Thursday, June 2, 2005

A good read Out of Joint by Jeff Hornaday, in today's New Times San Luis Obispo. It's a really wonderful article about a man and his dad, searching for answers to deal with his severe medical problems. Dad tried about every combination of prescription and over-the-counter drugs we could get away with, including Vicodin, Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and a host of other dangerous narcotics. But then Dad got real cloudy in the head. I can't say whether the drugs did anything to alleviate his pain, because it was so hard to get a straight answer out of him, even when he was awake - which was seldom. Pretty soon Dad's side effects got even worse. He developed severe constipation, which led to an incarcerated umbilical hernia, several trips to ER, and, well, you get the idea. Where to turn? That's when it hit me: magic brownies. A few days later we whipped up a delicious batch of Alice B. Toklas brownies (my 64-year-old dad prefers that term to the derogatory "pot brownies"), and he ate them with gusto. It was the best night's sleep he'd had in weeks, and now no evening meal is complete without his chocolate brownie. Nobody claims that we've found the panacea to eliminate my dad's spasms, tremors, and chronic pain - we're still searching for alternatives - but with the cannabis cookies, he already sleeps better and consumes far fewer pharmaceuticals. And the only side effect: euphoria. The article continues with the trials of getting the medicine that helps his dad. I really enjoyed it the whole story. And it brought back to mind one of my frustrations... no. It brought to mind how pissed off I get at the drug warriors and their arguments against medical marijuana: A cruel hoax Insufficient medical evidence... Medicines are supposed to cure you, not just make you feel good Bull. Here's the story. Marijuana (as it's being used by medical marijuana patients) has never been touted as a cure for disease. It's not like laetrile - a drug that was touted to have the ability to cure cancer, and was widely believed to be dangerous quackery because people would follow that course of treatment instead of ones that had scientific support. While there is promising research on the ability of marijuana extracts or chemicals to be used to cure a variety of illnesses, smoked medical marijuana is generally used not as a cure, but for the relief of symptoms... eg., relief of pain or nausea or to stimulate appetite. Whereas there was the need to "prove" that laetrile could cure cancer in order to justify allowing it as a form of treatment, there is no such need in proving relief of symptoms. The proof is self-evident. You have pain and you take something and the pain stops. You have nausea and you take something and the nausea stops. You have wasting syndrome and you take something and your appetite increases. If it doesn't work, then you try something else. For very many people, marijuana works. Period. If it was a sugar pill that you took and it made your pain go away, then fine, take a sugar pill. But the drug prohibitionist says, "Oh, you feel better? Well, that's a cruel hoax." No. It's truth. It can be nothing else. The whole notion that medicine is supposed to cure you is ridiculous. Sure, that would be nice, but a great portion of the pharmaceutical field is just there to change how you feel. If you feel better, then the other treatments you are pursuing for a cure are more likely to work. Or maybe your pain is not curable, but the medicine makes you feel better so you're able to have an active life. If a substance works to relieve symptoms, then all that remains is whether that substance is dangerous. Clearly marijuana is safer than any other drug that the doctors will prescribe for you. The only cruel hoax is telling patients that they must not use a safe treatment that eases their pain. 11:29:41 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

DeForest Rathbone speaks... sort of First there was this bizarre article about how Andrea Barthwell and John Pastuovic (who just happen to represent GW Pharmaceuticals, makers of the liquid version of marijuana called Sativex®) happened to offer their services to promote drug testing in a school in Virginia. Then Charles Darlington responded in a very well-written letter. Well, yesterday, the paper printed a letter by... DeForest Rathbone, Chairman, National Institute of Citizen Anti-drug Policy. Wow -- they brought out the big guns. Except I had never heard of him or of National Institute of Citizen Anti-Drug Policy (would that be NICAP?) So I did a little research. Well, it's definitely not NICAP. Turns out DeForest and his organization have been around for some time (although they're a bit slow in developing their own web site), advocating for DeForest's personal obsession -- having young children pee for them. Rathbone was involved in the Supreme Court case that allowed additional drug testing in schools. In reference to that hearing, he said, "Thanks be to almighty God, who has guided us, protected us and comforted us in this effort." Apparently God is also in favor of peeing in a cup to prevent people from using one of His plants. Rathbone's group also worked with Mark Souder to sneak a provision into a 700 page education bill that allows block grants for drug testing. As reported by Mark Boal in Rolling Stone Magazine: It was months before anybody in the drug reform movement noticed it was there. "We snuck it by those druggie liberals!" gloats Rathbone. "Druggie" appears to be Deforest's favorite word. So now that we know who he is -- back to the letter in yesterday's paper. We also agree with Barthwell that smoked pot will never be anything other than another snake-oil medicine to cheat desperate sick people. That is also our rationale for defeating the Illinois bill to virtually legalize smoked pot as medicine, which was proposed by drug legalizers. It is not hypocrisy to support the official evaluation of Sativex by FDA while opposing unapproved smoked pot snake-oil medicine. It is also a phony claim that Barthwell ducks public debate on so-called "drug law reform." She and I and many other drug prevention activists are more than willing to debate drug legalizers and their legal profession supporters at any time, [...] So what else have we learned here? Rathbone also likes to say "snake-oil." Despite his apparent friendship with Andrea Barthwell, he hasn't discussed debating with her recently. Ever since she got her ass handed to her on the Montel show, she's avoided any kind of debate. Rathbone has had some run-ins with the "legal profession." Of course, he never addressed the real issues that Darlington brought up in his letter, but that's par for the course. But I appreciate his letter. For now I feel like I know one more character in this circus. 10:25:21 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Economists say U.S. could save $7.7 billion by ending marijuana prohibition ... and gain an additional $2.4 billion to $6.2 billion if they taxed it. That's a budget swing of close to $14 billion a year at a time when we're broke. The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, by Boston University professor of economics Jeffrey A. Miron (June 2005) Check out the long list of economists who have endorsed this letter: An Open Letter to the President, Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures We, the undersigned, call your attention to the attached report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. The report shows that marijuana legalization -- replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation -- would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually. The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy. Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial harm. We therefore urge the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition. We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition. [Thanks, Daksya] Update: Forbes has the story this morning. MILTON FRIEDMAN: LEGALIZE IT! SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A founding father of the Reagan Revolution has put his John Hancock on a pro-pot report. Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. [...] At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for both financial and moral reasons. "There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana," the economist says, "$7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes." [...] "I've long been in favor of legalizing all drugs," he says, but not because of the standard libertarian arguments for unrestricted personal freedom. "Look at the factual consequences: The harm done and the corruption created by these laws...the costs are one of the lesser evils." Nice. When you get people of the stature of Milton Friedman talking about legalization in Forbes... Well then maybe a few more people will sit up and realize "Hey, this isn't just about some stoned hippies -- there appears to be more to it." 2:40:42 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []