cannabisnews.com: Bush Administration Should Stop Picking on The Ill Bush Administration Should Stop Picking on The Ill Posted by CN Staff on September 11, 2003 at 14:45:05 PT By Phyllis Coleman Source: AScribe Fort Lauderdale, Fla. -- What does the Bush administration have against the terminally ill? First, when Oregon voters overwhelmingly reaffirmed support for allowing physician-assisted suicide, Attorney General John Ashcroft and his lawyers swooped in arguing that those who are dying don't have the right to make this choice. Surprising -- given Washington v. Glucksberg, the 1997 unanimous Supreme Court opinion which concluded that this is an issue the states should decide. Oregonians decided. But, says the administration -- which is all for states' rights unless states pass laws with which it doesn't agree -- the people of Oregon can't decide. Huh? Mr. Ashcroft issued a directive declaring assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" so "prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled substances" to hasten death violates the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) and may subject the doctor to license "suspension or revocation." The State of Oregon, patients, and physicians went to court. A federal judge entered a permanent injunction preventing the government from "giving any legal effect" to the directive. Mr. Ashcroft appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule this month. Second, President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft urged the Supreme Court to overturn Conant v. Walters. This case upheld, on First Amendment grounds, a California statute permitting doctors to prescribe or recommend marijuana if patients with certain debilitating or life-threatening diseases would benefit from it. Here's the administration's explanation. The Controlled Substance Act is a federal statute providing a comprehensive scheme for regulating and controlling certain drugs. Congress's aim in passing the law was deterring drug abuse and illegal trafficking. The legislation established five classifications and placed marijuana in the most restrictive. The administration says it has "high potential for abuse," there is "no currently accepted medical use," and it's not safe even under medical supervision. Despite this federal statute, ten states have enacted laws approving its use for patients with certain horrible ailments. The issue here is whether physicians who write prescriptions for patients whose distress could be alleviated by using marijuana will risk loss of their license or criminal prosecution. Federal law trumps state statutes. Thus, doctors are understandably reluctant to provide patients the marijuana option. It gets worse because malpractice insurers say physicians who recommend the drug will not be covered for lawsuits filed as a result of such treatment. Second, even with a prescription, there is no way to legally obtain the drug. Now back to why the federal government wants it this way. 1. They claim no proof exists that marijuana is beneficial. It's true there isn't much data. Know why? The only legal use of Schedule I drugs is federally approved research. But the federal government won't approve such experiments. Makes you understand how Alice felt gazing up from that rabbit hole. 2. Another argument is that marijuana is illegal, even for medicinal purposes. Whose fault is that? Remember, the Controlled Substance Act was passed to prevent drug abuse and trafficking. But if physicians prescribe marijuana, they will limit its use. And if restrictions on obtaining it are removed, trafficking should not be a problem. 3. There is also the claim that marijuana is not safe. Consider who is eligible for such prescriptions. The primary group is those with end-stage cancer. Chemotherapy, the usual treatment, is poison. Other beneficiaries would be HIV/AIDS patients for whom commonly ordered drugs also are toxic. Notably, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Ashcroft appear to object to these drugs. 4. Finally, some argue marijuana doesn't make sick people better. Neither does morphine. They both make patients feel better rather than cure them. Thus, again the question of why the Bush administration is taking on the terminally ill. Kind of makes you wonder what they've been smoking. Phyllis Coleman is a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida where she teaches bioethics. Complete Title: Bush Administration Should Stop Picking on the Terminally Ill Source: AScribe (CA)Author: Phyllis ColemanPublished: September 11, 2003Contact: info ascribe.org Website: http://www.ascribe.org Conant vs. Waltershttp://freedomtoexhale.com//cw.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 06:33:06 PT NIDA admits lungs efficiently metabolize drugs. from:http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/monographs/99.pdfA third pharmacologic function of the lung is the metabolism of some drugsand endogenous chemicals. The lungs have the potential to metabolizedrugs by the same pathways as the liver. Although the concentrations ofdrug-metabolizing enzymes in lung tissues are lower than that in liver, theblood flow to the lungs (and hence the amount of a drug brought into con-tact with drug-metabolizing enzymes) is much greater. Therefore, metabolism by the lung can contribute substantially to total drug metabolism. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Arthropod on September 12, 2003 at 11:08:21 PT: Sorry FoM Sorry about that, I figured out what the problem was. It turns out that it wasnt posting the messages to begin with. I was havin some trouble with my browser, it started hanging whenever I would try to go to another page after I hit the submit button. It's working fine now that I've called my ISP up and got them to tweak my DSL modem. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on September 11, 2003 at 19:17:00 PT Arthropod I typed in your name in the search tool and came up with these articles. I checked the first two and your comments are there. Does this help?http://www.cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Arthropod [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on September 11, 2003 at 19:14:00 PT Arthropod I haven't deleted any of your posts that I can recall. Can you tell me what you think is missing? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Arthropod on September 11, 2003 at 18:55:32 PT: Deleted posts Is there a reason some of my posts are beings deleted? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 11, 2003 at 16:44:12 PT News Brief -- Associated Press Bill Setting Up Identity Card System Sent To GovernorThursday, September 11, 2003 Sacramento: Medical marijuana users could get identity cards designed to protect them from arrest by state and local law enforcement officers under legislation sent to the governor's desk Thursday.The bill by Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, was given final approval by the Senate when it voted 24-14 to adopt Assembly amendments to the measure.It would require the state Department of Health Services to develop the card program. County health departments would verify the qualifications of applicants.Proposition 215, approved by California voters in 1996, allows Californians with cancer, HIV and certain other chronic medical conditions to grow and use marijuana to ease nausea and other health problems, if a physician recommends it.Supporters of Vasconcellos' bill say the identity cards would help law enforcement officers determine who has a valid medical reason for using marijuana.Cultivation, possession and use of marijuana remains a crime under federal law.____On the Net: Read the bill, SB420, at http://www.senate.ca.govCopyright: 2003 Associated Press [ Post Comment ] Post Comment