fayfreethinkers.com

A recent report from Mapinc:


Last week, Administrative Law Judge Marry Ellen Bittner, ruled that
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should issue a license
to Massachusetts plant biologist, Dr. Lyle E. Craker, which would
allow him to grow cannabis for research purposes. Judge Bittner stated
in her long-awaited 87-page ruling that issuing such a license would
be "in the public interest."

We would hope so. The DEA and those promoting cannabis prohibition
have numerous times declared cannabis to be of limited medicinal
value due to a perceived lack of scientific research. Just in the
last five years alone, we counted more than 12 studies that
reported in the media the possible effectiveness of marijuana in
treating such debilitating conditions as:

1. Alzheimer's Disease

POT MAY BE BOOST TO OLDER BRAINS : New York Daily News (NY) : October
19, 2006 : "Anti-inflammatory compounds in pot deflect the memory loss
associated with the illness Alzheimer's] and could ultimately slow its
progression, said psychology Prof. Gary Wenk of Ohio State
University." http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1421/a04.html

2. Cancer - Brain Tumors

REPORT SUPRESSED THAT MARIJUANA COMPONENTS CAN INHIBIT CANCER GROWTH :
The Coastal Post (CA) : November 1, 2004 : "Clinical research touted
by the journal of the American Association for Cancer Research that
shows marijuana's components can inhibit the growth of cancerous brain
tumors is the latest in a long line of studies demonstrating the
drug's potential as an anti-cancer agent."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1518/a07.html

3. Epilepsy

CANNABIS 'COULD HELP EPILEPTICS' : BBC News (UK Web) : October 4, 2003
: "Further evidence has emerged that an ingredient of cannabis could
help prevent epileptic seizures."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1520/a03.html

4. High Blood Pressure

ISRAELI RESEARCHER LOWERS BLOOD PRESSURE WITH CANNABIS COMPONENT :
Jerusalem Post : June 14, 2006 : "A new method for lowering blood
pressure with a compound that synthesizes a cannabis ( hashish or
marijuana ) plant component has been developed by a Hebrew University
doctoral student in pharmacology."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n771/a02.html

5. Hepatitis C

US CA: STUDY: MEDICAL MARIJUANA CAN HELP PEOPLE WITH HEP C : Bay Area
Reporter : September 21, 2006 : "Medical marijuana can help people
with hepatitis C stay on treatment longer, leading to better outcomes,
according to a study published in the October 2006 issue of the
European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1262/a01.html

6. Multiple Sclerosis

STUDY SUGGESTS MARIJUANA MAY EASE MS SYMPTOMS : Sacramento Bee (CA) :
November 7, 2003 : "A marijuana pill appeared to relieve some of the
symptoms of multiple sclerosis in the first scientifically rigorous
study of the strongly debated drug."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1756/a04.html

7. Nausea - Chemotherapy

ONE DRUG, TWO TAKES : Los Angeles Times : May 1, 2006 : "For nausea,
the panel examined about a dozen studies that looked at THC or
marijuana's ability to quell nausea during chemotherapy. For example,
in one study, 56 cancer patients who did not respond to other anti-
nausea and vomiting drugs were given marijuana. More than one-third
rated the plant as moderately or highly effective."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n546/a05.html

8. Nausea - Morning Sickness

MORE PREGNANCY HIGHS THAN LOWS : National Post (Canada) : January 17,
2006 : "Almost all of the B.C. women surveyed at the University of
Victoria and University of British Columbia said smoking marijuana
helped curb the nausea of pregnancy."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n076/a05.html

9. Pain - Peripheral Neuropathy (in AIDS) SMOKING POT REDUCES PAIN,
STUDY SHOWS : Washington Post : February 13, 2007 : "AIDS patients
suffering from debilitating nerve pain got as much or more relief by
smoking marijuana as they would typically get from prescription drugs
-- and with fewer side effects -- according to a study conducted under
rigorously controlled onditions with government-grown pot."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n177/a01.html

10. Pain - Post surgical

CANNABIS 'REDUCES SURGERY PAIN : BBC News : June 2, 2006 : "A cannabis
plant extract provides pain relief for patients after major surgery,
research has shown." http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n722/a07.html

11. Psychosis

CANNABIS 'COULD REVERSE PSYCHOSIS' : Daily Telegraph (UK) : December
1, 2005 : "AUSTRALIAN researchers believe cannabis, a drug believed to
increase the risk of psychosis, may also be able to reverse psychotic
behaviour." http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1879/a03.html

12. Schizophrenia

MARIJUANA MOOD SWING : NOW Magazine (CN ON) : September 21, 2006 :
"The strongest data out there is that CBD [a component of cannabis],
in strong enough doses, controls schizophrenia."
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1879/a03.html

Those who need to persuade policy makers about cannabis' medicinal
value should present this list to them. A formatted PDF of it can be
found here: http://drugsense.org/flyers/cannabisstudies.pdf

About time research was permitted to either back up or refute the "no medical value" claim. As far as policy is concerned, be it global warming, medicinal value of marijuana, or the god-ordained superiority of white male fundies - put up or shut up. Research is the key.

Actually, there has been evidence (if not solid research) of medical uses of cannabis for centuries. The problem, of course, is the power of States to allow or forbid. While you seem to approve of the idea that the State should be so powerful as to decide for all (and hope the rulers get it right), I would prefer that the State have no such power.

I don't want brick dust in my cocoa or sawdust in my flour. If I were to choose to purchase marijuana, I want to be sure it really is marijuana and doesn't include some addictive additive. Once out of the village, a government is needed to enforce product purity. Be nice if it weren't so, but there's a reason why we have an FDA and a USDA and that reason is response to market deception.

Barbara wrote: Once out of the village, a government is needed to enforce product purity.

No, you are mistaken. Voluntary certification is adequate, as shown in various areas that State has not overrun yet. We've already discussed the success of Underwriters Laboratories, Consumers' Union, Good Housekeeping, etc, in other threads. Your claim of government solipotence is clearly false. Even if, in some cases, government force did do a better job, the cost - tyranny over the mind of man, plunder of his product, unjust imprisonment, war machines, and so on, would not be worth the price.

Hogeye wrote:Voluntary certification is adequate, as shown in various areas that State has not overrun yet. We've already discussed the success of Underwriters Laboratories, Consumers' Union, Good Housekeeping, etc, in other threads.

What nonsense. Those "seals" mean next to nothing. Just look at the history of medicine, including the snake oil people often bought that was harmful and sometimes even fatal, to see the need for strong government intervention.

That a product will kill you, and in some cases quickly, is no impediment to its being sold successfully.

Doug wrote: Those "seals" mean next to nothing.

DAR
You mean when it says "Grand Prix" on the side of my tires it doesn't mean that I really have a racing tire on my car? Oh my.

Actually, I even see this crap (free-market dishonesty) inside pianos. All sorts of ridiculous and absurd claims are in pianos (especially the older ones). I was going to collect them sometime. One of the more obvious and mundane examples is when they would stencil right on an upright piano, "Upright Grand." An upright piano is by definition a piano that is vertical, that is, the strings run up and down. A grand piano, by definition, is a piano that is horizontal. That is, the strings run horizontally. So these upright pianos makers tried to dishonestly redefine themselves into being a more prestigious piano than they are. I get people on the phone and I ask if it is an upright or a grand and they say they are not sure because it says it is an "upright grand." I see it all the time.
Markets don't care about honesty or truth, all they care about is making a buck. The trick is to harness that greed engine and make it work for good for society. That's where the state comes in. Otherwise you get a stone age level of existence. Add modern technology and you get Somalian type results.

D.

Doug wrote:What nonsense. Those "seals" mean next to nothing.

Yet every single electronic device you own, from toaster to computer, is accredited by Underwriter Labs. And no retailer, from Wal-Mart to the smallest corner store, would think of selling an unaccredited device.

Had the government not intervened after a muckraking book ("The Jungle"), no doubt private accreditation agencies would have emerged in the area of food and drugs. Instead we got the nightmare of FDA, DEA, and uncountable deaths from type II error of forbidding beneficial drugs, not to mention the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Darrel, get with it. We are talking about trusted independent third parties, not partisan claims. Maybe you should have read the book that Tamara borrowed.

Doug wrote:What nonsense. Those "seals" mean next to nothing.

Hogeye wrote:Yet every single electronic device you own, from toaster to computer, is accredited by Underwriter Labs. And no retailer, from Wal-Mart to the smallest corner store, would think of selling an unaccredited device.

The UL label is not a safety guarantee of any sort, nor does it carry any legal import aside from that of a trademark. Many non-UL labeled products are safe and sold in this country. There is no federal regulation requiring a UL label on all electric or electronic devices, and there are other private agencies that test electric and electronic equipment. Check the Wikipedia.

The main point is: the history of consumer protection proves that in many cases federal regulation is the only means by which products were made safer. In medicine, in the automobile industry, in the firearms industry, in workers safety in the manufacturing industry, and so on.

Do you think anything short of state or federal regulation would have caused tightfisted employers to install safety equipment for their workers in many industries? Even WITH regulations it is difficult to keep the workplace safe.

Doug wrote:The UL label is not a safety guarantee of any sort, nor does it carry any legal import aside from that of a trademark. Many non-UL labeled products are safe and sold in this country. There is no federal regulation requiring a UL label on all electric or electronic devices, and there are other private agencies that test electric and electronic equipment.

Yes! As you say, the system is totally voluntary, and open to competition. Wonderful. And it works better, and is less subject to corruption and manipulation than State monopolies enforced by violence.

Doug wrote:The history of consumer protection proves that in many cases federal regulation is the only means by which products were made safer. In medicine, in the automobile industry, in the firearms industry, in workers safety in the manufacturing industry, and so on.

??? It proves nothing of the sort. The examples of govt intervention you cite only show that when the State takes over a function, and funds it by plunder, that firms and voluntary groups are not likely to compete. When government takes over a function, the ability of voluntary society to do it atrophies. I contend that, had the State not imposed compulsory licensure in these areas, voluntary accreditation would have evolved. Your bald assumption of government solipotence in these areas is an example of the Broken Window Fallacy. That which is not seen is the voluntary accreditation processes that would have filled these needs had the government not intervened.

Doug wrote:The UL label is not a safety guarantee of any sort, nor does it carry any legal import aside from that of a trademark. Many non-UL labeled products are safe and sold in this country. There is no federal regulation requiring a UL label on all electric or electronic devices, and there are other private agencies that test electric and electronic equipment.

Hogeye wrote: Yes! As you say, the system is totally voluntary, and open to competition. Wonderful. And it works better, and is less subject to corruption and manipulation than State monopolies enforced by violence.

DOUG
That was not the point. You missed it.

Doug wrote:The history of consumer protection proves that in many cases federal regulation is the only means by which products were made safer. In medicine, in the automobile industry, in the firearms industry, in workers safety in the manufacturing industry, and so on.

Hogeye wrote: ??? It proves nothing of the sort. The examples of govt intervention you cite only show that when the State takes over a function, and funds it by plunder, that firms and voluntary groups are not likely to compete. When government takes over a function, the ability of voluntary society to do it atrophies.

The government did not take over anything. The government initiated action to protect people from the ravages of the free market. There was no other existing way to protect consumers of the deadly and/or ineffective snake oil products being sold a century ago. The government did not take over what private industry was doing. Private industry was killing consumers.

I once helped skeptic Bob McCoy move some of his turn-of-the-century items into his Twin Cities home of The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices. (I believe he's since retired.) The museum was full of dangerous products, such as radioactive water carafes, electric prostate probes, x-ray machines that allow you to see whether a pair of shoes fit properly, and so on. The free market had (and still has) many dangerous products. Without the intervention of government, people would still be getting killed by dangerous products.

Hogeye wrote:
I contend that, had the State not imposed compulsory licensure in these areas, voluntary accreditation would have evolved.

a. "Accreditation" is not protection, as the UL label proves.
b. The free market was killing people with rotten products. What evidence do you have that somehow the "free market" would have produced anything to protect consumers? Blind faith?

Doug wrote:The free market had (and still has) many dangerous products.

DAR
Quackwatch.org provides a huge database of examples.

Doug wrote:The UL label is not a safety guarantee of any sort...

Doug, you apparently want a guarantee. Nirvana is not an option. There is no absolute guanantee. The realistic question is what is effective in reducing harm. Comparing compulsory licensure (and the related power necessarily given to State) with voluntary accreditation, the latter is preferable for the reasons already given. Comparing the success of UL to the abject failure of the DEA (with its massive imprisonment) and FDA (with massive death due to type II error, not to mention loss of liberty), it's really no contest.

You are correct that "accreditation is not [absolute] protection," but neither is compulsory licensure. Voluntary accreditation is simply better at harm reduction than compulsory licensure, and without the side-effect of requiring govt violence.

Doug wrote:The government did not take over anything. The government initiated action to protect people from the ravages of the free market.

You still don't "get" the Broken Window Fallacy. You continue to overlook that which could have happened had the government not "initiated action." If the govt had initiated an electronics device gestapo early on, it's unlikely UL would have ever existed. The govt initiation of force in the area of food and drugs prevented voluntary initiative from handling the problem, similar to the way UL handled it for electronic devices. Had govt initiation of force not occurred, we can imagine that e.g. the AMA or something similar would have done the job. In a voluntary manner, without govt violence backing them up. (The AMA does today certify medical schools IMU, but such "certifification" is really compulsory licensure since it is enforced by govt violence.)

Doug wrote:The free market had (and still has) many dangerous products.

Yes, and so does the State. E.g. Organized mass-murder, massive imprisonment of non-aggressive people, prohibition of useful goods and services, brainwashing of children, monopolies and privileges for established groups and cronies, and so on. Overall, I prefer freedom, the overall market result, to oppression, the overall statist result.

Doug wrote:The UL label is not a safety guarantee of any sort...

Hogeye wrote:Doug, you apparently want a guarantee.

DOUG
No, I'm just pointing out that legislation is more of a protection than some label that has no force.

Doug wrote:The government did not take over anything. The government initiated action to protect people from the ravages of the free market.

Hogeye wrote:You still don't "get" the Broken Window Fallacy. You continue to overlook that which could have happened had the government not "initiated action."

What could have happened? We needn't speculate. We just need to look at what WAS happening for decades before the government took action.

People died, and the free market did not give a hoot.

'Nuff said.

Doug wrote: People died, and the free market did not give a hoot.

DAR
Free market response: Sell more coffins!

Doug wrote:I'm just pointing out that legislation is more of a protection than some label that has no force.

That claim is based on blind faith - pure statolatry. Do I need to drag out the stats on deaths due to Type II error by regulators again? And the examples of regulations forbidding good information that could have saved lives? Cases where delays in govt licensure cost lives? There's plenty of evidence that regulations have killed more people than it saved.

Doug wrote:What could have happened?

Yes, what could have happened is critically important in evaluating policy. You can't simply assume that what actually happened was necessarily the best of all possible worlds. Once there was a boy who threw a rock through a shop window...

Doug wrote:I'm just pointing out that legislation is more of a protection than some label that has no force.

Hogeye wrote: That claim is based on blind faith - pure statolatry. Do I need to drag out the stats on deaths due to Type II error by regulators again? And the examples of regulations forbidding good information that could have saved lives? Cases where delays in govt licensure cost lives? There's plenty of evidence that regulations have killed more people than it saved.

That there are mistakes by state regulators does NOT show that the free market has less mistakes or more protection. Do you have ANY evidence that the free market is a better protector of the consumer, since we have SO MUCH evidence against it?

Doug wrote:What could have happened?

Hogeye wrote: Yes, what could have happened is critically important in evaluating policy. You can't simply assume that what actually happened was necessarily the best of all possible worlds.

No, but we CAN assume that what seems to have happened was indicative of what actually took place. In other words, we know what DID happen. Your blind faith in insisting that something else COULD HAVE happened is absurd. Your pipe dream scenario didn't happen, despite decades of deaths by free market.

Doug wrote:That there are mistakes by state regulators does NOT show that the free market has less mistakes or more protection.

Right. It merely shows that your statement that "legislation is more of a protection than some label that has no force" is not based on reason or fact, but rather on blind faith. I've provided ample evidence of "death by government" in this area, which I offered to repost.

We have both offered some evidence for our positions. You have given examples of market failure; I have given examples of government failure. Rational minds will weigh the evidence and decide.

Speculating on what could have happened is not a pipe dream, but a rational recognition that what actually happened is not necessarly the best of all possible worlds. We know that an efficient UL evolved in an area that government did not capture. Underwriter Labs is not a pipe dream, but reality. It is not unreasonable to speculated that similar entities would have evolved in areas like food and drugs had not the State intervened. Indeed, voluntary accreditation is done today by entities ranging from the AMA to Good Housekeeping to the Fair Trade Federation. Just think what things could be like without government's "fecal touch." (Opposite of Midas' touch.)

Doug wrote:That there are mistakes by state regulators does NOT show that the free market has less mistakes or more protection.

Hogeye wrote: Right. It merely shows that your statement that "legislation is more of a protection than some label that has no force" is not based on reason or fact, but rather on blind faith. I've provided ample evidence of "death by government" in this area, which I offered to repost.

DOUG
No, I have given the example of the history of medicine, and in it the free market did NOT step in and protect the consumer. That did not happen. So I have not used blind faith but instead I used specific evidence.

Hogeye wrote: We have both offered some evidence for our positions. You have given examples of market failure; I have given examples of government failure. Rational minds will weigh the evidence and decide.

I have not only given evidence of market failure--and spectacular evidence at that--but I have also shown how the government-the state!!--helped save lives when the free market did not. Indeed, the free market was a contributing factor in the many deaths.

Doug wrote:No, I have given the example of the history of medicine, and in it the free market did NOT step in and protect the consumer.

... after the government intervened and obstructed free-market alternatives. I have shown that, when the State does not intervene, free-market solutions arise.

Doug wrote:I have not only given evidence of market failure--and spectacular evidence at that--but I have also shown how the government-the state!!--helped save lives when the free market did not.

And I have shown how State intervention has caused more deaths than it saved due to a) Type II error of regulators, b) forbidding advertisement of unlicensed uses c) causing delays in the marketing of beneficial drugs, d) driving up the cost of drugs due to expensive licensing requirements, and e) outright prohibition. The government was the outright cause, or at least a contribution factor, in many, many deaths.