cannabisnews.com: A Doctor's Look at Medical-Marijuana Law





A Doctor's Look at Medical-Marijuana Law
Posted by FoM on January 30, 2002 at 09:47:21 PT
Dr. Steven A. Jenison, Guest Columnist 
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican 
The Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (Senate Bill 8) being considered by the state Legislature would provide relief from suffering for certain people with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and spinal-cord injury by allowing them to use marijuana as a medicine. Physical suffering is a horrible thing to experience. It is also unpleasant to watch someone you love suffer for months or years with intractable nausea, unremitting pain or uncontrollable violent muscle spasms that result from debilitating or terminal illnesses.
Fortunately, prescription medicines often control these symptoms and the quality of these medications continues to improve. Unfortunately, there are always people who fail to respond to available prescription medications or who experience intolerable side effects.In some highly specific situations, people have found that smoking small amounts of marijuana can bring relief when prescription medications have not. Available scientific data support the possibility that they might be correct.Many people who receive potent cancer chemotherapy have said that they can get through it more easily if they smoke a little marijuana, maybe in addition to the prescription anti-nausea drugs that their physicians prescribe.I have heard the wife of a man with spinal-cord injury say that one puff of a marijuana cigarette controls her husband's violent leg spasms to where he can sleep through the night.I've taken care of AIDS patients, wasted away to skin and bone, who were able to gain weight because marijuana controlled their nausea and made them hungry again.I believe these people when they say that their suffering has been relieved by smoking a little marijuana, and I firmly believe that they should be protected from the possibility of arrest and prosecution on drug charges.Senate Bill 8, introduced by Sen. Roman Maes of Santa Fe, would establish a medical cannabis program administered by the Department of Health and overseen by an advisory board of physicians nominated by the New Mexico Medical Society.People with specific medical conditions - cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, MS and spinal-cord injury - would be eligible to apply.A physician would be required to attest in writing that the patient has the specific serious medical condition, that appropriate prescription medications have been tried and have failed to provide relief, and that the potential risks and benefits of medical cannabis have been thoroughly discussed. A Department of Health physician would approve or deny the applications, and the physician advisory board would review enrollment quarterly.New Mexico physicians would not prescribe marijuana to patients because federal law prohibits that. A New Mexico medical cannabis program would simply protect people with serious medical conditions from arrest and prosecution on drug charges for the possession of small amounts of marijuana for their medical use - and it would do nothing more than that.What's the message we send to our children if we pass Senate Bill 8? I think it's that we care enough about our fellow citizens who are sick, dying and suffering to make the clear distinction between marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as a drug.Dr. Steven A. Jenison is physician administrator of the Infectious Diseases Bureau, Public Health Division, New Mexico Department of Health. Source: Santa Fe New Mexican (NM)Author: Dr. Steven A. Jenison, Guest ColumnistPublished: January 28, 2002 Copyright: 2002 The Santa Fe New MexicanContact: letters sfnewmexican.comWebsite: http://www.sfnewmexican.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmMedical Marijuana Bill Draws Objections http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11833.shtmlLegislators Rethink Supporting Drug Bills http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11826.shtmlSenate Cans Part of Pot Billhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11825.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by mayan on January 30, 2002 at 17:17:27 PT
Thanks Robbie!
Thanks for the link Robbie, I sent it to all my friends with a little message explaining that it is the drug laws that support terrorism. For those of you who will watch the Super Bowl, These 2 ONDCP ads(1.6 million dollars each) will be a great opportunity to enlighten others about the governments bogus drugs/terror link.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 30, 2002 at 16:51:15 PT:
GCW
The questions you have are moot until or unless the legislation is passed. In one respect, what does it matter what the state law says if the Feds choose to ignore it?Many state laws specify some good faith attempt to use other "conventional" treatments first. My real feeling is that it is an informed consent issue between patient and doctor. The government can only foul that relationship.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on January 30, 2002 at 16:01:16 PT
GCW
Is it called an Orphan Drug Law? That's what I thought when I read your question. Cannabis is an orphan drug or should be one if I remember the meaning correctly but I could be wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by CorvallisEric on January 30, 2002 at 15:43:42 PT
re: Waste of Time
I agree with Sam Adams and make the same prediction. If the law is passed, there are just too many stumbling blocks against the state providing cannabis. Not just the feds; also liability issues. Same with Nevada. Maybe same with Canada, although they might come up with an acceptable alternative before abandoning Flin Flon. The only way distribution will work is to allow private parties to do it one way or another. Better yet, government hands off. For those who cringe at "legalization." Also, for those who cringe at socialized medicine.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by The GCW on January 30, 2002 at 15:31:33 PT
Dr. Russo, and anyone else...
Something that catches my attention is that it seems to require that the conventional drugs must be tried first. Wouldn't it be right to allow people to decide what they want to try first? If someone wants to try cannabis right from the start with the 1st chemo session, let them go for it. Dr. am I understanding this correct? Who decides when you have exhausted all the options, to allow you to then try cannabis and for a cancer patient, doesn't this create a serious loss of time? What are your thoughts?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on January 30, 2002 at 11:05:39 PT:
term limits worked for Alcohol Prohibition
from:http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/alcohol/constitution_amendmentxviii.html
Amendment XVIII
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. 
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. 
From:http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/alcohol/alcohol.htm
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this" 
-Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921 
See also: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-208.html
Arrest Prohibition - Drug War is TREASON!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on January 30, 2002 at 10:50:28 PT
Waste of Time
It's sad that good-willed doctors get sucker-punched by the political hooligans - lured into believing that this bill is anything more than an empty gesture of pacification. Because mark my words, this bill and state program will NEVER get any cannabis into the hands of patients. There are approximately 35 states with similar laws, all unable to go forward because of the federal govt.Don't think the coward legislators don't know this. It's just like term limits - they now it's popular with the public, so they all promise to support term limits. But then, somehow, term limits always gets stalled in committee, or subject to some procedural technicality that stops its progress.This doctor missed the biggest travesty - the fact that the sick people he mentioned are suffering, going without cannabis, when scads of high-school and college kids get high all day long. The prohibition distribution model makes it most difficult for adults to get the herb.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 30, 2002 at 10:39:29 PT:
Applause
My hat is off to this gent, and to the few doctors that will listen to their patients, keep an open mind, and even investigate medical claims for cannabis.To the others: Use what you learned of the scientific method. Remember your oath. Show some curiosity and intellectual honesty on the cannabis issue. I now have a book chapter I would be glad to forward as a PDF file to those interested. It is called, "The Role of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Pain Management," from Weiner, R.S., Pain Management: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, 6th ed., CRC Press, 2002. Request via erusso mtneuro.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Robbie on January 30, 2002 at 10:04:03 PT
ONDCP to buy air time on the Super Bowl
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=33931Looks like they're kicking off a brand new campaign. JUST what we needed.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment