More fuel for the "FDA sux" fire

[BaliBabyDoc]

Politics Trumps Science at FDA

For a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) increasingly mired in controversies over the politicization of scientific and regulatory decisions, the agency's April 20, 2006 statement regarding medical use of marijuana may represent an all-time low point.[1] Politics, it appears, has now completely trumped science at this once proudly independent agency. The FDA has announced that "no sound scientific studies" support the medical use of marijuana, contradicting an increasingly large body of scientific literature. To those of us who do research in this area, this is a personal affront.

David Kessler was the last real stud at FDA. Unfortunately, the Bush Regime has pursued a path of "just how bad can we make this thing . . . "

The FDA's announcement is puzzling at many levels. It makes no mention of any recent FDA analysis or investigation, regulatory filing, or any other activity within the normal scope of the agency's work that led to this policy change. Thus, there is no indication as to why the agency chose to issue this opinion at this particular moment. Rather than being based on new data or analysis, the statement appears to have been issued in response to the repeated requests from US Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), a vehement opponent of medical marijuana use. Souder wrote to acting FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach on January 18, 2006, saying, "I am exasperated at the FDA's failure to act against the fraudulent claims about 'medical' marijuana." He urged that the FDA "post accurate information about the claims of 'medical' marijuana on its website."[4] After 2 months he renewed the request, taking an impatient tone: "I have yet to receive a response from the Food and Drug Administration regarding my January 18, 2006 letter to you about the FDA's failure to provide any meaningful information on its website about the dangers of marijuana. I am quite concerned that the FDA does not take seriously the threat posed by marijuana, our nation's most abused drug."[5]

It's not surprising that this same turd strong-armed the CDC into inviting retarded abstinence only proponents to a conference program about the "scientific" merit and pitfalls of abstinence only programs.
CDC to investigate change in STD Conference panel

The scientific studies that document the medical efficacy and safety of smoked marijuana are published in peer-reviewed medical journals and are available through the National Library of Medicine.

Some politicians only read fiction.

Moreover, maybe the FDA and Mr. Souder are not aware that The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Institute of Medicine have previously issued statements of support for medical marijuana and have called for further investigation.[6,7] The Institute of Medicine reviewed the issue a second time at the request of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, resulting in a 1999 report which declared, "Nausea appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana."

Again, politicians only read fiction . . . and political hacks are pulling the strings at FDA.

This was, in fact, the prior stance taken by the FDA itself, before this sudden turnaround.[9] Perhaps the FDA has forgotten that doctors can prescribe dronabinol (Marinol), which is 100% pure synthetic delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

In essence FDA is aruging there's no medical purpose for marijuana despite the active ingredient being a FDA-approved medication.

Furthermore, the recent discovery of an endogenous cannabinoid system with specific receptors and ligands has increased our understanding of the actions of marijuana.[10]

For some odd reason, Mother Nature hardwired human beings with receptors for THC.

Rational, apolitical minds need to take over the debate on marijuana, separating myth from fact, right from wrong, and responsible, medicinal use from other, less compelling usages. However one feels about nonmedical use of marijuana, in our opinion, the medicinal marijuana user should not be considered a criminal in any state.

 

[Meuge]

Not surprising, and really terrible.

 

[piasabird]

You can buy all the sudafed you need to make meth, but dont smoke that funny weed.

It is kind of silly. Remember people do not die growing marijuana. Ever heard of a Marijuana crop blowing up a house?

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow, just goes to show the FDA is all back-asswards these days. As in any agency that relies on anything other than exhaustive scientific study. And who the F does US Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) think he is? And since when can one Congressman influence anything going on at our federal agencies? Christ. :|

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You can buy all the sudafed you need to make meth, but dont smoke that funny weed.

It is kind of silly. Remember people do not die growing marijuana. Ever heard of a Marijuana crop blowing up a house?

Good lord! You're so right. We should outlaw EVERYTHING that could possibly be used to make any type of drug or illegal device/substance. Do you really believe that crap that you posted? or are you just playing devil's advocate?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: piasabird
You can buy all the sudafed you need to make meth, but dont smoke that funny weed.

It is kind of silly. Remember people do not die growing marijuana. Ever heard of a Marijuana crop blowing up a house?

Good lord! You're so right. We should outlaw EVERYTHING that could possibly be used to make any type of drug or illegal device/substance. Do you really believe that crap that you posted? or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Huh? He's pretty much agreeing with the other posters. That you can make meth out of pseudoephedrine, which is legal and but be thrown in jail for something relatively harmless, is stupid.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

yahoo

I would swear our country has MUCH bigger problems than the walking dead having access to pot and women that don't want to procreate.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former U.S.
Food and Drug Administration chief shut out two senior agency officials from a decision to indefinitely postpone action on Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s "morning-after" contraceptive, the officials said in legal depositions released this week.

Dr. Steven Galson, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, testified that around January 2005 he was leaning toward approving Barr's plan to sell Plan B over the counter.

This is basically the most important "merit-based" job at FDA.

But then-Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford "told me that he was concerned about where we were heading because he knew that I was heading toward this recommendation, and he told me that he was going to make the decision on what to do with the application," Galson said, according to deposition transcripts.
---
Galson, a doctor and career scientist who has worked at the FDA since 2001, said he had never before had his authority to make a decision removed by a commissioner.
---
He said he wrote a memo to Crawford saying scientific evidence supported over-the-counter sales.