cannabisnews.com: High Judgment 





High Judgment 
Posted by CN Staff on October 21, 2003 at 22:22:15 PT
By Jenelle Wilson 
Source: Battalion
College Station, Texas -- Last Tuesday, the U.S Supreme Court denied the federal government's appeal of the October 2002 Conant v. Walters decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a permanent injunction against federal officials prosecuting doctors for recommending marijuana as a treatment option to ill patients. The injunction, originally granted in April 1997, was in response to threats by federal officials against voter referendums in California and Arizona to allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, according to the Drug Policy Alliance.
The Supreme Court was correct in letting the 9th Circuit decision stand. Not only does the decision protect against unnecessary federal encroachments into state affairs, the decision goes a long way in protecting the right of doctors to speak candidly with patients and to give advice in the patients' best interests. In November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, allowing sick and dying patients to use marijuana to relieve their suffering. Doctors were immunized from prosecution for recommending the drug in state courts. The federal government, however, was quick to warn doctors that they would not be impervious to federal action. On Jan. 14, 1997, a group of seriously ill patients, doctors who treat seriously ill patients, a patients' organization and a physician's organization filed suit against high-ranking officials in the Clinton administration, including then-White House Office of the National Drug Control Policy Director Barry McCaffrey, the original lead defendant in the case. A temporary injunction was granted four months later, which prevented federal officials from taking action against doctors recommending the drug to patients unless there was evidence the doctor was actively helping patients acquire it. Federal District Judge William Alsup made this injunction permanent on Sept. 7, 2000, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. The government appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit, and John P. Walters, McCaffrey's counterpart in the Bush administration, was substituted for his predecessor. The federal government has no right to interfere with the medical advice of a patient if a doctor is sincerely acting with that patient's best interests in mind. The government is prohibited from regulating the content of speech because it disagrees with it by the Constitution. However, the government's actions in this case go beyond simply trying to regulate the content of speech. The government is trying to ban a particular viewpoint, one that conflicts with its own. Doctors are ethically required to give patients the best medical advice they can, and if a doctor reasonably believes that a patient may benefit from marijuana, then they are obligated to recommend it. The government contends that marijuana has no medicinal value. Deputy director of the National Drug Control Policy Andrea Barthwell told CNN, "There is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better." However, proponents of the use of marijuana for medical purposes are not claiming that it cures these illnesses. If marijuana, like other pain relievers, makes them easier to live with, takes away some of the suffering, then patients have every right to know that option is available to them. A concurring opinion in the case cites a 1999 report from National Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that marijuana does have a potential therapeutic value for pain relief, nausea, vomiting and appetite stimulation. The report also found that marijuana, particularly the chemical THC, provided relief to patients with certain illnesses and diseases, including metastic cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries and epilepsy. The patients who are party to the suit suffer from severe medical conditions, including epileptic seizures. If marijuana is able to relieve some of that suffering, then doctors must be allowed to tell patients. More importantly, a patient has the right to have access to receive all information a doctor believes to be relevant to his case in order to make the best decisions regarding his own health. It is not the federal government's place to take this right away from rational adults, especially when it knows nothing about a particular patient's case. The decision of what is best for a patient lies with those closest to him. Source: Battalion, The (TX Edu)Author: Jenelle Wilson Published: October 21, 2003Copyright: 2003 The BattalionContact: mailcall thebatt.comWebsite: http://www.thebatt.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/A Welcome Ruling on Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17634.shtmlBackers of Medical Marijuana Hail Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17566.shtmlHigh Court Lets Stand Ruling Over Medical Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17565.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by 420toker on October 22, 2003 at 07:44:23 PT
This means something coming from College Station
This means more coming from that portion of Texas than any other. If you have never been to College Station let me tell you liberal it isn't. They are however very educated with ATM local to them. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on October 22, 2003 at 07:05:08 PT
Another day of drugwar
drags on. The Bush Cabal squawks and squawks incessantly. The sky IS falling... on them.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment