cannabisnews.com: Prescription Pot





Prescription Pot
Posted by CN Staff on October 25, 2004 at 09:17:03 PT
By Luke Distefano
Source: Columbia Missourian 
Heather De Mian has vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a disorder that weakens the body’s collagen — what she calls the “rubber bands and glue that hold the body together.” She suffers from gastro-intestinal problems and is prone to dislocated bones and bruises because of ligament weakness and feeble blood vessels. Eventually, the disease may kill her.De Mian takes seven prescription drugs, two of which, Zofran and Marinol, are used specifically to treat the nausea and vomiting she experiences regularly. Because she qualifies for Medicare and Medicaid, taxpayers pick up the tab for her prescriptions; the Zofran and Marinol alone cost $32,000 per year.
But De Mian says she has a way to save that money.“If I could grow my own marijuana, it would save taxpayers $30,000 for one patient for one year,” she says. “I use a wheelchair most of the time, and if I’m lucky, I leave my house two times a week. If the money could be spent on attendant services instead of drugs, it would benefit me greatly.”Eighteen months ago, in April 2003, Columbia voters turned down a proposal to legalize the medical use of marijuana. This prompted Columbia Police Chief Randy Boehm to declare the issue all but dead “for a while.”Since 1996, 11 states, most of them in the West, have passed laws eliminating or reducing penalties for marijuana used for medical purposes. (Source: National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws) It turned out to be a short while. On Nov. 2, voters will once again weigh in on an issue that doctors, patients, lawmakers and civil libertarians across the country have been debating since the mid-1970s, when laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicine were first passed.Under city law, possession of 35 grams or less of marijuana is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.Passage of Proposition 1 would allow for the dismissal of charges against seriously ill people who obtain and use marijuana on a doctor’s recommendation. The new law would also protect physicians who prescribe marijuana from arrest and prosecution. This year’s medical marijuana initiative is separate from a referendum, also on the Nov. 2 ballot, on whether to send all misdemeanor marijuana possession charges to Municipal Court. In 2003, when Proposition 1 was rejected by 57.8 percent of voters, the two measures were combined.“The original Proposition 1 was relatively successful,” says Amanda Broz, president of the MU chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “It showed that a large majority of the town is open to changing. This time, we separated the issues.” Eleven states -— Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — and several municipalities already have legalized medical marijuana. Several other states and municipalities are also voting on the issue Nov. 2. Results of research Three years ago, the American Medical Association issued a review of the scientific research on the therapeutic value of marijuana. Studies have found that marijuana has helped cancer patients and people with AIDS keep food down and gain weight. Other studies have found that THC — marijuana’s active ingredient — helps post-operative patients deal with pain.Clinical trial data and anecdotal evidence support the view that smoked marijuana and oral THC, such as the brand-name drug Marinol, offers relief from spasticity, pain and tremors in patients with multiple sclerosis, according to the AMA.“Lots of research is being done that shows the benefits of marijuana used as medicine,” says Columbia physician John Mruzik, an outspoken proponent of medical marijuana. In its report, however, the AMA stressed that more research is needed to determine whether the benefits of marijuana outweigh its potential for harm. The AMA concluded that the future of medical marijuana lies in its “isolated components.”Smoking marijuana is a crude delivery system that also delivers harmful substances, the AMA says: “Smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for medical use.”Mruzik concedes that marijuana has “some harmful effects.” He does not condone its use by patients with mental illness, and he acknowledges that “no doctor alive is going to tell you that smoke is good for you.”But, Mruzik says vaporizers — machines that remove harmful carcinogens from marijuana smoke but retain the psychoactive cannabinoids of the plant, including THC — can reduce the lung damage caused by smoking marijuana.In that case, Mruzik argues, “if it helps ease pain, what’s the problem?”Physicians split on use Physicians are split on whether marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, says its members “are not of one mind” regarding the legal status of marijuana. In 1995, the academy asked its members their views on legalization. A minority — 18 percent — favored legalization, while just under a quarter said penalties for personal possession of marijuana should be reduced.As for the medical use of marijuana, 31 percent felt that the drug should be available, by prescription, to certain patients. In June, the academy made official its opposition to the legalization of marijuana and argued that it would increase the already widespread availability of the drug to adolescents. The policy approved by the academy’s committees on substance abuse and adolescents notes that in 1997, 23 percent of eighth graders reported having used the drug at some time in their lives — an increase from 10 percent in 1991. “The abuse of marijuana among teenagers has increased as the perceived harmfulness of regular use has decreased and the perception of peer acceptance has increased,” the statement says.Moreover, the policy states that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use” in the United States and warns that it is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I drug, which means it has a high potential for abuse.Still, the academy continues to support “rigorous scientific research” on the use of cannabinoids — the various chemical constituents of marijuana — for the relief of medical symptoms that are not alleviated by existing drugs.On the other hand, a 1997 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine called policies that prohibit physicians from prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients “misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane.” While acknowledging the drug’s long-term adverse effects, including the possibility that it could lead to serious addictions, the author, Jerome Kassirer, a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and an associate research scientist at the Yale University School of Medicine, argued that neither of those issues were relevant to the debate.“It is hypocritical to forbid physicians to prescribe marijuana while permitting them to use morphine and meperidine to relieve extreme dyspnea (shortness of breath) and pain,” Kassirer wrote. “With both these drugs the difference between the dose that relieves symptoms and the dose that hastens death is very narrow; by contrast, there is no risk of death from smoking marijuana.”Kassirer also argued that, while oral THC has been available by prescription for years, it is difficult to determine the proper dosage for individual patients and is not often prescribed. By contrast, he said, “smoking marijuana produces a rapid increase in the blood level of the active ingredients and is thus more likely to be therapeutic.” Physicians who have the “courage” to prescribe marijuana for the sick will eventually “force the courts to adjudicate between the rights of those at death’s door and the absolute power of bureaucrats whose decisions are based more on reflexive ideology and political correctness than on compassion,” Kassirer concluded. The realm of public opinion Indeed, referendums such as Proposition 1 signal a shift in the debate on medical marijuana from the medical arena to the court of public opinion. Amanda Broz, the NORML president at MU, says the medical marijuana movement suffers from a stigma. Many doctors and teachers support Proposition 1, she says, but are fearful of being associated with the controversy over an illegal substance.“Some doctors aren’t vocal because they could face punishment,” she says. “I’ve encountered elementary school teachers supportive of the initiative, but they were afraid to sign the initial petition out of fear of losing their jobs.“The word ‘marijuana’ is automatically a turnoff for some people. People are afraid to have their name associated with this because of the consequences, and I don’t think those fears are necessarily unfounded, sadly.” Broz, whose group was instrumental in collecting the 2,276 petition signatures required to put the issue on the Nov. 2 ballot in Columbia, seemed surprised to find that support of, or opposition to, the referendum isn’t driven by conventional politics. “You cannot stereotype anyone,” she says. “I assumed most students would be in favor of this but a lot of them aren’t. At the same time, I’ve had Republicans and Democrats sign the petition.”Caleb Lewis, president of MU College Democrats, says that the ballot initiative has not garnered much discussion among his group —which has not taken a position on Proposition 1 — nor among Democratic candidates for office.“I don’t think it will play a major role in any campaign,” he says.MU Campus Libertarians supports the initiative unequivocally. Libertarians believe that laws should not limit options in terms of medical treatment, group member Adam Shahid says.“The government has no business interfering with matters between doctor and patient when there is no fraud or malpractice involved,” Shahid says. Public opinion polls strongly suggest that many Americans feel the same way. In October 2002, 80 percent of respondents to a Time Magazine/CNN poll said they supported allowing adults to “legally use marijuana for medical purposes.” The Center for Substance Abuse Research reported in January 2002 that 70 percent of poll respondents agreed that the use of medical marijuana should be allowed. And, in March 2001, when the Pew Research Center asked 1,513 people if doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana, 73 percent said yes. “At some point, politicians will recognize that their constituents believe in it,” Mruzik says. “How can they oppose something so many people support?”Columbia voters to decide In August, the Columbia City Council, in a 3-3 tie, rejected an ordinance that would have called for the dismissal of charges against people caught with marijuana if their physicians approved its use. (Mayor Darwin Hindman did not attend the meeting.) Council members, however, did agree unanimously to put the issue on the Nov. 2 ballot. Sixth Ward Councilman Brian Ash, who voted against the ordinance, says passing the proposal would have sent the wrong signal.“People might stretch the definition of a medical problem to be able to use it,” Ash says. “It just opens Pandora’s Box.”Ash says those already using marijuana for medical purposes should not fear prosecution. But Columbia Police Chief Randy Boehm says that, while he knows of no cases in which medical users have been punished, they now face the same criminal penalties as any other user if caught with marijuana.Boehm says he opposes the initiative for several reasons. For one, he says, the ballot language doesn’t specifically address law enforcement’s responsibility. “The wording of the petition is not quite clear,” he says. “It seems they’re directing us to make it a low priority.”Boehm is also concerned about how patients would obtain the marijuana and how law enforcement would verify that a doctor has approved its use. “There are concerns legally that even if this were to pass, there’s no way to legally obtain it,” he says. “There are complications with this on a number of levels.”Are drug laws unjust? Clearly, many supporters of Proposition 1 seem as concerned with current drug laws in the United States as they are about marijuana’s therapeutic effect on the sick. Chuck Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, a lobbyist organization established in 2003, calls America’s drug policy “completely backwards.”“Religions of the world all stress justice and compassion, and this drug war is one of our government’s most unjust and discompassionate policies,” Thomas says. “This is largely a culture war, and that’s another reason to involve people of faith.”The Interfaith group’s efforts to reform U.S. drug laws have the support of other religious organizations, including the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the American Presbyterian Church. Interfaith has also garnered support from progressive Jewish congregations.“If somebody is using marijuana for medical purposes, it’s clearly wrong to punish somebody with no criminal intent who is only using it to treat a medical condition and reduce pain and suffering,” Thomas says. Others say the prohibition against marijuana is hypocritical. The AAP acknowledges that tobacco and alcohol, which are legal for 18- and 21-year-olds respectively, are more widely abused by adolescents than marijuana. Right now, it’s against the law for Heather De Mian to use marijuana to ease the symptoms of her disease, but at the homeless shelter where she works, “we’ve buried more alcoholics than I can count.”“There are plenty of more dangerous prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin,” she says. “Even 7600 Americans die every year from aspirin, but there has been no case of death from just marijuana itself.“I don’t understand how lawmakers have the gall to override a doctor,” she argues. “When all the politicians get their medical degrees, they can come talk to me.”NORML’s Broz says that barring marijuana from people who could be helped by it doesn’t make sense, and that the apparently widespread public support for medical marijuana suggests that when it comes to pain and illness, anything that brings relief should not be punishable by law. “It’s a quality of life issue,” Broz says. “People who know someone with a serious illness understand that it does help the pain. One of those patients could be my mom, my sister, or me.”Sidebar: Proposition 1 Shall the proposed initiative ordinance establishing medical marijuana policy be passed? The proposed ordinance provides that seriously ill adults who use marijuana on the recommendation of a physician shall not be arrested, prosecuted or punished for marijuana law violations; the same protection is afforded physicians who recommend marijuana for their patients; if the prohibition on arrest, prosecution and punishment is held invalid, prosecution would be limited to municipal court and punishment would be limited to a $50 fine.YES - NO If the measure passes, the city’s Code of Ordinances would be amended to include the following: Sec. 16-255.1 Medical marijuana.(a) The purpose of this section is to ensure that patients, for whom marijuana has been recommended by a physician, suffer no punishment or penalty for obtaining, possessing, and/or using medicinal marijuana and/or paraphernalia used to consume medicinal marijuana.(b) Seriously ill adults who obtain and use marijuana and/or marijuana paraphernalia for medicinal purposes pursuant to the recommendation of a physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, punishment or sanction. Physicians who recommend marijuana for their patients shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, punishment or sanction. If an adult obtains a physician’s recommendation for marijuana use after an arrest, such charges shall be dismissed. If this provision is held invalid, then a maximum fine of fifty (50) dollars may be imposed. There shall be a strong presumption that the appropriate disposition is to defer prosecution or to suspend imposition of sentence. All such matters shall only be referred to the Municipal Prosecuting Attorney, and no other prosecuting attorney, and the Municipal Prosecuting Attorney shall not refer the matter to any other prosecutor, agency, or office, unless the adult is also charged with a felony offense arising from the same set of facts and circumstances. The term “seriously ill adults” shall include patients who suffer from side-effects of the treatment of cancer, HIV/AIDS or symptoms of multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine headaches, chronic severe pain or any other serious condition for which marijuana provides relief and for which a duly-licensed physician has recommended such use.(c) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is declared invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions of the section which can be given effect without the invalid provision.(d) Any city ordinance or regulation that is inconsistent with this section shall be null and void.SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.Source: Proposition 1 — Columbia Alliance for Parents and Education; Medical marijuana ordinance — City of Columbia Web site.A Timeline of marijuana's legal status 1937Before the federal Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 prohibited marijuana, more than two dozen legally available medicines contained the substance.1970The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use and a lack of safety standards for use under medical supervision. 1972A petition submitted to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs — predecessor of today’s Drug Enforcement Agency — proposed making marijuana a Schedule II drug, enabling doctors to prescribe it to their patients.1975A man arrested for cultivating his own marijuana argued a medical necessity defense, and won, leading to the Investigational New Drug compassionate access program and allowing some patients to receive marijuana from the government. Even so, many patients could not find doctors willing to enroll in the program. 1988Francis L. Young, the DEA’s chief administrative judge, ruled in 1988 that marijuana is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known ...” Young also found that it would be “unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance.”1992The federal government closed the Investigational New Drug program to new applicants.1994Appeals to Young’s ruling kept the issue in limbo until February 1994, when the Washington, D.C., circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the DEA could reject it. 1999The Clinton administration announced that the Investigational New Drug program would not be reopened. The program now serves just seven previously approved patients. 2000 In June, Hawaii became the first state government to remove state-level criminal penalties for medical marijuana use — in the past, other states have removed penalties by ballot vote.Source: Marijuana Policy ProjectNote: Proposals for medicinal marijuana use earn mixed reviews from the medical community.Source: Columbia Missourian (MO)Author: Luke DistefanoPublished: October 24, 2004 Copyright: 2004 Columbia MissourianContact: editor digmo.com Website: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORML http://www.norml.org/Missouri NORMLhttp://www.gstlnorml.org/Speakers Tout Merits of Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19703.shtmlPot Advocates Hope Third Try Proves Charm http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19696.shtmlInitiatives To Reform Marijuana Laws Filedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19108.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by mamawillie on October 25, 2004 at 10:44:24 PT
Supreme Court Justice has cancer
So... will this help the MMJ cause?Rehnquist hospitalized with cancer in Md. By GINA HOLLAND 
The Associated Press 
10/25/2004, 12:27 p.m. CT WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the second-oldest man to preside over the nation's highest court and its premier conservative figure, is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer.Rehnquist, 80, underwent a tracheotomy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in suburban Maryland on Saturday, the Supreme Court announced Monday. It said he expects to be back at work next week when the court will next be meeting to hear cases.Even so, Rehnquist's hospitalization little more than a week before the election gave new prominence to a campaign issue that has been overshadowed by the war on terrorism. The next president is likely to name several justices to a court that has been deeply divided in recent years on issues as varied as abortion and the 2000 election itself.Rehnquist, a conservative named to the court in 1972 by President Richard Nixon and elevated to chief justice by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, has had a series of health problems.In 2002 he missed court sessions for a month after hurting his knee in a fall at his home. He had surgery to repair a torn tendon. Rehnquist also has struggled with chronic back pain over the years and has spent time in physical therapy.During a tracheotomy, a tube is inserted into a patient's throat, either to relieve a breathing obstruction or as part of preparation for surgery. The court did not explain his procedure.The thyroid gland, located in the neck, produces hormones that help regulate the body's use of energy. There are several types of thyroid cancer and it was not immediately known which type affected the justice.About 23,600 people develop various types of thyroid cancer each year in the United States.Rehnquist turned 80 earlier this month, a milestone reached by only one other chief justice of the United States. The only older chief justice was Roger Taney, who presided over the high court in the mid-1800s until his death at 87.Word of the cancer came in a two paragraph release from the court. It said Rehnquist was recently diagnosed with cancer and that he was admitted to the hospital on Friday. There were no other details about his condition.Rehnquist has frequently been mentioned as a possible retirement prospect, although he has hired law clerks through June 2006. He turned 80 on Oct. 1, and at a birthday celebration he made no mention of stepping down.No matter who is elected president next week, a vacancy on the high court is likely during the next presidential term. Both President Bush and John Kerry have avoided describing a litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination, although their differences on abortion are cut along partisan lines. The future of the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion is the most visible symbol of the court's ideological split.Neither Bush nor Kerry has suggested any names for possible nomination if a Supreme Court seat becomes vacant during the next four years, but they have spoken about judges' approaches to specific issues.On the subject of gay marriage, Bush said at the Republican convention: "I support the protection of marriage against activist judges, and I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law."Kerry has said he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support abortion rights, and his campaign Web site says he would name "judges with a record of enforcing the nation's civil rights and anti-discrimination laws."On Dec. 13, 2000, Rehnquist joined four other Supreme Court justices in reversing Florida's court-ordered recount of presidential election ballots. The majority of the high court determined there was no time to conduct a lawful recount.That decision resulted in George W. Bush being awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes — and thus the presidency — over Democrat Al Gore.Rehnquist presided over then-President Clinton's 1998 impeachment trial in the Senate, giving most Americans their first televised view of the chief justice. The previous year, he presided as the court ruled unanimously that Paula Jones could sue Clinton for sexual harassment.The last vacancy on the court occurred in 1994, and then-President Bill Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer to fill the seat vacated when Justice Harry M. Blackmun retired.Other members of the high court have also been treated for cancer. Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest at 84, has had prostate cancer. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had breast cancer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had colon cancer.Word of the illness comes as the Supreme Court deals with multiple legal fights stemming from the election campaign season. On Saturday, the court refused to place independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in Pennsylvania. The high court has not yet acted on a similar appeal from Nader involving Ohio.Rehnquist, a widower since 1991, has three children.Rehnquist has defied retirement rumors, even as some observers wondered aloud whether his conservative legacy — empowering states, limiting abortion and preserving the death penalty — may have run its course.When he was appointed, Rehnquist was a conservative who had campaigned for presidential candidates Barry Goldwater and Nixon.Rehnquist quickly became known as the "lone ranger" among his more liberal colleagues at the time, writing stinging dissents in cases upholding abortion rights and busing to desegregate schools.A series of more conservative judicial appointments by presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush changed the court's makeup. By the late 1990s, Rehnquist was at the forefront of several majority rulings allowing the use of public money for religious institutions and greater government powers for police searches.Rehnquist was a 47-year-old Justice Department lawyer with a reputation for brilliance and unbending conservative ideology when Nixon nominated him to succeed the retired Justice John Harlan.It was a period when the court, under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, was beginning a slow journey away from the liberal jurisprudence and civil rights agenda personified by Chief Justice Earl Warren."He probably had more of a crusader's attitude when he first got the job, and was writing lone and blistering dissents," Washington lawyer Charles Cooper once said about the justice he served as a law clerk in 1978-79.Rehnquist's opinions are often simply worded and short, and his courtroom style is dry and brusque. He is known as a stern and efficient taskmaster at the court, and a fierce competitor on the tennis court and at the poker table.Rehnquist has suffered from a chronic sore back, for which he had surgery in 1995. For several years, he has gotten up to stretch his back at least once during the court's hour-long oral arguments.Rehnquist has varied interests in history, geography, music and painting. He is prolific author, with books on the Supreme Court's history and on a topic that later became prophetic — political impeachment.While rulings on social issues, free speech and crime drew more headlines, many lawyers point to the notion of states' rights, or federalism, as the hallmark of the Rehnquist court.Less combative than Justice Antonin Scalia, less doctrinaire than Justice Clarence Thomas, Rehnquist has been the low-key force behind the court's push for greater states' rights at the expense of federal control.Rehnquist was in the majority as the court struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act, invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act and prevented state employees from suing their employers for various kinds of alleged discrimination.Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment