cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Ignores Pain of Cancer Patients Supreme Court Ignores Pain of Cancer Patients Posted by FoM on May 19, 2001 at 21:36:47 PT By Ruth Pennebaker Source: Dallas Morning News Too bad about the medical use of marijuana to ease the suffering of cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis patients. In an 8-to-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress' classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug – like heroin – mandates that marijuana "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." As a lawyer, I can understand the reasoning: Congress has spoken in the Controlled Substances Act, and the Supreme Court merely is interpreting the 30-year-old statute. But I don't practice as a lawyer, and even if I did, I couldn't read this decision on a bloodless, professional level. I see it from the more immediate and personal perspective of a former cancer patient who has many friends who also are cancer survivors. During the past year, I saw two of them die. Let me tell you about one of them. She was a friend from my breast-cancer support group, and I was at her home the day she died. She was bunched up in agony – in a separate, incoherent world of pain. When the two of us who were with her tried to ask what she needed, it took long, agonizing minutes before she could understand what we were saying. Most of the time, we sat silently with her, holding her hand and telling her we loved her. This friend died, sooner than she might have, because – after a few treatments – she refused further chemotherapy for her liver and lung metastases. The chemotherapy made her violently ill and weak, she told us. She didn't want to live that way. Could marijuana have eased her life or given her more time – helping her to tolerate the nausea, fatigue, depression, mouth sores and other side effects of chemotherapy? A 1999 review of the literature on marijuana by scientists commissioned by the Institute of Medicine says yes; studies indicate marijuana can ease the effects of chemotherapy on cancer patients, as well as ameliorate the symptoms of AIDS and multiple sclerosis patients. But my friend didn't have that choice. She could have gotten marijuana illegally, I suppose, but she wasn't that kind of person. She was the kind of person who lived, suffered and died within the letter of the law. I am not that kind of person. If there were a chance that marijuana could ease my pain or prolong my life, or that of a friend or family member, I would find it, somehow. I wouldn't care what the law said. Would you, in the end? Would Clarence Thomas, author of this most recent decision? Maybe the Supreme Court's ruling is, as I have read, extremely limited. Maybe it is largely symbolic. But in the meantime, how outrageous that sick and desperate people are being punished by antiquated laws that are devoid of human compassion, good science or common sense. The court opinions multiply, spinning legal rationales and splitting legal hairs. If there is anything a cancer patient doesn't have, it is the luxury of time or energy to wage legislative and court battles. Just try splitting hairs, legal or otherwise, when chemotherapy has swept your scalp clean. But the Supreme Court defers to Congress. Congress prefers to ignore the issue – the same way it ignores studies showing the medicinal usefulness of marijuana. And the states that have directly addressed and approved the medical use of marijuana now find their efforts in limbo. In the midst of all this paralysis, people continue to suffer and die. Why? Because politicians are panicked by the thought they might be considered soft on drugs. Especially marijuana. Like many of those politicians, I tried marijuana when I was younger. I inhaled it, but I didn't like it, particularly. But judging from my own experiences, I don't think marijuana's effects on the body and brain are nearly as potent and overpowering as the rampant fear of honest discussions about the drug. This is a fear that sends grown presidential candidates scampering for cover and that turns lawmakers' spines into Jell-O and minds into a gyrating mush of T-shirt slogans like "Just say no." With all the nonmarijuana medical research going on these days, you would think someone would try to come up with a little Viagra for the backbone. But anything is better, it seems, than running the risk of being called soft on drugs. How much better and easier it is to be hard on cancer patients. Complete Title: Medical Marijuana: Supreme Court Ignores Pain of Cancer Patients.Ruth Pennebaker of Austin is a regular contributor to Viewpoints. Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)Author: Ruth PennebakerPublished: May 20, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Dallas Morning NewsWebsite: http://www.dallasnews.com/Contact: letterstoeditor dallasnews.comRelated Articles & Web Site:O.C.B.C. Versus The U.S. Government News http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmIrrationality Fuels National Pot Paranoiahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9797.shtmlWaiting To Inhale http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9791.shtmlTRB From Washington: Enjoyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9785.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by Kevin Hebert on May 21, 2001 at 10:25:13 PT: Interesting point dddd You're right, only the staunchest drug war supporters, such as Bob Barr, hae come in favor of this decision. For this, I give them credit. At least they have the guts to come out and stand up for what they believe in, even if their viewpoints are based on ignorance and factually wrong. I respect someone much more for saying what they really mean, even if it flies in the face of what I know to be correct.So, where are all of the other congressmen and congresswomen, who have voted against medical marijuana all these years? Why do they not have the courage to stand up for what they believe? The answer is that we are lead by a pack of cowardly weasels who only want the prestige and power than comes from representing the people. Doing the will of the people is beyond their limited ability and even more limited backbone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on May 20, 2001 at 06:43:12 PT: Dred Scott, redux To expect the SC do behave any differently towards the CSA, given their predilections towards gutting the first ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights to enable the prosecution of the DrugWar, was unrealistic.The SC will, like any governmental body, do what ever it can get away with. In this case, the SC got away with dodging an incredibly dangerous legal bullet such as challenging the legitimacy of the cannabis laws by hiding behind Congress's skirts. The CSA is Congress's baby; they weren't going to touch it. They weren't going to touch the fact that the CSA was written at a time when there was a (deliberate!) dearth of scientific studies about the medicinal usefullness of cannabis. They weren't going to touch the fact that there have been recent, clinical studies such as the Abrams Study of the use of cannabis in countering nausea experienced by AIDS patients courtesy of the protease inhibotors they have to ingest to survive.Nope, this was plainly a case of where a gutless SC has, true to the pattern established by their predecessor's ruling in favor of slavery in the Dred Scott decision, countenanced evil couched in law.Yet they have engaged in a systematic evisceration of the Bill of Rights, to enable the agents of the State to run roughshod over individual rights. Their allowing the RICO and forfeiture 'laws' to stand at all is indicative of the contempt the Supremes hold the average citizen.Nope, friends, we will have to 'keep on keepin' on' at the local and State levels...where we've been winning. By doing so will eventually foice both Congress and the SC to realize their mistakes.But as the author points out, too many will die if they wait for Congress to 'get their thumbs out' and do the right thing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by jacksplace58 on May 20, 2001 at 05:00:47 PT the task at hand And all the SSC had to do was say if the csa was constitutional or not,....Seems to me that someone failed to do their job, [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by SWANPIE on May 20, 2001 at 00:46:05 PT CONGRESSIONAL STUDIES TO DO....................... AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO STUDY THE RAMIFICATIONS OF A STUDY FOR THE FUNDING OF A STUDY OF THE RESEARCH OF THE STUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE STUDY WAS VALID AND PERTINENT TO THE CAUSE THAT THE STUDY WAS INTENDED TO DEFINE AND THEREFORE HITHERTO UNKNOWN STUDIES WERE TO BE STUDIED IN CASE THEY WEREN'T POSSIBLY STUDIED ENOUGH FOR THE RESEARCH TO BE ACCEPTED BILATERRALY SO THEY WOULD NEED TO STUDY THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE RESEARCH TO FUND ANOTHER STUDY TO SEE IF THE LAST STUDY WAS ACCEPTIBLE TO THE BI-PARTISAN STUDY OF THE POSSIBILITY TO RESEARCH THE FIRST STUDY OF THE SECOND STUDY TO................................WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?????MUST BE A BUNCH OF BEDWETTERS/WANKERS. WITH DOPE THERE'S HOPE!!!! SWAMPIE [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by dddd on May 19, 2001 at 23:41:01 PT wont be long yup......I'm quite certain many a lawmaker is realizing that theMarijuana question will not be on the back burner much longer.The only comments we've heard are from distinguished assholeslike Bob Barr,and a few others who applauded the ruling by the SC.We will see the members of congress start to cautiously dabble inthe art of mildly suggesting that perhaps the CSA should be reconsidered,,,,,"but only if the research proves that Marijuana is effective........",,you know the rest..........Next,we will see the formation of anothercommitee to look into the possibility of funding research into whetheror not Marijuana has any medical use.............Years later,the decision willhave been made to launch a 12 million dollar study thru the ondcp,nida,andfda to study the matter......in other words,I think that this decision by thecourt,and the publicity it has brought to the issue,will have a minimaleffect on congress,,,but it's better than nuthin'...............dddd [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: