cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Medical Use


cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Medical Use 





Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Medical Use 
Posted by FoM on May 28, 2001 at 08:47:29 PT
By Susan J. Landers, AMNews Staff
Source: American Medical Association
There's no question that the U.S. Supreme Court's May 14 decision on certain legal questions related to the medical uses of marijuana represents a setback for the drug's proponents, who believe its use helps ease some of the distress of seriously ill people. Although the ruling didn't strike down the nine state laws that allow medically needy patients to obtain the drug without fear of state prosecution, it did set up other obstacles. 
For instance, patients in California will have to find other ways to obtain their marijuana than from the cannabis buyers' clubs shut down by the court's ruling. The California Medical Assn., which supports its state law, was disappointed with the decision. "CMA's interest in this issue is rooted in the core belief that patients should not suffer unnecessarily when other options fail," said Frank E. Staggers, MD, president of CMA. Physicians will have to continue to be very watchful when advising seriously ill patients of their treatment options that they don't run afoul of federal drug laws. "We had hoped that, at least for a small subset of patients for whom marijuana use is a medical necessity, physicians could feel freer with their discussion," said Alice P. Mead, a consulting attorney for CMA. As it stands now, there is a gray area, she said. Physicians can't be sure when they have gone beyond the area of protected speech and into the realm of what is illegally aiding and abetting a patient to get marijuana. "Some physicians understandably want to keep well clear of the gray area and the sanctions that could result," she said. Among the sanctions are loss of a license to prescribe controlled substances and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Although the AMA did not take a position in the Supreme Court case, the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs has submitted a report on the medical uses of marijuana for this month's Annual Meeting in Chicago. The report will update the AMA's 1997 report, which was written before the state measures were passed and an Institute of Medicine report on the subject was released. The AMA report will examine those recent activities and will also re-examine the issue of the compassionate use of the drug, according to council staff. The Ruling:In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative et al., the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal government's right to close an Oakland, Calif. buyers' cooperative. The cooperative was established under the state's Proposition 215 to supply marijuana to more than 8,000 patients who use the substance for a range of medical reasons. The drug has been credited with relieving pain and muscle spasms, stemming the nausea that can accompany chemotherapy and stimulating patients' appetites. However, the Supreme Court found that the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, contains no exception that would allow patients to use the drug after exhausting all other remedies. And although the passage of related state laws removed the threat of state prosecution for patients who use the drug, the threat of federal prosecution continued to exist. It is unlikely that the U.S. government will begin to prosecute sick individuals who use small amounts of the drug. However, cannabis clubs, which were started all over California as a distribution point for the drug, represent a larger target. What the court's ruling means in the other eight states that do not rely on clubs to distribute the drug is unclear. Some of those states allow patients to grow a few marijuana plants for their own use while shielding them from state prosecution. That's the case in Oregon. John Benson, MD, dean and professor emeritus of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, said he would like very much to know how the court's decision affects his state. More than 2,000 patients in Oregon carry cards issued by the state health department on the recommendation of their physicians. The cards protect them from state arrest for growing and using a small amount of marijuana. Maine voters also passed a ballot initiative as well as an amendment to the law that would establish a state-sanctioned distribution system for patients to obtain the marijuana, said Gordon Smith, executive vice president of the Maine Medical Assn. The Supreme Court decision is likely to cause Maine officials to have second thoughts about the wisdom of establishing a state-run distribution center, said Smith. "While the Supreme Court decision doesn't technically strike down the state law, I think it will clearly have a chilling effect on the willingness of physicians and law enforcement agencies to take our law any further than it goes now," he said. Unlike the California Medical Assn., the Maine Medical Assn. had opposed passage of its state marijuana initiative. "We are lawyers up here," said Smith, "and we said all along that this won't work without the federal government being a player at the table; obviously the court decision bears us out." Research Needed:Many physicians, however, worry that the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons could represent the camel's nose under the tent and would soon be followed by the legalization of the drug for everyone. Eric Voth, MD, chair of the Institute on Global Drug Policy, applauded the Supreme Court's decision. "The ballot initiative is a scam that seeks to legalize marijuana by popular vote, rather than through scientific research," he said. Melvyn Sterling, MD, who directs a California hospice, thinks the decision will have a dampening effect on the already scant research under way on the medical uses of marijuana. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is helpful to patients, the science-based evidence is not available, he said. The 1999 IOM report on marijuana's therapeutic possibilities, on which Dr. Benson served as the co-principal investigator, also concluded that clinical research was lacking. The study found excellent research at the basic science level, said Dr. Benson, but not on the clinical level. There are several legal drugs in use that work for some patients. One, Marinol, manufactured by Unimed Pharmaceutical Inc., contains a synthetic version of an active ingredient in marijuana. In addition, there are a scattering of researchers searching for an effective delivery mechanism for marijuana that doesn't involve smoking the drug. British researchers are now conducting clinical trials on extracts from the whole marijuana plant packaged as a pharmaceutical. GW Pharmaceuticals is hoping to gain approval for its drug in 2004. Note: Some physicians applaud while others bemoan the recent ruling, but all agree: More research is needed.Complete Title: Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Medical Use of MarijuanaSource: American Medical AssociationAuthor: Susan J. Landers, AMNews StaffPublished: June 4, 2001Copyright: 1995-2001 American Medical AssociationWebsite: http://www.ama-assn.org/Contact: http://www.ama-assn.org/cgi-bin/feedtool.plU.K. Medicinal Cannabis Projecthttp://www.medicinal-cannabis.org/OCBC Versus The US Governmenthttp://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on May 28, 2001 at 15:59:12 PT:
"Opinions are like a**holes...
everybody has one, and they smell.As even the briefest of scans of the SC's ruling reveals, it's nothing more than a pathetic attempt to hide behind the skirts of the law...when the law is based upon ignorance. An ignorance which the SC refuses to remedy for itself by performing the requisite research. Which it wouldn't have to break a sweat doing, because the data is readily available.In short, the SC's ruling falls under, not hard research...but opinion based upon misinformation and outright falsehoods.Judging by the degree of ignorance displayed by the SC, one would think that their 'benches' would require hourly deoderization. To keep the effluvia down.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by observer on May 28, 2001 at 12:19:49 PT
First, Do No Harm (Except to Cannabis Users)
Many physicians, however, worry that the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons could represent the camel's nose under the tent and would soon be followed by the legalization of the drug for everyone.Yes, and these are often the same physicians who (forgetting their oath to "first do no harm") seem to forget also about the subject of JAIL and PRISON for cannabis-taking patients, and the harms that PRISON and JAIL do. Such "legalization" concern on the part of prohibitionist activist physicians seems just a tad misplaced. I guess it is "First Do No Harm," unless the patient is a marijuana-smoker. Then, have at it, doc: savage your patient, turn 'em over to the police. And make sure the law comes down with ever more severity on your patients. That way, you get to sound big and authoritative, as you tell of the many dangers of the evil weed. And all "for the children." 
more on prohibitionist Eric Voth
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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