-------------------------------------------------------------------
The NORML Foundation Weekly Press Release (Government Health Officials
Deny Marijuana and Pain Study, Again; House of Lords Backs Prescription
Cannabis, But Parliament Balks; Drug Testing Negatively Impacts Employee
Productivity, Study Concludes.)
From: NORMLFNDTN@aol.com
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:04:26 EST
Subject: NORML WPR 11/19/98 (II)
The NORML Foundation Weekly Press Release
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW
Ste. 710
Washington, DC 20036
202-483-8751 (p)
202-483-0057 (f)
www.norml.org
foundation@norml.org
November 19, 1998
***
Government Health Officials Deny Marijuana and Pain Study, Again
November 19, 1998, Washington, DC: Federal health officials rejected
a scientific proposal last week to conduct research on marijuana's
effectiveness as a pain reliever in human patients. The denial marked
the second straight year National Institute of Health (NIH) officials
refused to sponsor human trials regarding marijuana's analgesic potential.
"There remains a remarkable disconnect between Washington bureaucrats
who oppose any rational debate on the medical marijuana issue, and those
doctors, nurses, and patients who strongly support research and
therapeutic access to marijuana," said NORML Foundation Executive
Director Allen St. Pierre. "It is disturbing that NIH officials would
deny legitimate medical marijuana research only days after voters in
seven states overwhelmingly affirmed their support for the use of
marijuana as a medicine."
Neurologist Ethan Russo, M.D. of the Western Montana Clinic sought
federal permission to compare smoked marijuana to synthetic THC and an
injected painkiller in acute migraine treatment. Russo has attempted
since 1996 to obtain official clearance to conduct an FDA approved
clinical trial evaluating marijuana's therapeutic value on migraine
patients. He recently authored an authoritative review of marijuana's
history as a treatment for migraine in the peer reviewed journal Pain,
the official publication of the International Association for the Study
of Pain.
"I am disappointed that I will not have the opportunity to study this
important clinical issue this year," said Russo, who speculated that as
many as 10 million migraine sufferers could potentially benefit from
inhaled marijuana. "Our bureaucrats seem hopelessly mired in political
place. They are ignoring the science, as well as the rising tide of
public opinion that is clamoring for clinical studies of cannabis."
In the past year, a growing body of medical evidence has emerged
indicating marijuana's effectiveness as a pain reliever. At the 27th
Annual Meeting of Neuroscientists, researchers announced, "Substances
similar or derived from marijuana ... could benefit the more than 97
million Americans who experience some form of pain each year." Recent
animal studies demonstrate marijuana constituents relieve pain on par
with those of opiate-based drugs like morphine. Some researchers
maintain that the use of cannabinoids like THC and other chemical
compounds found in marijuana do not appear to carry the risk associated
with the use of opiates, such as addiction and tolerance.
Russo's latest rejection comes more than one year after a NIH expert
panel recommended federal health agencies implement policy changes to
expedite medical marijuana research. So far, no visible changes have
been made.
"It remains federal officials -- not voters or the medical community
-- that continue to thwart the use and study of marijuana as a legal
medicine," St. Pierre said. "In 1982, the National Academy of Sciences
strongly recommended the federal government to undertake definitive
scientific studies to determine marijuana's therapeutic value. It is a
morally unconscionable that 15 years later, we are still battling to
allow this research to take place."
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano of The NORML Foundation @ (202) 483-8751. Dr. Ethan Russo may
be contacted @ (406) 329-7238 or via e-mail at: erusso@wmclinic.com
***
House of Lords Backs Prescription Cannabis, But Parliament Balks
November 19, 1998, London, England: The government should allow
doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical use, concluded a report by
England's House of Lords Science and Technology Committee last week.
However, Health Minister George Howarth immediately rejected the
findings, and said that Parliament will not change federal law until more
research is completed.
"Political stalling at the expense of patients who would benefit from
the legal use of marijuana as a medicine is not confined just to
America," said NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup, Esq.
Lord Walter Perry, chairman of the House of Lords committee, said
ample evidence already exists to legalize medical marijuana. "[Clinical
trials] take five or more years to complete and we felt that the evidence
of the benefit to these patients with very distressing symptoms was such
that we shouldn't make them wait that long." The report found marijuana
to be most effective at treating chronic pain and the symptoms of
multiple sclerosis.
"We have seen enough evidence to convince us that a doctor might
legitimately want to prescribe cannabis ... and that the criminal law
ought not to stand in the way," Perry said.
The report also noted that the development of marijuana derivatives
and analogs as medicines should not preclude politicians from legalizing
use of the whole plant for medical use.
"This committee should be commended for placing science and compassion
above politics," Stroup said. The upper chamber of Parliament first
began its inquiry into the medical potential of marijuana in April.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano of The NORML Foundation @ (202) 483-8751. Copies of the House
of Lords report are available upon request on online at:
http://www.parliament.uk.
***
Drug Testing Negatively Impacts Employee Productivity, Study Concludes
November 19, 1998, Syracuse, NY: Companies adopting drug testing
programs experience significantly lower productivity than those that do
not, according to a new study by the Le Moyne College Institute of
Industrial Relations. The study found that pre-employment and random
testing procedures result in nearly a 20 percent lower level of productivity.
"Based on standards of increased workplace productivity, drug testing
flunks big time," said NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St.
Pierre.
The Le Moyne study examined 63 "high tech" firms using an economic
model to estimate the effect of drug testing programs on productivity.
Authors found that "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving
productivity," and speculated that such procedures may create "a negative
work environment, or cause substitutions of more dangerous drugs or alcohol."
The authors contend that their study is the first to examine the
quantified potential productivity effects of workplace drug testing.
NORML's St. Pierre praised the research study. "Despite its
popularity, drug testing is a bad investment for employers," he said. He
noted that The NORML Foundation opposes suspicionless drug testing,
particularly urinalysis, because such procedures are intrusive searches
that lack the ability to determine job impairment. The Foundation
further maintains that urine testing unfairly targets marijuana smokers
who may test positive for weeks after the drug's euphoric effects have
worn off.
The release of the Le Moyne study comes less than one month after
Congress approved legislation providing for federal incentives to
encourage small businesses to adopt workplace drug testing.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre of The NORML
Foundation @ (202) 483-8751 or Dale Gieringer of California NORML @ (415)
563-5858.
- END -
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The C(ocaine)I(mportation)A(gency) (Seattle Weekly reviews the book,
"Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press," by Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair, calling it more than just a history
of the US government's role in international drug dealing. Whiteout is an
encyclopedia of covert psychological and sociological research and
experimentation performed on unknowing subjects since the early 1900s.
And it's the kind of expose that people like Katherine Graham,
former publisher of The Washington Post, don't think should be available
in bookstores.)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 09:01:46 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Book Review: The C(ocaine)I(mportation)A(gency)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Thursday, 19 November, 1998
Source: Seattle Weekly (WA)
Copyright: 1998 Seattle Weekly
Contact: letters@seattleweekly.com
Website: http://www.seattleweekly.com/
Author: Mark Worth
Note: BOOK REVIEW, WhiteOut - The CIA, Drugs, and the Press by Alexander
Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso, $17)
The C(ocaine)I(mportation)A(gency)
Drug dealing only begins to tell the story of the CIA's handiwork.
If the only thing you know about the US Central Intelligence Agency is that
a 1996 San Jose Mercury News report accusing the CIA of contributing to the
crack cocaine epidemic in Los Angeles was dismissed by government officials
and mainstream journalists as African-American hysteria, you're likely to
take their word for it. The US government helping the Contras purchase
weapons with the proceeds of crack sales by gang members in South Central
Los Angeles?
Yeah, right.
Veteran muckrakers Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair will make you a
believer. Cockburn, the well-known columnist for The Nation, joins with St.
Clair, a colleague at the hard-driving newsletter Counterpunch, to write a
book that's more than just a history of the US government's role in
international drug dealing. Whiteout is an encyclopedia of covert
psychological and sociological research and experimentation performed on
unknowing subjects since the early 1900s. It's the kind of expose people
like Katherine Graham don't think should be available in bookstores. "We
live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general
public does not need to know--and shouldn't," the now-retired Washington
Post president told an audience of CIA recruits in 1988. "I believe
democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep
its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
Some of the most closely held government secrets--secrets the press has
decided not to print--are unmasked in Whiteout's shocking third chapter,
"The History of Black 'Paranoia.'" The government had a lot practice
targeting African Americans and other minorities in the decades prior to
the CIA's alleged crack-cocaine enterprise. Distributing cholera-infected
blankets to Native Americans; the Tuskegee syphilis experiments; the FBI's
"COINTELPRO" campaign against the anti-war movement, the Black Panthers,
and other dissenting voices of the '60s; forced sterilization of "mental
degenerates" (which inspired the Nazi program); using cattle prods and LSD
to prevent homosexuality among children; infecting black prisoners with
malaria (cited by Nazi doctors in their defense at Nuremburg); releasing
millions of yellow-fever- and dengue-fever-infected mosquitoes over
predominately black Southern towns--these are hardly the signs of a
flourishing democracy.
During the '50s and '60s, sadistic "doctors" and "scientists" flourished
under the CIA's MK-ULTRA program. One, Dr. Harris Isbell of the Center for
Addiction Research in Lexington, Kentucky, kept black heroin addicts high
on LSD for up to 77 days in a row (some were strapped to tables and
injected through the eyes). Government-funded researchers secretly gave LSD
to children, San Francisco prostitutes, New York partygoers, prominent
European leftists, and to CIA agents themselves, one of whom freaked out
and mysteriously "jumped" out of a 10th-story window. Scientists even
considered, according to a CIA memo, "putting some in a city water supply
and having citizens wander around in more or less a happy state, not
terribly interested in defending themselves."
Equally appalling is the story, colorfully told by Cockburn and St. Clair,
of the US government's affiliation with mobsters such as Charles "Lucky"
Luciano. In exchange for help in fighting Mussolini and preventing sabotage
of American ships, Luciano and other mafiosi won protection from law
enforcement officials, cushy government positions in postwar Italy,
and--with a hand from immigration officials in the Americas and
Europe--their freedom. Luciano went on to build one of the world's largest
heroin operations; the predominately black ghettos of New York and
Washington, DC, ranked among his most profitable distribution points.
The US government's postwar rescue and assimilation of former Nazi military
officers, doctors, and scientists makes for even more sickening reading.
"Operation Paperclip" perpetuated the careers of Nazis who dissected live
prisoners, infected people with bubonic plague, detonated germ bombs above
men tied to stakes, locked people in low-pressure chambers until their
brains exploded, and sewed mustard gas and glass into the wounds of women
prisoners. Within a few years, American scientists were feeding radioactive
oats to mentally retarded boys, injecting poor blacks with plutonium, and
releasing clouds of radioactive iodine over residential communities. Aided
by the US in his escape to South America, Klaus Barbie helped the Bolivian
government hunt down, torture, and murder priests, union organizers, Native
Americans, and opposition leaders--while profiting from and helping to
build a $3 billion-a-year cocaine operation.
Relying on vast primary and secondary source material, Cockburn and St.
Clair also document the roles of the CIA and other US intelligence agencies
in drug trafficking enterprises in Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Burma,
Colombia, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Thailand, and Vietnam.
They devote a chapter on the purported Contra-supply, drug-dealing, and
money-laundering operation Oliver North helped establish in Mena, Arkansas,
during the gubernatorial watch of Bill Clinton. Just for fun, the authors
recount the CIA's sometimes comical efforts to assassinate Fidel
Castro--and to get him high, like when operatives tried to get him to smoke
LSD-laced cigars.
When it comes to the CIA, what you don't know might not hurt you. But it
just might make you want to throw up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Poppy Paradox (The San Luis Obispo County NewTimes
recounts the bust of local medical marijuana activists and cultivators
Tom Dunbar and Jo-D Harrison - for growing poppies - amid a discussion
about the peculiar laws that let people buy, sell and grow the ubiquitous
Papaver somniferum, but only if they don't know it's the opium poppy.)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:09:42 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: The Poppy Paradox
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Nov 1998
Source: San Luis Obispo County NewTimes (CA)
Section: Cover Story
Contact: mail@newtimes-slo.com
Website: http://newtimes-slo.com/
Author: Steven T. Jones
THE POPPY PARADOX
Beware: Reading This Article Could Make You Into A Felon, But Not Reading
It Could Get You Arrested
They are grayish-black flecks, such weightless objects for their
potential. Poppy seeds grow into beautiful flowers, taste good in
muffins, and produce opium. It is this latter trait that got Tom
Dunbar and Jo-D Harrison into so much trouble.
Take the smallest pinch of poppy seeds, the exact same kind that top
your bagel, and plant them. In a few days, they will sprout tiny white
stems, then slender green leaves, and will keep growing into hardy
annuals with vibrant flowers.
A couple of months into the spring growing season, the flowers will
fall away, leaving in their place round seedpods filled with thousands
of seeds and a milky sap that will ooze out through any slits made in
the pod walls. That dried sap is opium, an illegal narcotic even in
its most natural form, possession of which can send you to prison.
Opium is a highly addictive drug that can be smoked or eaten, inducing
a dreamy high that can last a few hours, or it can be processed into
morphine (an alkaloid found in opium that is its main psychoactive
component), heroin, codeine, or other drugs.
Yet the opium poppy, Papaver somniferum, is widely grown in San Luis
Obispo County and across the country as an ornamental flower, and the
seeds used to grow the opium poppy are available in any grocery store.
"We bought our poppy seeds at Vons," said Dunbar, who goes on trial
next month for the 203 poppy plants that grew in his Arroyo Grande
garden until they were seized by police in May. "They were right
between the paprika and the parsley."
Alphabetically, Dunbar may not be right. But he is correct that the
poppy seeds available in the spice section are usually Papaver
somniferum and can be easily grown into opium poppy plants.
McCormick, the world's largest spice company, even identifies its
poppy seeds as Papaver somniferum on its website, noting, "The tiny
poppy seed actually comes from the plant that produces opium."
Conversely, such seeds grow the opium poppy.
The spice company claims it has developed varieties with "low narcotic
potential" - a claim disputed as not possible by some poppy
experts - yet classic opium poppy varieties can still be legally
purchased from garden and seed companies, often advertising them with
no warning that they produce opium or are illegal.
That connection between the commonly available poppy seed and the
illegal opium plant is one that many of those charged with meting out
justice don't understand, such as San Luis Obispo County District
Attorney Gerry Shea, who was surprised by most of the above
information.
"That's news to me - that it is available commercially," Shea
said.
Nonetheless, our country's drug laws put possession of the opium
poppy - just the plant, regardless of whether the drug has been
extracted - in the same felony category of such Schedule II narcotics
as cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamine.
Sowing Information
Opium poppies have a rich and storied history nearly 5,000 years long,
one that has swung from almost universal acceptance of opium use, in
which wars were fought to preserve its trade, to its condemnation on
moral grounds at the dawn of the 20th century.
But it is only in the last couple of years that popular knowledge of
the opium poppy's narcotic potential has truly blossomed among those
Americans inclined to experiment with recreational drugs.
That change began largely with Seattle author Jim Hogshire, who wrote
a book called "Opium for the Masses," which in turn formed the basis
for an April 1997 cover article in Harper's magazine called "Opium,
Made Easy."
"Jim Hogshire and his book punctured a set of myths that served the
government well for decades," Michael Pollan wrote in the Harper's
article, in which he chronicled his own experience growing opium
poppies while examining their legality.
That "set of myths" was the portrayal of opium poppies as an exotic
plant grown only in the Far East, from which opium was mysteriously
extracted, not a common flower easily grown anywhere in the United
States, from which a child could extract opium with his or her fingernail.
"After reading the article in Harper's, I was curious," said Dunbar,
whose case is by many accounts one of the first opium poppy
prosecutions ever brought in San Luis Obispo County.
While several of the poppies in Dunbar's yard had the slit seedpods
that indicate opium had been extracted, Dunbar and Harrison deny using
the drug, saying they used the substance in the incense they make and
grew the poppies for their beautiful flowers and for the seeds to feed
to their many pet birds.
While that intent may not be enough to beat the rap, Hogshire notes
that prosecution for possession of opium or opium poppies is not a
simple matter. Hogshire himself got raided two years ago by Seattle
police, who found poppy seedpods in his house, but the charges were
eventually dropped.
"The prosecutors were forced to back down from their opium poppy
charges because they could not prove they were Papaver somniferum,"
Hogshire said in a telephone interview with New Times.
It is difficult to prove a particular seedpod is a banned opium poppy,
even tougher to show someone knew what kind of poppy seed they were
planting. Testing a sample of the sap from a pod - the main opium
possession evidence against Dunbar and Harrison - can only show it
contains alkaloids found in opium, alkaloids also naturally produced
by other plants.
"If anybody brought that charge against me and pretended that that was
evidence, I would challenge that. I would hold them to their burden of
proof, which is the state's, not mine," Hogshire said. "There is no
scientific or legal definition that even comes close to precisely
describing what opium is exactly."
Criminal statutes vaguely define an opiate as "any substance having an
addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to
morphine" and opium as being the sap from the seedpod of an opium
poppy, which is "the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.,
except its seeds."
Yet rather than highlighting the difficulties the government faces in
prosecuting poppy growers, Hogshire sees his successful legal battle
differently.
"It highlights what an uphill battle a defendant has when the
government pretends to codify nature and tries to enforce laws that
have no basis in reason," he said. "But the penalties are high and the
government's got a lot of money, and a lot of guns, and they have some
serious threats they can use."
The San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force may not have known
they would even end up with a poppy case when they raided the home of
Dunbar and Harrison, mostly because they were high-profile advocates
and growers of medical marijuana.
The Raids
Just before 10 o'clock in the morning on May 14, police gathered near
Dunbar's Arroyo Grande home and the Los Osos home of John and Violet
McLean, armed with guns and search warrants signed by Superior Court
Judge Roger Picquet (the affidavits for which were immediately sealed
by the judge, concealing from public scrutiny the reason for the
simultaneous drug raids).
Dunbar saw the pack of police approaching his Maple Street home, ran
into his backyard, and started pulling the heads off his poppy plants.
The police also saw him and pursued into the backyard.
"I saw Dunbar kneeling in the garden pulling off the tops of the row
of plants that he was kneeling in front of," Detective Brad Melson
wrote in the police report. "As I was securing Dunbar, I looked at the
row of plants that he was pulling the tops off of. The tops of the
plants appeared to be poppy pods and the plant itself appeared to be a
poppy plant."
Police counted 203 plants in all, 53 with pods, 24 of which had been
lanced. Inside the garage, they found an indoor marijuana growing
operation with 72 plants, along with a note indicating they belonged
to Dunbar and were for legal medical use. Police also found a few
large bags of marijuana and more than $2,000 in cash and seized all
manner of pro-marijuana literature and paraphernalia.
Meanwhile, a similar scene was taking place at the McLean residence,
as police found an indoor marijuana growing operation and a backyard
poppy garden with 446 plants, as well as poppy heads in the kitchen.
"I scored one of the opium bulbs seized from the garden. I tested the
fluid and it tested positive for opiates," wrote Detective Nicholas
Fontecchio.
The raids themselves came as no surprise to anyone. Both couples were
extremely vocal marijuana advocates, telling anyone who would listen
of their pot growing operation. A photo of Dunbar's plants ran on the
front page of the Telegram-Tribune last spring.
"Being as high profile as we are, we figured sooner or later, they
were going to raid us," Dunbar said. "We definitely wanted to make a
statement against this goddamn drug war."
Both Dunbar and the McLeans have doctor's prescriptions for using
marijuana, making for an interesting showdown with the authorities.
The McLean case was settled with a plea bargain that got all of the
felonies, including the poppy charge, dropped.
John McLean pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor marijuana possession
charge and got a $200 fine and two years probation, with conditions
modified to allow him to continue smoking and possessing marijuana.
The McLeans have since moved to Fresno.
Asked why the poppy charge was dropped, Dennis Schloss, the deputy
district attorney prosecuting Dunbar and Harrison, said, "I was not
satisfied that we had adequate proof of knowing possession of opium in
that case."
His statement is surprising considering the McLeans had twice as many
poppy plants as Dunbar, and police discovered opium poppy pods in the
kitchen being processed in a way consistent with making opium tea,
while there was no evidence in the police report indicating Dunbar was
using opium as a drug.
Dunbar says he doesn't want a plea bargain, but wants to put the issue
of growing poppies and marijuana on trial. As a convicted felon - 20
years ago, he was sent to prison for armed robbery - Dunbar could be
facing a long prison term for his stand.
"I'm just a sacrificial lamb in all this," Dunbar said. "I'm not the
epitome of the all-American boy to stand up for our rights, but I'm
doing it. They can't threaten me with prison because I've been there.
I'm not scared of this."
While more cautious than Dunbar about what she would say about her
alleged crimes, Harrison did outline her views on drugs derived from
plants.
"I don't think any human being has the right to say what natural items
on our planet are good or bad," she said. "Not if it grows out of the
earth."
Gardener's Perspective
"Poppies are among the easiest of all flowers to grow. Their
brilliantly colored flowers look like crinkled sheer silk and are
often delightfully fragrant," emoted "Annuals," a book from the
Time-Life Encyclopedia of Gardening found in local libraries.
The prized "Taylor's Guide to Annuals" offers detailed directions for
growing all the Papaver varieties, but notes under somniferum, "The
juice of the unripe pod yields opium, the production of which is
illegal in the U.S."
"Rodale's Annual Garden" contains the same simple warning, but goes on
to rave, "The flower is, however, of great beauty and available in a
number of different cultivars. Plants will often grow 4 feet tall and
bear blossoms up to 5 inches wide. A large bed of these flowers is a
breathtaking sight."
Unfortunately, a large bed of these flowers is a felony, even for the
gardener who never intends to extract the opium and who bought the
seeds from a company that didn't even identify the Papaver somniferum
as the opium poppy.
"It sounds to me like they're sending out kits to commit a felony, yet
nobody goes after them," Hogshire said. "You rely on a company that
sells seeds not to trick you into committing a crime, and certainly
not one where you could end up in a cage for a few years. But they do.
And I think the reason is clear. It's a political thing who gets
charged with a crime."
Eighty-year-old grandmothers simply aren't going to face police drug
raids because they have poppy gardens. And even if that did happen,
ignorance of their flowers' narcotic alter-egos would probably result
in no charge being filed.
"The law does require `knowing possession,'" said Schloss.
What of the gardener reading this article, or otherwise learning the
opium poppy's secrets? With that knowledge, the gardener goes from
growing flowers to committing felonies without any change in her actions.
Mary (not her real name) from Los Osos made that change in
May.
It was three seasons ago that Mary's friend gave her some poppy seeds,
with a wink and a nudge she wouldn't understand until this year. She
scattered her garden with them in early spring, unaware of the
potential within the seeds she sowed.
They grew large and bushy, almost weedlike, rising into stems topped
with large, drooping buds that would unfold into brilliant red flowers
with slightly ruffled petals and a black heart cradling a yellow puff.
"They are just so huge and beautiful, such gorgeous flowers," Mary
said.
She paid little attention to the green seedpod that formed after the
flower fell away, almost perfectly round, but topped by a lighter
green crown. The plants themselves would wither away with the coming
of winter, but in the spring, the poppies would almost magically
regenerate themselves.
Another poppy season came and went as gloriously as the one before.
And again they returned, in the spring of this year, although Mary's
poppy patch wouldn't make it through a third season.
Poppies became big news locally in May, both with the raid of the
McLean's home and the discovery of several acres of opium poppies
growing wild in Montana de Oro, which were removed by Narcotics Task
Force agents.
Mary became suspicious of her flowers and brought pictures to her
gardening club, asking if they could be opium poppies. One woman told
her, "Oh, no, they're just Oriental poppies." But another woman,
seeing the picture, identified them as opium poppies with no prompt.
More research confirmed Mary's new status.
She felt a mix of excitement and dread. Curious and open-minded, Mary
tried to extract some opium, but got very little, too little to even
use. Slowly, such thoughts were overcome by fear.
"It's the first time I owned a house, and I didn't want to lose my
house. I just started to panic, so I pulled them out," Mary said,
pausing a moment, "Oh, I kept a couple, I must admit."
Question of Intent
Given how easy it is to grow opium poppies, and how widely they are
grown with no intent other than to enjoy the beauty and fragrance of
the flower, those who enforce our laws are presented with difficult
choices, over which they have wide discretion.
"It really is a question of the content of the circumstances
surrounding the proof of knowledge about the character and substance
of the narcotic," Shea said.
To establish that knowledge, police can seize whatever materials they
believe indicate knowledge. For example, finding a copy of this very
article in a home with poppies in the garden would likely be enough to
establish knowledge.
Faced with detailed questions about Papaver somniferum, how it is
tested, whether opium samples can be definitively identified as being
from this plant, and the legality of closely related
cultivars - questions that would seem essential to a successful
prosecution. Schloss, who is prosecuting the Dunbar/Harrison case,
was perplexed.
"I couldn't even spell that word you're saying," Schloss said of
Papaver somniferum. "I'm not a plant guy."
Schloss is more certain about answers to questions that many innocent
gardeners wouldn't even know to ask.
"Is it possible to possess opium while it's still in the poppy? Of
course," Schloss said.
If such questions seem strange, and their answers troubling, that's
largely because our society is still struggling with how to deal with
new fears of an old plant.
Poppies were cultivated for their opium as early as 3400 B.C. in lower
Mesopotamia. They called it hul gil, or "joy plant." Later, it would
take on the scientific name somniferum, which means "sleep inducing,"
after doctors found it to be perhaps the best natural pain reliever
ever discovered.
References to the opium poppy are found throughout classical
literature, from references in many Shakespeare works to Thomas
DeQuincey's autobiographic "Confessions of an English Opium Eater" to
the scene when Dorothy and friends fell asleep in the poppy field on
their way to see the Wizard of Oz.
Many of our country's founding fathers used opium, including Benjamin
Franklin, an opium addict most of his life, according to historians.
In the 1800s, opium was the main ingredient in many of the most widely
used elixirs and patent medicines.
But by 1890, William Randolph Hearst's sensational tabloids began
writing stories about white women being seduced by Chinese men and
their opium, tying the drug to our growing nationalist fears of the
East. In 1905, Congress made opium possession illegal.
Most opium at that time was imported from potent strains, but opium
poppy varietals grew throughout the United States.
"There is no part of the United States where poppies, even opium
poppies - maybe especially opium poppies - won't grow. They can adapt
to a lot of conditions. They are very common. It's hard to stop them
from growing," Hogshire said.
The flowers can be red, pink, white, purple, or bicolored, and the
petals can be either flat or fringed, yet the plant's aesthetics have
little impact on its narcotic potential.
Dunbar and Harrison have a list of several dozen addresses around the
county where they have discovered opium poppies growing, most in
people's front yards, some in flower gardens maintained by businesses,
even a few on government property.
"Poppies are everywhere," Hogshire said.
As winter approaches, opium poppy plants have gone dormant. Most
gardening books advise sowing poppy seeds in the late fall and letting
them "winter over."
All this winter, the seeds will sit below the surface of the soil,
waiting for the warmth of spring to sprout forth and grow. It is then
that we will find out whether the prosecution of Dunbar and Harrison
is an isolated incident, or whether they are the first of many San
Luis Obispo County residents to face prison terms for the flowers they
choose to grow.
Staff writer Steven T. Jones is currently planning his spring garden,
which will include poppies, but not opium poppies. Send gardening tips
to sjones@newtimes-slo.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Poly Survey Linked Alcohol, Violence (The San Luis Obispo County
Telegram-Tribune says a 1996 survey found that 80 percent of students
who reported they were victims of unwanted sexual intercourse had consumed
alcohol or other drugs. Quotes from several people suggest the real problem
is alcohol, but the newspaper annoyingly refuses to break down the figures
for "alcohol" and "other drugs.")
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:02:20 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Cal Poly Survey Linked Alcohol, Violence
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Nov 1998
Source: San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (CA)
Section: SLO County
Copyright: 1998 San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune
Contact: slott@slnt01.sanluisobispo.com
Website: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/
Author: Jamie Hurly, Telegram-Tribune
CAL POLY SURVEY LINKED ALCOHOL, VIOLENCE
Alcohol and violence are far from strangers.
A 1996 Cal Poly survey found that 80 percent of students reported they
were victims of unwanted sexual intercourse had consumed alcohol or
other drugs.
"There's just a higher likelihood of being involved in an issue of
violence ... when alcohol is involved," said Juan C. Gonzalez, Cal
Poly's vice president for student affairs.
Gonzalez, however, stressed that two Cal Poly students who disappeared
after drinking should be not held responsible for their fates. Rachel
Newhouse disappeared last week, and Kristin Smart disappeared
two-and-a-half years ago.
"No one should be a victim of violence just because they've been out
partying," he said.
The October 1996 survey of 843 students questioned whether they had
experienced threats of physical violence, actual physical violence,
theft involving force or threat of force, forced sexual touching or
unwanted sexual intercourse around campus during the previous year.
In all but the theft category, more than half the victims said they
had used drugs or alcohol. Only 1.3 percent of the students surveyed
reported being involved in a theft and of those, 30 percent had used
drugs or alcohol.
Of the 843 students surveyed, about 51 percent of the 81 students who
said they had been threatened with violence had used alcohol or drugs.
It was the same for 68 percent of the 34 students who reported they
had suffered physical violence and 72 percent of the 34 students who
reported forced sexual touching. Unwanted sexual intercourse was
reported by 27 students.
About 23 percent of the students reported drinking alcohol more than
three times in the previous week.
More than half of the students reported drinking two or fewer drinks a
week, said Mary Bragg, Cal Poly's director of health and psychological
services. That means "some students are out there drinking 25 drinks a
week," he added.
Although college students drink somewhat more than other people of the
same age, the percentage of heavy drinkers remains at about 5 percent
to 10 percent for all age groups, he said.
"Is this a serious problem? Yes. Is this a serious problem for lots of
Cal Poly students? No," Bragg said.
Cal Poly students' drinking experiences in the 1996 survey showed a
decline from studies in 1992 and 1993 and is about or below the
national average, he said.
Poly has several programs to discourage excessive drinking, Gonzalez
said. Among them is the Violence Intervention and Prevention or VIP
program, which promotes alcohol-free social events and safety awareness.
"When you're somewhere where there are alcohol or drugs ... your
personal risks go up and you need to be more careful," Bragg said.
"You shouldn't go somewhere without a buddy," he said, and you should
always tell someone where you're going.
"If you're going to drink heavily, you are going to need someone
watching over you that you can trust."
One of the problems is perceptions about drinking that young people
bring to college, said Mary Peracca, a prevention specialist with the
county Drug and Alcohol Services.
Rather than going out and having one or two drinks, many young
students belive "the norm is to go out and really get hammered," she
said.
Gonzalez said the emphasis on responsible drinking begins even before
students arrive on campus and continues during Week of Welcome and
beyond.
"One of the realities of our society is that alcohol is available," he
said.
"Frankly our desire is to help people understand responsible
consumption," he said. "Consumption in excess is not reasonable, it's
not healthy. It increases vulnerability and has a serious impact on
your life, academically, socially, and on your safety."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Slave Of Smoke In An Anti-Smoke Land (The New York Times
examines extreme anti-smoking attitudes in America through the eyes
of a widow whose husband died from smoking and lung cancer, leaving her
with two daughters who hate her because she herself can't quit smoking.
Medical experts say nicotine has a powerful effect on the chemistry
of the brain, improving mood and in some cases masking depression.)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:38:54 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IL: NYT: A Slave Of Smoke In An Anti-Smoke Land
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Galasyn
Source: New York Times (NY)
ontact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Copyright: 1998 The New York Times Company
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Nov 1998
Author: DIRK JOHNSON
A SLAVE OF SMOKE IN AN ANTI-SMOKE LAND
SYCAMORE, Ill. -- It was not quite 8 a.m. as Jan Binder stood on the
sidewalk in a cold Midwestern drizzle. Her fellow workers hustled past her
toward the office, some of them shaking their heads in dismay.
"They're thinking," Ms. Binder said, "she doesn't have the sense to come in
from the rain."
Despite the shivers, the tall woman with auburn hair stood in the drizzle,
her fingers clutching the last precious inch of a burning cigarette.
To be a smoker in America today is to be an outcast. It means being viewed
as weak, offensive and, perhaps most of all, dimwitted. These are people,
after all, who do not seem to have the sense to come in from a toxic
thunderstorm.
Most people who have never smoked cannot fathom why anyone would put a
cigarette in her mouth and draw the noxious fumes. It should be simple to
stop. But almost anyone who has smoked heavily knows otherwise.
There are few riddles in life more enigmatic than the spell that smoking can
cast, even to smokers like Jan Binder, a smart 38-year-old who has walked
the horror chamber of nicotine.
It was two years ago, in a hospital room, that a doctor looked into the eyes
of her husband, James, and told him, "Mr. Binder, you have lung cancer."
That evening her husband walked in the door at home, switched on a lamp,
turned to her and sized up his life.
"I don't regret anything," he told her, "except a few million cigarettes."
Seven months later, he was dead. He was 37. His daughter Mary was 7. Kate
was 5.
"When they told Jim he was going to die," Ms. Binder said, "and I saw the
look on his face, I knew I would never smoke again."
She was certain sheer will power could do it. But it was like willing
herself to stop drawing breath.
She has tried going cold turkey. She has tried the nicotine patch. She has
tried the drug Zyban.
Nothing has worked for more a week.
"People look at me and think, 'How can you still smoke?"' Ms. Binder said.
"And God knows, I don't want to smoke. But I am like a slave to it. It rules
your life."
This is a woman who scarcely lacks fortitude. Besides her full-time job for
a state education consortium that oversees programs for disabled students,
she fills her late husband's partnership in his pizza business, doing the
books and overseeing the payroll.
She digs deep into her pockets to pay for her daughters to attend private
school, to take piano lessons, to play soccer and softball. She rises before
daybreak to clean the house and wash school uniforms. She carries 50-pound
bags of water softener down the stairs to her basement.
But when it comes to those feather-light sticks of tobacco, she feels
helpless.
"Sometimes I think they should just lock me up," she said.
Her girls, Mary and Kate, have come to view cigarettes the way some children
think of monsters under the bed. They have thrown their mother's cigarette
packs into the trash. In some cases, they have taken each cigarette out of
the pack and broken every single one into pieces.
They have begged, pleaded and cajoled her to stop. And they have thrown
tantrums.
Kate erupted in the kitchen one afternoon after seeing her mother light a
cigarette, shouting that she hated her, over and over again.
Ms. Binder listened for a long time, motionless and ashamed. She knew that
the girls worshiped the memory of their father. In one of those moments of
weakness that every parent experiences, and regrets immediately, she looked
for mercy. Why, she asked the girls, did they so scorn her for smoking, when
they had given a pass to their father when he smoked.
"Because," Kate screamed, her eyes blazing with anger, "I didn't know he was
going to get tumors and die."
It is the rare smoker who does not wish to quit. A recent survey found that
two-thirds of smokers have tried seriously to stop, most of them at least
three times. Medical experts say nicotine has a powerful effect on the
chemistry of the brain, improving mood and in some cases masking depression.
One treatment for that is an anti-depressant like bupropion hydrochloride,
which has been marketed as Zyban as an aid to quitting smoking.
What is not as commonly understood, is the way that smoking makes people
feel guilty and ashamed, looking at themselves as failures for not being
able to kick a habit.
As a child growing up in the Wisconsin suburb of Monona, just outside
Madison, Ms. Binder rode with her family in the car almost every weekend to
see her grandparents in the farm town of Dodgeville. The car was always full
of smoke, a cloud that billowed from the cigarettes of her father, a high
school history teacher and football coach.
"I hated the smoke," Ms. Binder recalled. "It made me sick."
As a 12-year-old, walking home from Winnequah Junior High School, she
watched a girlfriend pull out a pack of cigarettes and light one.
"Give me one of those," young Jan Louise Rundle told her friend.
She took a puff and coughed, puffed again and coughed harder. Determinedly,
she kept smoking until she could draw the smoke into her lungs without
gagging. Moments later, feeling dizzy and lightheaded, she walked home to
her family's three-bedroom ranch on Arrowhead Drive.
The next day, she reached into her father's pockets and took one of his
cigarettes. She smoked it on the way to school, cupping it in her hands to
hide it.
In high school, she was a talented artist, the queen of the "Snowball"
dance, a star athlete. She was named to the all-state team of top basketball
players in Wisconsin. Through it all, she smoked.
She did not sit in the parked cars outside the school building and puff,
like many of the other students who smoked. That was far too dangerous,
especially for a girl whose father was a teacher at the school. She picked
her spots more carefully.
Sometimes, she used lunch money to buy cigarettes, plunking her change in
vending machines or buying packs at the corner store. If the clerk raised
any question about an adolescent's buying cigarettes, she simply explained
that they were for her father. But usually, there were no questions.
A generation ago, it was hardly scandalous for young people to smoke. Many
of their parents, after all, had started smoking themselves as teen-agers.
And the signals from popular culture made cigarettes seem acceptable, even
downright wholesome.
