cannabisnews.com: The Evolution Of A Position





The Evolution Of A Position
Posted by FoM on May 17, 2000 at 06:53:30 PT
By Katharine Q. Seelye
Source: New York Times
Gore Retreats From Earlier Stand Supporting the Medical Use of Marijuana. As anyone who has watched Al Gore over the years knows, some of his positions on various topics have a way of evolving. As the vice president himself has acknowledged, this has been true on abortion and gun control. There now seems to be another example: medical marijuana. 
Back in December, at a town meeting in Derry, N.H., Mr. Gore indicated that he would favor allowing marijuana to be prescribed for medical purposes. He referred to a strikingly personal experience. His sister, Nancy Gore Hunger, died of lung cancer in 1984 after painful chemotherapy. She was being treated in Tennessee, where medical marijuana was legal at the time, and her doctor -- "one of the very best in the entire world," Mr. Gore said -- had prescribed marijuana. She tried it. "She decided against it because she didn't like it and it didn't produce the desired results for her," Mr. Gore told his audience that night. "But the doctor said, 'Look, this is an option she ought to have available, very carefully monitored and controlled.' And if it had worked for her, I think she should have had the option." This answer, while heartfelt, deviated sharply from the Clinton administration's policy against medical marijuana. And Mr. Gore's aides quickly called a news conference so that the vice president could clarify his views. "Look, look, let me just say that I'm opposed to anything that opens the door to legalization of marijuana," he told reporters. He said that the use of marijuana should be determined by science rather than emotion but that, under certain limited circumstances and if the research validated that choice, it should be allowed. Then he added, "We are not at that point." Despite what he said at the news conference, there was an unmistakable perception -- on both sides of the issue -- that Mr. Gore had signaled his support for the practice. Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian policy organization, hailed the vice president for his "compassionate and sensible position." Opponents, like the American Society of Addiction Medicine, complained. In a letter on Dec. 29 to Mr. Gore, James F. Callahan, executive vice president of the group, wrote that Mr. Gore's comments "seem to be an unmistakable statement that physicians ought to have the option of using marijuana to alleviate pain." The letter added, "Though it was reported that in a subsequent meeting with reporters you emphasized that you opposed legalizing marijuana and believe more research is needed to determine whether medicinal marijuana works, these were not the views that were stated publicly for the American people's consumption." Mr. Gore still gets the occasional question on this subject, as he did last week in California, where voters approved the medicinal use of marijuana. But now, five months after his initial indication that doctors should have the "flexibility" to prescribe marijuana, Mr. Gore appears to have become firmer in his opposition, even though there has been no new research in the intervening months to indicate that marijuana works better or worse than anyone thought in December. "Right now the science does not show me, or the experts whose judgment I trust, that it is the proper medication for pain and that there are not better alternatives available in every situation," Mr. Gore said in response to a student's question last Thursday at the Elizabeth Learning Center in Cudahy, Calif. The latest medical opinions suggest otherwise. In 1997 the National Academy of Sciences asked the Institute of Medicine, its medical arm, to evaluate all research on the subject, since more states were passing initiatives to allow the medicinal use of marijuana and public opinion was divided. (By now, voters in a half-dozen states and the District of Columbia have approved the medicinal use of marijuana, and Hawaii is on the verge of becoming the first state to pass it into law, rather than decreeing it by ballot initiative.) After two years of research and interviews with three dozen experts, including those representing government agencies, the institute's panel concluded in March 1999 that "Marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials," the institute said in a news release. The panel said that smoking marijuana could cause other health problems like cancer, lung damage and low birth-weight for babies born to women who smoke it. For that reason, the panel said, smoking marijuana should only be recommended for terminally ill patients or those with debilitating symptoms that do not respond to approved medicines. It also said that no one should smoke it for more than six months. Dr. John A. Benson Jr., the co-principal investigator of the institute's report who is the dean of the Oregon Health Sciences University School of Medicine in Portland, said in an interview that no new information had emerged over the last year to alter the panel's views. He said there had been some experimentation with a patch system in an effort to find an alternative to inhalation because "smoking is a poor way of delivering medicine." And he said synthetic versions with components of marijuana were effective for 75 percent to 90 percent of patients. But he added that "there are some patients that don't respond to these better drugs," and that smoking marijuana can ease their discomfort, particularly in cases of nausea, when patients cannot take pills. Mr. Gore's aides insisted that the vice president's position as articulated last week in California was no different from what he had said at his news conference after the New Hampshire town meeting. But Mr. Bandow of Cato, who had heard encouragement in Mr. Gore's remarks in December, said he detected a difference now. "I think quite clearly he's retreated," Mr. Bandow said in an interview. "It was an opportunity to move out there and take some new ground and indicate some greater sophistication, and voters appreciate that." Published: May 17, 2000Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company Related Articles & Web Site:The CATO Institutehttp://www.cato.org/The Science Of Medical Marijuana - IOM Reporthttp://www.medmjscience.org/Gore Reverses Stance on Medical Marijuana http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread5703.shtmlGore Questions Medical Marijuanahttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread5699.shtmlGore Supports 'Flexibility' on Medical Marijuana http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4009.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by dddd on May 17, 2000 at 23:10:06 PT
wool
I'm a tie-died-in the wool semi- retired hippie,and I must respectfully disagree with Tim Stone.A vote for Gore,is a vote for Gore.The lesser of two evils theory is a bucnch of crap.A vote for either Gore or Bush is a wasted vote,because there would be very little change,or difference if either one is elected.Both parties are heavily infested with scoundrels,and demagogery..... think that if everyone actually voted without the "lesser of 2 evils",we might be much closer to having a more substantial third party.It is scandalous how the media represents it as a foregone conclusion that a republican,or a democrat are the only serious choices. This election will be a real doozy.These two questionable characters are going to have massive media saturation,and the best spin control money can buy...It's gonna be DAZZLING!........Peace.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Tim Stone on May 17, 2000 at 13:26:30 PT
Perceptions...
...in politics trump observable, verifiable fact most of the time. It seems to be the perception in major league U.S. politics that The One Who Tells the Truth First, Loses.Gore's waffling on the medpot issue appear to me to be just another expression of this apparent rule. He knows better, but is - or has been by his advisors - convinced that he stands to lose more than gain from any perceived endorsement of medpot.Gore is probably wrong at this point; he most likely would gain substantial political capital by endorsing "the will of the voters" on medpot. But doing so would offend so many powerful interests who profit from the drug war that what Gore might gain in votes he would lose in endorsements, campaign contributions, and ability to govern efectively were he to be elected, having ticked off some very powerful interests with an endorsement of medpot.And please make no mistake: For any disillusioned possible Gore voters out there, a vote for a third party will be in effect a vote for Bush. And Bush the man is a seconday issue. If Bush is elected, pay attention to the party and ideological machinery that will ride into office _with_ him and gain control of all executive power levers. And that machinery will certainly be pretty much the same as the Reagan machinery that dumped this latest odious, speed-freak version of drug prohibition on the nation. Permit me to suggest that however smarmy Gore's waffling seems, for voters who detest the drug war, a vote for anyone but Gore will only make things even worse.But maybe things need to get much worse before a majority of Americans finally get fed-up enough with prohibition to demand change. So maybe a direct or indirect vote for Bush in the long view will ultimately help bring about fundamental policy reform. What do I know? :)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by John Lenin on May 17, 2000 at 12:41:40 PT
I second that
As a bleeding heart liberal I've been voting Democrat in every election since I was eligible to vote. I naively assumed that Bill Clinton would legalize marijuana after being elected. I probably would have voted for Gore, but his pandering to the Cuban exiles in Miami and the prison-industrial complex almost makes me want to vote for Bush. At least Bush is in favor of leaving medical marijuana up to States. I'll be voting this November, but I won't be voting Republicrat. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by J. Bills on May 17, 2000 at 10:53:10 PT:
He is a Grandiloquent Puppet for the Status Quo
Nuff said. Time to vote Libertarian/Green/Independent. 
Take the political test
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by SuspectStereotype on May 17, 2000 at 10:06:47 PT
Go now, and Gore no more.
Kap, as one of those dyed-in-the-wool dems you speak of, I would have to say,'No offense taken.'I feel that I was abandoned by my party long ago and will now be changing my affiliation. I have voted in every election since I was old enough to vote and I will continue to. This is the very least we can do as Americans.However, even given the fact that Mr.Bush has said he will support states rights on the matter of MMJ, I don't for a minute believe he will stick to that sentiment even if he wants to. That stance fits smoothly with his populist image and his 'compassionate conservatisim' message, But the party that would put him in office, just like the one that opposses him, has made their position very clear:   "No MJ, medical or otherwise, for anyone. No way".The persons in the current 'Compassionate Use' program will be allowed to fade into obscurity without any further research into the effectiveness of that program.The Dems and the Reps are two sides of the same coin on this. No matter which of these two party's candidates gets to be the prez, and no matter which party controls Congress, the simple fact is the both will say anything to get elected in the first place and will then prostitute themselves to the highest bidder to stay in office.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on May 17, 2000 at 08:02:27 PT:
Jellyfish, again
How many times must it be said?I realize I may be angering some died-in-the-wool Democrats here. I assure you that that is not my motivation. But questions must be asked, and they are not being asked. Questions like: Mr. Gore, since you are so pro-environmental, why are you against hemp industrialization? In nine months, 1 acre of hemp produces 4 times the amount of material a pine forest takes *20 years* to produce. Does this make any sense?If you are so concerned about the health and quality of life our elders, why won't you permit those suffering from cancer to use cannabis to relieve the suffering caused by both the disease and its' putative 'cure' of chemo? You know *from extensive personal experience* of its' efficacy as an analgesic; why are you content to wait on scientific data to arrive from studies - which your boss's administration has done everything in its' power to stonewall?Mr. Gore, why did you not speak up in favor of medicinal cannabis, not once, during your whole tenure as Vice-President? Your position was safe; no one was going to demand that you take a urine test *just because* you had spoken in favor of the idea. (This happened to a guy I knew in Basic at Ft. McClellan in 1982; he was singled out solely because of his voicing his opinion. No one else was tested that week, only him.) No one could realistically demand your resignation and you fear of having to supply it. Meanwhile, during your silence, people suffered and died who might still be alive today had you spoke up.Mr. Gore simply cannot be trusted. Given the huge discrepencies between his actions (or *lack* of them) of the last 8 years and his public pronouncements, he has no more spine than his boss. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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