Drug WarRant

Take the time to read Feds vs. Meds by Dean Kuipers. It’s worth it.
A couple of months ago, I told you about a little known new law that allows people to challenge scientific information disseminated by federal agencies.æ The law demands that agencies respond to petitions within two months. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed such a challenge just over two months ago regarding the government’s refusal to accept scientific evidence regarding medical marijuana. The Department of Health and Human Services has now filed for a two month extension. It’s another stalling tactic, but they will have to respond at the end of the next two months. And no matter how they respond, they will either have to admit marijuana benefits, or make legal statements that can be attacked by lawyers in court.
While this particular move only started in October, it is the culmination of over 30 years of effort.
Dean Kuipers does an outstanding job of explaining the entire situation, along with the history of stalling done by the federal government. Here’s an excerpt:

Consider the first petition, filed in 1972. Only two years after marijuana was lumped with LSD, heroin, and mescaline in Schedule I, NORML filed the first petition with the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, the predecessor to the DEA, which stalled for three years and then denied to hear the petition. A court forced them to hear it, then the DEA (formed in 1973) killed it without any hearings. A higher court of appeals again forced them to hear it, but it was easily killed off once more. Finally, in 1986, after another exhaustive, grinding court fight, the DEA caved in and assigned the investigation to its own DEA Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young.

Young spent two years hearing the testimony of scores of scientists, doctors, medical marijuana patients, law enforcement officers, agents, corrections officials and the like, and in 1988 came back with a stunning verdict. In one of the most celebrated documents in the history of pot activism, Young issued a ruling of over 100 pages, saying not only that the DEA must move pot to Schedule II, to have controlled medical use like cocaine and opium, but that “the evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence of this record.”

…

Of course, the DEA swept it all under the carpet. It decided that Young had applied the wrong standard, that the testimony of doctors and patients didn’t show “a currently accepted medical use.” The record had to show controlled scientific testing – which neither the FDA nor the DEA would allow by law.

That decision went through five appeals before it was finally dead, in 1994, 22 years after the petition had been filed. But the movement to reschedule saw cracks in the feds’ armor and picked up steam. Dr. Jon Gettman, then the director of NORML, filed a new rescheduling petition in 1995. This was finally denied in 2001 – it only took seven years this time – but the reasons why it was denied were more specific and easily attacked. The phrase “arbitrary and capricious” began to resonate. It’s a magic one among lawyers, especially those fighting regulatory agencies.

Read this and you realize how silly Supreme Court Justice Breyer was when he asked, in Raich v. Ashcroft, why medical marijuana patients didn’t just follow the procedure for re-scheduling, rather than taking it to the Supreme court in a commerce clause case.
The federal government will use every drop of deceit, stalling, and legal maneuvering it can find. We’ll have to use the courts, the laws, the states, public opinion and more to drag the feds, kicking and screaming, to admitting the truth.

Mark Souder’s “Safe and Effective Drug Act” has been introduced in the House (see my post earlier this week). It’s HR-5429
The short description:

To require the National Institute on Drug Abuse to develop a meta-analysis of the available scientific data regarding the safety and health risks of smoking marijuana and the clinically-proven effectiveness of smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, and to require the Food and Drug Administration to promptly disseminate the meta-analysis.

Now, other than the obvious flaw of specifying “smoking” as the only way to use medical marijuana, the concept of this description is positive. Gathering and disseminating scientific data is something that drug policy reformers support whole-heartedly.
But let’s go a step further. In the language of the bill, there is a small part about the method for this “meta-analysis.”

(a) In General- The Director of the National Institutes of Health, acting through the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (referred to in this Act as the `Director of the Institute’), shall develop a meta-analysis of the available scientific data regarding the safety and health risks of smoking marijuana and the clinically-proven effectiveness of smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes.

OK, now the sham is exposed. It will be the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse that will gather the information. And NIDA has a historic reputation of being one-sided in its approach, susceptible to political pressures to re-inforce the drug war (and was at the very least a passive co-conspirator in the Ricaurte MDMA scandal). Current director Nora Volkow has tried to change the perception of the agency, but it’s got too much baggage and too much of an agenda built in to its mission.
NIDA is the wrong place for this analysis. This bill should be opposed unless it can be amended to change the means of collecting scientific data, and to change the wording that repeatedly infers that “smoking” is the only means of taking medical marijuana.

So New York lawmakers finally voted to scale back (somewhat) the harsh Rockefeller drug laws, after years of hard work and lobbying by tons of dedicated drug policy reformers.

Two longtime goals of drug law reformers — giving near-total sentencing discretion to judges and allowing some offenders to avoid prison entirely in favor of treatment — are not included in the agreement.

But the Governor has it figured out…

“Now we put in a new law that will rationalize that sentencing (structure) and make the punishment fit the crime,” [Governor Pataki] said.

