cannabisnews.com: Future Hazy for Medical Marijuana 





Future Hazy for Medical Marijuana 
Posted by CN Staff on December 11, 2004 at 18:59:40 PT
By Rosemary Roberts
Source: News & Record 
Angel Raich, 39, of Oakland, Calif., is suffering from a brain tumor. In accordance with California's Compassionate Use Act, which voters approved in 1996, her doctor prescribed medical marijuana to relieve her intense pain.It was "the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that works,'' said Dr. Frank Lucido, her physician.
Diana Monson, 47, of Oroville, Calif., also uses marijuana after her doctor recommended it to ease excruciating back spasms.Monson smokes it; Raich puts it in a vaporizer and inhales the fumes.A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments by attorneys representing the women. The court's ruling, which will not be handed down for months, will affect similar patients in the 10 states that permit doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.The Bush administration (like the Clinton administration before it) supports the federal law banning marijuana nationwide. The Bush administration insists it has no medical value and if doctors are allowed to prescribe it, that sets a bad example in the war on drugs.Federal agents seized the California patients' marijuana, but the women challenged the legality of the seizure.Last December the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco, known for its broad-minded rulings, called the federal seizure illegal because it violated California's Compassionate Use Act.The appeals court said federalism and specifically states' rights were being trampled. The court said Congress did not have the constitutional power to run roughshod over medical marijuana laws enacted by California and the nine other states.The Bush administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.Unfortunately, the justices did not appear impressed recently by the states-rights' argument. Several justices cited legal precedents allowing federal law to override state law.California's marijuana law had been challenged on different grounds in 2001. Then, the Supreme Court ruled that clubs distributing medical marijuana in California violated federal law.The ruling enabled the feds to raid marijuana suppliers and threaten to yank the license of doctors who prescribed the drug for sick patients.The pity, of course, is that medical marijuana has become hopelessly entangled with politics.Both former President Clinton ("I did not inhale'') and President Bush (who refuses to say whether he ever smoked pot in college or later) are afraid they'll be perceived as soft on drugs if they endorse its medical use.That same narrow-mindedness prevails in Congress. How would voters react if, say, the lawmaker is portrayed as one who endorsed "pot,'' even for medical use.The American Medical Association also has been obdurate. It refuses to nod approval to medical marijuana even though a 1990 Harvard study found that two-thirds of oncologists surveyed said marijuana was useful in reducing nausea caused by chemotherapy.And the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 endorsed a doctor's right to prescribe medical marijuana. "If marijuana relieves the suffering even for one person, then why not use it?'' the journal editorialized.A resounding majority of Americans agree, according to polls. Respondents thought doctors should have the right to prescribe marijuana if it relieves suffering.The Canadian government, which is often more enlightened than ours, legalized medical marijuana three years ago. Unlike the United States, Canada did not wait for 100 percent scientific proof about its effectiveness. It relied instead on some medical studies and anecdotal surveys.The law permits Canadian doctors to prescribe marijuana for patients who are terminally ill or suffering from excruciating pain.Many Americans do not know that Washington is two-faced about medical marijuana. In the 1970s, it launched a pilot program allowing some Americans to use taxpayer-funded marijuana for "compassionate use.''The program is still operative, though Washington has timidly cut back on it. Fewer than 10 patients in America are permitted to use medical marijuana to relieve pain.The tobacco is grown at a research institute in Mississippi, shipped to Raleigh to be rolled into cigarettes and mailed to medical centers in America where the patients pick up their supply. If it's permissible for them, then why not the rest of us?Based on the justices' reaction to verbal arguments, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will approve the California law letting doctors prescribe marijuana for compassionate use. Congress, however, could do so.That prospect is so remote as to be nonexistent. Politics will prevail.Yet who among us would not want our doctor to prescribe marijuana if the drug relieved indescribable pain?Rosemary Roberts is a News & Record columnist. Her columns run on Fridays.Source: Greensboro News & Record (NC)Author: Rosemary RobertsPublished: December 10, 2004Copyright: 2004 Greensboro News & Record, Inc.Contact: edpage nr.infi.netWebsite: http://www.news-record.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmStates Should End The Drug Warhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20007.shtmlMedical Marijuana: The Real Stakeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20006.shtmlThe Medical Marijuana Mysteryhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20005.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Hope on December 13, 2004 at 10:03:45 PT
13th Step
You're first line made me blush...really, but thank you for the compliment.I understand the rest of what you said. Your experiences mirror mine, right down to the "yeesh".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by 13th step on December 13, 2004 at 07:25:57 PT
Hope, you may be modest..
..but you are one of the smart ones...like it or not!Anywho, I think you are correct in that it's just an error.
I have a tendency to see things like that, and it just seems there are so many negative points that even if the article seems positive, there are always those little things that get to me. I feel the same about all the headlines that say fog, hazy, pot, etc. The negative *bigoted* remarks against 'stoners'. I always write and say that not all cannabis users are 'stoners', and to portray cannabis users as such is bigoted. But that seems to be ok in our society, same as it is with tobacco smokers, really. I mean, what if everyone started doing the same things to people who are overweight?I did write to the News Record, no response, probably won't get one. I never do anymore. I try to think it's just that maybe my writings are poorly worded, but I imagine it's more that they get so many they don't have time to respond. Or at least that's what I would like it to be.It's the same with my representatives, at first, I did get responses from some, but then it would be form letters, then nothing. Or, even worse, lackeys responding with non-arguments as to why I am wrong.I really have a problem with Evan Bayh's office on that front. The lackeys always obfuscate and skirt the issue at hand. The last time I wrote to him was before the last election inquiring as to why he refused to debate the republican & libertarian, and the response I got was "They wanted to change the rules of the debate format at the last minute.They called it off." Yep, the repub/lib wanted it to be an unscripted debate, Bayh didn't. His office called off the debate. Trash. And of course he got reelected, mostly because he's good looking and has all the money. Yeesh. Thanks for your reply!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Hope on December 12, 2004 at 10:37:57 PT
13th Step
This would be a good and knowledgeable article, except for the "tobacco" term. Perhaps some people think of anything that is smoked as tobacco (as semi-suggested in the last definition below)...which is wrong. When my little brothers introduced me to smoked grapevines that summer many years ago, it was still a grapevine and not tobacco. Maybe she heard that silly term, 'wacky tobaccy' and took it literally.It's not "tobacco" any more than a grapevine, or banana peels, or the corn silk that my dad used to have a funny story about. Just because it's a plant and smoked, doesn't make it, literally "tobacco" as this article seems to suggest. (note: Clove tobacco products actually have tobacco in them...they aren't pure cloves.)Merriam Webster: 1 : any of a genus (Nicotiana) of chiefly American plants of the nightshade family with viscid foliage and tubular flowers; especially : a tall erect annual tropical American herb (N. tabacum) cultivated for its leaves
2 : the leaves of cultivated tobacco prepared for use in smoking or chewing or as snuff
3 : manufactured products of tobacco (as cigars or cigarettes); also : smoking as a practice (has sworn off tobacco).Perhaps it's that "also" definition above that contributed to her, what amounts to, factual error. It would be a fine article except for that one glaring error. 13th Step…you could be right about it being more subterfuge, but with the tone of the article being what it is, I tend to think she just made a huge mistake. If enough of us write to the paper about it, perhaps they would print a correction.(I'm not one of the "smart ones"...but I am one of the talkative ones.):-)
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by 13th step on December 12, 2004 at 05:03:55 PT
Uhh , huh?
"The tobacco is grown at a research institute in Mississippi, shipped to Raleigh to be rolled into cigarettes and mailed to medical centers in America where the patients pick up their supply. If it's permissible for them, then why not the rest of us?"Tobacco? Is this some colloquial term for cannabis that I've never heard? Or is this just a slip of ignorance?Or is it a decidedly anti word association game?Maybe "if we say pot & tobacco enough, everyone will believe it's just as harmful! We can make smoking either one inseperable from the other!"Or am I just in a mood and reading way too much into it?Man, I gotta stop listening to Alex Jones. He makes me paranoid, I see it in everything. The tone of this article isn't bad, yet I'm focused on this little point. But then, there is this line:"That prospect is so remote as to be nonexistent. Politics will prevail."Defeatist. Maybe that's well placed, too.Smart guys? Any opinion? Am I just reading too much in?(Sometimes I need to have it pointed out to me!)
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment