[cannaletto]

"I fear that the medical marijuana strategy may have outlived it's usefulness. {with all due respect to the efforts of activists,} The medical marijuana{MMJ} bills this year in Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, & now an Arizona initive, are becoming more restrictive. After a dozen years of MMJ success, defined as "The sky did not fall when we legalized marijuana for sick people" Cannabis bill's & initiatives should be getting more relaxed,in these states, not stricter. More inclusive, not less. And more conditions covered, not fewer. With polls consistantly showing mainstream support increasing in states with MMJ & holding steady in the states without, MMJ bills and initiatives should be getting better not worse.
What I fear is happening is that the publics mindset is moving from the popular myth that "Marijuana is a deadly "gateway drug, whose users should be punished", to; "Marijuana is a powerful medicine that should be used only under the most strict controls & supervision... We cannot allow this to happen. Marijuana should always be in the control of the people of the world, it is a symbol of freedom to most people. If the pharmaceutical companies have their way, this will drastically change so they can turn huge profits. In other medical marijuana states, new bills and initiatives, introduced by pharmaceutical company-sponsored lobby groups {One of the largest lobby groups in Washington DC, next to the big Tobacco Co.'s} These most recent over medicalization bills, will take away the rights of a patient to grow their own medicine, substituting instead, restrictive requirements that medicine come only from dispensaries over which the state maintains a monopoly. They've pared down the list of "qualifying conditions" to the point where only the gravest ill, the terminal cases with less than six months to live, who've tried and had no success with all the other pharmaceutical drugs, only they have any access. This upcoming Arizona initiative will even electronically track how much medical cannabis a patient purchases and require criminal background checks & fingerprinting that will be forwarded to the FBI!

As fewer & fewer patients qualify for medical cannabis under these new, tighter laws, pharmaceutical companies continue to derive and patent cannabinoid compounds & prepare them for dose-regulated delivery by spray, inhaler,cream, and pill. They've used their lobbying power for decades to oppose natures finest medicine, because they feel that marijuana is the biggest threat to their market for benzodiazepines, NSAID's, and opioids, because they couldnt slap a bar code and a $250.000 percent mark-up on pot. Soon, they will be able to provide all these patients with all the benefits of medical cannabis, but without the pesky "high" and the ability to thwart their profits by people growing it themselves.
Pharmaceutical companies, have funded anti-Marijuana campaigns for years along with Tobacco and Textile Companies, to name a few, because you can't put a "patent" on a plant. They dont want the public growing their own Marijuana because they cant profit from it. And thats the entire reason for anti-Marijuana laws, Not the false claims under which they've generated thier agenda, Like the fear stirring claim; "We're protecting our children from pot"
Of course pot is for adults just as Alcohol, and Tobacco, Also Marijuana is not for everyone but people are smart enough to decide for themselves whether or not to use Marijuana,
People,These corporations do not care at all about your children. They care about maximizing their profits no matter what the social or environmental cost.
According to USA today, in 2005, there were 1,274 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in washington DC -- thats more than two for every member of congress. In 2003, $143 million was spent on lobbying activities by the pharmaceutical industry.

In June, 24 2008, $168 million was spent by Washingtons biggest lobby group The pharmaceutical companies, their lobby groups, according to a center for public integrity, racked up another record $168 million in lobbying effort

There are more lobbyists from pharmaceutical than any other industry trying to bend legislators' ears.

This is big business, and that means that your health care is NOT in the hands of people who honestly want to help you, but instead, your healthcare is in the hands of people who view you as a market.

Mad yet?

The Florida Medical Examiners concluded that three times more people die from prescription medicine as die from illegal drugs.

What I fear is dispensaries becoming pharmacies, and the peoples cannabis becoming another pharmaceutical controlled market, and those lobbyists turning that $143 million toward enacting new horribly restrictive medical marijuana laws that serve to preserve their already huge profits by banning home growing.
Steering their brand of Marijuana Law Reform, toward treating cannabis like codeine and away from treating cannabis like coors light.

The true beauty of Medical Marijuana is and always has been that people can cheaply and easily care for themselves. That's also threatening to the health care model as it is run today, because cannabis violates that need for the middlemen and bureaucracy to receive treatment.
I dont need to see the Dr. every so often to have him re-approve my prescription & I dont need to see the pharmacist to fill it up. I can grow it and use it when I need it, It cant kill me so I cant take too much, It cant addict me so I dont need supervision. It doesnt alter my perceptions and actions to the point that I need strict regulation. We dont need intermediaries, we can find our salvation ourselves!

But now we are seeing these new bills and initiatives,
requiring more visits to the doctor, requiring the cannabis come from dispensaries, and strictly documenting how much is to be used.
Cannabis is being forced to fit into the paradigm of health care for profit with all the intermediaries, bureaucracy,markups, and restrictions. Once it is locked into the healthcare insurance-pharmaceutical-medical complex, Legalization for you and I will be farther away than ever.

That is why the next 18 months are crucial in marijuana law reform. We've never had higher support for legalization, in part due to the economy. A state needs to break through with legalization for you and me, before the economy begins to recover, before cannabis pharmaceuticals gain widespread approval,before a half dozen more states enact increasingly restrictive MMJ laws, and before cannabis becomes so ingrained in the publics mind as a medicine that we cant get them to accept cannabis as a social relaxant."

Do your part, Start caring about cannabis law reform, Lets do all we can to keep our herb in OUR OWN hands, & not in the hands of these greedy, squabbling,controling, profiteering pharmaceutical companies. Enough Govt. profiteering under the guise of morality,

Please, help pass this message on, print and distribute this text freely, and/or, spread this information to anyone willing to listen & learn the truth.

Help defend your right to use cannabis!!

Thank You for reading this;
Enjoy Cannabis Responsibly

[DankJews]

Im Sticking With My Case, Well Written And Thanks For The Post!

.:Stay Medicated:.

[TangoChica]

Just how good is our FDA??

GAO: FDA fails to follow up on unproven drugs
By MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Business Writer Matthew Perrone, Ap Business Writer
1 hr 13 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration has allowed drugs for cancer and other diseases to stay on the market even when follow-up studies showed they didn't extend patients' lives, say congressional investigators.

A report due out Monday from the Government Accountability Office also shows that the FDA has never pulled a drug off the market due to a lack of required follow-up about its actual benefits — even when such information is more than a decade overdue.

When pressed about that policy, agency officials said they have no plans to get more aggressive.

The GAO says the FDA should do more to track whether drugs approved based on preliminary results actually have lived up to their promise.

The FDA responded that the report paints an overly negative picture of its so-called "accelerated approval" program, which is only used to approve drugs for the most serious diseases.

"Millions of patients with serious or life-threatening illnesses have had earlier access to new safe and effective treatments," thanks to the program, the FDA said in its response to the report.

In 1992, the FDA began speeding up the approval of novel drugs based on so-called surrogate endpoints, or laboratory measures that suggest the drug will make real improvements in patient health. HIV drugs, for example, are cleared based on their virus-lowering power, a predictor of increased survival.

Drugmakers favor the program because it helps them get products to market sooner, without conducting long-term patient studies that can take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. A condition of quicker approvals is that drugmakers conduct follow-up studies to show the drug's benefits actually panned out.

But the GAO report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, identified several drugs still on the market that never lived up to their initial promise. And in the 16 years that the FDA has used accelerated approval, it has never once pulled a drug off the market due to missing or unimpressive follow-up data.

"FDA has fallen far short of where it should be for patient safety," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who requested the investigation.

Of the 144 studies the FDA has required under the program since 1992, 64 percent have been completed and more than one-third are still pending, according to the GAO. Investigators said the FDA does not rigorously track whether companies are making progress on their required studies, although the agency is improving.

FDA officials say they have overhauled their tracking system since the GAO completed its report. And an outside analysis by contractor Booz Allen Hamilton concluded last month that most companies are meeting their study requirements on time.

But in the case of Shire Laboratories' low blood pressure treatment ProAmatine, the required study has gone incomplete for more than 13 years. The GAO found that ProAmatine has generated more than $257 million in sales, even though "the clinical benefit of the drug has never been established."

Shire did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

In other cases, the FDA has failed to act even when company studies show drugs did not improve patient outcomes.

The FDA approved AstraZeneca's lung cancer drug Iressa in 2003 based on early results showing it reduced the size of tumors. But later studies showed the drug did not significantly extend patient lives.

The FDA has left the drug on the market, despite hundreds of reports of a sometimes fatal pneumonia.

FDA officials explain that access to Iressa has been restricted to a small number of patients who have shown benefit. The agency recommends all other patients try two alternative drugs.

Iressa "is not available to new patients," AstraZeneca confirmed in a statement.

The GAO concluded that the FDA has no policy for pulling drugs off the market that were approved using surrogate endpoints. When GAO investigators confronted FDA officials about this lack of enforcement, they reportedly said it would be "difficult, if not impossible," to draft a standard policy for withdrawals, given the unique circumstances of individual drugs.

In certain cases, FDA officials say withdrawing a drug would mean eliminating the only available treatment for a condition.

"FDA should explain the principles it uses to make decisions such as drug withdrawals," said Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, in an interview with the AP. "But we don't want to lock ourselves into a specific set of criteria that takes away the flexibility to do what's right for the public health."

Sharfstein added that the agency has a task force assigned to look at policies like drug withdrawals.

Some consumers advocates say that's not good enough.

"The FDA has talked a lot about doing more enforcement, but this is an area where they're basically defending not enforcing the law," said Dr. Sidney Wolf, of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Wolfe said the lax policy sends a message to companies that there is no penalty for failing to complete studies.

The GAO recommends the FDA clarify when it will pull drugs off the market.

"As the scientific experts charged with overseeing the use of drugs it approves, FDA should be in a position to implement this recommendation," the report states.

[Mindfury]

Originally Posted by TangoChica

Just how good is our FDA??

GAO: FDA fails to follow up on unproven drugs
By MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Business Writer Matthew Perrone, Ap Business Writer
1 hr 13 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration has allowed drugs for cancer and other diseases to stay on the market even when follow-up studies showed they didn't extend patients' lives, say congressional investigators.

A report due out Monday from the Government Accountability Office also shows that the FDA has never pulled a drug off the market due to a lack of required follow-up about its actual benefits — even when such information is more than a decade overdue.

When pressed about that policy, agency officials said they have no plans to get more aggressive.

The GAO says the FDA should do more to track whether drugs approved based on preliminary results actually have lived up to their promise.

The FDA responded that the report paints an overly negative picture of its so-called "accelerated approval" program, which is only used to approve drugs for the most serious diseases.

"Millions of patients with serious or life-threatening illnesses have had earlier access to new safe and effective treatments," thanks to the program, the FDA said in its response to the report.

In 1992, the FDA began speeding up the approval of novel drugs based on so-called surrogate endpoints, or laboratory measures that suggest the drug will make real improvements in patient health. HIV drugs, for example, are cleared based on their virus-lowering power, a predictor of increased survival.

Drugmakers favor the program because it helps them get products to market sooner, without conducting long-term patient studies that can take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. A condition of quicker approvals is that drugmakers conduct follow-up studies to show the drug's benefits actually panned out.

But the GAO report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, identified several drugs still on the market that never lived up to their initial promise. And in the 16 years that the FDA has used accelerated approval, it has never once pulled a drug off the market due to missing or unimpressive follow-up data.

"FDA has fallen far short of where it should be for patient safety," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who requested the investigation.

Of the 144 studies the FDA has required under the program since 1992, 64 percent have been completed and more than one-third are still pending, according to the GAO. Investigators said the FDA does not rigorously track whether companies are making progress on their required studies, although the agency is improving.

FDA officials say they have overhauled their tracking system since the GAO completed its report. And an outside analysis by contractor Booz Allen Hamilton concluded last month that most companies are meeting their study requirements on time.

But in the case of Shire Laboratories' low blood pressure treatment ProAmatine, the required study has gone incomplete for more than 13 years. The GAO found that ProAmatine has generated more than $257 million in sales, even though "the clinical benefit of the drug has never been established."

Shire did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

In other cases, the FDA has failed to act even when company studies show drugs did not improve patient outcomes.

The FDA approved AstraZeneca's lung cancer drug Iressa in 2003 based on early results showing it reduced the size of tumors. But later studies showed the drug did not significantly extend patient lives.

The FDA has left the drug on the market, despite hundreds of reports of a sometimes fatal pneumonia.

FDA officials explain that access to Iressa has been restricted to a small number of patients who have shown benefit. The agency recommends all other patients try two alternative drugs.

Iressa "is not available to new patients," AstraZeneca confirmed in a statement.

The GAO concluded that the FDA has no policy for pulling drugs off the market that were approved using surrogate endpoints. When GAO investigators confronted FDA officials about this lack of enforcement, they reportedly said it would be "difficult, if not impossible," to draft a standard policy for withdrawals, given the unique circumstances of individual drugs.

In certain cases, FDA officials say withdrawing a drug would mean eliminating the only available treatment for a condition.

"FDA should explain the principles it uses to make decisions such as drug withdrawals," said Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, in an interview with the AP. "But we don't want to lock ourselves into a specific set of criteria that takes away the flexibility to do what's right for the public health."

Sharfstein added that the agency has a task force assigned to look at policies like drug withdrawals.

Some consumers advocates say that's not good enough.

"The FDA has talked a lot about doing more enforcement, but this is an area where they're basically defending not enforcing the law," said Dr. Sidney Wolf, of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Wolfe said the lax policy sends a message to companies that there is no penalty for failing to complete studies.

The GAO recommends the FDA clarify when it will pull drugs off the market.

"As the scientific experts charged with overseeing the use of drugs it approves, FDA should be in a position to implement this recommendation," the report states.

looks like the Federal Death Association is going to have some splainen' to do

[papasmurf]

i heard GW Pharmaceuticals sells you the equivilant of 1 joints worth of thc in their entire bottle of
sativex.
for a few 100 dollars.
the dose is spread out over many uses and the bottle has some sort of time lockout mech that only allows you to medicate that 1 joints worth over a very long period like
several days-weeks.

way to water the medicine down and charge a ridiculous amount for almost no effective compounds big pharma

[cannaletto]

Originally Posted by papasmurf

i heard GW Pharmaceuticals sells you the equivilant of 1 joints worth of thc in their entire bottle of
sativex.
for a few 100 dollars.
the dose is spread out over many uses and the bottle has some sort of time lockout mech that only allows you to medicate that 1 joints worth over a very long period like
several days-weeks.

way to water the medicine down and charge a ridiculous amount for almost no effective compounds big pharma

This is what I'm talking about! We must put a stop to this kind of manipulation of our own Cannabis laws. Cannabis has & always will be the peoples medicine, Stop these greedy corporate-jack-holes from ruining yet another good thing. GW Pharmaceuticals & all the others do NOT give a damn about the health of the countrys citizens, Just maximize profits, & who cares what happens along the way?
That kind of thinking got this country in this mess in the first place.

[DankJews]

You're Down For An Unregulated Uncontrolled Use Of The Substance Am I Correct? As It Is Today Under Prop 215 SB420. I Don't Know How Well This Will Work At The End Because This Country Is All About Rules Rules Rules So I'm Guessing We Will Have Some Rules Adhered At The End When It Would Be Available Through PHARMACEUTICALS As Well As Recreational Use. Thanks Canna.

.:Stay Medicated:.

[cannaletto]

Originally Posted by DankJews

You're Down For An Unregulated Uncontrolled Use Of The Substance Am I Correct? As It Is Today Under Prop 215 SB420. I Don't Know How Well This Will Work At The End Because This Country Is All About Rules Rules Rules So I'm Guessing We Will Have Some Rules Adhered At The End When It Would Be Available Through PHARMACEUTICALS As Well As Recreational Use. Thanks Canna.

.:Stay Medicated:.

No, I am "down for"; NOT allowing Pharmaceutical Companies, Nor Tobacco Companies, having ANY control whatsoever, of Cannabis. Since all they care about is maximizing profits, & have opposed cannabis for so many years. why should we let them have any say so in cannabis affairs, That body of regulations & rules should be controlled by our own appointed personnel. & As for our herb being Unregulated Uncontrolled, I agree some regulation is needed, & I say again; I think WE are quite capable of creating a quality assurance authority on our own. So, if you are looking for a cannabis governing body, then N.O.R.M.L. is just one I can name , I think they are capable of making reasonable rules regarding outright legalization, & a watchdog group, & so forth. You are right, this is indeed a country of rules, & being such, then I want the "proper authorities" to be credible & worthy of our trust, brought in by a Cannabis-Community-vote, supported by US, the cannabis community. & not some money-grubbing corporation's who have opposed us from the get-go.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this,

However,

On the same coin, I also think that we are capable of thinking for ourselves when it comes to cannabis. Stay medicated as well, peace

[DankJews]

I See What You Are Saying But I Don't Think They Will Let Us Control It, I Think They Would Want To Control It And If Legalize Means They Must Control It Then I Am "Down For" It!

No Flames, Just Thoughts! Thanks!

.:Stay Medicated:.

[Pico+Barrington Collective]

good post!

[SFV]

big pharma and tobaccoo and alcohol for years have spent tons of money on prohibition of cannabis....now they see the money they could make and change their tune....i say NO emphatically ...i personally do not want their support nor involvment in the movement...they have shunned it for years and now since the proverbial cat is out of the bag and the see the money involved they suddenly want their voices heard....the only voices i have heard from them over the past 20 plus years was in support of prohibition....they dont want competition with their products....like the demerol my grandfather was addicted to....the hell with them...keep cannabis out of their hands....

[ZENITH]

Originally Posted by papasmurf

i heard GW Pharmaceuticals sells you the equivilant of 1 joints worth of thc in their entire bottle of
sativex.
for a few 100 dollars.
the dose is spread out over many uses and the bottle has some sort of time lockout mech that only allows you to medicate that 1 joints worth over a very long period like
several days-weeks.

way to water the medicine down and charge a ridiculous amount for almost no effective compounds big pharma

GW pharma bought and patented hortipharms entire strain base..

they allready have copyrights on everthing...here they will persue patent infrigement in countrys there patents exist...




GW adopts an aggressive approach to securing intellectual property rights to protect techniques and technologies involved in the development programme. Protection is sought in the areas listed below:

• Plant variety rights
• Methods of extraction patents
• Drug delivery patents
• Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis
• Methods of use patents
• Design copyright on devices
• Trademarks

In the last few years our intellectual property portfolio has developed considerably. The patent portfolio has more than doubled in size and comprises 42 patent families, within these families there are numerous granted patents both in the UK and in various territories around the world. GW has also developed a trademark portfolio of 21 UK registered trademarks with equivalent marks registered in many other territories around the world. GW also holds nine registered design rights and nine plant variety rights.


here see for yourself...


GW Pharmaceutical: Research & Development / Intellectual Property Rights

[cannaletto]

Originally Posted by DankJews

I See What You Are Saying But I Don't Think They Will Let Us Control It, I Think They Would Want To Control It And If Legalize Means They Must Control It Then I Am "Down For" It!

No Flames, Just Thoughts! Thanks!

.:Stay Medicated:.

At the risk of sounding extreme, why would you want those who have opposed us from the start, to be the ones controlling Marijuana? Do you realize they will take away yet more of your rights? Why would you be down for THAT? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but don't you think that "enough is enough" with these people, who only care about maximizing their own profits? After all these years of ignorance, we are finally starting to make that difference with the general public as a whole, I just cant understand, my friend, how you would be so willing to accept control of OUR HERB by those who could not care any less about Me, You, or any of us? How you could you lose your faith in the ability to monitor the herb on our own? N.O.R.M.L. & M.P.P. & A.S.A. are fighting hard for US. & for OUR rights, & as much as I would like to see MJ legalized, I do NOT want to see all which we have fought so hard to protect fall into the hands of the opposition.

Thank You DankJews for giving me an intelligent discussion. I think you & I both want the same thing, just a difference of opinion on who should control it........... All the best.

[X Runner]

The Pharmaceutical Companies can't be involved until marijuana is rescheduled under the Controlled Substances Act. If and when this ever happens, it looks like GW and their ilk are positioning themselves for this eventuality. Rescheduling is not the same as legalization. Rescheduling means that there is already a mechanism in place to regulate the various classes of drugs.

[eowyn_moriah]

I think I joined in the conversation a bit late, but thank you for the fuel for thought. I myself would be nervous about govt. regulation if it means we lose our ability to provide for ourselves

[silvercloud]

Just as the Repeal of the Prohibition of Alcohol over 75 yrs ago ,one can still load up at the 'still' ,and one can plant a "seed" a lot easier than making moonshine ~ soo ,in essence ,there will always be weed available ,but the major issue is access ,which will undoubtedly go underground similar to today's bathtub gin ~ that is all