Right. Jim at Vice Squad has a few choice words for the Governor, regarding how you determine when a punishment fits a drug crime.
I’d take it a step further. This “reform” is a joke and yet the drug policy reformers don’t dare turn it down. To ease the sentences of even a few is better than nothing.
But this is what it feels like: After years of forcing New Yorkers to buy contaminated eggs for $20 a dozen, the legislature has finally reduced the price to $12.
Pass the salt.

Via TalkLeft: Florida’s Judge Gregory Posnell refused to apply guidline sentences for a drug conviction that would have called for 188 months for a 24-year-old with thyroid cancer, based on drug stings involving $500. And he let us know how he felt in his opinion (pdf).

A guideline sentence in this case starkly illustrates the problem of attempting to fit the human experience into a discrete mathematical matrix. It just can’t be done, and this Court cannot in good conscience do it, because it offends the Court’s concept of justice.
…
In the meantime, the “war on drugs” goes on. Others will undoubtedly replace Torrey Williams in the chain of drug commerce, and the Courts will continue to incarcerate them for long periods at alarming rates.

More at Doug Berman’s blog.

Some of my regular readers have had some difficulties lately. Comments have been moved to a new server, which hopefully will be much more robust, and some comments from the past couple of days may have been lost in the changeover (I have not deleted any comments).
Also, I don’t know if it’s at all related, but some comcast customers have been unable to access salonblogs or other radio userland blogs for the past few days. That appears to be resolved now.
Thanks for hanging in there and continuing to visit the Rant! (And don’t forget to visit The Agitator, where I am doing some guest blogging.)

In the December, 2004 issue of Scientific American:
“The Brain’s Own Marijuana: Research into natural chemicals that mimic marijuana’s effects in the brain could help to explain–and suggest treatments for–pain, anxiety, eating disorders, phobias and other conditions” by Roger A. Nicoll and Bradley N. Alger

Marijuana is a drug with a mixed history. Mention it to one person, and it will conjure images of potheads lost in a spaced-out stupor. To another, it may represent relaxation, a slowing down of modern madness. To yet another, marijuana means hope for cancer patients suffering from the debilitating nausea of chemotherapy, or it is the promise of relief from chronic pain. The drug is all these things and more, for its history is a long one, spanning millennia and continents. It is also something everyone is familiar with, whether they know it or not. Everyone grows a form of the drug, regardless of their political leanings or recreational proclivities. That is because the brain makes its own marijuana, natural compounds called endocannabinoids (after the plant’s formal name, Cannabis sativa).

The authors have both been extensively involved in research in endocannabinoids, and they give a fascinating, though often technical, overview of how marijuana affects the brain, starting with a brief history of the use of marijuana worldwide and leading to the effects on specific parts of the brain.
One of the most interesting parts to me was the discussion on how the brain deals with stressful situations. Research has shown that repeated stimulus (like loud sounds) combined with stressful situations (like bullets whizzing at you) generates a natural fear reaction to the stimulus (in this case, loud sounds). In most people, after the stressful situation stops, gradually the stimulus fails to produce fear (so you’re not always jumping at loud sounds). Natural endocannabinoids are important in reducing the level of anxiety when the danger passes, but it’s believed that some individuals don’t produce them correctly, and you get no reduction of anxiety.
This is probably why the Israelis have looked into marijuana as a therapy for soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, and it leads to all sorts of potential uses of marijuana for psychological treatments.
The authors conclude:

In a remarkable way, the effects of marijuana have led to the still unfolding story of the endocannabinoids. The receptor CB1 seems to be present in all vertebrate species, suggesting that systems employing the brain’s own marijuana have been in existence for about 500 million years. During that time, endocannabinoids have been adapted to serve numerous, often subtle, functions. We have learned that they do not affect the development of fear, but the forgetting of fear; they do not alter the ability to eat, but the desirability of the food, and so on. Their presence in parts of the brain associated with complex motor behavior, cognition, learning and memory implies that much remains to be discovered about the uses to which evolution has put these interesting messengers.

A fun read: Radley Balko’s A Mania Called Horse. What is the new heroin? What isn’t?

hysteria has become the heroin of talking heads

One of our favorite love-to-hate drug warriors is looking to propose a new bill. Here’s his letter:

Dear Colleague,

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to educate the
public against a dangerous drug whose dangers have been kept from the public
by those promoting its use.
Vioxx?
No. Marijuana.
By law, all drugs bought, sold and prescribed in the U.S. must first undergo
rigorous clinical trials and be proven to be safe and effective by the FDA
before they can be made available to patients. This process ensures patient
safety, protects the public health and ensures accountability and liability
should a patient be injured or harmed.

With no scientific evaluations or conclusive evidence of safety
or effectiveness, however, a number of states and localities have sought to
legalize smoking marijuana for so-called “medical” use.

Smoked marijuana has never been approved for medical use by the FDA. For
several years, in fact, FDA allowed a limited number of seriously ill
patients to use smoked marijuana. The program was terminated in 1992 when
the Public Health Service (PHS) stated there was no scientific evidence that
the drug was assisting patients, and issued a warning that using smoked
marijuana as a form of medical therapy may actually be harmful to some
patients.

The fact is smoking marijuana has no scientifically proven
medical benefits.

Smoking marijuana puts users at risk for countless serious health problems
and may worsen the conditions for which patients wrongly believe it is
treating. And real medical alternatives exist for patients suffering from
the conditions proponents of smoking marijuana claim it can treat. And
again, patients who are smoking marijuana are being denied legitimate care
that could improve rather than worsen their medical conditions.

The public’s health would be best served if science and the FDA continued to
be the basis and judge of the safety and effectiveness of patients’ drugs.
Despite repeated requests by the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources, FDA has been reluctant to educate the
public about the false claims and real dangers of smoking marijuana.
I will introduce the “Safe and Effective Drug Act” next week. This bill
directs the National Institutes for Health to examine the available
scientific data regarding the safety and effectiveness of smoking marijuana
and requires the FDA to post this information and distribute it to those
public health entities that advocate or recommend patients smoke marijuana.
If you would like to co-sponsor this legislation, please contact Roland
Foster of my staff…

Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources

A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading this letter.

1. Does Mark Souder realize the irony of mentioning Vioxx when talking about looking to the FDA for safety and effectiveness of drugs? After all, while marijuana has never killed anyone, the death toll for Vioxx, which was fast-track approved by the FDA, has reached tens of thousands.
2. After you get past the anti-medical marijuana rhetoric and the implied assumption that medical marijuana can only be smoked (there’s also vaporizing, and topical or oral treatments), you realize that the stated intent of the bill also matches the interests of drug policy reformers.

Part of the problem with medical marijuana all along is that the federal government has both supressed research, and also ignored existing research and data (all the while complaining that there is not sufficient scientific support). A bill that would require the government to research the available data would seem favorable to anyone seeking the truth (assuming that such a process would be allowed to include the truth).
This will be an interesting one to watch. I’ve written to Souder’s aide mentioning the problem with limiting it to smoked marijuana and he indicated that they were open to changing it to include other applications in a future re-write.

• Mystery spraying in Afghanistan. Tomorrow’s New York Times article still has no answers as to who has been spraying opium poppy fields with toxic chemicals and destroying crops. Spraying has not been authorized by the Afghan government, and alternate crop programs are not yet in place. The American government has denied any knowledge, but Afghanis aren’t buying it, given that the U.S. has long argued for chemical eradication. Governor Hajji Din Muhammad noted “The Americans control the airspace of Afghanistan, and not even a bird can fly without them knowing.”
• TalkLeft tells us that Senator McCain is threatening new legislation to impose mandatory drug testing of professional baseball players. TalkLeft also notes that a Cali Cartel dealer has been extradited to the U.S., which segues into…
• Last week, Mark Kleiman, in Weirder than Satire in Columbia, noted that cocaine traffickers are being accused of pretending to be genocidal terrorists in order to get preferential treatment.
• Scotus Blog says that Hoasca Tea may be heading to the Supreme Court (Justice Breyer granted an application for a temporary stay). This case will put the government in the position of explaining why they are denying an exception to the Controlled Substances Act for the use of Hoscoa Tea in O Centro Espirita Beneficients Uniao Do Vegetal religious ceremonies, while allowing a religious exemption for Native American use of peyote.
• The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a 4-part series: Tougher sentencing law carries hefty price: Estimated $1.8 billion through 2025
• Drug War Corruption. In Mexico, seventeen federal, state and local investigators, prosecutors and police officers have been arrested. Those arrested face charges of protecting drug dealers as well as homicide or accessory to murder in the slayings of nine people.

Campaign to Urge Teens to ‘Steer Clear of Pot’
During National Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Prevention Month

Notice that the Drug Czar isn’t suggesting that teens steer clear of alcohol? That’s because this campaign really doesn’t care about teen driving safety. The plan behind the tactic is to use the fear of teen accidents to encourage more zero-tolerance drugged driving laws (laws that don’t test for impairment, but rather any incidence of THC in the body, which could be from smoking a joint several days earlier).
The problem is that there are no reliable studies showing high risk from marijuana and driving (certainly there are risks, but studies show that the risks are well below alcohol or fatigue). So the Drug Czar has to create his own results.
The release mentions:

“the Drug Czar cited higher marijuana rates among young driving crash victims”

So I went out and bought a copy of the study that the Drug Czar cited: Epidemiology of Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Motor Vehicle Crash Victims Admitted to a Trauma Center, 2004. Briefly, here’s what the study told me.

1. It covered a “limited sample of seriously injured patients at an eastern US Level 1 trauma center,”
2. “…we were unable to accurately distinguish between drivers, passengers, and pedestrians due to the lack of specific crash information.” and
3. “the qualitative results of the POC [Point of Collection] and laboratory immunoassay tests do not permit any interpretation regarding impairment”

So, in a limited study of crash victims (including drivers, passengers, and pedestrians), it was determined that some of them had used marijuana at some time prior to the crash, and of those who had, the highest incidence was in the 18-25 age group.
Yep. Drug Czar Science.