Printable View
http://washtimes.com/upi/20060420-103304-7138r.htm
*FDA Rules Out Medical Marijuana
Man, that fucking sucks. I mean, we already know that they've never been for it, but they haven't even given it any thought. I like especially when they say, "high potential for abuse." Are you fucking kidding me? :what:
Just wanted everyone's thoughts and opinions on this shit.. And the absurdness they have of giving this statement on 4/20!
They suck ass. That's what I think. Can't really trust the FDA anyway. One day something is the best thing for you ever.....next day it gives you cancer.
and they raided a medical club in sacremento on the same day.
It was on the cover of New York Times today...
at least in the article it recognizes professors/researchers saying what the FDA is saying is bullshit...
Just goes to show that the FDA is all about politics and the drug corporations' money.
I didn't see the link for NYT... I'll have to go check it out. I'd like to see what those professors and scientists had to say. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xblackdogx
They'll just have to legalize it for recreational purposes. :smokin:
its better they dont legalize it
now i can charge whatever i want
since i got the best herb in east los
drug companies dont want anything stepping in on their pain medicine or whatever.
im watchin cnn headline news. whenever they have something to say about medical marijuana they show this clip of this 70+ year old grandma toking a huge spliff lol
FDA Rejects Marijuana For Medical Uses
April 21, 2006 12:41 PM
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that it does not support the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
The FDA said in a statement that it and other agencies with the Health and Human Services Department had "concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use."
A number of states have passed legislation allowing marijuana use for medical purposes, but the FDA said, "These measures are inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process and are proven safe and effective."
The statement contradicts a 1999 finding from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, which reported that "marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials."
Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, said Thursday: "If anybody needed proof that the FDA has become totally politicized, this is it. This isn't a scientific statement; it's a political statement."
Mirken said "a rabid congressional opponent of medical marijuana," Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., asked the FDA to make the statement.
Souder, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on drug policy, has said the promotion of medical marijuana "is simply a red herring for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Studies have continually rejected the notion that marijuana is suitable for medical use because it adversely impacts concentration and memory, the lungs, motor coordination and the immune system."
The FDA statement noted "there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful." It also said, "There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana."
Mirken responded, "There is abundant evidence that marijuana can help cancer patients, multiple sclerosis patients and AIDS patients. There is no scientific doubt that marijuana relieves nausea, vomiting, certain kinds of pain and other symptoms that don't respond well to conventional drugs, and does it more safely than other drugs.
"For the FDA to ignore all that evidence is embarrassing," Mirken said. "They should be red-faced."
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=4800791
I think you need to subscribe to the New York Times article.