Cannabration
Follow us!
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Marijuana & Me iBook
  • Donate to Legalize it!
  • Contact
  • Shop
  • Volunteer to legalize marijuana
  • tastings
  • Expo
  • GOchella Sponsors

Former DEA Administrator's desperate attempt to deny cannabis has medical value

2/2/2013

4 Comments

 
Picture
By Robert Bonner
February 1, 2013, 8:23 a.m.



Reacting to a federal appellate court decision upholding the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's denial of reclassification of marijuana, The Times states in its Jan. 25 editorial that whether marijuana should be reclassified under federal law to permit its prescription as a medicine should be based on science and an evaluation of the facts, rather than on myths. I fully agree. 

And yet the editorial is based on the myth that the DEA has made it "nearly impossible" for researchers to obtain marijuana for such scientific studies. To the contrary, not a single scientifically valid study by a qualified researcher has ever been denied by the DEA or, for that matter, by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. And there is ample government-grown marijuana, specifically for research, available at the marijuana farm run by the University of Mississippi. More surprising, as your editorial points out, is that there is still no scientifically valid study that proves that marijuana is effective, much less safe, as a medicine. 

As the DEA administrator 20 years ago, I denied the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled drug because there were no valid scientific studies showing that smoking marijuana was an effective medicine. In my decision, published in the Federal Register, I interpreted federal law and set forth a five-part test that included whether there were valid scientific studies demonstrating that marijuana was safe and effective for treating any medical condition. I noted that at that time there were none of the kind of controlled, double-blind studies that the Food and Drug Administration would require before approving a new drug application, and I clearly spelled out that this would be necessary before marijuana would be reclassified to a lower schedule that would permit its use as a physician-prescribed medicine. 

Essentially, I invited those who advocate marijuana use as a medicine to conduct research and then present it to the DEA. I laid out a road map for what they needed to do. If scientifically valid studies demonstrated that marijuana was “effective” and “safe,” as the FDA defines those terms, the agency would reclassify marijuana into one of the other schedules. It is amazing that 20 years later there is still no such scientific study establishing that marijuana is effective as a medicine. And yet in the interim, the well-funded marijuana lobby, including the National Assn. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and others, have spent tens of millions of dollars on convincing voters to pass medical marijuanainitiatives based on anecdotes but not science. 

The reason the FDA and the DEA have scientific standards is because snake-oil salesmen are able to sell just about anything to sick people without any scientific proof that it has a truly helpful therapeutic effect. If proponents of medical marijuana had invested even a small fragment of their money in scientifically valid studies, we would know one way or the other whether it works. 

One can only conclude the marijuana proponents did not go this route because doing so would have shown that cannabis is not an effective and safe medicine. Alternatively, we are left to conclude that their agenda was not about marijuana to help sick people, but rather was getting voters to pass medical marijuana initiatives as a wedge to legalize the drug for "recreational" use. 

Here is  a response from a long time activist Rick Doblin:

Dear Mr. Robert Bonner,

Hello from Rick Doblin, Ph.D.,(Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, with my dissertation on the regulation of the medical uses of psychedelics and marijuana).  I'm currently Executive Director of the non-profit research and educational organization, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS, www.maps.org), which I founded in 1986.  You may be surprised to learn that for the last 20+ years, I have been inspired by, and frequently  quote, your 1992 statement that you mention in your article above  in which you encouraged advocates of medical marijuana to conduct more research.  

In 1992, you wrote, <Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate scientific research, rather than throwing their time, money and rhetoric into lobbying public relations campaigns and perennial litigation."

I have put my full energies for the last 20+ years into trying to conduct FDA-approved medical marijuana drug development research. Unfortunately, my experience, to which I hope you will give some credence, is exactly opposite of the open door to research that you claim exists.  MAPS has obtained FDA and IRB approval for three different  protocols to which NIDA refused to sell any marijuana, preventing the studies from taking place. In addition, NIDA refused for 7 years to sell MAPS 10 grams (!!) of marijuana for laboratory research investigating the vapors that come out of the Volcano vaporizer, compared to smoke from combusted marijuana.  

Furthermore, MAPS has been involved for the last decade in litigation against DEA for refusing to license Prof. Craker, UMass Amherst, to grow marijuana exclusively for use in federally regulated research. In 2007, DEA Administrative Law Judge Bittner recommended, after extensive hearings with witness testimony, that it would be in the public interest for DEA to license Prof. Craker to grow marijuana under contract to MAPS, ending the NIDA monopoly on the supply of marijuana legal for use in FDA-regulated studies.  DEA waited for almost two years and  then rejected the ALJ recommendation just six days before the inauguration of Pres. Obama.  On May 11, 2012,  oral arguments took place before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit by Prof. Craker challenging DEA's rationale for rejecting the DEA ALJ recommendation. A ruling is currently pending from the 1st Circuit.  From  my perspective, DEA's rationale for rejecting the DEA ALJ recommendation is arbitrary and capricious, but of course what matters is  what the 1st Circuit will eventually decide.

In your article above, you claimed,  <To the contrary, not a single scientifically valid study by a qualified researcher has ever been denied by the DEA or, for that matter, by the National Institute of Drug Abuse.>   The wiggle room in your statement above is the definition of "scientifically valid study".  One would think that for a privately funded study being conducted without a penny of government money, with the aim of developing marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine, that the FDA would be the regulatory agency to determine whether the study was "scientifically valid" and that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval would be sufficient to protect the safety of the human volunteers to the study. However, in 1999, HHS created a policy (which could be reversed by Pres. Obama at any time without Congressional action) stating that PHS/NIDA reviewers would have to conduct an additional review of protocols  from privately-funded sponsors seeking to purchase!

 marijuana from NIDA.  This additional PHS/NIDA protocol review process exists only for marijuana, not for research with any other controlled substance. MAPS has been able to make substantial progress with our research exploring the use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with chronic, treatment-resistant PTSD, including a current study in 24 US veterans, firefighters and perhaps even police officers with work-related PTSD.

It is these PHS/NIDA reviewers who have rejected all three of MAPS' FDA and IRB approved medical marijuana drug development protocols, preventing them from taking place.  You can claim that the rejection of the these protocols was because they were not "scientifically valid".   However, to make that claim, you would be saying that FDA and IRBs have approved studies that are not "scientifically valid",  an accusation against the FDA that  I doubt you really want  to make.

MAPS currently has obtained FDA and IRB approval for a study of marijuana in 50 US veterans with chronic, treatment-resistant PTSD. Dr. Sue Sisley of UArizona is the PI and approval has been obtained from the UArizona IRB as well as the FDA. Research into a potentially beneficial       treatment for US veterans is being blocked by PHS/NIDA reviewers who rejected this protocol.  These PHS/NIDA reviewers approached the protocol review as if we were asking for a government grant for a basic science study. Instead, we were seeking to purchase marijuana from NIDA for a privately-funded drug development study. The PHS/NIDA reviewers made numerous incorrect and uninformed comments and clearly didn't understand drug development research. One reviewer objected to our outcome measures when we are using the FDA-required measure of PTSD symptoms, the CAPS. If you or any readers want to review our protocol along with the PHS/NIDA reviewers' comments and my annotated response, the documents are posted at:  http://www.maps.org/research/mmj/marijuana_for_ptsd_study/

The compete record of Prof. Craker's DEA lawsuit is posted at: http://www.maps.org/research/mmj/dea_timeline/

MAPS will soon be resubmitting our marijuana/PTSD protocol for another round of PHS/NIDA review, even though we think this review should be eliminated from the process. All FDA/IRB and DEA approved protocols should automatically be allowed to purchase marijuana from NIDA.

To summarize, you have been an inspiration to me and have motivated me to devote several decades of my life to seek approval for medical marijuana drug development research. My failure to make progress in overcoming the obstruction of medical marijuana research by DEA/NIDA/PHS  provides one of the clearest reasons for state level medical marijuana policy reform. 

My conclusion is opposite of yours, when you said, "One can only conclude the marijuana proponents did not go this route because doing so would have shown that cannabis is not an effective and safe medicine."

Rather, one can only conclude that privately-funded medical marijuana drug development research is being aggressively and actively obstructed by DEA/NIDA/PHS because they know it can be scientifically proven that marijuana, smoked or vaporized, is both safe and effective.

The heros in all of this in my eyes are the FDA.  It's not because FDA is pro-medical marijuana, or pro-psychedelic psychotherapy. Rather, FDA is pro science over politics. In other words, FDA are heroes simply for doing their jobs. If only DEA/NIDA/PHS considered the public interest over       their increasingly out of touch passion for blocking FDA-regulated medical marijuana drug development research. 

I urge you to reread your 1992 statement and join MAPS in asking for the end of the PHS protocol review process and for a new policy in which all FDA/IRB/DEA approved protocols automatically obtain approval to purchase NIDA marijuana. In addition, I sincerely hope you will also support DEA licensing of Prof. Craker.  It's time to  "serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate scientific research."

Sincerely,

Rick Doblin, Ph.D.

rick@maps.org




4 Comments
Duncan20903
2/2/2013 04:56:58 am

Gosh, who'da thunk a former DEA employee would be a bald faced liar? Excepting everyone actually in touch with reality of course.

Reply
Freeman
2/2/2013 05:33:17 am

<i>It's time to "serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate scientific research."</i>

Love it! Challenge the propagandist to eat his own dog food! If Bonner is so confident in his conclusion, he should be eager to meet the challenge, which would prove his case. I eagerly look forward to Bonner's response, but I'm not holding my breath.

Reply
Susan Soares
2/2/2013 05:39:25 am

I wish there were some investigative reporters still around.

Reply
B W Ryan link
2/9/2013 07:38:33 am

reminds me of Orwell's 1984 ~ doublespeak masquerading as truth and lies presented as evidence. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies which show that cannabis, an herb - not a "drug", is both effective and safe. The governmental viewpoint is both disingenuous and based upon falsehoods.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Picture
    Support cannabis policy reform by purchasing some beautiful stuff in my CafePress Shop!!!

    Author Susan Soares

    I'm using this blog as a way to focus attention on cannabis and why it needs to be not only legal but identified as the wonderful plant that it is! I have been a Medical & adult use marijuana activist for many years. I'm currently living in Los Angeles, California.

    Picture
    Picture

    Archives

    October 2014
    July 2013
    June 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012

    Categories

    All
    Aaron Sandusky
    Addiction
    Allen St. Pierre
    Ama Medical Marijuana
    Amanda Reiman
    Ama Report
    Americans For Safe Access
    American Taxpayers
    Asa
    Barbara Walters
    Bishop Allen
    Blazing Saddles
    Bloomberg & Marijuana
    Bloomberg Marijuana A Desk Appearance
    California Legalization
    California Marijuana
    California Marijuana Legalization
    California Supreme Court
    Cannabis
    Cannabis Community
    Cannabis Legalization
    Cannabis Prohibition
    Cannabis Unity
    Cannabration
    Canorml
    Cps And Medical Marijuana
    Criminal Justice
    Daily Show
    Daisy Bram
    David Bronner
    Dea
    Dea Propaganda
    Dej
    Dirty Cop
    Dispensary
    Django
    Django Unchained
    Dr. David Bearman
    Drop Out Rates
    Drug Czar
    Drug Policy
    Drug Sentencing
    Drug War
    Effects Of Law Enforcement
    Eric Steenestra
    Ethan Nadelmann
    Fda
    Funny
    Gavin Newsom
    Gil Kerlikowske
    Governor Brown
    Harborside
    Hemp
    Hemp Industries Association
    Hemp Legalization
    Jeffery Dunn
    Jon Stewart
    Jovan Jackson
    Judicial System
    Law Enfarcement
    Legalize It 2014
    Legalize It 2016
    Long Beach Dispensaries Sue
    Marijuana
    Marijuana Addiction
    Marijuana And Pain
    Marijuana And The Feds
    Marijuana Buy Busts
    Marijuana Legalization
    Marijuana Poll
    Marijuana Polls
    Marijuana Prohibition
    Marijuana Re Education
    Marijuana Unity In The Community
    Marinoid
    Mark Leno
    Mason Tvert
    Mayor Bob Filner
    Medical Marijuana
    Melinda Haag
    Mitch Earleywine
    Mitch Mcconnell And Hemp
    Mpp
    Oakland Backs Harborside
    Oaksterdam University
    Obama
    Obama Marijuana Policy
    Old Tokes Home
    Ou
    Out Of The Closet
    Paranoid
    Patrick Goggin
    Phillippe Lucas
    Pot College
    Pot Legalization
    Prohibition
    Quentin Tarantino
    Reciprocity
    Reciprocity Ca And Ma
    Repeal Cannabis Prohibition
    Repeal Marijuana Prohibition
    Rescheduling Marijuana
    Robert Bonner
    Rob Kampia
    San Diego Mayor Keep Pot
    Senate Bill 676
    Sfpd
    Sherrif Lee Baca Exposed
    Should Grandma Smoke Pot
    Steve Deangelo
    Steve Levine
    Substitution Effect
    Trayvon Martin Murder Trial
    Unity
    Unity Star
    Us Incarceration Rates
    US Justice Department & Marijuana
    Us Patent Of Marijuana
    Vote Hemp
    War On Drugs
    Why Police Lie
    Win For Marijuana

    RSS Feed


    Contact Susan

Submit
Legalize it! Donate today!!