cannabisnews.com: Maine Awaits Drug Ruling 





Maine Awaits Drug Ruling 
Posted by FoM on March 13, 2001 at 17:01:47 PT
By Bart Jansen, Portland Press Herald Writer 
Source: Portland Press Herald 
Two Maine officials are hoping to influence the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a California case that could decide the fate of medical marijuana laws nationwide.Cumberland County Sheriff Mark Dion and state Sen. Anne Rand, D-Portland, have filed a joint legal brief supporting the use of marijuana by patients in California who suffer debilitating and life-threatening illnesses. 
The two are public supporters of Maine's medical marijuana law, adopted in 1999. Their involvement in the California case shows that the high-court decision is expected to have far-reaching effects.California, Maine and six other states have laws that allow for the use of medical marijuana, but implementing those measures has posed major problems.In the California case, the justices are being asked to rule on the legality of a state law that approves the distribution of a drug Congress outlawed."They're going to have to decide whether states can set their own health policy," Dion said. "I think it's important that we recognize that marijuana has certain medical benefits for members of the community." In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last month, Dion, Rand and advocates from other states argued that "these initiatives (state laws supporting medical marijuana use) pose no serious conflict with federal law.'' They argue that it is wrong to "punish individuals who are seriously ill for availing themselves of relief from pain'' by smoking marijuana. Ruling likely by June Oral arguments in the California case start March 28; a ruling is expected by June.A negative ruling effectively could overturn all initiatives by states that allow seriously ill patients to possess and smoke marijuana to relieve pain and nausea – typically from AIDS or chemotherapy treatment for cancer.Observers note that the court could choose instead to set rules on how to distribute the drug.In Maine, Rep. Thomas Shields, an Auburn Republican, is on a state task force to develop rules for distributing the drug. "We'd like to hold off any decisions until we see what the Supreme Court does with Oakland because it's so similar," said Shields, a physician.Advocates of Maine's law estimate that perhaps 400 patients in the state could benefit from using marijuana to ease the nausea and pain caused by life-threatening or debilitating illnesses. Patients such as Robin Lambert of Portland have received notes from their physicians stating that the use of medical marijuana has been discussed as a source of pain relief. Lambert mixes himself a cocktail of drugs to fend off AIDS and predatory diseases threatening his life. His regimen includes Videx crackers. The medicinal wafers, which are smaller than Ritz crackers, help a patient's immune system. After breakfast Lambert takes three different pills that also bolster his immune system as well as fight off pneumonia. One of the pills, Kaletra, resembles an orange gummy bear but has a fierce taste. To avoid throwing up the medicine, which costs $2,000 a month, Lambert relieves his nausea by smoking marijuana."They're not going to frighten us into not using medicinal marijuana," said Lambert, 50, a former human-resources official. "If states stick to their guns, they'll win eventually."Advocates seem to support his position.Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Foundation, argues that 600 years of common law support unconventional treatment as a "medical necessity" when officially sanctioned medicines don't work. 'A huge, huge setback' But he said a loss at the high court "would be a huge, huge setback" for medical marijuana advocates in states like Maine.Medical marijuana opponents, including the Family Research Council, argue that marijuana is harmful both as an addictive hallucinogen and as a steppingstone to worse drugs. Such opponents say the California case should serve as a barricade against efforts to legalize marijuana."The scientific evidence is very clear: it's an addictive substance, a very dangerous substance," said Robert Maginnis, the Family Research Council's vice president for national security and foreign policy.Jay McCloskey, Maine's outgoing U.S. Attorney, fought the state's referendum and maintained that weakening laws against marijuana would confuse youths about the drug's illegality.Like the Family Research Council that quotes him in its brief to the high court, McCloskey argues that using marijuana makes it easier to move on to cocaine and heroin."In my view marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to more serious drug use," he said. California's case grew out of a refedendum that voters approved in 1996 allowing patients to use marijuana after consulting with their doctors.Six so-called "cannabis clubs" were created to distribute the drug. Federal lawyers sued to shut down the clubs, including the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. 'Cannabis clubs' closed A U.S. District Court judge agreed to close the clubs. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, saying the government had not refuted evidence that "cannabis is medically necessary for a group of seriously ill individuals." Government lawyers have maintained that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act flatly classified marijuana as illegal to "manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense."Congress placed the drug in a category that can't be prescribed by a doctor, ruling that marijuana has no "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" and no "accepted safety for use under medical supervision," according to government lawyers."Until the federal government comes to the table, it puts the physicians at some risk," said Gordon Smith, executive director of the Maine Medical Association.Smith's group opposed the referendum, but now educates doctors about how to answer questions from patients. Smith said three doctors have asked for advice, but that others in specialties such as oncology and neurology might be familiar enough with the issues to deal with them on their own.Smith said doctors also have concerns about the way the drug was approved."They are somewhat uncomfortable with the public approving drugs by referendum," Smith said. "It is kind of bizarre."The proposal, voted on in 1999, won more than 60 percent of the vote.The law allows a patient to get a note from a doctor saying the two have discussed the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana. The patient is allowed to possess six plants or 1 ounces of marijuana.Lambert says he buys his marijuana but says patients in worse physical condition may have trouble getting out and finding a source for the drug.Qualifying illnesses include AIDS-related symptoms of nausea and wasting away, spasticity such as multiple sclerosis, neurological problems such as epilepsy, and glaucoma.Marijuana is supposed to be used only after similar drugs available by prescription, including a pill version of the active ingredient in marijuana, fail. Doctors remain leery Doctors, however, have been leery of participating because of uncertainty about how the federal law will be enforced.Even with a doctor's help, an unresolved question in Maine is how to get the marijuana to patients who need it. Patients must now buy the drug on the black market from dealers who risk imprisonment. Patients who are paralyzed or otherwise unable to roll their own joints need help from relatives or friends.A state task force has studied how to set up a state-sanctioned distribution system. Rand proposed legislation to allow a nonprofit company to grow marijuana in a single plot for statewide distribution. Task force participants are meeting Monday in Augusta to discuss the measure.But Dion is worried about taking that path, which could invite more federal intervention. He suggested allowing patients to grow marijuana themselves – after registering with the state to avoid police searches and arrests.Because the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, advocates on both sides acknowledged that the court could overturn all the state programs."It could stop what's happening in Maine," Maginnis said.Supporters of the initiative hope the Supreme Court will focus entirely on how to grow and distribute marijuana, rather than abolishing the program entirely. The court could, for example, allow the use of marijuana only after all other medical options are exhausted, which could be prohibitive."I think if there is a victory, it could be on the hollow side," St. Pierre said.Elizabeth Beane, director of Mainers for Medical Rights, the group that campaigned for the initiative, said she would try to create a distribution program that fits whatever rules the Supreme Court sets. Whatever the court decides, she doesn't expect it to overturn the referendum's result."People," she said, "would be really ripped if the referendum is attacked." Staff Writer Bart Jansen can be contacted at 202-488-1119 or at: bjansen pressherald.com Source: Portland Press Herald (ME)Author: Bart Jansen, Portland Press Herald WriterPublished: Sunday, March 11, 2001Copyright: 2001 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.Address: 50 Monument Square, Suite 302, Portland, ME 04101Fax: (207) 879-1042Contact: letters pressherald.comWebsite: http://www.portland.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Mainers For Medical Rightshttp://www.mainers.org/Maine Panel Split on Marijuana Distribution Reporthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7184.shtmlTask Force: Distribute Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7180.shtml 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment


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