Chico Personal Injury Lawyer - FDA & Prescription Drugs

U.S. Attorney General Announces New Pot Policy

Amber Wheat — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:42:09 GMT

This has kind of become a pet issue of mine. Medical marijuana is legal in California, but under federal law, possession and sale of marijuana is illegal. Under the Bush administration, violators of the federal law were raided up and down the central district in California. Of the 75 raids that took place over the last three and a half years, only several people have been prosecuted (and those are the ones who supposedly violated state law as well as the federal law). But the medical marijuana dispensaries have no more need to fear (as long as they are operating legally within the state laws).

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Drug Enforcement Agency will not target the dispensaries within states with medical marijuana laws as long as they are following their state laws. Many people have argued the federal government doesn’t have the right to interfere with medical prescriptions given by doctors. Others have said that federal law trumps state law and that state laws can be more restrictive than federal, but not less.

I have always advocated states’ rights and believe that our forefathers understood the benefits of a loose central government. The United States of America is a large country with very different environments. There is a huge difference between California and New York and what is good for one state is not necessarily good for the other. The name of our country is very indicative of our system as well. It says what we are and where! We are a nation of states! Yes we are united, but above all we are individual regions and each region should be run by the people who live there.

That is the opinion that has spurred this new policy. The medical marijuana program was voted into place by the people of California and the federal government shouldn’t undo or hinder our decisions when it comes to medical care of our citizens. I believe this policy will go a long way toward fairness and transparency in the law. It will be more clear as to which actions are legal and which actions will be prosecuted. Then owners and operators of such medical marijuana dispensaries can make informed decisions on how they do business.

What are your thoughts? Do you think this system will work? Will we see an increase or decrease in illegal sales through dispensaries?

For that matter, what do you think about states’ rights? I’m curious. I personally think the federal government should back off a bit and let us do our own thing, but I wonder what you think. Let me know!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

A Californian Assemblyman is Looking to Cash in on Pot

Amber Wheat — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:41:28 GMT

Tom Ammiano introduced a proposal on Monday to legalize marijuana and tax it. He wants the legal age to partake in marijuana to be the same as alcohol, 21 years. The proposal asks for a tax of $50 for the sale of every ounce of pot. He wants to see our retail stores with pot on the shelves.

There are so many complications with this issue. I have heard of marijuana being laced with other substances, so who would regulate the growth, processing, and packaging of marijuana? The FDA can’t do it, they are a federal agency and marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Will there be name brands on our convenience store shelves? Fields of marijuana crops?

The News10 article that broke the news has received many comments from members of the community and a few of their comments have made me worry. Of course driving under the influence will still be illegal, but our county doesn’t even have drunk driving under control, so why are we inviting more problems in? Another comment mentioned taking the revenue away from gangs and putting it into legitimate business, just who do you think is going to be selling the stuff legally? Retailers will have to buy it from somebody if they want to stock it and right now the only people who are growing it are doing it illegally or for medical purposes.

I previously held a stance that even medical marijuana should not be legal, that opinion changed thanks to this community and the information they imparted to me. So, I guess I am asking you again. What are the risks and benefits in this situation? When people are in pain and need relief from suffering that easily outweighs the risks associated with legalizing medical marijuana. When college students and parents just want to kick back and relax, is it really worth it?

What do you think? If it came down to a vote of the citizens in California would you vote for or against legalizing marijuana?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

The FDA is Finally Taking Steps to Reduce Painkiller Abuse

Barbara Burks — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:15:29 GMT

The FDA is a strange best. Sometimes people have a hard time understanding their motives, as many of you may know from my assistant’s previous posts on the FDA. One thing that I know they are responsible for is the safety of drugs, but now, they are taking responsibility for the abuse of certain drugs.

I am torn on this issue at the moment and I would appreciate your input. Federal health regulators are requiring drugmakers to somehow reduce the misuse of the products they put out on the market. Now I have always believed that what you do with a product determines whether or not it is defective when someone is injured. If you are hanging a folding chair from a tree and trying to swing, you can’t sue the chair company for a defective product because they could not possibly foresee that use for the chair and protect or warn consumers against it.

So why is it the manufacturer’s responsibility if someone chooses to use it in a way it isn’t meant to be used. I assume if the FDA already approved the drug for sale in the U.S. that it has been rigorously tested and that complications such as addiction and potentially harmful side effects have been minimized as much as possible. Maybe I assume too much.

I really like the idea or tamper-proof painkillers like those King Pharmaceuticals and Pain Therapeutics are making, but those won’t work for everyone. Sometimes people can’t swallow pills and sometimes the duration of the patches is needed. How is a company supposed to reduce abuse in those instances?

How do you compromise between creating effective medicine and creating medicine that won’t work if you don’t use it just right?

If these high-dose opiate painkillers are killing people, then maybe the answer is not reducing their misuse by the medicating population (an impossible feat), but taking them off the market. Find new ways to combat the pain (or old ways, I’m told cannabis doesn’t kill people).

As long as these products are out there they are going to be abused. And not just by the prescription holder. More and more kids are getting a hold of their parents’ or grandparents’ medications. Putting the responsibility on the manufacturers is just going to make the medication cost more and make blaming the pharmaceutical companies easier. What ever happened to responsibility for one’s own actions?

What do you think? Comments are most appreciated. I am always looking for different points of view and counterpoints.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barbara Burks