E-llusion
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Messages
- 5,975
WE HAVE LOST THE WAR ON DRUGS SAYS GIAMBRA
Written by Lee Chowaniec
Friday, 21 April 2006
“Get real,” says Erie County Executive Joel Giambra, “we have lost the war on drugs!” Giambra declares that the current anti-drug efforts are not working and we should consider legalizing “some narcotics”. Giambra’s recent approval rating is down to six. How did it get to be that high?
The county executive alludes to the use of drugs and the part they played in Sister Karen Klimczak’s recent murder and in the City of Buffalo’s 2005 fifty-six homicides. Giambra believes the legalization of certain drugs will lessen the problems encountered on the streets of urban America.
How ironic that Giambra takes issue with the development of the Seneca Buffalo Creek casino because of all the social ills that could befall an addicted gambler and his family, especially one without money, yet he is for legalizing a different addiction that could result in more serious consequences to an individual, his or her family and society.
By a large majority, the police believe Giambra’s position is insane and has the potential to create “catastrophic potentialities.” Lt. Joseph Leo of the Lackawanna Police Narcotics Unit stated the obvious when he decried Giambra’s claim by declaring that the war on drugs was successful in his city and would have been more successful elsewhere if the strict “Rockefeller drug laws” were not debased by the Pataki administration and had the narcotics enforcement program not become underfunded.
A veteran police officer from North Tonawanda claimed that crime and homicides decreased when prohibition was abolished. He likewise believes the same will happen if drugs are legalized – all drugs. Really?
Drug usage on the street and in the schools is pervasive and spoken about in all walks of life. No one would be surprised or shocked to find out how pervasive its use is should it be legalized, as some claim. More troubling is how more widespread its use would become if it were legalized and the problems that would ensue.
Why would crime and misfortunes lessen when the same basic issues beset most of the drug users, namely, acquiring the money to make the drug purchase? How will crime attributed to violence resulting from drug usage in some individuals lessen with more drug users in the market? Can we say with certainty that using softer drugs will not lead to harder drugs later on?
Would setting an age limit for purchase of legalized drugs reduce drug usage in the schools? Of course not! As in other municipalities, most people in Lancaster know there is a serious drug problem in the school system. The police are aware of the problem, but too often are handcuffed by privacy law restrictions.
Too often, school administrators and teachers fail to take action when obvious drug usage is taking place. Too often parents are too intimidated, too embarrassed or too complacent to bring the problem to the forefront and demand resolution. Lets not talk about it in public, it may go away. Its for the kids school district administrators like to say as they squeeze very penny they can from the taxpayer. What could be more for the kids than ridding the schools from drugs?
We’re losing the war on drugs, so lets legalize them. Screw responsibility! Lets bring more crack babies into the world. Lets bring more children into a home where getting stoned is a way of life to smooth the edges. Lets bring more potheads into the workplace, they function better, just ask them.
While I am compelled to wear a seat belt / refrain from talking on a cell phone / not being under the influence of alcohol while driving, to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, refrained from smoking in a restaurant, public building, etc., and living under many other restrictions, an individual woulld gain the right to drive a car, operate heavy machinery and drive a motorcycle or any other vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, etc., etc.
Giambra’s recent approval rating is down to six. How did it get to be that high?
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana, contradicting a 1999 review by a panel of highly regarded scientists.
The announcement inserts the health agency into yet another fierce political fight.
Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment."
Ms. Bro said the agency issued the statement in response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill but would probably do nothing to enforce it.
"Any enforcement based on this finding would need to be by D.E.A. since this falls outside of F.D.A.'s regulatory authority," she said.
Eleven states have legalized medicinal use of marijuana, but the Drug Enforcement Administration and the director of national drug control policy, John P. Walters, have opposed those laws.
A Supreme Court decision last year allowed the federal government to arrest anyone using marijuana, even for medical purposes and even in states that have legalized its use.
Congressional opponents and supporters of medical marijuana use have each tried to enlist the F.D.A. to support their views. Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana and a fierce opponent of medical marijuana initiatives, proposed legislation two years ago that would have required the food and drug agency to issue an opinion on the medicinal properties of marijuana.
Mr. Souder believes that efforts to legalize medicinal uses of marijuana are a front for efforts to legalize all uses of it, said Martin Green, a spokesman for Mr. Souder.
Tom Riley, a spokesman for Mr. Walters, hailed the food and drug agency's statement, saying it would put to rest what he called "the bizarre public discussion" that has led to some legalization of medical marijuana.
The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."
Dr. John Benson, co-chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that examined the research into marijuana's effects, said in an interview that the statement on Thursday and the combined review by other agencies were wrong.
The federal government "loves to ignore our report," said Dr. Benson, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. "They would rather it never happened."
Some scientists and legislators said the agency's statement about marijuana demonstrated that politics had trumped science.
"Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the F.D.A. making pronouncements that seem to be driven more by ideology than by science," said Dr. Jerry Avorn, a medical professor at Harvard Medical School.
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, a New York Democrat who has sponsored legislation to allow medicinal uses of marijuana, said the statement reflected the influence of the Drug Enforcement Administration, which he said had long pressured the F.D.A. to help in its fight against marijuana.
A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration referred questions to Mr. Walters's office.
The Food and Drug Administration's statement said state initiatives that legalize marijuana use were "inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the F.D.A. approval process."
But scientists who study the medical use of marijuana said in interviews that the federal government had actively discouraged research. Lyle E. Craker, a professor in the division of plant and soil sciences at the University of Massachusetts, said he submitted an application to the D.E.A. in 2001 to grow a small patch of marijuana to be used for research because government-approved marijuana, grown in Mississippi, was of poor quality.
In 2004, the drug enforcement agency turned Dr. Craker down. He appealed and is awaiting a judge's ruling. "The reason there's no good evidence is that they don't want an honest trial," Dr. Craker said.
Dr. Donald Abrams, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said he had studied marijuana's medicinal effects for years but had been frustrated because the National Institutes of Health, the leading government medical research agency, had refused to finance such work.
With financing from the State of California, Dr. Abrams undertook what he said was a rigorous, placebo-controlled trial of marijuana smoking in H.I.V. patients who suffered from nerve pain. Smoking marijuana proved effective in ameliorating pain, Dr. Abrams said, but he said he was having trouble getting the study published.
"One wonders how anyone" could fulfill the Food and Drug Administration request for well-controlled trials to prove marijuana's benefits, he said.
Marinol, a synthetic version of a marijuana component, is approved to treat anorexia associated with AIDS and the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer drug therapy.
GW Pharmaceutical, a British company, has received F.D.A. approval to test a sprayed extract of marijuana in humans. Called Sativex, the drug is made from marijuana and is approved for sale in Canada. Opponents of efforts to legalize marijuana for medicinal uses suggest that marijuana is a so-called gateway drug that often leads users to try more dangerous drugs and to addiction.
But the Institute of Medicine report concluded there was no evidence that marijuana acted as a gateway to harder drugs. And it said there was no evidence that medical use of marijuana would increase its use among the general population.
Dr. Daniele Piomelli, a professor of pharmacology at the University of California, Irvine, said he had "never met a scientist who would say that marijuana is either dangerous or useless."
Studies clearly show that marijuana has some benefits for some patients, Dr. Piomelli said.
"We all agree on that," he said.
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1283&Itemid=27
Written by Lee Chowaniec
Friday, 21 April 2006
“Get real,” says Erie County Executive Joel Giambra, “we have lost the war on drugs!” Giambra declares that the current anti-drug efforts are not working and we should consider legalizing “some narcotics”. Giambra’s recent approval rating is down to six. How did it get to be that high?
The county executive alludes to the use of drugs and the part they played in Sister Karen Klimczak’s recent murder and in the City of Buffalo’s 2005 fifty-six homicides. Giambra believes the legalization of certain drugs will lessen the problems encountered on the streets of urban America.
How ironic that Giambra takes issue with the development of the Seneca Buffalo Creek casino because of all the social ills that could befall an addicted gambler and his family, especially one without money, yet he is for legalizing a different addiction that could result in more serious consequences to an individual, his or her family and society.
By a large majority, the police believe Giambra’s position is insane and has the potential to create “catastrophic potentialities.” Lt. Joseph Leo of the Lackawanna Police Narcotics Unit stated the obvious when he decried Giambra’s claim by declaring that the war on drugs was successful in his city and would have been more successful elsewhere if the strict “Rockefeller drug laws” were not debased by the Pataki administration and had the narcotics enforcement program not become underfunded.
A veteran police officer from North Tonawanda claimed that crime and homicides decreased when prohibition was abolished. He likewise believes the same will happen if drugs are legalized – all drugs. Really?
Drug usage on the street and in the schools is pervasive and spoken about in all walks of life. No one would be surprised or shocked to find out how pervasive its use is should it be legalized, as some claim. More troubling is how more widespread its use would become if it were legalized and the problems that would ensue.
Why would crime and misfortunes lessen when the same basic issues beset most of the drug users, namely, acquiring the money to make the drug purchase? How will crime attributed to violence resulting from drug usage in some individuals lessen with more drug users in the market? Can we say with certainty that using softer drugs will not lead to harder drugs later on?
Would setting an age limit for purchase of legalized drugs reduce drug usage in the schools? Of course not! As in other municipalities, most people in Lancaster know there is a serious drug problem in the school system. The police are aware of the problem, but too often are handcuffed by privacy law restrictions.
Too often, school administrators and teachers fail to take action when obvious drug usage is taking place. Too often parents are too intimidated, too embarrassed or too complacent to bring the problem to the forefront and demand resolution. Lets not talk about it in public, it may go away. Its for the kids school district administrators like to say as they squeeze very penny they can from the taxpayer. What could be more for the kids than ridding the schools from drugs?
We’re losing the war on drugs, so lets legalize them. Screw responsibility! Lets bring more crack babies into the world. Lets bring more children into a home where getting stoned is a way of life to smooth the edges. Lets bring more potheads into the workplace, they function better, just ask them.
While I am compelled to wear a seat belt / refrain from talking on a cell phone / not being under the influence of alcohol while driving, to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, refrained from smoking in a restaurant, public building, etc., and living under many other restrictions, an individual woulld gain the right to drive a car, operate heavy machinery and drive a motorcycle or any other vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, etc., etc.
Giambra’s recent approval rating is down to six. How did it get to be that high?
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana, contradicting a 1999 review by a panel of highly regarded scientists.
The announcement inserts the health agency into yet another fierce political fight.
Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment."
Ms. Bro said the agency issued the statement in response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill but would probably do nothing to enforce it.
"Any enforcement based on this finding would need to be by D.E.A. since this falls outside of F.D.A.'s regulatory authority," she said.
Eleven states have legalized medicinal use of marijuana, but the Drug Enforcement Administration and the director of national drug control policy, John P. Walters, have opposed those laws.
A Supreme Court decision last year allowed the federal government to arrest anyone using marijuana, even for medical purposes and even in states that have legalized its use.
Congressional opponents and supporters of medical marijuana use have each tried to enlist the F.D.A. to support their views. Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana and a fierce opponent of medical marijuana initiatives, proposed legislation two years ago that would have required the food and drug agency to issue an opinion on the medicinal properties of marijuana.
Mr. Souder believes that efforts to legalize medicinal uses of marijuana are a front for efforts to legalize all uses of it, said Martin Green, a spokesman for Mr. Souder.
Tom Riley, a spokesman for Mr. Walters, hailed the food and drug agency's statement, saying it would put to rest what he called "the bizarre public discussion" that has led to some legalization of medical marijuana.
The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."
Dr. John Benson, co-chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that examined the research into marijuana's effects, said in an interview that the statement on Thursday and the combined review by other agencies were wrong.
The federal government "loves to ignore our report," said Dr. Benson, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. "They would rather it never happened."
Some scientists and legislators said the agency's statement about marijuana demonstrated that politics had trumped science.
"Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the F.D.A. making pronouncements that seem to be driven more by ideology than by science," said Dr. Jerry Avorn, a medical professor at Harvard Medical School.
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, a New York Democrat who has sponsored legislation to allow medicinal uses of marijuana, said the statement reflected the influence of the Drug Enforcement Administration, which he said had long pressured the F.D.A. to help in its fight against marijuana.
A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration referred questions to Mr. Walters's office.
The Food and Drug Administration's statement said state initiatives that legalize marijuana use were "inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the F.D.A. approval process."
But scientists who study the medical use of marijuana said in interviews that the federal government had actively discouraged research. Lyle E. Craker, a professor in the division of plant and soil sciences at the University of Massachusetts, said he submitted an application to the D.E.A. in 2001 to grow a small patch of marijuana to be used for research because government-approved marijuana, grown in Mississippi, was of poor quality.
In 2004, the drug enforcement agency turned Dr. Craker down. He appealed and is awaiting a judge's ruling. "The reason there's no good evidence is that they don't want an honest trial," Dr. Craker said.
Dr. Donald Abrams, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said he had studied marijuana's medicinal effects for years but had been frustrated because the National Institutes of Health, the leading government medical research agency, had refused to finance such work.
With financing from the State of California, Dr. Abrams undertook what he said was a rigorous, placebo-controlled trial of marijuana smoking in H.I.V. patients who suffered from nerve pain. Smoking marijuana proved effective in ameliorating pain, Dr. Abrams said, but he said he was having trouble getting the study published.
"One wonders how anyone" could fulfill the Food and Drug Administration request for well-controlled trials to prove marijuana's benefits, he said.
Marinol, a synthetic version of a marijuana component, is approved to treat anorexia associated with AIDS and the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer drug therapy.
GW Pharmaceutical, a British company, has received F.D.A. approval to test a sprayed extract of marijuana in humans. Called Sativex, the drug is made from marijuana and is approved for sale in Canada. Opponents of efforts to legalize marijuana for medicinal uses suggest that marijuana is a so-called gateway drug that often leads users to try more dangerous drugs and to addiction.
But the Institute of Medicine report concluded there was no evidence that marijuana acted as a gateway to harder drugs. And it said there was no evidence that medical use of marijuana would increase its use among the general population.
Dr. Daniele Piomelli, a professor of pharmacology at the University of California, Irvine, said he had "never met a scientist who would say that marijuana is either dangerous or useless."
Studies clearly show that marijuana has some benefits for some patients, Dr. Piomelli said.
"We all agree on that," he said.
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1283&Itemid=27
