Members of Congress Ask DEA to Stop Obstructing Medical Marijuana Research

[jive shaman]

American Civil Liberties Union : Members of Congress Ask DEA to Stop Obstructing Medical Marijuana Research

Washington, D.C. – A letter signed by 45 members of the U.S. House of Representatives will be delivered today to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) demanding an end to the obstruction of scientific research aimed at developing marijuana as a legal prescription medicine.

The bipartisan letter, co-sponsored by Reps. John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), urges DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to follow the February 2007 ruling of Department of Justice-appointed administrative law judge Mary Ellen Bittner, which found that it would be “in the public interest” for the DEA to grant a license to University of Massachusetts professor Lyle Craker to cultivate research-grade marijuana to be used in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved studies. Judge Bittner’s ruling is non-binding and DEA has no deadline to decide whether to accept or reject it.

"For the DEA, delay is victory. For patients, delay may be the difference between life and death," said Allen Hopper, Litigation Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Drug Law Reform Project, which has represented Craker since 2005. "It is encouraging to see growing political will to overcome DEA's inappropriate elevation of drug war politics over science and the public good."

Earlier this summer, DEA's handling of Craker's application was the subject of intense congressional scrutiny. During a hearing before the U.S House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked DEA Deputy Administrator Joseph T. Rannazzisi a series of questions about the case, expressed disapproval at DEA's delay, and insisted that the agency commit to make a decision before the end of President Bush's term.

“The DEA is ignoring the vast scientific evidence that clearly shows medicinal use of marijuana benefits patients who are extremely ill,” said Congressman Nadler today. “When it comes to providing the best treatment options to sick Americans, we should trust doctors and medical researchers and not federal bureaucrats.”

Professor Craker submitted his initial application to DEA in June 2001. Craker plans to establish the nation’s first privately funded facility for the production of research-grade marijuana. Craker would cultivate research material for use by other scientists in clinical trials to determine whether marijuana meets FDA standards for medical safety and efficacy.

Despite strong interest, FDA trials have yet to be conducted. Since 1968, the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has maintained a monopoly on the supply of research marijuana and uses that monopoly to obstruct legitimate, privately funded research. Judge Bittner found that NIDA has repeatedly refused to supply marijuana for FDA-approved studies that aim to develop marijuana as a prescription medicine.

In contrast, all other controlled substances, including LSD, heroin and MDMA (Ecstasy), are available to researchers from multiple private manufacturers. NIDA's marijuana monopoly persists despite the fact that federal law requires adequate competition in the production of Schedule I drugs, such as marijuana, to ensure an adequate and uninterrupted supply for legal research. DEA protects NIDA's monopoly by refusing to license other suppliers, such as Professor Craker, according to the ACLU.

"Patients, scientists, and researchers are caught in a Catch-22," said Professor Craker, who is the director of the Medicinal Plant Program in the Department of Plant, Insect and Soil Sciences at University of Massachusetts, Amherst. "DEA continues to arrest patients on the basis that marijuana is not approved by FDA, while simultaneously obstructing the very research that would be required for FDA to approve marijuana as a medicine."

In addition to Congress, a broad array of organizations has also written to DEA in support of Craker's application. These organizations include the National Association for Public Health Policy, the National Lawyers Guild, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, and several religious denominations such as the United Methodist Church and the U.S. Presbyterian Church. In addition, Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have previously written to DEA in support of Craker's application.

Craker’s applications for regulatory approval, legal efforts, and proposed facility are sponsored by MAPS, a non-profit pharmaceutical company that plans to design, fund, and obtain government approval for the clinical trials necessary to determine whether marijuana meets FDA requirements for medical safety and efficacy. MAPS teamed with Craker after NIDA refused to supply marijuana to two of its FDA-approved protocols.

"Scientific evaluations of medical marijuana are needed now more than ever," said Rick Doblin, Ph.D., the founder and president of MAPS, whose Harvard dissertation evaluated potential regulatory mechanisms for marijuana if it gains FDA approval. "Why is DEA going to such lengths to stop Professor Craker? DEA knows that if FDA has the opportunity to evaluate marijuana, it would likely approve it for medical use."

Today’s U.S. House of Representatives’ letter can be found online at: American Civil Liberties Union : In the Matter of Lyle Craker - Congressional Sign-On Letter

[cougarnurse]

Interesting. I posted something related to the subject a few weeks ago:

Medical marijuana

'Cat'

[Ricu]

With bureaucracy, it always seems to come down to the issue of control and process and not the matter at hand itself. This "litigation" will go on forever only for the fight's sake and not how to move foreward with making legal and safe THC available for medical use. It's ridiculous to see such resistance over even researching marijuana. How can we expect to get as far as a reasonable debate on the subject of legalizing it's use? If legal marijuana ever becomes available, no doubt the insurance industry will resist and refuse to cover it regardless of how it's prescribed and of course R & D, and manufacturing costs will be so high that the out of pocket expense will be prohibitive. Meanwhile, people who receive legitimate benefit from it's use will continue to dodge the law, use it illegally and hope their stuff is safe.

Sad to say, I'm not so sure that changing the law will really improve things anyway because a trust component would have to exist and so long as there is abuse, there will never be trust. We've all seen that regulating other highly abusable drugs hasn't brought control over them or stopped black market availability not to mention other more dangerous, illegal street drugs so, what is there really to lose in discussing marijuana? Has anyone seen a decline in drug abuse as a result of regulation?

R