cannabisnews.com: Judge Diagnoses a Drug Quandary 





Judge Diagnoses a Drug Quandary 
Posted by FoM on August 04, 2000 at 19:41:28 PT
Judge Questions Ban On Docs' Pot Discussion 
Source: Law.com
A vexatious battle in America's war on drugs emerged on a new front Thursday -- U.S. District Judge William Alsup's courtroom. The target is not Colombian drug barons or Capp Street junkies, but a platoon of women and men armed with tongue depressors and stethoscopes. The prize is the right of doctors to counsel their patients that marijuana will ease the pain and suffering of some diseases. The American Civil Liberties Union is arguing the government should be barred from taking action against those doctors. 
But government attorneys in Conant v. McCaffrey, 97-0139, said that physicians who recommend marijuana as a medical treatment should have their licenses to prescribe drugs yanked. "Number one, it exposes patients to drugs ... which have been unavailable medically under federal law, and number two, it exacerbates the drug trafficking problem," said Department of Justice attorney Joseph Lobue. Judge Alsup, who came into court Thursday armed to the teeth with hypotheticals, was skeptical. "A recommendation is nothing more than information. It isn't a drug," Alsup said. He said a patient, on the advice of a doctor, could fly to Switzerland to obtain government-approved marijuana or enroll in one of the few medical marijuana scientific studies being conducted here -- neither of which would violate laws prohibiting buying or selling controlled substances. "The problem with your position is that it assumes that the patient is going to act illegally as soon as he leaves the office," Alsup told the DOJ lawyer. The judge was also fully aware that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had recently overturned the decision of his courthouse neighbor, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, in an unrelated case. Breyer was ordered to consider the medical necessity of marijuana as a viable defense. Alsup said that ruling raised significant questions, asking how a medical necessity defense could ever be staged without a doctor testifying in court that marijuana is a viable treatment. "If the doctor came in to testify, you'd be waiting out there with an indictment to nail him because he recommended marijuana?" Alsup asked Lobue. Lobue said no, insisting the government would only prosecute doctors who "aided and abetted" in the drug's distribution. But the government does want the right to revoke doctors' licenses to prescribe drugs. Medically, marijuana is most commonly used as a treatment for AIDS-related symptoms and glaucoma or to ease the effects of chemotherapy. The ACLU argued the case on First Amendment grounds. It is asking Judge Alsup to extend and clarify a preliminary injunction against the punishment or prosecution of doctors entered by former Northern District Judge Fern Smith. "She didn't describe in any way what doctors are able to do," ACLU attorney Graham Boyd said. "Doctors remain utterly confused about what it is they can or cannot say." The confusion, he said, is leading to a chill on doctors' communications with their patients. Boyd is seeking a clearer ruling granting doctors wide immunity in such cases. But Alsup remarked that a strengthening of Smith's injunction could be "more draconian," and was worried that the suit seemed aimed at Clinton administration policy. "There's something about the posture of this case that I can't quite put my finger on," he said at one point. Alsup hinted that he was concerned about issuing a ruling that would unintentionally set a precedent that overstepped the aims of the suit, perhaps not only insulating doctors from criminal prosecutions but allowing them to recommend other drugs classified as having no medicinal value. "Any Schedule I drug, they could recommend it?" the judge asked. "It's speech," Boyd replied. "What I hear you saying is, the doctor could not be punished for recommending crank," Alsup said. Boyd responded by saying crank -- or methamphetamine -- was outside doctors' standard of care, while marijuana has been increasingly accepted as a medical alternative. By Jason Hoppin, The RecorderContact: jhoppin therecorder.comWeb Posted: August 4, 2000© 2000 law.com Inc. © 1999-2000 NLP IP CompanyRelated Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/ACLU, U.S. Clash on Pot Ruleshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6617.shtmlU.S. Voices Threat on Pot Rx http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6616.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml A legal brief in the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/court/conant_v_mccaffrey.html 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by dddd on August 06, 2000 at 19:30:19 PT
Observation
Observer...Thanx for the excellent item.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by observer on August 06, 2000 at 16:43:33 PT
re: the religion called ``war on drugs''
That is why the government must conduct the war on drugs as a holy war, as a campaign motivated not by science or by fact but by belief, by faith that what the government tells you about drugs is true. Drug busts are in fact hate crimes (I call them hate busts) committed by the police. What else can explain police overly armed zeal in smashing down doors in the middle of the night, screaming profanities and slaming children, the elderly and generally passive people to the floor in a righteous fervor? The war on drugsis a religion of hatred and ignorance.I maintain that drug abuse and the War on Drugs are both transitory modes -- pretexts for scapegoating deviants and strengthening the state. Our official understanding of the drug problem rests on a fallacious scapegoat-type imagery and a correspondingly erroneous approach to remedying it. For example, we conceptualize self-medication -- say, with marijuana -- as self-poisoning rather than as self-pleasuring, and then rely on this image of the drug as poison to justify using state power to punish people who possess marijuana. Although in his important study, The Scapegoat, René Cirard does not refer to drugs as scapegoats, he remarks -- apropos of our scientific progress from the Middle Ages to the present -- that "frequent references to poisons" has remained a constant feature of the imagery and rhetoric of scapegoating. "Chemistry," he concludes, "takes over from purely demoniac influence."13 The chemistry that takes over, I would add, is not pharmacological chemistry, but ceremonial chemistry.Drug Abuse as ProfanationPrior to 1914, the main ingredients of American patent medicines, in addition to alcohol, were cocaine and morphine. Now, these drugs are our favorite scapegoats. In Ceremonial Chemistry I tried to show that we cannot understand the War on Drugs without taking seriously the scapegoat function of so-called dangerous drugs -- a suggestion that, because it presents an obstacle to the arguments of both the opponents and the supporters of drug prohibition, both have ignored. I contend, however, that without recognizing the importance of this theme for drug prohi- bition, there can be no informed discussion of drug controls, much less an end to the War on Drugs.14 The scapegoat's social function of saving the group by its victimization is clearly articulated in the Gospels. The scene is as follows. Jewish society feels itself to be in mortal danger: "The Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." What is there to do? How can the community save itself? By sacrificing one of its members. Caia- phas, the high priest, addresses the congregation: "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."15 Like a Jew defiling the Torah, or a Christian the Host, an American using an illicit drug is guilty of the mystical crime of profanation -- a transgression of the strictest and most feared taboo. The drug abuser pollutes himself as well as his community, endangering both. This is why, while to the secular libertarian the drug abuser commits a "victimless crime" (that is, no crime at all), to the normally socialized person he is a dangerous defiler of the sacred. Hence, his incapacitation is amply justified. After all, what greater good is there than saving the family, the clan, the nation, indeed the whole world from certain destruction? Thomas Szasz, Our Right To Drugs, 1992, pp.62-63 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339/Cannabisnews/ 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Steven B. Adams on August 06, 2000 at 06:38:13 PT:
Actually...
"What I hear you saying is, the doctor could not be punished for recommending crank," Alsup saidI think methamphetamine is already available by prescription under the name desoxyn (sp?), so thats a moot point.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on August 05, 2000 at 08:13:48 PT
You're right Rainbow
Hi Rainbow! I know you're right. My husband and a friend were talking about all the good speed that was available that was from the government supplies back in the early 70s in Vietnam. It kept them awake for days at a time. I do believe you and hello. Good to see you!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Rainbow on August 05, 2000 at 08:04:27 PT
Meth
Not sure if you all know it but the government gives meth to its soldiers.I have a military survival kit with meth tabs in it. They are government issue. I have not opened it as I like to see the hypocracy.As well the airman who was shot down in Bosnia stated that he used the meth tablets to stay alive. This is interesting as I think the government is dumb again. One one side they want to neglect the safe use of marijuana and use meth as an example and on the other side provide it to our soldiers for combat survival.CheersRainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Lehder on August 05, 2000 at 07:25:35 PT
the religion called "war on drugs"
The most objectionable effect of most illegal drugs on the psyche is that they make people think. Even methamphetamine was originally used by doctors to help psychiatric patients relive long past emotional traumas in great detail, a process which was found to give patients insight into the source of their problems and a lasting sense of relief. Similar reports on the effects of hallucinogens have been made by countless educated and responsible people. As reported by Carl Sagen, marijuana encourages one to turn the object of study round and round in the mind and to look at it from new perspectives that provide new insights that remain valid when the influence of the herb has passed. And in my opinion that is the real root of the government's hysteria and hatred. The actions, ignorance and foolhardiness of elected officials simply would not bear thoughtful scrutiny by a thinking population, and some politicians - especially those who smoke marijuana - know this. That is why the government must conduct the war on drugs as a holy war, as a campaign motivated not by science or by fact but by belief, by faith that what the government tells you about drugs is true. Drug busts are in fact hate crimes (I call them hate busts) committed by the police. What else can explain police overly armed zeal in smashing down doors in the middle of the night, screaming profanities and slaming children, the elderly and generally passive people to the floor in a righteous fervor? The war on drugs is a religion of hatred and ignorance. It is further impelled by the desire for power and money, rewards that come quickly to the devout. This religion is all the harder to oppose when, far from being separated from the state, it is financed by the state and endowed with private economic motives that range from property confiscation to drug testing to prisons run for profit. And our shameless public education system, with its insipid government-controlled books and ignorant teachers with degrees mostly in "education" but little competence in the discipline to be taught, provides millions more new mindless drug war warriors each year, gullible non-thinking people who can be manipulated with slogans, appeals to fear and bigotry and offers of money and praise for righteous work. The drug war can be rightly called many things: it is a real war with endless casualties, not a metaphorical war; it is a holocaust; and it is a religion.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Dr. Ganj on August 04, 2000 at 23:06:18 PT
Doctors & the DoJ
Interesting to see how they tried lump in methamphetamine use into this. The issue here is marijuana and its benefits, and the discussion of cannabis therapy between a doctor and patient. Both morphine and methamphetamine are routinely prescribed by physicians. Morphine for pain relief, and methamphetamine for obesity. So why is a far safer drug (marijuana) being so intensely fought over to keep in schedule I category? It can't be because of serious contraindications like so many other available legal drugs.Thousands of Americans die because of the side effects of numerous legal pharmaceuticals, and no patient has ever died because of ingesting too much marijuana. With this fact brought into the courtroom, the only logical step to take, is to allow all cannabis products to be recommended by doctors to their patients for whom the doctors feel might benefit from its usage. By trying to deny doctors from helping their patients with cannabis therapy is unthinkable. Judge Alsup will certainly see this truth too. I'm sure he has read the recent articles showing how cannabis use helps people. A beneficial plant should not be against the law. It's just that simple.Dr. Ganj
http://www.champsf.org
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 04, 2000 at 21:30:14 PT
Thank You Doctor Russo
Hello Doctor Russo,That's wonderful news for me to hear. I actually got the nerve and talked to a Doctor about cannabis too recently. It seems that many Doctor's aren't aware of even Marinol and I don't understand why. I am fortunate and haven't been to a doctor except a dentist since 94 so I'm out of touch but these are the things that I hear. Also a friend of ours is on a liver transplant list ( he is equipped with a beeper ) and he goes for tests and they tested him and he tested positive for marijuana. He told them that smoking a little cannabis made him feel better and they said if you test hot again you will not get a liver. It was the VA. I don't understand all this sometimes. It makes me feel sick that we have become like we have towards people and it is worse when we treat sick people that know what makes them feel better like we are or I should say they are.Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 04, 2000 at 20:51:41 PT:
Reprise: 2nd Opinion
Someone please contact Joseph Lobue so that he can arrange to have me cuffed, gagged and arrested. I actually talked about cannabis to a patient today! Imagine that! It could be the end of civilization as we know it! Seriously, I hope that the public will read this kind of trash, become incensed, and insist that politics respond to medical science instead of moralistic and bankrupt posturing. We have all had enough of this nonsense. I pray that rational judges will end this debacle of more than 60 years.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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