ONDCP DEPUTY ENDORSES CAGING PATIENTS PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE DrugSense FOCUS Alert #268 Thu, 23 July 2003 On Tuesday, July 22, the Los Angeles Times ran a column by ONDCP Deputy Director Andrea Barthwell. Citing her background as an M.D., Barthwell strongly debunks the idea of medical marijuana. Nothing much is new here, though she is clear to focus her criticism on 'smoking' marijuana. Also she specifically notes that 'feeling better' from using marijuana is not a valid reason to use it. One must 'actually get better' or otherwise be subject to arrest and prosecution. Finally, she misrepresents the pending appeal by the Feds versus California doctors as noted below. Please take a moment to write a succinct letter to the editors of the L.A. Times so that readers will have a chance to see that the opinions of federal drug war cheerleaders are not paramount in California. Thanks for your effort and support. It's not what others do it's what YOU do PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID (Letter, email messages, etc.) Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list () if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit. This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging our impact and effectiveness. Subscribing to the Sent LTE list () will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts. To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form CONTACT INFO Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Contact: TARGET ANALYSIS With a daily circulation of slightly over a million copies, having a letter to the editor printed in the L.A. Times reaches a very large audience. The L.A. Times has printed two or three letters in response to one column, that focus on different aspects in their response. The average length of the body of letters they print is about 130 words; however, well written letters of about 250 words are sometimes printed. You may review letters they have published at http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=Los+Angeles+Times ORIGINAL ARTICLE Pubdate: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Copyright: 2003 Los Angeles Times Contact: Author: Andrea Barthwell Note: Andrea Barthwell, a medical doctor, is a deputy director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and a past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. A HAZE OF MISINFORMATION CLOUDS ISSUE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA As a physician with more than 20 years of experience dealing with patients who are addicted to drugs, I am often asked my professional opinion about a contentious public health question: What is the medical basis for smoking marijuana? The answer needs some context. Americans today have the world's safest, most effective system of medical practice, built on a process of scientific research, testing and oversight that is unequaled. Before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1907, Americans were exposed to a host of patent medicine "cure-alls," everything from vegetable "folk remedies" to dangerous mixtures with morphine. The major component of most "cures" was alcohol, which probably explained why people reported that they "felt better." Needless to say, claimed benefits were erratic and irreproducible. Marijuana, whatever its value, is intoxicating, and it's not surprising that sincere people will report relief of their symptoms when they smoke it. The important point is that there is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better. It is the job of modern medicine to establish this distinction. The debate over drug use generates a great deal of media attention -- including the focus on the administration's appeal this month to the U.S. Supreme Court against medical marijuana -- and frequent misinformation. Some will have read, for instance, that the medicinal value of smoking marijuana represents "mainstream medical opinion." It is time to set the record straight. Simply put, there is no scientific evidence that qualifies smoked marijuana to be called medicine. Further, there is no support in the medical literature that marijuana, or indeed any medicine, should be smoked as the preferred form of administration. The harms to health are simply too great. Marijuana advocates often cite the 1999 National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine report as justifying the drug's medical use. But, in fact, the verdict of that report was "marijuana is not a modern medicine." The institute was particularly troubled by the notion that crude marijuana might be smoked by patients, which it termed "a harmful drug-delivery system." These concerns are echoed by the Food and Drug Administration, the agency charged with approving all medicines. As the FDA recently noted: "While there are no proven benefits to [smoked] marijuana use, there are many short- and long-term risks associated with marijuana use." Compounds in the marijuana plant do potentially have a medical value. For instance, a synthetic version of an ingredient in marijuana has been approved for treating nausea for chemotherapy patients, as well as for treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS. Admittedly, these medications have limitations, including the relatively slow onset of relief. Researchers are exploring drug-delivery systems that allow rapid relief -- perhaps an oral inhalator like those used by asthma patients -- as a response to patient needs. But these medications are a far cry from burning the crude weed and gulping down the smoke. Every American is familiar with aspirin, and some know that it was first found in willow bark, from which the therapeutic agent acetylsalicylic acid was eventually synthesized. Surely no one today would chew willow bark, much less smoke a piece of tree, to cure a headache. Medical science does not fear any compound, even those with a potential for abuse. If a substance has the proven capacity to serve a medical purpose, then it will be accepted. We have done so with substances as dangerous as opium, allowing the medical use of many of its derivatives, including morphine, Demerol and OxyContin. The key term is "proven capacity." Only if compounds from marijuana pass the same tests of research scrutiny that any other drug must undergo will they become part of the modern medical arsenal. Our investment in medical science is at risk if we do not defend the proven process by which medicines are brought to the market. All drugs must undergo rigorous clinical trials before a drug can be released for public use. The overarching charge to any physician is: "First, do no harm." That is the test smoked marijuana cannot pass. TWO SAMPLE LETTERS (Please note: These letters are samples only. Your own letter to the L.A. Times should be substantially different so that the Times will consider it as adding to the discussion.) To the editors of the Los Angeles Times, Dear Editor: ONDCP Deputy Director Andrea Barthwell soberly intones, "Physician - First Do No Harm", in support of her criticism for the use of medical marijuana. Her personal analysis enumerates various harms of smoking marijuana, though she ignores the fact that many patients consume their medical pot in baked goods, orally. Ignored by this 'smokescreen' is the only relevant question with regard to allowing legal access to medical pot. And that is, should patients who elect to use marijuana as medicine with the support of their doctor be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution and time in a prison cell, caged like a dangerous animal? Current federal drug policies endorsed by Barthwell, ONDCP head John Walters and George W. Bush show that they believe the answer to this question is a resounding Yes. Barthwell also misleads readers with her reference to, ".... the administration's appeal this month to the U.S. Supreme Court against medical marijuana." In fact the administration is appealing the right of doctors to freely speak to patients about marijuana. How many more Californians using medical marijuana legally under state law must be arrested and caged by federal drug war cheerleaders? Respectfully submitted, Stephen Heath Clearwater, FL To: Subject: Please consider the following Letter to the Editor for publication July 21, 2003 To the editor, It's ironic that Andrea Barthwell, deputy director for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, willfully misconstrues the facts regarding the medicinal use of marijuana ("A Haze of Misinformation Clouds Issue of Medical Marijuana," July 21, 2003) mere weeks after Delegates of the American Nurses Association (ANA) convened in Washington, DC to resolve to "support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana." Who do you believe? A paid spokeswoman for the Drug Czar's office, or the RNs who have dedicated their lives to attend the needs of the sick and dying? The ANA's support for the use of marijuana as a medicine is not based on "misinformation," but rather on scores of scientific studies and patient testimonies demonstrating the therapeutic value of cannabis. That is why dozens of prominent national and international health organizations, including the American Public Health Association, the AIDS Action Council, the United Kingdom's Multiple Sclerosis Society, and The New England Journal of Medicine, support the immediate legalization of medical marijuana under a physician's supervision. However, if Ms. Barthwell and the Bush administration have their way, patients who find therapeutic relief from marijuana will not only be denied legal access to the one medicine that alleviates their suffering, but they will also face arrest and imprisonment. In addition, the Bush administration is now appealing to the Supreme Court to allow the Justice Department to punish doctors who so much as speak to their patients about the medical use of marijuana - a position so extreme that it runs contrary to both the American Medical Association and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the latter of which Ms. Barthwell formerly served as president. It is shameful that Ms. Barthwell, a physician, is now willing to place politics before the needs of patients she once took an oath to protect. Sincerely, Paul Armentano Senior Policy Analyst NORML | NORML Foundation Washington, DC 20006-2832 202.483.5500 (Always include your address and phone number for newspaper verification. Most papers will not print your letter otherwise.) ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See: Writer's Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/ TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm Prepared by: Stephen Heath, Drug Policy Forum of Florida http://www.dpffl.org Focus Alert Specialist

Focus Alert Archive