A state Senate committee heard heated testimony Wednesday morning at the Capitol both for and against medicinal marijuana.

The Committee on Health, Human Services, Insurance and Job Creation held a public information hearing about medical marijuana featuring testimony from three "expert witnesses" followed by responses from the public.

Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, who chairs the committee, said he was approached with the idea to hold the hearing "years ago" when he first took office, by Gary Storck, co-founder of Is My Medicine Legal Yet?

"I’ve asked questions of a lot of doctors and … a slim majority of them seem to think if that’s what’s going to make the patient feel better and control the pain better they’re not opposed to it," Erpenbach said. "Some are opposed to it simply because, as they put it, there is no scientific proof."

The two key witnesses in favor of medicinal marijuana were David Bearman, a practicing physician from Santa Barbara, Calif., and Chris Fichtner from Illinois. Fichtner is a psychiatrist who is the former head of mental health for the Illinois Department of Health and Human Services.

According to Bearman, one of the biggest problems with legalizing marijuana is the stigma that surrounds the substance. The federal government has labeled it a "schedule one substance" along with other drugs deemed not medically beneficial. Bearman said he believes there is plenty of research that proves this wrong.

"It’s still an uphill battle to remove that stigma," Bearman said.

Addressing concerns of the committee, Bearman said marijuana is not physically addictive, causing less dependency than coffee.

"The abuse potential is extremely low," Bearman said.

Following Bearman’s testimony, Fichtner said there is no outlet for the discussion of marijuana outside the realm of substance abuse. He said there needs to be legal research performed to make marijuana and all the chemicals in it specialized to treat different types of ailments — but such research is not allowed right now.

Fichtner also addressed a Yale study that linked marijuana use to increased psychotic brain activity. He called the findings of the study misleading and said the methods were flawed.

In response to a question from the committee, Fichtner addressed the argument that marijuana serves as a "gateway" for users to try other, more dangerous drugs.

According to Fichtner, alcohol has proven, in studies, to serve as a gateway drug at a much higher rate than marijuana.

"There is not good evidence for cannabis as a gateway drug," Fichtner said.

Storck and fellow IMMLY co-founder Jackie Rickert gave emotional testimony, as Rickert fought to hold back the tears as she described her physical ailments and how marijuana has allowed her to play with her grandchildren.

Donna Daniels, state coordinator for Parent Corps, a national drug prevention program, spoke in opposition to the idea of legalizing the substance for medical use.

"Research has shown that marijuana is an addictive substance," Daniels said. "Making medical marijuana legal is a stepping-stone to other legalization."

Source: Badger Herald (U of WI, Madison, WI Edu)
Copyright: 2007 Badger Herald
Website: The Badger Herald - University of Wisconsin-Madison

Marijuana may not be a life-threatening drug, but is it an addictive one?

There is little evidence in animal models for tolerance and withdrawal, the classic determinants of addiction. For at least four decades, million of Americans have used marijuana without clear evidence of a withdrawal syndrome. Most recreational marijuana users find that too much pot in one day makes them lethargic and uncomfortable. Self-proclaimed marijuana addicts, on the other hand, report that pot energizes them, calms them down when they are nervous, or otherwise allows them to function normally. They feel lethargic and uncomfortable without it. Heavy marijuana users claim that tolerance does build. And when they withdraw from use, they report strong cravings.

Marijuana is the odd drug out. To the early researchers, it did not look like it should be addictive. Nevertheless, for some people, it is. Recently, a group of Italian researchers succeeded in demonstrating that THC releases dopamine along the reward pathway, like all other drugs of abuse. Some of the mystery of cannabis had been resolved by the end of the 1990s, after researchers had demonstrated that marijuana definitely increased dopamine activity in the ventral tegmental area. Some of the effects of pot are produced the old-fashioned way after all-through alterations along the limbic reward pathway.

By the year 2000, more than 100,000 Americans a year were seeking treatment for marijuana dependency, by some estimates.

A report prepared for Australia’s National Task Force on Cannabis put the matter straightforwardly:

There is good experimental evidence that chronic heavy cannabis users can develop tolerance to its subjective and cardiovascular effects, and there is suggestive evidence that some users may experience a withdrawal syndrome on the abrupt cessation of cannabis use. There is clinical and epidemiological evidence that some heavy cannabis users experience problems in controlling their cannabis use, and continue to use the drug despite experiencing adverse personal consequences of use. There is limited evidence in favour of a cannabis dependence syndrome analogous to the alcohol dependence syndrome. If the estimates of the community prevalence of drug dependence provided by the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study are correct, then cannabis dependence is the most common form of dependence on illicit drugs.

While everyone was busy arguing over whether marijuana produced a classic withdrawal profile, a minority of users, commonly estimated at 10 per cent, found themselves unable to control their use of pot. Addiction to marijuana had been submerged in the welter of polyaddictions common to active addicts. The withdrawal rigors of, say, alcohol or heroin would drown out the subtler, more psychological manifestations of marijuana withdrawal.

What has emerged is a profile of marijuana withdrawal, where none existed before. The syndrome is marked by irritability, restlessness, generalized anxiety, hostility, depression, difficulty sleeping, excessive sweating, loose stools, loss of appetite, and a general "blah" feeling. Many patients complain of feeling like they have a low-grade flu, and they describe a psychological state of existential uncertainty—"inner unrest", as one researcher calls it.

The most common marijuana withdrawal symptom is low-grade anxiety. Anxiety of this sort has a firm biochemical substrate, produced by withdrawal, craving, and detoxification from almost all drugs of abuse. It is not the kind of anxiety that can be deflected by forcibly thinking "happy thoughts", or staying busy all the time. A peptide known as corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) is linked to this kind of anxiety.

Neurologists at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, noting that anxiety is the universal keynote symptom of drug and alcohol withdrawal, started looking at the release of CRF in the amygdala. After documenting elevated CRF levels in rat brains during alcohol, heroin, and cocaine withdrawal, the researchers injected synthetic THC into 50 rats once a day for two weeks. (For better or worse, this is how many of the animal models simulate heavy, long-term pot use in humans). Then they gave the rats a THC agonist that bound to the THC receptors without activating them. The result: The rats exhibited withdrawal symptoms such as compulsive grooming and teeth chattering—the kinds of stress behaviors rats engage in when they are kicking the habit. In the end, when the scientists measured CRF levels in the amygdalas of the animals, they found three times as much CRF, compared to animal control groups.

While subtler and more drawn out, the process of kicking marijuana can now be demonstrated as a neurochemical fact. It appears that marijuana increases dopamine and serotonin levels through the intermediary activation of opiate and GABA receptors. Drugs like naloxone, which block heroin, might have a role to play in marijuana detoxification.

In the end, what surprised many observers was simply that the idea of treatment for marijuana dependence seemed to appeal to such a large number of people. The Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto has reported that even brief interventions, in the form of support group sessions, can be useful for addicted pot smokers.

Excerpted from here

Critics of marijuana policy reform are fond of dismissing the idea as a liberal fantasy. Unfortunately, last night's Democratic Presidential Debate revealed that the party's so-called leaders would still rather play politics than stand up for the 800,000+ Americans that are needlessly arrested each year for the world's pettiest crime:

Tim Russert:
Senator Dodd, you went on the Bill Maher show last month and said that you were for decriminalizing marijuana. Is there anyone here who disagrees with Senator Dodd in decriminalizing marijuana? [MSNBC]

Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards all raised their hands. Only Dennis Kucinich stood with Senator Dodd on this important question. John Edwards was quick on the draw, pulling out the oldest pro-drug war line in the book:

Russert:
Senator Edwards, why?

Edwards:
Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome once again to the brain-dead world of mainstream drug war politics. It is a peculiar place where we ruin real lives in order to send fake messages. It is a vacant echo chamber in which those speaking the truth are singled out for ridicule, attention seekers spew tiresome incoherencies, and the rest cower embarrassed behind their podiums praying never again to be asked such a horrible thing.

Shameful and cowardly as their responses may be, the democratic front-runners were clearly sidelined by Russert's cheap hackery. Drug policy is so much more than a yes or no question, and this drive-by shooting approach to the marijuana debate trivializes the issue and obscures any diversity of opinion. I am saddened, but not at all surprised, that this question provoked this response when asked this way.

If we've learned anything from the brutal war that's been waged in our names for far too long, it is that many of our leaders would sooner allow it to continue for decades than speak one word of the truth that stands naked before us all.

With that in mind, I'm asking all of you to do something. Find out when the candidates are speaking in your area and attend the events. Bring friends. Bring a video camera. Dress well and arrive early. Sit where you can be seen and raise your hand high just a moment before they open the floor to questions. Ask whatever you like. Maybe something like this:

Over 800,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana this year. Some went to jail. Others lost their jobs, lost custody of their children, lost their driver's licenses, lost public housing, lost financial aid for college, the list goes on. Many people think these punishments are more damaging than the drug itself.

What do you think the punishment should be for someone who uses marijuana?

It is one thing to say you don't support marijuana decrim. It is quite another to describe how specifically you would go about destroying the lives of the millions of Americans who enjoy marijuana. Let's find out where they really stand on this issue.

Source: StoptheDrugWar.org
Copyright: 2007 StoptheDrugWar.org
Website: Democratic Front-Runners Reject Marijuana Law Reform