cannabisnews.com: Transcripts: Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer 





Transcripts: Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer 
Posted by CN Staff on October 15, 2003 at 10:04:31 PT
Walters vs Conant Ruling
Source: PBS
The U.S. Supreme Court said today it would not hear a case about whether doctors can talk to patients about medical marijuana. The decision allows existing laws that recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana to stand in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, even though federal law still prohibits marijuana's use. Gwen Ifill gets two perspectives on the controversial decision from Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, and Dr. Andrea Barthwell, deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
GWEN IFILL:  The court decided today it would not involve itself in a debate over whether doctors can talk to patients about medical marijuana. So far, eight states-- Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Hawaii, and Maine-- have approved laws that legalize marijuana if a doctor recommends it. But federal law still bans the use of marijuana for any purpose. Here to look a little more closely at that debate are Rob Kampia, the executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project; and dr. Andrea Barthwell of the White House office of national drug control policy. Dr. Barthwell, what is the practical effect, or noneffect, of today's rejection of the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court's decision not to take this case.  DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL: Well, in the Supreme Court's decision not to take this case today, it really upheld the 9th circuit court's decision that marijuana is in fact not a medicine.  GWEN IFILL: But what is the practical effect of that? DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL:  The practical effect of that is that the federal law still trumps the state law in this area, but the decision today is a really narrowly focused issue. The larger issue is that there is a very well funded campaign, which is trying to drive a wedge in the drug policy in this country to appeal to people using illness and sick people to make marijuana more available to families and communities across the country. Today I'm here in San Francisco meeting with the health and public health leaders who are in fact outraged by the campaign that has been waged in this state to make marijuana more available to people that they work with every day in trying to bring them out of the grips of addiction and into recovery. GWEN IFILL: Mr. Kampia, what do you think is the meaning of today's Supreme Court inaction, I guess?  ROB KAMPIA: Well, it's good news for medical marijuana patients, and it's good news for 80 percent of the American people who believe that marijuana should be medically available. The Supreme Court by not taking the case has essentially said that the 9th Circuit ruling will stand, and that said that states have the right to determine their own medical marijuana policies without federal interference. And doctors have the right to recommend marijuana to patients in order to keep the patients out of prison. GWEN IFILL:  That's not what dr. Barr well just said about the meaning of this ruling. ROB KAMPIA: She and I disagree often. GWEN IFILL:  Okay. Tell me what the value is in your point of view of having medical marijuana available, at least for recommendation by doctors. ROB KAMPIA: Well, the institute of medicine four years ago, and this report was funded by Andrea's office, the White House drug czar's office, this report found that marijuana has medical value for certain patients, namely those suffering from cancer chemotherapy, AIDS wasting syndrome, chronic pain. And what this court decision today or inaction today really allows is doctors in these eight states to recommend that patients use marijuana to treat various medical conditions. And if a patient has their doctor's recommendation, then they would be exempts from arrest and prosecution and jail. GWEN IFILL: Dr. Barthwell, why shouldn't doctors be able to recommend or at least even discuss the option of using marijuana as a palliative in cases of cancer or HIV, AIDS, or nausea? DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL:  Well, the facts here are that the Institute of Medicine did determine that there are constituent parts of marijuana that may in fact have some utility as medicine. But they very clearly stated that there is no circumstance where nay would advocate for a smoked plant material to function as medicine. 21st century medicine requires that we function in that way, and we have a very time honored process of bringing medications to the marketplace after they have been tested for safety, after they have had their dosing profiles established and drug-drug interactions established. And the fact is that the constituent part of marijuana, which is useful in the treating of HIV wasting, nausea associated with chemotherapy, and potentially pain, is available to physicians to prescribe in the form of Marinol. And it shows tremendous promise in working in these areas, and the scientific study is on the verge of tremendous number of breakthroughs of manipulating the system where this medication works to solve a number of medical problems. What we're saying is that 21st century medicine dictates that we pursue the avenues that would allow us to develop the medications that would be useful in these disorders rather than turning our medical care system back to the 19th century where plant products were in fact distributed by snake oil salesmen for the treating of a number of symptoms and diseases.  