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: Gersh Avery who wrote (22092)	9/9/2008 4:30:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Re: The supremes ruled that the DEA doesn't have the authority to define "accepted medical use." Yes, I see. But that isn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the veto authority that the D.E.A. statutorily possesses over all proposed medical research into any drug on 'Schedule I'. Proposals for research (even from other government agencies, such as FDA for example, or from Universities) cannot proceed if the DEA vetoes them (as is it's long established practice). And, of course, even if the DEA were to grant approval for a research proposal, the DEA also retains the statutory mandate to be the sole provider (sourced from the Ag. Dept.'s Mississippi farm...) of all the drug for the proposed study... and some researchers have claimed that their studies have been confounded by uneven/unreliable sourcing from the government --- a 'backdoor' way of assuring that the apple cart does not get upset. <g>