Welcome to the Donkey Show.

Linky

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted July 5, 2008.

While the the American Medical Association claims pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is busy getting patents for marijuana products.

The US government’s longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of “why” federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that’s another story

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds’ seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana because they can’t patent it or profit from it.

It’s an appealing theory, yet I’ve found it to be neither accurate nor persuasive. Here’s why.

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for — and has already received — multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain’s endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), “The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy,” which concluded, “The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004.” In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical’s oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma’s sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what’s good for them. Let me explain.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration — a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency’s recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex’s parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana — culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s declaration that today’s pot is now of “lethal quality.” (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators — who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients — recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of “Reefer Madness.”

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will — including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

But wouldn’t the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that adversely impacts Big Pharma’s bottom line. Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California — three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market — use prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it’s unlikely that anyone — most especially the pharmaceutical industry — would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can’t patent medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.

__________________________________________________ _____

Inventor(s)

* Hampson, Aidan J.
* Axelrod, Julius
* Grimaldi, Maurizio

Assignee

* The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services

Application
No. 09/674028 filed on 02/02/2001

Current US Class
514/454Tricyclo ring system having the hetero ring as one of the cyclos

Field of Search
514/454Tricyclo ring system having the hetero ring as one of the cyclos

Examiners
Primary: Weddington, Kevin E.

Attorney, Agent or Firm

* Klarquist Sparkman, LLP

US Patent References
2304669, 4876276, (3S-4S)-7-hydroxy-?6 -tetrahydrocannabinols
Issued on: 10/24/1989
Inventor: Mechoulam, et al.5227537, Method for the production of 6,12-dihydro-6-hydroxy-cannabidiol and the use thereof for the production of trans-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Issued on: 07/13/1993
Inventor: Stoss, et al.5284867, NMDA-blocking pharmaceutical compositions
Issued on: 02/08/1994
Inventor: Kloog, et al.5434295, Neuroprotective pharmaceutical compositions of 4-phenylpinene derivatives and certain novel 4-phenylpinene compounds
Issued on: 07/18/1995
Inventor: Mechoulam, et al.5462946, Nitroxides as protectors against oxidative stress
Issued on: 10/31/1995
Inventor: Mitchell, et al.5512270, Method of inhibiting oxidants using alkylaryl polyether alcohol polymers
Issued on: 04/30/1996
Inventor: Ghio, et al.5521215, NMDA-blocking pharmaceuticals
Issued on: 05/28/1996
Inventor: Mechoulam, et al.5538993, Certain tetrahydrocannabinol-7-oic acid derivatives
Issued on: 07/23/1996
Inventor: Mechoulam, et al.5635530, (3S,4S)-delta-6-tetrahydrocannabinol-7-oic acids and derivatives thereof, processors for their preparation and pharmaceutical compositions containing them
Issued on: 06/03/1997
Inventor: Mechoulam, et al.5696109, Synthetic catalytic free radical scavengers useful as antioxidants for prevention and therapy of disease
Issued on: 12/09/1997
Inventor: Malfroy-Camine, et al.6410588Use of cannabinoids as anti-inflammatory agents
Issued on: 06/25/2002
Inventor: Feldmann, et al.

International class
A61K 31/35 (20060101)

Head on over To Dr Pauly’s Tao of Poker. To read the Best Poker Blogger there is.

He Is a Fantastic Writer and Is Covering the WSOP or the W.S.O.P for Taopoker.com .
So Stop reading My crap and head over and read Dr Pauly’s Tao of Poker.

the Donkey Show.

Tags: 420, Add new tag, cartons, chief joe, corporate crime, dangerous drugs, dope, ed pearce, faint of heart, guy pearce, hypocrisy, job descriptions, joe browne, legalizing marijuana, marijuana, newfoundland and labrador, oxycontin, police chief, police force, pot, Reefer, small time, smuggler, smugglers, violence against women

Dont forget Saturdays with Dr. Pauly

NEXT PRESIDENT MIGHT BE GENTLER ON POT CLUBS
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, May 12, 2008

Ever since California voters became the first in the nation to
legalize medical marijuana in 1996, the state has faced unyielding
opposition from the federal government, which insists it has the
power to prohibit a drug it considers useless and dangerous.
That could all change with the next presidential election.
As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12
states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has
become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention
and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.
His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, is
less explicit, recently softening a pledge she made early in the
campaign to halt federal raids in states with medical marijuana laws.
But she has expressed none of the hostility that marked the response
of her husband’s administration to California’s initiative, Proposition 215.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, has
gone back and forth on the issue - promising a medical marijuana
patient at one campaign stop that seriously ill patients would never
face arrest under a McCain administration, but ultimately endorsing
the Bush administration’s policy of federal raids and prosecutions.
Political battles over exempting medical patients from marijuana laws
have been fought mostly in statehouses and at ballot boxes since
1996, when California voters repealed state criminal penalties for
those who used the drug with their doctor’s approval. But the federal
government has played an important role in limiting the scope of
those state laws, and their effectiveness over the next four years
may be determined by the next president.

Bill Clinton’s Position
President Bill Clinton’s administration opposed the California law
from the start and won a court case allowing it to shut nonprofit
organizations that supplied medical marijuana to members. Clinton’s
Justice Department also tried to punish California doctors who
recommended marijuana to their patients by revoking their authority
to prescribe any drugs, but federal courts backed the doctors.
The Bush administration has gone further, raiding medical marijuana
growers and clinics, prosecuting suppliers under federal drug laws
after winning a U.S. Supreme Court case, and pressuring commercial
property owners to evict marijuana dispensaries by threatening legal
action. The administration has also blocked a University of
Massachusetts researcher’s attempt to grow marijuana for studies of
its medical properties.
Since 2001, federal prosecutors have won convictions in at least 28
California drug cases where defendants claimed they were supplying or
using medical marijuana, according to the National Organization for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Prosecutors have filed charges in 22
more cases, and authorities have raided 10 growers or dispensaries
without filing charges, the group says.
The presidential candidates haven’t discussed the issue in speeches
or debates, but medical marijuana advocates regularly questioned them
in Iowa and New Hampshire. The most sweeping changes were proposed by
second-tier candidates - Democrats Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and
Chris Dodd and Republican Ron Paul called for repealing federal
criminal penalties for marijuana - but of the remaining contenders,
Obama has been the friendliest to advocates of medical marijuana.
At a November appearance in Audubon, Iowa, Obama recalled that his
mother had died of cancer and said he saw no difference between
doctor-prescribed morphine and marijuana as pain relievers. He said
he would be open to allowing medical use of marijuana, if scientists
and doctors concluded it was effective, but only under “strict
guidelines,” because he was “concerned about folks just kind of
growing their own and saying it’s for medicinal purposes.”
Obama went a step further in an interview in March with the Mail
Tribune newspaper in Medford, Ore. While still expressing qualms
about patients growing their own supply or getting it from
“mom-and-pop stores,” he said it is “entirely appropriate” for a
state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, “with the same
controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors.”
In response to recent questions from The Chronicle about medical
marijuana, Obama’s campaign - the only one of the three contenders to
reply - endorsed a hands-off federal policy.
“Voters and legislators in the states - from California to Nevada to
Maine - have decided to provide their residents suffering from
chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with
medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering,” said campaign
spokesman Ben LaBolt.
“Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make
this choice - though he believes medical marijuana should be subject
to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs,”
LaBolt said. He said the FDA should consider how marijuana is
regulated under federal law, while leaving states free to chart their
own course.

Obama Would End DEA Raids
LaBolt also said Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.
Those raids have been the focus of Hillary Clinton’s comments on the
issue. At a July campaign event in Manchester, N.H., she told a
medical marijuana advocate that she would end the federal raids,
according to Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, which recorded
the exchange.
But the candidate was less absolute in a more recent interview with
the Willamette Week newspaper in Hillsboro, Ore.
“I don’t think it’s a good use of federal law enforcement resources
to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal
purposes,” Clinton said in the April 5 interview. But when asked
whether she would stop the raids, she replied, “What we should do is
prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high
priority. There’s a lot of other, more important work that needs to be done.”
Clinton has also said she opposes repealing criminal penalties for
marijuana, but told advocates in October that the government should
conduct more research “into what, if any, medical benefits it has.”
McCain has taken a variety of positions, according to comments
recorded by medical marijuana advocates.
At an April 2007 campaign kickoff event, when asked if he would end
federal raids, he said, “I would let states decide that issue.” But
less than two months later, he said he would not end the raids. Then,
in November, he promised a man who described himself as a seriously
ill marijuana patient that he would “do everything in my power” to
make sure the man was never arrested for using the drug.

No Policy Paper
While maintaining that medical experts considered marijuana
ineffectual and potentially dangerous, McCain promised at the same
November event in New Hampshire to consult with experts and issue an
“in-depth policy paper” on the topic within a few days. McCain’s
campaign has not responded to media inquiries, and marijuana
advocates say the policy paper was never issued.
He was also asked during a November conference call whether the
federal government should override the will of the people in states
with medical marijuana laws. “Medical marijuana is not something that
the, quote, people want,” McCain replied.
Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the advocacy group Marijuana Policy
Project, said he remains hopeful that the federal climate will
improve, no matter who becomes president.
“All it takes,” he said, “is for the Justice Department to say,
‘Leave these states alone.’”

Newshawk: Help for LTE writers www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
Pubdate: Mon, 12 May 2008
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: A - 1, Front Page
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/EAGp5ATp
Copyright: 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

Tags: 420, ballot boxes, barack obama, bob egelko, california style, california voters, chronicle staff writer, dr pauly, federal intervention, federal raids, hillary rodham clinton, John McCain, legalize, marijuana, mary jane, medical marijuana laws, medical marijuana patient, medical patients, next presidential election, pot, pot clubs, Pot limit, president bill clinton, proposition 215, Reefer, republican nominee, sen hillary rodham clinton, sen john mccain