AMA Advocates Change in Marijuana Classification

[bascule]

The American Medical Association has issued a statement in support of medical marijuana:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/11/ama_advocates_change_in_mariju.php

 

This is quite interesting to see, especially given the recent firing of UK scientist Professor David Nutt over his claims that marijuana should be given a lower classification in the UK.

 

This is all very nice to see as the present classification of marijuana in both the US and UK does not reflect the scientific reality.

 

Especially interesting is that until now, the AMA has stated that marijuana should remain Schedule I, indicating it has no acceptable medical use.

[ajb]

This is all very nice to see as the present classification of marijuana in both the US and UK does not reflect the scientific reality.

 

Government policies are not made purely on scientific/medical merit. There are many other things that need to be taken into account.

[padren]

Government policies are not made purely on scientific/medical merit. There are many other things that need to be taken into account.

 

They should at least be consistent to their claims. If something is illegal because it's bad for your health, if scientific evidence contradicts the claim than they should abandon or refine their claims.

[bascule]

Government policies are not made purely on scientific/medical merit. There are many other things that need to be taken into account.

 

Yes, like the fact that reclassifying marijuana as Schedule II would require a lot of people admitting that they're wrong, because they've spouted unscientific bull$hit for years.

 

At least the AMA is willing to stand up and admit they're wrong.

[ajb]

They should at least be consistent to their claims.

 

Welcome to the world of politics.

[Phi for All]

Welcome to the world of politics.

...and the world of business. How can you justify having to build new prisons if the present ones aren't overcrowded with pot smokers?

 

Thanks AMA, for not being afraid.

[swansont]

Government policies are not made purely on scientific/medical merit. There are many other things that need to be taken into account.

 

But the classification of a drug as having "no acceptable medical use" is a question of science and medicine. The policy of who can legally obtain the drug is the political part.

[ajb]

But the classification of a drug as having "no acceptable medical use" is a question of science and medicine. The policy of who can legally obtain the drug is the political part.

 

Of course, there needs to be quite a clear division between recreational use and medical use.

[padren]

Welcome to the world of politics.

 

Politics exerts a pressure towards such things, and it is necessary for people to exert a pressure back to keep them in check and their facts straight. To demand consistency may not result in total consistency, but it can only help towards better consistency and thus better policies.

[bascule]

Of course, there needs to be quite a clear division between recreational use and medical use.

 

Right now there's a huge overlap between recreational and medicinal use, because the federal government has classified marijuana as having no acceptable medical use.

 

Many states recognize this classification as myopic, and have approved marijuana for medical use. However, because the federal government still maintains marijuana doesn't have an acceptable medical use, it isn't possible for pharmaceutical companies to produce marijuana in a form that is acceptable under the Pure Food and Drug Act. Marijuana remains a huge legal gray area, and this only works to the benefit of suppliers who wish to sell to recreational users under the guise of medicinal marijuana.

 

If the federal government would simply admit that marijuana has legitimate medical uses, it could be prepared by pharmaceutical corporations in a way that would pass the scrutiny of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Its potency could be measured and appropriate dosages could be dispensed to legitimate medicinal users.

 

Worse, opponents of medical marijuana (such as Bill O'Reilly) trot out the gray market for medical marijuana created by the fact the DEA and FDA refuse to acknowledge that marijuana has legitimate medical as a reason it should be further opposed:

 

rFv1gpWh2yY

 

This is a problem of the FDA and DEA's own creation. The only reason why medical marijuana presently cannot comply with the Pure Food and Drug Act is specifically because the FDA and DEA claim that there are no legitimate medical uses for medical marijuana, thus there cannot be a legitimate market for medical marijuana, and the market is relegated to the state-approved but federally-unapproved medical dispensary market which does not comply with the Pure Food and Drug Act. If the federal government were to simply step in and approve a legitimate distribution infrastructure for marijuana, this gray market would go away overnight, and abuse of the medical marijuana system for recreational use would become far more difficult.

 

The problem would simply go away if the DEA and FDA would admit that marijuana has legitimate medical uses, and set appropriate guidelines for marketing marijuana as a legitimate medical product. This would also eliminate the present problem of how to regulate the gray market for medical marijuana at the state level. Here in Colorado medical marijuana dispensaries are springing up left and right thanks to the state law and the state government is unsure how to regulate them.

 

All it takes is for the DEA and FDA to admit they are wrong and recognize that marijuana has legitimate medical uses. As soon as they do that the gray market for medical marijuana would disappear, and marijuana could be dispensed as a legitimate medical drug by pharmaceutical companies, appropriately dosed, labeled, and dispensed by pharmaceutical guidelines exactly like any other drug.

 

Unfortunately, these agencies simply don't want to admit they're wrong, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. At play is, of course, the pharmaceutical lobby: there are inferior drugs in competition with marijuana for the relevant markets. Zofran is prescribed to chemotherapy patients for nausea relief, but it is extremely expensive compared to marijuana and does not do nearly as good of a job. Vaporized marijuana is extremely effective at combating nausea produced as a side effect of chemotherapy, and is available at a cost an order of magnitude less than Zofran. By vaporizing the marijuana, most of the ill health effects are eliminated. The product is not smoked, but rather ingested through the lungs as a vapor, as compared to Zofran, which patients must swallow and ingest through their stomach despite extreme nausea. Clearly in the case where the symptom is extreme nausea ingestion through a vector other than the stomach is optimal. Bottom line, Zofran's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, does not want to see medical marijuana legitimized at a national level, because it would cut into their profit margins because it's a better solution. Never mind the benefit to cancer patients... profit is more important than the benefit to society.

 

This whole debacle only reiterates how free markets are naturally opposed to optimal healthcare strategies. Why legalize a "weed" which helps cancer patients when less effective synthetic drugs are available at 10x the price?

Edited November 14, 2009 by bascule

[ajb]

Right now there's a huge overlap between recreational and medicinal use, because the federal government has classified marijuana as having no acceptable medical use.

 

There has been plenty of cases here of people growing their own claiming medical use. I am not sure exactly how the UK courts view such cases.

 

The idea of an inhaler or vaporiser sounds to me best way forward.