GWEN IFILL: Will you suggesting, excuse me RRX you suggesting that doctors who would discuss this with their patients are snake oil salesmen? DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL:  No. What I'm suggesting is that physicians who are compassionate and practicing scientifically based, evidence based 21st century medicine would much prefer to use Marinol, which is available to them, than suggest that their patients smoke a plant. They would not want to engage in asking a patient to smoke opium to treat pain or to chew deadly Nightshade to stabilize their heart beat. And they have a medication that's able. GWEN IFILL:  I'm sorry for interrupting. Let me ask Mr. Kampia about that. If there is a medication that exists on the market which has the elements of marijuana in it, why would you need to legalize an illegal drug in order to achieve the same end? ROB KAMPIA: Well, I think that's, the fact that this pill does exist shows that marijuana is a medicine. It would be like saying that vitamin c is good for you but an orange is not. Clearly, marijuana has chemical compounds in it that are medically beneficial. The reason that some patients need to use marijuana and not the pill is because when you're vomiting from cancer chemotherapy, you can't keep a pill down oftentimes. And so some patients with their doctor's recommendations actually need to smoke marijuana which allows them to get immediate relief if they're vomiting. GWEN IFILL: If marijuana remains, the law of the land, the federal law is that marijuana is illegal, how do, how does law enforcement distinguish between a stash of marijuana which was being grown for medical use and a stash that's being grown for illegal use? ROB KAMPIA:  In some of these eight states where medical marijuana is legal there are ID card programs sets up by the state government where if a patient has cancer or AIDS or MS, they can get a card from the state, just like a drivers license, which tells the police that they should not arrest this person if they have marijuana. GWEN IFILL: Dr. Barthwell, as you go and speak in local jurisdictions, as you're doing in San Francisco which is of course the hotbed of this debate, what kind of reaction do you get from local officials who say to you, I think there's a Proposition 215 which is on the books in California, in which there was a popular support for medical marijuana - DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL: Well, local officials feel as if this is a tremendous hoax that is being perpetrated on the American people by frauds presenting themselves in white coats as if they're physicians. There are no credible medical organizations that are clamoring to have a smoked weed on its medical formulary in the 21st century. We have individuals who are celebrating what they're claiming to be a victory because they know it is creating a greater tangle in the legal system, which is not solving a policy or a medical problem that is current, but creating policy and public health problems. GWEN IFILL:  Mr. Kampia -- DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL: And public officials are frustrated by this.  GWEN IFILL: Mr. Kampia, is this a legal debate, a cultural debate, a health debate, which is it? ROB KAMPIA: I think the people in Andrea's office think of it as a cultural debate, they think that somehow by allowing a cancer patient to use medical marijuana that that somehow is going to make marijuana legal for everyone. I would just like to respond to two factual inaccuracies that she just stated. First she said that the politicians and local officials in San Francisco oppose this. That's wrong. The board of supervisors of San Francisco, the board of supervisors of Oakland, even the district attorney of San Francisco, the top prosecutor, all think that marijuana should be legal for medical use, and when she says that there noise one in the medical establishment that supports this, she's wrong. The American Nurses Association, which represents 2.6 million nurses, just passed a resolution, and I say, "they support legislation to remove criminal penalties, including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana."  GWEN IFILL: That's where we're going to have to leave the debate, whether it's health, cultural or legal. Tonight, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, and Rob Kampia, thank you very much for joining us. ROB KAMPIA: Thank you. Source: Public Broadcasting Service (US)Program Date: October 14, 2003Copyright: 2003 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. Website: http://www.pbs.org/Show: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/home.htmlContact: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.htmlURL: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec03/scotus_10-14.htmlAudio: http://www.salvagingelectrons.com/drugradio/pbs-lehrer-20031015-kampia-barthwell.ramRelated Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Walters vs. Conant, 03-40 - PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfJustices: Doctors Can Discuss Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17572.shtmlCourt: Ariz. Docs Can Talk Pot with Patientshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17571.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by Jose Melendez on October 17, 2003 at 12:39:04 PT
Two more questions, and some statements.
