Reason Magazine - Topics > Medical Marijuana

Uncle Sam's Medical Marijuana Program

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:12:00 EDT

In a recent letter, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked Michele Leonhart, acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to explain her agency's use of "paramilitary-style enforcement raids" and threats of property forfeiture to suppress the medical use of marijuana in California. "Do you think the DEA's limited resources are best utilized conducting enforcement raids on individuals and their caregivers who are conducting themselves legally under California law?" he asked. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "agency spokeswoman Rogene Waite declined to comment on the questions Wednesday, saying only that 'the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana....The DEA, of course, would be part of the federal government.'"

If the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana, why does it send pot to patients? As the Marijuana Policy Project notes, tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the federal government's own medical marijuana program, under which four patients regularly receive joints from Uncle Sam. Theoretically, they are experimental subjects in a Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program, but the government has never bothered to publish any research based on their experiences. At its peak, the IND program for marijuana covered no more than a dozen or so patients, and in 1992 the George H.W. Bush admistration closed it to new applicants after receiving a flood of requests from AIDS patients. But the existing enrollees were grandfathered in, and those who are still alive continue to get a supply of marijuana grown by University of Mississipi scientists under contract with the U.S. government. "Most Americans would be shocked to know that the federal government supplies medical marijuana to patients while claiming that marijuana is a harmful drug with no medical value," says MPP's Rob Kampia. "If federal officials believe their own statements, they're knowingly poisoning four innocent people."

[Chronicle story via The Freedom Files]

The DEA's Disorganized Thoughts on Organized Crime

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:19:00 EDT

The Drug Enforcement Administration's top man in Colorado says the state's lax drug laws have led to an increase in organized crime:

"I think they believe it's a good market and I think the case could be made that it is a good market," said Jeffrey Sweetin, the DEA special agent in charge of Colorado.

Sweetin said it's in part because of Denver's law making marijuana legal in small amounts and a state-wide initiative to legalize medical marijuana.

It's not clear how a law that Denver police have been ignoring, and that it any case applies only to possession of small quantities for personal use, would attract drug traffickers to Colorado. The medical marijuana law, approved by voters in 2000, likewise does not allow distribution, only cultivation and possession of limited amounts by registered patients. Maybe Sweetin is suggesting that Colorado has been flooded by pot dealers because patients authorized by the state to grow and use medical marijuana nevertheless are relying on the black market. That would increase overall demand because without the law those patients would have had to...rely on the black market. Later in the article he suggests that Colorado is not the final destination for all the drugs allegedly entering the state:

"People here think they're so far from the border, they're insulated from it," he said. "They're not insulated from it."
Colorado has long been an ideal location for drug dealers.

"We're really the hub of the western interstate system." Sweetin said. "If you couple that also with we're an airline hub, a major airline hub, we're a bus hub, we're a train hub; it's really the perfect location to trans-ship from."

And the medical marijuana law, coupled with a local decriminalization measure that had no practical effect, somehow has made Colorado's location...more perfect, I guess. Is it too much to expect reporters to challenge drug warriors when they spout nonsense like this? It's not even a matter of questioning current policy—just following up with a question or two that would elucidate what they're claiming. Something sharp and to the point, like "Huh?"

Update: Going beyond "huh?," Colorado Confidential asked the DEA for evidence to support Sweetin's assertion that organized crime/drug trafficking is on the rise in Colorado:

No hard data were cited in the Channel 4 story regarding the reported increase in organized crime, and there was a good reason, according to a drug agency spokesman.
"I don't think there's any numbers I can give," said DEA media representative Mike Turner about the crime connection to legalization efforts. "It's just that the ongoing cases we're seeing I think reflect the fact that that's what's going on."

[Thanks to Mason Tvert for the tip.]

Successful Medical Necessity Defense in Texas Marijuana Case

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:44:00 EDT

This week Tim Stevens, a 53-year-old Amarillo man who smokes marijuana to relieve the cyclical vomiting syndrome associated with HIV infection, used a necessity defense to win an acquittal on a possession charge. His attorney, Jeff Blackburn, says this appears to be the first time the defense, which argues that breaking the law was necessary to prevent a harm worse than the one the law is aimed at preventing, has been successful in a Texas marijuana case.

Stevens, whose vomiting has been so severe that he was hospitalized and received blood transfusions, was arrested last October after an anonymous tipster saw him sharing a joint on a friend's porch in Amarillo and called the police. He had about a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana, resulting in a Class B misdemeanor charge that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He probably could have gotten off with a fine or a year's probation, Blackburn says, "but he didn't want to; he wanted to take a stand." The trial lasted about 10 hours on Tuesday, and the jury came back after 11 minutes with a "not guilty" verdict.

Blackburn says the expert testimony of Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau in New Mexico's Department of Health, helped establish that marijuana is demonstrably effective at treating nausea and superior in some ways to the legal alternatives. (For one thing, unlike the synthetic THC capsule Marinol, it does not have to be swallowed and kept down, a feat for someone suffering from severe nausea.) Blackburn, who was not at all confident about the prospects for Stevens' unusual defense in a "very, very conservative area," also credits "a streak of independence" and a "distaste for government" that he says is common in West Texas. "I think these jurors like the idea that they get to make a decision about what the law means, about when it applies," he says, "and I don't think they were shy at all about deciding how valuable the law proscribing marijuana use really is."

Barney Frank: Feds Should Decriminalize Marijuana

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:21:00 EDT

Fast forward to about the 6 minute mark.

If we're left with choosing between the authoritarian socialism of today's GOP or the socialism-with-individual-liberty of Barney Frank, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat. We could do worse to have more like him in Congress.

Also, Bill Maher needs to read the newspaper.

More Frank eloquence on the subject of individual freedom here...

Update on the Ricks Forfieture Case

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:34:00 EDT

Bob Ewing of the Institute for Justice has an op-ed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer today on the outrageous case of Luther and Meredith Ricks, a Lima, Ohio couple who lost $400,000 in life savings to civil asset forfeiture.

(Disclosure: After reading about the Ricks case on my personal site and at reason, a friend of mine persuaded his law firm to represent the Ricks pro-bono.)

Internists Endorse Access to Medical Marijuana

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:48:00 EST

In a new position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) "urges review of marijuana's status as a schedule I controlled substance and its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions." It also "strongly urges protection from criminal or civil penalties for patients who use medical marijuana as permitted under state laws." The ACP, which represents 124,000 internal medicine specialists and publishes Annals of Internal Medicine, is the second largest physician group in the country. (The American Medical Association claims about 244,000 members, of which some 135,000 are practicing physicians, according to MedPage Today.) The Marijuana Policy Project calls the ACP's position "the most significant organizational endorsement of medical marijuana access in the field of medicine and science."

I discussed such endorsements in November, when the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association unanimously urged the federal government to stop interfering with the medical use of marijuana in states where it's legal.

Drew Carey: The Tavis Smiley Interview

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:00:00 EST

On Monday, January 28, reason.tv host Drew Carey sat down with PBS's Tavis Smiley for a wide-ranging conversation about videojournalism, The Price Is Right, medical marijuana, Barack Obama, and much, much more.

Click on the image below to watch. And below that, read the transcript.

Discuss this story at reason's Hit & Run blog.

Tavis: (Laughter) I'm pleased to - I'm pleased to welcome Drew Carey back to this program. I'm laughing already. The popular and talented comedian and actor can now add game show host to his resume. Last fall he took over for Bob Barker on the long-running show "The Price is Right." He's also the host of the prime time CBS game show "The Power of 10."

And if all that were not enough, since I last saw Drew he's decided to get married. Drew, nice to see you.

Drew Carey: Nice to see you, man, thanks for (unintelligible).

Tavis: You all right, man?

Carey: I'm great, yeah.

Tavis: Congratulations on all this stuff.

Carey: Thank you.

Tavis: Are you at all political? Do you -

Carey: Very, but I don't - well, I do these things for Reason.tv, which is how I got "Power of 10." Because I was doing these - I was kind of retired and I had -
"Reason" magazine has a website and I thought hey, you guys should do video because everything was really wonky and a lot of numbers and big words and stuff. We should just do video.

So the first one we did was about medical marijuana. And the DEA has marijuana listed in the same category as heroin, and they raid these marijuana clinics because of it. I know; it's insane.

Tavis: Wow, that's weird.

Carey: I know, everybody has the same expression on their face when I tell them. They went what? Yeah, it's the highest level you can put it under. And so I'm political that way, but as far as any candidate or another, none of them are speaking out about hey, we've got to do something about these marijuana clinics. They're all good, everybody has good ideas and they're all nice, so.

Tavis: What do you make of the idea, though, that these everyday people who you see every day on "The Price is Right" seem to be charged by this contest, left or right, Republican or Democrat. A lot of energy around this campaign.

Carey: Great, yeah, because it really is. There's a change going on in the world right now and everybody can feel it. Can I tell you a great story?

Tavis: Sure, you can always tell a great story.

Carey: An actress I know was in a movie with a 13-year-old actress. And the 13-year-old sat down at the makeup table and went, just had a realization. She said, "What's that?" This friend of mine's in her thirties. "What's that?" She goes, "I realize that I like to take care of my friends and I like to do things for people, but I have to take care of myself first. And if I don't take care of myself, I can't take care of anybody else."

Tavis: And she's 13.

Carey: Yeah. And my friend said, "You just realized - you're 13 and you realized that? I just realized that last year." (Laughter) About 10 years of therapy brought me around to that. So, like, people today are changing. There's a change going on in the way we're treating people and the way we're treating the world.

In my own life, the last couple year has been a really big change. I've gone through a lot of changes and it's reflected in what people are looking for in a candidate. And I think Obama, without - he's such a great speaker. When he's talking about change and hope, forget policies. Because policies, like, they can get all dropped the minute somebody gets into the office, because you've got to deal with Congress and there's other people you've got to fight with.

But the fact that he always keeps it positive, you know what I mean? And never really bashes anybody, doesn't go into numbers land, which I hate in a speech.

Tavis: I love Obama. I've known him for years. The flip side of that argument, though, which he's now starting to get hit with, is that he's been too vague. That hope and a brighter tomorrow can only take you so far.

Carey: I'd love to see a few - I know it's not that kind of show, but I would love you to bring out a chart of everybody's specifics when they run for office compared to what they do. When you're campaigning, and in my first 100 days I'm going to do this and that, and remember Democrats' first 100 days, when Nancy Pelosi went - that stuff goes out the window once you're in office.

Tavis: No, it is that kind of show, and we're going to be talking about that. As a matter of fact, I've got a couple of books I'm working on; one of my next books is called "Accountability," and I'm doing just that. I'm laying out whoever the two finalists are, I've been tracking everybody.

Carey: Good for you.

Tavis: So the book will come out in February of '09, right after they take office, whoever it is, in January of '09. And the whole point of the book is here's what this candidate said when they were running. And now let's see if as a country we can hold them accountable to what they said. Nobody ever does that.

Carey: Right, and everybody - I've seen people that I think their hearts are in the right place when they're - you do have to make compromises when you're in a political office, because it's just one of those kind of things. I don't put hope in the government and I don't put faith in the government. I think that the most important thing, if you want to make a better world, it's not who you vote for it's how you treat people that you meet with every day.

It's every encounter you have on the street. Every time you meet somebody and encounter somebody, whether it's the guy at the gas station, if it's your family, it's how you treat them and how you interact with them. That's what makes the better world. And the government, I don't know, that's, like, if you're depending on the government for your happiness, well, good luck to you. (Laughter) God help you.

Tavis: God help us all. (Laughter) That's a perfect segue to "The Price is Right," because you're meeting everyday people.

Carey: I love it.

Tavis: Are you loving this already?

Carey: I love "Price is Right." That's the best part about it. The best part about "Price is Right," every other game show, like night time game shows, even "Power of 10," the only thing that kind of - everybody's cast on that show. People send in a tape, there's a casting director, there's a whole big process. "Price is Right," you just show up.

You just show up, and they talk to people on line and if you're halfway awake, if you're lively when you're in line, they put you on the show. And that's all you have to do. When people get in line - oh, there's me on the show.

Tavis: There you are, yeah, yeah. (Laughter) There's you on your show.

Carey: When I talk to people on "Price is Right," I go "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a barber," "I'm a service worker," "I work for a phone company." All regular jobs. Nobody's a lawyer, nobody's a CEO. And they're all just regular jobs.

Tavis: Do you find - I've been dying to ask you this - do you find that it's a perfect platform for Drew Carey's funny to come out, or do you find yourself pulling back on your funny on "The Price is Right?"

Carey: You know what it's perfect for? It's a perfect opportunity for Drew Carey's love to come out. Like, that's the key to the whole show.

Tavis: I like that.

Carey: That's the most - you can't believe how love-infested that - it sounds crazy coming from me, because I'm a comic. But it really is like a spiritual - I used to be a Pentecostal when I was in junior high.

Tavis: We discussed that, I grew up the same way, Pentecostal.

Carey: And I've never seen anything - that's the only kind of energy I've felt.

Tavis: Like a Pentecostal church, yeah.

Carey: Yeah, or a Baptist (unintelligible) fundamentalist church, if anybody knows anything about them, like, people are happy.

Tavis: So if I come down and watch you tape one day a week, I ain't got to go to church on Sunday?

Carey: You don't have to go to church anyway, you can pray - you're supposed to pray in private. (Laughter)

Tavis: I'm not going to church Sunday. Bishop, you ain't going to see me Sunday, I'm going to "The Price is Right" on Friday.

Carey: They got Jesus, he was praying in private. (Laughter) That's all I got to say. Read it yourself. It's amazing -

Tavis: Point well taken.

Carey: - I never forget any of that stuff.

Tavis: You haven't changed much on the show. You're still using the same microphone.

Carey: It's cordless now.

Tavis: The same games. Well it is cordless now, yeah.

Carey: Yeah, Bob didn't trust the cordless. So I got -

Tavis: (Laughs) That's the only change you've made, is the cordless microphone.

Carey: Yeah, and the skinny mic, everybody I thought, wow, why are we using the skinny mic? But then - because you're always poking at somebody's face, and when somebody's not used to being on TV, you get that big microphone in your face, it tightens you up. So this one I could just, like, throw over there and you hardly notice it because it's, like, the smallest mic we could find.

Tavis: I never thought about that, it makes perfect sense, though. You don't intimidate the guests.

Carey: Yeah, and I can hold it low instead of - I don't have to bring it right up to their face. And then this year is the first year "The Price is Right" theme song is in stereo. (Laughter) Can you believe it? Can you believe it? They edit the show in analogue. It's not even digital. Kids at home with an iMac are more technologically advanced -

Tavis: Than "The Price is Right."

Carey: - than "The Price is Right," yeah, right now. (Laughter) And honestly, I don't even know if it frustrates them. Like, that's how they did it when they got the job, that's how they're always going to do it. That's one of the things that's nice about the show. It's like going to Grandma's house. (Laughter) Still got a dial phone, like okay, whatever.

Tavis: Have you figured out which of the games - I have my favorite, but have you figured out which one of the games is your favorite yet?

Carey: I like spinning the wheel.

Tavis: You like spinning the wheel? You know what I like? I like that thing when you drop the thing down there.

Carey: Plinko.

Tavis: Plinko, I love that thing, man.

Carey: Plinko's great. It's based on a Japanese game called pachinko. It's like a Japanese slot machine, and you put in the money and it goes -

Tavis: I love that thing.

Carey: It's everybody's favorite. People wear plinko shirts. I've already a couple of times - so many people wear "I want to play plinko" shirts that have actually - they've got to play plinko. So they have their plinko shirt and I go "Hey, guess what you're doing right now?" "I don't know." "You get to play plinko." And then they just go bananas. (Laughter) They just lose everything and fall down.

Honestly, people do their "I found Jesus" dance when they get - they're so happy they go right into the happiest thing they could find. And everybody at the - I tell this to audiences all the time - find this in another Hollywood place, another TV audience. They're rooting for strangers to do well. They're, like, screaming for them to win the money, helping them out and screaming for, and that's almost like, I found, like, the secret to life right there is, like, wanting strangers to do well.

Tavis: To do well.

Carey: Yeah. And they don't even know them; they've got nothing to do with them, (unintelligible).

Tavis: Well if you're in the audience or if you're at home, like I am, watching, you're living and celebrating vicariously through the person on stage. I like that.

Carey: Glad you bring that up. This is a really smart show; that's why I like coming to this show, and a lot of smart people watch this show. It's really like Carl Jung. It's like all that Joseph Campbell myth stuff. It's the strangers plucked from obscurity and they have to go through trials to get to their reward, and it's any old average person, and that's why everybody watching zones on somebody they relate to for some reason. He reminds me of a buddy of mine, he reminds me of me, whatever it is. And that's who you root for all the way through to the showcase.

Tavis: So why doesn't this work with Hillary and Barack?

Carey: Well, they're a lawyer (laughter) (unintelligible) lawyer.

Tavis: Yeah, they're not rooting for each other.

Carey: Oh, well, they (unintelligible), but that's the thing. When you have - I'm having a real trouble with this now in my stand-up act because I have to do - I'm doing Vegas next weekend. I'm only doing 15 minutes, but so much of my act is, like, attack-oriented, like this guy's an idiot, and this guy's stupid, and she's - and it's from before.

And I don't think like that. I'm getting so far away from that now. But when you're in politics, it's like everybody's telling you you've got to attack that other person, get that other person. It's not a loving; it's not a place of love. It's coming from a place of fear all the time.

Tavis: I totally agree with that. You're telling me - I think I just heard you say that "The Price is Right" is actually forcing you to change your stand-up, even.

Carey: Yeah. It's not just "The Price is Right," it's all this - it happened before "The Price is Right," but "Price is Right" really sealed that. You could see it in action there. It's one thing to have a theory, and then you see it in action and everybody walks out so much happier. And I tell them, I go, "My proof of what I'm saying, that if you want the best for others and treat others with love that it blesses your life, my proof is how good you feel right now and how happy you are when you walk out of the (unintelligible).

Tavis: But is it really the love or the new car?

Carey: It's the love. (Laughter) People in the audience are feeling good. They didn't win a new car. And you don't get the car till the show airs. (Laughter)

Tavis: And the show, like, never airs, right?

Carey: Yeah, we'll just (unintelligible). (Laughter)

Tavis: Before I let you go right quick, so "The Power of 10," how's that?

Carey: They're pulling to off (unintelligible).

Tavis: They're pulling it for the moment but they said they're going to bring it back in the summer, though.

Carey: I think so, yeah, I hope so. That's another really smart show. We ask a lot of tough questions on that show, and get real answers from people.

Tavis: You are Mr. Game Show Guy, man.

Carey: Yeah, I don't mind it. I like giving away other people's money. (Laughter)

Tavis: I've got to come see you.

Carey: Yeah, you do.

Tavis: Drew, I'm proud of you, man.

Carey: Oh, I'm really (unintelligible).

Tavis: Good to see you. I always enjoy our conversation. And congrats on the engagement.

Carey: Thank you, I love being on your show, it's a great show.

Tavis: You come back any time, man.

Carey: Thanks, man.

Tavis: And I'll come on yours if I can play plinko. (Laughter)

Carey: If you just want to come visit -

Tavis: I just want to come - I don't even want to go on air. I want to just come and just play plinko.

Carey: That can be arranged.

Tavis: Could we work that out?

Carey: Absolutely. If you want to bring your family, if you have, like, family visiting and they want to come see the show, we'll let you play plinko backstage.

Tavis: You should not have said that.

Carey: (Unintelligible.)

Tavis: I've got nine brothers and sisters who are all trying to get tickets to L.A. right now.

Carey: No problem.

Tavis: Drew Carey, I love him. "The Price is Right," of course, weekdays on CBS.

The Dose Makes the Poison, Even for Marijuana Smoke

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:15:00 EST

In a recent study published by the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, Health Canada researchers found higher levels of certain toxins in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. The researchers used a smoking machine to compare cigarettes made from Players brand fine-cut tobacco with cigarettes made from cannabis produced by Prairie Plant Systems of Saskatoon, which grows medical marijuana under contract with Health Canada. The marijuana smoke had 20 times as much ammonia and five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, possibly due to higher levels of nitrate fertilizer traces in the marijuana. Then again, only the tobacco smoke contained the potent carcinogens known as tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and it had "moderately higher levels" of potentially hazardous compounds such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Guess which comparison was emphasized in the press coverage.

"Cannabis smoke 'has more toxins,'" BBC News reported, warning that ammonia is "linked to cancer," while hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides "are linked to heart and lung damage respectively." The Guardian agreed: "Cannabis smoke more toxic than puffing tobacco." Even EarthTimes ("Cannabis smoke more harmful than tobacco smoke") and New Scientist ("Inhaled cannabis is more toxic than tobacco smoke") went along with this gloss. But it's not what the researchers reported (emphasis added):

The combustion of any plant material will result in a complex mixture of chemicals, the composition and percentages of which depend on a large number of variables. The present study supports previous research and found that marijuana smoke contains qualitatively many of the same chemicals as tobacco smoke. This qualitative similarity is more important when assessing the risks for adverse outcomes than are the differences in level of a particular substance, which can change from sample to sample or from one smoking condition to another.

Even more important in assessing the health risks of pot smoking is a point that BBC News halfway acknowledged: While a joint a day would count as fairly heavy consumption for a pot smoker (since most pot smokers light up occasionally), the current mean for cigarette smokers is about 14 cigarettes a day (down from about 20 in 1993). This huge difference in dose is presumably the main reason pot smoking has not been linked to cancer, heart disease, or emphysema in epidemiological studies, despite the similarity between marijuana and tobacco smoke. Those still concerned about possible respiratory effects, of course, can avoid combustion products by using vaporizers (as do many patients who use marijuana as a medicine).

Addendum: A commenter asked about the efficacy of water pipes in reducing the hazards of pot smoking. They do not work nearly as well as vaporizers, partly because they filter out THC, encouraging people to smoke more for the same effect. Here is a report on research comparing water pipes to vaporizers, which says, "We learned early on that waterpipes don't help filter out undesirable particulate matter, although waterpipes may help reduce certain water-soluble gases."

The DEA Steals From California's Teasury

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:43:00 EST

California NORML has a new angle on the DEA's medical marijuana raids, noting that they are costing the state "tens of millions in tax revenues":

Although the DEA has tried to portray dispensaries as illegal drug dealers, records show they have operated as legal businesses, paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees. Several dispensaries closed by the DEA had licenses to operate from local governments, including facilities in Alameda County, Morro Bay, and Kern County.

California NORML cites several cases in which sales tax payments by dispensaries were disrupted by DEA raids. (It also notes that the federal government has grossly exaggerated the income earned by the dispensaries, failing to take into account not only taxes but the cost of rent, payroll, and inventory.) "At this time of budget deficits," says California NORML Director Dale Gieringer, "we can ill afford the DEA's war on medical marijuana. Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."

If Sativex Works, So Does Pot

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:23:00 EST

A new study reported in the journal Pain finds that Sativex, an orally administered cannabis extract spray, is effective at treating neuropathic pain in patients for whom standard painkillers do not provide adequate relief. During the five-week study, 125 subjects with peripheral neuropathic pain continued to take previously prescribed analgesics and achieved additional relief from Sativex, averaging a reduction of about 1.5 points on a 10-point self-reported pain scale, compared to half a point for the placebo spray. The research is part of GW Pharmaceuticals' efforts to gain wider regulatory approval for Sativex, which is approved for treatment of multiple sclerosis in Europe and for treatment of both cancer pain and M.S.-related neuropathic pain in Canada.

Every study that demonstrates Sativex's medical utility also demonstrates marijuana's medical utility, belying the U.S. government's claim that it has none. At the same time, if the FDA does eventually approve Sativex for prescription use in the U.S., it will undermine the case for medical marijuana. Like smoked (or vaporized) marijuana but unlike the FDA-approved THC capsules sold under the brand name Marinol, Sativex can be taken easily by people suffering from severe nausea, and its effects are felt quickly, so patients can readily adjust their doses for optimal effect. Smoked/vaporized marijuana may be somewhat faster-acting than Sativex, which is absorbed through the mucus membranes in the mouth, and it would presumably be cheaper as well, although not for patients who have prescription drug coverage. And while Sativex contains both THC and cannabidiol, other ingredients in marijuana may contribute to its therapeutic effect in certain applications.

Psychiatrists for Medical Marijuana

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:07:00 EST

The Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association, a legislative body composed of representatives from APA districts throughout the country, has unanimously approved an action paper that urges the federal government to stop interfering with the medical use of marijuana in states where it's legal. The paper, which won't be official until it receives approval from the APA's Board of Trustees in December, notes that 12 states allow patients to use marijuana for symptom relief with a doctor's recommendation, but there's a catch:

The threat of arrest by federal agents, however, still exists. Seriously ill patients living in these states with medical marijuana recommendations from their doctors should not be subjected to the treat of punitive federal prosecution for merely attempting to alleviate the chronic pain, side effects, or symptoms associated with their conditions or resulting from their overall treatment regimens...[We] support protection for patients and physicians participating in state approved medical marijuana programs.

Abraham L. Halpern, professor emeritus of psychiatry at New York Medical College and past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, called the vote "a landmark," adding, "As physicians, we cannot abide our patients being subject to arrest and jail for using a physician-recommended treatment that clearly relieves suffering for many who are not helped by conventional treatments." Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, says the action paper's unanimous approval "shows the growing acceptance of medical marijuana by organized medicine."

Other medical organizations that support the therapeutic use of marijuana include the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Preventive Medical Association, and various state medical societies. (Medical marijuana also has been endorsed by groups such as the American Public Health Association, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Lymphoma Foundation of America.) The American Medical Association, like the APA in earlier votes, has called for more research on the medical utility of cannabis and has said that doctors and patients should be free to discuss all "treatment alternatives" without fear of "criminal sanctions." But it has not gone as far as the new APA action paper.

If you haven't yet, check out Drew Carey's medical marijuana video at reason.tv.

Fired for Taking His Medicine

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:06:00 EST

Today the California Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a computer programmer who was fired after testing positive for marijuana even though his use of the drug, which he takes to relieve chronic back pain, is authorized by state law. Gary Ross, who has a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana, argues that his employer, Ragingwire, violated the state's fair employment law by firing him for taking his medicine. He says medical marijuana users should get the same exemption from drug-free workplace policies that is required for employees with prescriptions for narcotic painkillers. Ragingwire says marijuana is different, since it remains illegal for all uses under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

I have the same mixed feelings about this case that I do about employer drug testing generally. On the one hand, freedom of contract means companies should be allowed to hire and fire based on criteria that make sense to them, even if they seem unfair and unreasonable to me. On the other hand, it is quite clear that employers would not worry about marijuana use that does not impair job performance (or actually improves it, as is likely the case for Ross) the way they do now were it not for the irrational pharmacological distinctions drawn by the government. Since drug tests detect marijuana use within the last few days (or weeks in the case of frequent smokers), they do not indicate impairment, so in terms of safety firing someone who tests positive for pot is like firing someone because he drank a few beers over the weekend. Insisting that a computer programmer (as opposed to, say, an airline pilot or truck driver) never smoke pot, even on his own time, seems especially inane. And in this case, the role of the war on drugs is obvious, since Ragingwire's rationale for firing Ross is based on the federal government's refusal to recognize marijuana's medical utility.

The Price of Defending Medical Marijuana Seems Right

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:49:00 EDT

Reader Chucklehead sends along this widely reprinted AP story about Drew Carey, Reason.tv, and the reaction of The Price Is Right fans. Snippets:

"Smell that smell," the 49-year-old comedian says as he walks into a Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensary. "That's the smell of freedom."
The video is one of 20 Carey will host for the Reason Foundation, a nonprofit educational group whose ideas "some people call libertarian" and whose mission is to "advance freedom," said president David Nott.
Carey offered to produce brief documentaries on topics ranging from traffic congestion to immigration for the foundation's Web site, Nott said....
Though medical marijuana might be controversial, media experts and fans of "The Price Is Right" said Carey's political punditry will have little, if any, effect on the stalwart show or the comedian's career.
"Twenty years ago, this would have been career suicide," said longtime celebrity publicist Michael Levine. "But in the early part of the 21st century, a guy like Drew Carey can come out with his position, and it will not injure him."...
Since Carey is so new to "Price," he's taking a risk speaking out on such a controversial topic, said Bonnie Diczhazy, who runs a "Price Is Right" fan site. People naturally connect him with the show, said Diczhazy, a 38-year-old artist from Cleveland.
But his outspokenness could also earn him new fans.
"The younger generation could learn something," she said, adding that the medical-marijuana video "doesn't affect whether or not I watch the show at all."
"'Price Is Right' is an icon in and of itself," she said. "I don't think (Carey's videos) would stop people from watching."
Carey's mini-documentaries will appear every two weeks through the end of the year on Reason.tv, Nott said. Future topics include eminent domain, school choice and immigration.
Meanwhile, "The Price Is Right" host will continue to close daily episodes with Barker's traditional spay-and-neuter refrain.

Whole thing here.

Two reactions: I really hope The Price Is Right gets rid of the spay-and-neuter refrain and replaces it with a caution against bogarting that joint. And is there any show more inherently free-market-oriented than The Price Is Right, which teaches more about price theory and the subjective theory of value in an hour than most intro econ courses do in a semester.

Listen to Gillespie on NORML's Audio Stash, Discussing Medical Marijuana

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:35:00 EDT

The good folks over at NORML interviewed me yesterday to talk about Drew Carey, medical marijuana, and possibilities for the drug war's end.

You can listen by going to Audio Stash and clicking on the link for November 1.

Drew Carey Defends Medical Marijuana

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:00:00 EDT

"I think it's clear by now that the federal government needs to reclassify marijuana. People who need it should be able to get it - safely and easily," says The Price Is Right and Power of 10 host Drew Carey in a new Reason.tv video examining medical marijuana and the war on drugs.

One of the most outrageous consequences of the war on drugs is the federal crackdown on medical marijuana, which is used by patients to help treat the effects of cancer, glaucoma, HIV-AIDS, chronic pain and nausea, and other severe symptoms associated with serious illnesses. Medical marijuana prescribed by a physician is legal in 12 states, yet the federal agents are raiding state-approved dispensaries and preventing patients from having safe access to this drug.

In Episode 2 of Reason.tv's Drew Carey Project, Drew takes a look at patients who need and use medical marijuana in California, and how the federal government is making their lives even worse.

Episode 1 of Reason.tv's Drew Carey Project, Gridlock, is here.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Drew Carey Defends Medical Marijuana

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 05:49:00 EDT

Click on the image to see the full video.

"I think it's clear by now that the federal government needs to reclassify marijuana. People who need it should be able to get it - safely and easily," says The Price Is Right and Power of 10 host Drew Carey in a new reason.tv video examining medical marijuana and the war on drugs.

In Episode 2 of reason.tv's Drew Carey Project, Drew takes a look at patients who need and use medical marijuana in California, and how the federal government is making their lives even worse.

reason on medical marijuana here.

Protected to Death

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:58:00 EDT

Last March, when the Drug Enforcement Administration seized less than half an ounce of cannabis that Robin Prosser, a Missoula lupus patient and medical marijuana activist, had been sent by her caregiver, the special agent in charge of the DEA's Rocky Mountain Field Division said it was "protecting people from their own state laws." Last week, unable to find a reliable supply of the only drug that relieved her pain without causing unacceptable side effects, Prosser killed herself. Although the use of medical marijuana is legal in Montana, friends say suppliers were spooked by the DEA. Writing in the Helena Independent Record, activist Tom Daubert calls Prosser's death "a direct result of DEA actions."

About a month ago I debated drug policy on the Dallas PBS station with a former head of the local DEA office, who insisted that marijuana was not a big priority for the agency. When I pointed out that his former employer was continuing to raid medical marijuana growers and dispensaries in California and other states, he said it couldn't very well sit back and allow that sort of thing. To which my response was: Why not? It is hard to understand, even from the DEA's point of view, how half an ounce of pot can be such a threat that it's worth risking an outcome like this one.

The Truth About Medical Marijuana

schapman@tribune.com (Steve Chapman) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:31:00 EDT

Through all his years in politics, despite the endless obligation to shake hands, smile for the cameras and coax money out of contributors, John McCain has somehow avoided becoming a complete phony—something that John Edwards and Mitt Romney managed to achieve within a week of entering politics. Annoy McCain, and you won't have to wait long to find out.

Even a sickly, soft-spoken woman in a wheelchair gets no pass from him. The other day, at a meeting with voters in New Hampshire, Linda Macia mentioned her use of medical marijuana and politely asked his position on permitting it. Barely were the words out of her mouth before the Arizona senator spun on his heel, stalked away and heaped scorn on the idea.

"You may be one of the unique cases in America that only medical marijuana can relieve pain from," he said, in a skeptical tone. "Every medical expert I know of, including the AMA, says there are much more effective and much more, uh, better treatments for pain." He also ridiculed the notion that police would arrest patients for using marijuana as medicine.

It's refreshing that McCain is willing to state his position with such unvarnished candor. It would be even better if he knew what he was talking about.

Apparently he missed the news that federal agents recently raided the home of Leonard French, a paraplegic who had been authorized under New Mexico law to use cannabis for his condition. He now faces possible federal charges, not to mention that he was deprived of the medicine recommended by his doctor.

As for medical experts, McCain could easily find plenty who testify to the therapeutic value of pot. The American Academy of HIV Medicine says that "when appropriately prescribed and monitored, marijuana/cannabis can provide immeasurable benefits for the health and well-being of our patients."

The New England Journal of Medicine has called the federal ban on medical marijuana "misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane." A 1999 report by the federal Institute of Medicine concluded, "Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."

It's true that actual arrests of patients are rare. But that's often little consolation. Consider the case of Angel Raich, a California cancer victim whose marijuana was confiscated in a federal drug raid.

When she challenged the federal law, an appeals court ruled against her. But the court also had to acknowledge, "Raich's physician presented uncontroverted evidence that Raich 'cannot be without cannabis as medicine' because she would quickly suffer 'precipitous medical deterioration' and 'could very well die.' " Said the court, "All medical evidence in the record suggests that, if Raich were to stop using marijuana, the acute chronic pain and wasting disorders would immediately resume."

But none of that mattered. In the end, the government and the courts gave Raich a choice: obey federal law, or risk jail by using the only treatment that helped her.

Bush administration officials often insist there are no definitive studies proving the curative powers of marijuana. What they omit is that the federal government has done everything in its power to prevent such research.

That effort has not entirely succeeded, though. Recently, the journal Neurology published the results of one clinical trial of HIV patients. It showed that pot "effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy," with no adverse side effects.

The mystery is not why anyone believes cannabis can be safe and effective therapy. The mystery is why so many politicians, particularly Republican presidential candidates—Ron Paul, a physician, being the heroic exception—are unwilling to consider the possibility, or to leave the matter up to the states. It's not even clear their hardline stance is smart politics in their own party.

Wherever you look, public opinion supports medical marijuana. In Texas, a 2004 Scripps-Howard poll found that 75 percent of the people favor allowing it—including 67 percent of Republicans. Such red states as Alaska, Colorado, Montana and Nevada are among the 12 that have legalized medical marijuana.

This is not a dispute between Republican voters and Democratic voters. It's a dispute between Republican politicians and everyone else.

What McCain ought to say is that he would rather ignore medical opinion, and inflict needless pain on people whose doctors say they could be helped by marijuana, than admit the federal ban is a mistake. Now that would be real candor.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

McCain on Burma, Medical Marijuana

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:45:00 EDT

In a Boston Globe round-up on politics, that paper notes that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is not going to run for president (thereby depriving the race of a onetime beach-volleyball-loving advocate of the death penalty for drug dealers) and that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is going into overdrive touting his opposition to Iraq.

And that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is both pushing to take his No Surrender tour to Burma and that medical marijuana advocates are all wet:

In a 90-minute town hall meeting in Derry, N.H., McCain also challenged a woman in a wheelchair who said she needed medical marijuana to withstand the pain of her ailments.
"Every town hall meeting I have, someone shows up and advocates for medical marijuana, and, by the way, in all due respect, alleges that we are arresting the dead and the dying, and I still have not seen any evidence of that," McCain told his questioner.

More here.

McCain should get out more often. And while he's at it, he might bother explaining why his stance on medical marijuana has changed so rapidly. Earlier this year, he was all for letting the states decide. Now he's not.

The Limits of Frederalism

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:27:00 EDT

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently said that, if elected president, he would end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients and their health care providers.

That makes the Democratic field unanimous now — all would end the raids and allow the states to craft their own medical marijuana policy, free from federal interference. By contrast, just two of the remaining GOP candidates — Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) — and none of the front-runners have promised to call off the raids.

This is unfortunate for a party that once fancied itself the torch-bearer for federalism — the idea that most laws should be made on as local a level as possible, both to encourage state “laboratories of democracy” to experiment with different policies and to allow people to utilize the freedom of movement to choose to live in those jurisdictions with laws that best reflect their own values.

If ever there were an issue for which federalism would seem to be an ideal solution, it’s the medical marijuana issue, which touches on crime, medical policy, privacy and individual freedom — all the sorts of values-laden areas of public policy that states are best equipped to deal with on a case-by-case basis, and for which a one-size-fits-all federal policy seems particularly clunky and ill-suited.

Yet the GOP won’t let go. The White House continues to send federal SWAT teams into convalescent centers, dispensaries and treatment centers, often putting sick people on the receiving end of paramilitary tactics, gun barrels and terrifying raids.

It’s difficult to understand how the same party that (correctly, in my view) argues that the federal government has no business telling the states how they should regulate their businesses, set their speed limits, keep their air and water free of pollution or regulate the sale of firearms within their borders can at the same time feel that the federal government can and should tell states that they aren’t allowed to let sick people obtain relief wherever they might find it.

Medical marijuana is probably a nonstarter politically.

Though polls show most Americans support medical marijuana, few decide their votes on the issue, save for a cadre of drug reform activists and the people who actually need the stuff to treat their symptoms.

But the issue ought to be of wider concern to principled federalists, because it was the GOP’s stubborn support for near-limitless federal power to fight the drug war that killed the nascent federalism revolution before it ever grew wings.

That short-lived revolution began in 1995, when the William Rehnquist-led Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate the sale of guns near schools, then again in 2000 with U.S. v. Morrison, which struck down the 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act.

Those two cases ended 60 years of Supreme Court deference to Capitol Hill on the issue of whether the Constitution actually permitted the Congress to enact the laws it was passing. Some legal scholars thought it possible that the court might look for an opportunity to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, the notorious 1942 ruling which said that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate the wheat a man grows on his own land for his own use.

That opportunity came in Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Bush administration argued that the commerce clause allows the federal government to prohibit marijuana grown in one’s own home for one’s own use, even for medical treatment, even in states that had legalized the drug for that purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to prohibit marijuana, even under these limited circumstances.

The court’s left wing was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia — who had formed the federalist majority in Lopez and Morrison — to uphold the federal supremacy of the Controlled Substances Act when it conflicts with state law. Justice John Paul Stevens’ majority opinion cited Filburn as the controlling case law. The court’s principled federalists — Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O’Connor and Rehnquist — wrote in dissent.

The Washington Post explained in an editorial a few weeks later how Raich was about much more than medical marijuana. It was about the proper scope and the defining limits of the federal government. The editorial was one of support for a recent federal ruling upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to halt a construction project due to an endangered cave-dwelling bug native only to Texas that was found on the planned construction site.

Had Raich gone the other way, the Post noted, the EPA likely wouldn’t have been able to prevent a hospital from being built in order to save the insect. The Post thought this was a glorious benefit from the Raich decision.

I suspect most Republicans feel otherwise.

Raich represented the last chance to rein in a Congress that sees no constitutional limits whatsoever on the reach and breadth of its power. It was GOP devotion to the drug war that subverted it, killing the Rehnquist federalism revolution in its infancy, narrowly limiting Lopez and Morrison and freeing the Congress to legislate wherever it pleases, with little or no constitutional constraints.

Over the past few months, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson have tried to position themselves as the standard-bearers for federalism. The Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein recently praised Giuliani’s federalist approach to contentious social issues like gun control, gay rights, health care and abortion. Thompson has written several columns touting local control over the past few months.

But Giuliani has spent most of his career advocating for more federal power to fight the federal war on drugs. He has declared that he would continue the Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana facilities, overruling state law.

Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the raids. While he’s right to note his impressive pro-federalist voting record in the Senate, he also voted for a number of bills strengthening the federal war on drugs.

And while Thompson’s campaign essays rightly decry the federalization of crime and the soaring U.S. prison population, they’re curiously silent on the war on drugs — a leading cause of both of these troubling trends. Thompson’s campaign did not respond to inquiries about his position on the DEA raids for this article.

Giuliani and Thompson claim they want to reinvigorate discussion of the virtues of federalism. Terrific. But you can’t argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference — except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you can’t be both.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. This article originally appeared in The Politico.

Medical Marijuana News

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:07:00 EDT

Today (right now, in fact) a California appeals court is hearing arguments in a case where Felix Kha, a Garden Grove patient who is legally allowed to use marijuana as a medicine, is demanding that police return eight grams of cannabis they seized from him in 2005. An Orange County judge ordered the return of Kha's medicine two years ago, but the city appealed. Kha's lawyer, Joe Elford, notes that such defiance of California's Compassionate Use Act remains common, although some law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, have seen the error of their ways.

In other medical marijuana news, Barack Obama has joined the seven other Democratic presidential candidates in promising to call off the DEA's medical marijuana raids if he's elected. In case you're keeping track, that's 100 percent of the Democrats who say they'll respect California's policy choices in this area, compared to 25 percent of the Republicans. Fred Thompson, who has not officially announced his candidacy yet, has made noises about the importance of federalism but so far as I know has not taken a stand on this issue yet.

"I'm just informing you, I'm going to punch you in the face"

bdoherty@reason.com (Brian Doherty) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:29:00 EDT

The LA Weekly with the latest dispatch from the federal DEA's grim war on LA-area pot dispensaries, against the will of local government. Excerpts:

Within the next 10 days, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is expected to sign what is officially known as the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Interim Control Ordinance.
.....[Meanwhile] On July 6, the Los Angeles branch of the DEA sent letters to nearly 150 of the landlords in Los Angeles County who rent sites to marijuana collectives, pleasantly reminding property owners that selling cannabis is a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in the federal pen, and that even peripheral involvement could trigger the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 — meaning that the property owners’ land could be confiscated by the U.S. government.

.......
The letter triggered a rash of freak-outs among targeted landlords, causing scores of them to phone the DEA office — and their personal attorneys. “I’d say about 80 percent of the people we sent letters to called us,” says DEA spokesperson Sarah Pullen. She says many believed that California state law trumps the federal statute, when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Attorney William Kroeger, who represents some collectives who rent space in L.A., says that if he represented targeted landlords, “I’d tell them, ‘You should be in court five minutes from now filing eviction papers.’ ”

For its part, the DEA claims it simply sent the letters out as a courtesy, “to inform property owners about the law.” Nobody in city government, or among the medical-marijuana activists, really bought it. “That’s like me saying, ‘I’m just informing you, I’m going to punch you in the face,’ ” says one unhappy collective owner.

......on July 25, Los Angeles City Councilman (and former LAPD officer) Dennis Zine held a press conference before the Wednesday City Council meeting, calling for DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to stop threatening property owners and to allow L.A. to proceed with regulating medical-weed distribution without federal interference.
...............

Zine and other council members were furious. “What the feds are trying to do is flex their muscles,” Zine said when told of the raids. “They want to show us who’s boss. We’re not trying to legalize marijuana,” he said. “We’re just trying to regulate it for compassionate use for those who need it.”

Some earlier blogging on the topic from Dave Weigel.

Mitt Romney: 'People Who Are Sick Need Medicinal Marijuana'

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:04:00 EDT

Unfortunately, I am quoting him completely out of context. In my column last week, I described Romney as uncommitted on the question of whether he would stop the DEA's medical marijuana raids if elected president. His answer to a general question about the war on drugs from drug policy activist Matt Simon at a recent forum in New Hampshire makes his position pretty clear:

It's been disappointing to see the trajectory of the war on drugs. Are we making progress in some areas? Yes. We spend about $750 million in Colombia alone to help them eradicate the growth of cocaine there. We're spending a substantial amount in Afghanistan to try and replace that crop. Um, we're spending a lot to try to keep drugs from growing around the world. We're not doing a terrific job in helping kids decide not to try drugs, and that's one of the frustrations I have. People talk about medicinal marijuana, and, you know, you hear that story: People who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don't want medicinal marijuana. There are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription. Don't open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.

The New Hampshire Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy has Simon's recording of Romney's meandering response here. In addition to strongly suggesting that Romney would continue to snatch marijuana from the hands of patients in states that have approved the plant's medical use, his answer reveals him to be ill-informed and utterly unimaginative when it comes to drug policy. He equates inputs with outputs: If "we're spending a lot," we must be "making progress." He accepts the Joe Fridayesque myth that teenagers typically smoke pot because they're tricked into it by "people trying to get kids hooked on drugs." After condemning medical marijuana, he goes on to endorse the canard that drug use rises under Democratic presidents and falls under Republican presidents because Democrats are degenerate dope smokers and Republicans are fine upstanding teetotalers who set a better example. He concludes that we need to "reinstitute a campaign as powerful as Just Say No was."

As I've said before, the story Republicans want to tell about why drug use has gone down and up and down since the late 1970s does not fit the facts very well: Self-reported drug use began to fall well before Just Say No, and, after climbing at the beginning of the Clinton administration, it began to fall again three years before George W. Bush took office.

[Thanks to Dale Gieringer for the tip.]

Spliff Split

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:05:00 EDT

Last week the Los Angeles City Council voted for a measure that asked the federal government to stop harassing medical marijuana users in California. Minutes later, the Drug Enforcement Administration raided 10 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County.

The disrespect for local judgments on local matters could not have been starker. Determined to maintain anti-drug orthodoxy, the DEA is running wild in the laboratories of democracy, smashing experiments in reform and injuring innocent bystanders.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed this cruel crusade to continue, based on the premise that a cancer or AIDS patient who grows a few marijuana plants to relieve his pain or nausea is engaged in interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal "regulation." As for Congress, on the day of the L.A. raids the House once again rejected a measure aimed at restraining the DEA.

Since the two other branches of the federal government have failed to protect medical marijuana patients, their most plausible hope lies in electing a president who is less intent on snatching their medicine. At this point the Democrats look decidedly more promising than the Republicans in this respect.

According to Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, seven of the eight declared candidates for the Democratic nomination have promised to call off the DEA's medical marijuana raids if elected. The eighth, Barack Obama, has said such raids "probably shouldn't be a high priority."

Three of the nine remaining Republican candidates—Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson—oppose the DEA raids. But the rest of the Republicans, including the leading contenders, either have taken no position (Mitt Romney) or have said they would continue the current policy (which, it's worth remembering, has roots in the Clinton administration).

When he was asked about medical marijuana in April, the straight-talking John McCain said, "I will let states decide the issue." Less than three months later, asked if he would end the DEA's interference with medical marijuana use in the 12 states where it's legal, he had already changed his mind, saying, "Right now my answer to you is no." And in five minutes?

McCain's initial position on medical marijuana was reminiscent of George W. Bush's during his first presidential campaign, when he said, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose." At least Bush waited until after he was elected to renege on his promise.

The Republicans also look worse than the Democrats in congressional votes on this issue. It's true that a conservative Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher of California, repeatedly has joined Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) in cosponsoring an appropriations bill amendment that would prohibit the DEA from spending money on busting medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. But Democrats have been far more likely than Republicans to back the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which last week was supported by 66 percent of the Democrats who voted but opposed by 92 percent of the Republicans.

These partisan tendencies do not mean Democrats have greater respect for the division of powers between the federal government and the states. When it suits them, they're happy to support federal involvement in policy areas the Constitution leaves to the states. It's just that Democrats are, by and large, more comfortable with the therapeutic use of cannabis than Republicans are.

It's hard to find a logical explanation for this split. Republicans, conservatives especially, are traditionally critical of overly cautious regulators who prevent people from using drugs that could relieve their suffering safely and effectively. They have a record of supporting the freedom to use herbal home remedies without unreasonable bureaucratic interference.

The prevailing Republican stance on medical marijuana, which is at odds with what most Americans tell pollsters they think about the issue, can be understood only in light of the connotations that cannabis acquired as a result of its accidental association with the 1960s counterculture. In fighting a symbol of their opponents' principles, conservatives have sacrificed their own.

Medical Marijuana Raids Continue, Which Is Fine With Congress

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:43:00 EDT

Yesterday the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, aimed at stopping the DEA's medical marijuana raids, attracted 165 votes, the most ever but only two more than last year and 53 votes short of a majority. Neither the Democratic takeover of Congress nor Bob Barr's lobbying seems to have helped much. On the same day the House was debating the amendment, the DEA raided 10 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles.