|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
US: Marijuana: Medical Hope or Illegal Drug?
James Baker, Staff Writer Foster's Daily Democrat, US
Sunday 05 Dec 2004 Her eyes swollen and reddened following another sleepless night, Linda Macia wearily named off her multiple illnesses as tears slowly began trickling down her face. "I have nerve damage, fibromyalgia, reflex sympathetic dystrophy and degenerative arthritis," said the 51-year-old Manchester resident, as she pulled out a copy of an X-ray of the twisted, mangled nerve endings near her spine. "I've tried every prescription drug you can think of -- OxyContin, Demerol, methadone, codeine, Percocet -- but my body either can't tolerate them or I'm allergic. I'm in constant agony except briefly when I go for treatments every fifth week. Marijuana is the only thing that provides any significant relief, but the federal government won't show compassion and allow it to be used for medical purposes." At present, 10 states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- have laws on the books that permit the use of medical marijuana. In Maine, where the law took effect on Dec. 22, 1999, patients who obtain an oral or written "professional opinion" from their physician that he or she "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana" may legally possess no more than 1 ounces of usable marijuana, and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants, of which no more than three may be mature. "The trouble is, Maine doesn't have an established, state-run registry to dispense it," said Macia, who has a contact able to occasionally provide her with a small amount of marijuana. "In an average month I can only get enough for one joint, and I try to make that last four or five days. But it's nowhere near enough. If I could smoke just one joint every night, that would take the pain away long enough to allow me to go to sleep." Macia, who said she never smoked marijuana when she was a teenager in the late 1960s and early '70s despite a lot of peer pressure to do so, says there has only been one occasion when she resorted to trying to buy some on the street. "I was in so much pain I drove down some streets trying to find anyone who looked as though they might be selling some. It was a strange experience for me. Besides, the way they lace pot these days, you have no idea what you're getting and the prices are outrageous." Whether there's any help on the horizon for Macia and others in her predicament remains to be seen. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard a dispute between supporters of California's medical marijuana law and the federal government's anti-drug policy, during which a lawyer representing the Bush Administration argued the government's zero-tolerance law supersedes California's state measure, insisting that federal authorities should retain the power to raid the homes of people growing marijuana for their own use. The high court, which is expected to rule on the matter before next summer, will not decide whether marijuana has legitimate medicinal properties, but will rule on whether the federal authority to regulate commerce extends to seizing homegrown medicinal drugs. Precedence weighs in favor of the federal government. As recently as 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 8-0 decision that marijuana may not be distributed to persons who prove a medical necessity for the drug. Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project and a representative of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, said he is hesitant to predict which way the Supreme Court will rule. "It's hard to read the tea leaves, because oftentimes the justices will ask questions suggesting they're thinking one way, when in fact they rule the other way. Mirken said he was somewhat concerned about comments made by Justice Stephen Breyer, who suggested the way to seek approval for medical marijuana would be through the Food and Drug Administration rather than through the courts. "That tells me he really doesn't understand the situation," Mirken said. When asked if any progress has been made in legislating the use of medical marijuana in New Hampshire, Mirken said there was nothing concrete to discuss at the moment. "But we're keeping our powder dry, staying in touch with the legislators. The point I'd like to make with respect to the Supreme Court case is even if the court rules in the government's favor, they can't overturn the right of the states to enact their own medical marijuana laws. "On the other hand, if the court rules against us, then we're back to square one -- patients will be protected from arrest under state law, but not under federal law," he said. In the meantime, the general public and the medical field appear to be showing signs of taking a sympathetic view toward patients who contend marijuana is their last resource for relieving their pain. In August 2003, the polling organization Zogby International conducted interviews with 500 likely voters prior to the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Eighty-four percent said they support changing federal law to allow patients to use medical marijuana without fear of arrest. Last year, The Boston Globe published an article by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In his article, Grinspoon referred to a poll conducted by Medscape, a Web site directed at health care providers, which showed 76 percent of physicians and 89 percent of nurses supported marijuana's use as a medicine. In the president's home state of Texas, a Scripps Howard poll released several weeks ago showed 75 percent approval for legalizing the medical use of marijuana, with support cutting across all parties and age groups. As far back as 1988, the Department of Justice conducted a fact-finding investigation into the use of medical marijuana. In a 68-page document that includes numerous anecdotal examples of patients relieved of pain by smoking marijuana, Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young wrote the following: "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the Drug Enforcement Administration to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence of this record." But even now, more than 16 years later, resistance remains strong. In a recent interview, Calvina Fay, executive director of the Florida-based Drug Free America Foundation, said there is no scientific evidence to support the belief that smoking marijuana in its crude form is beneficial to a person suffering from chronic pain. Pointing out that studies have determined that smoking marijuana is more harmful than smoking tobacco, Fay said there isn't one major American health organization that accepts crude marijuana as medicine. "Questions of medicine are for the FDA and the medical community to answer, not special-interest groups, not individuals, not public opinion." However, Fay said her organization fully supports any research effort that would let a patient ingest tetrahydrocannabinol -- the major psychoactive component of marijuana -- through safe means. "It's the smoking we object to, but there's work being done to enable patients to receive THC through suppositories, inhalers and patches. THC is also the active ingredient in Marinol, an FDA-approved drug that has been found to relieve nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. So there are alternatives," Fay said. But some say getting approval to conduct scientific experiments to determine whether marijuana is a viable medicine is little more than a frustrating exercise in futility. In 2001, Lyle Craker, director of the Medicinal Plant Program at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, was offered a $5 million donation to conduct a medical marijuana research project. In theory, Craker was to apply to the DEA for a license to grow high-potency marijuana, which, in turn, he would distribute to researchers to study the plants' therapeutic effects. "The bottom line is, its been three years and we're still at ground zero in terms of getting a license. I've been visited several times by DEA agents and they're nice people, but they're charged with keeping marijuana off the market. "We test a lot of plants to determine whether they have any medicinal value, and as far as I'm concerned, marijuana is just another plant. I can't see any reason for denying us an opportunity to prove one way or another whether it has any beneficial use. It makes no sense to me," he said. Macia, who has been politically active in medical marijuana reform and has addressed the issue personally with Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Lieberman while they were on the campaign trail last year, admits she has her weak moments when she thinks the situation is hopeless. "I have no interest in seeing marijuana legalized across the board. In fact I'm against that. But there are times when I get so depressed, all I can do is cry. "I'm angry and frustrated with the Bush Administration. In my opinion, denying a person relief from this kind of pain and arresting dying people from using marijuana is a form of terrorism."
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!