cannabisnews.com: Marijuana for Med. Use Has Strong Support in Polls










  Marijuana for Med. Use Has Strong Support in Polls

Posted by FoM on September 17, 2000 at 11:02:11 PT
By Kevin Flynn, DRMN Staff Writer 
Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News 

Medical marijuana is seen either as a compassionate concession to the pain of the chronically ill or a stalking horse in the national campaign to legalize drugs. The battleground this year is Colorado, where a multi-million dollar national movement to legalize the use of marijuana by people with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS or other chronically painful illnesses goes before voters on Nov. 7.It was first proposed for the 1998 ballot but then-Secretary of State Vikki Buckley kicked it off in an administrative decision that was later overturned. Polls shows the constitutional amendment would pass by a healthy majority if the election were today.
Last week, a Denver Rocky Mountain News-News4 poll showed the medical marijuana initiative supported by 71 percent of registered voters, and opposed by 23 percent. On the ballot, it is labeled Amendment 20.Supporters say the therapeutic effect of marijuana on pain and nausea will help patients put on weight and take the edge off chronic pain. To withhold this option for lessening their suffering is a cruel side effect of a futile war on drugs, they argue.Opponents call it "medicine by popular vote."Every other prescribed drug must be tested in scientifically rigorous trials to ensure that it is safe and effective before it can be sold to the public. But marijuana in smoked form has never been shown in controlled scientific studies to be a safe or effective medicine.If what patients want is the soothing effects of pot on their nausea, opponents say, then they can take Marinol, a safer and more stable medicine containing the active ingredient in marijuana that promotes appetite.Marinol is the brand name for the synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the principal active ingredient in marijuana. It has been available since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1985.Other more effective and less risky medicines than Marinol also are being developed.The involvement of medical marijuana backers in other attempts to decriminalize drug use has opponents saying this initiative is a disguised effort to enact more permissive drug laws.But those backing the measure insist it isn't a back-door first step to legalizing other drugs for the general population. Marinol, they counter, has serious side effects.And forcing people to use Marinol rather than pot, they say, is a way of keeping people dependent on the pharmaceutical industry rather than being responsible for themselves."The amendment was written to limit the use of marijuana to the people who really need it medically," said Julie Roche, a spokeswoman for the group supporting the amendment, Coloradans for Medical Rights 2000."We never intended to go any further than to allow patients who were possessing and using marijuana to do so legally," said Gina Pesulima, spokeswoman for Americans for Medical Rights in Santa Monica, Calif.The group is bankrolling the Colorado initiative, as it has in other states. It in turn is backed primarily by three wealthy businessmen who are sometimes called the "Daddy Warbucks" of the movement to end the war on drugs.They are financier and philanthropist George Soros of New York, Progressive Auto Insurance head Peter B. Lewis of Cleveland, and John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix program. They are continuing the work of a group of wealthy individuals who funded passage of the California medical marijuana measure in 1996.Soros has committed $15 million over a five-year period for projects that explore alternatives to existing drug policies.Lewis, 66, a trustee of Princeton University and director of the board of the Guggenheim museums, was arrested in New Zealand in January and charged with possession of less than four ounces total of marijuana and hashish. He was entering the country to visit a daughter and to watch the America's Cup regatta.Lewis made a large donation to a drug treatment center in Auckland and the charges were dropped the next day.Narrowly written or not, the medical marijuana initiative is part of a larger agenda of drug law reform. Soros, Lewis and Sperling also bankroll the Campaign for New Drug Policies.That group this year began using state initiatives to try to decriminalize nonviolent drug offenses and change the current practice that allows the seizure of drug users' property.Sperling spearheaded the 1996 vote in Arizona that offered treatment instead of jail to some drug users. With his two compatriots, they poured $1.2 million into that campaign. The Drug Reform Coordination Network of Washington, D.C., backs their efforts."The initiative process has become an effective tool for drug policy reform, as evidenced by the medical marijuana initiative victories across the country in 1996, 1998 and most recently in Maine in 1999," the group wrote in a report earlier this year.The Colorado initiative would allow specific patients to own and grow small amounts of marijuana. They could have six plants, with no more than three in flower at a time.If they are not growing it themselves, patients can have up to two ounces at a time. Anyone found to have more than that must prove the extra amount is medically necessary.To qualify for use, the patient must obtain a doctor's finding that he or she might benefit from the use of marijuana. A state registry would be created to qualify people for medical marijuana. Cards would be issued to patients, who can show them to police if they are stopped for possession.The amendment also protects one primary caregiver of the patient from prosecution for marijuana possession. A primary caregiver must be at least 18 years old to qualify.The amendment also protects doctors who advise patients to use marijuana. To avoid running afoul of federal regulations, the law doesn't require doctors to prescribe marijuana. They merely must discuss the risks and benefits of marijuana with a patient and find that marijuana might benefit that patient.The amendment prohibits patients from using marijuana in public or in the workplace.The Colorado initiative, similar to one passed in Oregon in 1998, is narrowly drawn to allow marijuana use only by a limited class of people, namely those suffering from the effects of glaucoma, cancer, AIDS and other chronic debilitating conditions, like epilepsy or multiple sclerosis.While marijuana smoking helps ease the pain and nausea of treatments for cancer and AIDS, and the effects of glaucoma and multiple sclerosis, smoking marijuana is nevertheless opposed by many advocacy groups for sufferers of those diseases.The use of smoked marijuana as medicine is opposed by the American Medical Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The American Cancer Society, the American Glaucoma Society and the American Academy of Ophthalmology.Dr. Joel Karlin, a Lakewood physician active in the opposition group Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana, says it is safer and more effective for patients to get on a regulated regimen of Marinol than to rely on the variable quality of the many supplies of marijuana available illegally on the streets."I know a number of oncologists (cancer physicians) who have said that Marinol is much more effective for the purposes patients want," Karlin said. "Smoked marijuana has abrupt action but it's gone in four hours. But the duration of Marinol is eight to 12 hours, and they take it twice a day."The U.S. Justice Department, which has battled the implementation of medical marijuana initiatives in California and elsewhere, takes the position that it is a harmful drug with more bad side-effects than medicinal benefits.The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana, the department says, include cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, various mental disorders such as depression, hostility and increased aggressiveness, general apathy and memory loss.Studies show that HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as nonsmokers. They also have a higher rate of bacterial pneumonia, according to the Justice Department.Another problem opponents see is that while the initiative makes it legal for certain patients to possess and use marijuana, it would still be illegal for other people to sell or provide it to them.In other words, patients could have their pot, but they couldn't get it legally. Backers say they purposely left out of the amendment any legal means for patients to obtain marijuana, preferring to go one step at a time.In California, where a medical marijuana proposition passed in 1996, there still is no legal way to obtain the substance. The U.S. Supreme Court recently barred the Oakland, Calif., Cannabis Buyers Cooperative from distributing marijuana to those claiming a medical need.Instead, Roche said, the Colorado initiative makes it an affirmative defense against a marijuana charge if the patient in possession has a doctor's recommendation and gets onto a to-be-established state registry of patients.Pesulima said finding a way to legally distribute marijuana to patients will come later.Contact Kevin Flynn at (303) 892-5247 or flynnk RockyMountainNews.com Related Article:Amendment 20 WHAT IT WOULD DOAuthorize people with certain debilitating medical conditions to smoke marijuana and establish an affirmative defense in event of a criminal case for such patients and their primary care-givers.THE BALLOT QUESTIONShall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution authorizing the medical use of marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating medical conditions, and, in connection therewith, establishing an affirmative defense to Colorado criminal laws for patients and their primary caregivers relating to the medical use of marijuana; establishing exceptions to Colorado criminal laws for patients and their primary caregivers in lawful possession of a registry identification cars for medical marijuana use and for physicians who advise patients or provide them with written documentation as to such medical marijuana use; defining "debilitating medical condition" and authorizing the state health agency to approve other medical conditions or treatments as debilitating medical conditions; requiring preservation of seized property interests that had been possessed, owned, or used in connection with a claimed medical use of marijuana and limiting forfeiture of such interests; establishing and maintaining a confidential state registry of patients receiving an identification card for the medical use of marijuana and defining eligibility for receipt of such a card and placement on the registry; restricting access to information in the registry; establishing procedures for issuance of an identification card; authorizing fees to cover administrative costs associated with the registry; specifying the form and amount of marijuana a patient may possess and restrictions on its use; setting forth additional requirements for the medical use of marijuana by patients less than 18 years old; directing enactment of implementing legislation and criminal penalties for certain offenses; requiring the state health agency designated by the governor to make application forms available to residents of Colorado for inclusion on the registry; limiting a health insurer's liability on claims relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing that no employer must accommodate medical use of marijuana in the workplace.PRO:1. Gives patients with certain debilitating medical conditions an additional treatment option. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, has been shown to relieve the pain and suffering of some patients. It can be beneficial for individuals suffering from nausea, vomiting or lack of appetite due to chemotherapy or AIDS/HIV, pressure within the eye due to glaucoma, and severe muscle spasms from some neurological and movement disorders such as multiple sclerosis.2. For patients suffering from serious illnesses, marijuana can be more effective than taking prescription drugs that contain synthetic THC. Furthermore, many drugs have side effects, but the adverse effects of marijuana are no worse than those of some prescription drugs used to treat the illnesses listed in the proposal.3. Using marijuana for other than medical purposes would still be illegal in Colorado. Legal use of marijuana would be limited to patients on the state registry. The registry would consist only of those individuals who have submitted written documentation from their doctor indicating a qualifying medical condition. Registry identification cards would be valid for one year and would have to be renewed annually.CON:1. Using marijuana is not necessary to relieve nausea and pain or increase appetite. Other prescription drugs, including a synthetic version of THC, are available. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent for approval of medicines by popular vote, circumventing the usual process by which other medicines are legalized and regulated.2. The proposal does not provide legal means for a patient to obtain marijuana. It would still be illegal to sell to another individual, including a patient on the state registry. Under federal law, it would still be illegal to sell or use marijuana for any purpose.3. Research shows that smoking marijuana can be addictive and has other damaging health effects on users, such as pneumonia, cancers, and lower birth weights. The effects of smoking marijuana may be worse than those of smoking tobacco. There is no requirement for a prescription, no quality control or testing standards, and no control over strength, dosage, or frequency of use, such as those for prescription drugs. Patients have no control over the dosage received through smoked marijuana because potency can vary from plant to plant.DONATIONSSUPPORTING:Coloradans for Medical Rights 2000 — $771,483 raised since 1998, nearly all of it from Santa Monica, Calif.-based Americans for Medical Rights.OPPOSING:Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana — $36,945 raised since 1998, mostly from small contributors. Largest were $5,000 from Howard "Bo" Callaway in July 1998, and $2,000 from the Colorado Elks Association in April 1998.Published: September 17, 2000 Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News (CO)Copyright: 2000 Denver Publishing Co.Contact: letters denver-rmn.com Address: 400 W. Colfax, Denver, CO 80204Website: http://www.denver-rmn.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Coloradans For Medical Rights http://www.medicalmarijuana.com/Drug Reform Coordination Networkhttp://www.drcnet.org/Drug Policy Forum of Coloradohttp://www.drugsense.org/dpfco/US CO: PUB LTE: Vote Yes For Amendment 20http://mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1382/a05.htmlColorado To Vote on Marijuana Uses http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7018.shtmlMedical Marijuana Amendment Flawed http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6993.shtmlIt's Bad Medicine, It's Bad Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6986.shtmlMedical Marijuana Foes Irked http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6961.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help






 


Comment #6 posted by fivepounder on September 17, 2000 at 20:14:08 PT

die prohibitionists die!

Kaptinemo is right. One more nail in the prohibitionist coffin. I predict with their repressive techniques since the passage of prop 215 here in California, that these statewide initiatives will begin passing with even larger margins. Go ahead prohibitionists make fools of yourselves the end is near.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on September 17, 2000 at 18:01:12 PT:

Alternative Headings

Just a short comment: this article's "Pros" and "Cons" headings would be more accurate if labeled "Truth" and "Lies." No More Lies!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #4 posted by Frank S. World on September 17, 2000 at 17:44:31 PT

Study showed AIDS patients thrived using smoked mj

This article debunks the contention that, "Studies show that HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as nonsmokers."Excerpted from:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n974/a07.html13 July 2000STUDY: POT USE SAFE FOR HIV PATIENTS DURBAN, South Africa - The first U.S. study using medical marijuana for people with HIV has found that smoking the plant does not disrupt the effect of antiretroviral drugs that keep the virus in check. The results were announced Thursday at the 13th International AIDS Conference and are the first to be released from research conducted at San Francisco General Hospital into the use of marijuana by people infected with HIV. Given the scarcity of data about the possible medical uses of marijuana, the results have been eagerly awaited by advocates in this heavily debated issue. It took four years for UC San Francisco professor Donald Abrams to jump through hurdles erected by the federal government to get the research under way, and in the process he was restricted to focusing on marijuana's safety rather than its effectiveness. The 67 people who participated in the study were kept in the hospital during the 25-day study period. "The fact of the matter is that any good clinician with his eyes and ears open has known for a long time that cannabis is very useful in the treatment of the AIDS reduction syndrome and does not harm patients," said Dr. Lester Greenspoon, [sic] professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and author of "Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine." "When all the dust settles, and when marijuana is admitted to the U.S. pharmacopoeia, it will be seen as one of the least toxic drugs in the whole compendium. What Don (Abrams) has done is put the seal of approval on a new drug with his double blind study." Researchers were especially keen to study people on drug regimes that contain protease inhibitors, because the key ingredient in marijuana is metabolized by the same system in the liver as those drugs. The participants, nearly all men, were divided into three groups, with one set smoking marijuana, another taking a Food and Drug Administration approved pill containing marijuana's main ingredient, and a third taking a placebo pill. In all groups, tests showed that the level of virus in the blood dropped or remained undetectable by current tests. But those taking marijuana either by smoking or in a pill form saw their level drop slightly more than those on the placebo. Furthermore, researchers found that those using the pill or smoking marijuana gained an average of 2.2 kilograms, compared to .6 kilograms in the placebo group. "Now that we've demonstrated the safety in a population as vulnerable as people with HIV, I think it paves the way for doing studies of efficacy," Abrams said. Indeed, Abrams, an oncologist, said he hopes to soon begin studying the use of smoked marijuana for cancer patients to see if it can control nausea and pain, including the nerve-based pain that is often beyond the reach of opiate painkillers like morphine. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #3 posted by Dave in Florida on September 17, 2000 at 17:32:08 PT

What Studies

>Studies show that HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as nonsmokers.They also have a higher rate of bacterial pneumonia, according to the Justice Department.What studies showed this?
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #2 posted by Frank on September 17, 2000 at 16:35:52 PT

Marinol Better than Marijuana -- No Way!

After taking all sorts of antidepressants since the age of 7 (I’m now over 50 years old), I was put on a trial of Marinol 2.5 mg a day by one of the leading physicians in the country. It works for depression; however,NOT as well home grown natural marijuana. It is much easier to regulate the dose using the natural product not to mention the cost of Marinol. One hundred 2.5-mg pills at Walgreens Pharmacy cost $550.00 dollars for a 60-day supply. It is very important for the sick and ill that this proposition passes -- better healthcare at lower costs. The forces that say that Marinol is better than natural marijuana DO Not Know what they are talking about. Ask anyone who has to take this medicine and they will tell you the real truth. Don’t believe me? Phone Walgreens and ask for the cost of #100 2.5-mg Marinol capsules and see if I am lying. The government just wants power and control over you and me and does not care if you live or die. Vote YES on the issue. The life you save may be your own or a familymembers.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on September 17, 2000 at 14:44:25 PT:

Calling Doctor Doofus! Dr. Doofus!

The antis have never ceased to indulge in their propensity for Hearst style yellow journalism... even when they are not writing for the papers.It was a hallmark of the Reefer Madness stories that they never reported the names of the ganja-crazed axe murderers they claimed were the reason for their efforts to ban cannabis. As you might gather, there were probably none. But they certainly couldn't admit that, now could they?'The use of smoked marijuana as medicine is opposed by the American Medical Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The American Cancer Society, the American Glaucoma Society and the American Academy of Ophthalmology.(Has been opposed by the doctors, or the doctor's *mouthpieces*, the lawyers who counsel and represent them? This is never brought up, and should be.)Dr. Joel Karlin, a Lakewood physician active in the opposition group Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana, says it is safer and more effective for patients to get on a regulated regimen of Marinol than to rely on the variable quality of the many supplies of marijuana available illegally on the streets."I know a number of oncologists (cancer physicians) who have said that Marinol is much more effective for the purposes patients want," Karlin said. "Smoked marijuana has abrupt action but it's gone in four hours. But the duration of Marinol is eight to 12 hours, and they take it twice a day."Alright, Doctor Karlin; if you say you know of physicians who say that they are against MMJ, why not introduce them? They have far less to worry about than a physician who publicly declares his or her support for MMJ; that is tantamount to inviting the local SWAT team to bash down your door and shoot you, your wife and children. After all, if I am likely to suffer from cancer, and am in need of chemo, I think I'd like to know who recommends MMJ and who does not. And why.But Dr. Karlin, like all his ilk, are not talking. Perhaps those same physicians that he refers to are worried about what might happen to their relationships with the pharmaceutical companies if they spoke out in favor of MMJ. Or perhaps they fear their investment portfolio might suffer.No matter. I predict that one more State will go towards MMJ in a very deliberate thumbing of the legislative nose at the scheissekopfen in DC. Another nail in the prohibitionist coffin. You gotta love it.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment




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

Link URL: 
Link Title: