Well, once again it’s time to give folks on Capitol Hill a dose of ‘reefer reality.’

This morning NORML is taking our message to lawmakers in Washington, DC via the highly influential Hill.com blog.

Why Condemn Phelps, When We Ought to Condemn the Laws That Brand Him A Criminal
via The Hill’s Congress blog

[excerpt]

Add decorated Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps to the growing list of successful Americans who happens to indulge in marijuana during his down time. The tabloid news story is making international headlines, though it’s difficult to understand why.

… Sure, there will be some who will say that this latest chapter in Phelp’s life is deserving of criticism because the 14-time gold medalist is sending a poor message to young children. And what message would that be? That you can occasionally smoke marijuana and still be successful in life. Well sorry if the truth hurts.

Fact is, most Americans who use pot do so for the same reasons — and in the same manner — as do those who drink alcohol. According to a recent University of Alberta study, the majority of adults who use cannabis do so recreationally to “enhance relaxation.” Researchers concluded: “[M]ost adult marijuana users regulate use to their recreational time and do not use compulsively. Rather, their use is purposely intended to enhance their leisure activities and manage the challenges and demands of living in contemporary modern society. Generally, participants reported using marijuana because it enhanced relaxation and concentration, making a broad range of leisure activities more enjoyable and pleasurable.”

No doubt Michael Phelps indulged in the use of marijuana for these very same reasons. He ought not to be condemned for it nor branded a criminal for his actions.

For that matter, neither should anyone else.

As I’ve written before, The Hill is widely read by lawmakers and by the mainstream media, and previous posts by NORML have elicited national press coverage. Therefore, it is vital that we demonstrate the popularity of the marijuana legalization issue by commenting prolifically. Please post your feedback to The Hill and make a point of disseminating this essay to your friends and colleagues.

“The war on drugs has been an utter failure. … (W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation’s) marijuana laws.”
-Barack Obama, January 2004 (Watch the video here.)

“I inhaled frequently, that was the point.”
-Barack Obama, November 2006 (Watch the video here.)

Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”

A: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”
-Statement from Change.gov, the official website of President-Elect Obama, December 15, 2008

Okay, count me among those disappointed, but hardly surprised to see that Change.gov — the official website of the incoming Obama administration — answered the above question, which finished first out of over 7,000 public policy questions submitted to the website, in the most curt and dismissive way possible.

That said, as StoptheDrugWar.org’s Scott Morgan writes, Obama’s brevity is, in fact, quite telling.

As frustrating and insulting as it is to witness an important matter brushed casually to the side without explanation, Obama’s answer actually says a lot. It says that he couldn’t think of even one sentence to explain his position. Within the vast framework of totally paranoid anti-pot propaganda, Obama couldn’t find a single argument he wanted to associate himself with. That’s why he simply said “No. Next question.”

All of this highlights the well-known fact that Obama agrees that our marijuana laws are deeply flawed. He‘s said so, and has back-pedaled recently for purely political reasons. If Obama’s transition team tried to give an accurate description of his position on marijuana reform it would look like this:

Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?” S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama will not use his political capital to advance the legalization of marijuana. While he agrees that arresting adults for marijuana possession is a poor use of law enforcement resources, he believes that the issue remains too controversial to do anything about it.

In fact, Obama essentially said as much earlier this year when asked about the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Obama: “When it comes to medical marijuana, … my attitude is if it is an issue of doctors prescribing marijuana, … I think that should be appropriate. … Whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on (this) issue; the likelihood of that being real high on my priority list is not likely.” (Watch the video here.)

So then, disappointed as we are, how should we proceed?

Answer: Just as we have been.

To be fair to President-Elect Obama, he never pledged to legalize marijuana. Quite the contrary, during his Presidential campaign he backtracked from his previous comments supporting pot decriminalization, and he even went so far as to pick one of the chief architects of the modern drug war to be his Vice President. In short, to believe that the Obama team would have responded to the legalization question any other way was idealistic at best, and foolish at worst.

But that hardly means that we activists should write off the next four years.

In November, editors at the website Alternet.org asked me to draft “a progressive agenda for Obama” regarding marijuana policy. At that time, I listed several realistic, practical actions Obama could take to substantially reform America’s antiquated and punitive pot laws. (Note, legalizing marijuana by Executive Order was not on my wish list.)

These actions include:

1. As President, Obama must uphold his campaign promise to “not … use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws” that legalize the medical use of cannabis. (Watch the video here.)

2. Obama can appoint leaders to the US Department of Justice, DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy who possess professional backgrounds in public health, addiction and treatment rather than in law enforcement.

3. Obama can support the autonomy and health of Washington D.C. voters by encouraging Congress to lift the so-called “Barr amendment” (passed by Congress in 1998 and reinstated every year since then), which prohibits the District of Columbia from implementing a 1998 voter-approved ballot initiative legalizing the use of marijuana by authorized patients.

4. Obama can call for the creation of a bipartisan Presidential commission to review the budgetary, social and health costs associated with federal marijuana prohibition, and to make progressive recommendations for future policy changes.

Ultimately, of course, it’s Congress, not the president, who is responsible for crafting America’s oppressive federal anti-drug strategies. Moreover, it is clear that in the coming years this battle will continue to primarily be fought — and won — on the state level, not in Washington D.C.

That’s not to say that we should not continue to keep the pressure on Obama by continuing to post questions to websites like Change.gov. (My suggestion for the next round of voting… How about: “On Election Day, over 3 million voters decided to legalize the medical use of cannabis in Michigan, making it the 13th state to enact laws allowing the legal medical use of marijuana. While campaigning, you pledged: ‘What I’m not going to be doing is spend Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws on this issue.’ As President, will you and your Attorney General uphold this promise not to target and prosecute patients and providers who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws?“)

However, we must always remember that it will be the actions of tens of thousands — not the actions of just one man — that will ultimately bring an end to America’s vindictive and senseless war on cannabis consumers.

Now let’s get back to work!

UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!

An expanded version of this essay, calling on the federal government to legalize marijuana in a manner similar to cigarettes and alcohol, is now online on The Hill’s influential Congress blog.

Because The Hill is widely read by lawmakers and by the national media, it is vital that we demonstrate the popularity of the marijuana legalization issue by commenting prolifically. Please post your feedback to The Hill and make a point of disseminating this essay to your friends and colleagues.

According to a report released today by the Centers for Disease Control, fewer Americans are smoking cigarettes than at any time in modern history.

“The number of U.S. adults who smoke has dropped below 20 percent for the first time on record,” Reuters reported. This is less than half the percentage (42 percent) of Americans who smoked cigarettes during the 1960s.

Imagine that; in the past 40 years tens of millions of Americans have voluntarily quit smoking a legal, yet highly addictive intoxicant. Many others have refused to initiate the habit. And they’ve all made this decision without ever once being threatened with criminal prosecution and arrest, imprisonment, probation, and drug testing.

By contrast, during this same period of time, state and local police have arrested some 20 million Americans for pot law violations — primarily for violations no greater than simple possession. And yet marijuana use among the public has skyrocketed.

There’s a lesson to be learned here — if only our lawmakers were willing to listen.

Renowned medical researcher Donald Abrams, MD (and the Positive Health Program of the UCSF Medical Service @ San Francisco General Hospital) is seeking a few more patients for a government-funded study that features patients who consume cannabis.*

Patients accepted into the research program will have travel to San Francisco covered and receive cash payments. This research program is part of a continuum of medical cannabis-related research performed by Dr. Abrams and his staff.

The goal’s study is to assess whether using vaporized marijuana affects the safety of prescribed opioids in patients treated for chronic pain.

*To Join This Study You Must:

-Have Ongoing Chronic Pain
-Be 18 or older
-Be on a stable twice-daily dose of sustained-release oxycodone (Oxycontin) for at least 2 weeks before enrollment
-Be willing to give up marijuana for a month prior to entering the study
-Not be a cigarette and/or cigar smoker, or be willing not to smoke for 2 weeks before starting the study
-Meet some additional criteria

If You Are Eligible You Will:

-Spend 5 days and nights in a clinical research center at San Francisco General Hospital
-Have blood tests and other measurements done
-Inhale vaporized marijuana three times a day

If you’re interested in participating in this important medical research, and qualify for the necessary research protocols, please directly contact 415-476-9554 (x315).

Absent these kinds of well constructed scientific research programs to better understand and determine the medical utility of cannabinoids and cannabis, the federal government will continuously oppose patient access to whole-smoked cannabis, therefore this kind of research takes on an even greater sense of concern and scope than just how a specific therapy interacts with patients.

While the prohibition of cannabis is absurd, the ban on the plant’s non-psychoactive components is even more mind-boggling — particularly when it’s apparent that these compounds possess amazing therapeutic properties. Case in point: cannabidiol (CBD).

A just published scientific review by Sao Paulo University (Brazil) researcher Antonio Zuardi reports that there’s been an “explosive increase” of interest in CBD over the past five years. It’s apparent why.

“Studies have suggested a wide range of possible therapeutic effects of cannabidiol on several conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebral ischemia, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, other inflammatory diseases, nausea and cancer,” Zuardi writes. Let’s look at a few of these in detail, shall we?

1. Antiepileptic action
“In 1973, a Brazilian group reported that CBD was active in … blocking convulsions produced in experimental animals.”

2. Sedative action
“In humans with insomnia, high doses of CBD increased sleep duration compared to placebo.”

3. Anxiolytic action
“CBD induce[s] a clear anxiolytic effect and a pattern of cerebral activity compatible with an anxiolytic activity.”

4. Antipsychcotic action
“[C]linical studies suggest that CBD is an effective, safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenic patients.”

5. Antidystonic action
“CBD … had antidystonic effects in humans when administered along with standard medication to five patients with dystonia, in an open study.”

6. Antioxidative action
“[I]t was demonstrated that CBD can reduce hydroperoxide-induced oxidative damage as well as or better than other antioxidants. CBD was more protective against glutamate neurotoxicity than either ascorbate or a-tocopherol, indicating that this drug is a potent antioxidant.”

7. Neuroprotective action
“A marked reduction in the cell survival was observed following exposure of cultured rat pheochromocytoma PC12 cells to beta-A peptide. Treatment of the cells with CBD prior to beta-A exposure significantly elevated the cell survival.”

8. Antiinflammatory action
“CBD, administered i.p. or orally, has blocked the progression of arthritis.”

9. Cardioprotective action
“CBD induces a substantial cardioprotective effect.”

10. Action on diabetes
“CBD treatment of NOD (non-obese diabetic) mice before the development of the disease reduced its incidence from 86% in the non-treated control mice to 30% in CBD-treated mice. … It was also observed that administration of CBD to 11-14 week old female NOD mice, which were either in a latent diabetes stage or had initial symptoms of diabetes, ameliorated the manifestations of the disease.”

11. Antiemetic action
“The expression of this conditioned retching reaction was completely suppressed by CBD and delta9-THC, but not by ondansetron, [an] antagonist that interferes with acute vomiting.”

12. Anticancer action
“A study of the effect of different cannabinoids on eight tumor cell lines, in vitro, has clearly indicated that, of the five natural compounds tested, CBD was the most potent inhibitor of cancer cell growth.”

In sum, the past 45 years of scientific study on CBD has revealed the compound to be non-toxic, non-psychoactive, and to possess a multitude of therapeutic properties. Yet, to this day it remains illegal to possess or use (and nearly impossible to study in US clinical trials) simply because it is associated with marijuana.

What possible advancements in medical treatment may have been achieved over the past decades had US government officials chosen to advance — rather than inhibit — clinical research into CBD (which, under federal law, remains a Schedule I drug defined as having “no currently accepted medical use”)? Perhaps it’s time someone asks John Walters or the DEA?

The Global Cannabis Commission of the respected United Kingdom charity Beckley Foundation released a report today stating that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and that there needs to be serious reconsideration of current prohibition policies.

Report highlights:

-The differences between the annual deaths caused by cannabis and alcohol/tobacco products are stark: Two cannabis deaths worldwide, contrasted with an estimated 150,000 people in Britain alone die prematurely because of alcohol and tobacco consumption.

-Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the results of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment.

-It is only through a regulated market that we can better protect young people from the even more potent forms of dope.

Ever get the feeling right after a speech, presentation or debate that you didn’t include everything you wanted to?

After a few hundred public debates on behalf of NORML since 1991 in support of alternatives to cannabis prohibition, that feeling apparently never subsides…and it didn’t after a debate last week at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed.

Somewhere in the course of the formal questions, answers and rebuttals (and of course, rebuttals of rebuttals!), Mr. Freed drew upon the standard, oft-trotted, ONDCP-fed course of reasoning that 1) medical cannabis use is not accepted by health trade lobby associations like the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society and MS Society of the US (Ironically, the British MS Society supports patient access to medicinal cannabis products), and 2) there are few credible studies that look at cannabis, therefore this is proof-positive that cannabis is not a valuable, non-toxic and remarkably safe therapeutic to use under a physician’s care.

In my brief rebuttal I made two points, 1) there are hundreds of health and medical associations that support patient access to cannabis (and that, ironically the AMA was the one organization in the 1930s that actually stood up against the federal government’s efforts to create cannabis prohibition because of the plant’s clear therapeutic qualities), and 2) that cannabis (and cannabinoids) has been studied to the extreme, with over 14,000 studies on record.

In retrospect, however, I was wrong.

There are not 14,000 cannabinoid-related studies on record. Currently, there are over 17,000 according to a newly released scientific paper I failed to read before the debate!

Doh!

Note to self: Update your debate rhetoric and media talking points!

However, it is not like this one point changed the outcome of what was a well-attended, civil and informative debate.

Over the years I’ve come to learn that when it comes to debating the issue of ‘legalizing’ cannabis on a college or university campus, proponents of Prohibition and the status quo lost the debate long before they’ve hit the stage. Frankly, I think a scarecrow mounted at a podium representing reformers would win the debate anyways as college students are the most anti-prohibitionistic and pro-cannabis law reform segment of the population in America (and Canada, Europe, Australia, etc…).

NORML and I thank the students and faculty of Dickinson College for hosting a debate on the future of cannabis prohibition, and for District Attorney David Freed for his willingness to publicly discuss and debate the topic of cannabis law reform.

Just days after the New York Times, Scientific American, and other MSM outlets finally got wind that cannabis’ germ-fighting properties can halt the spread of MRSA and other multi-drug resistant pathogens, along comes a second just-released study identifying several new non-cannabinoid compounds in the plant which possess anti-bacterial properties.

Investigators at the University of Mississippi report the discovery of eleven new non-cannabinoid constituents in cannabis, several of which possess “anti-microbial” (think MRSA), “anti-malarial,” and “anti-leishmanial” (a common skin parasite) activity. Scientists also reported that several of the compounds also possessed anti-inflammatory properties and acted as potent anti-oxidants.

(The US government, Depart of Health and Human Services actually holds a patent on the use of certain cannabinoids as anti-oxidants and neuroprotectants, which you can read here.)

In other words, when we speak about the healing powers of the cannabis plant, we really mean the entire cannabis plant. We’re not talking about isolating particular cannabinoids, and we’re most certainly not suggesting patients be forced to consume an oral synthetic version of a single compound a la Marinol.

Therapeutic cannabis means just that — the therapeutic prowess of the whole plant. We should not advocate for, or accept, anything less.

Well what do you know? A mainstream media outlet finally picked up on this story!

Sure it’s been over a week since I first blogged about it here and here. But given the MSM’s long history of sweeping similar medi-pot revelations under the rug, this is case where I gladly say ‘better late than never.’

Of course, given the media’s current fixation with the Republican National Convention, it’s unlikely that this story will have any legs.

That said, give Web MD credit for acknowledging pot’s germ-killing power against MRSA, and for not letting these important findings slip down the ‘memory hole.’ No doubt there’s plenty of folks at the Drug Czar’s office who are wishing that they had.

Chemicals in Marijuana May Fight MRSA
via Web MD

Sept. 4, 2008 — Chemicals in marijuana may be useful in fighting MRSA, a kind of staph bacterium that is resistant to certain antibiotics.

Researchers in Italy and the U.K. tested five major marijuana chemicals called cannabinoids on different strains of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). All five showed germ-killing activity against the MRSA strains in lab tests. Some synthetic cannabinoids also showed germ-killing capability. The scientists note the cannabinoids kill bacteria in a different way than traditional antibiotics, meaning they might be able to bypass bacterial resistance.

At least two of the cannabinoids don’t have mood-altering effects, so there could be a way to use these substances without creating the high of marijuana. (NORML note: by this author’s count, four of the five cannabinoids tested in this study lack demonstrable psychoactivity.)

MRSA, like other staph infections, can be spread through casual physical contact or through contaminated objects. It is commonly spread from the hands of someone who has it. This could be in a health care setting, though there have also been high-profile cases of community-acquired MRSA.

It is becoming more common for healthy people to get MRSA, which is often spread between people who have close contact with one another, such as members of a sports team. Symptoms often include skin infections, such as boils. MRSA can become serious, particularly for people who are weak or ill.

In the study, published in the Journal of Natural Products, researchers call for further study of the antibacterial uses of marijuana. There are “currently considerable challenges with the treatment of infections caused by strains of clinically relevant bacteria that show multi-drug resistance,” the researchers write. New antibacterials are urgently needed, but only one new class of antibacterial has been introduced in the last 30 years. “Plants are still a substantially untapped source of antimicrobial agents,” the researchers conclude.

You can hear Russ Belville and I discuss this study on the NORML podcast here.

UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!

You can also comment on this story at the Huffington Post by clicking here. Help spread the truth about medicinal cannabis by commenting, ‘Digging,’ and passing this story on to others.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, colloquially known as MRSA or ‘the superbug,’ is now responsible for more annual US deaths than AIDS. Yet despite this sobering statistic, it’s unlikely that either JAMA or anyone in the mainstream US media will report on the findings of a forthcoming Italian study — you didn’t actually think I was going to say that this took place in America did you? — demonstrating that compounds in cannabis possess “exceptional antibacterial activity” against multi-drug resistant pathogens, including MRSA.

“Although the use of cannabinoids as systemic antibacterial agents awaits rigorous clinical trials, … their topical application to reduce skin colonization by MRSA seems promising,” the study’s authors write. “Cannabis sativa … represents an interesting source of antibacterial agents to address the problem of multidrug resistance in MRSA and other pathogenic bacteria.”

(You can read the full text ahead of publication here.)

Ironically, the study notes that preparations from cannabis were “investigated extensively in the 1950s as highly active topical antiseptic agents.” Predictably — in yet another ‘victory’ for prohibition — authors declare that little, if any, research into this potential clinical application has taken place since.

Several years ago, when I first began writing the booklet Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, I mused about what sort of advancements in the treatment of disease may have been achieved over the past 70+ years had U.S. government chosen to advance — rather than stifle — clinical research into the therapeutic effects of cannabis.

Now, more than ever, this is a question that our elected officials — both Republican and Democrat — must answer.