Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Fear and loathing on the medical trail

Posted in:

Illinois

Dr. Robert Sawicki, medical director of OSF Home Care Services, said 95 percent of symptoms for patients seeking pain relief are managed with available therapies, such as medicines, implantable pumps and surgeries.

“In the studies I have read, the evidence in favor of medical marijuana is not very compelling,” Sawicki said. “If it would be no better or worse than what is already out there, why bring it to market?”

Exactly. Why allow terribly sick people to just smoke a joint when they can be prescribed highly addictive opiates, cut open on operating tables or have pumps implanted in their bodies? Yes, that’s so much better.

* Double sigh…

The Chicago Crime Commission today issued a stern warning on the implications of legalizing marijuana in Illinois. There is serious apprehension among law enforcement that the pending medical marijuana legislation will provide protection for drug cartel operations and their drug trafficking efforts.

The Department of Homeland Security has identified international drug cartels as a serious threat to the United States. Cartels are already working with gangs in the Chicago area to traffic marijuana and other drugs. “There is concern in law enforcement circles that, if passed, the Illinois medical marijuana law could legitimize cartel operations and provide cover for their trafficking efforts,” according J.R. Davis, Chairman of the Chicago Crime Commission.

“Cartel members, posing as legitimate marijuana growers, would be difficult if not impossible to detect. As a consequence, they will easily expand their influence in Chicago and extend their reach into other Illinois communities,” he added.

Notice how this argument was framed. Cartels will expand their influence in Chicago and then infect the pristine hinterlands. Nothing like fanning the flames of urban fear.

If they’re worried about illegal drug cartels, perhaps they can just come out in favor of total legalization and then American corporations can get into the act. I doubt the Walgreen family would hire gun-toting thugs to attack Osco’s turf.

* Which leads us, of course, to this story…

Faced with a grim financial picture, state lawmakers are mulling over proposals to raise taxes on certain unhealthy habits: smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and sipping soda pop.

Supporters of the tax hikes view them as “win-win” propositions because they would generate funds for state government while simultaneously reducing people’s consumption of tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks. […]

“As the economy gets worse, more people turn to drugs and alcohol,” said the [Illinois Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Association’s] chief executive officer, Sara Moscato Howe. That triggers a greater demand for addiction treatment and prevention services, she said.

If enacted, the nickel-a-drink tax would generate an estimated $254 million a year, Howe said. IADDA wants to use $74 million of that to boost funding for substance-abuse treatment programs. The rest would help state government plug its budget hole, she said.

I can think of one non-addictive drug that is consumed totally tax free. How about you?

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 9:52 am

Comments

Rich-

Don’t underestimate the cut-throat brutality of the Walgreen chain… those people could teach the crips a thing or two.

Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:03 am
We already have set a precedent by legalizing some forms of gambling - gov’t involved in managing an addicting vice. Why not with drugs - addicting or otherwise? We can then tax it and use some to fund current needs as well as for the inevitable treatment needed for those who get into trouble. The cartels that provide the drugs would be out of a job (probably temporary), violence at the border would drop and, more importantly, violence would drop in the cities once the gangs have less reason to protect their turf. Control it to limit access by minors, substantial penalties for DUI - much like we do booze. The war on drugs was lost before it began.

Frankly, I don’t like the gov’t being involved in regulating these kinds of vices for a variety of reasons. We must keep the inevitable corruption to a minimum - a tall order. I am uncomfortable but realize that we may have to accept this and deal with it as best we can.

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:04 am
Is oxygen addictive?

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:12 am
I don’t get the Crime Commission’s position at all: If you legalize marijuana, the influence of the criminal cartel’s would increase? That’s a very strange reading of their own history.

If it’s legal, wouldn’t the cartels effectively be put out of business, as the bootleggers were with the repeal of Prohibition?

Now, they thrive because they’re willing to take the high risks for high rewards. If others could sell pot legally, the cartels’ business model falls apart. They’ll have to move on to other areas, like the bootleggers did.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:23 am
I am not a fan of legalizing mj, but Homeland Security and the Chicago Crime Commission are off the mark in at least one aspect. The reason the cartels and other criminals are involved in trafficking is the money.

If mj were to be legalized, then anyone with a functioning brain cell could plant a seed in a container or their back yard and grow this stuff for free. That would take away the profit the the illicit trade and make the cartels do something else criminal to make their profit. Who would pay good money for something they could provide themselves?

I am allowed to brew beer at home for my personal consumption, why not grow mj for personal use if it were to be made legal?

Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:28 am
{Exactly. Why allow terribly sick people to just smoke a joint when they can be prescribed highly addictive opiates, cut open on operating tables or have pumps implanted in their bodies? Yes, that’s so much better.}

Because marijuana is still considered illegal by the U.S. federal government and clinical trials of marijuana are heavily restricted and limited, there is a lot that is relatively unknown about what symptoms it’s actually effective at treating. At the same time smoking anything, including marijuana, exposes a persons lungs to unhealthy chemicals and toxins.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:40 am
===At the same time smoking anything, including marijuana, exposes a persons lungs to unhealthy chemicals and toxins. ===

And we all know that opiates and surgery are totally safe.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:42 am
My mother-in-law who lost her battle with mortality a while back, wore a morphine patch, took OxyContin and occasionally Tylenol 3 (visions of popgun next to bazooka here?) to control her pain. Those medications are addictive and have considerable side effects. If mj could have eased her pain better, and I’m not sure it could have, or even supplanted some of the pain, she might have had a better quality of life towards the end.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:53 am
If you are sick enough, in a doctor’s opinion, to need it there is no logical reason to deny it. In fact, if it makes a ill person feel a little better, even if only for a short while, then it is cruel not to make it available. Life would be enriched for many if they could stop into their local drug store and pick up a little stash to ease their suffering.
Does anyone else wonder why it is the same staunch advocates for small government that support the intrusion of the government into peoples personal lives? Leave our guns alone but don’t let them get married or smoke a reefer!…and by all means force them to have unwanted children but make sure we continue to kill criminals!

Comment by Bill Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:54 am
Regardless of your position on the legalization of marijuana, let’s get one thing straight…

Taxes do not cure an addiction.

Using that as an excuse to increase taxes is ludicrous, no matter what altruistic programs it might fund.

Comment by texan in chicago Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:04 am
Medical marijuana isn’t just for pain management, per se…it also helps control the nausea associated with chemotherapy and other medications. So, if you can actually take your medication, keep it down, and keep your weight up, maybe, just maybe you will be more able to fight the disease. While it may not help you survive it, your quality of life would be so much better than spending all your time in the bathroom vomiting.

Comment by Anon, Good Nurse, Anon Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:07 am
There is an interview in Harper’s Magazine this month with a Juarez hitman who worked for the Mexican drug cartels. Unbelievably disturbing. If there were no illegal drugs he wouldn’t have had a job.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:09 am
Once agan word beat me to the punch. Logically legalizing it should reduce price and incentive.

What is fascinating to me is the number of people who care about how somone else decides to treat or handle thier medical condition.
controlling.

If I have disease x the doctor should be able to prescribe me whatever I need to treat it. whether that is surgical implantation of a morphine pump, or something else, this should be between me and my doctor.

If there is concern about improper prescriptions then put together some kind of department of professional regualtion, and they could, say, monitor the practice of medicne and pull or suspend licenses if doctors are unnecessarily prescribing any drug, narcotic or otherwise.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:18 am
{And we all know that opiates and surgery are totally safe.}

Pharmaceutical drugs that are approved by the FDA are subject to extensive clinical testing; first in animals, then in humans on a limited controlled basis, and then further on humans; often in a double blind controlled study. Drugs under clinical investigation are bench-marked against the current approved standard of care. The clinical research and trial process can take decades and hundreds of millions of dollars in research costs. In the end however this is the established process in order to determine a products safety and efficacy in treating the condition for which it is being tested.

Propensity to chemical and/or psychological addiction in and of itself is not a safety issue. Addiction; more often than not can occur when products are not used as directed in the first place. People have a tendency to believe that if a little bit of something is good, then a lot of it must be great, and they ignore the warning labels and over-medicate in terms of both both dosage and frequency.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:33 am
QTS….so your argument is that patients become addicted because the medicine is effective? There is no fault of Big Pharma, which keeps pushing drugs at us through direct marketing? And still ones sneak through the system which kill? Marijuana has one of the longest “clinical trials” in human history, then became subject to a negative campaign because of some rich man’s timber investment? Follow the money, and you will see most people’s reasons against med mj.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:57 am
=== Pharmaceutical drugs that are approved by the FDA are subject to extensive clinical testing ===

So clinically test marjuana… the FDA has approved opium, morphine etc.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:09 pm
Just don’t tax my caffeine. That would be cruel.

Comment by highwayman Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:27 pm
Vote Quimby and Ghost

{So clinically test marjuana… the FDA has approved opium, morphine etc.}

I don’t have an argument for; or against medical marijuana, but my point is that any approved drug should be required to undergo the same level of rigorous testing that all other before it have.

There are 29 Peer-Reviewed Medical Studies Involving Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts that I know of between 1990 - 2008, with 16 of them being double blind studies with human subjects. The results of those studies are roughly 7 in favor of MJ, 7 neutral, and 2, which indicate an unfavorable outcome based on the trial design.

These studies were primarily designed around neuropathic pain management in MS and Parkinson’s patients, and all used a limited number of subjects. Under this type of scenario the short term efficacy can be easily established but the safety profiles were also established based on monitoring of short term durations. There have also been some limited studies done surrounding appetite and anorexia related to cancer patients as well.

The collective body of scientific evidence at the federal level has been perceived as inconclusive and requiring more study. The problem as we have seen in the past, is that swift approval based on limited or inconclusive scientific data can have unexpected consequences and can sometimes result in doing more harm than good.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:49 pm
===but my point is that any approved drug should be required to undergo the same level of rigorous testing that all other before it have.===

Two points.

1) The feds refuse to test it, so your argument doesn’t apply here.

2) Marijuana has been used by humans for hundreds if not thousands of years. It was regularly prescribed by physicians in Lincoln’s day for depression. It was not banned for health reasons.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:58 pm
QTS, along with what Rich said, the FDA did not rigorously test opium or morphine FYI.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:21 pm
Game, set, match. Move along to another point.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:31 pm
Two points.

{1) The feds refuse to test it, so your argument doesn’t apply here.}

The federal government does not test drugs for consideration of commercial use for the treatment of medical conditions or disease. Clinical trials are conducted primarily by commercial sponsors of proposed drugs for consideration of approval, while some potential treatment and therapies are proposed and tested by non-profit research laboratories connected with universities. What the FDA does is approve the trial design of the sponsor and review the results.

Illegal drugs with no approved medical are under the jurisdiction of the Drug Enforcement Administration. FDA assists DEA in deciding how stringent DEA controls should be on drugs that are medically accepted but that have a strong potential for abuse. The DEA establishes limits on the amount of these prescription drugs that are permitted to be manufactured each year.

It is relatively easy to place controls on the manufacturing process for a controlled substance, however when the controlled substance can be grown in your backyard, the ability to control its widespread use is extremely difficult.

{2) Marijuana has been used by humans for hundreds if not thousands of years. It was regularly prescribed by physicians in Lincoln’s day for depression. It was not banned for health reasons.}

When it was out-lawed under the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, MJ was classified under Schedule I, defining it as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

As a consequence in order to be approved on the federal level clinical trials would have to be conducted in order for it to be considered for accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. One of the critical elements of drug approval is establishing not just the safety of the product, but also the process by which the product is made in order to assure consistency and quality control.

Use of any product by humans for hundreds if not thousands of years does not in and of itself establish proof of either safety or efficacy however unless both have been tested for using scientifically sound methods for each. Any analysis otherwise is purely anectdotal and scientifically un-sound.

What you are suggesting is that the FDA approve an un-tested product. What I am saying is to have the tests conducted and prove safety and efficacy.

Remember that carcinogens; and other serious health hazards themselves may often go undetected for pro-longed periods of time. Once discovered, the hazards can either be mitigated or controlled without a complete prohibition of the substance. Some substances, when properly controlled can have a positive benefit.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:51 pm
===What you are suggesting is that the FDA approve an un-tested product===

Not at all. I’m suggesting that the FDA won’t approve it, so if docs want to prescribe it, then we should allow that here. I mean, really, if opiates are available for prescription without rigorous testing, why not marijuana?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 2:09 pm
{Not at all. I’m suggesting that the FDA won’t approve it, so if docs want to prescribe it, then we should allow that here. I mean, really, if opiates are available for prescription without rigorous testing, why not marijuana? }

Aspirin was not clinically tested here either has been used by humans for centuries for pain management, and is still available without a prescription. Scientists are also believed to have discovered a link between Reye’s syndrome and acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin). Reye’s Syndrome, is a deadly disease, that can strike swiftly and can attack any child, teen, or adult without warning. All body organs are affected, with the liver and brain suffering most seriously.

While the cause and cure remain unknown, research has established a link between Reye’s Syndrome and the use of aspirin and other salicylate containing medications, over the counter products, and topical use products.

The Risk/Benefit profile is what has thus far allowed Aspirin to remain on the market, but the risks are not yet fully known.

I don’t disagree that MJ could be legalized here. I do disagree that it has been proven either safe or effective however. I do find scientifically unproven and untested methods of treatment problematic, because it leads to legislators making unsound medical decisions based on unproven treatments that can be unknowingly dangerous. Who do we place in charge of making the decisions on exceptions?

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 2:40 pm
I’d bet the farm that if the federal government wanted to do a clinical trial and a longitudinal assessment of marijuana use, there would be a million users lined up to help. This could include extensive data already available on current medical issues, medical history, use patterns over time, and any other information that would be deemed useful.

Point being, this is not a new drug. There are 40 million users in this country alone. Some have been smoking it for 30-50 years. Many of them are successful, accomplished, healthy, and able to provide real information regarding usage and effects, as well as their medical records pre- and post-regular use.

The data are there once the political football stops being kicked around. QTS should put a grant proposal together.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 3:11 pm
The arguments being used for medical marijuana can also be used in favor of legalizing meth.

Meth is used as a diet aid for thousands of people who suffered from obesity or low sex drive. They find that it helps depress out of control appetites. We have concrete evidence that meth users eat less and lose weight. Meth users buy less food, and save money to pay for other bills. Meth users with jobs that require alertness have discovered that meth helps keep them awake, sometimes five days in a row.

Meth can also reduce the surgical necessity of some dental procedures. Meth users do not have to suffer painful tooth extractions, thanks to meth’s ability to simply cause teeth to fall out.

Patients who suffer from low libidoes have discovered meth’s ability to stimulate their sex drive. Most meth users have rediscovered their virility and experience a more satisfied relationship, even with themselves, thanks to meth.

Meth is made in small town America, bringing needed jobs and income to trailer parks, porn shops, liquor stores and boosting sales of Pontiac Grand Ams. Legalizing meth will help keep criminal groups from dominating and controlling the international meth distribution and sales of this drug.

Why is it OK to legalize marijuana for medical reasons, but not meth? Or lower the age of tobacco use to allow children the medical benefits of nicotine? Tobacco has been grown and used as medicine for centuries, why have we criminalized it’s use for children with ear aches, head aches, swollen gums, or other medicinal uses?

If we are willing to go back to the Dark Ages for medicinal cures, why stop with pot? We should let anyone use any drugs if they have a medical reason for using it, right?

In California, marijuana is prescribed for anything including jock itch and hair loss. We are not seeing real medical needs being met with their medical pot laws? It is a freaking joke!

If you want to legalize marijuana, then legalize it. Stop pretending that there is a medical need for pot. There isn’t, anymore than a need for either meth or tobacco.

Or snake oil.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:01 pm
Vman, methamphetamine is already legal for medical use.

At least this time we didn’t have to hear your lame tripe about how the Netherlands has been destroyed by marijuana.

Comment by Gene Parmesan Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:18 pm
We got a letter from mail script company last month telling us that the FDA had recalled a common heart med that my husband had been using because tablets had too much, too little or no medication. This was a snail mail letter with no replacement medication enclosed. Message was: don’t quit taking this medcation without consulting your doctor. Yep, I certainly trust all the medication makers, government oversight, FDA etc. etc. The areas of the world that have the longest living persons are in places with little or no processed food or medical help.

Comment by Chanson Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:34 pm
That’s because I forgot!

Pot has ruined Holland! Did you know that Gene?

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:36 pm
Vman, all I know is that whenever a marijuana related post comes up all we hear from you are these hypocritical, non-sensical arguments. For a guy who supposedly believes in freedom, and derides a nanny-government, you sure are quick to tell everyone what they can and cannot put in their body. Or what they can or cannot use as medicine.

And you didn’t forget, you just know if you use that argument Rich will come in here and nail you on it like he did last time.

Comment by Gene Parmesan Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:44 pm
Major sigh. Legislators are such hypocritical idiots…so they’re going to tax alcohol and cigarettes more, but they’re going to let all the people selling marijuana continue to NOT pay taxes on it and get filthy rich because if they make it legal, it’s going to cause the downfall of society. HAH. HAH I SAY!

Comment by Jay Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:44 pm
Amsterdam looks pretty cool in that Amstel Light spot. do-do-do, do–do-do, dodo-dodo-dodo-do…

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:44 pm
C’mon VanillaMan,

Can’t you find a Bob Marley tune? You have so much free time and all, it would be fun to hear your preaching to a reggae beat. And an anti Obama rant just sounds better over a ska rhythm. Your evangelical certainty about everything needs a carribbean bass line, your “it’s all the Democrats fault” with a conga drum in the background. We don’t need more cowbell from you, we want reggae mon. I suggest Toots and the Mayhalls version of Pressure Drop, and the chorus could be: “I say meth-heads, oh meth-heads, meth-heads are the same as you!”

I hereby declare VanillaMan’s Razor: any comparison to methamphetaime in an argument about medical marijuana is equal to invoking Hitler in a political debate.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 10:55 pm
Quinn,

I’m not able to remember the source, but at some point in the last several years I read something saying if aspirin were invented today, it probably wouldn’t be approved by the FDA because of all the side effects now known (stomach bleeding, etc.).

Legislators are trying to put safeguards in medical marijuana bill so that we don’t have the California situation.

And if it’s legalized, can I start growing it as a part-time job? I’d like to look at going back to school, could use a job that I can set my own hours at and have a guaranteed customer base.

Lynn (who grew up on a farm, and is feeling grumpy now)

Comment by Lynn S Wednesday, May 6, 09 @ 1:17 am
The problems that so many pain relievers and mood stabilizers have wrt addiction, liver damage and kidney damage make an overwhelming argument for legalizing MJ. Not to mention the problems people have managing their use of alcohol - how can we ever say MJ is worse than the effects of alcohol on many people (medically and emotionally)? At 52 years old, I would stand in a long line to be included in any serious gov’t test if it were an earnest attempt to legalize MJ. MJ should be able to be used by anyone for whatever they want - medical, to sleep, to eat, to have better sex, to relax, to escape - whatever they want to use it for. As long as they don’t drive while using it and put other people’s lives at risk - like drinking - then why on god’s green earth shouldn’t adults be able to grow, use and share it? Surely the police can devise extra measures - field sobriety tests - that would encompass not driving under the influence of ANY drugs that impair their driving abilities. Having had to resist MJ since it is illegal is very irritating as an adult - one of the few “bad” things about being an American.

Comment by sidepocket Wednesday, May 6, 09 @ 1:25 am
Would this be an acceptable compromise: We legalize pot, tax the snot out of it (California estimates a tax of $50/oz. for all the pot in their state would bring in $1.3BILLION); if you fail a field sobriety test you not only tinkle, you agree to give blood, and if you test above a certain level of cannabis metabolites you are legally assumed to have been around cannabis within the last 24 hrs.–automatic suspension for xx days?

Comment by Lynn S Friday, May 8, 09 @ 12:42 am
Lynn, first you’d have to prove that marijuana makes driving more dangerous. I’ve seen one study that shows the opposite.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 8, 09 @ 12:49 am