President Trump Considering Legalization Advocate For Head Of FDA!

This is good news!
Jim O’Neil is being considered to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

O’Neil is not only a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana, he has actively worked towards it as a Board of Directors member for the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, which helped legalized cannabis in California.

According to Spicer, both O’Neil and biotech executive Balaji Srnivasan “are being considered” for head of the FDA.

Both O’Neil and Srnivasan have connections with billionaire Peter Thiel, who co-founded Paypal and was an early investor in Facebook. Thiel is a supporter of Donald Trump and also supports legalizing marijuana.

Having a supporter of legalizing marijuana (or simply one who doesn’t oppose it) leading the FDA would be huge for the cannabis reform movement. For years prohibitionists have brought up the fact that the FDA finds marijuana to have no medical value, something that could easily be changed with someone helming the administration who understands its medical capabilities.

RetroGrow said:

This is good news!
Jim O’Neil is being considered to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

O’Neil is not only a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana, he has actively worked towards it as a Board of Directors member for the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, which helped legalized cannabis in California.

According to Spicer, both O’Neil and biotech executive Balaji Srnivasan “are being considered” for head of the FDA.

Both O’Neil and Srnivasan have connections with billionaire Peter Thiel, who co-founded Paypal and was an early investor in Facebook. Thiel is a supporter of Donald Trump and also supports legalizing marijuana.

Having a supporter of legalizing marijuana (or simply one who doesn’t oppose it) leading the FDA would be huge for the cannabis reform movement. For years prohibitionists have brought up the fact that the FDA finds marijuana to have no medical value, something that could easily be changed with someone helming the administration who understands its medical capabilities.

Click to expand...

Might I remind you of....Gil Kerlikowske?Lots of us had high hopes for him to do something when he was named the Drug Czar.,but as soon as he took over...he went ignorant on us.


Not trying to bring anyone down or anything,but politics is politics.

Don't hold your breath....

..... yeah man, throw us a bone, this could help his approval rating.

The more clinical trials show empirical proof of the medicinal properties cannabis posseses, the less prohibition can remain relevant, regardless of politricks.

Can't hide the sun with a thumb.

Another hat in the FDA ring.....

Another hat in the FDA ring.....

If reports are to be believed, the latest addition to Trump's list of possible FDA commissioners is Dr. Joseph Gulfo, an outspoken critic of the agency who has penned a manifesto for its reform.

Gulfo joins a lengthening list of possible candidates that also includes Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA staffer and partner at venture capital fund New Enterprise Associates, as well as two Silicon Valley figures: tech capitalist Jim O'Neill and Balaji Srinivasan, a specialist in computational biology and tech investor.

The new name on the list has an M.D. and an M.B.A. and currently serves as executive director of the Lewis Center for Healthcare Innovation and Technology. Gulfo has held senior roles at a number of biopharma companies in the past. His career record adds to the sense that Trump is determined to place tech/biotech entrepreneurs into the upper echelons of the FDA.

Gulfo has not commented publicly on his candidacy, but made it clear over the last few weeks that he would be interested in the job. He tweeted that he would "be honored to serve [President Trump] and bring real reform to the FDA" and that "fixing FDA is literally a matter of life and death."

STAT News reported that Gulfo has already met with transition team officials and outside advisers to discuss the FDA commissioner job.

Gulfo has plenty to say about the agency, and co-authored a paper last year arguing the FDA has become too restrictive. He said the agency has been going beyond its bounds in approving drugs only on the back of hard clinical endpoints such as disease outcomes and survival in an 'average' patient, rather than adhering to "the safety and effectiveness standards that are set out in the law," according to the document.

It also said new drugs should be approvable based on biomarker data alone—provided they are shown to be safe—as their usefulness is best demonstrated in "real-world, post-market settings."

In that respect, Gulfo does not go as far as O'Neill, who has argued in the past that drugs shown to be safe should be approved regardless of any evidence of efficacy. Gulfo insisted that his plans would not result in a lowering of FDA standards but would force the agency to operate in accordance with the law.

Rumors of Gulfo's candidacy came as Stephen Ostroff, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, moved up to the role of acting commissioner after Robert Califf vacated the post on Jan. 20, in line with the traditional process as Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president.

Ostroff is no stranger to the task, having also stepped in as acting FDA commissioner for several months in 2015-2016 after Califf's predecessor, Margaret Hamburg, left the agency.

Califf's parting comments to Trump included a warning not to place business and politics above science when it comes to regulating drugs. Some might argue that judging by the new president's rumored list of candidates for the role, he has other ideas.


http://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotec...fo-to-trump-s-short-list-for-fda-commissioner


We'll see.......

bombadil.360 said:

The more clinical trials show empirical proof of the medicinal properties cannabis posseses, the less prohibition can remain relevant, regardless of politricks.

Can't hide the sun with a thumb.

Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as empirical proof?

I've heard of empirical research and empirical evidence. I know research isn't proof and evidence can either support a theory, reject it or neither.

Am I correct in thinking that although research may yield evidence in support of a theory, it still has to be sufficient enough to be accepted as proof?

Is it the quality of the evidence or the quantity of evidence that will undeniably prove what we all already know?

I'm not sure they'll ever admit it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

They're the complete opposite of reasonable.

"Medicinal" "medical" "medicine" is gonna be another issue. It may seem inconsequential but if you want the FDA on board, it's gonna be a issue.

Proof, that evidence in support of the healing properties of cannabis doesn't mean shit to the DEA can be found by reading the patent that the gov holds for canna's antioxidant properties.

Aren't antioxidants used to cure or treat diseases, disorders....something?

Then why does DEA insist it has "no medical value"?

It doesn't matter though, they'll just bust out "alternative facts" whenever needed.

1.5 million worth if need be.haha

A bunch of fucking "sin verguenzas"! Plain and simple.

Antioxidants and "natural cures"are not recognized by the FDA as having any medicinal value because they can't make money off them and patent them.

Trump is a servant of the Heritage Foundation which is against cannabis legalization.
so far "his" agenda has stuck closely to the right wing think tanks published policy desires.

Genghis Kush said:

Trump is a servant of the Heritage Foundation which is against cannabis legalization.
so far "his" agenda has stuck closely to the right wing think tanks published policy desires.

Click to expand...

Yup....and likely to continue.

Ah!, the old road to legalization...

The FDA doesn't accept whole plants, otherwise known as herbs, as medicinal. They have and will continue to evaluate and approve certain components or isolated chemicals in plants which can be formulated into profitable medications. Sativex is a good example of how FDA cannabinoid approval might happen. Isolate the "active" components and put it in a pill or marketable potion. I don't expect that to change no matter who the head of FDA might be.

I would suppose Trump will go for the most "business friendly" choice, that is the one that will relax current quality controls for the sake of testing them on a paying population. Let the chips fall where they may.

Let the chips fall where they may.
Wanted: sturdy umbrella.

Unfortunately the FDA is not the DEA...

The DEA's agenda is completely different, driven by different politics and economics.

So unless a cannabis friendly person is made head of the DEA, it's still going to be illegal on the federal level. They want their jobs and funding and won't let go.

The USA has to be CONSTANTLY AT WAR, in case you haven't noticed.

It's good for certain businesses with lots of money and lobbyists (canna lobby doesn't have enough clout...yet).

Cannabis friendly head of DEA? Fat chance, I say.

resin, the issue is that science and its applications i.e technology, advance way faster than societies, so it takes time for societies to adjust to new knowledge. This not only happens in regards cannabis, but also things like energy, for example, petroleum vs fusion, etc...

The other day I was gifted a cool cbd product, produced with nanotechnology, it absorbs better, more efficiently into the bloodstream, it is just getting released in the U.S over the counter. Not marketed as medicinal, just as dietary supplement, so people can have access to a high quality cbd product.

The other day was reading an interview of a scientist involved in cannabis research who expected than in 10 years or so, in addition to fortifying milk with vitamin D, it will also come with cbd.

Think that people in the past got executed by the church for providing empirical knowledge about our solar system, today you don't get executed but ignored until investors find the potential to market advances in science.

So many small minds here. Where do you guys get your news?

my bet is that trump will refocus the DEAs purview to hard drugs and drug cartels moving it across the boarders to gangs in metro areas as in the border wall-war. If the cartel is moving weed, then they get popped or stopped but main focus being pills, heroin and cocaine... forget the media rhetoric, they havent been right yet and
they are pissed off cause they cant get it their way any longer. He's a business man yes and knows how to make money yes.. why would he cut off any states cash cow? He's looking to give back law enforcement to the states. Look if florida can pass a MMJ law no matter how diluted it may be, things are looking up for us..

Skip said:

Unfortunately the FDA is not the DEA...

The DEA's agenda is completely different, driven by different politics and economics.

So unless a cannabis friendly person is made head of the DEA, it's still going to be illegal on the federal level. They want their jobs and funding and won't let go.

The USA has to be CONSTANTLY AT WAR, in case you haven't noticed.

It's good for certain businesses with lots of money and lobbyists (canna lobby doesn't have enough clout...yet).

Click to expand...

http://www.findclearchoice.com/trump-attorney-general-pick-says-congress-needs-legalize-cannabis/

“The United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana in every state, and distribution of it, an illegal act,” Sen. Sessions testified. “If that’s something is not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule.”

the dea doesn't do anything but enforce the laws, not enact them.

The only way we will ever get things even close to what we are aiming, is to do the work ourselves. Letters to your politicians, even if in vain, to express your desire as a taxpaying citizen. Public outreach that is not intrusive, open ended conversations, that are shaped by us, guided by us, to support our goals, and the only way to do that is to research and learn as much as possible on both (all) sides of the arguments, pros AND cons. draft our own "bills" to be voted on, collect signatures, yada yada and boring yes, a lot of work yes, BUT if you want guaranteed growing rights for citizens and not just businesses, the ability to profit from your labor and develop cultivars free from prosecution.... Read the current "efforts" in complete form, the bill AS PROPOSED, and then decide what you want changed, what you want included, and taken off of it entirely, Organize as a group and collect those signatures, collect double, or triple, in case the law guy saws some failed it would show overwhelming support anyway, good for publicity. This can be done state by state, AND Nationwide as a larger movement. Every concern needs discussed, and Every angle considered, by those who are paranoid especially as they generally see the worst outcomes and can also sometimes help others find ways to guarantee those risks away via some lines of text in said bills we draft Together and then can all stand behind. I say let's do this and run our own country by the means legally guaranteed to us by our constitution, let's Unite and not let the media keep us divided any longer, but we have to remain safe and stay economically competitive on a global scale, so who's with me?