Cannabis News Media Awareness Project
  Nevada Approves Bill on Medical Use of Marijuana
Posted by FoM on June 18, 2001 at 06:57:29 PT
By Tanya Albert, AMNews Staff  
Source: American Medical Association 

medical Despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that put the kibosh on California's cannabis buying clubs, the Nevada Legislature earlier this month voted to legalize the medical use of marijuana there.

The key difference in Nevada's system that some experts say should allow the legislation to go forward without much, if any, interference from the federal government is the way the law lets patients access medical marijuana.

Unlike California's buying clubs, where large amounts of marijuana were grown in a central location and then distributed to patients, Nevada's legislation would allow patients or their caregivers to have up to seven plants for their personal use.

It's similar to laws in Oregon and Maine in that respect, and neither of those states has encountered problems with the federal government before or after the May high court ruling.

"Our analysis is that the Supreme Court ruling said there is no medical necessity defense and that buying clubs weren't legal," said Brenda Erdes, legislative counsel with Nevada's Legislative Counsel Office, which directed the state Legislature on the best way to write the law without running into problems. "But there wasn't anything beyond that."

The court ruling didn't strike down laws or ballot initiatives that passed in nine states in recent years, including California.

And in Oregon and Maine, where medical marijuana programs have been up and running for several years, the ruling hasn't changed physician habits when it comes to recommending whether patients should be allowed to have marijuana for medical purposes.

"We've received no questions to our knowledge," said Jim Kronenberg, spokesman for the Oregon Medical Assn.

"The atmosphere is unchanged," added Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon Attorney General's Office. "Physicians have always been wary because they are subject to federal laws."

Buffering Physicians:

But Oregon has tried to make physicians feel more confident that they won't get in trouble with federal authorities.

Oregon law requires patients to get a note from their doctor, which they can bring to the state to receive a license which allows them to own marijuana plants, Neely said. About 2,300 cards have been issued.

Nevada's legislation, which at press time was waiting for the governor's expected signature, tries to do something similar.

In addition to letting patients cultivate seven plants, the state would create a registry for patients whose physicians recommended that they use medical marijuana to treat side effects of their serious illnesses.

Nevada also would take things a step further than other states have.

It plans to ask the federal government for permission to conduct research on whether marijuana helps ease pain, nausea and other problems that people with cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses encounter.

Despite the research component of the legislation, the Nevada State Medical Assn. continues to oppose legalizing medical marijuana. The medical benefits haven't been shown, and the federal government would have to change its policies for the drug to be legal, said NSMA Executive Director Lawrence P. Matheis.

"It simply is a popular vote," he said. "It's empathy for people who are chronically ill. There is question to whether there is any medical value. ... The state constitution is a terrible place to put a medical directive."

Las Vegas oncologist Arnold Wax, MD, agreed.

He pointed to a study in the July 1, 2000, Journal of Immunology that found that the active ingredient in marijuana actually caused cancer cells to reproduce faster.

And, he said, there are plenty of other legal drugs on the market to treat patients, including Marinol (dronabinol), manufactured by Roxane Laboratories Inc. and Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc. Marinol is the synthetic form of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.

"There is absolutely no use for medical marijuana," he said. "It is a social and emotional issue. It is not a medical issue."

Note: The legislation isn't expected to raise problems with federal authorities, but the state medical association opposes it.

Source: American Medical Association
Author: Tanya Albert, AMNews Staff
Published: June 25, 2001
Copyright: 1995-2001 American Medical Association
Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/
Contact: http://www.ama-assn.org/cgi-bin/feedtool.pl

Related Articles & Web Site:

Medicinal Cannabis Research Links
http://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htm

AMA Discusses Marijuana Medical Use
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10075.shtml

Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Medical Use
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9889.shtml

Medical Uses Approved: Lawmakers OK Bill
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9973.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #10 posted by FoM on June 18, 2001 at 16:39:19 PT
Have a good time
We'll be thinking of you too Dr. Russo. Get rested and come back ready to go! Maybe when you get back Cannabis will be legalized! Well dreamings still ok! LOL!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #9 posted by Ben Cohn on June 18, 2001 at 16:19:52 PT:

What a mensch!!
Dr. Ethan Russo is the tops in my book. Even with his parents in town,
professional responsibilities and a trip to pack for, he still answered my question!

We're lucky to have a good doctor like that on our side. I pray to all the higher
powers that may listen that he will be allowed to help migraine sufferers alleviate
their pain. If he isn't, may migraines be visited upon every NIDA, DEA, and HHS
official who stood in his way. Seems only fair now.


Peace


BC


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by Smoker on June 18, 2001 at 15:44:36 PT
immunity to cancer
Perhaps that is the reason that no case of lung cancer has been seen in a regular cannabis smoker.

This is quite a statement, Ethan Russo. Can you give a reference? Every cigarette smoker should be aware of this.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on June 18, 2001 at 14:37:40 PT:

Many Thanks, FoM
for all you do for us and for the movement. I will think of all the folks at cannabisnews.com as I work and recreate.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 18, 2001 at 13:44:32 PT
Dr. Russo
Hi Dr. Russo,
Just a note to say have a nice visit with your family and I hope your beeper doesn't go off to very often.

You're going away for a whole MONTH! Oh No! That's terrible. You'll be missed but I hope you have a wonderful time!



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on June 18, 2001 at 12:47:23 PT:

Quick Response
Ben, this stuff is challenging. As to a simple explanation of immunological effects of cannabis, see Hollisters review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1506999&dopt=Abstract

In essence, to get these dire sounding immunological effects, you need to use something like 50 times the psychoactive dose; it is not going to be a problem for most users.
The tumor promotion article is as you cited. Of greater interest is a more recent article out of UCLA as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11245634&dopt=Abstract

What this says is that THC helps prevent tumor induction by tobacco! Perhaps that is the reason that no case of lung cancer has been seen in a regular cannabis smoker. Obviously there are other risks, but there are positives to cannabis medically, in contrast to the claims of Congress and their Controlled Substances Act of 1970.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by Ben Cohn on June 18, 2001 at 12:26:14 PT:

Proper link to the article
Sorry, messed up the link in the last post.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #3 posted by Ben Cohn on June 18, 2001 at 12:23:01 PT:

Thank you, Dr. Russo!!
With the help of Pubmed I found the article. It's very dense, so I could only follow
some of it. It certainly sounds scary enough, but I know how bad research can be
dressed up as good facts. Nahas' stuff sounded scary, too, and it wasn't worth the
paper it was printed on.

If you have any time in the coming days, Dr. Russo, I would love for you to write
even a few lines of refutation to this. I like to know the responses to prohibitionist
propaganda, and I'm sure someone will be throwing the "THC causes tumors to
grow" line at me someday soon.

In the course of looking for info, I discovered that your Journal of Cannabis
Therapeutics Number 2 is out, and I very much look forward to reading it. Your
statements at the recent NORML conference about the synergistic interplay or
different cannabis components (cannabinoids, essential oils, and others) were of
tremendous interest to me, and I want to know more.


Thank you for all your service to the movement. Doctors like you and Todd
Mikuraya redeem the profession from the cowardice and duplicity of all the bad
doctors at the AMA.


Safe travels!


Ben Cohn


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on June 18, 2001 at 11:28:28 PT:

No Time for In-Depth Response
Scare tactics, my friends. Cannabis prevents lung tumors, and increases apoptosis (cell death) in brain tumors.

I am on-call, my parents are in town, and am leaving for a month on Friday. Please point your browsers to PubMed, and consult heavily in Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts by Zimmer and Morgan for good answers.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Ben Cohn on June 18, 2001 at 10:41:43 PT:

Any scientists in the house?
"Las Vegas oncologist Arnold Wax, MD, agreed.

He pointed to a study in the July 1, 2000, Journal of Immunology that found that
the active ingredient in marijuana actually caused cancer cells to reproduce faster. "


This flatly contradicts everything I've read up to this point. For instance, check out
the following article:


POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n572/a11.html?80085


But in the interest of fairness, I went to the Journal of Immunology issue that he
specified, and couldn't find a thing about it. It's possible that I just missed the
article, because the titles are so dense with scientific jargon that sometimes I can't
deduce just what they're about.

Are there any scientists, especially one's with cell biology or immunological
backgrounds, who might help me find it, or determine whether such an article even
exists?

The link for the June 1, 2000 Journal of Immunology is

http://www.jimmunol.org/content/vol164/issue11/


Would appreciate all help and responses. Feel free to e-mail me directly, my mail
link is above.

Thanks

Ben Cohn


[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on June 18, 2001 at 06:57:29