GOP House votes to stay out of the states’ way on medical marijuana

posted at 7:21 pm on May 30, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

Federalism:

Perhaps validating what public opinion have been showing for some time, the House voted in Friday’s wee hours to prohibit the federal government from interfering with medical marijuana laws passed by 32 states and the District of Columbia.

Yes — that’s the Republican-led House that did the voting. And it include 49 actual Republicans among the 218 yes votes. Lead among them: California Rep. Rohrabacher, who once upon a time worked for Ronald Reagan, the president who made the “War on Drugs” a national priority.

Given the public’s increasing friendliness on this issue, President Obama’s blatantly broken promises on medical marijuana enforcement, and the potential for the issue to soften new audiences on the GOP brand, this isn’t a bad move to make. On the principles, federalism’s not a bad place to stand, though plenty will disagree.

The times they are a-changin’. The most this issue had garnered in the past was 165 votes in 2007.

Rohrabacher on his position:

“Despite this overwhelming shift in public opinion, the federal government continues its hard line of oppression against medical marijuana,” Rohrabacher said.

The amendment attracted the support of a bipartisan coalition in favor of legalized marijuana.

“This train has already left the station,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), whose state allows the use of medical marijuana. “The problem is that the federal government’s getting in the way.”

Now, I’m sure the press will decide en masse that this is an utterly silly endeavor not worthy of the time of the House because it’s unlikely it will pass the Senate in this exact form. This is basically obstructionism and temper tantrum throwing, right? Aren’t those the new rules of legislating now that Republicans hold the House? Nope. On this issue, which liberals are friendly to, the will of the House now matters again:

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis, whose state of Colorado is actually allowing , said fixating on what happens next in the congressional process misses the larger point.

“The will of the House is important on this issue,” Polis said. “Congress is far from leading the country in this regard. Rather, we’re catching up with where the country already is.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Weasel Boehner has more important goals like screwing national sovereignty for the Chamber.

viking01 on May 30, 2014 at 7:26 PM

It’s high time to give federalism its due when it comes to drug laws.

Scribbler on May 30, 2014 at 7:26 PM

GOP House votes to stay out of the states’ way on medical marijuana

Good.

Now, pass another bill giving states back their control over education, the environment and energy production and we’ll be getting somewhere.

BacaDog on May 30, 2014 at 7:27 PM

I’m not sure, but didn’t the Wiemar republic go all hedonistic before…. that?

I think so.

wolly4321 on May 30, 2014 at 7:31 PM

And it include 49 actual Republicans among the 218 yes votes.

So Hastert Rule was violated

Mark1971 on May 30, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Scribbler – “High time…” good one.

vnvet on May 30, 2014 at 7:36 PM

This is a decent step in the right direction for those that favor the Constitution.

Salted Meats on May 30, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Next down the pike is medical crack.

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 7:46 PM

I’m for legalizing all drugs as a way of thinning the herd.

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 7:47 PM

If you breathe, you just might be a terrorist: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/72-types-of-americans-that-are.html

davidk on May 30, 2014 at 7:50 PM

GOP House votes to stay out of the states’ way on medical marijuana

A conservative position.

jaime on May 30, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Good. This, like so many other social issues, should be a state’s rights proposition.

Harbingeing on May 30, 2014 at 7:51 PM

You know what States rights are now?

A Federal Circuit Courts decision.

Acting like this is some win is silly.

wolly4321 on May 30, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Nobody else can make medicinal claims without FDA approval – why is marijuana given a special pass?

blink on May 30, 2014 at 7:26 PM

That^.

Because they know there is little “medical” about it. They want the tax money to spend on their ideologies.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Eh, I see nothing good in the federal government having jurisdiction over enforcing drug laws.

If Colorado and whoever want their fellow citizens to have the right to be high, I retain the right to not live in Colorado.

Since they are the ones suffering the anticipated ill effects, I trust they will learn what lessons there are to be learned, and change or not change accordingly.

I despise this hedonistic ammoral culture of ours but I’ll be damned if I like the federales in charge of the blue laws.

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM

I despise this hedonistic ammoral culture of ours but I’ll be damned if I like the federales in charge of the blue laws.

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM

I agree..but thats not the point. As was pointed out above by blink, why is it the only “medicine” that gets a pass on FDA process?

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:05 PM

This is a dumb move which will see the nation slip further into a mentally numbed state.

Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Walk in the shoes of a chronic pain sufferer, then tell us all about how pot has no medicinal application.
You know, or just run your mouths about that which you have zero experience or knowledge.

Tard on May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM

I agree..but thats not the point. As was pointed out above by blink, why is it the only “medicine” that gets a pass on FDA process?

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:05 PM

The medical part is a farce?

Oh wait.

Are some people still pretending that there is some medicinal value?

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Walk in the shoes of a chronic pain sufferer, then tell us all about how pot has no medicinal application.
You know, or just run your mouths about that which you have zero experience or knowledge.

Tard on May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM

It’s not a cure, it just covers up the symptoms, right?

If that’s the case, then any drug has medicinal value.

Even paint chips or gasoline can be used to get you high. Are they medicinal?

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Walk in the shoes of a chronic pain sufferer, then tell us all about how pot has no medicinal application.
You know, or just run your mouths about that which you have zero experience or knowledge.

Tard on May 30, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Begging the question. But, again, that missed the point. If it’s a medicine to be sold to the public, then go thru all the steps any other medicinal substance goes thru.
The way it’s being presented, it’s a majic medicine good for whatever ails you. Kind of like the old traveling medicine shows selling snake oil.
If it’s being touted for recreational use, then thats another story.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM

It needs to be regulated by the FDA. It needs to be made ina cGMP facility abiding by all CFR’s.

Murphy9 on May 30, 2014 at 8:23 PM

It looks like this was Mary Katherine Hamm’s only blog post of the day. Why does she seem to post so much less frequently than the others? I always wondered about that.

bluegill on May 30, 2014 at 8:29 PM

It’s not a cure, it just covers up the symptoms, right?

If that’s the case, then any drug has medicinal value.

Even paint chips or gasoline can be used to get you high. Are they medicinal?

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 8:15 PM

This makes no sense. I understand the FDA argument which does make sense but medicating chronic pain is not about covering up symptoms. It’s about relief from pain. My wife worked in the medical field for years and has injured her back. After a few complicated surgeries doctors have done all they can without risking paralysis. Given the choice between medical marijuana or highly addictive and dangerous pain medications I’d prefer the lesser of two evils.

iceman1960 on May 30, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Hey, someone help me here… They voted to approve an amendment to a DOJ appropriations bill. Do they still have to approve the appropriations bill?? Or did passing the amendment take care of that??

Thx in advance! I looked for a little bit & didn’t find any info…

blockchords on May 30, 2014 at 8:42 PM

I agree..but thats not the point. As was pointed out above by blink, why is it the only “medicine” that gets a pass on FDA process? Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:05 PM

If you eat oranges for medicinal purposes, should the FDA be allowed to send a swat team to your house?

It’s a naturally occurring substance. If I want to eat or smoke creeping junipers for my lumbago, isn’t that my business? And if it causes a newfound appreciation for Pink Floyd, why is that anyone’s business but mine?

George Washington raised hemp. But…

Akzed on May 30, 2014 at 8:44 PM

It amazes me that states allow medical marijuana patients to drive with the stuff in their system.

You have to hold the politicians responsible for the deaths that occur. I’m sure most of the medical marijuana patients who go out and drive and kill a family of four had no idea that the thc in their system would cause such a tragedy. It would be reasonable for them to assume that the government wouldn’t allow them to be a danger to others on the road. But there is no excuse for the politicians who put them behind the wheel with the drug in their system.

Buddahpundit on May 30, 2014 at 8:46 PM

If you eat oranges for medicinal purposes, should the FDA be allowed to send a swat team to your house?

Akzed on May 30, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Does the consumption of oranges induce a loss of motor function or mental impairment?

Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

To all of you self proclaimed Constitutional Conservatives out there, where in the Constitution had the Federal govt given the authority to regulate or prohibit marihuana?

antifederalist on May 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Begging the question. But, again, that missed the point. If it’s a medicine to be sold to the public, then go thru all the steps any other medicinal substance goes thru.
The way it’s being presented, it’s a majic medicine good for whatever ails you. Kind of like the old traveling medicine shows selling snake oil.
If it’s being touted for recreational use, then thats another story.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_plants_used_in_herbalism


Açai (Euterpe oleracea) Although açai berries are a longstanding food source for indigenous people of the Amazon, there is no evidence that they have historically served a medicinal, as opposed to nutritional role. In spite of their recent popularity in the United States as a dietary supplement, there is currently no evidence for their effectiveness for any health-related purpose.[5]
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) leaves are used to lower cholesterol, as well as for kidney and urinary tract ailments, although there is insufficient scientific evidence for its efficacy.[6]
Aloe vera leaves are widely used to heal burns, wounds and other skin ailments.[7][8]
Arnica (Arnica montana) is used as an anti-inflammatory[9] and for osteoarthritis.[10]
Ashoka (Saraca indica) is used in Ayurvedic traditions to treat gynecological disorders. The bark is also used to combat oedema or swelling.[11]
Asthma weed (Euphorbia hirta) has been used traditionally in Asia to treat bronchitic asthma and laryngeal spasm.[12][13] It is used in the Philippines for dengue fever.[14][15]
Astragalus (Astragalus propinquus) has long been used in traditional Chinese medicine to strengthen the immune system, and is used in modern China to treat hepatitis and as an adjunctive therapy in cancer.[16]

The list goes on and on. Doctors advise taking this stuff all the time.

But you knew that, right?

Skipity on May 30, 2014 at 8:49 PM

To all of you self proclaimed Constitutional Conservatives out there, where in the Constitution had the Federal govt given the authority to regulate or prohibit marihuana?

antifederalist on May 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Or set a speed limit! FREEDOM, let it RING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PATRIOTS!

Murphy9 on May 30, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Does the consumption of oranges induce a loss of motor function or mental impairment? Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

No but a couple Jack and Cokes do. Why?

Akzed on May 30, 2014 at 8:49 PM

This makes no sense. I understand the FDA argument which does make sense but medicating chronic pain is not about covering up symptoms. It’s about relief from pain. My wife worked in the medical field for years and has injured her back. After a few complicated surgeries doctors have done all they can without risking paralysis. Given the choice between medical marijuana or highly addictive and dangerous pain medications I’d prefer the lesser of two evils.

iceman1960 on May 30, 2014 at 8:40 PM

The pain is the symptom. Something is causing the pain. Whatever is causing the pain is the problem.

Getting high is relief. So, in that sense, anything that gets you high is ‘medicinal‘.

I feel bad for your wife and for everyone that deals with chronic pain. I wish there were a good solution.

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 8:52 PM

This is a dumb move which will see the nation slip further into a mentally numbed state.

Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 8:06 PM

So concerned — like you care. Anything that enables the oppressive police state should get your rousing approval, no?

Jedditelol on May 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

So, some plants are okay for recreational or medicinal use.
But, only plants sanctioned for use by the federal government.
Okay?
Okay.

Jedditelol on May 30, 2014 at 8:54 PM

If you eat oranges for medicinal purposes, should the FDA be allowed to send a swat team to your house?

It’s a naturally occurring substance. If I want to eat or smoke creeping junipers for my lumbago, isn’t that my business? And if it causes a newfound appreciation for Pink Floyd, why is that anyone’s business but mine?

George Washington raised hemp. But…

Akzed on May 30, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Strawman much?

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:55 PM

So, some plants are okay for recreational or medicinal use.
But, only plants sanctioned for use by the federal government.
Okay?
Okay.

Jedditelol on May 30, 2014 at 8:54 PM

I’ll make you a BHT. bacon, hemlock, tomato sandwich.

You want mayo?

Murphy9 on May 30, 2014 at 8:57 PM

So concerned — like you care. Anything that enables the oppressive police state should get your rousing approval, no?

Jedditelol on May 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Gosh, you’re so oppressed, aren’t you? First you have to not commit any murders, then not engage in theft, then relent from rape, and then obey those terrrribbblle stop signs… and even worse, not endanger other people through recreational drug use! What’s this world coming to!? Its senses!?

Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Anything that enables the oppressive police state should get your rousing approval, no?

Jedditelol on May 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Can’t wait for the oppressive police state to …ummm..correct the actions of people trying to evade the taxes and regs concerning pot.

Just because the nature of the regs changes, that doesn’t mean you will be anymore free. It just seems like it should lead to that. I’m guessing it won’t.
The reason the “medicine” of pot is being given a pass on all the hoops other potential therapies have to endure, is because they don’t care about that. They.Want.The.Money that revolves around pot. Period. They will eventually become just as authoritarian about it as any infraction committed by Joe Blow and the IRS now.

You’re being duped.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 9:03 PM

To all of you self proclaimed Constitutional Conservatives out there, where in the Constitution had the Federal govt given the authority to regulate or prohibit marihuana?

antifederalist on May 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

General Welfare of the people?
That said, an individual should be able to do what they like on their own property. Once money and commerce is involved, the worm turns to an arguable standing by the government.
Everybody talks like thats all they’re interested in, but in the real world, selling it is the motivator. Bag of pot..no more difficult or expensive to grow than a tomato plant..6K..cash. THATS the real interest in it.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 9:17 PM

No but a couple Jack and Cokes do. Why?

Akzed on May 30, 2014 at 8:49 PM

And?
Sure you can get a hell of a buzz on alcohol, but it can take you hours to get there, and you can dose yourself to your liking. 1 toke of 24% THC and you’re bagged in a couple minutes.

That said, your point is non sequitur.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Does the consumption of oranges induce a loss of motor function or mental impairment?

Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Sitting for 7 hours a day in a public school does, but it is still legal.

Rix on May 30, 2014 at 9:22 PM

The list goes on and on. Doctors advise taking this stuff all the time.

But you knew that, right?

Skipity on May 30, 2014 at 8:49 PM

What doctors are these??
That said, another non sequitur.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Sitting for 7 hours a day in a public school does, but it is still legal.

Rix on May 30, 2014 at 9:22 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is a brilliant response! =)

Stoic Patriot on May 30, 2014 at 9:34 PM

“This train has already left the station”

Yes, marijuana for all gay married illegal immigrants, but no tobacco, fatty foods, or free speech allowed.

/ It’s a sign of the times.

LashRambo on May 30, 2014 at 10:39 PM

Begging the question. But, again, that missed the point. If it’s a medicine to be sold to the public, then go thru all the steps any other medicinal substance goes thru.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM

In that way, it’s like amnesty, in that laws and regular order of immigration is completely bypassed — those who follow the law are chumps. And like gay marriage, which is bypassing state referendums over and over again, or like mandating so-called “healthy” lunches for kids when we don’t know if they make kids healthy or only just possibly keep those who tend to get obese not so obese.

I’m the first one to appreciate medical value of marijuana, but why should it skip every single solitary step required for FDA approval that all other drugs have to take?

LashRambo on May 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Polis is my “representative”. It’s clear where he stands. Probably have more pot shops in his district than any other in the state.

COgirl on May 30, 2014 at 10:56 PM

So we want the federal government to legislate morality?? How awfully leftist of us.

Salted Meats on May 31, 2014 at 12:11 AM

Horrible and stupid.

All the Congress needs to do is remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Period. Once off that list, it’s a state matter – although theoretically if something is being marketed as “medicinal” the FDA is supposed to ensure it is both safe and effective.

To just “stand down” undermines all federal law.

If the law is wrong, and I believe it is, CHANGE IT. It should have been done 30 years ago.

