cannabisnews.com: Physicians Can Recommend Pot 





Physicians Can Recommend Pot 
Posted by FoM on September 08, 2000 at 15:46:53 PT
By Jason Hoppin, The Recorder
Source: Cal Law
Doctors have a free speech right to talk to patients about marijuana, Judge Alsup rules. U.S. District Judge William Alsup on Thursday ruled that doctors may recommend marijuana to patients they deem in need of the drug. In doing so, Alsup turned back claims that such recommendations would impair the government's war on drugs and expanded a previous injunction that prevented the government from revoking a doctor's license to prescribe medicine and made it permanent.
The move means doctors can recommend medical options to their patients with immunity -- even if the option happens to be illegal."In some cases . . . it will be the professional opinion of doctors that marijuana is the best therapy or at least should be tried. If such recommendations could not be communicated, then the physician-patient relationship will be seriously impaired. Patients need to know their doctors' recommendations," Alsup wrote.The ruling came just one week after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, holding that a defense of medical necessity may not be used by those who take marijuana to combat the side-effects of serious illness.Alsup's ruling sidestepped that issue, holding that restraining a doctor's speech by threatening his medical practice raised serious First Amendment questions.Both Alsup's case, Conant v. McCaffrey, 97-00139, and the separate controversy over the distribution of medical marijuana that has reached the Supreme Court, stem from Proposition 215 -- also called the Compassionate Use Act -- a voter-approved California initiative that made it legal for seriously ill patients to use marijuana.Shortly after 215 was enacted, the Drug Enforcement Agency issued a statement saying doctors may discuss the pros and cons of marijuana but may not explicitly recommend it. In court, government lawyers argued that a recommendation would lead the patient to purchase the drug -- a crime -- and undermine the government's war on drugs.Alsup criticized the government in court for the assumption, and he did it again in his opinion."Contrary to the government's argument, it is not true that a mere recommendation will necessarily lead to the commission of a federal offense. To the contrary, such recommendations can lead to lawful and legitimate responses," he wrote, mentioning that it may lead patients to lobby the government to change the law."In the marketplace of ideas, few questions are more deserving of free-speech protection than whether regulations affecting health and welfare are sound public policy."In emphasizing the free-speech aspect of the case, Alsup drew a distinction between his case and that of his courthouse neighbor, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. In a suit over the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative -- also brought in the wake of Prop 215 -- Breyer first ruled that a medical marijuana defense could not be raised, was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, reinstated the defense, and was reversed by the Supreme Court.In a footnote, Alsup went so far as to mention that neither case is dependent on the other.Alsup also mentioned several possible ways for a patient to obtain marijuana legally, but also left open the door for government prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against doctors accused of aiding and abetting drug trafficking.Applying pre-enforcement justicibility standards recently enacted in the Ninth Circuit's Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 00 C.D.O.S. 6504, Alsup found that there had been no efforts by the government so far to pursue this avenue, and therefore declined to adjudicate the plaintiff's claims in this arena, since there was no actual controversy.In the end, Alsup ruled, it's not a doctor's responsibilty to prevent the crimes of his patients."A sincere recommendation alone is not a federal crime, even if the doctor foresees it could be used to facilitate a federal crime," Alsup wrote.That point is critical for the plaintiff doctors in the class action case, said Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain associate Jonathan Weissglass."This makes is clear that even if the doctor thinks the patient is going to go out and get marijuana, there's protection," he said. "The way the opinion reads, it's very far-reaching."By Jason Hoppin, The RecorderContact: jhoppin therecorder.com Published: September 8, 2000© 2000 law.com Inc. © 1999-2000 NLP IP CompanyRelated Articles: Doctor Rights Backed Under Pot Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6971.shtmlFed. Judge Says Government Cannot Penalize Doctors http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6968.shtmlSmoky Battleground Renewed in Federal Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6684.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by FoM on September 08, 2000 at 18:42:58 PT
I don't know
Hi Dave in Florida, I don't know. I am using Internet Explorer 5 something and I don't allow cookies and I haven't had any sites ask for cookies. I haven't been to most of these sites that you mentioned though. I just posted on overgrow and I didn't adjust my cookies to do it. I wish I knew more to tell you but only The New York Times requires me to turn them on.Peace, FoM!http://www.overgrow.com/news/index.html
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Dave in Florida on September 08, 2000 at 18:27:35 PT
Cookies
hey FOM.. What's with the cookies. today all of a sudden there are a buch of sites that are wantint to set cookies. CC, Narconews, yahooka, Map, cannabis.com, wackybaccy, marijaunanews.com, overgrow, DRCnet..etc
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 08, 2000 at 16:20:18 PT
Observation
It really is a war, lets not be fooled by the government changing the name of it, whether it be police action or fight on drugs or whatever label they have for it. The way I see it right now it's a war, one side takes some ground, the other side loses it, the other side gains some ground, the other side loses some ground. It reminds me of WWI when they used to fight for inches but never gained anything, except maybe dead bodies. In this case it's dead patients, users, dealers and destroyed lives. History teaches us but these guys never learn, ignorance is dangerous.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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