A Look at Medicinal Cannabis & Sativex – BBC

What This Country Needs Is a Marijuana Summit

One Doctor’s Answer to the Beer Summit

By David Bearman, M.D

Saturday, September 5, 2009

When a white cop handcuffed a black professor outside his own home we had a beer summit in the name of better race relations. That summit addressed the number one social problem in this country since 1619 (the date the first African slaves were sold in the U.S.).

I’m calling for a marijuana summit. This summit will benefit the health of millions, while saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

The federal government must concur with what we the people already know. In the Obama Transition Team’s own online poll, respondents overwhelmingly selected legalizing marijuana as our country’s number one priority. This May, even a Zogby poll commissioned by the conservative O’Leary Report found 52 percent of American voters in favor and only 37 percent opposed to legalizing (and taxing) marijuana.

I call on Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to have a frank discussion with doctors and researchers on medical cannabis and the efficacy of various routes of administration. Sadly, Kerlikowske seems to be using the same illogic as his predecessors in the drug office. He recently cited a University of Washington treatment program as the information source for his position that cannabis is bad stuff. Why? Because people who had a choice between treatment and going to jail chose treatment. Duh. I am disappointed in Kerlikowske. I expect more from a former Seattle police chief and Obama appointee.

The chief administrative law judge of the Food and Drug Administration, in a 1988 decision, found that cannabis is one of the safest therapeutic agents known to man. The FDA in 2005 said that liquid marijuana (Sativex) is safe enough to test on humans, cancer patients in fact. The government needs to look at the types of cancers that cannabis has been shown to treat. Chief Kerlikowske has said he wants to hear from the doctors on this.

When he does he’ll find that we have a national organization, the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine (AACM), which will give him the real dope on the medical utility of cannabis. We can tell him of the benefits that our patients have received. I have incredible, compelling stories. There is the 85-year-old ex-Marine cancer survivor who was dying from starvation and used cannabis as an appetite stimulant and mood elevator. The 26-year-old hemiplegic woman with intractable epilepsy that was well controlled by cannabis. The Vietnam vet who got surgery to remove shrapnel, due to intractable seizures, and as a result of the surgery got double vision and headaches. Cannabis allows him to productively participate in civic affairs. And the examples go on and on, including paraplegics with intractable pain, patients successfully treated for gastrophoresis , post-traumatic stress disorder, cyclic vomiting syndrome. I’ll tell him about the productive lives of my patients. They include the principal of a high school, the mayor of a small city, a deputy sheriff, an assistant DA, a counselor at a drug treatment program, a very famous movie director, and lots of people with everyday jobs in construction, medicine, education—contractors, developers, doctors, nurses, professors.

Kerlikowske has tried to mitigate his earlier statements by saying he only meant smoked marijuana. He was recently quoted as saying that “the FDA has not determined that smoked marijuana has a value, and this is clearly a medical question that should be answered by the medical community.” Speaking as the vice president of the AACM, let me assure the drug czar that cannabis is medicine whether smoked, vaporized, sprayed sublingually, dropped sublingually, drunk in beverages, made into tea, eaten, or used topically.

Kerlikowske is wise to say he will listen to the doctors. If he had a medical background I don’t believe he would say it’s okay to have intractable seizures, excruciating migraines, phantom limb pain, or to suffer with the symptoms of Crohn’s Disease, or to die of malnutrition. Like thousands of American physicians, he would see the medical efficacy of cannabis. I have literally hundreds of patients with those conditions and a thousand more with chronic pain, cancer, and failed back syndrome who have benefited from the medicinal use of cannabis, smoked or otherwise.

The drug czar is on a listening tour. Let’s give him an earful. It is not marijuana that is dangerous, but the laws that restrict research on it and make it difficult for people to use it therapeutically. That is real risky. We need to get the federal government out of the way, to honor the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution limiting the federal government’s authority, and to affirm that the 1925 Linder decision—recognizing the right of states to regulate the practice of medicine—still means something. It is time for the drug czar to listen to America. It is time for the marijuana summit.

David Bearman, M.D., physician, founder of the Isla Vista Medical Clinic, former Goleta Water District boardmember, and current Goleta West Sanitary District boardmember.

Cannabis/Marijuana: A Parkinson’s Cure

This is a pretty raw video, but we think it shows better than any scientific article the powerful healing nature of Cannabis.  How can you beat a medicine that can be grown and prepared at virtually no cost, that not only has no side effects, but instead leaves you happy?

In this video, a man suffering from Parkinson’s takes a puff of Cannabis at about 2 minutes.  By 6 minutes into the video, he is no longer shaking, but laughing!  They also speak of *hemp oil, which is the most potent form of medical marijuana.

People with Parkinsons and other neurological disorders are often prescribed a myriad of strong pharmaceutical medications that can produce horrendous side effects….. side effects are not small issues.  They usually  require additional medication.  After a while, the liver and kidneys can become irrevocably damaged.  (See Ryan’s Story in our pages section).  As for the safety of the pharmaceutical medicines, we recommend this video: Marijuana is EXTREMELY dangerous.

~~~

*Hemp Oil has been known to cure cancer and many other illnesses.   Here is a movie about this story – “Rick Simpson’s Run From the Cure”.  From the intro: “After a serious head injury in 1997, Rick Simpson sought relief from his medical condition through the use of medicinal hemp oil. When Rick discovered that the hemp oil (with its high concentration of T.H.C.) cured cancers and other illnesses, he tried to share it with as many people as he could free of charge – curing and controlling literally hundreds of people’s illnesses… but when the story went public, the long arm of the law snatched the medicine – leaving potentially thousands of people without their cancer treatments – and leaving Rick with unconstitutional charges of possessing and trafficking marijuana!”

You might also check out his online seminar .

Chemicals in pot may help fight prostate cancer

Chemicals in cannabis have been found to stop prostate cancer cells from growing in the laboratory, suggesting that cannabis-based medicines could one day help fight the disease, scientists say.

Two cannabinoids prevent diseased cells from multiplying, study finds

8-19-2009 – Reuters

LONDON – Chemicals in cannabis have been found to stop prostate cancer cells from growing in the laboratory, suggesting that cannabis-based medicines could one day help fight the disease, scientists said Wednesday.

After working initially with human cancer cell lines, Ines Diaz-Laviada and colleagues from the University of Alcala in Madrid also tested one compound on mice and discovered it produced a significant reduction in tumor growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Cancer, underlines the growing interest in the medical use of active chemicals called cannabinoids, which are found in marijuana.

Experts, however, stressed that the research was still exploratory and many more years of testing would be needed to work out how to apply the findings to the treatment of cancer in humans.

“This is interesting research which opens a new avenue to explore potential drug targets but it is at a very early stage,” said Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, which owns the journal.

“It absolutely isn’t the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis,” she added

The cannabinoids tested by the Spanish team are thought to work against prostate cancer because they block a receptor, or molecular doorway, on the surface of tumour cells. This stops them from dividing.

In effect, the cancer cell receptors can recognize and “talk to” chemicals found in cannabis, said Diaz-Laviada.

“These chemicals can stop the division and growth of prostate cancer cells and could become a target for new research into potential drugs to treat prostate cancer,” she said.

Her team’s work with two cannabinoids — called methanandamide and JWH-015 — is the first demonstration that such cannabis chemicals prevent cancer cells from multiplying.

Some drug companies are already exploring the possibilities of cannabinoids in cancer, including British-based cannabis medicine specialist GW Pharmaceuticals.

It is collaborating with Japan’s Otsuka on early-stage research into using cannabis extracts to tackle prostate cancer — the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men — as well as breast and brain cancer.

GW has already developed an under-the-tongue spray called Sativex for the relief of some of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, which it plans to market in Europe with Bayer and Almirall.

Other attempts to exploit the cannibinoid system have met with mixed success. Sanofi-Aventis was forced to withdraw its weight-loss drug Acomplia from the market last year because of links to mental disorders.

Copyright 2009 Reuters.

Pot is not like tobacco

This post comes from Daily Kos

Before I launch into this little lecture I would like to make an assertion:

If people had just stuck to smoking pot we wouldn’t have had all the problems we’ve had all these years.

I just like to say that.

I have been wanting to address the issue of comparing marijuana to tobacco. This happens often and it is so stupid it drives me nuts to have to listen to it.

John Walters, “Drug Czar” for the Bush Administration, the worst presidential administration in human history, has often found it useful to compare and contrast tobacco and marijuana.

Is he really stupid, or does he have an agenda?

Make the jump.

• xxdr zombiexx’s diary :: ::

His purpose, of course, is to hold the Official Line, Reefer Madness. His job is to lie, to distort, to confuse, and to muddy the waters of public discourse. A typical Team Bush croney.

While the man has overseen the return of the reefer madness of yesteryear, it is the repeated comparison of cannabis with tobacco I wish to focus upon.

Here are some excerpts from a CNN appearance of John Walters in 2002, talking about the cannabis reform question on the Nevada ballot at that time (the “legalization” of up to an ounce, which failed.)

First, on medical marijuana:

We have to correct the attitude that this is medicine, that this is simply as safe as alcohol and tobacco. I mean, we already have 55 million people who are cigarette smokers and over 100 million who are users of alcohol. We have problem drinkers and certainly are concerned about the health consequences of cigarettes, but we have 16 million people who are users of drugs, most of that is marijuana. Now, would the 16 million grow or would it shrink if we decriminalized it?

What health consequences, John? Cancer? Emphysema? Deaths?

The first thing wrong here, before we look at some more, is that you know and I know that tobacco and alcohol are not “safe”. Tobacco-related illnesses kill 350,000 people in America each year and John Walters says they are “concerned”.

A lady down the street from me was diagnosed with tobacco cancer last year and was dead in 3 months. Her son freaked out due to the stress and had a psychotic break that has only recently gone into remission.  The death of the tobacco smoking mom was a tragedy for her son and her husband.

