cannabisnews.com: So Long To Misguided Gag Rule on Use of Marijuana





So Long To Misguided Gag Rule on Use of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on October 16, 2003 at 06:43:06 PT
By Clarence Page 
Source: Chicago Tribune 
Washington -- It was a small step for the U.S. Supreme Court, but one giant leap toward a sane drug policy. I'm talking about the high court's refusal Tuesday to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a dangerous federal gag rule to keep the medicinal use of marijuana illegal, even when states want to legalize the drug. The rule prevented doctors from recommending marijuana to their ill patients or even talking about the medicinal benefits of the weed.
Had the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, it would have had a golden opportunity to rip the innards out of laws passed by various states to legalize or decriminalize the medicinal use of marijuana.But it didn't. Instead, this conservative Supreme Court wisely decided to reject the Bush administration's appeal of a ruling that came from what is reputedly the most liberal appeals court, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.In the case of Conant vs. Walters, Dr. Marcus Conant, a San Francisco AIDS specialist, challenged the federal policy. He and other doctors argued quite reasonably that they should be as free to discuss the pros and cons of marijuana as they are to talk about red wine reducing the risk of heart disease--or about "vitamin C, acupuncture or chicken soup."The 9th Circuit agreed. Although doctors still can be punished if they actually help patients obtain the drug, at least they are now free to discuss the subject.So far, eight states have laws legalizing marijuana for patients with physician recommendations: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Thirty-five states have passed legislation that reduces penalties for medicinal use of marijuana or otherwise recognizes medicinal value.But marijuana remains illegal under federal law, which has caused some interesting legal wranglings. Arizona, for example, passed a marijuana legalization law in 1996 but, unlike in the other states, it has not been enforceable because it stipulates a doctor's "prescription," which is regulated by federal law.The U.S. Supreme Court, in its wisdom, declined to be persuaded by Solicitor General Theodore Olson's argument that this was a law-enforcement issue, not a free-speech issue. "The provision of medical advice--whether it be that the patient take aspirin or vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana--is not pure speech," he said in court papers. "It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation."If so, the high court does not appear to have found a compelling reason for "reasonable regulation" to include banning doctors from freely discussing marijuana among other options to which a patient might turn to ease the pain of an illness.It is risky to read too much into any decision by the Supreme Court. Sometimes, for example, the justices will take a pass on an appeal but decide to hear a similar case later that is brought on different grounds.But considering the strong leanings in favor of states' rights by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and some others on this court, it is not hard to understand why the justices decided to err on the side of free speech, public health and patient-doctor privacy. Good for the justices.Now they should take the next step: Get the federal government off the backs of state medicinal marijuana laws. Then we might avoid atrocities like the Ed Rosenthal case. He was convicted under federal law of growing and distributing cannabis, even though he was licensed by the City of Oakland to do so under California's medical marijuana statute.The judge in his case put a gag on attempts by Rosenthal's attorney to inform the jury that Rosenthal's actions were legal under state law. After his conviction, seven jurors took the extraordinary step of publicly repudiating their own verdict and apologizing to Rosenthal. The judge sentenced him to one day in jail and the lifelong title of "convicted felon."Meanwhile, back here in Washington, House bills to leave the medicinal marijuana issue to the states have pulled together sponsors as diverse as liberal Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and libertarian Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Unfortunately, the legislation languishes. Polls tend to show a large majority of Americans support allowing marijuana for medicinal use. But progress is held up by a vocal minority of anti-pot zealots who would rather treat marijuana as a matter of crime and punishment, instead of public health.Complete Title: So Long To a Misguided Gag Rule on The Medicinal Use of MarijuanaSource: Chicago Tribune (IL)Author: Clarence Page Published: October 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 Chicago Tribune CompanyContact: ctc-TribLetter Tribune.comWebsite: http://www.chicagotribune.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Walters vs. Conant No. 03-40 - PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfEd Rosenthal's News & Pictureshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmUS On Wrong Side of Medical Marijuana Battle http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17585.shtmlCourt Hands Victory To Backers of Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17579.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on October 16, 2003 at 12:40:13 PT:
Nw, here's a gem
Thanks to Virgil for bringing this to us.*A PhRMA spokesman refused to comment because he said the organization does not discuss its lobbying.*FACT: it is the Federal government, under the auspices of he FDA, that conducts the vast majority of Research and Development, as well as testing, of modern phaamceuticals...on our dime and our time.FACT: The pharmaceutical corporations, practically for nothing, take that research that they didn't pay for, and profit enormously from the largesse of the taxpayers.FACT: They then seek to prevent American taxpayers from *buying the phramaceuticals at next to true cost* through this repurchasing scheme. Look at the sheer arrogance of this. They seek to negatively influence the health and welfare of the American people, yet they demand privacy and refuse to explain their actions. While getting fat from the profits derived from research obtained essentially from those same taxpayers. How much of that 8 million was provided by the taxpayers? How much of that belongs to you and me?Is it any wonder why so many people dustrust pharmaceutical companies?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on October 16, 2003 at 11:36:20 PT
Link in comment3
Links go dead and this article is important for illustrating the closeness of the pill companies to politicians. This is about the first two-thirds of the article.Industry Spends $8M to Thwart Drug Bill By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press WriterOctober 12, 2003, 10:19 AM EDTWASHINGTON -- The pharmaceutical industry's trade group spent $8.5 million in lobbying this year as it worked against a bill to allow importation of government-approved drugs. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent the money lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first half of this year, the most the group has ever spent in a reporting period, according to federal reports reviewed by The Associated Press. Lobbying totals cover expenses such as salaries and mailings but not campaign contributions. Despite the group's effort, the House passed the importation plan in July as part of legislation to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Senate passed a watered-down version of the importation proposal, and congressional negotiators are trying to reconcile the differences. Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican who sponsored the House importation plan, said he was not surprised by the trade group's lobbying figures. "It was the most intense full-court press," he said. "Members who had been here 20 years said they had not seen anything like it." The pharmaceutical trade group, known as PhRMA, represents major drug companies. A PhRMA spokesman refused to comment because he said the organization does not discuss its lobbying. Many of the group's members also spent millions on lobbying in the first half of this year, including Eli Lilly and Co. ($2.9 million), Bristol-Myers Squibb ($2.6 million), Johnson & Johnson ($2.2 million), Hoffmann-La Roche ($2 million) and Pfizer ($1.8 million). Overall, the industry has already spent more than $29 million in lobbying this year, more than any other industry, according to Political Money Line, a nonpartisan Washington Web site. The industry enjoyed about $150 billion in U.S. sales last year. "This is an industry under siege," said Ira Loss, a senior health care analyst for the Washington Analysis Corp., a research firm for the financial industry. "The reimportation bill is only one piece of legislation the industry is not happy with." Loss said drug companies also worry about the prospects of the federal government negotiating drug prices for Medicare recipients in an effort to contain costs. "I don't think it's a scandal that they spent a lot of money," Loss said. "They make a lot of money, and they're trying to protect their interests." The importation bill orders the Health and Human Services Department to set up a system that would allow importation of FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities in Canada, the European Union and seven other nations. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Virgil on October 16, 2003 at 10:49:19 PT
I am underwhelmed, Sam
OhSam, the government has experts on everything and knows very well the miracle of cannabis. They know that a miracle plant that can be grown around the world and alleviate so much pain has extreme medical value. So in their world they turn it upside down to no medical value. It is not a mistake in judgement or I would call it the Schedule One Wrong, which still might be appropriate.There are three conditions to meet to make schedule 1 and cannabis does not meet any of them. Now the first one says that it has no recognized medical value. Well, if they mean 80% and climbing of the people in the US are not worthy of recognition they might have a point. If they said it had no recognized medical value outside of the state of California, they might be right. Well, lets say the fascists just blinded themselves so they cannot recognize anything. The Schedule 1 classification still fails on the other 2 criteria. It fails all three criteria when any one criteria defeats a schedule one classification. But why is it even classified if it doesn't have medical value? It is a plant and spinach did not make any classification?They know full well about their classification and have experts that know full well the classification is just a lie. It's all a lie and that's the truth.Why is it illegal to start with? Someone answer that. 
It is not about Reich or Left, it is about up and down
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Taylor121 on October 16, 2003 at 07:36:50 PT:
Well Sam
It all depends on when everyone bothers to throw down their $ where their mouth is.We all need to be donating to the Marijuana Policy Project on a regular basis to make sure we can finally get marijuana legal for the sick and dying!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on October 16, 2003 at 07:15:00 PT:
When Will US Learn?
When will the US government learn that they have mis-scheduled marijuana, and need to reschedule it?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment