FDA's New Anti-Medical Marijuana Statement - Politics or Science?

[kpete]

Again-FDA's Marijuana Policy is Politics Not Science

FDA says marjiuana has no medical merits
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FDA_says_marjiuana_has_no_medical_0420.html

FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
April 20, 2006
Media Inquiries:
FDA Press Office, 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries:
888-INFO-FDA

Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine
Claims have been advanced asserting smoked marijuana has a value in treating various medical conditions. Some have argued that herbal marijuana is a safe and effective medication and that it should be made available to people who suffer from a number of ailments upon a doctor's recommendation, even though it is not an approved drug.

Marijuana is listed in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the most restrictive schedule. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which administers the CSA, continues to support that placement and FDA concurred because marijuana met the three criteria for placement in Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1) (e.g., marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision). Furthermore, there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful. A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use. There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana.

FDA is the sole Federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act requires that new drugs be shown to be safe and effective for their intended use before being marketed in this country. FDA's drug approval process requires well-controlled clinical trials that provide the necessary scientific data upon which FDA makes its approval and labeling decisions. If a drug product is to be marketed, disciplined, systematic, scientifically conducted trials are the best means to obtain data to ensure that drug is safe and effective when used as indicated. Efforts that seek to bypass the FDA drug approval process would not serve the interests of public health because they might expose patients to unsafe and ineffective drug products. FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.

A growing number of states have passed voter referenda (or legislative actions) making smoked marijuana available for a variety of medical conditions upon a doctor's recommendation. These measures are inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process and are proven safe and effective under the standards of the FD&C Act. Accordingly, FDA, as the federal agency responsible for reviewing the safety and efficacy of drugs, DEA as the federal agency charged with enforcing the CSA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as the federal coordinator of drug control policy, do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Obviously politics.

No matter how you slice it, if marijuana had no medicinal value, then marinol would not be on the market.

It's like saying opium has no medicinal value, but morphine does.

[Kagemusha]

2. Politics can hide behind the appearance of science.

The government's exerted a lot of effort to prevent marijuana from getting the trials required to establish it for medicine. Now, the argument they use that its possible medical uses are marginal and that the substance has a high potential for abuse... these are not so unreasonable. Saying that there is evidence that it is harmful is a bit of a stretch because I don't believe the evidence there is much better than the evidence cited as insufficient to establish that marijuana has medical purposes. The last evidence I saw was along the lines of, 'any drug is poison if you take enough of it'.

[silverweb]

3. Money.

Until _BigPharma_ finds a way to make marijuana proprietary and profitable only to themselves, it will remain illegal.

[KitchenWitch]

4. Most definitely politics!

Big Pharma cannot get a patent on pot.

[PublicWrath]

5. Politics, like the FDA delay on approval of emergency birth control for

over the counter sale.

[Vidar]

6. Science in this regime? Surely you jest.

[Warpy]

7. Pure fundamentalist ignorance

Pure fascist politics.

[leesa]

8. FDA vs marijuana? ALWAYS politics and $$$$$

[sam sarrha]

9. here's a history of medical hemp,most prescribed drug before aspirin,>LINK

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

chapters out of his book: The Emperor Has No Clothes, history of hemp, fascinating reading

check out his home page and links

[OneBlueSky]

10. pure propaganda . . . the question I have is "Why?" . . .

why is BushCo spending all this time, energy and money to demonize marijuana -- which is actually a pretty benign substance compared to most any other illegal "drug" . . . for most, nothing more than a mild euphoric . . .

maybe they're just setting the stage for filling those camps . . . the more charges they can trump up, the more liberals they can intern . . .

[Occulus]

11. If it is our government making a statement regarding pot,

it will be a political statement painting marijuana in as bad a light as possible.

I don't even need to read a single word to get the gist of their "study":

"Drugs are bad, M'Kay?"