi Arabia. You know that as well as I.

[crikkett]

43. I'm sorry, it's still a false choice.

I'm not going to vote for someone out of fear. I'm not going to believe that a republican administration would establish a religious police in America.

[No Elephants]

50. I don't think they'd mind trying. But I don't think Americans will let them.

[No Elephants]

47. And it wasn't like that in the U.S. during 8 years of Dummya, either.

Please.

[Heywood J]

62. Read up on DIY exorcisms.

Dying of dehydration and starvation over a period of days because the Christian Taliban believes a rebellious child is "possessed by demons".

[jmowreader]

72. And we have a government agency doing that?

That's what you're neglecting, HJ: the Muttawa are an official police force employed by the Saudi government. It's not a bunch of random religious zealots out there committing crimes in the name of Allah, like we have here (well, change the name of the deity and you've got it), it's a bunch of carefully selected religious zealots out there following, to the letter, the law laid down by the Saudi rulers in the name of Allah.

If a rebellious child is killed by dehydration and starvation because of demon possession in the US, the exorcists go to jail and they COULD wind up staring down a needle. If the same shit happened in Saudi--remember, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that uses "public beheading" as its form of capital punishment and honor killing is still legal (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/04/honor-killing-over-facebook-in-saudi-arabia-cleric-vehemently-condemns-facebook.html)--they'd give the guy a promotion.

[No Elephants]

46. Haven't you noticed changes in the Democratic Party on this issue as well?

The point is the Supreme Court.

[didact]

80. LMAO Exaggerators Anonymous: A Trillion Strong and Growing*

eom

[RKP5637]

13. I'll tell you, you've got an excellent point. Each day more and more

WTF's. I'm not sure what party I'm in anymore. I used to think democratic, but that party left me.

[SoapBox]

25. Major Ditto to RKP5637

...same feelings.

[krabigirl]

39. don't..I sure am not. not voting for them either.

Also I don't believe in the BS left/right bs anymore either.

[musette_sf]

82. like you ever did

[Bo]

78. I agree, The U.S. labour camp -penal colony marches forward

...I cannot believe we are not treating drugs as a public health issue.

[harun]

81. You shouldn't.

And the D's have jumped the shark.

[Guilded Lilly]

3. They make more money when they demonize marijuana. Period.

[RKP5637]

15. Exactly what is going on ... they don't want to cross the big money made off

of prohibition. Each day gets more and more F'ed up in the US.

[Uncle Joe]

64. If anything should be outlawed, that would be for profit prisons, they're addictive, immoral,

dysfunctional, corruptive to our government, and a growing long term threat to our democratic republic.

I honestly believe they're will evolve to saddle our nation with a 21st century form of slavery and the asinine, insanity behind the war against Cannabis in particular and drugs in general are just one avenue to those nefarious ends.

[boppers]

4. ...and like heroin, the refined components have accepted medical uses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000403/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000398/

[No Elephants]

51. Make sure PHRMA profits remain extraordinary.

[boppers]

73. I see upsides and downsides...

A regulated, refined, product is much more controlled, with quantifiable benefits over the wild variations in different weed strains.

OTOH, that regulated, refined, product has a lot of costs built in.

[Johnny Harpo]

7. 5 Joints to A Pack...

sell the packs in the liquor stores and tax the living shit out of it.

[No Elephants]

48. You mean "public-ize" an already privatized income stream? How un-American!

[No Elephants]

54. Then government would benefit, instead of PHRMA and crooks.

We can't have that. "Starve the beast."

[BiggJawn]

8. How much money?

How much money do you suppose the synthetic rope, cotton, and alcohol lobbies spend every year reminding our elected(purchased) morans about "Reefer Madness"?

[Autumn]

9. Once again they have their heads up their ass. n/t

[RKP5637]

16. I think they just live up their asses anymore. n/t

[Autumn]

20. That's a terrible thing to say

when I just took a drink. :spray: Now I have to clean my screen. You are soooo right.:thumbsup:

[RKP5637]

23. I'm sorry!!! I've almost choked at times when reading DU and

taking a drink while reading the next comment. :toast: :beer: :thumbsup:

[Bluenorthwest]

10. More ignorance from the administration.

It is an absurd statement 'no accepted medical use', just absurd. Cancer patients should sue them for slander.

[defendandprotect]

11. Just more of the "keeping the lid on" government of W --- especially re Med Pot -- !!

[Kali]

12. but it sure does have a huge prison-industrial complex use

[AverageJoe90]

29. I can think of a few other things that have had, or once had, at a point, the same effect:

Things like, anti-miscegenation laws, corporal punishment(different from spanking, btw), the PATRIOT Act, modern copyright laws, etc. have ALL contributed to the prospering of the prison-industrial complex over the years. Though the first example may have disappeared 40 years ago, all of the others are alive and well today, I'm sad to say.

[fascisthunter]

14. LIARS

so how many gov officials benefit from the marijuana black market?

[NBachers]

17. "Beat up on the hippies. That'll make us popular with the republicans"

[No Elephants]

49. Hippies are far from the only marijuana users.

In Massachusetts, representatives of the police campaigned for de-criminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. And voters agreed.

[WatsonT]

18. Unlike tobacco . . . . ?

[Bryn]

19. Of course! Big Pharma loses out if marijuana is accepted for medical use!

The government is owned by Big Business.

[Butch350]

22. Big Biz IS the government...

were you not at the staff meeting:=))))

[No Elephants]

52. Big Biz controls government and the taxpayer foots the bills for both.

We're such shmucks anymore.

[krispos42]

21. "Hi, Drug Enforcement Agency, I'd like you to support shrinking your agency and budget"

"Will you sign on?"

[Baclava]

24. The DEA is getting billions - - every alphabet agency wants their cut of the 'drug war' pie

They'll never kill that golden goose


DEA Staffing and Appropriations:

http://www.justice.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm

[Harry J Asslinger]

26. Nothing short of...

The combined forces of demonstrations, pervasive jury nullification and widespread legislation at the state level will put an end to this monstrous and utterly criminal prohibition.

[No Elephants]

55. Holder is not respecting state legislation.

[givemebackmycountry]

27. Maybe in a few years when Malia gets popped with a couple of joints he'll see things differently.

Just sayin'

[No Elephants]

53. He won't be worrying about his re-election then, though, so no worries.

[byronius]

28. Why isn't anybody reading the operative sentence? Jeez.

'Advocates for the medical use of the drug criticized the ruling but were elated that the Obama administration had finally acted, which allows them to appeal to the federal courts, where they believe they can get a fairer hearing.'

Seems pretty clear to me that this will be a good thing for medical marijuana.

[RainDog]

30. we'll see

the DEA also has requests from pharma cos to reschedule - if they denied this group but allow big pharma to reschedule its version - I would hope a federal court would be allowed to take that into consideration.

the ONLY president who had a rational policy toward cannabis was Carter.

Clinton was as bad as Obama. Both raging hypocritical gutless wankers on this issue.

I don't know how this process works - federal judges, I would hope, would have to look at the history of recommendations and refusals on the part of presidents, starting with Nixon - that's how long it has been that policy wonks have recommended moving cannabis from the category of a dangerous substance.

I guess none of our politicians have the courage to do the right thing - again.

[No Elephants]

59. ? What makes you think no one read that sentence?

That posters are criticizing the administration for this?

The ruling should have come out the other way.

"This is the third time that petitions to reclassify marijuana have been spurned. The first was filed in 1972 and denied 17 years later. The second was filed in 1995 and denied in 2001. Both decisions were appealed, but the courts sided with the federal government."
(Last Paragraph of the OP.)

"Elated" about a 9-year delay (so far) and the prospect of expensive, lengthy court battles in our government-supporting, right-leaning courts, with people getting arrested, even in California,. in the meantime? As opposed to the administration simply having ended this reasonably and favorably right now, if not sooner? k.

[Occulus]

76. And an article in the LA Times said they called it "a silver lining"

I think the person who believes advocates are 'elated' is twisting words to fit their favorable conception of the President and his campaign trail lies on this subject.

I think that happen often here on DU as well.

[Xipe Totec]

31. Literally true - They won't accept it has medical uses

It doesn't mean it has none.

[crikkett]

44. +1

[droidamus2]

32. Personally I don't think the DEA should set the drug schedule

The members of the DEA have too much invested in keeping marijuana or for that matter any drug illegal. I think a board of medical experts should be charge with setting up the drug schedules and then the DEA should enforced the law based on their findings. We all no that keeping Marijuana on schedule 1 is ridiculous on its face. It should have never been put there in the first place. As I have pointed out on DU before if you remove all the 'pot smokers' from the 'drug epidemic' then the number of illegal drug users drops precipitously and it gets much harder for law enforcement to ask for the big money to fight drugs. Also I think there is still a faction in law enforcement and the government that sees busting people for pot as putting it to those 'dirty liberal hippies from the 1960's'.

[AlbertCat]

33. Who cares??? Neither does alcohol or tobacco.

[No Elephants]

56. Some studies show benefits of small amounts of alcohol (esp. wine) per day.

Tobacco, however, is way beyond not medically beneficial. It's killing people and burderning the medical system.

[Vidar]

34. Likewise the Federal Government as presently constitued has no legitimate function.

[dflprincess]

35. My brother's oncologist would disagree.

Because Minnesota does not have medical marijuana (thanks to Tim Pawlenty's veto) the doctor prescribed Marinol for my brother to deal with side effects. The doctor also told him that many of his patients found a "more natural" (doctor's words) more effective. He did suggest that because brother had lung cancer he buy some kind of vaporizer - if he decided to use the more natural product. He also mentioned who might sell the vaporizer he should use.

[No Elephants]

57. Seems to benefit glaucoma victims as well and anyone in pain.

[madville]

36. We got some marijuana for my grandpa when he was hit with prostate cancer

Long time ago, he tried it, hadn't smoked cigarettes or anything since WWII but he tried it, it eased his treatment symptoms but he really didn't care for it since he was terminal anyway and he spent the rest of the time looped on morphine or whatever anyway. Ridiculous that it is illegal, I don't do it because I don't care for the feeling but it is pretty much harmless. Being illegal creates all the negatives about it.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

37. Ha, ha, cough, cough...

... I recently had major surgery, so serious that I am bound to homecare/visiting daily nurse and am on vicodine and valium (for muscle spasms, the doc says) and can only find real relief from the pain and discomfort with two or three tokes off a skinny mini a buddy slipped me. Why don't they survey REAL folks with medical conditions before making such asinine proclamations? I know, I know...because it is illegal, yada yada yada.

[No Elephants]

58. "Anecdotal evidence is not proof." Or, so they say. Best wishes to you.

[LetTimmySmoke]

38. Obama says one thing and does another.

He is completely untrustworthy. Nothing he says can be believed.

[krabigirl]

40. lol they are completely hypocritical and clueless. this administration is a joke.

And no, a Republican would not be worse on this issue. Some would be the same, some would actually be better. sad really.

also, doesn't the AMA disagree?

[No Elephants]

60. Abraham Lincoln, Albert Eistein, H.L. Mencken and the Congress of the United States on Prohibition:

""Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln, Speech to Illinois House of Representatives, December 18, 1840

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." Albert Einstein "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921

"Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favourite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished." H.L. Mencken, 1924

"{T}hroughout American history, alcohol has been consumed by its citizens"; that prohibition resulted in "abuses" and the "irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol"; and that the ban on "'intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic inS. crease in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws..." U.S. Congress

[NikRik]

61. STUPID,DUMB and IGNORANT !!!!!!!!!

I would like to know what Dr. working for the Feds endorses this notion that marijuana has no accepted medical use?When they point him out them we can have I'm guessing more then a thousand well known and well respected Dr.'s that can explain to this idiot why he is wrong!Can we please get past this issuse?Its been years overdue to be either decrimilized or legalized and here we are in 2011 still locking people up for this harmless product.The only reason,you can't say its 100% harmless is becasue on one thing,its legal status which is maikng it dangerous over the large amounts of $ to be made by oraganized crime and gangs selling it illegally. STUPID,STUPID,STUPID!!!!!!
IMHO
NikRik

[and-justice-for-all]

63. That is just balntant denial of the acutal facts...

I would rather smoke a joint to relieve arthritis pain or as an appetite stimulant, than a phamra script.

[bobthedrummer]

65. It has wonderful analgesic properties for disabled, etc...

:smoke:

[somone]

66. Change, my ass

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43692468/ns/health-health_care/

Feds: Pot has no medical purpose
Marijuana will remain in the same class of drugs as heroin
By Lori Preuitt
updated 7/8/2011

The federal government officially declared that marijuana has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a dangerous and addictive drug. It will remain in the same class of drugs as heroin.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/health/21marijuana.html

F.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: April 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 20 — The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana, contradicting a 1999 review by a panel of highly regarded scientists.

[WheelWalker]

67. Flat Earthers...

Dead Enders.

[totodeinhere]

68. Even if it's true that it has no medical use, and by the way I dispute that, that is not the point.

Whether it is medically useful or not, prohibition does not work. The so-called war on drugs is a failure. Pot is arguably less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. Legalize and then regulate and tax pot. It's the only logical thing to do.

[RainDog]

70. It's not true and we know it and they know it and THEY KNOW WE KNOW IT

...and the reason we know it is b/c the DEA placed synthetic THC, or marinol, as a schedule II drug - which means it has a medical use.

in addition, Sativex, which is liquified whole plant cannabis, is legal and prescribed for MS in Germany, Canada, Israel and Great Britain.

so, they are not only liars, they are FUCKING LIARS who don't deserve to hold the jobs they do.

[indepat]

69. What total f'in nonsense and flimflam

:patriot:

[lunatica]

71. Science? We don't need no fucken science

[SHRED]

74. Only dopes wage war on weed

[Red1]

75. The Nazi Pharmy Corps Have Spoken...

[skirt6]

79. I don't care either way if marijuana is legal or not

but Cannabis has more carcinogens than cigarettes today. These carcinogens are natural to the plant, in forms of various insecticides and fungicides. While it may ease your pain while you are sick, you are also setting yourself up for cancer (or more cancer) later on. Whether or not I agree with the recreational use marijuana it should be regarded with the same caution as any other prescription drug your doctor writes a prescribes. On the flip-side, we know that the pharmaceutical companies have our government by the short-hairs. Did you know that AIDS patients could take one dose of Thera-flu a day and surpress the virus just as well as the 30 pills a day they have to take, but a month's supply of thera-flu would cost them, what... $30? AIDS patients spend THOUSANDS of dollars a month for the medicines each month. So, the FDA refuses to okay the use of Thera-flu stating it's hard on the patients liver (like those 30 other drugs aren't *eyeroll*) and the pharmaceutical companies are happy.

I guess what it boils down to is if you and your doctor agree that the benefits outweigh the risks, good for you. Our government is sticking it's nose in where it doesn't belong. But don't preach that there are no ill-effects of marijuana. That's just ignorance.

[JonLP24]

84. I don't think many people

are arguing there are no ill-effects. I wouldn't even argue that for caffeine. However, I'm posting some information about the cancer angle.

The question is why isn't marijuana as dangerous as cigarettes when it comes to cancer risk.
<snip>

The answer isn’t clear, but the experts say it might have something to do with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is a chemical found in marijuana smoke.

Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD.

In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke.

The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

Another study showing the inhibiting effects of THC.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco

Slightly off topic but Cannabidiol which is an ingredient has been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth. (PDF)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safeaccessnow.org%2Fdownloads%2FBrain_Cancer_Study.pdf&ei=0HkaTs3RHI6asAOtvLnWDQ&usg=AFQjCNELBrm2v1SFZKmohZ9eZqxFtKj2xw&sig2=bdzXj7L1gtwTUGwlSOvgPg

[musette_sf]

83. bullshit

According to a study published in the August 15, 2004 issue of the journal Cancer Research, cannabinoids, the active ingredients in marijuana, restrict the sprouting of blood vessels to brain tumors by inhibiting the expression of genes needed for the production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/16/5617.abstract