Jump to content

Federal Court To Hear Rational Basis For Cannabis Schedule 1 Listing


Recommended Posts

The U.S. government claims marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug with no medical benefits. But that claim will be up for debate Monday in California when a federal judge is scheduled to hear testimony from doctors that conclude the opposite.

 

Doctors Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology at Columbia University, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington will testify Monday that marijuana — real name, “cannabis” — is not the demon drug the federal government makes it out to be. Accepted science does not justify the listing of cannabis as a dangerous “Schedule I” substance, many say.

 

t is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence,” Dr. Hart declared. “After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology.”

 

http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2014/10/21/war-on-marijuana-unconstitutional-doctors-testify-in-federal-court-monday/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon this dogma will end!

 

 

 

"Government witness Bertha Madras, former White House Drug Czar deputy director under George W. Bush will defend the Schedule 1 designation. Madras states cannabis has no accepted medical use and is unsafe.

 

Madras states she supports the pharmaceuticalization of THC and CBD, while criminalizing the use of the plant they come from.

 

“Although more than 30% of current therapeutic drugs are plant-derived, no one currently eats or smokes foxglove plants to treat a heart condition, chews cinchona bark to alleviate malaria symptoms, or eats opium poppies to relieve post-surgical pain,” Madras writes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon this dogma will end!

 

 

 

"Government witness Bertha Madras, former White House Drug Czar deputy director under George W. Bush will defend the Schedule 1 designation. Madras states cannabis has no accepted medical use and is unsafe.

 

Madras states she supports the pharmaceuticalization of THC and CBD, while criminalizing the use of the plant they come from.

 

“Although more than 30% of current therapeutic drugs are plant-derived, no one currently eats or smokes foxglove plants to treat a heart condition, chews cinchona bark to alleviate malaria symptoms, or eats opium poppies to relieve post-surgical pain,” Madras writes."

I wasn't aware that foxglove, cinchona, and poppies were all Schedule I!

Ignorant strumpet.  In what hellhole do they find beings who are so adept at combining mind numbing idiocy with sick insanity, and then promote them to positions of power?  Oh yeah, my homeland...

:growl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon this dogma will end!

 

 

"Government witness Bertha Madras, former White House Drug Czar deputy director under George W. Bush will defend the Schedule 1 designation. Madras states cannabis has no accepted medical use and is unsafe.

 

Madras states she supports the pharmaceuticalization of THC and CBD, while criminalizing the use of the plant they come from.

 

“Although more than 30% of current therapeutic drugs are plant-derived, no one currently eats or smokes foxglove plants to treat a heart condition, chews cinchona bark to alleviate malaria symptoms, or eats opium poppies to relieve post-surgical pain,” Madras writes."

 

 

First she states that Cannabis has no accepted medical use (note also that she throws in "unsafe", taking it as fact and not discussed further.)

 

Then she immediately contradicts herself by stating that components of cannabis (THC & CBD) DO have a medical use  (=pharmaceutical value)

 

BUT the real disturbing part is the third sentence, which again implies that cannabis components can be therapeutic but that what Madras REALLY wants is for the FDA and big pharma to have ultimate control of its formulations and distribution. Just as we do with digitalis, anti-malarials, and codeine. In her world, I don't believe that individuals will have control over which parts of the plant they want to use and how they use it.

Edited by zachw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that foxglove, cinchona, and poppies were all Schedule I!

Ignorant strumpet.  In what hellhole do they find beings who are so adept at combining mind numbing idiocy with sick insanity, and then promote them to positions of power?  Oh yeah, my homeland...

:growl:

Very well stated.

 

First she states that Cannabis has no accepted medical use (note also that she throws in "unsafe", taking it as fact and not discussed further.)

 

Then she immediately contradicts herself by stating that components of cannabis (THC & CBD) DO have a medical use  (=pharmaceutical value)

 

BUT the real disturbing part is the third sentence, which again implies that cannabis components can be therapeutic but that what Madras REALLY wants is for the FDA and big pharma to have ultimate control of its formulations and distribution. Just as we do with digitalis, anti-malarials, and codeine. In her world, I don't believe that individuals will have control over which parts of the plant they want to use and how they use it.

 

It is apparent to me that misinformation is expounded as truths without any repercussions.

A despicable practice where no facts need be presented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First she states that Cannabis has no accepted medical use (note also that she throws in "unsafe", taking it as fact and not discussed further.)

 

Then she immediately contradicts herself by stating that components of cannabis (THC & CBD) DO have a medical use (=pharmaceutical value)

 

BUT the real disturbing part is the third sentence, which again implies that cannabis components can be therapeutic but that what Madras REALLY wants is for the FDA and big pharma to have ultimate control of its formulations and distribution. Just as we do with digitalis, anti-malarials, and codeine. In her world, I don't believe that individuals will have control over which parts of the plant they want to use and how they use it.

 

Its only medicine if it can be altered & processed as a pill or injection... an inherent assumption that needs to be overcome.

 

I doubt many people can relate to this, but I would bet good money that many people on pain management regiments would find 'lesser' forms of opiates more effective, better able to dose, and w fewer side effects vs the current formulations via pills. In other words, black tar opium would work better than morphine pills... but I am not for sure if that could be patented, and the profit streams would be diverted to raw producers vs drug manufacturers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NORML-Feds-Agree-On-Benefits-Of-CannabisThe third day of hearings on the constitutionality of cannabis’ federal Schedule I status presented further bizarre twists, as both federal prosecutors and NORML’s defense team appeared at times to agree on the medical benefits of cannabis.

In one early incident, Assistant US Attorney Richard Bender, in continued cross-examination of Dr. Philip Denney, failed to rebut Denney’s testimony that plant-based cannabis effectively treated chronic pain. Instead, Bender attempted to show a marginal benefit to using dronabinol (AKA Marinol, which is synthetic THC taken orally in pill form) compared to cannabis and at one point seemed to get a little carried away with his line of questioning. Directing Denney’s attention to the results of a study which showed that both cannabis and Marinol proved effective in treating chronic pain but that the effects of Marinol lasted longer, Bender asked, “So, both smoked marijuana and oral THC were effective, but Marinol was a little better because it lasted longer?”

Denney answered yes, and Bender continued, apparently unaware that he had just admitted that cannabis has medical value.

Later in the same cross-examination Bender slipped again, making a similar admission in a more humorous way. Asking Denney about research showing the ability of cannabinoids to protect brain cells from damage during traumatic injuries, Bender asked, in a somewhat mocking tone, “So, if you’re going to have a traumatic brain injury, you’d better do it under the influence of marijuana?” Denney responded with an emphatic “yes,” provoking laughter in the courtroom.

But perhaps the greatest damage to the government’s case came as a result of an apparent lapse of attention on the part of the prosecution. NORML attorney Zenia Gilg managed to elicit numerous responses from Denney on the nature of the US government’s Investigative New Drug (IND) program, under which US patients receive free tins of government-grown cannabis every month to treat severe illnesses, before Bender seemed to stir, stand and state a valid objection.

It was apparently too late. Calling the objection “belated,” Judge Kimberly Mueller overruled it.

This blunder proved crippling for the prosecution, as Gilg was then able to elicit further testimony from Denney about the IND program, and in particular the results of a study conducted by Dr. Ethan Russo and others in 2002 which showed remarkable long-term success treating severely ill patients who had proven resistant to traditional therapies, and with a minimum of undesirable side effects – all at the behest of the US government.

Because the hearing also concerns the question of whether the medical use of cannabis is “currently accepted” in the US, Denney also testified regarding polls conducted of physicians about their professional opinions of cannabis. While Bender quibbled over details of a poll by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine showing 76% approval of a medical marijuana recommendation in a hypothetical patient, he left entirely uncontested testimony about another physician poll conducted by WebMD which showed 69% support for the medical use of cannabis – again apparently conceding a point which is logically central to the question of whether cannabis belongs in Schedule I.

Leaf co-founder Chris Conrad also took the stand as an expert witness, cross-examined by prosecutor Samuel Wong, who attempted to contradict the notions that cannabis had a known and reproducible chemistry and that it could be subjected to quality controls. Evoking the use of pesticides and other chemicals, Wong tried to suggest that use of such chemicals would lead to cannabis patients inhaling toxic substances. But Conrad pointed out that that was not necessarily the case, as many such sprays were designed to break down over time. Wong erred even worse when he tried to imply that quality control standards for cannabis didn’t exist, which opened the door for Conrad to introduce the medical cannabis quality control standards recommended by the American Herbal Pharmacopeia.

Still, it was ultimately Dr. Denney who most succinctly summarized the tenor of the day. “I am perplexed,” he testified, “as to why there’s even a debate. Cannabis does have medical value.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...