As newly amended, the AMA’s official position (see specifically pages 12, 13, and 14) regarding the medical use of cannabis no longer “recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.” Rather, the Association now resolves “that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines.”

The AMA also today demolished long-held pot prohibitionist claim — frequently publicized by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and others — that “no sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use.”

As newly amended, the AMA’s official position (see specifically pages 12, 13, and 14) regarding the medical use of cannabis no longer “recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.” Rather, the Association now resolves “that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines.”

The AMA also today demolished long-held pot prohibitionist claim — frequently publicized by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and others — that “no sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use.”

But not concerned about making alcohol a controlled substance for all the Americans it kills, or tobacco for the same reason.

Instead, we are still demonizing something that, as far as I know, hasn't killed anybody. More jails is their answer.

That's why you Repub fundamentalists will screw your own party in 2010. Hey! it's the Repub Club for 2012!

Can you talk a little bit about that? I understand that you pulled that amendment, but, nonetheless, I wanted to ask you what your intent is with that.

GRASSLEY: Well, my intent on that amendment isn’t any different than any other amendments that are coming up. The Congress is setting up a commission to study certain things. And the commission is a — is an arm of Congress, because Congress doesn’t have time to review some of these laws.

And — and — and the point is, for them to do what we tell them to do. And one of the things that I was anticipating telling them not to do is to — to recommend or study the legalization of drugs.

Their — their program would be what we tell it it is. …

Senator Webb wants to understand why we have 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s imprisoned. Sen. Webb understands that the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs™ has a lot to do with it. Sen. Webb understands that discussion of marijuana legalization must be on the table. I’m not sure which concept is more misunderstood by Senator Grassley: science, democracy, free speech, or justice. Wait, maybe it’s compassion:

QUESTION: Would your amendment have even stopped the discussion of legalized marijuana for medical purposes?

GRASSLEY: I think that would not — let’s see. Yes, the extent to which it would be decriminalization, the answer is yes

The notorious gangster Al Capone made most of his
illegal money from alcohol prohibition. Capone had dozens of
politicians on his payroll. Is it unreasonable to suspect that the drug
cartels are following Capone's business model?

What type of politicians would the drug cartels have on their payroll?
Politicians who urge the status quo of drug prohibition, or politicians
who suggest that we re-legalize drugs to put the drug cartels out of
business?

Grassley has the stones to use our plight to granstand his reefer sadness……

Medical Marijuana Hearing Wraps Up In Iowa
http://www.ketv.com/news/21522854/detail.html