BUSHIES ONCE AGAIN BURY SCIENCE FOR POLITICS

The Bush administration is now held in such contempt that skeptical
news stories greeted the Food and Drug Administration's announcement
that "no scientific studies" justify using marijuana for medicine.

Once again, the White House allowed right wing politics to dictate
scientific conclusions. The government statement is "driven more by
ideology than by science," Dr. Jerry Avorn, a Harvard Medical School
professor, said in belittling the "pronouncement."

Scientific American echoed that view, arguing that the
administration's conclusions "demonstrated that politics had trumped
science" and angrily inquiring, "How many times in recent years have
science reporters had to write some version of that sentence?"

Undoubtedly, red-meat Republicans are delighted that the FDA statement
offers no compromise. It is a wedge issue separating fervent anti-drug
Republicans from the Democrats. The issue makes some Democrats
uncomfortable and inarticulate. As is happening over and over again,
the Democratic Party's base is likely to come out on this far more
liberal than its leaders.

The FDA's argument that no scientific studies exist to back
marijuana's medical use is intended to infuriate. The federal
government, especially the National Institute on Drug Abuse, only
solicits studies showing the negative effects of illicit drugs.
Federal rules prevent researchers from growing or obtaining high
quality marijuana. One study was conducted with state funds, but a
frustrated Dr. Donald Abrams in San Francisco says publishing the
study is beset with difficulties. The FDA statement is
disingenuous.

It doesn't have to be this way. Science can create consensus and
respond to public anxiety. The National Academy of Science has that
mission. In 1999, its Institute of Medicine offered a carefully
balanced assessment noting the well known benefits of marijuana for
patients suffering from AIDS wasting or a loss of appetite from
chemotherapy that must be weighed against the harms caused by
dangerous particles in marijuana smoke. The Institute recommended
marijuana for seriously ill persons.

But the federal government "loves to ignore our report," Dr. John
Benson of the University of Nebraska Medical Center told The New York
Times. "They would rather it never happened."

Great Britain has its committee of scientists, The Advisory Council on
The Misuse of Drugs. In 2002, it recommended that marijuana be
downgraded to the least harmful category of illegal drugs. The
recommendation enjoyed the support of chiefs of police across that
nation. This conclusion made it difficult to arrest anyone for
possession. In the United States, marijuana is placed in the class of
the most dangerous of the illicit drugs.

When the Dutch presented a study linking marijuana to mental illness
including schizophrenia, depression, and suicide, the U.S. and Great
Britain responded in markedly different ways. The United States seized
on the study to start yet another campaign about the dangers of
marijuana--an approach that is ineffective because so many people
smoke marijuana that everyone knows you won't lose your mind
automatically if you inhale.

But a study associating any substance with mental illness deserves
careful consideration. The British asked its Advisory Council to
examine the study and determine if marijuana still belonged in the
class of least harmful drugs.

In December 2005, the Advisory Council concluded that the Dutch study
gave no cause for undue alarm. Yes marijuana is dangerous and has
risks, but it is still the least dangerous of the commonly used
illicit drugs. Typical of that study's findings: "The most recent data
are not, overall, persuasive of a causal association between cannabis
use and the development of depression, bipolar disorder, or anxiety.
Although some investigators have observed statistically significant
associations, there is a lack of consistency between the results of
studies and even those with positive findings show only small effects."

While the American reaction was to spread fear and justify the use of
the criminal law; the British found the Dutch study "not persuasive."
At one and the same time, British scientists reaffirmed policy on the
categorization of marijuana and provided information to parents and
users that could help them make informed decisions. The scientific
evidence dictated the law enforcement policy and the information
provided to drug users. This should be so unremarkable that it doesn't
need to be mentioned.

But that is not the situation in the United States. New York City
police pursue a major marijuana enforcement effort, making 36,179
arrests last year. The smoking of marijuana in a nightclub has led the
police to shut clubs down for entire weekends. Individuals who are
arrested are fingerprinted and subjected to detention until their
court arraignment. In Great Britain, a user will receive a warning--a
caution as it is called there.

The difference of course is that the British are letting science
inform their drug policy, while the United States including the City
of New York, are engaged in the futile campaign for a drug-free
society. It is time for the City Council to make sense out of this
confusion, and the injustices that occur when marijuana laws are
aggressively enforced.