cannabisnews.com: Marijuana: Medicine Of Last Resort For Very Ill 





Marijuana: Medicine Of Last Resort For Very Ill 
Posted by FoM on March 26, 2001 at 12:47:32 PT
By John A. MacDonald
Source: Hartford Courant 
Angel McClary, a 35-year-old Oakland, Calif., paralegal, has a brain tumor, anorexia and frequent nausea. When traditional medications proved ineffective, McClary's doctor recommended marijuana."It's saved my life," says McClary, who has been using marijuana since 1998. She has gotten out of a wheelchair, gained some weight and been able to get the nausea partially under control. 
Still, McClary has a problem: The federal government does not think she should have marijuana and has gone to the Supreme Court to enforce its opinion. On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments that could determine how easy - or difficult - it will be for McClary, as well as other residents of California and at least eight other states, to obtain marijuana legally for medical reasons. The case, which has already rekindled the debate over medicinal uses of marijuana, also could affect states like Connecticut that are considering proposals to ease or lift restrictions on marijuana use for medical conditions that may not respond to conventional treatment. "The upcoming Supreme Court decision will be the most important court ruling with regard to medical marijuana in U.S. history," said Chuck Thomas, communications director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which favors allowing people to cultivate small amounts of marijuana for their personal use. R. Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, said: "Surely federal law must recognize the right of seriously ill patients to use marijuana, if recommended by a physician, when other medications are ineffective." On the other side, Robert L. Maginnis, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council, contends the harmful effects of marijuana outweigh any benefits. "Permitting `medicalization' of crude marijuana would result in many negative consequences that the federal drug laws are designed to prevent," he said. Not-for-profit marijuana cooperatives sprang up in California, especially around the San Francisco-Oakland area, after voters in 1996 approved Proposition 215, legalizing marijuana when a doctor found it medically necessary for a seriously ill patient. At their peak, the cooperatives are believed to have had tens of thousands of members. Some have closed in recent years, but many remain in operation pending the high court's decision, which is expected by early July. Purchasers say the cooperatives provide a safe and affordable place to buy good-quality marijuana. In 1998, however, the Justice Department filed a civil action in federal district court to prevent the popular Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative from continuing to operate. Government lawyers argued that Proposition 215 conflicted with the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act, which forbids anyone from distributing or dispensing marijuana. Over the next two years, federal district and appeals courts in California issued several confusing rulings that the Supreme Court will attempt to sort out. Initially, District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted the government's request for an injunction to close the Oakland cooperative. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later said that Breyer should have modified his injunction to consider medical necessity and the "strong public interest" in the availability of marijuana for patients whose doctors think they need it. As a result, Breyer last summer issued a new order saying the cooperative could continue supplying marijuana to those who have a "serious medical condition" and could suffer imminent harm without it. The government moved a second time, persuading the Supreme Court to stay Breyer's new ruling and to consider the legality of Proposition 215. Breyer's brother, Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, has recused himself from the case. The central legal question is Congress' intent in passing the Controlled Substances Act. Government lawyers argue that Congress "specified certain substances to be included" in a controlled category and that marijuana has been in that category from the start. Lawyers for the Oakland cooperative contend that Proposition 215 is based on the principle of medical necessity, which they argue "is one of the oldest and most well-entrenched common law defenses in Anglo-American jurisprudence," going back to 13th century England. While reluctant to predict how the court will rule, lawyers involved in the case said three outcomes seem possible: The high court could uphold the medical necessity argument and allow cooperatives in California and other states to resume operations. The justices could invalidate Proposition 215, forcing cooperatives in California and elsewhere to close permanently. Or the justices could decide they prematurely agreed to take up the case and send it back to California for additional argument. Some lawyers doubt the current conservative Supreme Court will accept the medical argument because it could be seen as undercutting the nation's war on drugs. In any case, they said that many who need it will continue to get marijuana, either from the street or from family or friends, but purchases will be more difficult and more dangerous and buyers could be subject to prosecution. Many are waiting to see if the high court's opinion applies only to California or to the other states that have permitted medical uses of marijuana. Those states are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Maine, Nevada and Washington. Lawmakers elsewhere will be paying attention, too. Since 1996, eight of the nine states that have adopted policies similar to California's have been in the West. This year, the focus has shifted to the East, where legislators in five states - Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maryland - have introduced proposals that could lead to legalizing marijuana for medical use. New Mexico and Iowa also are considering similar proposals. In Connecticut, current law allows cancer and glaucoma patients to possess marijuana obtained from a doctor's prescription. But there is no place to fill such prescriptions, and physicians who prescribe marijuana may be barred from participating in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. A bill under consideration in the legislature would provide for research into ways of legally distributing medical marijuana in the state. In the background of the legal and legislative maneuvering is the question of how much good marijuana really does for those who are ill. The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has tried to straddle the issue, saying that marijuana use has potential as a medicine but the good effects are undermined because patients must inhale harmful smoke. Source: Hartford Courant (CT)Author: John A. MacDonaldPublished: March 26, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Hartford Courant Contact: letters courant.com Website: http://www.courant.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:NORML: http://www.norml.org/Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op: http://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/Supreme Court To Tackle Marijuana Issue: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9144.shtmlCannabisnews Medical Marijuana Archives: http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment


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