Tobacco causes cancer. There is no credible challenge to this.

Back to John and tobacco supporting marijuana propaganda:

I mean, we try to control cigarettes and alcohol, but still many more kids have access to cigarettes and alcohol. So the way in which the disease of addiction is spread is by non-addictive users. They’re the carriers of this disease. If we unleash non-addictive use, we are going to increase the spread of the disease of addiction, so instead of six million people, we’ll have something more approximate to the 55 million smokers or the number of problem drinkers we have.

The disease of addiction is “carried” by “non-addictive users”?

WTF is he talking about? I try to grasp this but I am afraid I’ll go blind.

Is he trying to say that because I function just fine I am a threat to others? Team Bush’s style of logic is all over this mess.

On to the hardcore lying:

Many people who are dying of smoking-related cancers smoke up to the end because cigarettes make them feel better, but it would be outrageous for cigarette companies to claim that makes tobacco medicine and we ought to give it to people.

The fact is, I would like to save smoked marijuana — we’re doing research to isolate elements of it that are medicine. But there is a dimension of this issue that is the con and it’s extremely cruel, using suffering people to suggest that this is efficacious medicine. It has three to five times as much tar and carbon monoxide as cigarettes, smoked marijuana does. It suppresses the immune system. It is a dangerous carcinogenic substance, and it’s not medicine.

John’s not alone. Here’s Karen Tandy of the DEA playing the same tune:

Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits about three to five times more tar into the lungs than one filtered tobacco cigarette.34 Consequently, regular marijuana smokers suffer from many of the same health problems as tobacco smokers, such as chronic coughing and wheezing, chest colds, and chronic bronchitis.35 In fact, studies show that smoking three to four joints per day causes at least as much harm to the respiratory system as smoking a full pack of cigarettes every day.36 Marijuana smoke also contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into malignant cells.37

Well….

Where are the bodies?

Really, if this was an issue we would know about it much like we know tobacco causes cancer and lung disease. Scientific studies merely confirm what people have noticed over the years.

Here’s a quote from WebMD citing of the most recent study:

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.

So there are carcinogens in marijuana smoke, most likely the same ones in smoked tobacco, related to burning vegetation. But the cancers are absent.

Let’s repeat that in different ways:

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers.

The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater their risk of developing lung cancer and other cancers of the head and neck. But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all.

I want to look at 3 main problems with comparing cannabis to tobacco:

1. Tobacco smoke is known to be carcinogenic, aided and abetted by nicotine. Specifically, nicotine appears to encourage the growth of  neoplasms.
2. Cannabis has shown repeatedly that it slows and discourages the growth of neoplasms  While there are tars and other nasty things in cannabis smoke (stuff ya make fuels and plastics with….) the cannabinoids and THC appear to work to discourage cancer development.[See more @ Web-MD]
3. Tobacco-smokers – generally – smoke 10 to 20 times more tobacco than pot smokers smoke pot. Especially with the “strong pot” we are now supposed to fear.

Let’s compare tobacco smoking and marijuana smoking, shall we?

At approximately 1 gram of tobacco per cigarette, the average pack-a-day smoker smokes 20 grams of tobacco per day; 140 grams in a week.

An ounce is 28 gm.

The pack-a-day smoker smokes about 5 ounces a week; the common 2 pack-a-day person, cited in the study above as at huge risk of cancer, smokes over half a pound of tobacco EACH WEEK.

I smoke pot. I don’t drink, use tobacco or other hard drugs. I smoke pot only. I don’t gamble or play the lottery either. I do love coffee. I am a boring SOB. But I do smoke pot.

Depending on quality an ounce will last me 2-3 weeks of relatively frequent smoking.

I might smoke 3-4 grams on a Saturday or Sunday if it’s the cheap stuff I normally can get. I smoke a lot less of the good stuff that Walters want to scare you about.

When I am busy, I smoke a lot less, when I am free to relax, I smoke more.

When I run out, which happens frequently, I curse republicans and the government, feel resentful, and move on. I will sometimes go weeks without any, though that’s rare.

Ask a 2 pack-a-day smoker to stop for just one week.

All marijuana prohibition does is make it difficult and dangerous and expensive for me to have a little pot around for when I want it.

Thus I say the cigarette analogy just shows how stupid prohibitionists are, how stupid they think you are, and how  fucking worthless the media is.

And do note that it dovetails beautifully with the GOP/Conservative hatred of science and their love of prisons.

The facts are that tobacco is addictive, causes cancer, causes lung diseases, and kills 350000 Americans each year while cannabis does not kill anbody, does not cause cancer, and doesn’t demonstrate the raw physical addiction witnessed in tobacco smokers and some drinkers. It’s just not there.

Face it: cannabis is even safer than our food supply – you don’t hear any stories about people dying from e.coli contamination. Do you?

While smoking anything may be a questionable choice, tobacco is extremely bad for your health while cannabis is not.

Yet, tobacco is legal and cannabis is not.

This is a fundamental and chronic problem.

And with police spending their manhours and resources arresting 750000 people each year for touching marijuana, it is a political opportunity for crafty politicians. More about that in a moment.

Don’t listen to John Walters. He’s a highly paid professional liar who represents nothing but republican and corporate interests (yes, I repeat myself). He has zero credibility and his official efforts support and exacerbate the ongoing disaster in the War on Drugs. Just forget anything he’s ever told you that you still remember.

Walters, Tandy, The DEA, the ONDCP, the UNDCP – full of shit one and all. Their collective goal is to reinforce cannabis propaganda, maintain ignorance of the realities, and, apparently, stump for the tobacco companies.

And please don’t be stupid. Nobody told anybody to go smoke pot. A few people will raise this objection. It’s ok – they are just good citizens – doing as they have been trained to do.

This effort to educate people about cannabis prohibition is about ending an unmitigated failure and about freeing up massive police resources to do some real work.

Your government lies to you through its teeth about marijuana for a variety of  reasons and now I suggest that you have a chat with your Democratic representative about talking about cannabis reform.

When people can hear people talking about cannabis reform like sane adults on television things will change. The Democratic party needs to support medical cannabis and reform of the war on drugs. All they need to do is talk about it.

This will help crack the mainstream media blockade against rational cannabis reform discourse and start the movement towards healthier solutions.

33 U.S. Clinical Studies Show Marijuana’s Medical Use, Journal of Opioid Management Article Says

Cannabis curing in Netherlands

(Source: CannaZine)  In a landmark article in the Journal of Opioid Management, University of Washington researcher Sunil Aggarwal and colleagues document 33 U.S. controlled clinical trials published from 1971 to 2009 confirming that marijuana is a safe, effective medicine for specific medical conditions.

Under federal law, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, defining it as having high potential for abuse, unsafe for use even under medical supervision, and lacking currently accepted medical uses in the U.S.

“In fact,” Aggarwal and colleagues write, “nearly all of the 33 published controlled clinical trials conducted in the United States have shown significant and measurable benefits in subjects receiving the treatment.”
Additionally, the paper documents the growing acceptance of the therapeutic use of marijuana among organized medicine groups and estimates that “in 2008, approximately 7,000 American physicians have made such authorizations for a total of approximately 400,000 patients.”

Regarding abuse and safety issues, Aggarwal et al. write that withdrawal symptoms — a classic symptom of drug dependence — are notably absent from the published trials,

while “the vast majority of reported adverse events were not serious … It is clear that as an analgesic, cannabis is extremely safe with minimal toxicity.”

Unfortunately, the article continues, ignorance regarding marijuana remains widespread in the medical community. “There remains a near complete absence of education about cannabinoid medicine in any level of medical training,” Aggarwal writes.

“This is arguably the most thorough review of the literature on medical marijuana since the Institute of Medicine report over a decade ago, with a trove of data that wasn’t available to the IOM,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “It is simply incomprehensible that a medicine that is so clearly safe and effective remains banned from medical use by federal law and the laws of 37 states.”

The article, “Medicinal Use of Cannabis in the United States: Historical Perspectives, Current Trends, and Future Directions,” is available here. A complete list of the 33 U.S. clinical trials is available from Sunil Aggarwal at sunila@uw.edu  This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or 206-375-3785.

What would happen if marijuana were decriminalized?

So, based on lies and distortions, we demonized a plant that’s proven effective in treating chronic pain, glaucoma, MS, arthritis, and the effects of chemotherapy, AIDS-wasting syndrome, and other chronic illnesses. Studies in at least five countries have shown marijuana to slow and often reverse the growth of cancer cells. All this from a plant less toxic than aspirin and less habit-forming than coffee or wine.

by Stephen J. Dubner for New York Times

Two years ago we ran a quorum debating the pros and cons of decriminalizing marijuana. Since then, a largely theoretical debate has moved quite substantially toward the realm of reality, with a growing number of states and municipalities having changed their laws. The details from place to place vary greatly and are very much a patchwork; the most prominent state to make a move is Massachusetts. The California legislature, meanwhile, is wondering whether marijuana could save its economy — which, as we read just this morning, is badly in need of saving.

Although President Obama doesn’t seem interested, arguments in favor of decriminalization are popping up everywhere, from the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition platform to the senior thesis of a graduating economics major at Brown named Max Chaiken, which finds that “a legally taxed and regulated marijuana market could generate upwards of $200 billion annually in excise tax revenues for the federal government … [which] would be enough to fund Medicaid.”

So we asked a group of people — Paul Armentano, Mike Braun, Joel W. Hay, Jeffrey Miron, and Robert Platshorn — to think about a national decriminalization of marijuana (unlikely, let’s be honest) and answer the following: What would be some of the most powerful economic, social, and criminal-justice effects?

Here are their answers. As you will see, consensus on this issue is now — and will probably always remain — elusive.

Joel W. Hay is professor of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Southern California.

“It is a fallacy that pot legalization will provide badly needed state and federal revenue through taxation of decriminalized marijuana.”

With all of our current problems, Americans do not need more marijuana. Pot combines mind-altering and judgment-clouding qualities (like alcohol) with carcinogenic, respiratory, and second-hand smoke qualities (like tobacco); it is emphatically not a safe or benign substance. Daily pot smokers have a 30 percent increased risk of accidents, and one study found that more emergency-department trauma admissions were associated with pot use than alcohol. We don’t need hundreds of billions of dollars in new medical-care costs, traffic and other accident costs, reduced worker productivity, and lower educational achievements in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

It is ironic that the public health community, who so vociferously decries the dangers of tobacco with reams of scientific evidence, falls strangely silent when voters in state after state are encouraged by the pot lobby to legalize marijuana specifically as a “medical therapy.” There isn’t a shred of scientific evidence that marijuana is safe and effective for any medical condition. Moreover, THC, the active ingredient of pot, has been approved by the FDA and on the market in capsule form since 1985. As a further irony, while the Obama administration has put $1.1 billion behind scientific comparative effectiveness research to demonstrate whether medical treatments actually work, his Attorney General has decided to downplay federal prosecutions in California of medical marijuana distributors and users, apparently because state voters trump science when it comes to making medical policy for mind-altering substances.

It is a fallacy that pot legalization will provide badly needed state and federal revenue through taxation of decriminalized marijuana. A California Assembly decriminalization bill is currently being promoted as a $1 billion pot-tax cure for the state’s fiscal headaches. The problem with this logic, as alcohol and tobacco clearly demonstrate, is that economic costs will increase by amounts far greater than any possible revenue gains. Tobacco taxes only cover about 20 percent of tobacco-related costs, and alcohol taxes only cover about 10 percent of alcohol-related costs. Raising taxes on either tobacco or alcohol enough to merely cover their medical costs and other detrimental effects would create flourishing black markets in these commodities. Raising marijuana taxes high enough to cover medical and other costs associated with legalized pot use will mean both more potheads and continued marijuana narco-trafficking.

The final argument against decriminalization is that it would create powerful and legal marijuana business interests who then become entrenched in the system, contributing to politicians, advertising to consumers, and pushing for even more liberal drug laws. Alcohol and tobacco are safe as long as their business interests contribute to pot legalization, and marijuana will be safe after decriminalization as long as their merchants contribute to the inevitable next round of political campaigns to legalize heroin and cocaine.

Robert Platshorn (a.k.a. The Black Tuna) is a former marijuana smuggler and was the leader of one of the largest marijuana-trafficking organizations in the 1970’s.

“For 29 years I lived in 11 prisons, costing you millions, as America’s longest-serving non-violent prisoner of the War on Weed.”

“I’m not against all wars, I’m against dumb wars.” – Barack Obama

On May 2, 1979, a New York Times headline read “$300 Million Drug Ring Reported Cracked in Florida.” The “ring” consisted of my two partners and myself. We hadn’t made 10 percent of that, but the government had reasons for turning a couple of small fish into “The Black Tuna Gang.” Those were the early days of the DEA, and they needed to justify their mission and their budget.

So for 29 years I lived in 11 prisons, costing you millions, as America’s longest-serving non-violent prisoner of the War on Weed. When Feds kicked in my door, I’d been retired from smuggling for two years. My ice cream and food concessions employed about 50 people. My Miami auto auction, body shop, and barbershop employed another 40. Good jobs and serious tax dollars — all gone in an instant, not to mention my freedom, my wife and children, and the life savings of my parents, who paid for years of fruitless appeals.

What was accomplished? The War on Weed that started in the 1970’s discouraged pot smuggling by small timers like me, and filled the void with drug cartels far more interested in the lucrative cocaine trade. Big profits bred violence, enough to make Miami the U.S. murder capital. Today, we see that same prohibition-fueled violence along our Mexican border.

Legalizing marijuana would deprive this dangerous black market of profits and relieve a ridiculous burden on taxpayers; it would allow police to focus on serious crime instead of arresting more than 800,000 Americans every year for pot at a cost to taxpayers of at least $14 billion, according to “The Budgetary Effects of Marijuana Prohibition,” which was endorsed by Milton Friedman and more than 500 other economists. One man, Harry Anslinger, was almost singlehandedly responsible for outlawing marijuana. Admitting in private it was harmless, he wanted to create a powerful tool to control “deviant minorities.” Our for-profit prison system continues that work.

So, based on lies and distortions, we demonized a plant that’s proven effective in treating chronic pain, glaucoma, MS, arthritis, and the effects of chemotherapy, AIDS-wasting syndrome, and other chronic illnesses. Studies in at least five countries have shown marijuana to slow and often reverse the growth of cancer cells. All this from a plant less toxic than aspirin and less habit-forming than coffee or wine.

That’s why I’m working with the NORML and others on a new campaign called Geezers for Medical Weed. I have high hopes that the Obama administration will soon realize that for more than 70 years, the War on Marijuana has indeed been America’s dumbest war.

Jeffrey A. Miron is the director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University’s economics department.

“Marijuana legalization is not a panacea; rather, it is a significant step in the direction of saner drug policy.”

Marijuana legalization would mean repeal of federal and state laws that ban production, distribution, and possession. Legalized marijuana would likely be subject to the kind of regulation and taxation that currently applies to alcohol and tobacco — e.g., sin taxes and age restrictions — but it would otherwise be no different under the law than an espresso at Starbucks.

Legalizing marijuana would produce important benefits for the United States.

Legalization would allow people who use marijuana, without harm to themselves or others, to do so without fear of arrest or incarceration. This is exactly what occurs now for alcohol and tobacco.

Legalization would reduce violence. In underground markets, participants cannot resolve their disputes with lawyers, courts, or advertising, so they employ violence instead. Violence was common in the alcohol industry during alcohol prohibition, but not before or after; in gambling markets before state and federal governments legalized most forms of gambling; and in prostitution markets where prohibition forces these underground. Legalization would also reduce corruption, since producers and consumers would have no reason to bribe police, judges, and politicians.

Legalization would allow the medical community to evaluate marijuana’s medicinal effects without interference from law enforcement. Considerable evidence suggests marijuana has important medical uses, but prohibition has made controlled, double-blind studies all but impossible.

Legalization would diminish restrictions on civil liberties. Crimes like robbery or assault generate a victim who complains to the police, but neither party to a marijuana transaction wants to alert authorities. Thus police use intrusive tactics like warrantless searches or undercover buys, and the victimless nature of marijuana “crime” encourages racial profiling.

Legalization would increase respect for the law. No matter how draconian the penalties and how extensive the enforcement, many people produce and use marijuana. Thus everyone learns that laws are for suckers.

Legalization would benefit the public purse. My research indicates that legalization would save federal and state budgets approximately $13 billion in enforcement costs and allow collection of about $7 billion in tax revenues, assuming marijuana were taxed like alcohol and tobacco.

One thing legalization would not do is produce a major increase in marijuana use; existing evidence suggests prohibition has only a modest impact. Alcohol consumption declined moderately but not dramatically during alcohol prohibition, for example.

A second thing legalization would not do is eliminate the bulk of violence, crime, and corruption induced by drug prohibition, since much of that relates to cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. To achieve the full benefits of legalization, policy must legalize all drugs.

Marijuana legalization is thus not a panacea; rather, it is a significant step in the direction of saner drug policy.

Paul Armentano is deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and co-author of the forthcoming book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?.

“Our criminal justice policies are alienating millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens while creating widespread disrespect for the rule of law among minorities and young people.”

Last November, U.S. law enforcement made its 20 millionth marijuana arrest since 1965. Yet today, almost 90 percent of teens report that pot is “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain, and nearly one out of two graduating high-school seniors admit to having tried it.

Clearly it’s time to try another approach.

The enforcement of marijuana prohibition is an archaic, overly punitive, and ineffective policy that carries with it a staggering array of social and economic costs. According to the FBI, in 2007 police made a record 873,00 marijuana arrests — 9 out of 10 of them for pot possession, not trafficking, cultivation, or sale. A disproportionate number of those arrested were African Americans and Hispanic males. Some 75 percent of those arrested were under age 30. In short, our criminal justice policies are alienating millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens while creating widespread disrespect for the rule of law among minorities and young people.

It’s also costing us money we can no longer afford. According to Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron, it costs taxpayers at least $7 billion per year to pay for the arrest and prosecution of pot offenders. Taxpayers pay another $1 billion per year to house the estimated 50,000 state and federal inmates serving time for pot, according to data derived from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Conversely, a recent George Mason University report estimates that taxing the production and sale of marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol could potentially raise $31 billion in new revenue while reallocating existing police and prosecutorial resources toward more serious crimes. In California alone, data provided by the State Board of Equalization and Taxation — which has endorsed legalizing the adult use of cannabis — estimates that regulating pot would yield over $1.3 billion annually in new state tax revenue.

This policy would have the added benefit of removing the production and trafficking of pot out of the hands of drug cartels and other criminal entrepreneurs and placing it under the control of state-licensed establishments — which would operate in accordance to government regulations and community standards.

Naturally, critics of this alternative inevitably argue that such a policy would increase Americans’ use of pot — an outcome that they believe negates the social, economic, and criminal justice benefits that would be associated with regulating cannabis like booze. NORML disagrees on both counts.

First, the use of pot by adults is objectively safer to the individual, and to society as a whole, than the use of either alcohol or tobacco, whereas the continued criminal prohibition of pot causes innumerable and far greater harms.

Further, the great irony of our existing policy is that nearly half of all Americans — including our nation’s three most recently elected U.S. presidents — have used, and many continue to use, pot despite the imposition of prohibition. Would this percentage be even higher if marijuana were legalized? Possibly, but not likely.

As noted in the opening paragraph, almost every U.S. teen (or adult for that matter) can already access pot if he or she wants to. Yet despite this practically unfettered access — many surveys now indicate that it’s harder for young people to acquire booze than weed — many Americans choose never to try marijuana, and most are not regular users. Similarly, in the Netherlands, where the sale and use of marijuana is legal to those over age 18, the use of pot by the Dutch is far less common than in America. In short, the use of marijuana is not for everybody — or even most people — and that fact is not going to change, regardless of American pot policy.

Mike Braun recently retired from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as the Assistant Administrator and Chief of Operations.

“Is it O.K. with you if the government or corporate America opens a marijuana distribution center in your neighborhood, or should they only establish them in the economically depressed areas of town?”

In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home was legal. Although the ruling applied only to persons 19 and over, teen consumption of the drug skyrocketed. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that the state’s 12- to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. School equivalency test scores plummeted, as work place accidents, insurance rates and drugged-driving accidents went through the roof. Alaska’s residents voted to recriminalize possession of marijuana in 1990, demonstrating their belief that legalization and increased use was too high a price to pay.

In 1985, Stanford University conducted a study of airline pilots who each consumed a low grade marijuana cigarette before entering a flight simulator involving a stressful, yet recoverable scenario. The test resulted in numerous crashes. More alarming was the fact that the pilots again crashed the simulator in the same scenario a full 24 hours after last consuming marijuana, when they all showed no outward signs of intoxication, reported feeling “no residual effects” from the drug, and each also stated they had “no reservations” about flying! Part of the problem with marijuana is that Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that gives the user his or her high, is absorbed into the fatty tissues of the body where it remains for at least several days, and can continue to have an adverse impact on one’s ability to act capably under stress days after the drug was last ingested.

If healthy pilots can’t respond effectively in the cockpit 24 hours after smoking a low-grade marijuana cigarette, do we really want our kids transported to and from school by a school bus driver who smoked one or two joints the night before? How do we ensure the cop on the beat, who’s carrying a badge and gun, hasn’t smoked marijuana 24 hours before entering onto duty once the drug is legal? And what about those pilots?

Marijuana legalization advocates love to say that we can tax the sale of the drug and generate revenue to cover all the costs associated with legalization, but a few more questions need to be asked.

Will the taxes pay for the significant increases in health and casualty insurance the experts tell us will be levied if marijuana is legalized? Is the government going to hand out free marijuana to those who can’t afford it? If so, who pays for that? Is it O.K. with you if the government or corporate America opens a marijuana distribution center in your neighborhood, or should they only establish them in the economically depressed areas of town? Which government agency will be responsible for rigorous testing to ensure that marijuana sold in the marketplace meets the strictest of consumer standards and is free of pesticides and drugs such as LSD and PCP? Which government agency is going to be responsible for taxing your next-door neighbor when he starts growing marijuana in his back yard, adjacent to your prized roses, of course? What happens when the taxes on marijuana become so excessive from covering all the ancillary costs of legalization that the vast majority of users simply grow the product themselves? Then who will pay for all of this?

I can’t help but ask a couple final questions. What’s the legal age limit we attach to marijuana use? Is it 18; is it 21? And what do we do about the predatory narcotics traffickers who shift every “ounce” of their undivided and merciless attention to those under the authorized age limit once the drug is legalized? Folks, all we need to do is educate ourselves, ask the tough questions, and apply common sense and logic when making a decision on this issue. Most hard-working taxpayers with kids like me will come up with the same answer, which is no to legalization.

Legalize medicinal marijuana use

By By Steven S. Epstein and Dr. Keith Saunders for Daily News Tribune

In 1992, Gov. William Weld signed into law the “Controlled Substance Therapeutic Research Act.” The law requires the state to contract with a federally approved supplier of medicinal cannabis for distribution to approved patients. It is a cruel joke, for no administration, including the current one, has approved a supply.

Filed every session since 1991, legislation that would get the medicine into the hands of Massachusetts patients never gets out of committee. While our Legislature stalls, states comprising almost one-third of all Americans enacted laws that gets cannabis to patients without the approval of the Federal Government. The legislatures of Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont did it. This spring, over the governor’s veto, the Rhode Island Legislature authorized the licensing of dispensaries where patients may purchase their medicine. Voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington passed laws effectively permitting qualified patients’ access. These laws work.

In Congress, there is legislation that would allow states, including Massachusetts, to permit its growth and use for medicine, but despite growing bi-partisan support, it too languishes. Re-filed this past spring by Congressman Barney Frank, as we write only John Olver and James McGovern are co-sponsors. In past sessions, three other members of Massachusetts’ delegation also co-sponsored.

As they did in working for decriminalization, MassCann members placed public policy questions on district ballots beginning in 2000 to measure public support for allowing seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts for their personal medical use. That support is well over 70 percent. Nine of our state’s 10 representatives in Congress recognize this. They regularly vote yes on amendments to the Justice Department budget prohibiting the DEA from raiding dispensaries, caregivers and patients in compliance with their state’s law. The lone holdout is Rep. Stephen Lynch. Prominent opponent of Question 2, Attorney General Martha Coakley, approved the concept during her monthly appearance on the Braude and Eagan Show on WTKK FM 96.9 in June.

Beacon Hill ignored the will of the voters expressed in the public policy questions on decriminalization of possession. The result, 65 percent of the voters approved Question 2, a law that did not resemble the decriminalization proposals filed in the Legislature the decade before. It is unconscionable that once again, the Legislature and governor refuse to accept the known support of the people of the idea of allowing to patients a medicine that in 1988, an administrative law judge of the Drug Enforcement Administration concluded is “the safest therapeutically active substance known.”

Since that finding was made, scientific research and the experience of hundreds of thousands of patients show it to be effective for controlling chronic diseases or the side effects of primary treatments. The testimony of patients before the Massachusetts legislature and elsewhere establish that patients who use black-market priced cannabis use it as a substitute for far more dangerous and expensive prescription drugs. Legalizing the medicinal use of cannabis is health care reform independent of the current focus on the cost of insurance.

It is only a question of when Massachusetts will have a real medicinal cannabis law. If the Legislature does not act this session – the sooner the better for patients – as surely as the sun rose this morning, an initiative petition will be filed by an out of state organization on Aug. 3, 2011. On Election Day 2012, it will receive overwhelming approval by the people. It probably will not resemble House, No. 2160 or Senate, No. 1739 now before the legislature for the fifth time in five sessions.

We think it is important that Massachusetts’ medicinal cannabis legislation be homegrown, to fit the culture of the Commonwealth, not California’s. Too bad, it looks like our Legislature does not care.

Steven S. Epstein is an attorney and Keith Saunders, PhD, is a sociologist.

Drug Czar Says Marijuana Has No Medical Use??

Legalize Medical Marijuana? Just Say Yes.

By Robert McCartney for the Washington Post
Sunday, September 13, 2009

As Maryland weighs legalizing medical marijuana, it should consider my experience when I visited the student lounge at Montgomery College’s Rockville campus at lunchtime last week and began interviewing randomly selected students about their views on weed.

Among the first group I approached, one of the four young men volunteered within minutes that he not only smoked marijuana but also sold it. He told me his price list: $10 a gram for “middies,” the least potent and most readily available variety; $20 a gram for “headies” with more THC; $35 for the strongest, “exotic” types, like “white widow.”

The youth’s matter-of-fact attitude highlights a reality that’s under our nose but is often overlooked in the oh-so-earnest debates over drug policy. When it comes to marijuana, American society has lost the war on drugs–and that’s okay. We should stop squandering time and money trying to reverse history and instead legalize both medical and recreational use of this mild narcotic widely seen as no more harmful than alcohol.

Here are some facts:

Pot is widely available. A sizable chunk of the population thinks that’s not a problem. In many locales, including Montgomery, prosecutors routinely send offenders caught with small quantities to a few days or weeks of drug education rather than prison. California and 12 other states will let you buy marijuana for health reasons, such as to control vomiting or relieve glaucoma. Four of those states permit collectives in which members grow their own.

In our region, advocates in Maryland and the District are pushing to legalize medical cannabis. (Virginia is sitting it out for now.) Maryland’s policy recently attracted attention when a little-noticed 2003 law, which sets a maximum fine of $100 for medical use, was applied in two separate cases Aug. 27 in Rockville. Otherwise the penalty for pot possession in Maryland is up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

My campus interviews indicate that the younger generation overwhelmingly favors legalizing cannabis. Fifteen of 20 students said they supported it, and the opponents acknowledged that they were in a small minority.

This, mind you, is the generation raised since the onset of well-financed, high-profile, anti-drug education campaigns, such as DARE.

Students offered numerous thoughtful reasons for legalization. The most frequent, by far, was the common-sense point that current laws aren’t working. “For most people my age, it’s a popular thing. People are going to do it anyway,” said Simone Brewer, 17, a freshman from Rockville.

Several also argued that the economy would benefit. The government should tax marijuana and save the money now spent on prosecuting and imprisoning users, they said. “People are doing it every day, but the government isn’t making money off of it,” said Billy Vivian, 19, of Wheaton, who is studying criminal justice. “The prisons wouldn’t be so filled up with nonviolent offenders.”

All the students who supported legalization also favored keeping laws against such stronger drugs as cocaine, ecstasy, heroin and methamphetamines. They said those can cause severe mental and health problems or even kill you. They said legal marijuana should be subject to restrictions similar to those on alcohol, with strict prohibitions against underage use and driving while high.

Many of the students said they thought alcohol is more harmful than pot. It is more dangerous to drive drunk than stoned, they thought, and pot makes people mellow while alcohol makes them belligerent.

“When’s the last time you heard about some guy on marijuana coming in and hitting his wife?” Anthony Thompson, 18, of Silver Spring, said.

In my view, there’s one strong reason for keeping marijuana illegal. The risk of getting caught discourages some people from trying it or using it regularly. That’s a plus for public health. But that’s outweighed by the social and economic benefits of legalization.

Moreover, the current policy leads people to be cynical about the law. “If you have laws that are not effectively enforced, or are flouted as openly as some of these are, I think it undermines public confidence,” said a senior Maryland law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be candid about a controversial subject.

Some of the young people who support legalization now will doubtless change their minds as they get older, especially when they start to worry that their own children will smoke as they — or their friends — did. Given the other trends, though, there’s a good chance that the rising generation will change the laws when it comes to power. We should change them now. It would save millions of dollars and countless hours of police officers’ time and eliminate a source of hypocrisy about what we as a society actually tolerate.

Maybe She Does Walk on Water

The good news keeps coming for D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. After city schools opened without major disruptions, the system reported that enrollment was close to surpassing that of the previous year. If the number is confirmed in early 2010 after an audit, it would be a vote of confidence from parents. It also would embarrass Rhee’s detractors on the D.C. Council, who were skeptical when she predicted that enrollment would be so high. On Friday, we learned that she’s moved closer to a contract with the union. Let’s just hope that there aren’t too many mysterious erasures on the next round of standardized tests.