[Mb-civic] Potheads and SudafedBy JOHN TIERNEY

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 25, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Potheads and Sudafed
By JOHN TIERNEY

Police officers in the 1960's were fond of bumper stickers reading: "The
next time you get mugged, call a hippie." Doctors today could use a
variation: "The next time you're in pain, call a narc."

Washington's latest prescription for patients in pain is the statement
issued last week by the Food and Drug Administration on the supposed evils
of medical marijuana. The F.D.A. is being lambasted, rightly, by scientists
for ignoring some evidence that marijuana can help severely ill patients.
But it's the kind of statement given by a hostage trying to please his
captors, who in this case are a coalition of Republican narcs on Capitol
Hill, in the White House and at the Drug Enforcement Administration.

They've been engaged in a long-running war to get the F.D.A. to abandon some
of its quaint principles, like the notion that it's not fair to deny a
useful drug to patients just because a few criminals might abuse it. The
agency has also dared to suggest that there should be a division of labor
when it comes to drugs: scientists and doctors should figure out which ones
work for patients, and narcotics agents should catch people who break drug
laws.

The drug cops want everyone to share their mission. They think that doctors
and pharmacists should catch patients who abuse painkillers ‹ and that if
the doctors or pharmacists aren't good enough detectives, they should go to
jail for their naïveté.

This month, pharmacists across the country are being forced to lock up
another menace to society: cold medicine. Allergy and cold remedies
containing pseudoephedrine, a chemical that can illegally be used to make
meth, must now be locked behind the counter under a provision in the new
Patriot Act.

Don't ask what meth has to do with the war on terror. Not even the most
ardent drug warriors have been able to establish an Osama-Sudafed link.

The F.D.A. opposed these restrictions for pharmacies because they'll drive
up health care costs and effectively prevent medicine from reaching huge
numbers of people (Americans suffer a billion colds per year). These costs
are undeniable, but it's unclear that there are any net benefits.

In states that previously enacted their own restrictions, the police report
that meth users simply switched from making their own to buying imported
drugs that were stronger ‹ and more expensive, so meth users commit more
crimes to pay for their habit.

The Sudafed law gives you a preview of what's in store if Representative
Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, succeeds in giving the D.E.A. a role in
deciding which new drugs get approved. So far, despite a temporary success
last year, he hasn't been able to impose this policy, but the F.D.A.'s
biggest fear is that Congress will let the drug police veto new medications.
In that case, who would ever develop a better painkiller? The benefits to
patients would never outweigh the potential inconvenience to the police.

Officially, the D.E.A. says it wants patients to get the best medicine. But
look at what it's done to scientists trying to study medical marijuana.
They've gotten approval for their experiments from the F.D.A., but they
can't get the high-quality marijuana they need because the D.E.A. won't
allow it to be grown. The F.D.A. actually wants to know if the drug works,
but the D.E.A. is following the just-say-know-nothing strategy: as long as
researchers can't study marijuana, they can't come up with evidence that
it's effective.

And as long as there's no conclusive evidence that medical marijuana works,
the D.E.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill can go on blindly fighting it.
Representative Mark Souder, the Indiana Republican who's the most rabid drug
warrior in Congress, has been pressuring the F.D.A. to crack down on medical
marijuana. Last week the agency finally relented: in return for not having
to start busting anyone, it issued a statement stressing the potential
dangers and lack of extensive clinical trials establishing medical
marijuana's effectiveness.

The statement was denounced as a victory of politics over science, but it's
hard to see what political good it does the Republican Party.

Locking up crack and meth dealers is popular, but voters take a different
view of cancer patients who swear by marijuana. Medical marijuana has been
approved in referendums in four states that went red in 2004: Nevada,
Montana, Colorado and Alaska. For G.O.P. voters fed up with their party's
current big-government philosophy, the latest medical treatment from
Washington's narcs is one more reason to stay home this November.

Home

    * World
    * U.S.
    * N.Y. / Region
    * Business
    * Technology
    * Science
    * Health
    * Sports
    * Opinion
    * Arts
    * Style
    * Travel
    * Jobs
    * Real Estate
    * Autos
    * Back to Top

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map