cannabisnews.com: Court: Ariz. Docs Can Talk Pot with Patients





Court: Ariz. Docs Can Talk Pot with Patients
Posted by CN Staff on October 15, 2003 at 07:24:20 PT
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
Source: Arizona Daily Sun 
Phoenix -- A U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday against the Bush administration finally frees Arizona doctors to at least recommend that their patients use marijuana without fear of federal prosecution. But the high court, in blocking retaliation against doctors in California, still did not free Arizona physicians to take advantage of a 7-year-old state law which permits them to actually write prescriptions for marijuana. The attorney who brought the lawsuit decided Tuesday said Arizona will first have to revamp its medical marijuana law to make it more like the one in California.
And voters rejected just such a change here last year. Without comment the nation's high court refused Tuesday to let the U.S. Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration pursue California doctors who recommend marijuana, as they are allowed to do under a state law there. While the justices did not give a reason for their decision, they came down on the side of doctors who said they have a constitutional right to discuss all options with their patients. Arizona voters adopted a very similar law in 1996 which permits doctors to write prescriptions for marijuana and other drugs for their serious and terminally ill patients. And when lawmakers here attempted to delay that law voters re-ratified the measure in 1998. Despite the statute, no doctor here has been willing to act under the Arizona law amid the risk of legal action by federal officials. That includes the threat by DEA to revoke the prescription-writing privileges of doctors who prescribe marijuana as well as their disqualification from participating in federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Graham Boyd, the attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, said that shadow remains in Arizona despite Tuesday's court action siding with the California doctors. He said while Arizona physicians can now talk with the patients about marijuana, they should think before actually writing a prescription. He said the case before the court was premised on the First Amendment right of doctors to discuss all medical options with their patients without fear of federal action. And in California that includes writing out a recommendation for use of marijuana -- a note which also exempts the patient from prosecution under drug possession laws. But Boyd said a prescription technically is an order to a pharmacist to dispense a specific substance. And he said there is no constitutional right to write such an order. Arizona voters did have the chance last year to make the necessary change, permitting doctors to recommend marijuana instead of prescribing it. That measure failed by a large margin amid opposition to other provisions, including one which would have required the state Department of Public Safety to distribute marijuana to any patient with a doctor's recommendation. Jeffrey Singer, a Phoenix surgeon who was active in promoting the original 1996 change in Arizona law, agreed that the court action does not free physicians here to start prescribing marijuana. "As a doctor practicing in Arizona I don't feel this gives us the green light," he said. "I feel intimidated by the federal government.'' Still, Boyd said, the ruling should have an impact in Arizona. "I think that doctors are going to feel much more free in giving patients advice that they need to hear," he said. "And that's very important because to know whether or not marijuana is a useful drug for you, you shouldn't have to figure that out on your own or looking on the Internet or asking your best friend,'' he said. "That's a medical issue and doctors need to be able to give that medical advice.'' Robert Fisher who practices medicine in Peoria, agreed that doctors need to be able to provide options for patients suffering from pain and who do not get relief from other drugs which can be legally prescribed. He said some of those other drugs such as Vicodin and OxyContin -- the highly addictive pain killer which was being taken without prescription by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh -- are far worse. "The level of side effects is not as great as the stuff we're using on a regular basis,'' he said. Fisher said the federal laws blocking doctors from prescribing marijuana are "political." Arizona is one of nine states that have laws which let physicians prescribe or recommend marijuana under certain circumstances. In Arizona, a doctor may prescribe any Schedule I drug -- ranging from marijuana to LSD and heroin -- "to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient.'' The law requires the written opinion of a second doctor that use of the drug is "appropriate." Another provision of the law says those with such a prescription can possess these drugs. The U.S. Department of Justice shares Boyd's assessment that Tuesday's action does not open the door to doctors legally writing prescriptions for marijuana. In a prepared statement, the agency said the Supreme Court action involves solely doctor-patient conversations. The agency also issued a reminder that "cultivation and trafficking of marijuana remains a federal offense.'' Tuesday's action does not affect a two-year old ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which let the federal government close the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative in California. In that 8-0 decision the high court rejected claims by operators of the club they had a right to continue distributing marijuana. The justices said the club cannot claim "medical necessity'' in flouting federal law by distributing marijuana Source: Arizona Daily Sun (AZ)Author: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media ServicesPublished: October 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 Arizona Daily SunWebsite: http://www.azdailysun.com/Contact: azdsopinion azdailysun.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Walters vs. Conant, 03-40 - PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfU.S. Appeal Of Marijuana Case Rejected http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17568.shtmlBackers of Medical Marijuana Hail Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17566.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 15, 2003 at 07:27:32 PT
News Article from Snipped Source
High Court Refuses To Rule in Medical Pot CaseKerry Fehr-Snyder and Katie Warchut, The Arizona RepublicOctober 15, 2003
 
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to rule on a case that would have allowed the federal government to punish doctors who recommend pot to their patients. In eight states with medical marijuana laws, the high court's decision was seen as a victory. But in Arizona, where voters twice have passed medical marijuana laws, the impact was less clear-cut."Obviously I'm happy," said Dr. Jeff Singer, a Phoenix surgeon and a longtime proponent of Arizona's medical marijuana movement. "But I would have been happier if they would have taken on the case and openly affirmed the decision (of the lower courts)."The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled last fall that doctors have a constitutional right to talk about and even recommend marijuana to their patients. In most of the states that have medical marijuana laws, a recommendation from a doctor is all patients need to use the illegal drug.But in Arizona, the law allows doctors to "prescribe" marijuana, and that one word could make a difference.The idea of the Arizona law is that a patient stopped by local police must show a prescription from a doctor to avoid prosecution for possession of marijuana. But writing a prescription for pot is against federal law, and the Appeals Court ruling didn't deal with that issue. Singer says California's law offers a better option for Arizona patients because all they need is a verbal recommendation from a doctor to begin smoking pot, and that is now protected by the ruling of the Appeals Court."My goodness, this is so incredible," said California cancer patient Angel Raich, who smokes medical marijuana every two hours that she is awake. "Hopefully, there'll be more doctors now that will feel safer in recommending cannabis to patients that need it."Proponents of medical marijuana maintain it is beneficial to patients suffering from pain, nausea and other side effects associated with cancer and wasting diseases such as HIV/AIDS and other ailments.But Singer remains fearful of government reprisals and refuses to prescribe the drug here because federal law still prohibits it. In fact, the federal government has threatened to revoke doctors' federal licenses to write prescriptions for narcotics if they prescribe marijuana for their patients. It also has threatened to refuse doctors federal reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, which effectively would put them out of business, he said.Phoenix attorney Chuck Blanchard, former chief counsel for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the Supreme Court's refusal to take the case speaks more to the First Amendment right of free speech rather than issues surrounding medical marijuana. "It may give doctors more comfort to talk to their patients," he said. But the prosecution of doctors is "more of a threat in the background than a reality."The real issue, whether people who use medical marijuana can be prosecuted under federal law despite state laws that make it legal, has not been addressed, he said. The few courts that have ruled on it say federal law supersedes the state law.In Arizona especially, the medical community has not been as eager to prescribe marijuana, he said, not because doctors fear prosecution, but because there are better alternatives.Snipped:http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1015potruling.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment