cannabisnews.com: Rewrite Law on Marijuana Rewrite Law on Marijuana Posted by FoM on August 02, 2000 at 06:03:35 PT The Gazette Source: Montreal Gazette It is a sad commentary on the compassion of political leaders that in two jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, the courts have shown mercy to the terminally and chronically ill where their political representatives have not. In Canada this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the law prohibiting the possession of marijuana was unconstitutional and gave the federal government 12 months to amend the law. The judgment cleared the way for Terry Parker, a 44-year-old epileptic, to continue to use marijuana, the drug which has all but eliminated the 15 to 80 seizures he might suffer weekly. Last month, a Federal District Court in California ruled that seriously ill patients with no alternative but marijuana to alleviate their conditions are allowed to obtain the drug legally. Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the U.S. government had failed to prove why seriously ill patients should not have legal access to the drug. Proof was introduced at trial that marijuana could help curb weight loss in AIDS patients, alleviate nausea induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients, treat glaucoma and ease chronic pain associated with multiple sclerosis. In both countries, marijuana has been popularly viewed by political and legal authorities as the gateway to the use of harder drugs. Although no scientific evidence has been put forward to buttress this contention, last year 11 independent American experts with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that marijuana smoke was more toxic than tobacco smoke and could cause cancer, lung damage and pregnancy complications. The experts said these findings mean that the only patients allowed to consume marijuana for medicinal purposes are those for whom long-term health should not be an issue, such as with the terminally ill. There is no convincing reason for Canada not to draft legislation permitting the medicinal use of marijuana. (Currently, it makes exceptions for only a handful of people.) There is evidence that tight controls need to be part of the legislation, but its over-all intent should nonetheless be to reduce the suffering among people who have no other effective medication available to them. Allowing people to suffer needlessly while a substance exists that could alleviate that suffering is scarcely the mark of a civilized and caring society. Following Monday's decision, the federal government has three possible choices. It can appeal the decision. It can allow the law to lapse 12 months from now, leaving a legal void which would effectively legalize marijuana. But the third and only attractive option would be to accept the decision and rewrite the law to provide for medicinal uses. It is a fallacy to assume that allowing the door to open for marijuana to be used for good means leaving it open for "bad" or recreational use. The whole point of legislation is to draw up the conditions of its use. Those conditions should be strained with not just with kindness but medical sanity. Contact: letters thegazette.southam.ca Forum: http://forums.canada.com/~montrealPublished: Wednesday August 2, 2000©2000 The Montreal GazetteRelated Articles:Study Finds Pot Safe for AIDS Patients http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6390.shtmlOntario Court Says Law Against MJ Unconstitutionalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6576.shtmlClinton Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Marijuana Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6558.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by Dan B on August 06, 2000 at 20:39:46 PT: For FoM: I hope you don't think my intention here was to attack anyone's personal character. Far from it--I just wanted to express my opinion and back it up with facts. Realizing, of course, that Dr. Russo has far more knowledge of the facts than I, I wanted to make sure that anyone else reading my comments knew that I had at least some knowledge of the issue.If it came across as an attack, I certainly do apologize. I didn't mean to attack Dr. Russo--only to disagree with this one point (among many with which I wholeheartedly agree). I respect Dr. Russo's work far too much to attack him (I have read about his migraine research, etc.).I hope that clears up my intentions.Sincerely,Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on August 03, 2000 at 10:49:25 PT You're Welcome Dan Hi Dan,You're welcome. I have no problem with people disagreeing on a topic at all. That makes for good debating. I just want to do my best to make sure that no one gets angry and says things that would be attacking another person's character. That's really all that matters to me. I think the discussions in CannabisNews have been great! Keep up the good work!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dan B on August 02, 2000 at 23:51:05 PT: Dr. Russo--Thanks Dr. Russo, of course you are correct that one rarely (if ever) finds editorials that agree 100% with what one believes. And I do agree that the editorial is good, overall. I just thought it fell short of endorsing legalization for everyone, and in that regard I took exception to it. But I respect your assertion that a partial victory is better than none at all, and you are, of course, correct to assert that a letter like this one would probably do far more good if sent to our elected officials than one favoring outright legalization. As with FoM, I value your input and insight. Frankly, I felt a bit strange responding to your comment in the way that I did because I've been paying attention to your comments in other threads, and I respect what you have to say. But, I felt the need to express my opinion on the matter (I know already, from reading your comments, that you don't object to that), and I especially wanted to highlight the fact that the risks were overstated. At any rate, I appreciate your disarming demeanor in response to my comments, and I appreciate that you have chosen this forum in which to express your views.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on August 02, 2000 at 22:02:35 PT Thank You Dr. Russo I just wanted to thank you Dr. Russo for your comments here on CannabisNews. I really appreciate them.Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 02, 2000 at 12:34:45 PT: More comments Dan, my friend. Do you ever see editorials where you agree with every word said? Rarely. Of course the risks were overstated by the IOM. Can we accept partial victories? I think that we will need to, for the Feds will never give in on everything, and it will be a miracle if they give in on anything. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dan B on August 02, 2000 at 07:15:58 PT: Can We Agree To Disagree? I completely disagree (sorry, doctor) with the notion that this should be required reading for American politicians on these grounds:--"last year 11 independent American experts with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that marijuana smoke was more toxic than tobacco smoke and could cause cancer, lung damage and pregnancy complications."Yes, they made these findings. But American politicians tend to overlook words like "could" and jump right to the part about "lung cancer and pregnancy complications." While it is, in my opinion, inappropriate to use any drug while pregnant unless it is absolutely necessary, I also have to point out the Brazilian studies finding that babies born to mothers who smoked marijuana on a regular basis were more healthy at birth than those born to mothers who did not smoke marijuana. The "damage" they refer to here comes from (to my knowledge, not double-blind) studies of children born to mothers who smoked marijuana during pregnancy. These children were (if my memory serves me correctly), at the time of the studies, five to ten years of age. The main "problem" found was that these children basically had minds of their own. That is, they were more difficult to control. And not by a large margin. And bias could have easily played into the results.With regard to lung cancer, although studies have confirmed cellular changes in the lungs of some heavy smokers of cannabis, I have yet to find a study that shows marijuana smokers having a greater likelihood of actually getting cancer. In fact, one study I saw showed a lower incidence of cancer for moderate marijuana smokers than for those who smoked nothing at all. All of these studies can be accessed by poking around the Marijuana News site for awhile. I don't remember the exact URLs.My point is that the illegality of using marijuana is irresponsible. Not only should Canadian politicians go ahead and let the ruling stand, but American politicians should ease up on marijuana altogether as well. Marijuana News [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 02, 2000 at 06:24:46 PT: Required Reading for US Politicians This editorial should be required reading for every politician in the USA. Does anyone know how to E-mail it en masse to every member of Congress? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: