Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 179 posts

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#11

Post by vorpalhex »

beojan wrote: post #9
r_singh wrote: post #5

Pardon me if this sounds naive, but I'm slightly confused as to how recreational marijuana is legal in 9 states but the DEA still heavily controls cannabidiol as if it were still illegal?

It's not "legal in 9 states", it's not prohibited by 9 states, but still prohibited federally.

That's incorrect. Those states explicitly legalized the possession and consumption of marijuana. That legalization is in conflict with the federal prohibition - so consuming marijuana in those instances is not a state crime (any more then walking down the street or eating cake is) but might still be a federal crime in those cases where the federal government has the ability to charge you (interstate commerce).

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#12

Post by kamarg »

edoo wrote: post #4

At worst it should be states' rights issue. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, the product of processed plants. The federal government, as per the constitution, has no right to impose such bans on the people.

I'm sure the sale of marijuana for use in the study would probably run afoul of the good old commerce clause that lets the federal government regulate sale of just about everything.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#13

Post by stephengillie »

carbocation wrote: post #6
stephengillie wrote: post #2

> Federal law vs. state law: While the DEA was insisting on thoroughly vetting everyone who came into contact with the tiny amount of marijuana product used in our study, the reality was that less than a mile from the hospital, anyone could walk into a boutique shop or dispensary and buy it. Why does a drug have to be legalized to be studied? If it can be purchased down the road, why are you involving the DEA at all?…

I don't think scientists are excited about criminal charges for possession and distribution.

Just as with video piracy, the civil disobedience to support the market is a necessary risk that supporters must be willing to make.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#14

Post by [deleted] »

beojan wrote: post #9
r_singh wrote: post #5

Pardon me if this sounds naive, but I'm slightly confused as to how recreational marijuana is legal in 9 states but the DEA still heavily controls cannabidiol as if it were still illegal?

It's not "legal in 9 states", it's not prohibited by 9 states, but still prohibited federally.

[deleted]

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#16

Post by Thriptic »

stephengillie wrote: post #2

> Federal law vs. state law: While the DEA was insisting on thoroughly vetting everyone who came into contact with the tiny amount of marijuana product used in our study, the reality was that less than a mile from the hospital, anyone could walk into a boutique shop or dispensary and buy it. Why does a drug have to be legalized to be studied? If it can be purchased down the road, why are you involving the DEA at all?…

Marijuana is defined as a schedule one drug by the DEA, meaning they believe it has no accepted medical value and should not be studied. Being in possession of or trying to purchase this drug for a medical study would therefore be illegal. Publishing the results would be admitting you performed a federal crime and you would be arrested. Additionally, human studies require approval by an on site or third party institutional review board prior to initiation to validate that they are ethical. It is unlikely that an IRB would approve such a study because it would be viewed as unethical and it would shift some liability to the university.

Its possible to perform studies with illegal drugs that are not schedule one however. For example, cocaine is schedule 2, and I helped work on a study where we purchased cocaine legally from Sigma and administered it to animals to study something which actually had nothing to do with the stimulant effects of the drug.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#17

Post by entropy_ »

KboPAacDA3 wrote: post #8

Can these studies be conducted outside the USA, away from DEA and FDA control?

Quoting(emphasis mine):

"In March, Insys launched a multinational study of 190 children to evaluate cannabidiol as a first-line therapy for infantile spasms"

That does seem to be the solution being pursued it seems

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#18

Post by edoo »

kamarg wrote: post #12
edoo wrote: post #4

At worst it should be states' rights issue. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, the product of processed plants. The federal government, as per the constitution, has no right to impose such bans on the people.

I'm sure the sale of marijuana for use in the study would probably run afoul of the good old commerce clause that lets the federal government regulate sale of just about everything.

Basically because of the atrocity that was Wickard .v. Filburn, 317 US 111, 1942, if interested.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#19

Post by Nasrudith »

r_singh wrote: post #5

Pardon me if this sounds naive, but I'm slightly confused as to how recreational marijuana is legal in 9 states but the DEA still heavily controls cannabidiol as if it were still illegal?

Essentially it is a matter of practicality. The DEA could do it themselves but is huge but they would be stretching themselves thin to replace a whole state that said we're not doing it. And said move would be costly in cooperation.

As for forcing them? Such unfunded mandates overriding official discretion cannot be forced upon a state's police force. Stop this civil rights abuse or acting outside your mandate are valid ones without funding. Start actively looking for spies is not one unless both deputized and funded. They could respond to any if they run across them without but it is within the leadership's discretion to say we have our hands full with the obvious criminals, not going on wild goose chases after guys who leave and take notebooks in public trashcans. The funding available for said purpose? Has to be used for spy chasing if taken. As always they can use federal jurisdiction to establish their own. Generally they stick to interstate matters instead of setting up shop 50 times for something redundant.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#20

Post by maze-le »

stephengillie wrote: post #13
carbocation wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think scientists are excited about criminal charges for possession and distribution.

Just as with video piracy, the civil disobedience to support the market is a necessary risk that supporters must be willing to make.

It is one thing to share a movie and possibly be fined with XXX$ because of "piracy". Its quite another thing to risk your respectability, career and future research funding -- all hanging in the balance when a federal felony charge is thrust upon you.
Post reply on HN