The 1936 propaganda movie, Reefer Madness, has since morphed into a cult favorite. If you somehow haven’t seen it, get some munchies and prepare to laugh. But acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chuck Rosenberg, still thinks it’s a documentary.
“What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal — because it’s not,” Rosenberg said in a briefing to reporters. “We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don’t call it medicine — that is a joke.”
The absurdity of Rosenberg’s assertion is striking, particularly in his suggestion that we can have an “intellectually honest debate” provided we ignore all medical evidence proving his head is deeply embedded in his ass. That marijuana has significant medical uses isn’t a matter of debate. Hell, heroin has medical uses as well, it being just another opiate.
But Rosenberg’s comments have given rise to calls for his ouster by medical marijuana patients and even members of Congress.
Mr. Rosenberg is right that more research is necessary to answer many remaining important questions about the best uses for medical marijuana. Rather than calling medical marijuana a joke, however, he should acknowledge that it has clearly helped people across the country and call for an immediate end to the federal barriers that have restricted research to date, acknowledging the direct role the DEA has played in limiting science.
Mr. Rosenberg’s statements send a clear signal to the American people that the federal government isn’t listening to them. It erodes trust. Cavalier statements like these fly in the face of state policy and the experience of millions of patients.
That his statement hurt people’s feelings isn’t the point. Of all that can be said of Rosenberg, that’s the most trivial. But then, the letter also includes serious thought:
This statement demonstrates a deep hypocrisy. The only reason there are remaining doubts about the safety or effectiveness of marijuana, or questions about the proper applications of extracts or component parts, is because federal policies have routinely hampered medical marijuana research for decades. The DEA itself has been integral to limiting access to marijuana that can be legally used for research, creating bottleneck and uncertainty challenges for potential researchers. Additionally, DEA has continuously denied petitions to reschedule marijuana, leaving it at the tightly controlled Schedule I level, also limiting the ability of researchers to closely examine it as medicine.
That weed remains on Schedule I is what makes Rosenberg’s statement dangerous. The DEA provides the basis for placement on Schedule I:
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.
To the extent research may be lacking in the medical uses of marijuana, this is why. Which raises a question: how is it possible, given the medical and scientific evidence, that our government refuses to remove pot from Schedule I?
Tom Angell from the Marijuana Majority offers this:
The call for change at DEA is picking up steam. Calling medical marijuana a ‘joke’ runs counter to science showing that cannabis has medical value, and it is out of step with the vast majority of Americans who polls show overwhelmingly support enacting laws to protect patients from arrest. Nearly 100,000 people have signed our petition saying that Rosenberg should lose his job. Now a bipartisan group of lawmakers has placed this controversy right on President Obama’s desk. If he doesn’t act to make a change soon, this is going to be a continuing political problem for his administration.
Yet, there remains a gap here between the deeply ingrained War on Drugs mentality and basic scientific fact. And unlike Tom’, the politics of marijuana doesn’t end with Rosenberg, his clown-nose notwithstanding, or at the desk of President Obama. What about the seven members of Congress who signed the letter? What about the Justice Department. What about every politician who doesn’t want to be viewed as a blithering idiot in denial of the fact that medical marijuana is a scientific fact?
This is not a question of whether recreational marijuana should be allowed, as that’s a policy choice. Nor is it a question of whether medical marijuana is handled well, or whether docs are handing out scripts to stoners for shits and giggles because they don’t buy in to the notion that reefer madness is for real.
With the legalization of medical marijuana on a state basis, as well as the legalization of recreational marijuana, it’s only a matter of time for people to decide that the days, and the claims, of prohibition are over. Civilization hasn’t collapsed because people are toking away in Colorado and Washington, and to the extent other states are watching the experiment, they will see reality no matter what Chuck Rosenberg has to say.
Who cares if Rosenberg is the last caveman firm in his belief that weed is so evil that medical marijuana deserves to be called a “joke”? What he’s done by saying so is conclusively proving that he’s a science idiot. And he’s on the government payroll. Go figure. He’s reduced himself to irrelevance in the discussion because his opinion is contrary to scientific fact. Not even the acting head of the DEA gets to deny science.
We can, and should, have an “intellectually honest debate” about whether it’s good policy to legalize pot, though I suspect we’re beyond the point of debate based upon the experiments in Colorado and Washington. But what we cannot have is a debate on whether the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth or marijuana has legitimate medical benefits.
Screw Chuck Rosenberg. Is there no one in the federal government with sufficient interest in basic scientific truth to act to remove marijuana from Schedule I? Once that happens, we can finally figure out what pot can really do to help those in need, and maybe truly enjoy a midnight showing of Reefer Madness.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Plus, we Europeans have been taking care of this for you.
There’s clear evidence that marijuana is a schizophrenia risk factor for teens, and heavy teenage use can mean adult memory impairment. It’s addictive, and heavy users tend to have less professional success and more unstable relationships. If you’re a grown-up who smokes the occasional joint, it doesn’t seem to be a big deal.
Unless you’re a fed.
But since marijuana can help manage pain, I don’t get the Schedule I mentality either.
Sorry, but we don’t trust your medical research because you guys all dress and talk funny.
It’s the cardigans, right? And the berets.
You eat wrong, too. All that gluten and fat. You should be ashamed, really…
Mostly, it’s the ol’ knickerbockers.
The whole schedule I thing for marijuana is something I’m surprised doesn’t get more play in courts. Back in the 80s there were successful challenges made to the scheduling of cocaine as schedule I in places like Illinois on the basis that it did have medicinal purposes. Other states, however, basically declared that congress could ignore science and it wasn’t for courts to determine whether they were behaving rationally. Go figure. In Idaho, our schedule I says “highly addictive and having no medicinal properties accepted in the United States or as too dangerous for use in treatment under medical supervision.” Which seemed ripe for challenge, and was, but naturally that failed. See State v. Rainier from earlier this year.
I don’t think non-lawyers appreciate the impact, and inexplicable insanity, of pot being a Schedule I drug. And it is utterly, completely, totally, scientifically fucking nuts.
It should not be on Schedule I, and I used to likewise be baffled how it got there.
But after seeing a close relative have to be restrained and hospitalized for a few weeks, and still not be quite the same a couple of years later — after a couple of brownies — I am slightly more sympathetic to those who put it there. Some humans just don’t have compatible chemistry, and as David M. points out, there is (necessary) on-going research in Europe that is working towards figuring all this out.
Aaarrrgh. You took a swan dive down the rabbit hole. This is not to say that pot is the same as jelly beans, but that it doesn’t belong on Schedule I. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on Schedule II or III. Nuance.
Speaking of nuance, I must have missed. I tried to say I can (now) understand how a swan dive down the rabbit hole may seem attractive to some folks, but my first statement (“It should not be on Schedule I”) was meant to indicate that I haven’t jumped in after them…
(And “sympathetic” wasn’t meant to indicate “I agree” but rather that I could talk to such people without asking “Are you fucking nuts?” Not sure I would have managed that before the personal experience.)
Can’t help but call bullshit on this anecdote. Your relative may have claimed it was “just a few brownies”, but it’ far more likely that either this story didn’t happen at all, or it wasn’t brownies that did it.
The law’s majesty naught can surpass.
The law states there is no use for grass.
As those sorites fall,
there’s no question at all:
The law is the law, is an ass!
It is a simple as Mr. Rosenberg needs marijuana to be illegal otherwise his cool badge, free government car, cool Call of Duty gear, great pension, and and trips to South America will evaporate. There is no debate because his job depends on there being no debate! You have to ask yourself what does he truly do to further justice and respect for the law in our country. The answer is plain to most people who are involved in the justice system….Nothing. He is a by product of the endless “War on Drugs” that we can’t pay for and can continue.
Even without pot, there’s plenty of drugs to keep him busy. The DEA isn’t going away anytime soon.
There are strong overlapping but not identical arguments for the decriminalization and reexamination of CSA schedule for marijuana, but the assertion that The Science (citation please?) has “conclusively proven” the benefits of marijuana smoking is false. Rosenberg is making a specific point (that you elide): Inhaling the smoke from a burning marijuana leaf (cannabis) has no strong scientific support at present, whereas chemical products derived from marijuana (cannabinoids) have proven clinical utility. Freebasing smack does not have scientifically demonstrated medical utility, but intrathecal diamorphine does. Same for tobacco smoke vs nicotine, mustard gas vs nitrogen mustard, etc. For a chemical to have a clinical medical use requires at least a constant chemical product and metabolism, suitable therapeutic window, known and consistent efficacy and potency; smoked cannabis does not fit this profile. Cannabinoids, including oral THC (dronabinol, schedule III), do fit this profile and are commonly used. The JAMA study from your second link (meta-analysis of 79 studies…) includes only one study with smoked cannabis, whereas the remainder of studies are for purified/synthetic cannabinoids.
As a physician (in the trenches, to use a common SJ metaphor), medical marijuana at present does not have the clinical utility that cannabinoids do. This may change: A quick perusal of clinicaltrials.gov shows hundreds of studies for cannabis and cannabinoids. But for now, in practice, pragmatism is demanded—I won’t dissuade a cancer patient from smoking a joint, provided the side effects are tolerable—but smoked cannabis isn’t a therapy that I can prescribe. Adults should be able to smoke marijuana for whatever reason (eg, I believe it helps my neuropathy/makes me happy/improves my appetite/Seth Rogen movies), but “Because Science says so” is not a well-supported assertion. Scientifically ignorant posts are detrimental to both science and drug policy reform.
I desperately want to believe you see the disconnect in this sentence. The lack of smoking studies is due to the fact that it’s long been a Schedule I drug, though it hasn’t precluded all studies, and in fact there has been a study proving that smoking pot is an effective delivery method for cannabinoids.
One burning marijuana leaf isn’t like another. You probably know that, but reframing Rosenberg’s blanket condemnation of pot as a nuanced statement on which substances have clinical utility is an unserious thing to do.
Modern strains available for purchase on the street are the result of decades of selective breeding for high THC content at the expense of cannabidiol, to the point that old-school British potheads, who grew up smoking strains with a lower THC/CBD ratio, complain that the flavor’s worse than it used to be (‘skunk’).
On the other hand, certain strains of CBD-enhanced ‘medical’ marijuana have a THC/CBD ratio so low they no longer produce a euphoric effect. It simply depends.
This is the disconnect: “we ignore all medical evidence” “given the scientific and medical evidence” “basic scientific fact” “the fact that medical marijuana is a scientific fact” “conclusively proving that he’s a science idiot” “basic scientific truth” vs “To the extent research may be lacking in the medical uses of marijuana, this is why”
Your post is simultaneously claiming the right of scientific certitude (without in fact citing any actual science) and bemoaning the lack of available science. Yes, we agree that the lack of available science is an argument for changing the schedule of marijuana for research purposes (which I agree with, similar to AMA). You’re right that it hasn’t precluded all studies (note that JAMA article), but you are yet to demonstrate a high-quality scientific study proving the benefits of smoked marijuana (which the tone of your post would lead a reader to believe exist). If you read and understood the NORML statement, you would see this is still true.
I addressed your second point in the following sentence. To use the extreme example, bombing a town with mustard gas is an effective way to deliver mustard, but an ineffective way to treat leukemia. Likewise, delivery of cannabinoids isn’t the issue. The issue is which volatile cannabinoids are delivered? At what dose? What else is ingested with marijuana smoke? What are the side effects? This is where research, and more importantly, standardization is required (again, see AMA statement and David M.’s comment about the vast differences in THC content), and this is again the argument for changing classification. The problem with claiming science where none exists in the debate over medical marijuana creates the same issues I see with patients believing in homeopathy at the expense of evidence-based medicine or desperately trying to get into early phase drug trials. I’m not against patients trying those things, but everyone needs to understand that they (1) are not proven to have benefit (though some may ultimately exist), (2) use may preclude using more effective treatments, and (3) there are side effects that are not as widely advertised as the purported benefits.
That’s inaccurate. I don’t link through to every study because (1) this is a blog post, not a journal article with 1000 footnotes, and (2) this is a law blog, not a medical blog. But you (as opposed to me) argue that while there are studies, there aren’t enough studies. I addressed your complaint, which isn’t my issue at all.
I’m more than satisfied with both the quality and quantity of the studies. You are not. That’s fine, but don’t try to attribute that to me. To conflate my responding to your dissatisfaction with the extend of studies that meet your criteria with the point of my post is disingenuous.
For terminal cancer patients, who gives a rat’s ass? Smoke ’em if you got ’em.
For everybody else, let the buyer beware. And studies, schmudies — you can’t even cite those without getting into trouble — how the government classifies drugs really is fucking nuts.
As a medical doctor, you are probably aware that incarcerating people generally leads to worse medical outcomes for them. So, since some 700,000 people a year are being arrested for weed offenses, I’d think this aspect of the problem would be getting a lot more attention from health care professionals than it currently does.
I enjoy your blog and I’m not trying to troll. I took the structure of part your argument as “Because science–>then x”, and I was calling BS on the “because science” part, because it doesn’t exist. But if the law blogger on the law blog is more than satisfied with both the quality and the quantity of the scientific studies, then what else is there to say?
Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving
Well, that’s just passive aggressive. Happy Thanksgiving to you too.