What Do You Say, DEA?

On April 29, 2008 representative John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to DEA administrator Michele Leonhart asking a number of questions about the DEA’s raids of California medical marijuana dispensaries and threats directed against their owners.

Conyers’ questions included:

• Is asset forfeiture an appropriate tactic to use against the sick and their caregivers?
  
• Is the DEA making the best use of its limited resources by raiding medical dispensaries when violent drug cartels in Mexico and South America are out of control?
  
• How are the DEA’s raids impacting the state of California’s ability to collect taxes?
  
• What role, if any, does recent research on the medicinal value of marijuana play in the DEA’s decision to target medical marijuana users and dispensaries?
  
• Would the DEA agree to forming an outside commission to review policy and make recommendations to help bring federal and state laws into agreement?
  
• Conyers also asked for an accounting of the costs and legal status of 60 specific cases resulting from the recent raids of California dispensaries (a list of those raids is attached to the letter). 

The deadline for Leonhart's response was July 1. So what happened? Did Leonhart actually respond to Conyer's questions? If so, I have not been able to find anything about it. If you know about a DEA response, please post a comment and let me know where I can find the response.

My guess is that Conyer’s request for information has been and will be ignored. And why not? The DEA does not answer to Congress. They are under the direction of the attorney general who answers only to the president. There are no checks and balances for any of those involved with the classification of drugs or the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. That’s why the DEA is able to get away with such deplorable behavior in the name of enforcing the law. Only in America.

An Oxymoron? Or Is It Sarcasm?

What exactly does “controlled substance” mean? It’s in the name of the federal legislation (The Controlled Substances Act) that declares certain recreational drugs illegal. But it seems to me that the government throws this term around willy nilly without really thinking about its meaning. In what way are controlled substances controlled? In particular, I’m talking about the Schedule I substances. How in their wildest imaginations can the folks in our government refer to these drugs as controlled? You’d think they’d always be cracking up about it. Like during speeches. At the very least, snickering whenever they said it. But I digress.

Substances classified in lower schedules which have medicinal uses are controlled by requiring a prescription for their possession and use. Their manufacture and distribution are fairly strictly controlled by the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and physicians. But because Schedule I substances have no medical uses, none of those groups have any involvement in their manufacture or distribution. Schedule I substances are grown/manufactured and processed under unknown conditions by unknown, and often unskilled, people. Their quality and purity are not guaranteed nor consistent. They are imported freely. They are sold anywhere, anytime to anyone regardless of age and with no concern for possible health risks. And of course “control” for the government must include a tax. Any commodity that is not taxed in one way or another by the government cannot be considered controlled.

So maybe Schedule I substances should have their own separate legislation. Why lump them in with the other substances that really are controlled? Something like the “Substances We Don’t Want You To Use, But Can’t Stop You If You Really Want To” Act. Or possibly the “We Could Be Collecting Taxes, But Instead We’ll Spend Lots Of Money Trying To Stop You From Using These Substances” Act. Or maybe the “Hey Kids, These Substances Are Much Easier To Get Than Alcohol” Act. I could go on.

On the other hand, if we keep the legislation as is, including it’s name, perhaps we should come up with some equally fanciful job descriptions for the people and institutions who derive their livelihood from it. For example, although the title “Drug Czar” does conjure up images of oppression and brutality, which is an appropriate metaphor in this case, it’s too reality-based. How about Exalted Grand Poobah of Altered Consciousness? The DEA could be called the Mystical Order of the Holy Truth. That would make DEA agents Defenders of The Truth. And of course prisons would be called Labyrinths of Lost Souls. And then when the EGPAC and the DTTs got together (wearing long robes with stars and moons on them and pointy hats) they’d talk about controlled substances while trying to keep a straight face. And maybe play some D & D or cast a spell or two.

Sorry, I seem to have drifted off into a fantasy world where the government actually calls things what they really are. (I think in that world, the Patriot Act had another name too, but I can’t remember it.) But I’m back now. Back to the real world where, fortunately, controlled substances are not.

Super High Me

No, I’m not doing an impression of Yoda describing my current state of consciousness. I’m referring to a major motion picture, Super High Me, which stars stoner comedian Doug Benson. The title and concept are a spoof of the documentary film Super Size Me, in which Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but food from McDonald’s for 30 days. Benson thought it would be funny (or interesting or something) to do the same sort of thing, but substituting marijuana for fast food. One twist he adds is that prior to smoking pot non-stop day and night for 30 days, he goes entirely without for 30 days first. Throughout the 60 days over which the film was shot, Benson was under the care of a physician who periodically ran him through a battery of physical and psychological tests (and psychic too, just in case), just like Spurlock did. Interspersed with Benson’s visits to his doctor are clips of his stand-up act, visits to various California dispensaries, and even some footage of DEA raids on a few of those dispensaries.

Now this is not what I’d call a great movie. The concept is pretty clever, and Benson is reasonably funny at times, although the pot jokes do get a little old after a while. Not being familiar with his work, I’m not sure if that’s his entire act or if they selected just his dope humor bits for this film and left out his other material. Either way, I did get a few chuckles out of the film and would recommend it as a must see for any stoner. Non-stoners will probably not be amused and/or really very interested.

What did stand out for me in this movie though were the results of his little experiment. All of the various tests administered to Benson during his 30 days of abstinence and 30 days of non-stop smoking showed no significant differences between the two periods. His health did not deteriorate dramatically (or at all), nor did his mental abilities during the month of constant smoking. He didn’t become stupid, or lazy, or psychotic. In fact, some of his psychological test scores improved slightly after he started smoking again. I was a bit disappointed that the film didn’t make more of these results. They did comparisons of the two period’s results along the way, but a summary of all the various results at the end would have been nice. Not only between the two 30-day periods covered in the film, but with the results of the film Super Size Me. In that film, Spurlock’s doctor recommend he quit living on fast food before the 30 days were even up. A constant diet of McDonald’s had caused his health to deteriorate to such a degree that his doctor was getting worried. I think that is a big deal. Fast food is more hazardous to your health than smoking marijuana. I believe that is the single most important thing about this film and should have been stated more explicitly.

Coincidentally, a few weeks earlier I wrote a little satire piece about declaring war on fast food. Little did I know how close to home I was hitting with my attempt at humor. Maybe we really should be more concerned with real, as opposed to imaginary, threats to the public health when passing legislation designed to protect people from themselves. Or maybe we should just let adults decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. Or maybe that’s just crazy talk, and we should just let things go on the way they have been. After all, we can’t go around putting people in jail just because they consume something that some people think they shouldn’t. Oh wait. Of course we can. This is America after all.

Show Me The Money

One of the major factors contributing to the continuation of the war on drugs is money. (There are a few others, but I’ll save those for another day.) No matter what else you might think or say about the war on drugs, you would have to admit that it supports a pretty significant chunk of our economy. This year alone, the federal government will spend over $20 billion on it in this country and almost that much in other countries. You can add to that the $30 billion that will be spent by individual states. Much of that goes to law enforcement, making it possible to arrest about a million people this year for marijuana alone. And another significant portion goes to building prisons and housing all of those drug offenders. And let’s not forget the “aid” we give to foreign countries to help them combat drug trafficking. No matter how you look at it, $70 billion is a pretty good chunk of change. No doubt, a lot of people’s lives would be impacted financially by an end to the war on drugs. Of course a lot of people’s lives are being impacted now, but in a way much worse than the loss of a job. So I believe a change is needed. And the only way something so big will ever change is if it is economically feasible. I think it can be.

Consider the fact that marijuana is currently the fourth largest cash crop in the U.S. It is the number one cash crop in 10 states, and among the top 5 in 29 others. That’s in spite of all the money that’s been spent over the last 70 years trying to eradicate it. Just imagine the economic potential of legal marijuana. And then there’s hemp, which also has the potential to be a major cash crop in this country. Lots of jobs would be created just in agriculture alone. There would also be a number of related industries created to process the crops. Hemp in particular would require a variety of manufacturing capabilities, creating more jobs.

Some argue that the pharmaceutical companies don’t want marijuana legalized because they would lose business to an easy-to-grow medicine. That may be true to some extent, but they are not making any money on marijuana now, so the only real loss would be if it became preferred over current drugs. I don’t really see this as a problem though, since nothing would prevent the pharmaceutical companies from producing and selling marijuana themselves. They’re already developing synthetic marijuana-based drugs, so why not include the real (i.e., natural) thing? I think the vast majority of people would prefer to get their medicine from a “reputable” company that assures quality control, rather than going to the trouble of growing it themselves or buying it “on the street”. That is, if the price from these reputable dealers is reasonable. After all, the ease with which tomatoes can be grown at home has not wiped out the commercial tomato industry. So it seems to me that pharmaceutical companies would be the most logical manufacturers and distributors of medical marijuana, and that there should be a fair amount of money to be made from that business.

As far as recreational marijuana, it seems to me the logical choice is the tobacco industry. In fact I can’t understand why, with all the concern about the health hazards of tobacco these days, that the tobacco industry isn’t lobbying hard for the legalization of marijuana (I’m assuming they’re not since they have a way of getting what they want). They already have a lot of the expertise and infrastructure in place. Growing and distributing recreational marijuana should be a no-brainer for the tobacco industry. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up making them more money than tobacco. And just think of all the great advertising we’d get to see. Something like this maybe?

And finally, there’s the government’s cash flow problems. Perhaps you’ve heard of a little thing called the national debt? (Don’t get me started on that.) Rather than spending money, the government would be making money in the form of new taxes. I don’t think you have to be an economist to know that spending less and taking in more is the only way to reduce a debt. And I think a net annual gain for the government of a few hundred billion would make a significant difference.

So you see, money doesn’t have to be an issue when it comes to ending the war on drugs. Yes, some jobs would be lost, most of those in the law enforcement field. And of course the black market would be impacted, putting a lot of drug dealers and smugglers out of business. But I believe in the long run, far more jobs would be created. And there would be a net gain in government revenue as well. More importantly, the people running our government would also come out ahead. They may lose some “income” from a few special interest groups, but that would quickly be replaced by money from others. So the pockets of our leaders would still be just as stuffed as ever. And when you get right down to it, isn’t that what our government is all about?

Tony Who?

I’m often asked where the name Tony Aroma came from (and by “often,” I mean at least twice). For the answer to that question you’ll have to ask my parents, Estelle and Sergio Aroma. Just kidding. And before you ask, the name is in no way related to the similar-sounding name of a popular chain of rib joints.

Actually, it came from an old friend who used to use that term to refer to a certain medicinal herb. It’s just one of those countless code names that I’ve heard over the years. But it’s always been my favorite and also, coincidentally, one of the few that I thought sounded good as a pseudonym. And just so you don’t think I made a hasty decision, I did consider a number of alternative code names that I’ve used or heard.

I thought using Mary Jane might be a little trite, not to mention the fact that I’m not a girl (as far as you know). And of course referring to myself as Bob Marley might cause some confusion and possibly litigation. I was afraid that calling myself the Assassin of Youth, although kind of cool sounding, might send the wrong message to younger or more sensitive viewers. Other terms I found equally inappropriate for various reasons. I also considered and rejected the following: Reefer Man, Muggles, Wacky Tobacky, Alice B. Toklas, Aunt Mary, Doobie Brother, Bogart, Acapulco Gold, Don Juana, Fatty, Green Goddess, Smokey McPott, Jolly Green, Juan Valdez, Lubage and/or Doobage, Mighty Mezz, Panama Red, Puff the Magic Dragon, Square Mackerel, Sweet Lucy, and the White-Haired Lady. What do you think? Did I make the right decision?

Oh, and if you’re wondering if you might be that “old friend” from whom I appropriated my name, you very well may be. In fact, you probably are. He (or she) has to be somebody, so why not you? If not you, then who? And if it is you, I hope you don’t mind me using your code name for my pen name.

Hemp ≠ Marijuana, Alcohol = Drugs

I ran across a clip on You Tube the other day while looking for information on the candidates’ views on the war on drugs. It showed a portion of a town hall meeting in New Hampshire recorded on July 14, 2007 in which Senator John McCain, Republican candidate for the presidency, said the following:

“When first I came to New Hampshire in 1999, a young woman stood up and said, ‘What do you think about the use of hemp?’ Being an old Navy man I said, ‘It’s great. It’s wonderful. You make ropes out of it.’ It was only later that I learned that there’s other uses for hemp besides making rope.” [at which point the conservative crowd chuckles knowingly]

I don’t think he was talking about using hemp as a petroleum substitute or in the manufacture of paper or cloth. To me, this is a little bit scary. How can an individual that I believe is reasonably well educated and intelligent not know the difference between one of the most valuable industrial crops known to mankind and a popular recreational drug? (Yes, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he’s just plain ignorant.) If that’s what he really believes, how many other legislators (and citizens) also don’t know the difference? And if such ignorance is as pervasive as I fear it to be, how are we ever going to make any progress toward a more sensible system of legislation and control of either crop?

Just so we’re clear, hemp and marijuana are related. They do share a lot of DNA. But so do humans and chimpanzees. Granted we don’t physically resemble our great ape relatives as much as hemp resembles marijuana (you can’t really tell them apart based on the plant’s physical appearance), but that’s no excuse. Marijuana contains a number of psychoactive substances and is, and always has been, a popular recreational drug. Hemp on the other hand, by definition, has no psychoactive properties and therefore cannot be used recreationally. Unless of course you consider the recreational uses of rope, cloth, fuel, and plastics. The two crops may look alike, but they have no overlap whatsoever in how they are used.

And speaking of psychoactive substances, Mr. McCain made another statement that (I hope) further illustrates his ignorance. He made a clear distinction between drugs and alcohol. Sadly, I know from personal experience that many others make this same distinction. For some reason that I don’t fully understand, many people today do not consider alcohol a “drug.” It probably has something to do with the fact that it’s legal, while recreational drugs are illegal. Or because it doesn’t come in small, plastic pill bottles with child-proof caps and is never prescribed. Maybe it’s because it’s a liquid while most drugs people use on a regular basis are in pill form. Whatever the reason, there’s simply no excuse in this day and age for so many people to be consuming a recreational drug and not even knowing they are doing so.

Again, just to be clear, ethyl alcohol is a psychoactive (i.e., having a significant effect on mood or behavior) substance, aka a recreational drug. If you want to get technical about it, so are caffeine and nicotine. But unlike marijuana, alcohol is highly toxic. It is essentially a poison that if you don’t consume enough to kill you, will temporarily alter your consciousness. It has no medicinal value (other than as an antiseptic—a benefit of its toxicity) and is used purely recreationally, often with disastrous consequences. Using the phrase “alcohol and drugs” is like saying “apples and fruit.” If you want to make some kind of distinction between the two, at least insert the word “other” after “and.”

It’s not just Mr. McCain either. Even scarier, the DEA appears equally ignorant, or so they’d like us to believe. In an official news release , the DEA states that “many Americans do not know that hemp and marijuana are both parts of the same plant and that hemp cannot be produced without producing marijuana.” I guess DEA administrator, Asa Hutchinson, would be one of those “many Americans” who is confused. You can produce hemp without producing marijuana. I think it would be kind of a good thing if the people responsible for enforcing the laws, knew what substances the laws referred to. It would also be a good thing if our government got their facts straight and stopped lying to the public. Perhaps someone should sit Mr. Hutchinson down and tell him the story about the boy who cried wolf.

So, Mr. McCain and everyone else holding or aspiring to public office, please get your facts straight. Marijuana and hemp are not the same thing. As they say, you can’t judge a house by its front door. And, regardless of what you call it, alcohol is most definitely a recreational drug. A rose by any other name...

What About Hemp?

Hemp: A strain of Cannabis sativa that contains less than 0.3 % THC by weight. Its fibers and oil can be used in a wide variety of products.

Did you know that growing hemp is legal in the United States? Yes, it’s true, sort of. Kind of. In theory. Federal law and the laws of eight states currently permit the growing of industrial hemp. There’s only one little catch: You are required to get a license from the DEA in order to be allowed to grow hemp, and the DEA does not grant licenses (the last hemp license was issued in the 1950s). Until recently, the DEA justified their denial of license requests by saying that growing hemp was illegal in the state from which the request came. Since that’s no longer a valid justification, they now just ignore requests. See for example this recent case where two North Dakota farmers (the first state to legalize hemp) played by all the rules and were still ignored and eventually refused a license. They sued the DEA, but of course their case was dismissed.

So why is the United States the only industrialized nation in the world that does not allow industrial hemp, which is not a recreational drug, to be grown. I mean really, not the crazy, nonsensical reasons given by the DEA. Doesn’t anyone here realize that hemp is arguably the most valuable non-food crop known to mankind? I’m not exaggerating. From the beginning of time through the 1950s, hemp was grown pretty much everywhere by pretty much everybody. It still is, except of course in the U.S. And at one time it was even required to be grown by farmers here. Why? What makes it so valuable? What can it be used for? The following is nowhere near an exhaustive overview, but I think is more than enough to answer these questions.

How about using hemp seed oil as a substitute for petroleum products? That’s right, virtually anywhere petroleum is used, hemp oil can be substituted. Hemp provides a biodegradable, renewable source of clean fuel that could reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And let’s not forget another major use of petroleum products, plastics. Just imagine the positive effects on the environment that would result from the use of biodegradable plastics. Oh, did I mention paints and varnishes, which up until the 1930s were made with hemp oil?

What about textiles? Anything that can be made from cotton can be made from hemp fibers, and has been until recently. Not only are hemp fabrics more durable than those made from cotton, but hemp is easier to grow, requires fewer polluting fertilizers, and is much less labor-intensive to harvest and process. And let’s not forget the ever-popular rope.

And then there’s paper. Paper made from hemp costs about half of what it costs to make paper from trees. Part of the reason is because it grows so much faster than trees—a hemp plant’s growth in one season is equivalent to a tree’s growth in 20 years. It also requires the use of fewer fertilizers, and the paper produced is more durable and more flexible than paper made from trees.

Last but not least is hemp as a source of nutrition. Hemp seeds contain 25 percent protein, second only to soybeans. And they are high in essential fatty acids (whatever those are), such as omega-3. A variety of hemp-based food products—such as snack bars, milk, oil, and protein powder—are already legal and available in the U.S. However the hemp used to produce these products must be imported.

So, just let me make sure I understand this correctly: Hemp can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help reduce our trade deficit, boost our agricultural economy, provide a renewable and clean alternative to fossil fuels, reduce the use of chemical fertilizers thus helping clean up the environment, save trees, save labor, and save money. And it’s good for you. So please explain to me one more time why it’s not permitted in the U.S.

This brief little overview just barely scratches the surface of all the uses and benefits of hemp. For more information, check out the North American Industrial Hemp Council’s web site.

Getting Two Birds Stoned At Once

The typical approach to decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana is through legislation. That means either modifying existing laws or introducing new laws. By modifying a law I mean something like changing marijuana’s classification under the Controlled Substances Act, from a Schedule I substance to a Schedule II or III substance. Introducing a new law is exactly what it sounds like, a new bill that would change the legal status of marijuana. Two such bills were recently introduced. One, introduced by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), would require federal authorities to respect state’s laws on medical marijuana. The other, introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), would eliminate all federal penalties for personal use and possession. It’s doubtful either of these bills will pass, but even if they do I don’t believe that this is the best approach and here’s why.

Laws change all the time. One day something is legal and the next day it’s not. Or vice versa. Just look at all the legislation passed during the 20th century relating to recreational drugs. All were at one time legal and at other times illegal. The status of recreational drugs is something that is totally dependent on the whims of the current administration.

What I’m suggesting is a more permanent and general solution: a Constitutional amendment. But I’m not talking about something like the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) in reverse; something that would specifically decriminalize marijuana. I’m talking about something much more general and more fundamental: an amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy; a right that is conspicuously missing from our Bill of Rights. Granted, the Bill of Rights does refer to certain aspects of privacy, but very indirectly (Amendments 1, 4 and 9).

To me, a constitutional amendment that specifically protects our privacy seems like an obvious solution. But no where have I seen such an approach mentioned with respect to current decriminalization efforts. And it’s certainly not my original idea, since Alaska’s Constitution includes such a right in its Declaration of Rights. It simply states:

The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.

(Alaska State Constitution, Article 1, Section 22)

When this section was later implemented by the legislature, additional clarification and safeguards were added, but its meaning remains the same: The government cannot interfere with what people do in private. Simple and to the point. Such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would not only affect the growing and/or consumption of medicinal herbs of any kind, but a number of other human behaviors that have at one time or another been the subject of legislation as well. Hence the title of this essay. For example, all laws relating to sexual behavior would also become void. People (and by that I mean consenting adults) would be free to do what they want in their own homes without fear of prosecution (or should I say persecution). It sounds to me a lot like that unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness that we were told we have.

So this idea seems right and just, and makes a lot of sense to me. And I think that’s why it will never happen. Regardless of what rights were promised to us by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, there will always be people in power who will want to tell others how to live their lives. If there weren’t, then we’d have peace on Earth and everyone would be living together in harmony. And we all know that ain’t never going to happen.

A New Anti-Drug Commercial

I’m getting pretty tired of all this recent government anti-drug propaganda. You’d think they’d have learned by now that this stuff doesn’t work. Of course, the main reason for its failure is that it’s full of lies and gross exaggerations. Anybody that actually smokes marijuana knows this stuff isn’t true. Granted, what we are seeing today is a little more subtle than what was being produced in the Reefer Madness days, but still no more truthful. And, I don’t know about you, but if I catch somebody in a lie I’m going to be very skeptical about anything they tell me after that. In effect, this propaganda is essentially destroying the government’s credibility when it comes to informing people about drugs.

So I think the government needs to come clean and be honest about why they want to keep recreational drugs (other than alcohol, that is) and homegrown medicines illegal. Rather than talking about the devastating effects of drugs, they should be talking about the devastating effects of the war on drugs. So here’s my idea for an honest public service announcement:

The scene opens in front of a prison. A warden, who looks and sounds like a stereotypical small-town Southern sheriff (kind of like Jackie Gleason in Smokey and the Bandit), says:

“See this prison here? It’s chock full of what you call your ‘drug offenders.’ So what do you want to go and legalize dope for? If it ain’t a problem, then why are all those people locked up in there? Besides, what are we all supposed to do if they shut this place down. Become night watchmen?”

Cut to a corporate executive type in a very expensive-looking office:

“Where do you want to get your drugs? From a big company that spends billions on R and D and hardly ever hurts or kills anybody with their products, or from your own back yard. Who are you going to trust for your medicine? Yourself? We think it’s irresponsible and just plain crazy to get your medicine from anyone but us. Trust us, we pretty much know what we’re doing. It’s for your own good.”

Cut to a sleazy-looking minority gang member drug dealer standing on a corner in a seedy neighborhood. A couple of white teenagers are walking away:

“I’m all for the war on drugs. That’s how I make my living. If I can’t sell dope, how’m I suppose to pay for all my flashy jewelry and new cars? I got an image to maintain. And if you don’t care about me, think about the kids. Where they suppose to get they dope from if I’m out of business.”

Cut to a 15-year-old white suburban kid:

“Yeah, think about us. If I’m lucky, I can steal some liquor from my parents or get somebody to buy me some every once in a while. But I can always get weed. If it’s legal, what am I supposed to do? Think about us kids next time you want to go and legalize something.”

Fade to black.

Maybe this could even be turned into a whole series of PSAs, where each one features a different individual or group that benefits from the war on drugs. At least the government might gain some credibility for future propaganda. So NORML or anybody else, if you want to go ahead and produce these television spots you have my permission. I’d even be willing to serve as executive producer, or technical advisor, or even property master.

Catch 22, Or 23, Or Whatever It Takes

If you follow the news at all, you may have heard that Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was recently diagnosed with brain cancer (specifically, glioma). So what, you may be asking yourself, does that have to do with anything, let alone the war on drugs? The answer is simple: It has long been known that cannabis may have anti-cancer properties. I say “may have,” because at this point there just hasn’t been enough serious research done to make any definitive claims about the medicinal properties of marijuana with respect to cancer treatment.

And when I say that marijuana’s potential as a cancer treatment has been known for a long time, I mean over 30 years. Maybe not so long relative to the age of the universe, but an eternity when it comes to cancer research. In fact, the first modern study that showed cannabis may have potential as an anti-cancer treatment was commissioned by none other than the U.S. government in 1974. One of the major findings of this reputable study was that THC, one of the psychoactive compounds in marijuana, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.” Unfortunately, just like they did with other government-funded studies of marijuana that reported results in conflict with the “official government position,” our government buried the study and would not fund additional research. In fact, they did such a good job that these results were not known until 1997, and it is virtually impossible to find a copy of the original report.

Just so you don’t get the wrong idea about the U.S. government, they later funded another major study in the mid-1990s (it only took them 20 years). The results were similar, showing THC provided protection from malignant tumors. And the response of the government was similar; virtually no one heard about these results either. Got the right idea about the government now?

And therein lies the Catch 22: Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, which by definition means that it has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” And since it has no medicinal value, the government is well within its “rights” to restrict medical research into its therapeutic uses. Because there are none. Because it’s a Schedule I substance.

Of course reclassifying marijuana requires scientific evidence of its medicinal value. Which becomes a tad difficult when research is not allowed. Apparently the fact that a major medical group, the American College of Physicians, endorses the medicinal use of marijuana is not relevant. Nor are the testimonies of thousands of legal medical marijuana users and their prescribing physicians. More research is clearly needed, but research is not allowed. This sort of circular reasoning just gives me a headache. Maybe I should move to California and get a prescription.

So once again we see that our government, in claiming to protect us from ourselves, will do anything it takes to keep marijuana out of our hands. But what about protecting us from cancer? Granted, that is not mandated in our Constitution any more than protecting us from ourselves is, but the government has to have its priorities. It can only do so many unconstitutional things at one time. Allowing people to be treated with a medicinal herb that anybody can grow only benefits those particular individuals who are treated. It doesn’t make anybody (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) tons of money. And I think it’s obvious where our government’s priorities lie.

Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that marijuana is some kind of miracle drug. I’m no physician, and I have no idea what role, if any, marijuana should play in the treatment of cancer. Or any other disease for that matter. But then neither does anybody else. And that’s my point. Marijuana very well could be a miracle drug with a wide variety of therapeutic uses. But with the situation as it is in the United States today, with a government that cares more about money and special interests than about the health and liberty of its citizens, we can never really know for sure.

Oh well, at least I can appreciate the irony of a proponent of the war on drugs dying from a disease for which a cure might already exist, if not for the war on drugs. (Maybe someone could put the senator in touch with Rick Simpson—I think there would also be some irony in the senator having to go to a foreign country for his treatment.)

So as not to end this piece on such a negative note, not all countries have followed our lead in banning medical marijuana research. Over the last ten years, researchers in Spain, Italy, and Germany have shown that cannabis can stop or slow the growth of a variety of cancers, including cancers of the prostate, breast, lung, pancreas, and brain. In fact a human clinical trial recently showed some very positive results with gliomas. Irony indeed.