Adjoran on May 31, 2014 at 12:58 AM

Begging the question. But, again, that missed the point. If it’s a medicine to be sold to the public, then go thru all the steps any other medicinal substance goes thru.

Mimzey on May 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM

In that way, it’s like amnesty, in that laws and regular order of immigration is completely bypassed — those who follow the law are chumps. And like gay marriage, which is bypassing state referendums over and over again, or like mandating so-called “healthy” lunches for kids when we don’t know if they make kids healthy or only just possibly keep those who tend to get obese not so obese.

I’m the first one to appreciate medical value of marijuana, but why should it skip every single solitary step required for FDA approval that all other drugs have to take?

LashRambo on May 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM

That’s pretty much the point, isn’t it? It’s not that there is no conceivable use for marijuana in medicine. But they don’t want it to be a medicine, which could be perfectly well controlled as a prescription drug. They want it to be a recreational drug only.

Morphine, for example, is more addictive and more dangerous than marijuana. And yet it’s prescribed under a doctor’s supervision for people who have a real medical need for it, because it’s such an effective painkiller. And even though morphine is also a recreational drug, it is routinely used for people with real chronic medical conditions who need a painkiller.

I have no problem wih MJ being treated the same way: prescribed under a doctor’s supervision. But it’s being promoted as a magic drug with no side effects that anyone is qualified to self-medicate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 31, 2014 at 1:36 AM

Adjoran on May 31, 2014 at 12:58 AM

Congress doesn’t have the say on the schedule of controlled substances. President Choom could have started the process to remove marijuana or at least reschedule it the day he walked into office. But we can’t forget that he’s the guy that put an HSBC board of director in charge of the FBI… gotta keep those cartel laundered dollars for campaigns rolling in.

There’s a reason why the feds won’t give up control over marijuana enterprise.

Salted Meats on May 31, 2014 at 1:48 AM

This makes no sense. I understand the FDA argument which does make sense but medicating chronic pain is not about covering up symptoms. It’s about relief from pain. My wife worked in the medical field for years and has injured her back. After a few complicated surgeries doctors have done all they can without risking paralysis. Given the choice between medical marijuana or highly addictive and dangerous pain medications I’d prefer the lesser of two evils.

iceman1960 on May 30, 2014 at 8:40 PM

The pain is the symptom. Something is causing the pain. Whatever is causing the pain is the problem.

Getting high is relief. So, in that sense, anything that gets you high is ‘medicinal‘.

I feel bad for your wife and for everyone that deals with chronic pain. I wish there were a good solution.

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Actually research on medicinal marijuana has advanced incredibly, now they are able to develop a strain of cannabis that doesn’t cause intoxication. So basically it numbs the pain, but doesn’t blur the mind. The company who first did it, Tikun Olam is israeli, and I think I read that the drug is already available to patients eligible for marijuana treatment in israel. Am sure we will get it here soon.

jimver on May 31, 2014 at 3:29 AM

While I agree with every criticism questioning the wisdom of legalizing drugs, and while I nod my head in agreement with every commenter who thinks the idea of “medicinal Marijuana” is a fraud, there is something positive to be taken away from all of this and that is the precedent of letting the States choose for themselves.

Every day the comments section is full of people railing against a too powerful central government as being against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Well, here we have a case of the central government stepping aside in favor of the states. (And, Yes, I understand that they’re not really stepping aside as much as ducking the issue.) However, this small step may encourage the States to demand greater autonomy in making decisions affecting their residents. And, quite frankly, the only way we’re ever going to free ourselves from the mad clutches of Leviathan is for the States to reassert their primacy over Washington D.C.

potkas7 on May 31, 2014 at 8:42 AM

potkas7 on May 31, 2014 at 8:42 AM

I agree with that to the point of conflating one thing with another.
If it recreational use, let the people decide.
If the argument comes from the side of medical use, then either go thru all the steps any other therapeutic substance has to go thru, or remove the need for any substance to meet certain standards before being validated as a “medicine”. Picking and choosing which laws or standards are to be applied based on whether or not it’s a popular position is what we have with the Obama administration and it’s tailored application of laws.

Mimzey on May 31, 2014 at 8:53 AM

There is nothing like the corrupt incompetent government telling free and independent human beings what they can and can’t put in their body. From Bloomberg to Stoic Busy Body, some people just love telling others how to live their lives.

MoreLiberty on May 31, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Can it be used for medicinal purposes, probably yes. However, we all know it mainly used for recreational use.

SC.Charlie on May 31, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Whomever is the republican nomination in 2016 must be very vocal about allowing the States to determine the maryjoejuana laws. It would be even more helpful if he/she supports legalization. It would cut the legs out from under Dems on the issue. It would also make economic policy offerings more palatable to one issue voters. This is a critical issue, IMO. Republicans need to be vocal and sober and on point. They absolutely must not act like a deer in the headlights. Your looking at a 3 to 4 % swing because of this issue alone. I would go so far as to say that any republican nominee that is full throated against legalization, like Chris Christie for example, has NO chance of winning the general. None.

MrBobSugar on May 31, 2014 at 12:38 PM

32 states. Wow, I had no idea. About a year ago it was 17. Things are changing fast.

My wife’s doctor prescribed it for wifey for pain relief from arthritis. Said it had less bad health implications than Celebrex. She has the Celebrex but rarely needs it.

Wife hasn’t jumped off a building yet, so I’m good with it. She also functions normally, apparently she doesn’t require a high dose to get pain relief. She doesn’t drive under the infuence though, that’s illegal in Colorado and everywhere.

Meremortal on May 31, 2014 at 12:47 PM

This is a critical issue, IMO. Republicans need to be vocal and sober and on point. They absolutely must not act like a deer in the headlights. Your looking at a 3 to 4 % swing because of this issue alone. I would go so far as to say that any republican nominee that is full throated against legalization, like Chris Christie for example, has NO chance of winning the general. None.

MrBobSugar on May 31, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Pot is a critical issue that the repubs need? You mean like “immigration” reform? What is the thinking behind this? Is it that there will be soooo many dems and independents just itchin’ to vote republican, if not for the pot issue?? If we just do what the progressive liberals want, people will vote conservative?
Not buying it.

Mimzey on May 31, 2014 at 12:59 PM

It my only hope that folks that say they want less federal government control over their states and their individual selves will get passed their programmed by propaganda prejudice on this issue and others. Electing republicans isn’t the solution as many prove to govern as leftists, no we as a nation need to nullify the federal government on any issue that it has trespassed beyond its described limits in the Constitution. Comes down to wanting more freedom and less tyranny.

Salted Meats on May 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Oh wait.

Are some people still pretending that there is some medicinal value?

Bigbullets on May 30, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Here is just a “small fraction” of the many medical associations and latest studies that disagrees with you.

Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
“The Committee is of the opinion that the potential therapeutic uses of marijuana have been sufficiently documented to permit its use for therapeutic purposes.”

British Medical Association
“Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. … [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments.”

American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana … under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications.”

American Osteopathic Association
“The AOA supports well-controlled clinical studies on the use of marijuana and related cannabinoids for patients who have significant medical conditions for which current evidence suggests possible efficacy…”

American Public Health Association
“[The APHA] encourages research of the therapeutic properties of various cannabinoids and combinations of cannabinoids, and … urges the Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine.”

American Preventive Medical Association
“Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government.”

Australian National Task Force on Cannabis
“Despite the positive appraisal of the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids …, they have not been widely used. … Part of the reason for this is that research on the therapeutic use of these compounds has become a casualty of the debate in the United States about the legal status of cannabis.

Belgian Ministry of Health
“[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use…. This is an area where public health must prevail.”

British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology
“Cannabis can be effective in some patients to relieve the symptoms of MS, and against certain forms of pain. This evidence is enough to justify a change in the law. … The Government should allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for medical use: this is the conclusion of a report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, published today.”

Netherlands Ministry of Health*
“Cannabis has a beneficial effect for many patients. From September 1, 2003 pharmacies can provide medicinal cannabis to patients with a prescription from a doctor.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse gave a grant to conduct the largest, population-based, case-controlled study to date that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers. What Tashkin and his colleagues found, however, disproved their hypothesis.

The study lead by Donald P. Tashkin, MD, emeritus professor of medicine at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, interviewed 1,212 cancer patients from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program, matched for age, gender, and neighborhood with 1,040 cancer-free controls. Marijuana use was measured in “joint years” (number of years smoked times number of joints per day). It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer (whereas tobacco smokers were at greater risk the more they smoked). Tobacco smokers who also smoked marijuana were at slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than tobacco-only smokers.

Even heavy marijuana use has “far lower risks for pulmonary complications” than the consequences of tobacco use, Tashkin said.

Tashkin and colleagues at UCLA conducted a major study in which they measured lung function of various cohorts over eight years and found that tobacco-only smokers had an accelerated rate of decline, but marijuana smokers — even if they smoked tobacco as well — experienced the same rate of decline as non-smokers. “The more tobacco smoked, the greater the rate of decline,” said Tashkin. “In contrast, no matter how much marijuana was smoked, the rate of decline was similar to normal.” Tashkin concluded that his and other studies “do not support the concept that regular smoking of marijuana leads to COPD.”

Tashkin noted that an anti-proliferative effect of THC has been observed in cell-culture systems and animal models of brain, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. THC has been shown to promote known apoptosis (damaged cells die instead of reproducing) and to counter angiogenesis (the process by which blood vessels are formed — a requirement of tumor growth). Other antioxidants in cannabis may also be involved in countering malignancy, Tashkin said.

OncologyPractice.com also reported that,

“Regular cannabis smokers are no more likely to develop lung cancer than are people who indulge occasionally.”

The cancer news site relates the findings of Dr. Li Rita Zhang reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research;

“In an analysis of marijuana smokers that excluded tobacco smokers, there were no significant [cancer rate] differences in any of the comparisons, including habitual vs. nonhabitual use; number of joints smoked per day; duration of up to 20 years or duration of more than 20 years,”

The information fits in with prior assessments that marijuana smoking does not cause lung cancer. A similar study in 2006 that also found no link between marijuana use and risk of lung cancer. http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

Also Kaiser Permanente researchers found that people who smoke marijuana may be less likely to get bladder cancer than those who smoke cigarettes.

And California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco found that a compound derived from marijuana could stop metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancers, potentially altering the fatality of the disease forever.

JustTheFacts on May 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM

JustTheFacts on May 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Great! Good enough for me. Now start the process that all other medicines have to go thru before unleashing them on the public.

You do agree with that don’t you?

Mimzey on May 31, 2014 at 4:53 PM

For everyone who complains about Obama’s selective enforcement of laws, please explain how is it any better for the House to selectively enforce laws by cutting off funding.

jim56 on May 31, 2014 at 7:27 PM

please explain how is it any better for the House to selectively enforce laws by cutting off funding.

jim56 on May 31, 2014 at 7:27 PM

What are you referring to?

Mimzey on May 31, 2014 at 8:17 PM

What are you referring to?

Mimzey on May 31, 2014 at 8:17 PM

The amendment that passed prohibited the Justice Department from using any funds to prevent states’ from implementing their own medical marijuana laws.

The amendment doesn’t change the federal laws, though.

jim56 on June 1, 2014 at 4:14 AM

The amendment that passed prohibited the Justice Department from using any funds to prevent states’ from implementing their own medical marijuana laws.

The amendment doesn’t change the federal laws, though.

jim56 on June 1, 2014 at 4:14 AM

Thanks..didn’t know that. Do you know who introduced or pushed for that amendment?

Mimzey on June 1, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Begging the question. But, again, that missed the point. If it’s a medicine to be sold to the public, then go thru all the steps any other medicinal substance goes thru.

Either that or just use that disclaimer I keep hearing on the radio: “This statement is not approved by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

(And you gotta imagine John Moschitta saying that.)

TMOverbeck on June 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM