THE POLITICS OF POT

The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific
agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug
Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief,
poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of
marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous
inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a
crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to
counteract state efforts to legalize the practice.

Ordinarily, when the F.D.A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a
panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render
an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use.
This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement
asserting that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use
of marijuana.

That assertion is based on an evaluation by federal agencies in 2001
that justified the government's decision to tightly regulate marijuana
under the Controlled Substances Act. But it appears to flout the
spirit of a 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the
National Academy of Sciences.

The institute was appropriately cautious in its endorsement of
marijuana. It said the active ingredients of marijuana appeared
useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated
with AIDS. It warned that these potential benefits were undermined by
inhaling smoke that is more toxic than tobacco smoke. So marijuana
smoking should be limited, it said, to those who are terminally ill or
don't respond to other therapies.

Yet the F.D.A. statement, which was drafted with the help of other
federal agencies that focus on drug abuse, does not allow even that
much leeway. It argues that state laws permitting the smoking of
marijuana with a doctor's recommendation are inconsistent with
ensuring that all medications undergo rigorous scrutiny in the drug
approval process.

That seems disingenuous. The government is actively discouraging
relevant research, according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris
in yesterday's Times. It's obviously easier and safer to issue a
brief, dismissive statement than to back research that might undermine
the administration's inflexible opposition to the medical use of marijuana.