Hash
New Member
Angel Raich, 39, of Oakland, Calif., is suffering from a brain tumor. In accordance with California's Compassionate Use Act, which voters approved in 1996, her doctor prescribed medical marijuana to relieve her intense pain.
It was "the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that works," said Dr. Frank Lucido, her physician.
Diana Monson, 47, of Oroville, Calif., also uses marijuana after her doctor recommended it to ease excruciating back spasms.
Monson smokes it; Raich puts it in a vaporizer and inhales the fumes.
A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments by attorneys representing the women. The court's ruling, which will not be handed down for months, will affect similar patients in the 10 states that permit doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.
The Bush administration (like the Clinton administration before it) supports the federal law banning marijuana nationwide. The Bush administration insists it has no medical value and if doctors are allowed to prescribe it, that sets a bad example in the war on drugs.
Federal agents seized the California patients' marijuana, but the women challenged the legality of the seizure.
Last December the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco, known for its broad-minded rulings, called the federal seizure illegal because it violated California's Compassionate Use Act.
The appeals court said federalism and specifically states' rights were being trampled. The court said Congress did not have the constitutional power to run roughshod over medical marijuana laws enacted by California and the nine other states.
The Bush administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the justices did not appear impressed recently by the states-rights' argument. Several justices cited legal precedents allowing federal law to override state law.
California's marijuana law had been challenged on different grounds in 2001. Then, the Supreme Court ruled that clubs distributing medical marijuana in California violated federal law.
The ruling enabled the feds to raid marijuana suppliers and threaten to yank the license of doctors who prescribed the drug for sick patients.
The pity, of course, is that medical marijuana has become hopelessly entangled with politics.
Both former President Clinton ("I did not inhale") and President Bush (who refuses to say whether he ever smoked pot in college or later) are afraid they'll be perceived as soft on drugs if they endorse its medical use.
That same narrow-mindedness prevails in Congress. How would voters react if, say, the lawmaker is portrayed as one who endorsed "pot," even for medical use.
The American Medical Association also has been obdurate. It refuses to nod approval to medical marijuana even though a 1990 Harvard study found that two-thirds of oncologists surveyed said marijuana was useful in reducing nausea caused by chemotherapy.
And the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 endorsed a doctor's right to prescribe medical marijuana. "If marijuana relieves the suffering even for one person, then why not use it?" the journal editorialized.
A resounding majority of Americans agree, according to polls. Respondents thought doctors should have the right to prescribe marijuana if it relieves suffering.
The Canadian government, which is often more enlightened than ours, legalized medical marijuana three years ago. Unlike the United States, Canada did not wait for 100 percent scientific proof about its effectiveness. It relied instead on some medical studies and anecdotal surveys.
The law permits Canadian doctors to prescribe marijuana for patients who are terminally ill or suffering from excruciating pain.
Many Americans do not know that Washington is two-faced about medical marijuana. In the 1970s, it launched a pilot program allowing some Americans to use taxpayer-funded marijuana for "compassionate use."
The program is still operative, though Washington has timidly cut back on it. Fewer than 10 patients in America are permitted to use medical marijuana to relieve pain.
The tobacco is grown at a research institute in Mississippi, shipped to Raleigh to be rolled into cigarettes and mailed to medical centers in America where the patients pick up their supply. If it's permissible for them, then why not the rest of us?
Based on the justices' reaction to verbal arguments, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will approve the California law letting doctors prescribe marijuana for compassionate use. Congress, however, could do so.
That prospect is so remote as to be nonexistent. Politics will prevail.
Yet who among us would not want our doctor to prescribe marijuana if the drug relieved indescribable pain?
Rosemary Roberts is a News & Record columnist. Her columns run on Fridays.
Greensboro News Record
https://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=110388
It was "the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that works," said Dr. Frank Lucido, her physician.
Diana Monson, 47, of Oroville, Calif., also uses marijuana after her doctor recommended it to ease excruciating back spasms.
Monson smokes it; Raich puts it in a vaporizer and inhales the fumes.
A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments by attorneys representing the women. The court's ruling, which will not be handed down for months, will affect similar patients in the 10 states that permit doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.
The Bush administration (like the Clinton administration before it) supports the federal law banning marijuana nationwide. The Bush administration insists it has no medical value and if doctors are allowed to prescribe it, that sets a bad example in the war on drugs.
Federal agents seized the California patients' marijuana, but the women challenged the legality of the seizure.
Last December the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco, known for its broad-minded rulings, called the federal seizure illegal because it violated California's Compassionate Use Act.
The appeals court said federalism and specifically states' rights were being trampled. The court said Congress did not have the constitutional power to run roughshod over medical marijuana laws enacted by California and the nine other states.
The Bush administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the justices did not appear impressed recently by the states-rights' argument. Several justices cited legal precedents allowing federal law to override state law.
California's marijuana law had been challenged on different grounds in 2001. Then, the Supreme Court ruled that clubs distributing medical marijuana in California violated federal law.
The ruling enabled the feds to raid marijuana suppliers and threaten to yank the license of doctors who prescribed the drug for sick patients.
The pity, of course, is that medical marijuana has become hopelessly entangled with politics.
Both former President Clinton ("I did not inhale") and President Bush (who refuses to say whether he ever smoked pot in college or later) are afraid they'll be perceived as soft on drugs if they endorse its medical use.
That same narrow-mindedness prevails in Congress. How would voters react if, say, the lawmaker is portrayed as one who endorsed "pot," even for medical use.
The American Medical Association also has been obdurate. It refuses to nod approval to medical marijuana even though a 1990 Harvard study found that two-thirds of oncologists surveyed said marijuana was useful in reducing nausea caused by chemotherapy.
And the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 endorsed a doctor's right to prescribe medical marijuana. "If marijuana relieves the suffering even for one person, then why not use it?" the journal editorialized.
A resounding majority of Americans agree, according to polls. Respondents thought doctors should have the right to prescribe marijuana if it relieves suffering.
The Canadian government, which is often more enlightened than ours, legalized medical marijuana three years ago. Unlike the United States, Canada did not wait for 100 percent scientific proof about its effectiveness. It relied instead on some medical studies and anecdotal surveys.
The law permits Canadian doctors to prescribe marijuana for patients who are terminally ill or suffering from excruciating pain.
Many Americans do not know that Washington is two-faced about medical marijuana. In the 1970s, it launched a pilot program allowing some Americans to use taxpayer-funded marijuana for "compassionate use."
The program is still operative, though Washington has timidly cut back on it. Fewer than 10 patients in America are permitted to use medical marijuana to relieve pain.
The tobacco is grown at a research institute in Mississippi, shipped to Raleigh to be rolled into cigarettes and mailed to medical centers in America where the patients pick up their supply. If it's permissible for them, then why not the rest of us?
Based on the justices' reaction to verbal arguments, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will approve the California law letting doctors prescribe marijuana for compassionate use. Congress, however, could do so.
That prospect is so remote as to be nonexistent. Politics will prevail.
Yet who among us would not want our doctor to prescribe marijuana if the drug relieved indescribable pain?
Rosemary Roberts is a News & Record columnist. Her columns run on Fridays.
Greensboro News Record
https://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=110388
