HempCyberFarm Clinton Pot Judgement

Article from “The Economist” dated Jan. 4th 1997

In our humble opinion, the article below clearly shows that Clinton can enforce his will on states only because he has federal powers. In the case of Medical Marijuana in California and Arizona (including Kentucky, Colorado and also for Hemp?) this person’s will goes exactly opposite compared to the majority of the voters. Is this democracy? Federal yes, state no! Also because Hemp fits in the same category as MM no one is ever allowed to even experiment or otherwise conduct scientific tests. Which is the stage at least Canada is in. No-one has been brave enough to undertake further reserch or other actions in order not to risk one’s career, politically or otherwise. In other words a perfect political catch-22. What can we do about this? What do you think? e-mail us at Matthew@HempWorld.com

The article is copied from “The Economist” exactly as is without modifications except for some underlined highlights:

Clinton’s Judgement Goes to Pot
Instead of demonising marijuana, America’s government should take the opportunity to find out if it has any medical value
Some of those who oppose the legalisation of marijuana believe that long-term exposure to it induces mild paranoia. What seems certain, however, is that exposure to questions about the stuff can induce serious paranoia in politicians. The latest example of this is the announcement from the White House that Bill Clinton intends to use all available means to frustrate the will of those voters in California and Arizona who want their doctors to be able to prescribe pot for medicinal purposes.

Technically, Mr. Clinton is within his rights. In America, medicines have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be prescribed. Marijuana is not so approved. And, since permission to prescribe has thus been sequestered by the federal government, the register of doctors allowed that privilege is also federal. Mr. Clinton is therefore threatening to strike off any Californian or Arizonan doctors who act on the votes that were cast in their states in November. In effect, this would end their careers.

His response, though, is ill-judged: and not just because it tramples on the states. It seems to be based on two fears. The first is of an anti-drugs lobby which is unwilling to concede that marijuana could possibly have any medical benefits. The second is that making marijuana a prescription drug could be the thin end of a wedge that would lead to full legalisation.

The idea that marijuana is not a useful palliative seems implausible. Many patients believe it is. So do many doctors. So, in effect, does the FDA. For although the plant itself is banned, a synthetic version of its active ingredient, THC, has been approved for the sort of applications that marijuana is also used for-to relieve pain and to stimulate the appetites of people suffering from conditions such as cancer and AIDS.

The fear that making marijuana a prescription drug might lead to total legalisation is , in one sense, a more legitimate one. Many of the people who supported the referendums in California and Arizona clearly hope that this will happen. But that fear is legitimate only if there is genuinely something to be afraid of.

So what, exactly, are you worried about?

The way to allay both fears, surely, is to approach the matter scientifically. A first step towards this would be not to crush the experiments in California and Arizona, but to monitor them. A second would be to subject marijuana to clinical trials of the sort that researchers would conduct into the efficacy and safety of any other drug.

Under current American law this is difficult. Since possession of marijuana is normally illegal, special federal dispensation must be granted for such trials, and this requires a political will that does not look likely to be forthcoming any time soon. Even though the decision to carry out trials would not come directly from the White House, it would be a brave one for the director of any federal research agency to make unless he was sure of the president’s backing.

But such a study would clear up the question of whether smoking marijuana is, as many patients believe, really more effective than taking THC. It might also shed some useful light on the wider question of how safe marijuana really is. If that information turns out to have implications for the drug’s legalisation for healthy people as well as the sick, so be it.

*Industrial-Hemp has no psychoactive properties following definition of the European Economic Community (EEC); THC content is less than 0.3%. In general, low THC-seed varieties without psychoactive properties are those that have a THC content of less than 1%. (See also No-THC Hemp-seed.) THC= Delta-9 TetraHydroCannabinol.