Bush’s war on science continues — this time on marijuana research

April 21, 2006

This story from the New York Times is a terrific case study on why the [tag]Bush administration[/tag]’s approach to [tag]science[/tag] and academic [tag]research[/tag] is so painful. As the article explains, a panel of “highly regarded scientists” conducted thorough research on using [tag]marijuana[/tag] in some [tag]medical[/tag] [tag]treatment[/tag]s and found that the drug can benefit certain patients. Yesterday, Bush’s FDA ignored those results and said that “no sound scientific studies” supported the medical use of marijuana

The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be “moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.”

Dr. John Benson, co-chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that examined the research into marijuana’s effects, said in an interview that the statement on Thursday and the combined review by other agencies were wrong.

The federal government “loves to ignore our report,” said Dr. Benson, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. “They would rather it never happened.”

Some scientists and legislators said the agency’s statement about marijuana demonstrated that politics had trumped science. “Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the F.D.A. making pronouncements that seem to be driven more by ideology than by science,” said Dr. Jerry Avorn, a medical professor at Harvard Medical School.

Bush administration officials? Manipulating science for [tag]political[/tag] purposes? You don’t say.

The NYT article also noted that the [tag]FDA[/tag] insisted that marijuana treatments were subjected to “rigorous scientific scrutiny,” but scientists who specialize in this research have found that the FDA has discouraged studies, blocked funding, approved poor-quality marijuana for FDA-backed research, and rejected legitimate applications to pursue the science in earnest.

A professor in the division of plant and soil sciences at the University of Massachusetts explained, “The reason there’s no good evidence is that they don’t want an honest trial.”

This administration’s attitude to things like this reminds me of playing peek-a-boo. Cover your eyes and something isn’t there because it can’t be seen. The fact that the something is there is beside the point.

  • Unfortunately, marijuana has been something of a ubiquitous pariah among the politicians since the 1930s. Didn’t anyone see Reefer Madness (aka “Tell Your Children”)? Just one puff makes you into a sex-crazed, jazz-loving, and homicidal maniac.

    I can’t say that the Bush years have been unique with respect to the Wacky Weed. But the underlying principle of government opposition to marijuana resembles the Bush administrations refusal to sanction stem cell research. Perhaps the solving of one issue is the key to solving the other?

  • remember Ron Suskind’s NYT piece back in late 04? they make their own reality–unfortunately, we have to deal w/their moronic decisions.

  • Not a pot user, but I feel that science should actually study the benefits of the drug.

    To be blunt this isn’t about morality or the war on drugs. It is Big Pharma’s war on anything that is a threat to their oligarchy. If pot is a useful drug then it opens the for legalization just a little bit more.

    Afterall we know that man made drugs are so superior to ones found in nature. It’s not like OCT is addictive and has killer side effects /sarcasm…

    I guess I should be thankful that we Cannuckistanis don’t let dogma get in the way of science research (unless it’s about harp seals.)

    I used to be a hardliner against drugs. After reading a bit on the history of it, I’ve, er, mellowed and feel the Netherlands approach is smarter way: legalize and regulate the soft stuff.

  • This story shows that the Bush Administration doesn’t understand the complexity of science. For example, too much lead in drinking water is bad for humans, but when I get a dental x-ray, the technician put a heavy lead sheet over my body to lessen the x-ray’s potential to cause cancer in my body. The same goes for the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, it causes botulism, “a rare but serious paralytic illness,” by producing a nerve toxin; this same toxin is used in the anti-wrinkle treatment know as “Botox.” Sure, marijuana can be bad for you and your brain, but if cancer treatment give you nausea and your calorie intake goes down, you will weaken and die; an early death is worst than the effects of marijuana on your brain.

  • Let’s not forget this tidbit buried in the article: Tom Riley, a spokesman for Mr. Walters, hailed the food and drug agency’s statement, saying it would put to rest what he called “the bizarre public discussion” that has led to some legalization of medical marijuana.

    As a toker for over 25 years, this sort of stuff infuriates me. I am not a proponent of criminalizing any drug use. Let’s be clear, though, that I do not advocate drug use by children or adolescents. However, just as several other drugs are legal, i.e., nicotene and alcohol, I really don’t see all the brouha over pot. In fact, I find aclohol more insidious and addictive than pot, and much more dangerous. When was the last time you read about someone killed by a pot smoker at the wheel? More likely, it was a drunk driver, impaired by the physical effects of alcohol.

    But to call the discussion of the legality of pot bizarre? That’s a new low.

  • The bright side to this is that there is a push to actually do (and publish) research that may or may not show benefits of cannabis.

    I knew a researcher 15-20 years ago, and she made me aware of the politics of research. She gave me an example of a foundation sending a fellow researcher to Jamaca to study marijuana use among new mothers and their chldren. When the data came in (showing a possible positive effect), the foundation pulled the grant, brought the researcher home & buried any data collected.

    If the research does not please a funding source with an agenda, that study never sees the light of day.

  • I can state unequivocally that marijuana is effective for more than just “chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting” – it also works pretty well on politcally induced nausea and vomiting. Can’t imagine surviving the past five years without it! : )

    To echo ET, I have an image in my mind of WH meetings in which scientific data that contradicts policy is presented. Dr. Scientist stands at head of table presenting his/her voluminous research findings while a bunch of empty BushCo suits sit in their chairs with their fingers in their ears singing, “lalalalala” at the top of their lungs. And then a few days later Bush asks Dr. Scientist to appear with him at a photo op at some school so Chimpy can tell the students how “cool” science is.

    If only the above were a bad “B” movie synopsis and NOT the actual state of affairs in BushWorld.

  • We might be talking past each other a bit in how we use key words. When I was a scientific administrator with the CDC in health communication research for both the Clinton and Bush administrations, it was always important to me that health messages were accurate, clear, and as simple as possible to avoid confusion.

    There is good science to indicate that several elements in marijuana have beneficial effects for some medical problems, but that it is not necessary to smoke marijuana in weed form to get those elements. It may be possible to create a delivery mechanism (a pill, perhaps) that would supply all the benefits (relief from pain or nausea) without being used in the illegal form (dried weed).

    When people talk about “medical marijuana” it is important to understand what they mean by the term. Scientists typically think about it as the chemicals in the drug and how the body processes them while most citizens think about someone smoking weed for relief. I don’t believe that the IOM report holds that the benefits of “medical marijuana” can only come from smoking it.

    Thus, while everyone appears to be using the same word, “marijuana,” they clearly are talking about very different things (smoking weed versus potentially taking a pill).

    Hope this gives more light than heat on this controversial issue.

  • This dunderheaded ruling is part and parcel of the administration’s declared war on marijuana consumers. They’re not just ignoring the 1999 study. Nixon ordered The Schaffer Commission to undertake one and then ignored its results. Furthermore the most comprehensive, Marijuana: Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission 1893-1894, came to the same conclusions over a century ago. Marijuana use, even recreational, is not harmful and in fact can be beneficial. And that’s just the major research. Study after study has been done proving the worth of this plant. Check out Drug War Facts and Lindesmith Library collection.
    Meanwhile this administration actively seeks to prevent any meaningful modern day research. There’s simply no excuse for instance, for the DEA to have blocked the UMASS program except to protect their own interests. They’re making a ton of money on the prohibition and it’s easy work. It’s disgustingly crass and unconsciousable.

  • “I don’t believe that the IOM report holds that the benefits of “medical marijuana” can only come from smoking it.” – Steve (one of many)

    Maybe so, but I have heard anecedotal evidence that smoking is a superior form of delivery for some patients. Not to mention that pills often render the ingredients so undigestible as to make them worthless.

    As for myself, “Don’t drink, don’t smoke”.

  • Clinton’s administration was wrongheaded about this too. Didn’t allow research into cannabis, then claimed that scientific research didn’t back the drug.

    Doesn’t excuse Bush, but it somehow seems slightly less hypocritical when he pulls the same thing.

  • Marijuana saved my life at least once and I had to smoke it. I had too much nausea to ingest it. As I age, I can’t imagine the loss of this priceless herb in my pharmaceutical arsenal. Beyond nausea, it is useful for pain and aching bodies, and for a myriad of other symptoms, including stress relief. Simply put, many of the so called legal pharmceuticals make me, and many others like me, sick.

    I am grateful that I live in a medical marijuana state, and while it is true that the Clinton administration was aggressive in attempting to stop medical marijuana, Clinton only used the civil courts to press his case. It was George Bush and John Ashcroft that turned medical marijuana into a criminal issue.

    I am not surprised that the FDA made today’s ruling. I am saddened, but not surprised. I am sure that marijuana smokers, patients or non patients, will be marginalized for a long time. For some people marijuana is a joke, a recreational drug with the potential for abuse. For others, it is literally a matter of life or death. For medical marijuana patients it seems this is an issue that no one cares about but sick people and their caregivers. Leave it to politicians on both sides to ignore or even attack the weakest among us.

  • Of all the Bush administration transgressions, this war on science bothers me the most. Whether it’s ignoring global warming, or loosening environmental regulations, or stifling the advancement of stem cell research, this administration is single handedly setting scientific advancements back by years. I’m just so frustrated that they ignore scientific facts because those facts point towards policies that differ from their own personal ideologies.

  • http://overcode.yak.net/3

    So basically the Supreme Court just said that the DEA has the right to send me to prison for trying to control my chemotherapy nausea with marijuana, even though the drugs I was prescribed for this have worse side effects and simply don’t work. What about the fact that my overall health is undermined by the side effects of chemotherapy, and marijuana is the only drug that significantly helped? Apparently that doesn’t matter; I can go talk to Congress if I want the laws changed.

    I’m making an effort to keep my political views out of this blog. This is about my effort to recover from melanoma, not about my misgivings with the current administration in Washington, DC. But this ruling made my blood boil. Once every member of the federal government has personally experienced chemotherapy and fully understands how bad it makes you feel, then they can get on their high horse about banning medical use of locally cultivated herbs. Until then, they can talk to my hand.

    Our nation seriously needs to get its priorities straight.

  • Katie: Good luck talking to congress. When is the last time you saw those people do the right thing? I don’t know how you can keep your political views out of this blog, when politicians try to interfere with your right to decent medical treatment. I hope you never keep your views to yourself. Medical marijuana is a very important human rights issue. I hope you get angry and stay that way.. I sure am. It’s very hard to fight when you are sick, but a lot of people are, and despite the best efforts of the feds, we are making slow progress.

    • Comments are closed.