cannabisnews.com: Arcata Journal Interview with Kevin Zeese 





Arcata Journal Interview with Kevin Zeese 
Posted by FoM on February 13, 2000 at 09:43:59 PT
By Mark Tide, AJ Investigative Correspondent 
Source: Arcata Journal 
Kevin Zeese, nationally respected drug-policy reform advocate, who recently appeared alongside Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, to promote legalization of drugs in general.Also: A Related Interview with Jonathan Weisglass, Associated Counsel for Plaintiff's in ACLU's P215 Lawsuit.
Kevin Zeese has long been involved in medicinal cannabis reform efforts in California, coming here from his organization's headquarters near Washington, D.C., several times a year to consult with a variety persons involved in this reform movement. When ACLU attorneys were assembling resources for use in their Conant v. McCaffrey [Proposition 215] lawsuit, they arranged to associate with Mr. Zeese in order to obtain access to a convenient compilation of scientific research material, for use as evidence to support the federal court's issuing of an injunction to protect physicians from retaliation by federal litigation, attempting to impose criminal or administrative sanctions on doctors who recommend or approve use of medicinal cannabis.Kevin B. Zeese is President of Common Sense for Drug Policy, an organization dedicated to increasing public information about drug policy. He has worked on a wide array of drug related issues since he graduated from George Washington University Law School in 1980. He is a nationally recognized expert in a variety of drug policy issues.Regarding the medical use of marijuana, he was lead counsel on a challenge brought against the DEA to the scheduling of marijuana under federal law. He has assisted counsel throughout the nation in defending individuals charged with criminal offenses for their use of marijuana as a medicine or for providing marijuana to the seriously ill through buyer's clubs.He is the author of Drug Testing Legal Manual, Drug Testing Legal Manual and Practice Aids and co-author of Drug Law: Strategies and Tactics, which he wrote with his sister Eve Zeese, all three published by Clark Boardman Callaghan. He also serves as editor of Drug Law Report for Clark Boardman Callaghan. In addition, he is the author of Drug Prohibition and the Conscience of Nations; Friedman and Szasz On Liberty and Drugs and the editor of numerous books on drug policy and manuals on criminal defense.Zeese has written for newspapers and journals on a range of drug issues and has appeared on every major television network as a commentator. He served as a consultant to Walter Cronkite for the Discovery Channel special: The Drug Dilemma: War or Peace? He has litigated drug policy issues including the use of the military in drug enforcement, the use of herbicides in marijuana eradication, the medical use of marijuana and urine testing of government employees. He has spoken at nationally recognized legal seminars and testified before Congress on drug related issues.Mr. Zeese is a member of the executive committee of the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers and a board member of the Media Awareness Project, the Foundation on Drug Policy and Human Rights and the Harm Reduction Coalition. Mr. Zeese is a co-founder of Drug Policy Foundation where he served as Vice President and Counsel and a former Executive Director and Chief Counsel of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.Arcata Journal was interested in discovering the details of how the class of physicians / patients in Conant v. McCaffrey was established, specifically why this class is as narrow as it is. To get some answers, we called Jonathan Weisglass, co-counsel for plaintiffs in Conant v. McCaffrey. According to Mr. Weisglass, "The judge basically narrowed [the class defintion of patients and physicians in the case] to a number of serious medical conditions that corresponded to the doctor and patient plaintiffs that we have. So, we have patients who have been treated for cancer and AIDS and other illnesses and we have doctors along those lines." As for prospects of enlarging this class, He indicates that, "There's always the potential to bring in new plaintiffs."The problem has been that no outreach or information for such a program has ever been created. Rather, the ACLU has, through its absence of meaningful action, effectively determined the limits of medical validity, at a line far short of what is essential for authentic reform. Mr Weisglass admits that real potential exists to expand this class, yet the ACLU has done nothing in 3 years to bring such patients and their doctors into this lawsuit. Why?As presented in detail within Parts I and II of this Series, sound legal reasons for limiting the size of this class simply do not exist. In fact, just the opposite: both persuasive legal and sound medical justifications argue strongly for immediate and continual expansion of this particular class. Of course, attorneys' legal strategies are not bound to follow such reasons, but should be accountable when they don't. Instead, in this matter, the ACLU has been bragging incessantly about their protection of all relevant doctors, when such claims are bogus and misleading, at the very least. Compelling ethical and legal reasons exist for having immediately, three years ago, begun an incremental expansion of patients and physicians at risk from unlawful federal actions. Management of this lawsuit seems to have been sheerly predicated on political, rather than legal, medical or ethical grounds. Every powerful interest with some aspect of image at stake in P215 implementation has demanded to play doctor with these patients' lives -- for years, irreversibly damaging or destroying the lives of thousands of this state's citizens, whom this ballot-drafted law intended to swiftly protect. ACLU is also guilty of this crime against ethics and reason.Attorneys like these in the ACLU are often attempting to be clever with the composition of their engagement on important issues. In the exchange of remarks below, Mr. Weisglass now indicates a willingness to expand the class, but the fact is that over a time period of three years this class never gets expanded; and as he later alludes, this form of unreasonable control was the core plot, the central premise, of their actual legal strategy.Mark Tide: Does the fact that current protections for physicians, since these only apply to a few categories, act to inhibit implementation?Jonathan Weisglass: I don't think so, because I think these illnesses cover the vast majority of illnesses for which doctors are talking to patients about using marijuana.Mark Tide: But isn't that the point, that they may be afraid to talk to patients on these other illnesses, because they're not being protected?Jonathan Weisglass: Yes, they may be, and if there are doctors like that we would like to hear from them. Because then we would want to expand the class, certainly. But, our feeling was that this took care of most people. And, we may indeed expand the class in the future, if we find other people who come forward and are interested before the final order is done.Mark Tide: Was there any effort undertaken to represent any broader class, how was the litigation arranged at the outset?Jonathan Weisglass: I don't really want to comment on that, because it gets into our legal strategy and stuff. But, basically we had a number of doctors and patients who came to us, who told us they were concerned about this. And that was how we ended up with our named plaintiffs.Mark Tide: Is it the case that the definition of patients and physicians in this litigation fails to exhaust the class of patients potentially protected under Proposition 215?Jonathan Weisglass: Right.Mark Tide: One could conjecture about what political composition would look the best to the court, but really isn't it the case that First Amendment issues are what's at stake here, and not proving the efficacy of any particular therapeutic uses. Rather, isn't the issue one of preserving the right of the doctors to discuss these matters with their patients? Isn't there a distinction here?Jonathan Weisglass: Oh Yes, certainly, certainly.Shortly following this exchange, Mr. Weisglass decided that these questions were too tough, and asked me to contact another attorney in New York, who then never returned calls after many attempts with messages left on his answering machine. We feel certain that Mr. Weisglass communicated the incipient threat of our inquiry to other attorneys involved in this case, and although these attorneys have suddenly, apparently decided to seek some form of expansion in this class being protected, they have resisted our several efforts at contact. We understand their reluctance, since explaining why they sold the vast majority of P215 patients down the proverbial river, to make their jobs easier, their politics less radical (and not to improve any chance of success, which according to the law was fairly well guaranteed), may be quite a difficult and uncomfortable experience. Better to hope that the pubic at large has trouble focusing on these issues, and that insulations of class status, between them and the real problems, will serve to self-deceptively quell their ethic.Attorneys such as these put a very high stock value on their 'integrity(?),' and opportunities for tarnishment are to be rigorously avoided. That's our size-up up this situation.Arcata Journal believes that Mr. Weisglass' admissions reveal the character of elitism which pervades the attitudes of these ACLU attorneys. Asked to comment on whether meaningful efforts were made to expand this class of physicians being protected from federal intimidation --- Mr Weisglass declines any comment --- because, we think, these attorneys purposefully decided to exclude the vast majority of medical conditions relevant to reform, and did so for purely political reasons. These other medical conditions were just as important, and need protection even more desperately because of the absence of expert research that is available in only a few areas of medicine, like AIDS research. After so many years of struggle to gain political acceptability for AIDS , one might think these advocates, working with AIDS-related clients, would be sensitive to dynamics on the frontiers of medicine. Rather, they seem sensitive to the fashion of political insulation they crave.Mr. Zeese doesn't fit into this category of attorneys noted above, although he's generally conventional and conservative in his professional approach to this most controversial of topics: wholesale / piecemeal legalization of drugs. Perhaps, with good reasons when those are available, rather than the bad reasons involved here, as already noted. He recently shared stages with Ethan Nadelman, billionaire currency speculator and philanthropist George Soros' drug reform chief, to provide some supportive venues for New Mexico's Governor, Gary Johnson, to be able to better explain his now famous views in support of drug legalization.Mark Tide: What official role did you play in the case, Conant v McCaffrey?Kevin Zeese: My official role was to file a document that layed out the research that shows the safety and effectiveness of marijuana for treatment of nausea and vomiting, muscle spasms and eye pressure. It was a thick, two inch, loose-leaf volume of reasearch I did. I'm a lawyer, but I wasn't a lawyer in this case, and though informally involved as a consultant to the legal team, my public role was this research on medical marijuana.Mark Tide: It seemed that the categories which the judge carved out were a function of the patient-physician testimony presented.Kevin Zeese: Maybe. The strongest evidence really is in the three areas I talked about. Those are the three where there's the most research, and they are all three serious illnesses as well. Those get the attention, no matter what. If you look for evidence on this stuff, you're not going to find a lot on menstrual cramps and back pain . . .Mark Tide: Peptic ulcers, stress, asthma, alcoholism, depression; in your presentation to the federal court you mentioned a lot of diseases . . . .Kevin Zeese: There is actual evidence about depression, and people successfully using marijuana medically, but that's not going to be something that the courts are going to recognize, I don't think.Mark Tide: I thought that here, the question was a physician's First Amendment right to discuss this in a privileged nature with his patient.Kevin Zeese: Maybe in those less researched areas, a physicians' discussions are even more important.Mark Tide: It didn't seem that you were proving in that courtroom the efficacy of these treatments.Kevin Zeese: Right. The issue wasn't really that. While, we put that evidence in, and we cited all sorts of research published in a wide range of places, that really wasn't the thrust of the case, the real thrust of the Conant case was a legal issue, and that was a First Amendment issue.Mark Tide: So, the heart of the legal question is the ability of any physician to treat serious illnesses.Kevin Zeese: Right.And another thing which constricts it is a conflict with federal law, and that makes things more complex. This is because there's an issue that a doctor talking to a patient, and recommending using marijuana could be looked at by some courts as a doctor . . . conspiring with that patient to acquire that controlled substance. So, while it's doctor-patient discussion, it could have a tinge of doctors using their licenses to engage in a criminal conspiracy.The government tried to draw a line that allowed doctor-patient discussions, but didn't broach a criminal conspiracy, because it was legitimate medical practice. And so, what does that mean? That's when you get to the more limited choices for medical use. Because once you start to talk about headaches or stress relief, it may not be seen as bona fide medical judgment.I think that the practical solution is to push for each individual doctor having a big say in this. What's good about that is it's consistent with 215. 215's lynchpin is a doctor's recommendation. I can see medical necessity's lynchpin being the same, if courts will recognize it that way. That's how the courts can do the balancing on the subject of medical necessity in the context of remaining federal criminal prohibitions.The problem of course, with 215 in state prosecutions, is not so much the patients --- it's the clubs, the dispensaries. They're not as clearly protected by 215, and the courts have not been protecting them, so far. Something or someone being a caregiver for many patients is a question. It's a gray area question, and so far it's been leaning the wrong way.Mark Tide: What about this new federal definition of medical necessity?Kevin Zeese: That could be a defense. I've recommended to some of the clubs, at this stage, that they have each patient fill out a form that goes to the medical necessity requirements. [That the patient has] tried other drugs, no other drug has been acceptable, marijuana is effective, [etc.]. And have them sign an under oath, sworn statement, saying that they meet the test for medical necessity, so that the dispensary has this on record.To be legal, you have to satisfy both state and federal law. The federal law is medical necessity. And so the clubs / dispensaries should require patients to swear under oath that their marijuana use is a medical necessity. That will be some evidence that will be helpful. I think that a jury will have a hard time convicting a club / dispensary that goes through that process. I think that will be a very strong case for the club / dispensary. And I hope the the Attorney General's Office would take that approach, as well.Mark Tide: This Preliminary Injunction protects the doctors treating these particular illnesses, but not on any other illnesses, correct?Kevin Zeese: Right.Mark Tide: Do you think it's been an inhibition on implementation in California, to only have the doctors who are involved in these rather more narrow categories protected by this injunction, and not the ones (operating nonetheless under authority of P215) who have First Amendment issues outside of that narrower class?Kevin Zeese: I'm not sure what you mean.Mark Tide: Doctors treating on any other illnesses are still having their First Amendment Rights violated, aren't they? Do you think that is the case?Kevin Zeese: I don't know, I'm not that clear on that, that's a pretty nuanced question for me, and I'm not sure how to answer that. What do you see?Mark Tide: Well, it seems that other physicians recommending outside of those categories aren't protected, and there hasn't been any effort to protect them. Do you think?Kevin Zeese: Well, it's that bona fide medical advice kind of situation. If they can come up with proof that what they're doing is within the realm of accepted medical practice, they'll have a good case to be protected. That's really what it's going to come down to, in the end.At this point, Mr. Zeese attempts to fend off the real question, which he realizes is an inexplicably unexamined matter. Defending abilities of physicians in general to comfortably discuss, recommend / approve medicinal cannabis use consistent with P215 -- presupposes that "bona fide medical advice" is involved. First Amendment rights being valid in this context would already assume physicians are offering honest, bona fide, medical judgment. If physicians operate outside of the law, consequences sufficient to any lapse are clearly available. But the point is: where does the judgment about this "bona fide medical advice's" legitimacy get determined -- in legal chambers, or in medical arenas.In this case, the ACLU decided that the faucet of justice needed to be on: only a drip, to protect against any possible malfeasance by the medical profession (longstanding feuds exist in this area of law). Thus, managing this case in such a fashion fits into the cookie-cutter gambit these attorneys are so smugly used to. While the federal court wants only to see testimony of patients and their "bona fide medical advice," in order to justify its inclusion of whatever medical conditions are relevant within the protection of the court's injunctive powers. The ACLU just decided not to produce any such testimony, on its own initiative, and for its own political purposes.Mr. Zeese realizes this as we're conducting the interview, and then clearly states the truth about where the line should come down, but misstates the nature and dynamics of legal protections involved, one might suppose to protect his legal associates at ACLU. Why didn't ACLU offer protection to physicians outside of those treating the narrow list of illnesses which, for particular reasons, had managed to establish some level of medical research? The answer seems to be: because this wasn't the ACLU's strategy, which they refer to but refuse to discuss.Mark Tide: On a technical legal question: doctors seem to have a defense, potentially, in acting in a role to satisfy state law categories in the initiative; rather than, as you were alluding to earlier, actually supplying cannabis or entering into a conspiracy to do so. Is there a function in state law that might provide a basis for physicians to argue that's their role?Kevin Zeese: That's a good question, a very interesting question. I don't know about that. I would see the necessity arguments that were playing in federal courts, which is also used in the state courts where there's a necessity defense as well -- its been used in needle exchange cases for example.I think that a necessity argument would fit for a doctor there, too. Under state law, a patient needs a doctor's recommendation in order to get marijuana. So, if a doctor believes it's a medical necessity for the patient to get marijuana, they're protected, a defense to a criminal charge.Mark Tide: Have you got any role out here in California at the present time?Kevin Zeese: I come out there regularly. There's a lot of people I work with and advise, formally, people who run clubs and stuff. So, I do what I can to help try to make this thing happen. It's been slow, but not surprisingly slow. You expect that there will be resistance to this change at all sorts of levels.The process is slower than you hope, and has set-backs you don't like to see. It's really not surprising. It's just the way it goes. These things take time to take hold.The LA Times, in its editorial of last fall, defined medical necessity pretty narrowly.Mark Tide: They wanted to play doctor ?Kevin Zeese: Yes. Exactly.Mark Tide: Our concern is that perhaps this litigation has served to inhibit implementation, because of its structure of not protecting the physicians outside of these classes, and what might be done to expand that class.Kevin Zeese: Right.Mark Tide: What do you think?Kevin Zeese: I think that the lawyers want to make sure they have this one solidly won, before they expand anything. I can see them taking a cautious approach to get as strong in this victory as they can. And then you have an area of expansion, that's well documented and within the bona fide medical advice latitude. Then I could see them going back for more.Mark Tide: Jonathan Weisglass has told me that he's open to expansion, as soon as they hear from physicians and patients.Kevin Zeese: I can see that.Mark Tide: It seemed as if you began to do the job, back then [more than two years ago], that was the interest in your role here, that you began to present some further evidence, but we wondered whether the attorneys in the case had, perhaps, asked you not to attempt to present evidence on those further illnesses.Kevin Zeese: I had developed this evidence before the litigation started. Once the government kept saying 'there's no evidence, there's no evidence, there's no evidence,' --- I knew there was evidence because I've worked in this field for twenty years, and so I put the evidence into a format to use at press conferences and stuff. I think we released the report in a press conference at the San Francisco Medical Association. I just limited myself to the areas where there was the most evidence, and that was the three big issue areas, of muscle spasms, glaucoma and [AIDS / cancer].Mark Tide: What about these numerous other illnesses, that were historically accepted as legitimate, but for which present standards of research haven't been possible because of the recent prohibitions over cannabis, precisely during the period where this research --- now being demanded --- would have been capable of being created at all.Kevin Zeese: Yes, it's a classic case of catch-22. There isn't evidence, and we won't allow the evidence to be made.Mark Tide: So, protecting the physicians in those categories would seem to be of just as much importance.Kevin Zeese: It is. It is, but you also have to balance with that, the likelihood of success in your lawsuit. And that why you'd want to . . .Mark Tide: But, that's just the question: this is a First Amendment situation, you see.Kevin Zeese: I think the First Amendment is stronger when you have stronger medical evidence, then you have a stronger argument that you're acting within your First Amendment rights as a doctor.You get to peptic ulcers, stress relief, alcoholism, and a whole bunch of other areas where there are indications, but not much research. It makes it a weaker case, and so I can totally understand the lawyers deciding to go with their strongest card, to get the principle in place, and then when you have that in place, you get the right doctors and patients together, and you can come in and go for a broader [protection]. It makes a lot of sense. I can see it as a strategic move. Rather than losing it for everybody, get it strongly in place, first, then expand it.Mark Tide: Do you think they were worried about losing it?Kevin Zeese: Oh sure, you're always worried about losing it.Mark Tide: The First Amendment seems like a strong foundation.Kevin Zeese: Right, it's about the strongest. It was a very well structured lawsuit, that way. They took a winning approach, and they just wanted to make sure they kept it. And even that winning approach could be lost, because that conspiracy issue is very hard.Mark Tide: Well, that was why this other question came up: about the role of the doctors in just simply establishing the immunity under state law. Isn't that their role --- not to conspire to distribute cannabis, but rather to satisfy state law process governing immunity? Was that argument ever made?Kevin Zeese: I don't recall. It probably was. I can't recall, it's been a while now.If that argument had come up with any vigor, Mr Zeese would remember it, because it would have decisively undermined the logic of the"strateg[y]" being employed by ACLU attorneys that were actually in charge of managing this case. Also, this legal approach to identifying a defensible role for California's physicians to reside within, and to therein have some opportunity of operating consistent with state law in the midst of federal intimidation, is so obvious and straightforward that it's difficult in good faith to ignore.If I were a client of such counsel, I would sue these attorneys over being provided with incompetent legal representation. Of course, such clients aren't included in this suit, so the ACLU doesn't have to worry on that account. But perhaps on another. Part III-B of this Arcata Journal Series will be coming online soon. Stay tuned.Please find below an example of the material Mr. Zeese presented to the federal court in support of its issuing an injunction protecting physicians from threatened federal retailiation.Research Findings on Medicinal Properties of Marijuanaby Kevin B. Zeese, Esq.January, 1997PresidentCommon Sense for Drug Policyhttp://www.csdp.org/3220 N Street, NW, #141Washington, DC 20007703-354-5694 (tel)703-354-5695 (fax)kevzeese laser.net (e-mail)Table of ContentsI. Background to the Medical Marijuana DebateII. The Long History of Marijuana as a MedicineIII. Modern Research Findings on Medical MedicineA.Published Research Studies B.State Health Department Studies C.Studies on Marijuana ConstituentsIV. State Laws Provide an Avenue to Resolve the Medical Marijuana ProblemBibliographyOverviews of Marijuana's Safety and Effectiveness Medical Marijuana and Nausea, Vomiting and Appetite Medical Marijuana and Glaucoma Medical Marijuana, Muscle Spasm and ConvulsionI. Background to the Medical Marijuana DebateWith the passage of initiatives in California and Arizona the debate about the medical utility of marijuana is in the spotlight once again. 1 On December 30, 1996, the federal government announced that it intends to use their authority to stop doctors from recommending or prescribing marijuana to their patients and is planning a public relations campaign to demonstrate marijuana has no medical value.The memorandum describing their policy stated that: a practitioner's action of recommending or prescribing Schedule I substances is not consistent with the public interest' (as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act) and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the practitioner's registration."2 Further if a physician does not have a bona fide doctor patient relationship when recommending or prescribing marijuana they will face criminal prosecution.3 In addition to threatening doctors for giving medical advice to their patients the Clinton Administration is undertaking a public-relations offensive" which will include a campaign to discredit the notion that smoking marijuana has medicinal benefits."4 In their December 30 memorandum, the Administration described a public relations effort with medical associations and the public reinforcing the message that ,marijuana has no medical value. 5 On December 29, 1996 retired General Barry McCaffrey, the nation's drug czar, claimed in a column syndicated by the Scripps-Howard News Service that "No clinical evidence demonstrates that smoked marijuana is good medicine." 6 He has consistently described medical marijuana as Cheech and Chong medicine."The purpose of this compilation is to provide policy makers, health professionals and the public with the published literature and reports filed with the Food and Drug Administration that demonstrates that doctors have a basis for recommending marijuana as a medicine to their patients.II. The Long History of Marijuana as MedicineMarijuana has long been recognized as having medical properties. Indeed its medical use predates recorded history. The earliest written reference is to be found in the fifteenth century B.C., Chinese Pharmacopeia, the Ry-Ya. 7 Between 1840 and 1900, more than 100 articles on the therapeutic use of cannabis were published in medical journals. 8 The federal government in its 1974 report Marihuana and Health states:The modern phase of therapeutic use of cannabis began about 140 years ago when O'Shaughnessy reported on its effectiveness as an analgesic and anticonvulsant. At about the same time Moreau de Tours described its use in melancholia and other psychiatric illnesses. Those who saw favorable results observed that cannabis produced sleep, enhanced appetite and did not cause physical addiction.9 The 1975 report of the federal government began its discussion of medical marijuana by stating Cannabis is one of the most ancient healing drugs." The report further noted: One should not, however, summarily dismiss the possibility of therapeutic usefulness simply because the plant is the subject of current sociopolitical controversy." 10 The list of medical uses of cannabis from historical references includes: 11 Anorexia, Asthma, Nausea,Pain, Peptic Ulcer, AlcoholismGlaucoma, Epilepsy, DepressionMigraine, Anxiety, InflammationHypertension, Insomnia, CancerInterestingly, relief of many of the symptoms marijuana was used for in these illnesses are many of the same symptoms that have been proven in modern research. This should not be surprising unless we want to assume that all of the experience of thousands of years did not have some factual basis.III. Modern Research Findings on Medical MarijuanaAs can see from this compilation there has been a tidal wave of published research demonstrating marijuana's medical usefulness. Indeed, it is stated in the research studies conducted by various states under FDA protocol that the research being conducted was in the final phase of approval by the FDA. 12 When the federal government stopped research on the medical use of marijuana in 1992 the drug had nearly completed the requirements for new drug approval.Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey's assertion in his Scripps-Howard News Service column that No clinical evidence demonstrates that smoked marijuana is good medicine" is inconsistent with the facts. Whether this is an intentional deception, as part of the federal government's stated public relations offensive against medical marijuana, or whether it is based on ignorance does not matter. The reality is General McCaffrey's statements are not consistent with the facts.The research reprinted in this compilation includes randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, research using a variety of objective and subjective measurements and a range of research protocols. Doctors have a sound basis on which to recommend marijuana for use by their patients. Indeed, physicians are well aware of the medical value of marijuana. One study, a scientific survey of oncologists found that almost one half (48 percent) of the cancer specialists responding would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal. In fact, over 44 percent reported having recommended the illegal use of marijuana for the control of nausea and vomiting.13 his publication addresses research that has been published in three areas: cancer, glaucoma and muscle spasticity. All of the materials herein were published after 1970. The materials enclosed are either published in peer review journals, government publications or are reports submitted to the federal government by state agencies. 14 A. Published Research StudiesThere have been several studies which have been published which focus on the medical value of smoked marijuana and cancer therapy. These include:Vinciguerra et al., Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," The New York State Journal of Medicine, pgs., 525-527, October 1988 involved 56 patients who had no improvement with standard antiemetics. When treated with marijuana 78percent demonstrated a positive response. No serious negative side effects were seen. Chang et al., Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High Dose Methotrexate," Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 91, Number 6, pg. 819-824, December 1979 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of THC and smoked marijuana which found a 72 percent reduction in nausea and vomiting. The research found that smoked THC (marijuana) was more reliable than oral THC. Foltin, R.W., Brady, J.V. and Fischman, M.W. 1986. Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on food intake in humans. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. 25: 577-582 and Foltin, R.W. et al., 1988 Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Food Intake and Body Weight of Humans Living in a Residential Laboratory," Appetite 11:1-14; Greenberg, et al. 1976 Effects of Marijuana use on Body Weight and Caloric Intake in Humans," Psychopharmacology 49: 79-84. All demonstrate that marijuana increases appetite and food intake. Doblin et al., Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and Attitudes," Journal of Clinical Oncology,Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1991. A random survey of clinical oncologists found that 44 percent of respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the control of emesis and 48 percent would prescribe marijuana to some patients if it were legal. Sallan, S.E., Zinberg, N.E. and Frei, D., Antiemetic Effect of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in Patients Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy," New England Journal of Medicine, 293(16): 795-797 (1975). The researchers conducting this study of THC noticed that some patients were dropping out of the research and choosing to use marijuana from the street instead. They followed up on these patients. In their conclusion they reported on the marijuana patients and stated that natural marijuana was more successful than synthetic THC for some patients.The cancer research is relevant to marijuana as a useful therapy for AIDS patients. The same symptoms are needed to be controlled among AIDS patients: appetite, nausea and vomiting. There have been recent reports of AIDS and marijuana in the literature. 15 A study with THC found relief of nausea and significant weight gain in 70 percent of patients. However, one-fifth of the patients did not like the psychoactive effective of synthetic THC, 16 indicating marijuana is likely to be preferred by AIDS patients. This is consistent with a survey of people with AIDS conducted by a researcher in Hawaii in 1996. The survey found that 98.4 percent of AIDS patients were aware of the medical value of marijuana and 36.9 percent had used it as a antiemetic. Of those that had used is 80 percent preferred it over prescription drugs including synthetic THC. 17 A study being conducted in Australia of HIV patients found that those who use marijuana had a better quality of ,life. In particular, those that were HIV positive for over ten years found marijuana to be critical.One patient told the researcher that he considered marijuana to his savior." 18 Regarding glaucoma, there have been published studies which consistently show that marijuana is effective in lowering intraocular eye pressure.19 Heightened intraocular eye pressure is the cause of glaucoma. Thus published evidence indicates marijuana preserves the vision of people with, glaucoma.Finally, regarding the control of muscle spasm there is published literature demonstrating marijuana to be effective in controlling convulsions. 20 The control of muscle spasm is important to patients with multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, spinal cord injury, paraplegia and quadriplegia.B. State Health Department StudiesIn addition to the published research there have been a series of six studies conducted by state health departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The focus of these studies, conducted by six state health agencies was the use of marijuana as an anti-emetic for cancer patients. The studies, conducted in California, Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Michigan and Tennessee, compared marijuana to antiemetics available by prescription, including the synthetic THC pill, Marinol.Marijuana was found to be an effective and safe antiemetic in each of the studies and more effective than other drugs for many patients.BibliographyOverviews of Marijuana's Safety and EffectivenessBeaconsfield, D., Ginsburg, J., and Rainsbury, R. (1973). Therapeutic potential of marihuana. New Eng. J. Medicine 289, 1315.Therapeutic Aspects. 1974. Marijuana and Health, Fourth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse, 134-143.Therapeutic Aspects. 1975. Marijuana and Health, Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse, 117-132.Bhargave, H. (1978). Potential therapeutic application of naturally occurring and synthetic cannabinoids. Gen. Pharmac., 9, 195-213.Ungerleider, J. (1979). Marijuana as a good medicine: Its uses against disease. Lecture delivered to UCLA Center for the Health Sciences,August 21, 1979.Zinberg, N. (1979). On cannabis and health. J. Psychedelic Drugs, 11, 135-144.AMA Council on Scientific Affairs. (1980). Marihuana reexamined: Pulmonary risks and therapeutic potentials. Conn. Medicine, 44, 521-523.Cohen, S. (1980). Therapeutic aspects. Nat'l Inst. Drug Abuse. Res. Mono. Ser., No. 31, 199-216.Council on Scientific Affairs. (1981). Marijuana: Its health hazards and therapeutic potentials. JAMA, 246, 1823-1827.DuQuesne, J. (1981). Cannabis and the Rule of Law. Lancet, Sept. 12, 1981, 581.Rose, M. (1981). Cannabis and the rule of law. Lancet, July 18, 1981.Therapeutic potential and medical uses of marijuana. (1982). In Marijuana and Health, Inst. of Medicine, 139-155.Schurr, A. (1985). Marijuana: Much ado about THC. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 80 C, 1-7.Ungerleider, J. and Andrysiak, T. (1985). Therapeutic issues of marijuana and THC., Int'l J. Addictions, 20, 691-699.Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar, J., (1995). Marihuana as Medicine, A Plea for Reconsideration, JAMA, 273: 1875-1876.Notes1.Proposition 215 in California creates a defense to criminal charges if a doctor recommends medical use of marijuana to a patient .Proposition 200 in Arizona, among other things, allows a doctor to prescribe any Schedule I drug if it is supported by another doctor and the medical literature.2.Statement Released by Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Administration's Response to the Passage of California Proposition 215 and Arizona Proposition 200, December 30, 1996, page 2.3.Ibid.4.Golden, Tim, "U.S. Government to Prosecute Doctors Who Prescribe Marijuana," The New York Times, December 23, 1996.5.Statement Released by Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Administration's Response tothe Passage of California Proposition 215 and Arizona Proposition 200, December 30, 1996, pg. 6.6.Drug Czar McCaffrey has consistently claimed there is no research showing smoked marijuana works. On CNN on December 30 at1:04 EST, he was asked whether there is any evidence that marijuana is an effective medicine. McCaffrey responded that there was none: No, none at all. There are hundreds of studies that indicate that it isn't." This claim is so preposterous that the drug czar's employees will not even support it. On January 2, a spokesperson for McCaffrey's office denied her boss had ever made such a claim. On CNN's Burden of Proof," Pat Seitz said: He has not said there is no research. He has not said there is no research."7.Therapeutic Aspects. 1975. Marijuana and Health, Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse, 118-119.8.Therapeutic Aspects. 1975. Marijuana and Health, Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse, 117; Grinspoon, Lester and Bakalar, James, Marihuana as Medicine," The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 273, No. 231875-1876.9.Therapeutic Aspects. 1974. Marijuana and Health, Fourth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse, 134 citing: O'Shaughnessey, W.B. On the preparation of the Indian hemp or gunjah. Translations of Medicine, Physiology and Sociology, Bengal: 1838-1840, pp. 71-102; 1842, pp. 421-461 and Moreau de Tours, K. Psychotic depression with stupor: tendency toward dementia: treatment with an extract of cannabis indica. Lancette Hospital Gazette, 30: 391 (1857).10.Therapeutic Aspects. 1975. Marijuana and Health, Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse, 117.11.Mechoulam, S., Lander, N., Dikstein, S., Carlini, E.A., and Blumenthal, M. (1976). On the Therapeutic Possibilities of Some Cannabinoids. In The Therapeutic Potential of Marihuana (Cohen and Stillman eds.), 36.12.The New York State Department of Health stated that [t]he program is a large-scale (phase III) cooperative clinical trial. . ." see: Evaluation of the Antiemetic Properties of Inhalation Marijuana in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment," New York Department of Health, Office of Public Health, Chapter 810, Laws of 1980 Article 33-A, Public Health Law, September, 1981, at 3 cited in Randall, R.C. (editor), Marijuana, Medicine and the Law Volume II, Galen Press, 1989, page 47. For further discussion see note 23.13.Doblin, R., Kleiman, M., Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: A survey of oncologists' experiences and attitudes, (1991), J. Clin. Oncology, 9:7, 1314-1319.14.Almost all of the materials published in this compilation were part of the record of proceedings challenging the scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act before the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, No. 86-22 (U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Sept. 6, 1988). Most of the materials were compiled by the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics led by Robert Randall and Alice O'Leary. Also included in this compilation are materials contained in the evidence submitted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Finally, some of the materials included were published after that litigation was completed.15.Abrams, D. 1995, Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting Syndrome, and the U.S. Government (Response to Letter) In New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 333 (10): 670-671; Grinspoon, L, J, and Doblin, R. 1995. Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting Syndrome, and the U.S. Government (Letter to ed.) In New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 333(10): 670-671.16.T.F. Plasse, R.W. Gorter, S.H. Krasnow, et al., 1991. Recent clinical experience with dronabinol. Pharmacology, Bichemistry and Behavior 40: 695-700.17.Wesner, B. 1996. The Medical Marijuana Issue Among PWAs: Reports of Therapeutic Use and Attitudes Toward Legal Reform. Drug Research Unit, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa.18.Dope Use Improves Lives of Patients: Research," The Canberra Times, January 15, 1997.19.Hepler, R. and Frank, I., (1971). Marijuana smoking and intraocular pressure. JAMA, 217, 1932; Hepler, R., Frank, I. and Ungerleider, J. (1972). Pupillary constriction after marijuana smoking. Am. J. Ophthalmol., 74, 1185-1190; Hepler, R. and Petrus, R. (1976). Experiences with administration of marijuana to glaucoma. In The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana. (Cohen and Stillman, eds.), 63-75; Goldberg, I., Kass, M. and Becker, B. (1978-1979). Marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma. Sightsaving Review, Winter issue,147-154; Merritt, J., Crawford, W., Alexander, P., Anduze, A. and Gelbart, S. (1980). Effect of marihuana on intraocular and blood treatment -- the potential of marijuana. Annals of Ophthalmology, 449-450.20.Carlini, E., Leite, J., Tannhauser, M. and Berardi, A. (1973). Cannabidiol and cannabis sativa extract protect mice and rats against convulsive agents. J. Pharm. Pharmac., 25, 664-665; Dunn, M. and Davis, R., (1974). The perceived effects of marijuana on spinal cord injured males, Paraplegia, 12, 175; Consroe, P., Wood, G., and Buchsbaum, H. (1975). Anticonvulsant nature of marijuana smoking. JAMA, 234, 306-307; Feeney, D.M., Marihuana and epilepsy: paradoxical anticonvulsant and convulsant effects, Marijuana Biological Effects: Analysis, Metabolism, Cellular Responses, Reproduction and the Brain, (Nahas, GG., Paxton, M., Bruade, J.C., Hardillier, and Harvey, D.J. eds.) Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 643-657; Petro, D., (1980), Marihuana as a therapeutic agent for muscle spasm of spasticity, Psychosomatics, 21: 81, 85.; Cannabis, (1986) Therapeutic Claims in Multiple Sclerosis, Int'l Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies, 226.21.The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program," the Behavioral Health Sciences Division, Health and Environment Department, March 1983 and 1984.22.Michigan Department of Public Health Marijuana Therapeutic Research Project, Trial A 1980-81," Department of Social Oncology, Evaluation Unit, Michigan Cancer Foundation (March 18, 1982).23.Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and Tetrahydrocannabinol in the Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity," Board of Pharmacy, State of Tennessee, July 1983.24.See note 12 and note 23.25.The results of this study were published at: Vinciguerra et al., Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," The New York State Journal of Medicine, pgs., 525-527, October 1988.26.Kutner, Michael H., Evaluation of the Use of Both Marijuana and THC in Cancer Patients for the Relief of Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Cancer Chemotherapy After Failure of Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity" as prepared for the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners, Georgia Department of Health, by physicians and researchers at Emory University, Atlanta, (January 20, 1983).27.See footnote 12. In describing Phase III research, the final phase before market approval, the California Research Advisory Panel stated:Among the safeguards for developing an investigational new drug is a step-wise testing process: the drug is tested in animals before humans, in normal volunteers before patients, and in small groups of people before large groups. Preclinical refers to non-human experiments, e.g., toxicity and pharmacology experiments in animals. Phase I is conducted in small numbers of normal human volunteers to determine dosage levels and other pharmacologic parameter. Phase II clinical trials typically involve small numbers of patients and comparisons to other treatment. Phase III is confirm effectiveness and to assess adverse effects in a large and diverse patient population. Phase IV is used to describe post-marketing reporting on drug safety and effectiveness. Eleventh Annual Report for 1980 to the Governor and Legislature, CRAP, San Francisco, 1981 at 5.28.Annual Report of the California Research Advisory Panel submitted to the Governor and Legislature from 1981 (Twelfth Annual Report) to 1989 (Twentieth Annual Report).29.47 Fed. Reg. 10082, column 3. The FDA also noted: The risks to the public health from illicit use of THC are likely to be similar to marihuana." 47 Fed. Reg. 10083, column 2.30.Chang et al., Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High Dose Methotrexate," Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 91, Number 6, pg. 823, December 1979.About the Author :Kevin B. Zeese is President of Common Sense for Drug Policy, an organization dedicated to increasing public information about drug policy. He has worked on a wide array of drug related issues since he graduated from George Washington University Law School in 1980. He is a nationally recognized expert in a variety of drug policy issues.Regarding the medical use of marijuana, he was lead counsel on a challenge brought against the DEA to the scheduling of marijuana under federal law. He has assisted counsel throughout the nation in defending individuals charged with criminal offenses for their use of marijuana as a medicine or for providing marijuana to the seriously ill through buyer's clubs.He is the author of Drug Testing Legal Manual, Drug Testing Legal Manual and Practice Aids and co-author of Drug Law: Strategies and Tactics, which he wrote with his sister Eve Zeese, all three published by Clark Boardman Callaghan. He also serves as editor of Drug Law Report for Clark Boardman Callaghan. In addition, he is the author of Drug Prohibition and the Conscience of Nations; Friedman and Szasz On Liberty and Drugs and the editor of numerous books on drug policy and manuals on criminal defense.Zeese has written for newspapers and journals on a range of drug issues and has appeared on every major television network as a commentator. He served as a consultant to Walter Cronkite for the Discovery Channel special: The Drug Dilemma: War or Peace? He has litigated drug policy issues including the use of the military in drug enforcement, the use of herbicides in marijuana eradication, the medical use of marijuana and urine testing of government employees. He has spoken at nationally recognized legal seminars and testified before Congress on drug related issues.Mr. Zeese is a member of the executive committee of the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers and a board member of the Media Awareness Project, the Foundation on Drug Policy and Human Rights and the Harm Reduction Coalition. Mr. Zeese is a co-founder of Drug Policy Foundation where he served as Vice President and Counsel and a former Executive Director and Chief Counsel of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.Acknowledgments:Special thanks to Bob Randall and Alice O'Leary of the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics for their assistance with this project. The foundation of this project was laid in their work before the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.© Kevin B. Zeese, January 1997H.M.C.C. Meeting & Center's Practical Openinghttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4705.shtmlBy Mark Tide, AJ Investigative CorrespondentArcata Journalhttp://www.arcata.org/CannabisNews Articles On Kevin Zeese:http://www.alltheweb.com/cgi-bin/asearch?type=all&query=cannabisnews+Kevin+Zeese
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on February 13, 2000 at 10:28:09 PT
Don't know what to make of this
Not being a lawyer, I can only guess at the stratagems used by both sides in the continuing battle over implementing Prop215 in the face of Federal (and sadly, some State) obstructionism.Few wars are ever won with a single battle. Often, even though there may have been a singular skirmish which did eventually decide the course of a conflict, that conflict might go for a while until the losers admit they've lost.The battle for MMJ might go on for some time. But this protection of physicians First Ammendment rights may well have been one of those deciding battles. The Feds, represented by Shalala, Reno, and McCaffrey, tried to do something so reprehensibly unConstitutional that to allow it to stand meant the eventual collapse of all First Ammendment rights. Zeese and those others involved in the lawsuit against the Feds *made them back off*; the Feds wound up burning their fingers and sullenly stuck them in their mouths like the bullies they have been proven to be. Yes, the doctor's privilege protections are not as widespread in regards to the other illnesses that would qualify patients for MMJ. It's regretable. It's unfair. But it is more than what existed 6 years ago. Oregon is already trying to widen the usage parameters. Other States will follow suit. The Feds are being rolled back, slowly but surely.It's been 63 years since the madness started. 63 years. Stopping it won't be done overnight.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: