cannabisnews.com: A Surprising Advocate of Medical Marijuana





A Surprising Advocate of Medical Marijuana
Posted by FoM on May 30, 2001 at 18:23:21 PT
By Viveca Novak and Elaine Shannon 
Source: Time Magazine
Drug czar designate John P. Walters is likely to surprise his critics on the left if, as is likely, he is asked about medical marijuana during his confirmation hearings. Although staunchly conservative on drug and crime issues, Walters is expected to testify that he thinks the government should consider loosening federal rules so that doctors can prescribe or recommend marijuana for certain seriously ill patients. 
During the Bush I administration, then drug czar William Bennett and Walters, his deputy, opposed a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to end the so-called "compassionate exemption" permitting doctors to use marijuana to alleviate the suffering of people with cancer, AIDs and other chronic or debilitating ailments. Bennett and Walters argued that while zero tolerance was appropriate in most circumstances, there was nothing to be gained by denying marijuana to individuals who were suffering, even though the medicinal worth of the drug had not been proven scientifically. It was more important, they argued, to remember that public support was crucial to the effectiveness of a national policy on drugs. If a lot of people thought the government's policy was cruel and unfair, the government needed to make a better case for its position, or else drop its opposition to experimental marijuana use for humanitarian purposes. Walters' position today, as it was then, says a source familiar with his thinking, is that "drug policy, if properly formulated, needs to be humane and responsible to be effective." Since polls show that many Americans support the use of medical marijuana, Walters is expected to be an advocate for marijuana policy reform on this narrow but highly emotional issue. Note: A drug czar nominee's views on medical marijuana, and the future of Manhattan D.A. Mary Jo White. Plus, John Ashcroft upsets Texas prosecutors.Source: Time Magazine (US) Author: Viveca Novak and Elaine Shannon Published: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Time Inc Contact: letters time.com Website: http://www.time.com/time/ Related Articles:Bennett's Fuzzy Drug-War Victory http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9819.shtmlTwo Voices on Bush Drug Policyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9784.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtmlComplete Article: Notes From the Halls - and Chambers - of Justicehttp://www.time.com/time/columnist/lawandorder/article/0,9565,128512,00.html
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by nl5x on June 02, 2001 at 19:30:31 PT
revoking doctors' licenses prosecuting physicians 
John Walters, an official of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Bush Administration, suggested revoking doctors' licenses or prosecuting physicians who recommend or prescribe a controlled substance.http://www.ndsn.org/JAN97/HEARING.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on June 01, 2001 at 06:25:15 PT:
"The sheep from the goats..."
I tend to share The Observer's suspicions about the real motivations behind this seeming 'volteface' of Walters.As I implied in my first post on this subject, Walters' ilk have shown a degree of Macchiavellian ruthlessness typical of the entire anti position. To honestly expect him to change is to overlook his background...and continued aims.He is not concerned for the true welfare of those whom the DrugWar has so unfairly jeopardized. If he were, he'd be meeting with MMJ patients, face-to-face, to discern the truth for himself. Nope, he's more concerned about the perceptions that these policies might create in the public's eye. The perceptions of unfairness. The perceptions of a heavy-handed Federal government harrassing it's own people. The perceptions that it has gone overboard in picking on desperately ill and dying people. The perceptions that it has cost too many innocent lives, many of whom were children.Walters wants to get this off the public's radar, and fast, before the 'tipping point' is reached. Before enough normally uninterested people are angered about the treatment of the sick and dying to say "Enough! Just legalize the damn stuff and quit f**king around! We got more important stuff to worry about than your anal concerns!"So, this might be some sort of diversionary tactic designed to split the MJ/MMJ movement. Exactly what I'd expect from concrete-headed antis.Finally if this seems overly paranoid to some of you, keep something in mind:Bennett wanted publicly stated that he wanted to behead MJ users.Daryll Gates, the former LAPD Chief and founder of DARE, wanted to take us out and execute us KGB-style, with a bullet to the base of the skull.And Walters? He was a chief architect of the policy which led to the death of Veronica and Charity Bowers. He was warned of the dangers of killing innocents inherent in such a policy, but bulled it through Congress, anyway.We got plenty of reason to worry, friends. This Walters leopard ain't gonna change his spots. Don't be suckered. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by observer on May 31, 2001 at 18:22:19 PT
incredible truth technique
 A Surprising Advocate of Medical Marijuana . . . Although staunchly conservative on drug and crime issues, Walters is expected to testify that he thinks the government should consider loosening federal rules so that doctors can prescribe or recommend marijuana for certain seriously ill patients. Incredible truths. There are times when the unbelievable (incredible) truth not only can but should be used. Among these occasions are:-- When the psychological operator is certain that a vitally important event will take place. A catastrophic event, or one of significant tactical or strategic importance, unfavorable to the enemy has occurred and the news has been hidden from the enemy public or troops.-- The enemy government has denied or glossed over an event detrimental to its cause.A double-cutting edge. This technique has a double-cutting edge: It increases the credibility of the US/friendly psychological operator while decreasing the credibility of the enemy to the enemy's target audience. Advanced security clearance must be obtained before using this technique so that operations or projects will not be jeopardized or compromised. Actually, propagandists using this technique will normally require access to special compartmented information and facilities to avoid compromise of other sensitive operations or projects of agencies of the US Government.Though such news will be incredible to the enemy public, it should be given full play by the psychological operator. This event and its significance will eventually become known to the enemy public in spite of government efforts to hide it. The public will recall (the psychological operator will "help" the recall process) that the incredible news was received from US/allied sources. They will also recall the deception of their government. The prime requirement in using this technique is that the disseminated incredible truth must be or be certain to become a reality. "Propaganda Techniques", based on "Appendix I: PSYOP Techniques; Psychological Operations FM 33-1", 1979http://www.mcad.edu/classrooms/POLITPROP/palace/library/proptech.html It will be interesting to see how this works out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 31, 2001 at 16:46:05 PT
My 2 cents
I think that the medicalization of marijuana will help the public see that if sick people find relief from this herb that it can't be all bad and then they will wonder why it isn't legal. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Dan B on May 31, 2001 at 16:37:37 PT:
The Dilemma
When I present a problem, I always try to then seek an answer to that problem. This post is an attempt to come to terms with the ideas presented on my earlier post (#7).I understand the need to "get the sick and dying off the battlefield," as I have heard many times in the past. And I do hope that the United States government will at least produces the millionth of a grain of compassion it takes to realize that medical marijuana patients should be allowed to use their medicine without fear of punishment. Please don't get the wrong impression--that I believe medical marijuana is not a worthy cause. I believe it to be a very noble and just cause, and I support it.But I wonder about the effects of medicalizing it. That is, once it is made legal for the sick and dying, will the rest of the marijuana-smoking public be hung out to dry (to coin a phrase)? It is wrong to jail a sick person for marijuana, but does that mean it is less wrong to jail a well person for marijuana? Perhaps this is the argument to which we need to shift in order to continue an effective fight against marijuana prohibition after it is rescheduled. The legalization and regulation argument has always been about one all-important idea: people who choose to smoke marijuana in a responsible manner should never have to face criminal sanctions of any sort. That includes jail, searches, fines, siezures, etc. In other words, even if marijuana is rescheduled, it will still be wrong to punish people who use it for other than medical reasons. That should have been the focus of our argument from the beginning. We will have to intensify that message after we finally clear the sick and dying out of harm's way.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by brewnash on May 31, 2001 at 15:35:45 PT:
They know their losing.
They know they're losing the public opinion war. This will come to pass. It will go Schedule 2, with rigorous controls and indications. The prohibitionist rags (NY TImes, Phila Inquirer etc.) will trumpet the compassion, repeatedly, to assure the public all is great. The issue of legalization now becomes moot for most people, and ultimately little will change.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by TroutMask on May 31, 2001 at 09:17:47 PT
On Medical Marijuana
I agree with Dan, that legalization of medical marijuana is not an end, and not necessarily that great of a means to an end. But I for one will take anything I can get. I feel that legalization of medical MJ is a step forward even if it is the last step for a long time. I agree that full legalization is the answer, but legalizing medical marijuana completely undermines the so-called "science" behind marijuana prohibition.I'm not sure that legal MJ vs. legal cocaine is a fair analogy. Sure, both are medically useful, but I believe there are many more diseases for which MJ is/will be prescribed than there are for the prescription of cocaine (or many other scheduled and prescribed drugs). So medical MJ will rightfully be prescribed more often than cocaine, is obviously less dangerous/addictive than cocaine, and will therefore more quickly become accepted for non-medical use than cocaine. In other words, once medical MJ is available, all the lies about MJ will be more quickly exposed as patients of all walks of life take advantage of it.Just got this from mpp.org. Let's all help if we can:Clearly, we have a big problem in Congress. And I am writing to ask that you help solve the problem by donating today so that MPP can hire a lobbyist here in Washington, D.C. -- http://www.mpp.org/HireLobbyist
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Dan B on May 30, 2001 at 22:23:20 PT:
On Medical Marijuana
Let's say, for a moment, that we actually can trust John Walters to actively seek to change marijuana laws to accomodate medical marijuana users. Where would we then stand?There are two theories on this matter. Conventional "wisdom" is that once you knock down one domino, the rest will fall. That is, once it is legal for medical patients, it will soon be legal for everyone else, too. The problem with this theory is that it is based on a false assumption: the slippery slope. For the same reason that smoking marijuana does not inevitably lead to use of hard drugs, neither does legalization foe medical patients necessarily lead to legalization for everyone. Which leads me to the second theory; one that Walters himself seems to believe in. If you make marijuana a medical issue, then you are merely shifting control over individual choice from the police state to what Thomas Szasz calls the "therapeutic state." That is, the matter of whether or not to use marijuana is still not a personal choice, but a choice left up to the whims of doctors and the government that controls them. Case in point: Morphine and many other pain medications are currently legal for medical use in this country, yet ask any doctor how difficult it is to regulate pain in this country without having the DEA crack down on him or her, and you'll quickly learn that decisions about a patient's care are no longer simply matters between a doctor and his or her patient. How many marijuana prescriptions do you think it would take before a doctor's prescription privileges are up for review by the DEA?What Walters is doing is playing into the hands of those who would argue for the medical use of marijuana. If it is made a Schedule II drug (like cocaine), do you really believe it will be any less illegal? Is cocaine any less illegal than marijuana currently is? Do the feds not trample on the rights of human beings in the name of fighting cocaine as much as they trample on people who use cannabis? When answering this question, consider that cocaine is the number two illegal drug of choice in America after marijuana, and it is the number two drug on the DEA's "hit list."The answer is not so-called "medicalization" of cannabis use. The answer is all-out legalization. That is the only wasy to reduce (and potentially eliminate) the harms associated with marijuana's black market status.Below is a link to an article by Thomas Szasz that may be interesting--and even of some use--to many of you (if you haven't already read it).Dan B
The Control of Conduct: Authority Versus Autonomy
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by fivepounder on May 30, 2001 at 21:22:42 PT
Hard to figure 
I'll believe it when he speaks it.. Maybe its a political move to attempt to keep the whole prohibition wall from crumbling down. I don't believe they are that politically savvy to do that... so I find this hard to believe..  Especially since our disingenuous prez has done nothing but always choose the extreme right who would freak at this position.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by observer on May 30, 2001 at 19:59:10 PT
Hmmm
 Drug czar designate John P. Walters is likely to surprise his critics on the left if, as is likely, he is asked about medical marijuana during his confirmation hearings. Come to think of it, I did detect a lack of mention of medical marijuana in the Walters announcement speech. . . .Transcripts: The War on Drugs (May 10, 2001) http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9659.shtmlIf the Bush admin. does allow medical cannabis, then it will be interesting to listen to legions of concerned Carry Nation wannabes tapdance, backstroke and backpedal away from their earlier medical hoax marijuanaIn documents circulated before the hearing, Joyce Nalepka of Montgomery County, a staunch opponent of the bill, denounced the medicinal marijuana initiative as "a fraud and a hoax" funded by "four fat-cat billionaires," including international financier George Soros. Mrs. Nalepka argues that the effort is really an attempt to open the door to full decriminalization of marijuana for any use.US MD: Maryland Debates Medicinal-Marijuana, Margie Hyslop, The Washington Times, Thu, 01 Mar 2001http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n365/a09.htmlThe ruinous idea of drug legalization is back as eight states have legalized marijuana and other drugs under the hoax of medical need.US CA: OPED: Regaining The Momentum, Manon G. McKinnon, Sun, 18 Feb 2001http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n292/a03.htmlThe scientific literature also shows that marijuana use is a major risk factor in the development of addiction and drug use among schoolchildren. . . .The forces' seeking to legalize drugs want smoked marijuana listed as a medicine to legitimize marijuana. Marijuana as medicine has been rejected by the American Medical Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthamology and the American Cancer Society. The federal Institute of Medicine sees "little future in smoked marijuana as a medicine." . . . As a cancer survivor, I am appalled at how seriously ill people have been victimized by the cruel hoax of medical marijuana. It is not compassionate to give marijuana cigarettes to anyone, especially sick people. They may mistakenly choose marijuana instead of truly effective medicines. Medical marijuana is a fraud and I am glad the Supreme Court saw through it.US NJ: OPED: Medical Marijuana Hoax, David G. Evans, Pittstown, Mon, 21 May 2001http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n910/a06.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 30, 2001 at 19:59:10 PT
Politically Correct
From a woman's point of view I simply say their heart is not in their words. I don't have respect for people like that. When you hear true compassion you will sense it in others and they don't mean it. It's Politically Correct Only! But I guess it's good that medical marijuana is finally Politically Correct or close to it I think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 30, 2001 at 19:38:50 PT:
A Cruel Hoax
I had to look at my watch to convince myself it wasn't April 1st again. Somehow, I cannot begin to imagine that this scenario will come to pass. In my wildest dreams I have difficulty imagine the bloated ex-czar having the imagination and compassion to admit any exceptions to his self-generated rules of virtue.The guy should have tried to spend more time with Janis Joplin after the improbable blind date from hell (for her). She could have loosened him up a good bit and allow him to learn something useful about life.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on May 30, 2001 at 19:22:34 PT:
You can believe it, all right...
but not for the reasons you'd expect.Walters knows, as does every anti, that so long as the general non-cannabis using public either remains blissfully ignorant of the medical aspects - or doesn't get a good, close look at the effects of prohibition, such as prison rape - they will not give a damn. This leaves the antis free to do what they've been doing."Bennett and Walters argued that while zero tolerance was appropriate in most circumstances, there was nothing to be gained by denying marijuana to individuals who were suffering, even though the medicinal worth of the drug had not been proven scientifically. It was more important, they argued, to remember that public support was crucial to the effectiveness of a national policy on drugs. If a lot of people thought the government's policy was cruel and unfair, the government needed to make a better case for its position, or else drop its opposition to experimental marijuana use for humanitarian purposes."See? In politics, appearances are everything. The antis know that they must appear fair...while they quietly kill Peter McWilliams using the color of law. They must appear impartial...while Congress is exempt from piss-testing because it's beneath their dignity to stoop so low. They are above suspicion, don't you know? They must appear concerned for the welfare of minorities...many of whom are specifically targeted via 'profiling' for harrassment and incarceration. They must appear compassionate...while their hired guns kill Christian missionaries over the Andes.Get the point?But let the public get a good look at a Club being closed down by force, with black-clad, Fritz-helmed, body armored Schutzstaffelen wannabes pitching the sick and dying to the curb, and watch what happens. (BTW, you have to ask: what are they afraid of? That some little old lady heaving from chemo will cave their skulls in with a walker?)We've heard a lot about 'compassionate conservatism', but from the git-go we've had reason to be skeptical. Walters hasn't said anything to allay that skepticism. It is the calculating 'compassion' of a reptile, that doesn't devour you in sight of the public for fear of the repercussions, but waits until no one's watching to rip you to shreds.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by cajun01 on May 30, 2001 at 18:44:11 PT:
Well......
Unfortunately, I will believe it when I see it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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