FDA speaks out against marijuana legalization�|�Reuters.com

FDA speaks out against marijuana legalization�|�Reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will publish a statement on Friday criticizing state measures to legalize the medical use of marijuana, calling them attempts to bypass scientific review.

The agency said it was posting the statement in response to requests from lawmakers and others, but advocates for legalizing marijuana said the FDA was making an unusual and inappropriate foray into politics.

"In response to inquiries, including from Congress, we are clarifying our position on the science," said FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro in an interview.

"The FDA continues to support medical researchers whose intention is to undertake rigorous, peer-reviewed investigations and well-controlled clinical trials, in line with the FDA's drug approval process," she added in an e-mail.

But Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said he was puzzled by the FDA's decision. "It's fascinating that they are making what strikes me as essentially a political move here," said Mirken in an interview.

"There are plenty of herbal products that people use ... that are not FDA-approved. It really sounds to me like the FDA is inappropriately intruding itself into a political process and I have to say I find it very sad."

The issue of the medical use of marijuana has been long contested on the state and federal level. Some patients with diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma say only the herb provides relief, and sometimes their doctors agree.

But the federal government maintains that FDA-approved drugs, including a synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana, are adequate for these patients. The Drug Enforcement Administration and prosecutors say the medical marijuana movement is a thinly disguised effort to allow for recreational use of the illegal drug...

Of course the FDA doesn't want it legalized. They'd miss that rush of adrenaline that comes from kicking down cancer patients' doors and arresting them at gunpoint.

Massachusetts to require health insurance

Massachusetts to require health insurance

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney signed a groundbreaking measure Wednesday that makes Massachusetts the first state to mandate universal health care.

Supported by Democrats and Republicans in the state Legislature, the law requires residents to buy health insurance by July 1, 2007, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.

It aims to help low-income families buy private health insurance with subsidies and penalizes those who don't get coverage. It will help extend coverage to about 500,000 people in the state who lack health insurance, or about one in 13 residents.

The law has thrust the state to the forefront of a national debate over how to extend coverage to the millions of Americans without it. It's also a potential political coup for Romney as he weighs a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

"Massachusetts is leading the way with health insurance for everyone, without a government takeover and without raising taxes," Romney said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who attended the signing ceremony, praised Romney for giving the state "just what the doctor ordered."

HOW IT WORKS: The program is to be financed largely with millions that the state now spends on uncompensated medical care for poor people.

It will cost about $1.3 billion in public and private funding a year, but only $125 million will be new state money. The rest will come from some new funds and a relocation of existing money, including $650 million in federal funds, $320 million from insurance companies and hospitals and $50 million from penalties on businesses that don't provide insurance.

# People who don't have health insurance will have to buy it by mid-2007 or forfeit their individual state tax exemptions. Those who don't buy it after the second year would have to pay fines equal to half the cost of an affordable plan.

# Private insurance companies, working with state officials, will develop low-cost plans that people can buy on a pretax basis through a new state-run insurance exchange. The price isn't set, but state officials hope it will be about $200 a month.

# The legislation increases payments to hospitals and doctors and expands coverage for poor children through Medicaid.

# People who earn more than 300% of federal poverty levels -- $28,700 for a single person and about $60,000 for a family of four -- get no financial help.

# Companies with more than 10 workers that don't offer health insurance must pay the state $295 for each employee.

Romney used his line-item veto power to strike eight portions of the bill, including the $295 fee. Officials said some employers might consider it cheaper to pay the fee than to insure workers.

But legislative leaders said they would override any changes. Business and hospital leaders also criticized the veto.

SKEPTICISM: Critics say the new law lacks adequate funding and cost controls.

"We will look back at this new legislation as a well-motivated but naive, underfunded political approach," said Dr. Alan Sager, a codirector of the Health Reform Program at Boston University's school of public health.

It remains unclear how much help some people will get from the program, and people who get no public assistance could have difficulty buying policies.

"If consumers are forced to pay for a policy that's not affordable, there's going to be another Boston Tea Party," said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a consumer watchdog group in Santa Monica, Calif.

IN CALIFORNIA: A measure introduced Wednesday in California's state Assembly would require businesses to cover 75% of health-care costs for employees or pay as much as 7% of their annual payroll to subsidize universal health care.

People who don't have insurance would face a civil fine under the bill, proposed by Joe Nation, a Democrat from Marin County.

His plan would cap deductibles, require premium rates to vary only based on geography and age and forbid insurers from restricting coverage for preexisting conditions.

I thought universal health care was supposed to be free. If they force people to buy it, that defeats the whole purpose. Other countries like Canada and in many EU countries give it to people at no cost to them.

Forcing people to pay for their own health insurance is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.