cannabisnews.com: Advocates of MJ for Medicinal Use Tout Its Benefit










  Advocates of MJ for Medicinal Use Tout Its Benefit

Posted by FoM on October 18, 2000 at 09:39:08 PT
By Julie Marshall, Camera Staff Writer 
Source: Daily Camera 

J.F. Oschwald smoked marijuana a few hours ago, but his slow, deliberate speech and awkward limp aren't the result of inhaling the drug. The Lyons resident is a paraplegic because he was involved in a near-fatal highway accident 20 years ago. Marijuana, he says, calms his severe muscle spasms.Oschwald, 51, is one of an untold number of Coloradans who risks criminal prosecution to smoke marijuana for medical reasons. He supports a constitutional amendment that would, if approved by voters Nov. 7, decriminalize marijuana for people who can legally claim a medical need. Amendment 20 would create a registry of patients who can possess no more than 2 ounces of marijuana and six marijuana plants. 
Coloradans would need a physician's recommendation to use marijuana for "debilitating medical conditions" that include, but are not limited to, cancer, glaucoma, HIV and AIDS. These residents could smoke, eat or otherwise ingest marijuana in their home.Opponents say there are safer alternatives to using marijuana for pain or other symptoms. Law enforcement agencies and politicians say Amendment 20 sends the wrong message to kids.Campaign organizers say the issue must focus on terminally or seriously ill Coloradans who find marijuana the most effective remedy for their pain and symptoms. They find no harm or mixed messages in providing one more alternative for doctors and their patients.Medical experts on both sides of the debate agree that the average voter faces a tremendous challenge because of the political, moral, emotional and historical context of marijuana as an illegal drug in this country.Smoked Medicine:"As a doctor, it doesn't make any sense to say smoking medicine is good long-term use for glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, cancer or HIV," says Frank Sargent, a urologist and co-chair of Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana. "Our society for the last 10 years has been telling kids that smoking cigarettes is bad, and now they want to send mixed messages that smoking marijuana is OK."Sargent points to a National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine study commissioned by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy last year, which concludes "marijuana smoke is an important risk factor in the development of respiratory disease.""There are safer alternatives, Sargent says. Physicians prescribe Marinol, a synthetic pill form of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC — one of the active ingredients of marijuana — to stimulate appetite in HIV patients. They prescribe Zofran to curb nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Zofran, unlike Marinol or heavier narcotics, doesn't leave patients in a fog."I took an oath to give the best quality of care and to do the least physical harm. That might sound corny, but it's true," Sargent says.Weighing Health Risk:Michael, who asked that his last name not be used because of the stigma associated with his illness, quit smoking cigarettes but has smoked marijuana every day since 1997, when he dropped nearly 30 pounds because of HIV.Michael was diagnosed with HIV in 1986 and has since been on a quest to cure himself with herbs, vitamins and organic foods. He avoids doctors' offices and medication, but he couldn't ignore rapid weight loss four years ago."I was down to 110 pounds. I was emaciated — I looked like I came out of a prison camp," says Michael, who now weighs 136 pounds.The Boulder resident tried Marinol for one month, but it didn't increase his appetite. A friend suggested he try marijuana. He smokes daily, once before lunch and dinner."It only takes half a joint to get my appetite going. I feel mildly high, but it doesn't affect anything I'm doing, like my reactions," he says.Arguing Science:The National Multiple Sclerosis Society is listed in Sargent's campaign literature as opposed to the initiative."I wouldn't say we are opponents, but our position at this point is that no double-blind clinical evidence shows smoking marijuana benefits people with multiple sclerosis," Denver-based spokesman Dan Lawrence says.Lawrence points to a study published this spring in the journal Nature, which shows cannabinoids (derivatives of marijuana) control tremors in mice with EAE — a mouse disease similar to multiple sclerosis. He also points out that marijuana exacerbates one symptom of multiple sclerosis, which is not being able to think clearly."We can't dismiss concerns about cognitive deficit. You could talk to 10 people who use marijuana and they might anecdotally say they feel better, but until the studies are done, we can't tell people to go out and smoke marijuana."Charles Steinberg, M.D. of the Boulder Beacon Clinic, which specializes in HIV treatment, says the science is clear enough on the benefits of medical marijuana.The Institute of Medicine study concludes that "scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." The study also says inhaling marijuana may be more effective for patients who don't respond to Marinol.Of Steinberg's 150 HIV patients, only 12 use marijuana medicinally. Most of those patients began using on their own."This is Boulder and most of my patients are well familiar with marijuana," Steinberg says. "It's not like I am suggesting it to them for the first time. My approach is to start with Marinol, and if that doesn't work, I ask if they have considered trying (smoking) marijuana. I don't tell them to go out on the street and buy marijuana, I can't tell them to do something illegal."Steinberg is careful to discuss side effects and tells patients not to drive when using marijuana. "It's the same thing I would tell a patient with a twisted ankle on codeine."Regarding the harmful carcinogens from smoking marijuana, Steinberg says physicians have to weigh potential harm with benefits. Someone suffering with cancer expected to live only two years might be a good candidate. "And then it might not be the right thing for a 14-year-old track star. The amendment just gives us one more alternative, another choice."Message To Kids:Some argue marijuana as a legal medical alternative sends the wrong message to kids."I have spent a lot of time around the state visiting schools, and it is very evident that there is a significant drug problem in the middle and high schools," Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar says. "For us as a society to embrace using drugs for a limited purpose sends the wrong message and will lead young people down the path of drugs and violence."Julie Roche, director of the Amendment 20 campaign, Coloradans for Medical Rights, says medical marijuana debates always end up going into the "drug war thing.""I feel we're not arguing the same issue. We are only talking about a small percentage of Colorado's population that might benefit from the initiative," she says.Salazar joins state Treasurer Mike Coffman and the Colorado Legislature in a letter from Gov. Bill Owens to the voters, urging them to reject the amendment. The underlined passage in the letter reads: "Drug dealers dispensing "medicine" to sick people? Not in Colorado — not on my watch — not if I can help it!"Oschwald was charged with possession of marijuana years ago. If Amendment 20 passes, he plans to stop buying joints from dealers and start cultivating his own plants."In the big picture, some guy smoking pot for medical reasons should be a blip in the police radar. I hope they have better things to do than — and pardon me if this sounds bad — busting a cripple marijuana smoker."Access a Problem:The County Sheriffs of Colorado joins Colorado's politicians who are opposed to Amendment 20."We believe (Colorado's measure) is something of a sham," Boulder County Sheriff George Epp says."Proponents in California and Oregon saw (initiatives) as a way to get their foot in the door for legalizing non-medical use and there's no control for dosage like any other pharmaceutical drug. The big issue recently has been that (state amendments) still violate federal law, so how is that going to work?"Proponents say many legal and moral issues could be solved if government labs would grow and regulate marijuana for medical programs. But that won't happen as long as marijuana remains listed by the federal government as a Schedule I drug along with heroin and LSD. Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no medicinal value, unlike cocaine and morphine, which are Schedule II drugs that can be medically used. Cocaine cannot be prescribed; it is mixed with opiates and salts to create pain medication.The Drug Enforcement Administration held hearings on making marijuana a Schedule II drug four years ago. The DEA's administrative-law judge said, "It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of evidence in this record." The DEA overruled the judge's order.The federal government's refusal to change marijuana's status is the main reason proponents are taking their cause to the voters."The government is too leery to study or look at marijuana as an alternative," Roche says."The main point is we are trying to give doctors and patients one more option without fear of becoming a criminal."Web Sites for Amendment 20:Opponents: Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana: http://www.anti-marijuana.org/Proponents: Coloradans for Medical Rights: http://www.medicalmarijuana.com/Complete Title: Advocates of Marijuana for Medicinal Use Tout Its Benefits; Opponents Say It Sends The Wrong Message About Drugs To Kids Source: Daily Camera (CO) Author: Julie MarshallPublished: October 16, 2000 Fax: 303-449-9358 Copyright: 2000 The Daily Camera. Contact: openforum thedailycamera.com Address: Open Forum, Daily CameraP.O. Box 591, Boulder, CO 80306 Website: http://www.bouldernews.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Coloradans For Medical Rights: http://www.medicalmarijuana.com/Drug Policy Forum of Colorado: http://www.drugsense.org/dpfco/Flawed, But Not Fatally: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7307.shtmlVoters Favoring Medical Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7257.shtmlEndorsement: No on Medical Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7217.shtmlMedical Marijuana Amendment Flawed: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6993.shtmlIt's Bad Medicine, It's Bad Law: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6986.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Colorado: http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=coloradoCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives: http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help





Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 19, 2000 at 16:05:16 PT:
Yes To Medical Marijuana - Opinion
Published: October 19, 2000Copyright © 2000, the Durango Herald.Source: Durango HeraldWebsite: http://www.durangoherald.com/Allowing the medical use of marijuana is a simple matter of compassion. The reality is that most Coloradans can already get marijuana if they want. It is hypocritical and cruel to prosecute those few it might actually help.Amendment 20 would exempt patients suffering from serious or chronic medical conditions from Colorado criminal laws concerning possession or use of marijuana. It would require them to register with the state and to carry a state identification card. It mandates that each case be re-evaluated every year and requires that marijuana use by anyone under 18 be approved by two physicians and by each parent.Just as critical is what Amendment 20 would not do. The amendment specifically forbids anyone using marijuana under its provisions from possessing more than two ounces of pot. It does not allow marijuana use in any setting that is in plain view, in any place open to the public or in any manner that would endanger anyone else. It does not require health insurance to pay for pot, and it specifically says employers do not have to make accommodations for its use.Does marijuana really help with long-term pain and the side effects of treatments such as chemotherapy? Opinions differ. But clearly a number of those suffering believe that it does.The question then becomes: If someone seriously ill and in long-term pain has available to them something they believe will help them, should we treat them as criminals?No, we should not.Vote "yes" on Amendment 20.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by observer on October 18, 2000 at 13:56:17 PT
correction: CALM (not CAMP)
That should read "CALM", not "CAMP"...CALM = Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana (Colorado)CAMP = Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (California)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by observer on October 18, 2000 at 13:47:20 PT
PRISON 'Accidently' Forgotten by CAMP, Followers
You get the feeling sometimes that these government control-freak lackeys are omitting mention of PRISON (i.e. JAIL, INCARCERATION, etc.) on purpose.The issue is JAIL. The issue is not that "smoked" cannabis isn't as effective as this or that, or is harmful because it is smoked, etc. (Who said it must be smoked, anyway?) No, the issue is the STOPPING of GOVERNMENT from throwing people in JAIL for using a plant. That is the issue. Notice that the prohibitionists in these medical cannabis issues NEVER want to talk about prison. They hum and haw and wheedle and lie and deny. If pressed (that didn't happen in this piece), assert that people are not being imprisoned for merely using cannabis. (What's the big deal if nobody goes to jail for marijuana "posession" then?)Prison is the issue. Don't let these incarceration concealing prohibitionists get away with side-stepping the PRISON issue by arguing the relative merits of medicines. The issue is imprisoning people. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Gary Storck on October 18, 2000 at 11:13:53 PT
Oath
"I took an oath to give the best quality of care and to do the least physical harm. That might sound corny, but it's true," (Frank Sargent, a urologist and co-chair of Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana) says.Actually it sounds despicable. A doctor who claims to be upholding his oath but will not explore a therapeutic option that could ease his patients' suffering. He should have his license revoked! First do no harm! He is harming his patients by ruling out the option of cannabis. 
Is My Medicine Legal Yet?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on October 18, 2000 at 10:30:47 PT:
Just Why Is That?
"I wouldn't say we are opponents, but our position at this point is that no double-blind clinical evidence shows smoking marijuana benefits people with multiple sclerosis," Denver-based spokesman Dan Lawrence says.   The only reason that there are no such studies is that our government (NIDA) has blocked the performance of the studies. That is what happens when "the National Institute on Drug Abuse" is put in charge of evaluating therapeutic properties of a substance. They fail to rise above the ideological hurdles, and nothing is accomplished. I have news for all these people. Absence of proof due to governmental interference does not represent convincing evidence. Some of us might be suspicious as to whether they are telling us the truth. But then, our government has never lied to us, has it?
[ Post Comment ]




  Post Comment




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

Link URL: 
Link Title: