cannabisnews.com: Court Protects Doctors' Pot Discussions 





Court Protects Doctors' Pot Discussions 
Posted by CN Staff on October 29, 2002 at 15:49:47 PT
Reported by Hil Anderson in Los Angeles
Source: United Press International
An appeals court ruled Tuesday that doctors are allowed to speak freely with their patients about the use of medical marijuana in states where medicinal weed is legal without having to face the eagle eye of federal narcotics agents.In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco concluded that investigating doctors and revoking their prescription licenses constituted a violation of physicians' freedom of speech when confidentially discussing, or even recommending, the use of marijuana with their patients.
"Being a member of a regulated profession does not, as the government suggests, result in a surrender of First Amendment rights," said the decision written by Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder. "To the contrary, professional speech may be entitled to the strongest protection our Constitution has to offer."The ruling also found that the federal government had overstepped its bounds and encroached on a regulatory power that had been delegated to the states with regards to the conduct of physicians."Our decision is consistent with principles of federalism that have left states as the primary regulators of professional conduct," the court said. "We must show respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union. That respect imposes a duty on federal courts, whenever possible, to avoid or minimize conflict between federal and state law, particularly in situations in which the citizens of a state have chosen to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel, social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."The ruling upheld a lower-court decision in 2000 that arose after voters in Arizona and California passed measures in 1996 allowing ailing patients to use marijuana for medical purposes if recommended by their treating physician.Six other states in the United States have medical marijuana laws including Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Maine; only Maine is outside the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.A group of California doctors and marijuana activists went to court on the grounds the federal government was intimidating physicians by threatening to investigate them and possibly revoke their Drug Enforcement Administration licenses to write prescriptions for controlled substances. They obtained an injunction from U.S. District Judge Fern Smith in 1997 barring the government from revoking the licenses of doctors unless there was clear evidence they were "prescribing" marijuana or helping their patients obtain a continuing supply of the so-called medicinal marijuana.The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law because it is an illegal substance that allegedly has no proven medical value, and prescribing it to patients is contrary to the public interest.The appellate court agreed with the plaintiff's contention of a doctor discussing, or even recommending, marijuana was a matter of free speech rather than a "prescription" for marijuana. They also agreed that doctors should not be held legally responsible for patients who decide to purchase for themselves a bag of pot from a street drug dealer."A doctor's anticipation of patient conduct, however, does not translate into aiding and abetting, or conspiracy," the court said. "A doctor would aid and abet by acting with the specific intent to provide a patient with the means to acquire marijuana.""We interpret this portion of the permanent injunction to mean only that the government may not initiate an investigation of a physician solely on the basis of a recommendation of marijuana within a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, unless the government in good faith believes that it has substantial evidence of criminal conduct," the opinion said. "Because a doctor's recommendation does not itself constitute illegal conduct, the portion of the injunction barring investigations solely on that basis does not interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce its laws."From the National DeskSource: United Press InternationalAuthor: Hil Anderson in Los AngelesPublished: October 29, 2002Copyright 2002 United Press InternationalWebsite: http://www.upi.com/ Contact: http://www.upi.com/about/contact.cfmRelated Articles & Web Site:Conant vs. Walters in PDF http://freedomtoexhale.com/conant.pdfCourt Protects Doctors Who Recommend Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14591.shtmlCourt Aids Docs Who Talk Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14590.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 30, 2002 at 12:10:10 PT
Dr. Russo
I really resent Doctor's being censored. A Doctor is suppose to be able to help a patient. If Doctors are censored we won't be able to believe that they will tell us what we might need to know. We might not get help and that is wrong. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 30, 2002 at 05:58:41 PT:
We're Ready
Should the Supremes reverse this decision, doctors, who tend to be very conservative, will nevertheless deeply resent such a gross infringement on their turf. Many will rebel, and ignore the ruling by actually talking to their patients. They cannot jail us all. Juries will be reticent to convict, and jury nullification will occur. It will be chaos, I tell you, chaos.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by WolfgangWylde on October 30, 2002 at 04:33:06 PT
Wish I could be as optimisitc...
..., but Marijuana Prohibition hinges on stamping out medical marijuana, and the entire Drug War hinges on Marijuana Prohibition. The Supreme Court will take it, and shut the doctors up (I hope I'm wrong).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Michael Segesta on October 30, 2002 at 04:26:53 PT:
Likely the final word....
...because the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari (i.e., agrees to hear the case) in so few cases -- something like less than 1% of those appeals filed. However, I confess to being one of the lawyers who thought the Ninth Circuit's decision in favor of OCBC & Jeff Jones would be the final word and was shocked when the Supreme's not only granted cert, but did so quickly...No question, though, that this is a MAJOR victory to savor. Only hope we have another one or two so savor in Anaheim next week:)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by CongressmanSuet on October 29, 2002 at 21:49:22 PT:
As usual Mayan....
 Some great links. I know there are a few[very few] who dont enjoy your efforts to inform us about issues not necessarilly relevant to Cannabis, but in so many ways it IS connected. Keep up the good work, and thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 20:00:24 PT
CorvallisEric 
Tomorrow the Arizona Daily Star will have a larger article. Here is what they have now.Court rules doctors cannot be punished for recommending marijuanaBy Howard FischerThe federal government cannot go after doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients, a federal appellate court ruled Tuesday.In a unanimous decision the three judge panel upheld an injunction barring federal agencies from revoking the prescription-writing privileges of doctors who discuss marijuana use with their patients. Mary Schroeder, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the injunction is necessary to block federal officials from interfering with the First Amendment rights of doctors to discuss all options with their patients.Tuesday's ruling is very significant for Arizona where voters here will decide next week whether to approve Proposition 203. One provision would permit doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients.The decision appears to remove any legal impediment from that part of the law taking effect if approved. The question of whether the patients will be able to get free pot from the Department of Public Safety - the other key provision - remains open.Read the rest of this story in Wednesday's Arizona Daily Star. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by CorvallisEric on October 29, 2002 at 19:39:35 PT
Re: Colorado
The AP article also omitted Colorado. Half of all articles listing the states omit one or another state. This month must be Colorado's turn. Of the original 9 states since 1996, Arizona is considered to have an ineffective medical MJ law because it requires prescription rather than recommendation. Marijuana is clearly not a prescribeable drug. That will be solved if 203 passes.Eric's flamebait comment: most journalists are extraverts and most extraverts are careless jerks (regardless of politics or opinion about MJ).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on October 29, 2002 at 18:36:51 PT
Public Interest?
"The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law because it is an illegal substance that allegedly has no proven medical value, and prescribing it to patients is contrary to the public interest."Contrary to the public interest? BWAHAHAHAAA!!!! It seems as though 80% of the public support medical marijuana. Contrary to the pharmaceutical's interest, maybe.unrelated -Was CIA Running Terrorist Flight School?
http://www.madcowprod.com/index7.htmlDeath in Venice(Florida)-Flight School Owner Has Shady Ties:
http://www.madcowprod.com/index.x.htmlWheels Come Off U.S. War Plans for Iraq:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102802_wheels.htmlUS-British strategy on Iraq close to collapse: 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-460985,00.htmlJournalist Cronkite warns against potential war:
http://www.theeagle.com/aandmnews/102802cronkite.htmThe death of US Senator Paul Wellstone: accident or murder?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29_prn.shtmlWas Paul Wellstone Murdered?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14399
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by The GCW on October 29, 2002 at 16:21:30 PT
Colorado
was missed.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment