Posts tagged ‘People United for Medical Marijuana’

March 22, 2011

Office of National Drug Control Policy response in regard to medical marijuana

Thank you for contacting ONDCP.

On April 20th, 2006, the FDA issued an advisory concluding that no
sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked
marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human
data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general
medical use.

There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for
treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana. For
example, a prescription drug, Marinol, is currently available to
anyone with a doctor’s prescription. Marinol contains THC, the active
ingredient in marijuana, and has been approved for some of the same
uses as medicinal marijuana.

To learn more about “medical marijuana,” please visit the following
Web sites:

Medical Marijuana Reality Check
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/marijuana_fs.pdf

Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a
Medicine
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html

Medical Marijuana – Marinol
http://www.dea.gov/ongoing/marinol.html

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/

Marijuana Studies/Articles from the National Institute on Drug Abuse
http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugpages/marijuana.html

Marijuana Research Report
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html

The DEA Position on Marijuana
http://www.dea.gov/marijuana_position.html

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

ONDCP Clearinghouse
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov

Advertisements
March 15, 2011

morphine fails as drug for pain reduction

A headline from the New York Times (dated for Monday September 10) published an article that mentioned the attention to the suffering due to the lack of pain medication. As prescription drug costs have been affected on an international level of concern the certainty of being applicable as relief has lowered leaving many left to withstand constant pain. However, in the article it is mentioned as a comparative example that the cost allotted to make morphine is not at all high bringing mention to an Ugandan hospice Care center that makes it own three week supply of liquid morphine at a cost that is less than a loaf of bread.

As expressed in the article, morphine is the leading prescribed pain drug and has brought forth attention to itself not for the medical qualities that are expressed but for the addictive qualities that have come to be known about the abusive drug. The addictive nature that morphine carries has been mentioned in relation to abuse scandals that have made the politics of the nation to become corrupt, in which has happened to many third world countries that are in need of medical supplies to fill the nations’ need of treatment. The drug of choice has also been mentioned to have tie with the nations’ terrorist threats and makes for the uncertainty of allowing the drug to being prescribed by the doctors and physicians in the country out of fear. Pain relief has not been given the same attention as have the war on drugs; a statement made by David E Joranson (A Director of the Pain Policy Study Group at the University of Wisconsins’ medical School) who also stated “It’s the intense fear of addiction which is often misunderstood.”

Also stated in the article is the affirmative attention taken by other doctors that just simply won’t administer the drug due to the terrorist approach due to the demand of this highly addictive drug as a street level is expressed even though this is a highly prescribed drug for pain reduction.

All strong pain killers called narcotics are derived from the opium poppy. Opiates include heroin, morphine, oxycodone, methadone, codeine, fentanyl, buprenorphine, tramadol, cocaine and other prescribed drugs sold under different names. Over time with continual usage, opiates create dependency and if abruptly stopped or withdrawn can bring forth constant nausea, diarrhea, and death. Knowing this information the efforts are still implicated as being expressed as most patients truly in pain can be weaned off opiates once cured of their current ailment.

Marijuana!

Marijuana in relation to this subject matter has been examined as being a “mild” pain reliever in which is not under the same response as morphine or any other opiate, simply because it is not addictive. There is no major terroristic plot to over rub the country with marijuana to support a personal economic strategy nor are there any allegations in regards to abuse towards marijuana in a political tense of the expression.

So why is it so hard to understand a potentially promising medical function for marijuana?

Morphine has been stated to have side effects that cause hallucinations, loss of appetite, and constipation causing patients even in Japan (expressed in a similar article in the same response towards morphine, same date and news paper) expressed a similar concern towards morphine as a prescribed drug for pain relief. Drug enforcement agencies are struggling to adjust to the new reality, that, marijuana may not be as bad as expressed after all. Most assumptions made about marijuana come from police records that express criminal tendencies and marijuana possession as a common factor to one being arrested.

Hopefully, now this may be warranted as being an agent to undermined the true potentials of marijuana as a medical expression.

March 9, 2011

Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. and Assembly Bill 2279 (California)‏

Case law in two of these states (California and Oregon) has determined that a private employer may still terminate an employee for failing a company drug test, even if that employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally.

On January 24, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire a medical marijuana patient for a positive drug test, even if the patient is using medical marijuana legally under state law.

The ruling did not affect California’s medical marijuana laws, but clarified that the laws do not cover employment discrimination. The Court was unwilling to extend the law in a way that it felt was not explicitly stated in the Compassionate Use Act and its implementing legislation.

The case, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions.
How effective is the infamous urinalysis?

Employees are prohibited from reporting to work or working while under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs that adversely affect the employee’s ability to safely perform his or her job duties.
Among the reported 75 million Americans over age 26 who report having used cannabis, more than 70 percent are employed full-time. Many of these individuals are subject to random workplace drug testing. Urinalysis remains the most popular means of drug detection available in the United States, particularly in workplace drug testing programs. Courts generally look upon urine specimen collection as a relatively non-invasive practice, and there are national standards for urine testing in place as well as national certification programs for laboratories performing forensic urine drug testing.

However, standard urinalysis tests for cannabis, in their current form, are not suitable for detecting acute cannabis impairment or recent cannabis use. A fact, that has been brought about because the procedure only detects the presence of inert drug metabolites (compounds produced from chemical changes of a psychoactive substance in the body, but they are not necessarily psychoactive themselves), not the psychoactive parent compound THC.

Presently, no dose-concentration relationship exists correlating cannabinoid metabolite levels to cannabis impairment, nor does a positive test result provide an employer with any indication as to whether the substance may have been ingested while their employee was on the job.(Norml Website) As an objection to the Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., what can an employer do if a person is practicing the safe-regards of consumption based on the previous noted researched facts and statements concerning the legal regards of marijuana and working besides thrashing out it’s power in an non-effective procedure known as termination?

A suggestion might imply that if wage considerations can be noted as a resolve to influencing a positive economic balance, then, considerations should, be made to bring forth a resolve to an out dated policy and practicing procedure in detecting harsh, harmful, and illegal substances as stands, Urinalysis.

Assembly Bill 2279

Assembly Bill 2279 would ban employment discrimination against patients who use medical cannabis in compliance with the rules and regulations of marijuana medicinal policies under California law. Employees who possess a physician’s approval to use medicinal cannabis should possess similar workplace protections as do those workers prescribed other prescription drugs — many of which are far more impairing than marijuana. In many cases, marijuana is as a superior substitute for other, more dangerous FDA-approved prescription drugs whose use is protected.

As measures are resolving to conclude a reasonable means for considering an adjustment to drug testing policy in the regards to a work place how may Florida be considered when exposure of this matter is expected and expressed?

March 1, 2011

The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act‏

The following is an introduction of a bill that has been introduced to the California legislation to progressively innovate marijuana into the state income for the purpose of taxation.

Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act.

An act to add Section 22394.1 to, and to add Chapter 14.5
(commencing with Section 25400) to Division 9 of, the Business and
Professions Code, to amend Section 68152 of the Government Code, to
amend Sections 11014.5, 11054, 11357, 11364.5, 11370, 11470, 11479,
11488, 11532, 11703, and 11705 of, to add Division 10.3 (commencing
with Section 11720) to, and to repeal Sections 11358, 11359, 11360,
11361, and 11485 of, the Health and Safety Code, to add Part 14.6
(commencing with Section 34001) to Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, to amend Sections 23222 and 40000.15 of the Vehicle
Code, and to amend Section 18901.3 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, relating to marijuana.

The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act has been introduced by Tom Ammino, a member of Calfornias 13th district of the state Assembly, in the efforts to gain a revenue of some sort from allowing the aspects of his hand written bill to give the response of a state in which marijuana carries the same limitations of sales as alcohol and tobacco.

As efforts to decriminalize marijuana from caring the same aspect of that of a drug that promotes violent or criminal behavior. In this cause it is not the euphoric state and the behavior while impaired rather than that of the commonness and that direct characterization brought forth by having a common nature that has legislators, lobbyist, and average citizens expressing the fact that marijuana is as average and common as tobacco and alcohol under modern day concept of the law and the limitations of adaptation of laws.

To describe marijuana/cannibus on a federal substance, federal law, classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, implying that it has a high potential for abuse making it illegal to posses. Thus it prohibiting the possession, usage, purchase, sale, and/or cultivation of marijuana.

It seems as the commonness of marijuana becomes apparent some states and local governments have established laws attempting to decriminalize cannabis. Although it must be known that the decriminalization approach is only to aid the progression of medical marijuana as an basis of understanding. In 1974 Dr Robert DuPoint, the White House drug czar, began to publicly support decriminalization of cannabis, although he later changed his mind due to the fact of time spent with prisoners that were heroin addicts changed his mind upon his notice that drug addictions are public health problems. During his employment as drug czar the understanding of the euphoric states that drug carry were still being tested and possessed, so for him to consider the commonness marijuana has in relation to any addictive theory and bringing one to become aggressive and irrational in behavior does expect health threats as a response, a response that should bring forth adaptive signs as any addictive drug has. Although several U.S.-based advocate groups seek to modify the drug policy of the United States to decriminalize cannabis.

October 21, 2009

Now, to change the drug screening policy Mr. President

Recently, The president made it a federal policy to not arrest those that are in state compliance with state policies in which detail marijuana as being legal for those that have been prescribed by a licensed physican. Wow. Since the 1930’s a move as such has been lobbied upon by tose of interest in Washington.

Currently there are 13 states that allow marijuana to be prescribed and used by those that have doctors permission to aid in the effects taken on by ailments such as cancer or diabetes. Now those people may smoke thier pot in peace with-out the fear of being arrested for possession as Mr. Obama ordered that these people are in compliance with state laws and are not the drug war risks that have plauged this nation for some time now.

Since marijuana is now semi decriminalized, shouldn’t we now make the move to allow marijuana to be a part of the drug screening process for these people as an attempt of employment may now be considered for those that are medical marijuana patients? It is almost a legally prescribed substance that if a patient were screened while on marijuana it should pass as that of a medicinal function rather than to be viewed as the harmful substance of the past. This effort to change the drug screening policy might be the most effective in the push to bringing this substance to becoming a legal medicinal substance.

July 6, 2009

Christmas in July

In light of the current legislative actions that have been considered in part towards the understanding of marijuana, nothing seems more improtant than the task of personally presenting your concerns yourself. Contact your Reps. and inquire about current legislative assumptions that the state of Florida has towards marijuana and the personal usage thereof.

Marijuana policy reform not on the 2009 legislative agenda

Although President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both stated that the federal government will no longer expend resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws, Florida legislators have yet to catch on to what modern scientific research, the public, and at least 13 other states already know — sick and dying patients do not belong behind bars for using medicine that has been recommended by a doctor. Please contact your legislators today and ask them to introduce medical marijuana legislation next session. (MPP posting, July 1, 2009, {Another legislative session ends without a medical marijuana bill being introduced; local group decides to put the issue to voters})

People United for Medical Marijuana
http://www.pufmm.org

Personal Use of Marijuana By Responsible Adults Act of 2009
(H.R. 2943)