cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Ruling No Green Light Yet





Medical Pot Ruling No Green Light Yet
Posted by CN Staff on October 15, 2003 at 17:19:43 PT
By Mary Vandeveire and Howard Fischer 
Source: Arizona Daily Star 
A U.S. Supreme Court decision will allow Arizona doctors to at least recommend without fear of federal prosecution that their patients can use marijuana for medical purposes. But despite the high court's action Tuesday, Arizona doctors aren't much closer to being able to write prescriptions for marijuana, said the lawyer who brought the California case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He said Arizona will first have to revamp its medical marijuana law to make it more like the one in California. And voters rejected just such a change here last year. The ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which had sought to punish doctors who recommend marijuana - or who simply discuss the drug's benefits - by revoking the all-important federal licenses they need to write prescriptions. "I think this is a first step," said Dr. Harinder Garewal, chief of the gastrointestinal cancer program at the Arizona Cancer Center and chief of medical oncology at the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Garewal said he's had patients who have told him that they've used the drug to successfully relieve nausea and weight loss. "Some patients swear by this as the only thing that works," Garewal said. "What the decision does is it makes the physician a little more comfortable with these discussions." Dr. Kevin Carmichael, whose Tucson practice is devoted to treating AIDS sufferers and people infected with HIV, said the decision doesn't change the fact that there has been no research on the benefits and risk of marijuana. Without such data, he can't recommend its use for medical purposes. He's also concerned that questions remain about proper dosages, for example. "My biggest fear is that all of a sudden people are going to come into my office wanting me to give them a prescription," Carmichael said. "I think all doctors feel a lot of trepidation about this." Without comment, the nation's high court refused to let the U.S. Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration pursue California doctors who recommend marijuana, as they are allowed to do under a state law there. While the justices did not give a reason for their decision, they came down on the side of doctors who said they have a constitutional right to discuss all options with their patients. Arizona voters adopted a law in 1996 that permits doctors to write prescriptions for marijuana and other drugs for their serious and terminally ill patients. Despite the statute, no doctor here has been willing to act under the Arizona law amid the risk of legal action by federal officials. Graham Boyd, the attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, said that shadow remains in Arizona despite Tuesday's action. He said that while Arizona doctors can now talk with patients about marijuana, they should think before actually writing a prescription for the drug. He said the California case before the court was premised on the First Amendment right of doctors to discuss all medical options with their patients without fear of federal action. And in California, that includes writing out a recommendation for use of marijuana, a note that exempts the patient from prosecution under drug-possession laws. But unlike a recommendation, a prescription is an order to a pharmacist to dispense a specific substance, and there is no constitutional right to write such an order, said Boyd. Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a Phoenix surgeon who was active in promoting the 1996 change in Arizona law, agreed the court action does not free doctors here to start prescribing marijuana. "As a doctor practicing in Arizona, I don't feel this gives us the green light," he said. "I feel intimidated by the federal government." Arizona voters last year rejected a measure permitting doctors to recommend marijuana instead of prescribing it. That measure failed by a large margin amid opposition to other provisions, including one that would have required the state Department of Public Safety to distribute marijuana to any patient with a doctor's recommendation. Arizona and California are among nine states - including Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington - that have laws that let physicians prescribe or recommend marijuana under certain circumstances. In Arizona, a doctor may prescribe any Schedule I drug - ranging from marijuana to LSD and heroin - "to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient." The law requires the written opinion of a second doctor that use of the drug is "appropriate." Another provision of the law says those with such a prescription can possess these drugs. The U.S. Justice Department shares Boyd's assessment that Tuesday's action does not open the door to doctors' legally writing prescriptions for marijuana. The agency said the Supreme Court action involves solely doctor-patient conversations. Sidebar: What's Next: Dr. Andrew Weil -- http://www.drweil.com/ -- director of integrative medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, said the U.S. Supreme Court decision will lead to a change in the classification of marijuana by the Drug Enforcement Administration from a Schedule I drug to Schedule II. Under provisions of the law, Schedule I drugs are not accepted for medical use. Schedule II drugs are found to have medical use. "The federal government has insistently intimidated doctors and organizations trying to supply marijuana, and I think it's great to see the Supreme Court smack them down. Eventually, it will force the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that changes the classification of marijuana," Weil said.  Note: Arizona doctors now free to discuss, not prescribe it.* The Associated Press contributed to this story.Arizona Daily Star Capitol ServicesSource: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)Author: Mary Vandeveire and Howard Fischer Published: Wednesday, October 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 Pulitzer Publishing Co.Contact: letters azstarnet.comWebsite: http://www.dailystar.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Walters vs. Conant, 03-40 - PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfTranscripts: Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17576.shtmlCourt: Ariz. Docs Can Talk Pot with Patients http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17571.shtmlBackers of Medical Marijuana Hail Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17566.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by jose melendez on October 16, 2003 at 04:11:03 PT
Reschedule or Retire: 5 not 1
"Dr. Andrew Weil -- http://www.drweil.com/ -- director of integrative medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, said the U.S. Supreme Court decision will lead to a change in the classification of marijuana by the Drug Enforcement Administration from a Schedule I drug to Schedule II. Under provisions of the law, Schedule I drugs are not accepted for medical use. Schedule II drugs are found to have medical use. "Cannabis should be schedule V.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Treeanna on October 15, 2003 at 20:48:32 PT
legalese
Under the law, the Congress really doesnt have the authority or mandate to directly reschedule cannabis.I DO see the refiling of the scheduling petition by NORML, et al to include persons of "standing" to be a probably productive avenue.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 15, 2003 at 20:11:08 PT
Dr. Russo
I hope that you are wrong on rescheduling. You more then likely are right though. Cannabis does have medical value. I don't know how they can deny it anymore. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 15, 2003 at 19:05:39 PT:
Oh Yeah?
"Dr. Kevin Carmichael, whose Tucson practice is devoted to treating AIDS sufferers and people infected with HIV, said the decision doesn't change the fact that there has been no research on the benefits and risk of marijuana. Without such data, he can't recommend its use for medical purposes. He's also concerned that questions remain about proper dosages, for example."This guy needs to get a clue. The dose is whatever works. As to studies, he needs to start reading the journals:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12965981&dopt=AbstractAs to Andy Weil's statement, I'm sorry, but I doubt that there will be any movement by Congress to right this historical wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment