Did the SJ-R get played?
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Appearing in today’s State Journal-Register is a guest column entitled “Marijuana not a safe or effective medicine”…
The marijuana bill the Illinois legislature is considering does away with the Food and Drug Administration process, and the legislature assumes the role of the FDA.
The FDA has concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use and lacks an acceptable level of safety even under medical supervision. The FDA has approved Marinol, which is not smoked, but is marijuana in pill form. […]
This is about whether Illinois citizens want the legislature to decide on how to approve and dispense medicine instead of the FDA. The medical marijuana lobby has put together myths and money that will not make for a safe or healthier Illinois. The proposal endangers our youth, our highways and our workplaces and increases costs for employers and taxpayers. It is bad medicine.
Etc., etc. Go read the whole thing if you want.
* This is how the SJ-R identifies the column’s co-authors…
Peter Bensinger is former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and former director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Andrea Barthwell is former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Ah, but that’s only part of the story.
* US News & World Report ran an article about Bensinger a few days ago…
Two of the former Drug Enforcement Agency officials who came out this week urging the federal government to nullify new state pot laws in Washington and Colorado are facing criticism for simultaneously running a company that may profit from keeping marijuana illegal.
Robert L. DuPont, who was White House drug czar under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and Peter Bensinger, who was administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the 1970s, today run Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, a company that specializes in workplace drug testing, among other employee programs. Both men signed an open (along with eight other former DEA officials) addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee members this week criticizing the Obama administration for failing to quickly address the new states laws legalizing pot, which are inconsistent with federal law.
* The other co-author, Andrea Barthwell, at one time worked for GW Pharmaceuticals, a company that is marketing Sativex, which is a liquid made from marijuana plants…
GW Pharmaceuticals also announced this week that it had hired former White House Drug Czar Deputy Director Andrea Barthwell in an advisory capacity. As Deputy Director, Barthwell lobbied against legislative efforts to legalize the medical use of whole smoked cannabis by qualified patients. “Having this product (Sativex) available will certainly slow down the dash to make the crude plant material available to patients across the country,” Barthwell told the Los Angeles Times Wednesday.
The pharmaceutical company doesn’t want people smoking weed, they want to provide weed in liquid form and make lots and lots of money.
Barthwell is no longer with the company, but…
Early in Sativex’s development, GW hired Dr. Andrea Barthwell as a consultant to sing the drug’s praises, although she’s no longer in the employ of GM. Barthwell was a deputy drug czar under George W. Bush and is the former president of the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM). In a recent ASAM press release, Barthwell denounced medical marijuana but — significantly — only because it was unregulated by the federal government. […]
The likes of Barthwell and Burr have drawn the ire of supporters for the reform of marijuana laws who believe that they represent the pharmaceutical industry’s goal for medical marijuana: demonize it, prosecute it, shut it down, then grab the market.
So, yeah, to answer the headline, I’m pretty sure the SJ-R got played.
* And I wonder if the Illinois Family Institute knew what was really going on when they scheduled Barthwell, Bensinger and Bensinger’s partner Robert L. DuPont to speak at an April 15th legislative conference…
Truth and Consequences of Marijuana as Medicine
A fact-checked, research-based discussion about marijuana and Illinois
Our speakers will sort fact from fiction about how marijuana impacts health and safety, Illinois youth, drugged driving and the workplace. They will explain what to expect if a medical marijuana law is enacted in Illinois, and how it will dramatically increase use and dependency. Join us to learn the facts.
This FREE conference on marijuana is for elected officials, educators, faith organizations, drug prevention and treatment providers, business leaders, and local governments. A complimentary lunch will be provided.
- OneMan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 9:48 am:
The google is your friend, editorial page editors, google is your friend.
- PublicServant - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 9:49 am:
Great detail Rich. If only the greedy state employees and their unions were as skilled at manipulating the press, financing the legislature, and getting their voices heard at free lunch conferences as private business seems to be when acquiring state revenues.
I wonder if brownies will be served at the conference.
- Amalia - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 9:59 am:
big pharma does not like the plant you can farm.
- SouthSide - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:04 am:
Keep going Rich! Your the ONLY ONE talking the TRUTH
Must feel nice to get right! Thank You
- Colossus - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:05 am:
That editorial wasn’t even artfully crafted, it was just Reefer Madness v78.01. My favorite was her outright assertion that
“Medical marijuana cardholders will either sell their marijuana or give it to others. This is not debatable; this will happen.”
Yup, every one of the cardholders will sell their whole supply every time. Every. Single Time. Good thing we’ve got top men working on it. Top. Men.
I wish the IFI event were in Springfield, that sounds like a hoot. Any chance you’ll track down a statement from DuPont while he’s in state, Rich?
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:13 am:
If you disagree with the FDA, then go through the process and convince them their stance is wrong. It’s done all the time.
I think it is a bad idea to have states opt out of regulation of substances on a substance by substance basis.
Anything used as a medication must prove that it is effective and safe. Bring on the scientific data and prove that it is effective and that the damage done to the lungs by smoking is less than that of tobacco. After success on that front then you can move toward decriminalization.
- downstate commissioner - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:17 am:
If I find a bag of pot along a road, I’ll try to pass it along to someone who needs it for medical purposes, otherwise I have nothing to do with the stuff… but… Free lunch-where’s it at? Elected officials invited-I qualify…Legalize it and tax it….
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:17 am:
Big Pharma? Really? GWPharma’s revenue last year was $29 million (yes, google is your friend). All in the marijuana derivative market in England. Sure they are seeking to prevent the legalization of pot since it will end their business. But calling it “Big Pharma”? Uh, no.
Maybe those legal pot growers could fund research into the efficacy of marijuana - there is such great profits to be made - take a little off the top and get going. If California wants to get into that business - they could put a tax on the pot to pay for research. Nothing preventing that, is there? I agree with the idea that the legislature should not be in the business of approving medicines - good or bad, that is the province of the FDA - thru good science. Even if the FDA is not involved - good science is the way to prove that marijuana does have medical benefit. We don’t rely on anecdotal evidence to prove the efficacy of all these drugs for a reason. It is not sound science or medicine.
- walkinfool - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:32 am:
I agree that marijuana posession and use should be substantially decriminalized, for a host of good reasons.
But we shouldn’t pretend that the primary reason for that change is medical use. It would be like saying the end of Prohibition was necessary so that doctors could legally prescribe a shot of whiskey when it would be therapeutic.
Agree with Pluto that the FDA serves a valuable purpose, and ought to be fully utilized in approving prescription drugs. I don’t agree that this should be treated as a prescription drug, any more than alcohol is.
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:40 am:
walkinfool - alcohol was prescribed to “patients” during prohibition for medicinal purposes. In fact, the claims for the types of conditions that alcohol was used to treat or cure reads like some of the comments folks have made here and elsewhere claiming that pot’ll cure whatever ails ya. You can even buy prohibition prescriptions on EBay.
Alcohol was thought to have medicinal qualities in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Elixirs and nostrums frequently had alcohol in it. When taken, you felt better. Nuff said, right?
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:56 am:
Using the Google a bit more, one finds:
1) Bensinger & Co. say their stance on legalization is not about the Benjamins, claiming that legalization will actually give them more business “as employers deal with all the problems this will cause.” Okay.
2) Before my time, but after his DEA career, Bensinger worked for the Illinois Attorney General (source Wikipedia.)
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 10:57 am:
DD, are you under the impression that the pharmaceutical industry is a not-for-profit charity? You don’t think they try to stifle competition?
–The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%. Six are based in the United States and four in Europe. It is predicted that North and South America, Europe and Japan will continue to account for a full 85% of the global pharmaceuticals market well into the 21st century. Companies currently spend one-third of all sales revenue on marketing their products - roughly twice what they spend on research and development.–
http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/
And U.S. only companies.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/industries/21/
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:02 am:
Not under any impression at all, word. Just didn’t think 29 mil a year qualified as “Big Pharma”.
The company seems to be trying to protect it’s market. Companies do that. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they don’t. Life goes on.
- Chris Wetterich - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:04 am:
They did fail to Google, I’d guess. Goofy op-eds aside, give the paper some credit, too. Before I left a few weeks ago, the SJ-R was the first paper in the state to call for marijuana legalization.
- langhorne - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:09 am:
this sounds like one of the story lines from the tv show “weeds”.
- Sandy - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:15 am:
Bensinger has a job and he’s doing his job for his pharma company. Being an ex DEA only adds. He’s a barker…let him bark. He works for DuPont, of course he’s going to bark in opposition. He can’t be taken seriously? He’s met with patients and caretakers and even his wife was compassionate and understood the product. This is just like any other controversial bill…opposition will come out and blow “smoke.”
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:16 am:
–The company seems to be trying to protect it’s market. Companies do that. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they don’t. Life goes on.–
And they are doing so under the guise of unbiased public policy advocacy without revealing their vested interest.
- Sandy - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:21 am:
And might I add, herbal supplements and treatments are not guided by the FDA.
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:24 am:
=== And they are doing so under the guise of unbiased public policy advocacy without revealing their vested interest ===
EXTRA EXTRA - STOP THE PRESSESS!!!!! COMPANIES USE RUSE TO PROTECT THEIR BUSINESS!!!!
Big deal. Companies do that ALL THE TIME. It certainly makes me a big believer of being educated and informed. A good reason to read the CapitolFaxBlog!
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:34 am:
===Maybe those legal pot growers could fund research into the efficacy of marijuana===
Speaking of being educated and informed Dan, you realize that since marijunana is classified as a Schedule I drug like heroin, research on it is illegal and no federal funds can be expended for government research. That’s not even in the jurisdiction of the FDA, it would be up to the National Drug Policy office, the same morons who believe heroin and pot are the same thing.
It’s kind of a Catch-22 situation. There is no research showing (or not showing) medical benefits precisely because research is prohibited.
- danlinn - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 11:43 am:
Pluto: Cannabis and lung cancer study
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
“The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. ”
The idea that cannabis is more dangerous (schedule 1) than opioid pain killers (schedule 2) is easily refuted by the lack of any overdose fatalities for cannabis, whereas prescription (FDA approved as safe since they’re schedule 2) are extremely common.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6101a3.htm
“In 2007, approximately 27,000 unintentional drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States, one death every 19 minutes. Prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the United States. The increase in unintentional drug overdose death rates in recent years (Figure 1) has been driven by increased use of a class of prescription drugs called opioid analgesics (1). Since 2003, more overdose deaths have involved opioid analgesics than heroin and cocaine combined”
And while theyre not quite the CA pot growers that dd would like to see funding the research the Univ. of Ca. San Diego has a Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research;
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/
Also there are health benefits to drinking in moderation, a glass of wine or beer a day can be good for the heart and reduce stress, but taken to the extreme of keg stands and beer bongs the health benefits diminish rapidly.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol/
“For most moderate drinkers, alcohol has overall health benefits.”
- Juvenal - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
According to the FDA, drug companies provide 60% of the FDA’s drug review costs and more than half of the agency’s total budget, including administrative salaries.
Looking at the track record of prescription drug deaths and serious injuries over the last decade, I’m surprised that anyone, least of all a conservative, would suggest putting the federal government in charge.
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
47th Ward, I did NOT say that the federal gov’t should fund it. Since California is allowing medical marijuana to be sold IN VIOLATION of federal law, what is stopping them from funding research? Federal Law? Really?
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 12:11 pm:
I wonder when the feds are gonna raid the University of California @ San Diego? I wonder where they get their funds for doing pot research? Is the fed gov’t the ONLY place to secure funding? Is the fed gov’t the ONLY place to get approval. Really, the fed gov’t is NOT the be all and end all. Get creative! Isn’t that what pot is supposed to do? Get the juices flowing!
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 12:15 pm:
Good luck getting approval for human trials Dan. Why are you so reactionary on this subject?
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
DD - You don’t seem to be grasping this. Sure, people can do all the illegal research they want, but what on earth would that accomplish? You keep saying we should approve marijuana through the FDA like we do other drugs, but that is impossible because it is illegal.
- anon for a reason - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
I wish I could smoke pot. It puts me to sleep now. Oh to wear a younger man’s shoes.
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 2:34 pm:
47th Ward, I went to the link that danlinn provided to the UCSD Center for Medicinal Cannibis. Made for some good reading. They are doing several studies, with participants, involving pot. I didn’t look into it too far but I have to say, if they can do it, why can’t someone else do it, too?
The process by which marijuana came from the days of “Reefer Madness” to the present where it is possible for pot to be decriminalized or medicalized didn’t happen with the encouragement of the federal gov’t. It happened because people continue to engage the community in a variety of ways - legal and otherwise. If the UCSD can do research into pot, for instance, this brings it more and more into the mainstream. The weight of evidence can, at some point, bring about change at the federal level. My point - don’t whine about the FDA, do it yourself. One day, the FDA may have to sit up and take notice. It is happening right now.
Take a look at the center info on danlinn’s link. Good stuff.
- Jeff Trigg - Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 2:46 pm:
Marinol is not cannabis in pill form, it is 100% THC in pill form, without any cannabinoids (CBDs). The FDA has already approved a 100% THC pill. Arguing the FDA hasn’t approved it so states shouldn’t either, is unconvincing. Sativex, already approved in GB, does include CBDs, and would probably pass FDA approval if the ONDCP would allow the FDA to test. The FDA isn’t allowed to touch cannabis while it is still considered to be worse than heroin according to the drug schedule. Yes, the ONDCP recognizes heroin has medicinal value, but not cannabis. Ridiculous.
BTW, its not like the FDA is infallible or something. DId you know the FDA is allowing cigarette ads in magazines again? I just saw two ads for Newport and American Spirit in a Popular Mechanics. This FDA argument is worthless.