"They would not want to engage in asking a patient to smoke opium to treat pain or to chew deadly Nightshade to stabilize their heart beat." 1. Aren't there more deaths from opiates than from smoked opium?2. Why aren't jails filled with deadly Nightshade dealers and users?see also: http://bulkpharm.mallinckrodt.com/_attachments/msds/OPIUM.htmAnswer Key: 1: Yes, but our FDA is an industry protection agency, not a consumer protection agency.2: Nightshade has low potential for abuse. Cannabis users, on the other hand, keep living after using their dangerous, ok, well addictive, ummm . . . anyway they need to be jailed to send a consistent message to the children. That's it. Please respect our family privacy in these matters. Unless it's YOUR kid, then we still think they should be charged. On the advice of our attorneys we have nothing further to say on this issue.Marijuana is untested by the FDA, and as long as we say so, it will remain that way.There's no such thing as CBD's. THC is stronger than ever in history, and will make your television explode.GW who?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Jose Melendez on October 17, 2003 at 10:29:44 PT
Frauds. Right. Sure.
" . . . frauds presenting themselves in white coats as if they're physicians."http://www.buy-com-phentermine.com/http://www.destinationrx.com/learningcenter/rxaminer/consultation.asphttp://www.prescription-central.com/http://www.ltcsales.com/leads.htmlhttp://www.pillquest.com/ultram.htmhttp://www.ropc.net/http://www.safepharmacy.com/http://www.discount-prescriptions.com/http://www.discreet-rx.com/celebrex.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Jose Melendez on October 17, 2003 at 10:11:29 PT
Frauds. Right.
DR. ANDREA BARTHWELL: Well, local officials feel as if this is a tremendous hoax that is being perpetrated on the American people by frauds presenting themselves in white coats as if they're physicians.http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/prozac.htmhttp://www.pritchettcartoons.com/pusher.htmhttp://www.acmemarkets.com/acme/specials/pharmacyspecials.asp?cat=11&subcat=1
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on October 17, 2003 at 07:15:37 PT:
Phil's comment brings something to mind
Antis are out of practice when it comes to debating...as you can plainly see from the transcript.Notice the hurry to nail down all the 'conventional wisdom' (IOW, Propaganda) of the ONDCP/DEA Party Line. The rigid insistence of absolutism of veracity of facts, in such a way as to try to discourage challenges...as if you were addressing kindergartners. The taunt about 21st Century medicine is especially revealing.They are used to having every statement they make taken as Gospel, without challenge. Their 'news conferences' are little more than old Soviet speeches about their equally unworkable versions of Five Year Plans. But the 'heretics' are growing in number and force, and will no longer be relegated to the background.They really, REALLY don't know how to debate someone who is *prepared*.They have only now, after years of the evidence, begun to realize that they will no longer be speaking *solely* to the ignorant. We'll be in the background, challenging them, at every turn. This is the reason for their cowardly refusal to even post their intineraries anymore; ostensibly it's for 'security' purposes, but in reality, they are terrified of the propspect of unintentionally answering a question that rips the veneer off of their seeming sweet words of reason to expose the ugliness of the DrugWar beneath the smiles and ubiquitous cooing about the 'the chil-drun!', the chil-drun!'.But they are now being placed in a very unique bind: the country can no longer afford to run the hugely expensive DrugWar. We're back down to guns or butter issues, and more people than ever are clamboring for butter. If only because they have lost just about everything in the bust of the so called 'boom' economy, and are bad off, indeed. Spending billions on ineffectual programs doesn't sit well with an electorate that is counting the pennies in their back pocket to see if they can buy groceries. Pointing out how much is wasted, how many more kids are admitting use despite a generation(!) of them hearing "Just Say No!" literally from the cradle, and the government's own figures showing that failure in stark detail, goes a long way to deflating antis.They, for all their bombast, fear us. We know where their Achille's heel is. And so do they...so do they.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by freedom fighter on October 15, 2003 at 22:28:20 PT
Quote of the Year!
"ROB KAMPIA: Well, I think that's, the fact that this pill does exist shows that marijuana is a medicine. It would be like saying that vitamin c is good for you but an orange is not. Clearly, marijuana has chemical compounds in it that are medically beneficial."Hey, Dr.Bratwell, stop eatin those ORANGES!pazff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Sam Adams on October 15, 2003 at 14:06:05 PT
Ah, the memories
ha-ha phil you're right, maybe the stoner sound guys in back cut her mike or something.  That just brought back a fond memory of Phil Donahue skewering General McCaffrey on his show, one of the most thorough drubbings handed to a Drug Warrior on tv. I love to see drug policy reform focused on medical MJ. The ONLY defense the drug warriors have is to lie badly, and they're starting to embarass themselves.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by phil_debowl on October 15, 2003 at 13:49:53 PT
not even a goodnight
I thought it was funny, the host didn't even say goodnight to the good Dr. She got slammed. She's due i'm sure for a little ondcp bootcamp on how to lie when she gets back home i'm sure!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on October 15, 2003 at 12:07:13 PT
one statement, two lies
"local officials feel as if this is a tremendous hoax that is being perpetrated on the American people by frauds presenting themselves in white coats as if they're physicians. "Ad for Lucky Strike cigarettes:20,679 Physicians say "LUCKIES" are "less irritating""It's toasted"See ad at:http://www.collectmedicalantiques.com/images/potpourri/pp_14.jpgAlso, from:http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/6551807.htmMILLIONS SOLD, OFFICE BY OFFICE
 Strategy targeted busy doctors, hit Kentucky
 By Charles B. Camp
 HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
 When the small, family-owned company that invented OxyContin unspooled a sales strategy for its little morphine-like pills in the late 1990s, a bull's-eye landed on Eastern Kentucky.Purdue Pharma bought the usual medical journal ads, mailed out fliers and stocked up on promotional giveaways, such as scratch pads and coffee mugs.But it spent far more on a technique commonly associated with bigger firms and less-regulated drugs: one-on-one selling to select doctors.Between 1996 and 2001, as OxyContin became the nation's top-selling narcotic, Purdue invested more than $500 million deploying a small army of sales representatives around the country, according to previously confidential corporate records.It offered the reps some of the best paychecks in the business. And it gave them sophisticated intelligence about doctors' prescribing practices, according to documents from a little-noticed Ohio lawsuit and a closed investigation by the Florida attorney general.Purdue used the prescribing data to help it break into a rich market: family doctors who were the busiest prescribers of competing pain pills for everything from backaches to car-crash injuries.That targeting made Appalachia fertile territory for Purdue's salesmen. The region had a long history of heavy painkiller use. In 1998, for example, parts of southwestern Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia received more of OxyContin's competing painkillers per capita than anywhere else in the nation, federal data show.Purdue's strategy worked. In 2000, national OxyContin sales exceeded $1 billion, earning the industry's coveted "blockbuster" status. In Kentucky, that translated to 9.7 million pills.snip that!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by darwin on October 15, 2003 at 11:44:48 PT
Thanks PBS.
They even gave Rob the last word. barthwell looked foolish.
PBS isn't perfect, but they are better than the sellout networks. I offer my $$ to PBS, mainly for the Red Green Show, but I'm thrilled that they hosted this debate, albeit a little short.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on October 15, 2003 at 11:06:20 PT
So she wants to honor time eh?
quote:
"21st century medicine requires that we function in that way, and we have a very time honored process of bringing medications to the marketplace after they have been tested for safety, after they have had their dosing profiles established and drug-drug interactions established."And human history has a time honored process wherein thousands of years of historical medicinal use that is beneficial shows the world that it is fine... the time honored FDA process she refers to isn't even 100 years old. If I want to use a plant that history shows can be and has been used safely and effectively, then I will use that plant and no Washington stuffed shirt (or stuffed blouse) is going to tell me I can't. Period. Is this *really* the Land Of The Free? If it truly is, then I'm free to use a damn plant that grows flowers. That's the bottom line.These people never cease to amaze with their arrogance.MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Adam1 on October 15, 2003 at 11:04:45 PT:
Kampia(MPP) vs. "Barfwell"(Drug Czar Nazi)...
...and the winner is......Marijuana Policy Project!!!!! This was done with a knock out punch, based in fact; to the lies spewed by someone with PHD. at the end of her name? Good Lord!! Nice try Bush administration, but no cigar(Those are for the White House's interns)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by 420toker on October 15, 2003 at 10:21:37 PT
Thats a slam dunk interview if I ever heard one
That prohibitionist looked like the shrill child caught in a spin lie. It sounded as if she was more or less cut off at the end of the debate. This rocks, things are turning our way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 15, 2003 at 10:18:57 PT
You're Welcome Sam
I got to see it last night and I taped it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on October 15, 2003 at 10:15:23 PT
Thanks FOM!
I missed this but was looking forward to reading it, thanks for posting
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment