From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.drugs.pot,sci.med
Subject: Re: Privatizing Pot - Can the marijuana monopoly be broken?
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:49:09 -0700
Message-ID: <bfsc56$1u$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>

"Opiated" <nosuch@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3q63ivccmb7nk5jrr95q6p5iehp6somo48@4ax.com...
> In The Year of Our Lord=-+->!! Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:03:34 GMT,<-+-=Our
> highly esteemed and respected member=-+-> Jasbird
> <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> <-+-=Put forth this notion for all
> to ponder...
>
> >Privatizing Pot
> >
> >Can the marijuana monopoly be broken?
> >
> >By Jacob Sullum | July 11, 2003
> >
> >"The question of whether marijuana has any legitimate medical purpose
> >should be determined by sound science and medicine." That is the
> >federal government's official response to the medical marijuana
> >movement, as expressed in November 2001 by Asa Hutchinson, then head of
> >the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Since California and Arizona
> >passed the first medical marijuana initiatives in 1996, both the
> >Clinton and Bush administrations have insisted that the therapeutic
> >value of cannabis should be judged by the Food and Drug Administration
> >(FDA) based on careful research, not by voters or state legislatures
> >based on emotional appeals.


Too bad. The Feds blocked research on marijauna for 30 years
by making it nearly impossible for researchers to get
legally. They've stopped doing that, but we're 30 years
behind in information. So, tough bananas. If the feds
complain now that it's being done by voters without enough
scientific knowledge, the feds know who to blame for THAT.


> ~Isn't Marinol a prescription pharmaceutical made from the synthetic
> form of THC?
> Isn't it prescribed to treat the same ailments that medical marijuana
> users treat with the plant in it's raw form?
> Huh..when was the last time a large pharma firm manufactured a drug
> that has no therapeutic value?
> Methinks it all comes down to who is making the dope..and if it has a
> trademark on it or not..


Of course. Note the legal Ritalin epidemic in schools,
though selling amphetamines to kids in schoolyards was
considered the height of child abuse 20 years ago. Now the
kids sell it to each other, the pharmacists sell it to the
parents who give it to the kids, and everybody pretty much
tries very hard to look the other way.

As for Marinol aka THC, I hear they're going to genetically
engineer plants to make it.  Maybe put the genes in tobacco
plants or even hemp ;). An inhaled delivery system for same
is under intense development by the pharmaceutical industry.
It's not impossible that a way will be found to keep the
chemical stable, so that if the plant itself or its resin is
burned, the chemical can be taken into the lungs with the
smoke directly. How about that for science fiction? Of
course, high biotechnology is expensive. It won't be here
for 20 years, and then the big question is whether or not
the government will pay for it as a prescription drug
benefit. The year 2030 is just about the time nursing homes
will begin playing Beatles music, and I figure that's about
appropriate to be charging MediCal for those
genetically-engineered $50 self-igniting Doobies.

SBH