By Rob Kampia Source: Ventura County Star Washington, D.C. -- On June 6, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can continue arresting patients for using medical marijuana in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. But the court did not overturn state medical marijuana laws or in any way interfere with their continued operation. In its ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that Congress -- not the court -- must be the institution to change federal law to protect AIDS, cancer and other medical marijuana patients from arrest. Soon, Congress will get the chance. Although some media reports have failed to make this clear, the validity of the medical marijuana laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington were never at issue in the Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich. These laws protecting patients from arrest and jail under state law remain in full force and effect. The court has continued the status quo as it has existed since California passed the first of 10 state medical marijuana laws in 1996: Patients and caregivers in these states who legitimately possess or grow medical marijuana are protected under state law, but are not exempt from prosecution under federal anti-drug statutes. This is unfortunate. No one fighting for their life and dignity against an illness like cancer, AIDS or multiple sclerosis should have to live in fear of arrest simply for using a medicine that lessens their suffering. But all is not lost. Federal authorities make only 1 percent of the more than 700,000 marijuana arrests made annually in the U.S. Ninety-nine out of 100 marijuana arrests are made by state and local police enforcing state and local laws. In practical terms, state medical marijuana laws reduce patients' risk of arrest by 99 percent. That isn't perfect, but it is real and substantial. Although other court cases focusing on other legal issues will move forward, it's safe to assume for now that patients cannot count on the federal courts for protection. This makes the path clear for officials at all levels. First, the Bush administration should realize that just because it can arrest the sick and suffering, it can choose not to. The administration can listen to the public and the medical community and end this cruel war on the sick now. In a 1997 editorial, the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine called the federal ban on the medical use of marijuana "misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane," and that judgment is as true today as it was then. Sadly, there is no indication that the administration will change course, which means Congress must change federal law. Many Americans don't realize that the federal ban on the medical use of marijuana was not put in place by the Food and Drug Administration or any medical or public health agency. The ban was enacted by Congress, and Congress can change it. Congress will soon have the chance to use its spending authority to stop the Drug Enforcement Administration from attacking medical marijuana patients and caregivers in states that allow medical use. Representatives Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, offered such an amendment Tuesday when the appropriations bill to fund the Justice Department reached the House floor. By passing the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, Congress can stop these pointless attacks on patients. Finally, state officials must continue to do everything they can to protect patients under state law. In states with medical marijuana laws, this means continuing to implement those laws exactly as before. And in states without such laws, legislators must realize that they are the best hope for sick and suffering patients. They must act now to protect patients under state law. Make no mistake: The Raich decision is disappointing to anyone who has compassion for the seriously ill, but it doesn't set us back; it simply maintains the status quo. The day will come -- soon -- when Americans will look back at our current policy of arresting patients for using medical marijuana and see it as every bit as bizarre and incomprehensible as the laws that used to call for the burning of witches. Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project -- http://www.mpp.org -- in in Washington, D.C. Source: Ventura County Star (CA) Author: Rob Kampia Published: June 16, 2005 Copyright: 2005 The E.W. Scripps Co. Contact: letters@insidevc.com Website: http://www.staronline.com/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20877.shtml
By Teresa Carson Source: Reuters Portland, Ore. -- Oregon's attorney general gave the state the go-ahead on Friday to resume issuing cards that allow sick patients to smoke marijuana despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling the federal government could prosecute medical use of the drug. "The (Supreme Court) decision has no legal impact on the operation of Oregon's program," according to a statement by Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers' office. Oregon had stopped issuing new prescription marijuana cards until the state's top lawyer could review the Supreme Court's June 6 decision. The court held in a 6-3 ruling the U.S. government could enforce a federal law prohibiting the cultivation, possession and use of medical marijuana even in the 10 states where it is legal under state law. Two seriously ill women had pressed a legal challenge to convince the high court that individuals should be able to use marijuana for medical purposes. Myers found the Supreme Court decision "does not hold the state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws." It also did not force the state to enforce federal drug laws, according to Myers. He said in his statement the Supreme Court decision would not alter Oregon's program and that the state was not obligated to tell patients they could be prosecuted under federal laws. Oregon has issued 10,421 medical marijuana cards, the vast majority of them for severe pain, according to the Oregon Department of Human Services, which runs Oregon's prescription pot plan. Oregon voters approved the program in 1998. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Vermont and Washington also have some type of medical marijuana laws. "As far as we know, we are not aware of any other states that put any kind of moratorium on their programs. The Supreme Court decision simply maintained the status quo," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington. Reporting by Teresa Carson in Portland, Oregon. Source: Reuters (Wire) Author: Teresa Carson Published: June 18, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Reuters Limited Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20878.shtml
Editorial Source: The Ledger Washington, D.C. -- Justice John Paul Stevens won last week in a major marijuana case before the Supreme Court. Two seriously ill women lost, 6-3, but the decision against them was a bummer. In Gonzales vs. Raich , the Supreme Court produced a majority opinion that trampled upon some of the most basic principles of constitutional jurisprudence. These principles are embodied in the Commerce Clause and in the 10th Amendment. The former vests power in Congress "to regulate commerce among the several states." But this case did not involve the regulation of commerce at all. The latter says that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The power to regulate the practice of medicine is clearly a power reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The facts are not in dispute. Angel Raich suffers from "excruciating pain" that is relieved by inhalation of cannabis. Diane Monson similarly relies upon marijuana to relieve "a variety of serious medical conditions." When other medications failed, their doctors turned to California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The law authorizes physicians to prescribe marijuana for "seriously ill" patients and protects the doctors from criminal prosecution. In August 2002, federal agents raided Monson's home and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants. Raich is too ill to cultivate her own plants. She relies upon two caretakers who provide enough marijuana, without charge, to meet her medical needs. Two years ago, when further prosecution loomed, the two women sought an injunction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found in their favor: Their use of marijuana under a doctor's prescription is "different in kind from drug trafficking." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed. Last week's opinion in the Supreme Court opens the way for him to pursue prison terms for the two California women and their doctors. The laws of 10 other states are similarly voided. Justice Stevens' opinion is remarkably unconvincing. He conceded that "the case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes." Even so, Stevens found these "troubling facts" irrelevant. Well-settled law, he concluded, controls a finding that the federal act is a valid exercise of federal power. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a powerful dissent. Looking back to an historic case in 1937, she cited one of federalism's chief virtues -- that it promotes innovation: "It allows for the possibility that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." The majority's opinion, said O'Connor, "is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause." Applied to the facts in the case, the majority's definition of economic activity "is breathtaking." Indeed, the court threatens "to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulation reach." Where is the commerce in this case? O'Connor could not find it: "The homegrown cultivation and personal possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has no apparent commercial character." The marijuana at issue "was never in the stream of commerce and neither were the supplies for growing it." There is "simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users" constitute a discernible, let alone substantial market in illicit drugs. Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, pointed out that Monson and Raich "neither buy nor sell the marijuana" on which they rely. The cannabis in their cases never crosses a state line. Their conduct "is purely intrastate and noncommercial." Nothing in the Constitution provides a warrant for Congress "to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power." The defendant Monson cultivates precisely six plants for personal use. If this is the kind of "commerce" that now becomes subject to federal regulation, said Thomas, no meaningful limits remain upon federal power. "The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it." The case now goes back to the lower courts, but it is up to Congress to reverse the high court's opinion by reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule II substance that has "a currently acceptable medical use." Surely common sense dictates a sensible rewriting of a law that in its ruthless application makes no sense at all. Newshawk: Mayan Source: Ledger, The (FL) Published: Saturday, June 18, 2005 Copyright: 2005 The Ledger Contact: voice@theledger.com Website: http://www.theledger.com/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20879.shtml
By Neal Peirce Source: Sun Herald USA -- There are three big reasons to believe the Supreme Court made a big mistake in its June 6 ruling that the laws in California and 10 other states allowing medical use of marijuana are no protection against federal raids and prosecutions. First, morality: By what license, in a free and democratic society, do we deny clearly effective medication to fellow citizens, suffering chronic, horribly intense pain that's resistant to other treatments? Maybe that's why, in a national poll released June 13, 68 percent of Americans opposed (only 16 percent favored) arrest of medical marijuana users. The legal crux of the Supreme Court's decision was the reach of Congress' constitutional powers over interstate commerce. Did Justice Department agents - enforcing the Controlled Substances Act that was created during President Richard Nixon's "war on drugs" 35 years ago - overstep the federal government's powers when they seized and destroyed home-grown cannabis plants being used by two desperately ill Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson? Raich's and Monson's use of the drug is legal under California's Compassionate Use Act, enacted by statewide initiative in 1996, which allows marijuana use for patients who take it for medicinal purposes on recommendation of a physician. But because the tiny amounts of marijuana these women use could theoretically seep into the multibillion-dollar national marijuana market - and thus enter interstate commerce - Justice John Paul Stevens concluded for the court that allowing them to do so against the will of the federal government "would leave a gaping hole in the Controlled Substances Act." It's worth noting our brilliant federal policy-makers have insisted on keeping marijuana classified as a drug "with a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use." Yet the same federal law authorizes physician prescriptions of morphine, a drug carrying serious risks of abuse and addiction never attributed to marijuana. Second, federalism: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion hit the salient point: There needs to be some limits to federal power "to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government." The first paragraph of her dissent evoked Justice Louis Brandeis' powerful words in a 1932 decision: "A single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Given the lack of innovation in today's federal government, its seeming incapacity to think anew on critical issues ranging from energy to global warming, health policy to growing economic disparities, we ought to be celebrating Brandeis' admonition - not burying it. Third, emotionalism: This is a highly emotional issue, both on the medical-personal side and its relation to our contentious and utterly failed war on drugs. Making medical marijuana a big, headline-grabbing national dispute is just another diversion from the big issues Washington ought to be addressing, like taming multitrillion-dollar deficits. One can even make a parallel to Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Even before the decision, a number of states - Colorado (acting in 1967), followed by California, Oregon, North Carolina, New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington - had repealed or modified their stiff penalties on abortion. It's fair to ask: Without the jarring and unavoidably divisive Roe decision, would the country have been able to adjust through a variety of state laws, permissive or restrictive as their own cultures dictated? Is it possible the issue wouldn't have taken on its emotional significance, giving rise to the bitterly opposed national lobbying groups that we've seen? Medical marijuana is a touch similar. Left to the states, we wouldn't need another national clash of ideologies and array of competing interest groups. Some states would struggle with the issue, others not. California could be the lead theater - it loves the drama anyway - while others look on, then move when the issue turns ripe for them. Medical marijuana, notes my Citistates Group colleague Curtis Johnson, "just shouldn't be worthy of Supreme attention. States are different. Let everyone be free to live in a cultural environment of their choice. We don't need one monolithic model. This is not Iran." Neal Peirce writes on regional, urban, federal system and community development issues. Source: Sun Herald (MS) Author: Neal Peirce Published: Sunday, June 19, 2005 Copyright: 2005, The Sun Herald Contact: letters@sunherald.com Website: http://www.sunherald.com Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20880.shtml
By Brenda J. Buote, Globe Staff Source: Boston Globe Massachusetts -- Scott Mortimer of Newburyport deals daily with debilitating back pain, an agony so intense it sometimes causes him to break out in a cold sweat. Traditional medications have failed, so for the better part of a decade, the soft-spoken 37-year-old has relied on the black market to ease his suffering. Mortimer's drug of choice: marijuana. The point is not to get stoned, but to get relief. ''I use a vaporizer," said Mortimer, who suffers from degenerative disk disease. ''It allows me to inhale the active ingredients of the plant material without burning it, virtually eliminating all the tars and harmful byproducts of smoking." This daily ritual has placed Mortimer at the center of a debate over use of medical marijuana. The cannabis that eases his pain has inspired him to activism. Mortimer is a foot soldier in the battle to change drug policy in Massachusetts. He wants public awareness and education. He wants access to a reliable supplier, a manufacturer who can guarantee that the marijuana he uses is free of dangerous pesticides or chemical fertilizers. And he wants to be free of the stigma attached to illegal drug use and the fear of police action. On June 7, Mortimer testified before the Judiciary Committee on Beacon Hill and urged legislators to embrace Senate Bill 998, a proposal that seeks to legalize the medical use of marijuana. The measure, sponsored by Lynn Democrat Thomas M. McGee, would protect patients, their doctors, and caregivers from arrest and state prosecution if the doctor signs a written statement that the patient has a ''chronic or debilitating" medical condition and would benefit from the use of marijuana. A similar measure has been introduced in the House. ''People who are living with chronic pain, who are just trying to manage their pain enough to make it through each day, should not have to live in fear of arrest," said Mortimer, who was one of seven people to testify in favor of the bill at the public hearing, which was standing room only. Similar bills were offered in 2001 and 2003. They never made it to the floor for a vote. However, this year's legislative effort may not suffer the same fate. Voters have expressed overwhelming support for the measure. In November 2004, Steven Epstein, a Georgetown resident and cofounder of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, asked voters in other areas of the state whether they would favor legislation that legalized marijuana for medical use. Pittsfield voters approved the ballot question with 10,821 votes to 4,139. Voters in a district that includes Cambridge, Arlington, and Belmont passed the same nonbinding question, 14,676 votes to 4,588. ''People who suffer from debilitating illnesses for which there is no other cure for their pain, those people need to have options," said state Representative Barbara A. L'Italien, an Andover Democrat who represents parts of Boxford, Haverhill, and Georgetown, and who signed on to the House version of the bill. ''Studies have shown that marijuana use could help certain patients, including those who suffer from multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and some forms of cancer." If this year's version of the Senate bill is passed, patients and their caregivers would be able to possess up to 10 plants or 4 ounces of usable marijuana at any time. To date, 10 states, including Maine and Vermont, have passed laws allowing sick people to use marijuana for medical purposes. In those states, patients like Mortimer are shielded from state prosecution. However, federal authorities could take action. On June 6, the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the power to ban the possession and use of marijuana, even in states that have legalized its production and use for medical reasons. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is classified as a Schedule One drug, a category reserved for the most dangerous of illegal drugs, including heroin and LSD. Congress on Wednesday rejected a proposal that would have amended the appropriations bill that funds the Justice Department, so tax dollars could not be used to prosecute users of therapeutic marijuana in states that permit it. However, a second proposal that seeks to shield seriously ill people from federal prosecution for marijuana use is still under consideration. Cosponsored by US Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, the measure would reclassify medical marijuana so the drug could be used with a doctor's prescription. ''The high court's decision makes it even more apparent to us why we need a law in Massachusetts to protect our medical community and patients from state prosecution," said Whitney Taylor, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, a statewide nonprofit that seeks to change drug laws and reduce the harms caused by drug use. She noted that fewer than 1 percent of arrests for marijuana possession are made by federal authorities. ''I don't think there are many people in Massachusetts being carted off and taken to jail for medical marijuana, so although there is the fear of arrest, it's not the main reason I decided to testify in favor of the Senate bill," said Mortimer. ''As a patient who relies on marijuana to manage my pain, my primary concern is quality control. I want to be sure the cannabis I'm using was grown organically, and I'd like to be able to order the strains of marijuana that work particularly well as a muscle relaxer. My hope is that our state legislators can show some leadership and provide some measure of protection for people like myself to use marijuana." Complete Title: Newburyport Man Makes Case for Medical Use of Marijuana Source: Boston Globe (MA) Author: Brenda J. Buote, Globe Staff Published: June 19, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Globe Newspaper Company Contact: letter@globe.com Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20881.shtml
By Hendrik Hertzberg Source: New Yorker Magazine USA -- If hard cases make bad law, as a three-hundred-year-old courthouse saying has it, then the case of Gonzales et al. v. Raich et al. ought to have been easy and good. The case is-or appears to be-about marijuana and illness. On one side is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose et al. consists of the massed power of the United States government. A.G.A.G. et al. take the position that because Cannabis sativa is irredeemably wicked and has no legitimate uses, medical or otherwise, the possession of it, to say nothing of its cultivation, distribution, or sale, is quite properly forbidden by federal law. On the other side is Angel Raich, a thirty-nine-year-old mother of two from Oakland, California. Raich does not have cancer, aids, multiple sclerosis, or epilepsy-the big-ticket ailments whose symptoms can often be palliated by marijuana. But she does have more than her share of physical troubles, including an inoperable (though nonmalignant) brain tumor. Pharmaceutical remedies having proved unavailing, her physician suggested marijuana, which has worked well enough to afford her something like a normal life. Raich's et al. consists of a couple of anonymous gardeners who tended the plants whose buds she baked into cookies, and a second California woman, Diane Monson, who grows her own, with which, on her doctor's advice, she relieves her otherwise intractable back spasms. Monson did grow her own, at any rate, until agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency came to her house and chopped down her plants, all six of them, with machetes while she, Barbara Fritchie-like, read aloud the text of Proposition 215, the popular initiative by which California, nine years ago, approved the medical use of marijuana. You might say, therefore, that Raich's et al. also includes, in spirit, the millions of Californians who voted for Prop 215, plus the voters and legislators of the ten other states where medical-marijuana laws have been enacted, plus the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the California Medical Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the New York State Association of County Health Officials, and the Medical Society of the State of New York, plus peer-reviewed publications such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine-all of which have attested to marijuana's medical usefulness. Earlier this month, by a vote of six to three, the Supreme Court went with the A.G. and his et al., leaving Raich and hers in the lurch. But the ruling had nothing to do with marijuana's wickedness (which none of the four written opinions, two on each side, took seriously) and little to do with its efficacy in relieving suffering (which all four took for granted). To make sense of Gonzales v. Raich, a Supreme Court Decoder Ring, available with three box tops from Original Intent Cereal, would be a valuable accessory. The ruling, you see, was all about the Constitution's commerce clause, the one that authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.†The majority asserts demurely that its ruling is “a modest one.†The Justices do not say that the federal ban on marijuana is a good idea, or that it makes sense to punish the sick for using it, or that a sick person growing her own pot in her own back yard is engaged in Commerce among the several States. It does not even say that the aggregate production of back-yard medicinal-marijuana gardens would “substantially affect interstate commerce.†All it says is that “a ‘rational basis' exists for so concludingâ€-whether or not a more compelling “rational basis†exists for concluding the opposite. But this is enough to sic the feds and their machetes on Ms. Monson's pot patch. Gonzales v. Raich jumbled the Court's usual ideological battle lines. The four moderate-to-almost-liberal Justices-David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion-ended up, confusingly, on the “anti-marijuana†side. The two softish states'-rights conservatives were divided: Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the main “pro-marijuana†dissent, while Anthony Kennedy went the other way. The hard right split 2-1: the Chief, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas (pro); Antonin Scalia (anti). All very puzzling to civilians, but Decoder Ring-wearing Court observers speculate that the true agenda of the majority (especially its moderate members) was to slow the Court's “federalist†(that is, antifederalist) drift toward chipping away at the regulatory powers of the national government, while the minority's purpose was to accelerate that drift. Kennedy's well-known hostility to pot seems to have trumped his dislike of federal regulation. Scalia's concurring opinion (which, with characteristic modesty, he described as “more nuanced†than Stevens's) was devoted largely to explaining why his concurrence should not be taken to suggest that he likes big gummint. The least muddled opinion was Justice Thomas's separate dissent, certain passages of which (e.g., “In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuanaâ€) could have been written by Justice Cheech or Justice Chong. Thomas's private views on marijuana are unknown, but if he had his way, as expressed in this particular opinion, any federal interference with homegrown, home-smoked pot, whether for medical or recreational purposes, would be ruled out as an unconstitutional usurpation of the states' powers “to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.†But, then, almost any federal effort to protect those things would be similarly inadmissable. Hello to bong hits, but goodbye to workplace safety, environmental regulations, and Medicare. Thomas's view has the virtue of consistency. But consistency is not the same as wisdom. Stevens, in the final paragraph of his opinion, came close to begging Congress to do something about the heartlessness of using federal cops to harass sick people whose suffering marijuana eases. He noted that there are bureaucratic procedures that would allow marijuana to be reclassified as a drug with legitimate medical uses. “But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues,†he added, “is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.†Last Wednesday, as if on cue, the House of Representatives took up for the third straight year the bipartisan Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would deny the Department of Justice funds to surveil, arrest, or prosecute patients in states that have medical-marijuana laws. For the third straight year, it failed, though the margin of defeat this time was smaller than it was last year, and last year it was smaller than it had been the year before. Someday the cruelty of the “drug war†will give way to laws and policies based on reason and justice. But that day is painfully slow in coming, and no drug, legal or not, can take the pain away. Source: New Yorker Magazine (NY) Author: Hendrik Hertzberg Published: June 27, 2005 - Issue Copyright: 2005 The Conde Nast Publications Inc. Contact: themail@newyorker.com Website: http://www.newyorker.com/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20884.shtml
By Victoria Gilman for National Geographic News Source: National Geographic USA -- Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws trump policies in ten states that permit medicinal marijuana use. The decree reignites a smoldering debate among scientists, activists, and lawmakers about how to leverage marijuana's medical benefits while minimizing its potential for abuse. Known by the scientific name Cannabis sativa, marijuana is an annual herb closely related to the hops used in beer brewing. Cannabis has been "used since antiquity for both herbal medication and intoxication," according to a 1999 study commissioned by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a Washington, D.C.-based component of the National Academy of Sciences. "There is scientific evidence that [marijuana] helps with pain relief and nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, for example, in terminal cancer patients," said John A. Benson, Jr., a principal investigator of the IOM study and a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. In addition, some HIV/AIDS patients suffering from decreased appetites use marijuana to "get the munchies," another oft-noted effect of the drug. Roger Pertwee, a professor of neuropharmacology at the University of Aberdeen's Institute of Medical Sciences in Scotland, noted that "cannabis contains lots of different chemicals called cannabinoids." The most active chemical is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. THC binds to specific receptors in the human brain to create the euphoric high associated with smoking pot. "Human THC" In the early 1990s Pertwee's research group helped to uncover human-produced chemicals similar to THC that stimulate our appetites and help us control pain. "We produce our own cannabis, in effect," he said. "It often seems to have a protective role." According to Benson, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the debate should not be about whether marijuana works to relieve symptoms, but how to best deliver its chemical constituents. "Smoking is a terrible delivery system," he said. Aside from the potential risk of lung damage, the potency of smoked marijuana is difficult to measure, because THC levels vary widely from plant to plant. Currently, a synthetic version of THC is available to cancer and HIV/AIDS patients in the U.S. as an oral drug known by the brand name Marinol. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the drug (dronabinol) allows patients and doctors to control the amount of active compound that is delivered. Benson noted, however, that some patients prefer smoking pot to taking pills because the effects set in much faster. "When you inhale something into the lungs, it's very rapidly absorbed-you get an effect in five minutes," he said. "When you take a capsule, it may take an hour and a half." THC drugs would be more effective, Benson added, if they were delivered through a fast-acting oral spray similar to asthma inhalers. Synthetic THC According to the 1999 IOM report, the legal status of marijuana has greatly colored the scientific debate over the plant's use in medicine. The broad U.S. federal drug law known as the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance. The designation describes drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Other Schedule I drugs include heroin and LSD. In 1972 the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Legislation, a nonprofit advocacy group, unsuccessfully lobbied the U.S. government to relist marijuana as a Schedule II substance. That class includes drugs such as morphine and cocaine that are highly addictive but have well-established medical uses. Based on the IOM study, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) maintains that smoked marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug. Any medical effects from smoking marijuana cigarettes can be met more effectively with approved commercial drugs, the agency says. In fact, DEA has placed the THC drug Marinol in Schedule III-a less restrictive category-and supports research to find new delivery methods and therapeutic uses for cannabinoids. Pertwee, of the University of Aberdeen, believes the potential for patients to become addicted to manufactured cannabinoid drugs is relatively low. However, conflicting data exist as to whether long-term THC use leads to dependency. Benson also believes that medical marijuana, even when smoked by terminal patients, is unlikely to trigger addiction if use remains carefully monitored. "If you have a controlled distribution system for medical use, as with morphine, for example, I don't see the risk," he said. Court Ruling On June 6 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that federal drug law overrides policies in ten states that allow marijuana for medical use. The ruling upholds the federal government's right to destroy homegrown plants and to arrest anyone possessing the drug, even if they are using it following a doctor's advice. California passed the first medical marijuana law in 1996. Between 1999 and 2004, nine more states followed suit. Police in these states allow local doctors to recommend that special medical-marijuana-use licenses be issued to needy patients. The Supreme Court's decision doesn't overturn the states' liberalized stance. But Benson believes it will affect the drug's accessibility. "I think this ruling is going to inhibit physicians from recommending [marijuana]," he said, noting worries by some that the government could revoke doctors' licenses to prescribe other controlled substances. "But it will remain a drug purchased on the street, grown in cellars and backyards." Complete Title: The Marijuana Debate: Healing Herb or Dangerous Drug? Source: National Geographic (DC) Author: Victoria Gilman for National Geographic News Published: June 21, 2005 Copyright: 2005 National Geographic Society Contact: newsdesk@nationalgeographic.com Website: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20885.shtml
By Diane Fallon Source: Orange County Register \t\tUSA -- When I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma a few years ago, \t\tmy primary concern, other than wondering if I'd still be above ground in \t\ta year, was how sick I would get from the drugs. While this was \t\tsomething I would not know until the drugs actually flowed through my \t\tveins, I did know, without doubt, that I would smoke marijuana, if need \t\tbe, to combat the bad side effects. Personally, I didn't give a hoot \t\tabout anyone else's opinion, supreme or otherwise. \t\t \t\tThe recent ruling by the Supreme Court rejecting the right of patients \t\tto grow marijuana was truly astounding, although it should not have been \t\tconsidering how inconsistent this group has been in its decisions. I \t\tsuspect, however, that most people, sick or not sick, feel exactly as I \t\tdo - who cares? Who is anyone, whether it is a judge, senator, priest or \t\tdoctor, to tell us what we can put in our bodies to help deal with \t\tsickness? And what kind of person thinks they have the moral authority \t\tto do so? \t\t \t\tRecently we were all put through the spectacle of the Terri Schiavo \t\tcase. Pundits lined up on both sides of the issue, but the right, who \t\tare, for the most part, the people who wage the war against the medical \t\tuse of marijuana, kept insisting how inhumane it was for this woman to \t\tbe starved to death, that she was being tortured and must be suffering \t\tterribly. Because Terri could not speak for herself, the assumption that \t\tshe must be suffering was pure speculation, even though doctors insisted \t\tthat starvation is a painless death. Even months after her death the ad \t\tnauseam campaign continues. \t\t \t\tLet's move on to the more common scenario of thousands of Americans \t\twrithing in pain on a daily basis. These are living, breathing people \t\twho can clearly articulate what they need to ease their suffering. They \t\tdon't ask anything of anyone, other than to leave them alone. How simple \t\ta request is that? Leave them alone. Surely lawmakers and enforcers have \t\tbetter things to do than kick down the doors of sick people. No one \t\tkicked down the door as Terri Schiavo was being starved to death in \t\tfront of the entire world. In fact, the enforcers prevented people, \t\tincluding her own family, from breaking down the doors to save her. \t\t \t\tThis recent decision speaks volumes about the law as well. Most of us \t\tknow, or should know, that the majority of laws have nothing to do with \t\twhat's right or wrong but rather what's politically expedient. A law is \t\tonly as good as the person who makes it, and if the person who makes it \t\tis a jackass, then, ergo, the law is a jackass as well. \t\t \t\tMany laws are ridiculous, but the ones regarding how one chooses to use \t\ttheir own body are self-serving. A government that gives its seal of \t\tapproval to euthanasia but outlaws the medicinal use of a drug that is \t\tgrown by Mother Nature (aka God) has no moral authority. \t\t \t\tThe laws regarding marijuana were made by scared little men and women, \t\twhose concern was that someone, somewhere, at sometime was actually \t\tenjoying themselves. Horror of all horrors! But that is another column \t\tfor another day. Unfortunately, these same people continue to rule the \t\tday while their fellow Americans thumb their noses in disgust. \t\t \t\tJust as Dorothy found out that the Great Oz was just a scared man afraid \t\tof even a little dog, so too do we as a nation of individuals need to \t\tview our courts and government. They are mere mortals who are also \t\tafraid of the bogeyman, and in this case the bogeyman has a name - \t\tmarijuana. Let's pull back the curtain and expose their fear and fraud. \t\tJust as Dorothy did, people need to realize that that real power lies \t\twithin, and nothing scares the bejesus out of the Great Oz more than \t\tthat. \t\t \t\tLiving with a potentially life-threatening illness is really not so bad. \t\tI'm in complete charge of my health and I know that there are people who \t\tare a lot sicker than me. Take those six on the Supreme Court, for \t\texample. Please. \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\tDown But Far From Out \t\t \t\tEditorial Opinion \t\t \t\tMedical marijuana is back on the political agenda, in some ways, \t\tfollowing the splash of a Supreme Court decision earlier this month. \t\t \t\tThe House of Representatives last Wednesday voted on the \t\tHinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would have provided that no \t\tDepartment of Justice funds be used to go after patients in states with \t\tmedical marijuana laws. Although the measure failed, the number voting \t\tfor it increased to 161 from 148 last year. \t\t \t\tOnly 15 Republicans - the party that used to say it was for states' \t\trights and local control - supported the amendment to the Justice \t\tDepartment budget appropriation. Of those in and around Orange County, \t\tRep. Dana Rohrabacher, of course, voted for it, as did Fullerton's Ed \t\tRoyce and Santa Ana's Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez. Republicans Gary \t\tMiller, Darrell Issa and David Dreier opposed it. Chris Cox did not \t\tvote. \t\t \t\tAfter the vote, Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance said, "This vote \t\tsends a clear message to the DEA: further attempts to undermine state \t\tmedical marijuana laws will bring further political consequences." \t\tFrankly, picking up 13 votes and still losing doesn't look like a tidal \t\twave in favor of reform, but it is at least a ripple. \t\t \t\tThe Supreme Court decided earlier this month that the federal government \t\tcan prosecute patients who use marijuana medicinally, even in states \t\twith medical marijuana laws. At the time, the Associated Press \t\tspeculated that "it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states." So \t\tfar the record is mixed. \t\t \t\tAn effort in New York state to legitimize medicinal use of marijuana \t\tdoes seem to have stalled, prompting Angel Raich and TV host Montel \t\tWilliams (both patients) to hold a press conference urging action. \t\t \t\tIn Rhode Island, however, the state Senate voted 32-2 to approve a \t\tmedical marijuana bill the day after the court ruling. In Connecticut, a \t\tSenate bill now goes to the House, which is likely to concur. Prospects \t\tfor passage of medical marijuana bills look fairly good in New Mexico \t\tand New Jersey. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, medical marijuana bills \t\tfaced long odds before the decision and still do. \t\t \t\tHere in California, although local officials are bound by state law, not \t\tfederal law, uneasiness with medical marijuana is evident. In San \t\tFrancisco, where officials counted at least 43 marijuana dispensaries, \t\tthe supervisors imposed a six- month moratorium on new dispensaries. \t\tSome 47 cities, including Huntington Beach, have imposed bans on new \t\tdispensaries, while only 17 cities have passed ordinances regulating \t\tthem. \t\t \t\tThe Supreme Court threw medical marijuana back into the political arena. \t\tWhile many politicians, in line with the 70 percent of Americans who say \t\tthey support medicinal use of marijuana when polled by reputable \t\torganizations, are tilting toward compassion, they're still a minority. \t\tBut the issue is alive and may be picking up steam. Source: Orange County Register, The (CA) Author: Diane Fallon Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 Copyright: 2005 The Orange County Register Contact: letters@ocregister.com Website: http://www.ocregister.com/ Link to article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/contempt.htm
By Isaac Ardoin Source: Oklahoma Daily Oklahoma -- A little more than two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled federal drug laws supersede state laws that legalize medicinal marijuana. The 6-3 ruling is not only an example of the federal government interfering with the states' autonomy, but it goes against much of the scientific evidence the federal government itself has collected. As of today, 11 states have legalized medicinal marijuana, and 10 states have an established system in place to provide it to patients. Since the 1970s, when scientists began studying the health effects of marijuana, a wide variety of medicinal uses have been discovered. Marijuana can be used to help patients suffering from AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and chronic pain. Marijuana can also help patients by providing relief from nausea and appetite loss, reducing pressure within the eye, reducing muscle spasms and general chronic pain. Despite all of these benefits (many of which were discovered in government institutions), “grass†is still illegal under federal law because of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. This was passed before the medicinal benefits were discovered, but it remains basically unchanged. The CSA created a list of drugs and other regulated substances, and then separated the list into five “Schedules.†Schedule 1 drugs are considered the most dangerous and have no medical use. There are three main Schedule 1 drugs: LSD, heroin and marijuana. The categories continue down from there, with Schedule 5 containing the least dangerous drugs like cough medicine with codeine, or diarrhea medications with small amounts of opium. That seems fine at first, but look at the Schedule 2 drugs: cocaine, opium, morphine, PCP, methamphetamine and amphetamine. Is it reasonable to believe that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine or PCP, or more addictive than morphine? According to our government it is. So now, how can we get “weed†to be assigned into an appropriate category? The most plausible way would be to pass a bill in Congress, but few politicians will support the idea for fear of appearing “soft on drugs.†People have tried to get the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule marijuana many times, but every attempt has been shot down. The DEA doesn't want marijuana to be rescheduled because it spends a lot of time and taxpayers' money “fighting†the war on pot. If marijuana were legalized, even for medicinal use only, the DEA's funding could be cut drastically, and it wouldn't want that. Other groups that have opposed legalizing marijuana are the alcohol and liquor producers. The reasoning for this is pretty obvious: if “weed†became legal, alcohol sales would drop, which would be bad for the stockholders. But the fact remains that most people have a hard time accepting the use of marijuana as a medicine. It seems unlikely that the substance hippies used to get “high†could help cancer or AIDS patients. One way to help people accept the idea is to read about the patients who use medicinal marijuana. Have you heard about Angel Raich, the California woman suffering from an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and chronic pain? She claims marijuana is the only thing keeping her alive. Television host Montel Williams uses marijuana to ease the pain from multiple sclerosis. If you want to find out more about marijuana, I would suggest reading “Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts,†by Lynn Zimmer, Ph. D., and John Morgan, M.D. I read this book in a class last fall and it changed my perspective. You can also watch “Grass: A History of Marijuana,†an entertaining and informative documentary. The most important thing to keep in mind when researching marijuana is the author of the material. If the author has something to gain or lose if marijuana were to be legalized, be wary. Make sure they are backing their information with facts, and then check those facts for accuracy. Meanwhile, I hope our government can recognize the benefits of marijuana. I hope we don't let these patients die slow, painful deaths because of the bad reputation of “grass.†And I hope that in the future, our laws will be based on scientific evidence instead of keeping up appearances. Isaac Ardoin is a professional writing sophomore. His column appears every other week. Complete Title: Supreme Court Ruling Overlooks Facts About Marijuana Source: Oklahoma Daily, The (U of Oklahoma, OK Edu) Author: Isaac Ardoin Published: June 22, 2005 Copyright: 2005 The Oklahoma Daily Contact: opinion@ou.edu Website: http://www.oudaily.com/ Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20888.shtml