We are governed by people with intellectual pretensions, but no intellectual standards.)

Should The Federal Government Study The Effects Of Medical Marijuana?

June 21, 1999
From Roll Call
mws@rollcall.com
http://www.rollcall.com/

By Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources.
See
New York Times Reports that Questions Were Raised About Prohibition,
But Does Not Examine The Issues.

Policy Briefing: Crime & Public Policy

Should The Federal Government Study The Effects Of Medical Marijuana?

DO NOT WASTE TAXPAYERS’ DOLLARS

Spending more hard-earned, taxpayer dollars on additional study of the legalization of marijuana, or any other illegal narcotic, strikes me as an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars.

(Marijuananews note: Of course, the subject is not the study of "legalization", but of rescheduling.)
See
How The IOM Report Impacts The Move To Have Medical Marijuana Rescheduled

This ploy has been used by the pro-legalization lobby to create a detour from the drug war, and is another liberal folly and morally indefensible idea.

See
New York Times Runs Pro-Medical Marijuana Op-ed
By National Review Senior Editor Richard Brookhiser

If this sounds harsh, let me offer seven sound arguments to support this position.

First, the hard science has already been done. Smoking marijuana has no scientific benefit and only serious medical downsides. There are the substantial, credible, mid-1990s studies that show smoked pot degrading and destroying key brain functions, done by Dr. Peter Waser at the University of Zurich; Dr. John Gately and his associates at the Brookhaven National Laboratory; Dr. Roger Pertwee of the Institute of Medical Sciences at Aberdeen; and Dr. Eliot Gardner of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

There are voluminous studies, produced even in the past several years, showing severe damage to male and female reproductive systems,
(Marijuananews note: No there are no such studies, because there is no such "severe damage.") such as Dr. Herbert Schuel and his colleagues’ study on "cannabinoid receptors in sperm"; Dr. Arthur Zimmerman’s study on effects on "spermatogenesis;" and Dr. Jack Mendelson and his colleagues’ study on "marijuana effects on pituitary and gonadal hormones in women."

There are additional studies confirming damage by marijuana smoking to the immune system, undercutting any argument of marijuana for AIDS. Among these studies are those done by Dr. Thomas Kline; Dr. Harris Rosenkrantz; Dr. Guy Cabral; Dr. William and Sandra Bennett; Dr. Donal Kotlet; and Dr. Joseph Timpone.
(Marijuananews note: This is directly contradicted by the IOM report, which says, "the short-term immunosuppressive effects are not well established but, if they exist, are not likely great enough to preclude a legitimate medical use." And his citation of "Dr. William and Sandra Bennett" is a clue. They are not researchers. William Bennett, no kin to the former drug-addicted Drug Czar, is a medical doctor. His wife is the new head of Drug Watch, the prohibitionist propaganda organization, but they have not published any peer-reviewed research.)

There is also a plethora of hard science demonstrating that pot has minimal benefit for pain; can undercut cancer treatment; can produce lung damage, heart damage and birth defects; and offers little in the way of meaningful pain relief. In short, pot has been studied more than any Schedule One substance.
(Marijuananews note: There has been almost no research on the medical use of marijuana in DEAland, but his claims are contradicted by a growing body of international research.)

See
Three Articles On Pain -- From Washington, The UK, And Arkansas –
And Two Are Even About Medical Marijuana -- Analysis By Richard Cowan
and links

Second, for those who are wedded to THC, there already exists a THC-based, non-narcotic prescription medicine. If there are any non-narcotic benefits from the THC in marijuana, they are available in tablet form.

See
Gettman Petition For Hearings On Marinol Rescheduling Uses DEA’s Own Arguments Against It.
Why Marinol Is Not Medical Marijuana. Wonderfully Brilliant!
and
Two Days After The Medical Marijuana Initiatives
The DEA Proposes Making Marinol A Schedule III Drug!! "Like Codeine With Tylenol."
More Like Cynicism With Desperation

(Marijuananews note: This is just wonderfully ignorant. How could marijuana be a narcotic and its principle psychoactive ingredient be a "non-narcotic." This is like saying that the opium poppy is a narcotic while heroin and morphine are not. Also, Marinol is a capsule, and THC is just one of the medically useful cannabinoids, but never mind.)

Third, the economics of marijuana legalization will not work for pot—or any other narcotic.
See
How The Narcs Created Crack

(Marijuananews note: Remember, the topic is medical marijuana research. I think Mica must be suffering from short term memory loss.)

The reasons are elementary. Start with price elasticity. A luxury is something we do not need, and thus, as price increases, we choose to buy less of it: cruises to the Bahamas, or fine wine. A necessity is something we need, like food and gasoline. As prices rise, we still buy the needed basics.

The trick with narcotics is that they start out as a luxury—with high elasticity of demand; they quickly become a necessity, with a low elasticity of demand. The result is a trap, one that kids and adults would both be vulnerable to if the government began making drugs widely available.
(Marijuananews note: Never mind that "drugs" are already "widely available" without the government’s help.

Marijuana prohibition artificially raises the cost of marijuana. If marijuana were legal, it would be very cheap. In fact, it would be almost free to anyone who wanted to grow it. In short, what little there is of this argument is really a reason to end prohibition.)

First-time use by choice would soon become a need leading to addiction, and the economics of drug use would produce an ever-increasing block of sick, depressed and addicted Americans.
(Marijuananews note: "The economics of drug use?" This has nothing to do with economics, except insofar as prohibition creates black markets thereby increasing whatever the risks of the prohibited substances might be.)

Fourth, drugs and crime are inherently linked. Drugs trigger aggressive and irrational behaviors.

(Marijuananews note: All "drugs trigger aggressive and irrational behaviors" equally? But not alcohol and tobacco?)

For this reason, until the government gives away 100 percent pure drugs for free to all who want them, there will always be a black market for more pure drugs.

(Marijuananews note: This is really embarrassingly bad. Why doesn’t the government have to give away pure grain alcohol? Why do so few people buy it?)

There will also be drug-related physical and property crime.

Making drugs legal—in any form—may lower the number of acts considered illegal, but it won’t change much else.
See
1997 Marijuana Arrests Hit 695,000 -- A New Record; Percentage Of Marijuana Arrests For Simple Possession Ties 1979 Record -- Analysis By Richard Cowan
(Marijuananews note: Remember the topic was "Should The Federal Government Study The Effects Of Medical Marijuana?")

Fifth, sanctioning pot smoking for any purpose is a slippery slope. It opens the door to wider use of the substance, and that fact is not missed by the wealthy promoters of drug legalization.

Viewing pot as medicine, not unlike aspirin or Advil, lends itself too easily to the follow-on idea that it should be available to all.
See
They Are Legal, So They Must Be Safe: "Teens Abusing Drugstore Medicines"
Should We Have Drug-Free Drugstores?
Context For Medical Marijuana and "Drug Education" Debates
This, of course, is the main hope of those who champion pot use for select segments of society—first you take the hill, then you take the town.
See
Is medical marijuana just the opening wedge to legalize marijuana generally?
and
Isn't legalizing marijuana just the opening wedge to legalizing all drugs?

Reality is different, ask the 85 percent of Americans who worry about their kids and drugs.
See
Gallup Poll Shows 73% Favor Medical Marijuana;
29% Favor Outright "Legalization"!
So What Are The Politicians Really Afraid Of?
The negative health impact of marijuana itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Marijuana smoking is a swirling current above a more dangerous precipice. It hooks the child, sets the bar low for obeying law and swings wide the gate to a faster current. Not far down that current, there is an undefined point of no return for many kids.

Those swept into drug use through officially sanctioned pot, would be more likely to crash over an edge—with an overdose on heroin; cocaine; crack; methamphetamine; ecstacy; PCP; GHB, known for its use as a data-rape drug; and similar drugs.

I have met with too many parents who have lost sons and daughters to heroin, and confide that their children’s drug use began with pot.
(Marijuananews note: From the IOM report, "Marijuana as a "Gateway" Drug: Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana --  usually before they are of legal age.")

No one can bring those kids back. We know the risks that attend pot use, and where encouraging such use can lead.
See
"Those who insist on keeping the plant illegal bear a serious degree of moral responsibility for young marijuana users who do go on to use cocaine, heroin, PCP or other genuinely dangerous or addictive drugs."
Alan Bock, of the Orange County Register On the Real Gateway

Perhaps that is why we should ask: Why would anyone in his or her right mind advocate legalization, or create any imprimatur of legitimacy for dope use under any circumstances?

The moral argument has other dimensions. If marijuana seldom kills by overdose,
(Marijuananews note: Seldom? Does he not even know that there is no effective lethal dose?) it triggers attitude and personality changes, opening a different gate.

It legitimates use of drugs that—while they may not kill—do maim, physically and emotionally. Pot use at an early age correlates to greater likelihood of inhalant use that produces brain damage, as well as abuse of stimulants, depressants, prescription medicines and other risky behaviors. Should the government be in the business of studying how to legitimize such a life-degrading substance?
See
Aspirin And Related Drugs Are 15^th Leading Cause Of Death In DEAland
Context For Medical Marijuana

Sixth, drugs that change one’s mental state—even those that relieve pain—diminish the individual’s free will. They create psychological and physical dependencies. They take from the individual—whether child or adult—the free will that animated one’s first decision.

Now, consider studying the idea of putting the government into the business of how best to do that—specifically, how to do it with currently illegal narcotics. Doesn’t venturing down this path sound a lot like entering George Orwell’s fictional account of where America might go?
See
The 50^th Anniversary of The Publishing Of Orwell’s 1984
Analysis By Richard Cowan

(Marijuananews note: This article is perhaps the best argument I have yet seen for reading 1984, which Mica seems not to have done.)

Seventh, drug use—even for those who embrace it as the great escape from living with this life’s soul-enhancing struggles—is not a victimless crime. It is not a victimless act. It is an act that carries implications for all those who know and love, are related to and interacting with the user. I have sat with parents who are losing and who have lost those that they gave their entire lives to raise. I have seen the data on drug-related overdoses, suicides, murders, traffic fatalities and emergency-room incidents.

(Marijuananews note: If so, he has not understood any of it.)

I have seen the precious bond between parent and child, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren rent and torn by drug abuse.

In my own district, a recent heroin overdose ended the life of a young man with a lovely, happy, little 4-year-old boy. How do you explain to that little boy, whose father started drug use lightly, that his life will never be the same again? Or that some people think drug use should be studied and promoted?

We have conducted hearings on this topic. Conducting additional studies on how to legalize any Schedule One illegal narcotic—especially one that leads to so much physical and emotional pain in the lives of the users and those who love them—is simply not necessary and not a prudent use of taxpayer dollars.

Mica should fire whoever wrote this for him, and the people of his district should replace Mica with someone with intellectual and moral standards. Mica clearly has neither.)

Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) is chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources.