Cannabis Chronicles

Another blog of note, and the next addition to our blogroll, is The Web Log of Dr Tom O’Connell. It’s our understanding that Dr Tom is a physician and researcher who supports medical marijuana, and who has collected data in support of the compassionate use of medicinal cannabis. Dr Tom is also the former editor of “Drug Sense Weekly”, so we believe he’s well qualified to speak on the issue of medical marijuana.

Here’s a posting from Dr Tom’s archives explaining his original thinking behind the creation of his site:

Why this Blog?
April 4, 2005
By Dr. Tom O’Connell

This Blog will focus on the conundrum which has evolved since California passed its unique “medical marijuana” law called Prop 215 in 1996. Although in effect for over eight years, recent developments- including the undistinguished US Supreme Court, Raich “decision” and yet another overwhelming vote against the fledgling US congressional attempt to rein in the DEA, the Hinchey Rohrabacher Amendment demonstrate that the issue of medical use is still grossly unsuccessful at the federal level. In the past, that was arguably because supporters of the drug war had enjoyed such great success in preventing meaningful scrutiny of their policy; but an alarming new development- rejection by the organized “drug reform” movement of credible evidence that federal policy has been both egregiously dishonest and indefensibly destructive- is now indirectly helping the feds avoid the kind of scrutiny needed to indict the drug war in the only court that really matters: public opinion.

It’s first necessary to realize that in 1969, newly elected President Nixon’s “drug war” was a radical expansion of what had been a long-standing- but relatively unimportant (in terms of the size of the existing illegal markets)– policy of drug prohibition; he next pushed through a huge legislative expansion of that policy- the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The CSA would eventually allow harm maximization policy supporters to control drug research while simultaneously conducting an effective propaganda campaign on behalf of a diabolically false paradox: although drug policy is primarily one of Public Health aimed at protecting careless teens from addiction, Medical practitioners can’t be trusted to implement it. That must be left to police, prosecutors, and judges armed with the power to mete out harsh criminal penalties to those irretrievably tainted by previous drug use or who prove resistant to coerced treatment- the goal of which must always be total abstinence.

What allows me to venture some very contrary opinions in this contentious arena is information gathered by interviewing thousands of California pot smokers in compliance with state law. The new law relied on licensed physicians to evaluate those requesting a patient designation; the government literally created cannabis evaluation as a new specialty by immediately threatening any doctor wiling to do so. Subsequent developments seriously reduced the ability of applicants to find and access such physicians; it also reduced the willingness of either group to publicly acknowledge such encounters; let alone whatever personal information had been either sought or disclosed.

To cut to the chase; by late 2001, conditions in the Bay Area had evolved in such a way a that it was obvious most of the applicants trying to convince me they were using pot to treat some form of chronic pain had probably become long-term users in an unwitting attempt to control the same emotional symptoms that have made anxiolytic agents, mood stabilizers, and anti-depressants Big Pharma’s most important market segment.

In other words, pot had been treating what Prozac treats before Prozac even existed- only more effectively, more safely, and more durably. I explore this rationale in my article in the Spring edition of O’Shaughnessy’s, the Journal of the California Cannabis Research Medical Group, at:

http://www.ccrmg.org/journal/05spr/anxiety.html

Analysis of patient responses-still incomplete- has now progressed to a point where it allows some very pejorative conclusions about pot prohibition itself and raises serious questions about whether any substance prohibition can ever be responsible public policy.

I won’t begin by presenting detailed results for the simple reason that the study itself is still in progress and data entry is still lagging; in specific discussions, I’ll try to cite the most recent data to have been processed. Because I hope to always be updating, I hope to be able to respond to specific questions with the most current data .

The article, in the Winter/Spring 2005 O’Shaughnessy’s,was written in December, 2004 and is still accurate. What is considerably newer is an understanding of the rejection with which “reformers” greeted it when I attempted to solicit helpful input. While not exactly positive, that experience was as important as the data itself in permitting me a clearer understanding of how drug policy has evolved into the public policy monster it has become. I intend to comment frankly on why I believe current observations should impact drug policy politics, and will not be shy in identifying both opposing opinions and those who are venturing them. However, I will try to deal only with the opinions themselves- and then only in settings where authorship is unmistakable.

Readers who disagree are, of course, free to e-mail me. If enough interest develops, a public forum might result.

Dr. Tom O’Connell
4 July 2005

Pretty interesting, huh?

That entry is more than two years old, so we’d also like to provide our readers with a more recent posting from The Web Log of Dr Tom O’Connell. Dr Tom’s blog has evolved to cover the medical marijuana issue from a variety of perspectives, including his own observations as a physician. His blog also includes some political perspective and commentary too.

This particular post better demonstrates his current style and subject matter:

Three Hot Items (Legal, Medical, Political)

The long-overdue resignation of Alberto Gonzales, in conjunction with the framing of a particularly appropriate question by Maia Szalavitz in today’s Washington Post offers yet another an opportunity to point out just how groundless and destructive America’s policy of making “war” on drugs has become without anyone ever seeming to notice. To begin with the role of Attorney General, that post is always filled by a lawyer; yet, as a direct result of two critical misinterpretations of the 1914 Harrison Act by the Holmes Court in 1917 and 1919, the nation’s AG has become the official solely responsible for treatment of “addiction,” a condition that has never been considered a disease by Pathologists, the medical specialists most concerned with the detailed study of disease.

It should also be pointed out that although Harrison and the similarly disingenuous Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 were combined into a sweeping omnibus prohibition law by Nixon’s Justice Department under John Mitchell in 1970, the need for a revision had been triggered by a Constitutional challenge to the MTA from the Leary Case; thus neither law has ever received any scientific validation, even by 1914 standards; let alone those of 1969. Beyond that, anyone familiar with the roles NIDA, the DEA, and ONDCP play as in-house drug war lobbyists must also realize that those agencies have never been neutral.

As Maia Szalavitz points out, a “disease model” of addiction isn’t required to explain its usual course as an undesirable behavior. Many who have become addicted to various substances become abstinent on their own; often without any treatment at all. Beyond that, the “disease” label may encourage defeatist thinking and even facilitate relapse in some. In addition, what I’ve learned from cannabis users is that pot, although not a cure-all, clearly plays a positive role in helping addicts overcome substance dependency, probably because it also treats the same symptoms that led them to experiment with multiple drugs to begin with. The use of pot as a adjunct to treating various addicitions is clearly beyond the scope of current orthodox discussions of addiction, but I predict it will eventually become a standard, especially in the case of alcohol.

My mood was then heightened even more when I clicked on this link in an e-mail and was delivered to a blog suggesting that California’s pot smokers may finally have a way to compel presidential candidates to take an unequivocal public position on their favorite issue. I would predict that candidates with unfavorable stances on cannabis would struggle in Califronia; in any event, an early primary would be a way for them to receive that message

Could it be that internet is finally ready live up to some of the extravagant promises made on its behalf in the Nineties?

Doctor Tom

It’s not the typical rambling stoner discourse that’s often found at discussion boards, that’s part of what makes it quite interesting. Sadly, it appears that the “comments” feature of Doctor Tom’s site is disabled. so the only way we know to actually engage him at this point would be via email. Back in 2005 the Dr Tom said, “If enough interest develops, a public forum might result,” so maybe we can help generate enough interest to get the good doctor to follow through on that promise.