cannabisnews.com: COLUMN: What is the Court Smoking? 





COLUMN: What is the Court Smoking? 
Posted by FoM on September 07, 2000 at 08:30:35 PT
By Tory Toyama, Daily Trojan U. Southern Calif.
Source: U-WIRE
Light it up and take a puff, pass it to me now. Unfortunately, it looks like a recent emergency order issued by the Supreme Court is going to prevent people with a medical need for marijuana from following that particular part of Nelly's "Country Grammar." Last week the Court issued the order, at the behest of the Clinton ("I didn't inhale") Administration, to prevent Californians from legally giving marijuana to people who are sick and in pain. 
This decision is seen as a prelude to Supreme Court action on California's Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which was passed in 1998 and allows non-profit groups to distribute marijuana to patients that have authorization from a physician. Medicinal marijuana laws have also been passed in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, but the California law has been chosen to serve as a test case in this emerging battle between the states and federal government. Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule-1, or a highly dangerous drug, making it a federal crime to cultivate, transport, sell, purchase, possess and consume. The various state laws do not legalize marijuana, but only authorize its use as a medicinal agent, and therein lies the conflict. The supremacy of federal over state law is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, but eight states and an ever-growing number of people disagree with this one. Medicinal marijuana, because of its controversy, has been studied for at least the past 30 years, and its beneficial effects have been and continue to be well-documented, both anecdotally and through monitored lab tests at respected research facilities. In fact, the University of California has recently established a brand new cannabis study center, to be headquartered at UC San Diego. The National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences have also been calling for increased studies to scientifically prove the beneficial qualities of marijuana. Its pain-relieving and appetite-stimulating properties are commonly known lore, and it has brought about analgesia without major side effects to thousands of AIDS, cancer, muscular dystrophy and other patients. The main argument against marijuana is that it serves as a gateway drug to other, more addictive and harmful substances such as cocaine, PCP, LSD, ecstasy and heroine. I would argue that alcohol and tobacco are, in fact, the true gateway drugs, with the only difference being the social attitudes attached to each different substance. Both alcohol and tobacco/nicotine are addictive substances, and do much more damage to the human body when taken in excess than marijuana does. They have no modern medicinal benefits, and actually cost billions of dollars in health care costs and thousands of lives each year. Marijuana, meanwhile, has proven time and again to help alleviate pain and suffering among patients undergoing chemotherapy and other painful and debilitating therapies. Marijuana can be grown by the patients themselves, which is much more effective than other pharmaceutical analgesics, with little to no side effects, and is relatively cheap. Not surprisingly, the major drug companies are among the supporters of continuing the fight against legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. They see the disappearance of a market for painkillers and its replacement with a plant that has been cultivated cheaply and effectively for thousands of years. This past summer, I worked as an intern in the Office of the Surgeon General, and was able to see the inner workings of how national health care policy is formulated. I was also able to see archived material that shows that the debate over marijuana, and other drugs, has been going on for quite a while. National health care policy must follow the straight and narrow path. What is in the best interest of America's health may not always be in the best interest of a politician. Dr. David Kestler, after arguing that nicotine should be classified and regulated as a drug, was put under so much pressure from his political bosses, who were under pressure from the tobacco lobbyists, that he was forced to resign his post as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. I believe that marijuana has a definite role as an effective pain killer, and that it would help ease the suffering of thousands of Americans, if only it were to be approved and accepted as a medicinal agent. As a society, we turn a blind eye to college students who drink themselves into a stupor, and accept smoking as merely a vice rather than a medical addiction to a deadly, carcinogenic substance. We also allow major pharmaceutical companies to get richer and richer at the expense of patient suffering, while denying those same patients a cheap, readily available analgesic marijuana. A majority of people in eight different states has spoken, arguing that this farce must come to an end, and yet the federal government continues to intrude and impose its will and values on an area where it is most unwelcome. (U-WIRE) Los AngelesWeb Posted: September 6, 2000(C) 2000 Daily Trojan via U-WIRE  Copyright © 2000 At Home Corporation. CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by dddd on September 08, 2000 at 03:26:23 PT
nicely said
 Thank you Dr. Dan B,and Tim Stone...well spoken. I gotta agree with Dave in Florida alsoSincerely............dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Dave in Florida on September 07, 2000 at 16:00:38 PT
Hits The Nail on The Head
>Not surprisingly, the major drug companies areamong the supporters of continuing the fight against legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. They see thedisappearance of a market for painkillers and its replacement with a plant that has been cultivated cheaply and effectively for thousands of years. Makes ya wonder...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Tim Stone on September 07, 2000 at 14:39:39 PT
The Supremes
The Supreme Court, for nigh on twenty years now, have been, in Justice Stevens' phrase, "loyal foot soldiers" in the WoD, playing fast and loose with the Constitution and established precedent, justified by the supposed sui generis extreme emergency of supposed "drug abuse." The Supremes have chipped away at everything that used to be, in police powers, drug testing, asset forfeiture, all in the name of the drug war.Nobody ever wants to admit he made a bad decision. That's why people tend to hold on to favorite stocks, even when the stock tubes. To sell, to change one's position, would be to admit that, however thought-out the original decision was, it was a _bad_ decision.That's the situation the Supremes are in now. That's what I see them doing with the stay on allowing Oakland to distribute medpot. They can't backtrack on anything they've already done, for fear of looking perfidious, arbitrary, stupid and derelict, so they have no choice but to form their nine wagons in as close to a circle as the Court can ever get and continue to bluster their way through even more bad drug war decisions, rather than admit to former mistakes. There's no hope until the Supreme Court composition changes, and new faces can make new decisions, without looking perfidious, arbitrary, etc. Better times, Tim Stone
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Dan B on September 07, 2000 at 09:50:25 PT:
Inaccuracies Make Us Look Bad
"California's Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which was passed in 1998..."No, it was passed in 1996. "The supremacy of federal over state law is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, but eight states and an ever-growing number of people disagree with this one."No, this is incorrect. Tory Toyama needs to study the Constitution, particularly the ninth and tenth amendments. If it is not directly speeled out in the Constitution as a federal power, the power falls to the states. Drug laws are not in the Constitution. There is no amendment to the Constitution to allow the current federal drug laws, so they are by definition unconstitutional. The reason they are in effect is because the feds have discarded Constitutional law in favor of popular demand.While I appreciate the apparent effort to come out in favor of the medicinal marijuana laws, I believe this author needs to learn the art of research.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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