cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Ruling Decried Medical Marijuana Ruling Decried Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 12:04:05 PT By Charlene Laino, MSNBC Source: MSNBC “This is not going to be over until we win,” vowed Dennis Peron, author of the California proposition that in 1996 legalized the use of marijuana as medicine in the state. Peron and other proponents decried Monday’s unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that cannabis may not be given to patients, even with a doctor’s prescription. While the ruling is largely being construed as saying that federal laws override the California statute allowing the medicinal use of pot, Peron rejects that interpretation. “Yes this is a big setback for the sale of marijuana,” said Peron, director of Californians for Compassionate Use of Marijuana. “But as I see it, we can still cultivate marijuana for medicinal use, possess it and use it — just not sell it,” he said. Peron, also founder of the Cannabis Farm in Lake County, three hours north of here, is so convinced that his interpretation of the ruling is correct that he plans to continue growing the plant and providing it for free to some 300 patients who have shown medical necessity. Separating Science From Politics: Medical necessity is the key here, said San Francisco AIDS specialist Dr. Donald Abrams, who has been unraveling marijuana’s mysteries since 1997, when he was granted approval for the first federally sponsored study of its effects in HIV-infected patients. “I try to separate science and politics,” Abrams said. “But then you get a situation like this, where the Supreme Court decides they are medical authorities.” High Court Rejects Medical Marijuana: Pointing out that the government’s own Institute of Medicine has issued an expert report concluding that marijuana may have medical benefits and is worthy of further study, Abrams said that the judiciary might not be the best people to be determining what is best for the patient. “That being the case, we need to do what we can to make it available to patients,” he said. Proponents of medical pot say it helps AIDS patients keep eating; relieves nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy; alleviates the chronic pain of conditions including headaches, arthritis and degenerative nerve disease; and lowers the increased intraocular pressure associated with glaucoma. Several Trials Underway: Abrams and others already have several trials underway, including one to determine if marijuana helps to increase appetite in HIV-positive patients — giving them the “munchies,” as it were — thereby warding off the debilitating weight loss associated with the AIDS wasting syndrome. So far, only the pilot trial, designed to show safety, has been completed and is under review for publication, Abrams said. The study, which set out to determine whether marijuana is safe when taken in combination with the protease inhibitors that have become a standard part of the drug cocktails given to many HIV-positive patients, “showed no apparent detrimental effects,” he said. And compared with patients given placebo, “we saw weight gain in the marijuana group,” he said. Thanks to funds being made available by the state of California, studies of marijuana’s effects in inducing weight gain and relieving nerve pain in AIDS patients will continue as will a trial looking at whether it reduces spasticity in those with multiple sclerosis, Abrams said. While Abrams prefers medicine be handled by doctors, both he and Peron said that more legislation is needed. Peron points out that Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced a bill in Congress that that would reclassify marijuana as a schedule II drug, which means that like cocaine, it could be prescribed by doctors, albeit with tight restrictions. “You can’t have one law in 41 states and another in the other nine,” said Peron, referring to the fact that since 1996, eight other states — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — have adopted similar laws to California’s. “We will change the scheduling,” he asserted with conviction. Abrams said he also sees the need for some such legislation. “Every state bordering on the Pacific now has a law legalizing marijuana as medicine,” he said. “And one-fourth of the U.S. population live in these states.” The Bush administration has said it believes in state rights, Abrams said. “Now, let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is.”Note: High court’s decision not in patients’ best interest, some say. Source: MSNBC.com (US Web)Author: Charlene Laino Published: May 14, 2001Copyright: 2001 MSNBC.comContact: letters msnbc.comWebsite: http://msnbc.com/news/Forum: http://www.msnbc.com/bbs/Feedback: http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-oped/Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana.orghttp://www.marijuana.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/High Court Strikes Down Medical Use for Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9705.shtmlSupreme Court Rules Out Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9703.shtmlCourt Nixes Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9701.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - OCBChttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=OCBC Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by observer on May 14, 2001 at 15:46:53 PT Where their Mouth is The Bush administration has said it believes in state rights, Abrams said. “Now, let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is.”I'd say that would be as safe a bet as the elder Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" promise.And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.-- 1Kings 12:14If he were truthful, perhaps W. might now simply say, "Read my whips." [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 13:02:19 PT I thought all that schooling stuff had failed me Thanks Pontifex, and thank you Dr. Russo for your clarification in the "High Court Strikes Down Medical Use for Marijuana" thread.Just another reason to statey that media are not Left-wing or Right-wing...just lazy, misinformed, and dis-informational. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 12:55:20 PT: Confusion reigns Hey Robbie,Wow! There's been a lot of journalists making bad guesses on this story. In fact, the Supreme Court decision is incredibly narrow and simply closes off one of many possible legal defenses.What the Supreme Court ruled is that "medical necessity" is not a valid defense for those who violate the federal Controlled Substances Act. Dennis Peron's interpretation of the ruling is much more sound than this reporter's weird attempt to summarize the ruling in the first paragraph.The Supreme Court hasn't touched the issues of possesion, use and cultivation under state law. 215 has not been called into question.Overgrow the feds! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 14, 2001 at 12:53:40 PT: It's the Distribution Robbie, see my last comment on another thread. The Supreme Court did not address personal use as medical necessity in the legal states. That would seem to stand. The Clubs are outlawed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 12:46:39 PT what? ...Monday’s unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that cannabis may not be given to patients, even with a doctor’s prescriptionI'm sorry, I guess I'm confused. Did the ruling outlaw medical marijuana, or just the sale and distribution? They haven't overturned 215 right? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: