Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9787)	10/12/2007 3:32:09 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

" I will not argue with you that the current listing of THC on the most restricted drugs is not clearly deserved. I am also unclear why it continues to be unaddressed except that either people in the FDA feel there are acceptable alternatives or that the issue is toxic. This does not change the most effective way of dealing with the situation, which is at the FDA. Asking police to suspend enforcement on one law creates confusion and the perception of exceptions. Most people in such a confused state would normally derive different appropriate exceptions based on their experiences. Do you really want law enforcement operating on different pages? It is easy to imagine one officer decline to enforce traffic laws and another who won't enforce anti gang ordinances while yet another feels that non injury robbery is ok. Each would likely be horrified at the exceptions carved out by their fellow officers. The likely result being conflict, which makes law enforcement less efficient and more prone to problems. This would also reduce the respect that people have for law enforcement, leading towards anarchy. I personally support less government, but do not wish to live in anarchy. While you may feel this stray too far from your point, it is vital to examine the potential for problems of any change in policy." Since all of this is no problem for morphine, I don't understand why it would be with marijuana. There is also ten years of data from CA. The primary problems to date from mmj are a result of federal actions. The FDA is required to be unbiased. They continue to lie to the public about marijuana. It would be nice if they stopped. Meanwhile, the likelihood that they would give up and admit the truth is remote. This then requires action of like kind (political). It would be much better if they just did their job.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9787)	10/13/2007 6:32:01 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Re: "... am also unclear why it continues to be unaddressed except that either people in the FDA feel there are acceptable alternatives or that the issue is toxic." Well... it ISN'T the second reason you posted, the 'toxic' part. (Medically one of the safest substances know to man, by at least one measure [over-dose profile: "no known toxic limit"], according to American Academy of Sciences, and a wide variety of other medical studies.) Nor is the reason the first one you posited: the 'F.D.A.' "This does not change the most effective way of dealing with the situation, which is at the FDA." Negatory. The F.D.A.'s authority is SEVERELY circumscribed in this area by federal regulation --- which has given a completely different federal bureaucracy the statutory authority to put a stopper in ALL medical and or scientific research in this area. The F.D.A. legally CANNOT even consider a medical study request in this area until and unless the D.E.A. has already approved it. (Without solid peer-reviewed medical studies the F.D.A. can never have enough data put before it to act to approve, or disapprove, any pharmaceutical uses in this area. and, since the D.E.A. has CONSISTENTLY refused for decades now to give it's legally required approval for medical studies to proceed... the process gets frozen out.) Naturally enough (action in common with that of most bureaucracies) the D.E.A. has acted primarily in a manner so as to PRESERVE it's own bureaucratic powers and turf (jobs, self-importance, budget, etc.) against all bureaucratic competitors and threats. So, don't blame the F.D.A, for the great lack of medical studies in America --- it's legally out of their hands. They can't approve a study UNTIL the D.E.A. signs off FIRST. (Something the D.E.A. almost never does --- unless they seem to believe the particular drug study's design and approach is most likely to return some kind of 'danger, danger, Will Robinson' type of result. When they believe that sometimes they have granted approval.) Thats how the federal rules are currently written....