Anybody over age 35 can remember flickering images of Johnny Carson on the
living room television, smoking away as he chatted and laughed with guests.
Even Andy Griffith, as nice a sheriff and as fine a Pa as television ever
created, would occasionally relax with a cigarette in his Mayberry home.
President John F. Kennedy was known to sometimes smoke a cigarette. Baseball
star Richie Allen would smoke in the dugout before strutting to the batter's
box, where he often slammed home runs. And the great Green Bay Packers
coach, Vince Lombardi, smoked on the sidelines and racked up football
championships.
Teachers' lounges were usually hazy with smoke. Some high schools even had
smoking lounges for students. No table was properly set without an ashtray.
People smoked just about everywhere they went, even at wakes, puffing away
as they paid their last respects.
After Jim Binder was diagnosed with cancer, he tried valiantly to live a
pristine life. Facing death, he bore a crushing guilt, a husband and father
who would be leaving his family behind.
"He wanted so desperately to undo what he had done," Ms. Binder said
To extend his days, he ate organic foods and drank herbal tea. He meditated.
He prayed.
And he tried his very damndest to give up cigarettes.
But there were moments, early in the morning before the children would rise,
that he would sit out on the back porch, gazing into the distance, drawing
hard on a cigarette, shrouded in a smoky cloud that, for the moment at
least, served as a kind of scutcheon.
It is now his wife who carries the guilt, a mother who cries in the shower
about her fatherless children, and about their terrible, completely logical
fears when they see her light up. She has gotten rid of the ashtrays in her
house.
She has vowed so many times to her children that she will quit, often
setting a date. And when that time comes, she tries. The minutes crawl like
years, and she feels as if she is coming out of her skin, a jangle of nerves
and emotion. And suddenly her hand is reaching for a pack, almost
reflexively. Or she is standing at the counter of a convenience store, with
the $3 that will feed an insatiable craving.
"I am going to quit -- I have to," she vowed one recent day, as a cigarette
burned on a plate, a makeshift ashtray, in the kitchen of house that falls
quiet, too quiet, in the nighttime. "I just don't know how."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There Are None So Blind As Ophthalmologists Who Don't Want to See
(Richard Cowan of marijuananews.com debunks the recent "research"
about cannabis and glaucoma, by Keith Green, PhD, of Georgia,
with a devastating line-by-line rebuttal of the original Nov. 13 Augusta,
Georgia, Chronicle story on which the AP story was based.)
From: LawBerger@aol.com
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:42:29 EST
To: dpfor@drugsense.org, nlc@norml.org
Subject: DPFOR: Fwd: FYI: Debunking the AP story debunking MJ & Glaucoma
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/
From: CUTLERMJ@aol.com
Subject: FYI: Debunking the AP story debunking MJ & Glaucoma
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:21:41 EST
There Are None So Blind As Ophthalmologists Who Don't Want to See
Analysis By Richard Cowan November 18, 1998
When I first saw the AP reports on the "new study" by Keith Green with
headlines saying "M.D. Scoffs at Medical Marijuana" and "Marijuana Treatment
Called Fallacy" my suspicions were aroused by quotes like "Smoking a joint a
week is not going to cure glaucoma." And it supposedly attacks "the fallacy
that marijuana is of any value at all in the treatment of glaucoma." (Never
mind that Green, PhD, DSc, is not an M.D.)
I also knew without asking that Allen St. Pierre of NORML was being short-
changed in the quotes of his response. It happens all the time.
However, only after a kind reader sent me the original the Augusta Georgia
Chronicle story on which the AP story was based -- and after I had read the
"new research" in the Archives of Ophthalmology, -- and after I had talked to
Allen St. Pierre about his long conversation with the reporter, did I fully
understand how bad this really is. So bear with me.
First, this is not "new research" or even a new study. There is no new data
here, not a single new datum. The editor of the Archives of Ophthalmology says
it "elegantly reviews clinical issues." If this is his idea of "elegance" I
would hate to see what he thinks is sloppy. It is certainly gullibly edited,
but it is definitely not new.
In fact, many of the studies, especially by Green himself - he cites himself
several times - are from the 1970s.
Second, it does not say that it is "a fallacy that marijuana is of any value
at all in the treatment of glaucoma." It makes quite clear that marijuana can
be used to treat glaucoma. Its arguments are that the frequency of use and
volume required make it both impractical and dangerous, because of the side-
effects. This is quite different from saying that it has no value.
Third, when I talked to Allen St. Pierre he confirmed that he had talked to
the reporter at the Augusta Georgia Chronicle at great length and had given
him contact numbers for legal medical marijuana users. He also confirmed that
he had NEVER TALKED TO THE AP. The AP had simply taken one sentence even
further out of context than had the Augusta Georgia Chronicle.
None had bothered to check on the legal eight. Inasmuch as Green is arguing
that precisely the volume consumed for years by these people -- under a
Federal program -- would be both ineffective and dangerous, it would seem that
this is of great relevance. But, no.
As it happens, two of the eight legal users, Elvy Musikka and`Irvin Rosenfeld,
were at the NORML conference. Elvy was nearly blinded by the failures of
standard medicine in treating her glaucoma. Medical marijuana has stabilized
her vision for many years in precisely the way that Green and the news stories
claim is impossible. Elvy's Ophthalmologist who approves of her medical
marijuana use is a Professor of Ophthalmology, and an M.D.
Irvin Rosenfeld smokes all day for relief of a neuromuscular disorder and is a
very successful stockbroker. He is certainly more rational than the people
whom Green cites.
Both Elvy and Irvin appear to be in good health.
But neither Green nor his editor nor the reporters acknowledge their
existence. Well, that is not quite true. Green says, "No indication has been
obtained or reported that those highly limited number of persons who consume
marijuana cigarettes as a compassionate investigational new drug have shown
any maintenance of visual function or visual fields or stabilization of optic
disappearance." In short, the government is not gathering data that it does
not want us to know, and neither is Green. Somehow that is perfectly okay with
both the Archives of Ophthalmology and the Associated Press.
This failure is made all the more absurd by the fact that the program was
begun by the successful lawsuit of Bob Randall, a glaucoma patient who has
used medical marijuana to preserve his vision for over 2 decades after
conventional medicine had failed him.
Finally, a look at Green's sources gives the game away. He cites well-known
prohibitionists like Nahas, and Voth et al. but never Grinspoon or Morgan. For
example, Green cites an article by Schwartz and Voth on "Marijuana to prevent
nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: a survey of clinical oncologists.
South Med J. 1997;90:167-172." This is a critique of the Doblin and Kleiman
survey of oncologists, but neither the original survey nor the Doblin/Kleiman
response to Schwartz and Voth are cited. In short, Green gives only one side
of the question.
Nahas and Voth are both highly political, so there can be no excuse for not
citing Grinspoon, whose credentials are much better. (That is the faintest of
praise.)
In spite of such a one-sided presentation the editor of the Archives of
Ophthalmology, Paul L. Kaufman, MD, actually says "This editorial ... like the
review, concludes that data, not demagoguery, should guide our path."
What is the demagoguery that they are rejecting? That people with glaucoma
should not be arrested for using medical marijuana with their doctors
approval? Is that demagoguery? That is all that the recent initiatives
propose.
Green is quoted as saying "There is no reason for anyone to go blind from
glaucoma in this day and age," if it is caught early enough. Is that so?
Well, first, what about the tens of thousands who went blind before "this day
and age" -- while the federal government was suppressing the information that
marijuana could be used to treat glaucoma?
Second, why are thousands of Americans still going blind from glaucoma every
year?
Third, can everyone - glaucoma is not just an American problem -- get access
to the best medical care?
Can everyone afford the pharmaceuticals that Green says will work better than
marijuana? Is being arrested good for people with glaucoma? He never addresses
any of these questions. It is a scientific fact that people who ignore Green's
advice are subject to arrest. Not dealing with this fact, indeed pretending
that it does not exist, is the reason that the people are rightly rejecting
the pseudo-science that says that sick people should be punished because
medical marijuana is one of the many things that doctors cannot explain.
The following news articles demonstrate why people don't trust journalists.
***
From the Augusta Georgia Chronicle November 13, 1998
Marijuana ineffective for treating glaucoma
Glaucoma relief temporary
By Tom Corwin Staff Writer
Even though voters in five states approved the medical use of marijuana last
week, a Medical College of Georgia researcher says that would be a mistake, at
least for treating glaucoma. In a study published Thursday in the Archives of
Ophthalmology, MCG ophthalmologist Keith Green attacks "the fallacy that
marijuana is of any value at all in the treatment of glaucoma."
(Marijuananews note: That is not in the "study."
Glaucoma is a degenerative disease that affects between 2 percent and 3
percent of people and is more likely in those with a family history of the
disease, Dr. Green said. The normal eye maintains a constant pressure of
fluid coming in and going out. Glaucoma causes a chemical change that is
"plugging up the sink; it's blocking the outflow," Dr. Green said. That leads
to increased pressure that can choke off nerve cells at the back of the eye
and lead to blindness, Dr. Green said.
Chemicals in marijuana called cannabinols do seem to help improve the outflow
in about 60 percent of the people who try it, though doctors still are
exploring why. But the effect is only temporary, and the pressure builds back
up within four hours, Dr. Green said. In order to keep the pressure at the
safer lower levels, a person would have to smoke a joint every two hours, or
about 4,000 a year, Dr. Green said.
"I personally would not want to be in a cab or a bus or any public
transportation where the individual (driving) was smoking that much," Dr.
Green said.
(Marijuananews note: Excuse me, but we are talking about glaucoma and
blindness. Generally that precludes driving, except in some retirement
communities.)
Glaucoma is a round-the-clock condition and must be treated that way, in much
the same way as hypertension, Dr. Green said. "If I took my blood pressure
medicine once a week, I'd die a lot faster than I'm going to," Dr. Green said.
"Smoking a joint a week is not going to cure glaucoma."
Advocates for medical marijuana, however, say it is better than doing nothing.
"Should these patients suffer so?" asked Allen St. Pierre, executive director
of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws Foundation. "Should
their doctors be intimidated so?"
Before last week's election, only eight patients were legally prescribed
marijuana, three of those for glaucoma, Mr. St. Pierre said. Approval for
medical use of the drug opens up the treatment to more patients who are not
getting relief, Mr. St. Pierre said.
(Marijuananews note: Notice that their existence is reported but no one checks
to see if they can see.)
But Dr. Green argues there are already effective treatments, using eye drops
or possibly surgery to install tiny shunts that can relieve the pressure.
"There is no reason for anyone to go blind from glaucoma in this day and age,"
if it is caught early enough, Dr. Green said.
His study, which outlines the damage marijuana smoking can do to the lungs,
brain and other organs, does not address the other uses touted for medical
marijuana, such as helping to control nausea among chemotherapy patients and
those with AIDS. But having offered it, he now expects to be part of the
debate.
(Marijuananews note: Yes, it does. At the very end he says that marijuana has
no medical uses!)
"I'd hate to think my work was going to be used as a political football," Dr.
Green said. "(But) I think anybody that knows me knows darn well that nothing
is going to stop me from standing up and saying, 'The emperor has no clothes,'
if the emperor has no clothes."
While marijuana itself is not a treatment, some of the chemicals in it may be,
Dr. Green said. His research has been focusing on the cannabinols, some of the
active ingredients in marijuana that produce both the pressure-lowering effect
and the euphoric effect. A chemical cousin, dexanabinol, seems to produce the
pressure-lowering effect without the euphoria, which would be ideal, Dr. Green
said.
Instead of releasing fluid through a vent in the front of the eye at the
juncture of the cornea and sclera, or the clear and white parts of the eye,
marijuana may actually create a chemical change in the eye that allows fluid
to the be absorbed more readily by veins at the back of the eye, Dr. Green
said. His experiments with that chemical are ongoing.
One of the problems with researchers is they are also looking to turn the cure
into a pharmaceutical, Mr. St. Pierre said. If anyone can plant a seed and
grow a marijuana plant, "Why should I be forced to buy a more expensive and
less effective drug?" Mr. St. Pierre asked.
But part of the problem with using marijuana as a treatment is it is so
variable, Dr. Green said. Ask for marijuana and "you're liable to get
anything," Dr. Green said. "How can you call that a medication?"
(Marijuananews note: He clearly does not know what he is talking about.)
Tom Corwin covers health issues for The Augusta Chronicle. He can be reached
at (706) 823-3213 or newsroom@augustachronicle.com.
to the 1998 Daily News index for November 19-25