Connect with us

Cannabis News

The NIDA Just Proposed a Subtle Name Change

Published

on


nida name change

NIDA’s Namechange and what it means for the Future of Drugs?

 

It’s no surprise that I’m not the biggest fan of the Biden Administration, given their political pandering and “bread and circus” tactics over the past four years. They had the opportunity to legalize cannabis yet stalled on every front—instead, they engaged in political theater by “pardoning” certain federal cannabis possession cases, which led to zero people being freed from prison.

 

However, there is a subtle move by the administration that might have profound impacts on drug research in the years to come. What am I referring to? The subtle name change of NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, to the National Institute on Drugs and Addiction.

 

NIDA, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has long been at the forefront of the nation’s “War on Drugs,” primarily focusing on the study of substance abuse and addiction from a criminal justice perspective. Its name, which has remained unchanged since its inception in 1973, reflects the stigmatized view of drugs as inherently abusive and detrimental to society.

 

However, the proposed name change signals a potential shift in perspective, acknowledging that not all drugs are inherently abusive, and that addiction is a complex issue that warrants a more nuanced and scientific approach. This subtle rebranding could pave the way for more comprehensive and unbiased research into the potential therapeutic benefits of various substances, including psychedelics, cannabis, and harm reduction strategies.

 

In this article, we’ll explore the history and role of NIDA, the implications of its name change, and the potential impact it could have on shaping the future of drug policy and research in the United States.

 

 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) was established in 1973, during the height of the “War on Drugs” era. Its mission was clear: to lead the nation’s research efforts in studying the causes, consequences, and prevention of drug abuse and addiction. However, from its inception, NIDA’s approach has been heavily skewed toward criminalizing drug use and perpetuating the narrative of drugs as inherently harmful and dangerous.

 

Throughout its history, NIDA has played a crucial role in shaping the nation’s drug policies and maintaining the prohibition of various substances. By primarily focusing its research efforts on the negative aspects of drug use, NIDA has contributed to the stigmatization and criminalization of drugs, rather than exploring their potential therapeutic benefits.

 

Between 2000 and 2020, a staggering 95% of all research conducted by NIDA on cannabis and other drugs was centered around their perceived “harms,” while virtually no studies were dedicated to investigating their potential medical applications. This imbalanced approach to research has created a distorted perception of drugs, one that often ignores or downplays their potential therapeutic value.

 

By consistently portraying drugs as inherently harmful and addictive, NIDA’s research has been used to justify the ongoing prohibition of various substances, even those with well-documented medical benefits. This skewed narrative has kept potentially life-saving substances out of reach for millions of people suffering from various medical conditions.

 

Furthermore, NIDA’s emphasis on the criminal justice aspect of drug use has contributed to the disproportionate criminalization and mass incarceration of marginalized communities, particularly people of color. This approach has perpetuated the cycle of stigma, discrimination, and societal harm associated with drug use, rather than treating it as a public health issue. Of course, not all scientists who work at NIDA believed in this, however, they had a mandate and did the science that favored prohibition as opposed to favoring all of humankind.

 

While NIDA’s historical role in maintaining the prohibitionist stance on drugs is undeniable, the proposed name change to the National Institute on Drugs and Addiction could signal a shift toward a more balanced and scientific approach to drug research and policy.

 

 

The subtle name change from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the National Institute on Drugs and Addiction may seem insignificant, but it could signify a profound shift in how we approach the study and understanding of drugs and addiction.

 

The previous name, “Drug Abuse,” carried an inherent supposition that drugs are inherently bad and that their use is always abusive. This narrow perspective failed to acknowledge the complex interplay between individual vulnerabilities, environmental factors, and the pharmacological properties of substances. By removing the loaded term “abuse,” the new name recognizes that addiction is a unique experience for each individual and not necessarily a direct consequence of the drug itself.

 

If NIDA truly embraces this paradigm shift and treats drugs without inherent bias, it could open doors to exploring the therapeutic potential of substances previously dismissed or demonized, such as LSD, psilocybin, DMT, and others. Emerging research has already indicated that these compounds may hold promise in treating various psychological disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic depression.

 

Psychedelics, in particular, have shown remarkable ability to disrupt deeply entrenched patterns of thought and behavior, offering a potential avenue for healing and personal growth. By studying these substances without prejudice, NIDA could unlock new, potentially less toxic modalities for addressing mental health challenges that have proven resistant to conventional treatments.

 

However, until there is an actual shift in the focus and priorities of NIDA’s research efforts, the name change alone holds little substance. If the institute continues to allocate the vast majority of its resources to studying the “harms” of drugs, while neglecting their potential benefits, the rebranding will be little more than a cosmetic change.

 

True progress will require a concerted effort to reorient NIDA’s mission toward a more balanced and scientifically rigorous approach, one that acknowledges the complexities of human experiences with drugs. Only then can we fully harness the potential of these substances to alleviate suffering and advance our understanding of the human mind and consciousness.

 

 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse, has played a pivotal role in perpetuating the “War on Drugs” narrative and maintaining the prohibition of various substances, including those with potential therapeutic benefits. For decades, NIDA’s research efforts have been heavily skewed toward portraying drugs as inherently harmful, addictive, and devoid of any medical value, thereby justifying their criminalization.

 

While the Biden Administration has been a colossal disappointment on numerous fronts, the proposed name change of NIDA to the National Institute on Drugs and Addiction could be one of their few redeeming qualities. By removing the loaded term “abuse” from the institute’s name, it signals a potential shift toward a more balanced and scientific approach to studying drugs and addiction.

 

However, it’s crucial to note that government institutions move at a glacial pace, often taking years, if not decades, for substantive changes to manifest. The name change alone is unlikely to have an immediate impact on NIDA’s research priorities or the nation’s drug policies. It will take sustained effort and pressure from the scientific community, advocacy groups, and the public to ensure that this rebranding translates into tangible actions and a genuine reorientation of NIDA’s mission.

 

Nonetheless, acknowledging and scrutinizing these subtle shifts in public policy is essential, as they can serve as catalysts for broader societal change. By bringing attention to the potential implications of NIDA’s name change, we can begin to challenge the deeply ingrained stigma surrounding drugs and addiction, and pave the way for a more compassionate and evidence-based approach to these complex issues.

 

Ultimately, while the government may move at the speed of a sluggish bowel movement, it is imperative that we, as individuals and communities, embrace these shifts internally, cultivating a more nuanced understanding of drugs and their potential benefits. Only then can we create an environment conducive to genuine progress, where policies and practices are rooted in science, empathy, and a commitment to human well-being, rather than misguided ideologies or political agendas.

 

WHO IS THE NIDA, READ ON…

HEAD OF NIDA LAURA VOLKOV

WHO IS LAURA VOLKOV, NEW HEAD OF THE NIDA?



Source link

Cannabis News

The Latest in DEA Shenanigans? The Federal Agency Punts Marijuana Hearings into 2025

Published

on

By


dea cannabis hearings

For the past few months, cannabis advocates have been perched on the edges of their seats like cats watching a laser pointer, following every twist and turn of the great rescheduling saga. Ever since President Biden sparked this joint of hope, suggesting that cannabis could be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, we’ve been waiting to see if the DEA would finally admit what we’ve known all along – that cannabis isn’t as dangerous as heroin.

But just as we thought we might get some clarity before the 2024 election circus kicks into high gear, the DEA pulled what I like to call a “classic prohibitionist move.” A judge recently announced that the hearings won’t happen until 2025, leaving advocates frustrated and industry players wondering if this is just another delay tactic in the long game of “hurry up and wait” that we’ve become all too familiar with.

Now, I’ve been covering cannabis policy long enough to smell political theater when I see it, and this latest development has got my skepticism sensors tingling. While some view rescheduling as a step forward, others (myself included) have questioned whether Schedule III is just Big Pharma’s backup plan – a way to maintain control while appearing progressive.

In this article, we’re going to dive deep into why the DEA is dragging its feet, what this delay really means for the cannabis industry, and why true reform might need to come from the halls of Congress rather than the offices of federal agencies. Buckle up, folks – we’re about to get real about the future of cannabis reform in America.

Just when we thought the DEA might finally be ready to have an adult conversation about cannabis, they’ve pulled another classic move from the prohibitionist playbook. Administrative Law Judge Teresa Wallbaum recently announced that the hearing on cannabis rescheduling will be pushed to January 2025, citing the need for “additional time to prepare for this complex proceeding.”

Let’s be real here – this delay isn’t about preparation. It’s about waiting to see who they’ll be working with after the election. And given Trump’s recent victory, coupled with his surprisingly progressive stance on cannabis reform, the landscape is about to get interesting. Unlike the Biden administration’s tepid approach to reform, Trump has voiced support for both rescheduling and broader cannabis reforms. However, he’s also a wild card and could do absolutely nothing. It’s still too early to tell.

But here’s where I’m going to ruffle some feathers – this whole rescheduling circus might just be political theater. Think about it: the Biden administration had four years to implement meaningful cannabis reform. What did we get? A lot of promises, some nice-sounding rhetoric about rescheduling, and precisely zero actual changes. It’s the kind of empty promises we’ve come to expect from career politicians trying to maintain their grip on power while appearing “progressive.”

The American people aren’t stupid. They saw through this charade, which partly explains why they voted for Trump. Say what you will about the man, he is a big disruptor and there are more moderate voices on his team this time around. We’ll have to see who else he picks and hope that some lobbyist doesn’t sneak in there – they probably will – but we’ll have to see.

According to court documents, the delay is necessary because “the parties need additional time to identify and prepare expert witnesses, and to review the extensive documentary evidence that will be presented at the hearing.” But let’s call this what it is – bureaucratic tap dancing. The DEA is waiting to see which way the political winds blow before making any significant moves.

Here’s where I might surprise you – this delay might actually be a blessing in disguise for cannabis advocates. Why? Because Schedule III was never the answer we were looking for anyway. As I’ve written before, rescheduling to Schedule III is essentially Big Pharma’s backup plan, a way to maintain control over cannabis while appearing to support reform.

My gut tells me – and my gut’s been right more often than not in this industry – that real cannabis reform isn’t going to come through rescheduling. It’s going to come through Congress, and potentially with support from the incoming administration. The people have spoken loudly: they want real reform, not more empty promises and half-measures.

The writing’s on the wall, folks. The old guard’s strategy of dangling the rescheduling carrot while maintaining the status quo isn’t working anymore. Whether through Trump’s promised reforms or congressional action, change is coming. And maybe, just maybe, this DEA delay is the death rattle of the rescheduling red herring we never needed in the first place.

You know, I used to be that guy. The one who’d confidently declare, “Within five years, cannabis will be legal nationwide!” I’d break down the trends, cite the polling data, and explain why legalization was inevitable. And you know what? I kept being wrong. Not about the direction – cannabis reform has steadily marched forward – but about the timeline and the path it would take.

Looking back, I nailed quite a few predictions. I saw the CBD boom coming, correctly anticipated the rise of Delta-8 THC in prohibition states, and forecasted the eventual corporate takeover of many pioneer cannabis markets. But these days? Making predictions about cannabis reform feels about as reliable as using a Magic 8-Ball to plan your retirement.

The political landscape has become more unpredictable than a first-timer’s reaction to a high-THC edible. We’ve got Trump back in office – a man who, despite his previous opposition to cannabis, has recently shown support for reform. Could he shock us all and push through a simple, straightforward legalization plan just to stick it to the establishment? It’s entirely possible. Could he also do absolutely nothing and let the status quo reign? Equally possible.

And that’s just one variable in an increasingly complex equation. We’ve got Big Pharma pulling strings behind the scenes, state markets evolving at different rates, and banking reform perpetually stuck in congressional limbo. Not to mention the international scene, where some countries are embracing legalization while others double down on prohibition.

Here’s what I do know: Schedule III, even if it happens, isn’t the endgame. It’s like trying to fix a broken leg with a Band-Aid – it might look like you’re doing something, but it doesn’t address the underlying problem. The moment it passes (if it passes), it’ll be tied up in legal challenges faster than you can say “interstate commerce.” Why? Because without congressional action, we’re still stuck in this weird legal twilight zone where state and federal laws contradict each other.

So I’ve stopped making predictions about when or how cannabis reform will happen. Instead, I focus on analyzing the facts in front of us and calling out the bullshit when I see it. Because at the end of the day, that’s more valuable than crystal ball gazing.

The only thing I’m certain about is that change is coming. Whether it’s through congressional action, executive orders, or some yet-unknown path, cannabis prohibition will end. I just won’t tell you when anymore. I’ve learned my lesson about making promises I can’t keep – unlike some politicians I could name.

INSPIRATION: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-marijuana-

rescheduling-hearing-delayed-until-2025-agency-judge-rules/

 

THE DEA DELAYS AGAIN, READ MORE…

DEA DELAYS CANNABIS HEARING

THE DEA IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ON CANNABIS SCHEDULES!

 



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

Published

on

By


In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between state and federal cannabis laws, a California appellate court ruled on October 29th that property owners can refuse to allow the transportation of cannabis across their land via easements, even when the cannabis operation is approved by local authorities.

The Second District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision draws attention to private property rights in a context where cannabis remains federally illegal, but state law allows licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert stated, “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.

Unless the California Supreme Court grants review – which I would not rule out – the decision empowers private property owners to refuse to contract with cannabis businesses, and restricts local government from approving cannabis operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.

The case at hand

The dispute centered around a cannabis cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, where JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use permit granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The critical issue was that Santa Rita Holdings could only access its 2.5-acre cannabis farm via an unpaved road crossing JCCrandall’s property through a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.

JCCrandall’s primary concern? It raised a number of complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck traffic and night operations, which did not gain traction, but in the Court of Appeal JCCrandall focused on what it claimed was potential liability associated with having federally illegal substances transported across its property, even though County regulators found that the Santa Rita operation was fully compliant with state and local laws.

Key legal findings

The appellate court’s decision hinged on several crucial points:

  1. Property Rights: The court emphasized that “the right to exclude others is the essence of the right of property ownership” and classified it as a fundamental vested right.
  2. Federal Supremacy: The panel determined that allowing cannabis transportation across private property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
  3. State vs. Federal Law: While cannabis might be legal under California law, the court ruled that federal law’s prohibition takes precedence in this context.

California cannabis industry implications

Legal experts suggest this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for California’s cannabis industry. Section 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts within California involving cannabis lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings bet the ranch on that argument. But the Court of Appeal held that the statute could not compel a landowner to allow cannabis to travel across its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators may find it harder to do business because neighbors who have property rights affected by a cannabis business can object, and, under the JCCrandall ruling, local government must yield to those objections.

An example might be a cannabis dispensary that depends on access to its parking lot via an easement or is located in a shopping center where other lessees have rights to object to tenants notwithstanding the approval of the landlord. In cultivation, many cannabis farms depend on vehicular access through easements because they are remote and do not always have direct access to public thoroughfares, or they depend on water sourced from other properties pursuant to agreements made by prior owners who grew traditional crops. These neighbors might not need to show any negative impact on their property, but can argue that they could be found complicit in federally illegal activities.

I think the most problematic language in the JCCrandall ruling is the following, which might draw the attention of the California Supreme Court and cause it to grant review: “For as long as an easement is enjoyed, its mode and manner of use shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural purposes. But there is a vast difference between legal and illegal agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) If California has determined that cannabis cultivation is legal – as it has – and state courts routinely enforce contracts involving cannabis, it is a pretty bold step to declare the use of a lawful pre-existing easement illegal simply because the agricultural crop is cannabis and take away easement access from Santa Rita.

Looking ahead

This decision creates new challenges for cannabis businesses in California, and will result in more disputes among neighbors. While the Biden administration has shown signs of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state law conflict continues to create significant legal hurdles for the cannabis industry.

California court decisions also can be persuasive authority in other states, so we might see similar litigation (and decisions) elsewhere in the country where cannabis has been legalized.

The case serves as a reminder that despite California’s progressive stance on cannabis, federal prohibition continues to cast a long shadow over the industry’s operations and development. As the cannabis landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may prompt businesses to reassess their property arrangements and local governments will certainly have to reconsider their permitting processes to give more careful consideration to objections by neighbors who claim that their property rights are implicated by cannabis operations.

Note: This post was first published earlier this month on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?

Published

on

By


cannabis autoimmune problems

Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

 

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

 

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

 

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

 

But cannabis can help!

 

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

 

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

 

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

 

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.


There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

 

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

 

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

 

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

 

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

 

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

 

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

 

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

 

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

 

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

 

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT CANNABIS CAN HELP

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media