cannabisnews.com: Marijuana as a Prescription Drug is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ 





Marijuana as a Prescription Drug is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ 
Posted by CN Staff on August 10, 2003 at 08:34:02 PT
Editorial Opinion
Source: Portsmouth Herald 
That fact that President Bush’s administration has focused on raiding clinics and arresting terminally ill patients in an ill-conceived and patently cruel attempt to end the use of medically prescribed marijuana has enraged so many people that they want to make it an issue in the upcoming presidential election. We believe it is appropriate for voters to know how those who are seeking the highest elected office in the land feel about these efforts and about the use of marijuana - a controlled drug - to relieve the pain and nausea often associated with current cancer treatments, ease the discomfort of those dying from various diseases and treat several other ailments. 
It could well be a measure of a candidate’s compassion and his or her willingness to rethink existing laws based on the latest medical information. Several states, the most prominent being California, have allowed physicians to prescribe marijuana when alternative drugs either could have devastating side effects or are deemed less effective in treating the ailment. However, the federal government’s ongoing, financially indefensible and failing war on drugs continues to group marijuana in the same league as heroin or crack cocaine. Bush and his attorney general, John Ashcroft, continue to prosecute both those who use the substance as well as those who prescribe it, in spite of numerous studies that show marijuana to be of medical benefit, thousands of patients who advocate its use and practically no indication that the common weed is dangerous when administered in a medical context. Here in New Hampshire, several state legislators, including Portsmouth’s own Jim Splaine, have signed their names to letters that are being mailed to residents urging them to question potential Democratic presidential nominees on this issue. Because of the state’s first-in-the-nation primary - and the national press coverage this brings - putting medical marijuana on the discussion agenda here makes it a national issue. That is just what supporters want, and they seem to be getting it. CNN’s Larry King recently brought up the issue with U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts - an indication that the polls are right and the majority of Americans feel that relaxing the penalties for marijuana possession when it’s prescribed by a physician is simply the right thing to do. Is this the most important issue the candidates will be questioned on? Certainly not. There are more pressing problems facing this country than whether to allow the use of pot for medical purposes. There is the Social Security issue, the Medicare issue, the war issue and, of course, the economy. But the answers we are getting from the current crop of contenders are nebulous at best and meaningless at worst when we consider that they’ll have to convince a largely Republican Congress to agree with them. In contrast, support for medical marijuana is a yes-or-no situation; a candidate is either supportive of it or not - and willing to take the political heat for supporting it or not. And that could tell us more about a given candidate than all the questions about rebuilding Iraq or saving Social Security normally asked by the media and political pundits. Complete Title: Marijuana as a Prescription Drug is ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Question Related Article:A Medical Marijuana Campaign Report Card Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana has put together a voters’ guide indicating how potential 2004 presidential candidates responded to calls to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. Here are the results: President George W. Bush - Rating: F In short: Asked about medical marijuana as he campaigned for president in 1999, George W. Bush said he believes "each state can choose that decision as they so choose." Yet the Bush administration has arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned medical marijuana patients and providers at an alarming rate. Administration officials have aggressively campaigned against local and state proposals to protect medical marijuana patients. Carol Moseley Braun - Rating: ? In short: Carol Moseley Braun, who served as a U.S. senator from Illinois from 1992 to 1998, is something of a puzzle. In a 1994 letter to a constituent, she suggested that marijuana should be "decriminalized." But she never acted on the idea, and she carefully avoided taking a clear position when medical marijuana controversies arose later in her term. Howard Dean - Rating: F+ In short: Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is a physician, is the only candidate who has actually killed a medical marijuana bill. Because of Dean’s actions, Vermonters with AIDS, cancer and other terrible illnesses still face arrest and jail under state law for using medical marijuana. Dean recently retreated from his earlier pledge to direct the FDA to study medical marijuana. His reversal and his actions have shown that medical marijuana patients can never trust him. The only reason we give Dean an F+ and not a straight F is because the latter grade should be reserved for Bush, who is as cruel and heartless as anyone could possibly be on the medical marijuana issue. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. - Rating: D- In short: Edwards has publicly stated that he would not change marijuana laws, and he favors the Justice Department’s arresting patients and caregivers who defy federal law. While "F" grades are reserved only for candidates whose actions cause the arrest of patients, Edwards earned a "D-" because he would jail patients if elected president. Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. - Rating: C- In short: While Gephardt voted for a 1998 resolution condemning state efforts to legalize medical marijuana, he recently stated that he is for the right of states to protect seriously ill medical marijuana patients. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla. - Rating: C- In short: Graham would not sign federal legislation legalizing medical marijuana, though he would defer to states that protect patients with medical marijuana laws. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. - Rating: C In short: Kerry previously said he favored federal legislation to allow people with cancer, AIDS, and other serious illnesses to have medical marijuana, with their doctors’ approval. However, Kerry recently retreated from that stance, saying he wants to rely on a scientific review before he makes any decisions about protecting patients. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio - Rating: A+ In short: On May 29, 2003, Kucinich was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as supporting medical marijuana "without reservation," and indicated that as president he would be willing to sign an executive order permitting its use. This is on the heels of his May 27 announcement calling for a broad rethinking of anti-drug policies, emphasizing treatment over criminalization. On May 1, Kucinich signed on as co-sponsor of the positive Truth in Trials Act. He has come full circle on the subject, having voted for the 1998 resolution condemning state medical marijuana initiatives. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. - Rating: D+ In short: While Lieberman cosponsored a 1998 U.S. Senate resolution condemning state efforts to legalize medical use of marijuana, it seems that his position may be evolving. We have upgraded Lieberman from a "D-" to a "D+" based on his recent positive statement about medical marijuana, though Lieberman must make a stronger statement about protecting patients before he moves out of the "D" range. Rev. Al Sharpton - Rating: I (incomplete) In short: Incomplete. Although a critic of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, Sharpton has not spoken on the issue of medical marijuana. It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t be a supporter, but until he speaks to this issue, we cannot grade him.Source: Portsmouth Herald (NH)Published: Sunday, August 10, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Seacoast NewspapersContact: opinion seacoastonline.com Website: http://www.seacoastonline.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Granite Staters for Medical Marijuanahttp://www.granitestaters.com/Inside Politics: Flip-Flop No. 2 http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17027.shtmlSome Advice for Democratshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16967.shtmlDemocratic Candidate Backs Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16448.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by FoM on August 10, 2003 at 20:45:11 PT
Article On Arianna Huffingtons Run for Governor 
Huffington Says She's 'Definitely Running to Win': 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41907-2003Aug10.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Virgil on August 10, 2003 at 10:48:28 PT
It is a litmus test
Is this the most important issue the candidates will be questioned on? Certainly not. Again, so what. Is it a litmus test as to the ability to do basic reasoning. Yes. Is it a litmus test that a candidate is not influenced by plutocratic authority/policy? Yes, if a candidate comes out swinging at the vicious, malicious, cruel, and hideous monster that is cannabis prohibition. A person does not have to be a wonk on the subject to see that CP is wrong and is the product of a corrupted system. It is not like any presidential candidate would have to do legwork. It would only take someone listening to sound advice from anyone that has looked at the subject. The whole system could be attacked with a cannabis perspective. A person with the interest of the country would have a 30 minute show that looked into the horses mouth and would have the candidate with a panel of doctors. It would show good sense and that a person has a basic intellect that decides on facts.MMJ might not be the most important issue before us with a day of reckoning coming on the $698 billion deficit, which is still fairyland fantasy, but it is a litmus test for showing basic intellect and freedom from bowing to the corrupt PTB. It shows that a candidate is at least down to earth and not hoping to rule from the sky and declare a reality that does not exist on earth. MMJ federal prohibition over states rights is an out and out lie anyway. Cannabis is rightly classified as a schedule 3 or 4 substance and is stonewalled into schedule one with clear malice and disregard of medicine.If John Glenn had said "I cannot see the Great Wall of China" while in low orbit, people in ground control would know he was blind. Same thing for a candidate that cannot see the great Schedule One Lie when his perception is to be expected. Now most high-level politicians do see it and they are not blind. They are just corrupt. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by i420 on August 10, 2003 at 10:35:20 PT
Right on!
I like this report card idea they should consider establishing a website and expand this list to include others!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by medicinal toker on August 10, 2003 at 10:17:50 PT
Granite Staters missed a big point
on June 16, 2003, Kucinich also cosponsored HR 2233, a much more far reaching and important piece of legislation than Truth in Trials, which at best, would make a mediocre amendment to HR 2233.HR 2233 is the only one that really helps patients. HR 1717 is smoke and mirrors.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment