No way, dude: DEA just says "no" to scientist's pot request

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has rejected a scientist's request to open what would have been the nation's second federally approved marijuana lab.

Lyle Craker, a University of Massachusetts Amherst horticulturist, applied for permission to grow pot eight years ago for researchers conducting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved studies on the potential benefits of marijuana as medical treatment. Pot has been used to lower pressure buildup in glaucoma (a potentially blinding eye disease), to reduce nausea from cancer treatments and to prevent AIDS-related weight loss. Craker had asked for permission to grow it for research funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a California nonprofit that wants to develop marijuana into a legal prescription med.

In 2007 DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner recommended that Craker's application be granted, saying that there wasn’t enough pot available for research purposes and that there was "minimal" chance marijuana grown in the proposed lab would be used for non-research reasons. But DEA Deputy Administrator Michele Leonhart disagreed, characterizing the country's supply of research-grade pot as "adequate and uninterrupted."

Leonhart's 118-page opinion was released yesterday by Craker's attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Drug Law Reform Project
 
“I am saddened that the DEA is ignoring the best interests of so many seriously ill people who wish for scientific investigations that could lead to development of the marijuana plant as a prescription medicine,” Craker said in a statement. “Patients with serious illnesses deserve legitimate research that might establish medical marijuana as a fully legal, FDA-approved treatment. That effort has been dealt a serious blow.”

DEA spokesman Michael Sanders told ScientificAmerican.com that the agency wouldn’t comment on Leonhart's decision. "The document speaks for itself," he said.

Allen Hopper, the ACLU drug-reform project's litigation director, charged that the move was politically motivated and part of "a cynical attempt to maintain the Bush administration's elevation of politics over science."

The only source of government-grown weed is the University of Mississippi's Marijuana Project. Craker is among scientists who have complained that the pot grown there is hard to come by and of inconsistent chemical makeup. Steve Gust, special assistant to the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which sponsors the project, told ScientificAmerican.com last month that more marijuana is grown there than is requested by scientists and that its quality is consistent.

Image of marijuana leaf © iStockphoto/Vladimir Vladimirov

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe