question: if there are other legal drugs which have some similar properties and effects of marijuana, but do not have the history of a being an abused substance, why do we need medical marijuana? I have taken anti-nausea medication after a surgery which was developed for cancer patients. It is great stuff, and the main advantage is it does not get you high. The last thing I would think a cancer patient who is already on ton of medications would want is to get really high. I think feeling "normal" again is what most sick people want. Now I can't speak to the FDA and what should or shouldn't be banned. However, it seems to me that the pro medical marijuana crowd is using this as a platform to legalize marijuana for recreational use too. I don't think this is what sick people need.
Repeal- If I understand your post correctly, you are taking issue with the role that the FDA is playing, not with whether or not a particular drug should or should not be available.
As maddening as it is at times, the Civil Service answers to the President, not Congress or the public. We corrupt the underlying principle of the separation of powers all the time of course and the ability of Congress to starve the Civil Service or the Judiciary to render our actions null and void is an undeniable reality. However, at its root, the Office of President gets to make the call.
In this role, the FDA is a vehicle for policy, right or wrong, and the remedy, where one disagrees, is the removal of the party that seeks that policy. It is pointless to shake your fist at the FDA because they have virtually no power to resist the will of their Chief Executive.
Besides, if the Legislature thinks a particular drug should be more broadly available, say the "morning after pill," they can pass a bill to make that happen. If you think about it, the entire drug regime is a largely legislative creation anyway.
My point is that you are striking out at the wrong party and mischaracterizing the administrators of the policy as the architects of it. Fire your arrows, but beware of collateral damage.
FDA's mission statement: The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.
Ok, note the "ACCURATE, SCIENCE-BASED INFORMATION" section of the above. GV, while I agree that the practical answer is that an executive agency is the administration's bitch, here you have said agency taking positions that completely fly in the face of both its mission and mandate. The point is that POLICY decisions, as ignorant or prudent--depending on whom you ask, as they may be, are not based on science, but rather belief, ideology, etc. For the executive to hijack the integrity of the FDA, by essentially predetermining the results of what are supposed to be science-based decisions is reminiscent of "studies" sponsored by Big Tobacco. Where's the line really? How much money or influence does the pharmaceutical industry, let's say, have to have on the Administration to make sure that certain drug approvals go smoothly? I'm not alleging illegality necessarily, but where the very clear and explicit basis upon which an agency is to act is subject to change on the mere ideological whim, the system is not just broken, it's joke.
I would like to argue with you, but your points are well-taken. The Civil Service is often "hijacked" by the Administration that it serves; if "hijacking" means being unable to fulfill the generalized view of its mission by agency personnel or the public. However, in a more confined sense, the agencies have no mission not subject to the Administration's views.
If NASA wants to put a man on Mars by 2020 and the Administration wants to put a base on the Moon instead, they have to dump thier plans in favor of the Administration's goals. Only Congress can leap past this duty by passing binding legislation. Absent that, whether we agree or not, we have to follow the Administration's lead.
I don't know what is going on over at FDA and I have no opinion on the use of Marijuana, but I suspect that lots of Civil Servants disagree with the official position of their agency. Do you really want dissenters to behave in a maverick way when the Administration that they serve has already spoken?
Oh... by the by... Mission Statements are crap in every organization that they appear. What matters is what happens when the agency is conducting its day to day operations, not what it says it seeks to accomplish. In the instant case, the FDA is treading that unenviable line between public service and prostitution to a medical industry that has owned two branches of government for almost 20 years.
I think we're basically singing the same tune here. My only response would be that your NASA/Mars analogy doesn't quite fit... What would more apt would be to say that if the Administration made clear that it did not want a manned mission to Mars and THEN NASA said they did a purportedly scientific and quantative study that concluded they could NOT put a man on the moon, despite a wealth of true hard and scientific evidence to the contrary.
Oh... You mean like the NASA scientists reprimanded for suggesting that there actually is "global warming?"
Commenting by HaloScan
