Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Surreal Reading... DEA's Karen Tandy is speaking out. This release from the DEA has her article: "Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us," which appeared in the March issue of Police Chief Magazine. She starts by using the death of a 14-year-old girl who may have died from ecstacy and whose friends were afraid to get help becuase they might get in trouble as a way to attack medical marijuana efforts! This is the lowest of the low -- and she got it directly from Mark Souder. I just wonder if Irma Perez' sister is aware of how these drug warriors are using her. Then in the usual guise of "exposing myths," she procedes to spread some of the most atrocious lies about marijuana. It's all the same old stuff. Now maybe you think that Karen Tandy, as head of the DEA, would be an expert on medical marijuana. Let's go back a bit to her confirmation hearing. Senator Durbin asked: Durbin:Are you aware of information regarding the medicinal benefits of marijuana (for example: an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine on [January] 30, 1997; the 1999 Institute of Medicine report "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base authorized by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; and the 1988 ruling from the DEA's chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young)?..."[links added] Tandy:"I am not personally familiar with the sources you cite discussing the putative "medicinal benefits of marijuana..." Idiot. Visiongain Report Announces Cannabinoids as a Potential Blockbuster This is just bizarre to read. Speculation on how many millions of dollars will be generated by different cannabinoid-based drugs being developed world-wide in matter-of-fact financial guidance Visiongain values the current cannabinoid market in 2005 at $110.5 million. This value is the combined world revenues of Marinol, Nabilone and also includes generic Dronabinol in Germany. This is a 6.3% growth increase from 2004, where revenues totalled $104 million. By 2010 sales of these products could reach a potential of just under $200 million. Over the forecast period, 2002 to 2010, this will generate a CAGR% of 10.76%. By 2006 the cannabinoid market is expected to develop from the limited, controversial, niche market of today, to that with a much higher profile with additional approved therapeutic areas. I read both of these items this morning and my head just about exploded. 11:10:14 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Tell the truth, lose your job Some of you may remember my report on the recent circus in Alaska where politicians sought to out-do themselves coming up with bogus information and outright lies about marijuana -- part of an attempt by Alaska Governor Murkowski to over-ride the state's constitution and claim that marijuana has somehow become extraordinarily dangerous. The one sane voice then -- Barbara Brink, head of the public defenders agency, who testified against the bill. Now it's reported that Gov. Murkowski won't be reappointing her. Somebody get this jerk governor a job in the private sector. The only words I want to hear from him are "Do you want fries with that?" Related: If you can get through Anchorage Daily News' annoying registration process, there's a cute satirical piece about the subject - a "what if Murkowski tried to ban wine" speculation. 10:50:18 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Raich Speculation Again today, the Supreme Court Justices released their opinions and Raich v. Ashcroft wasn't there. Now there's nothing that requires them to release their opinion on a certain date or in a certain order, but they will need to finish up by June (and there's only 2 more days coming up in which they'll release opinions: May 2 and 16) [correction: May 16 is now the next possible date, but there are a number of other dates after that]. And there are only a few cases left from the December session (Raich was argued November 29, which was considered the first day of the December session). Now there could be many uninteresting technical reasons for Raich to be so late, but I thought we could take this time while we're waiting to do some wild speculating just for fun. So here's a few of mine: It's a very close decision, and it's taken a lot of internal wrangling to create a majority coalition. The decision will end up 5-4 with some concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Chief Justice has a strong interest in states' rights, and therefore wanted to have significant input, but his illness has made that difficult to do in a timely manner. The Justices have been taking the time to do extra research on medical marijuana and how the government's FDA approval processes work to understand why it hasn't gone that route. The Justices have decided to carve out a specific states' rights area for medical marijuana (using something like Barnett's "state sub-class" concept or Kreit's "economic enterprise" approach) and they're taking the time to make sure they understand what other areas this new case law will impact. The Justice writing the majority opinion understands that this will be considered a landmark case in the future, and is taking additional time writing it to make it beautifully written and constructed as well. The Justices are making a strong case for states rights in Raich (thereby reducing the power of Congress) and want to take the extra time to include some witty rebukes at those in Congress who have been agitating against the Judiciary. (OK, that's just real wishful thinking on my part) Now maybe it's my cockeyed optimism showing through, but in all my scenarios it looks pretty good for Raich (and certainly not a slam dunk for the government). What do you think? Got any speculations of your own? 9:54:44 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []