Pubdate: Tue, 03 Apr 2001
Source: Reason Magazine (US)
Copyright: 2001 The Reason Foundation
Contact:  http://www.reason.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/359
Author: Jacob Sullum
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)

WEED NEED

The federal government argues that allowing sick people to obtain marijuana 
for medicinal use will make the drug laws impossible to enforce. Seeking to 
shut down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, it warns that "drug 
traffickers, acting under the guise of 'medical necessity,' will be able to 
manufacture and distribute marijuana with impunity."

Although the Supreme Court seemed receptive to such claims when it heard 
oral arguments in the case at the end of March, the government's fears have 
not been realized in California, where voters approved a proposition 
sanctioning the medical use of marijuana five years ago. Growers and 
distributors are still convicted under state law, and the proposition does 
not seem to have affected overall marijuana use. Drug warriors are wrong to 
think that letting patients use marijuana to relieve nausea, restore 
appetite, alleviate pain, or control spasms will inevitably lead to free 
availability of the drug for all uses. They are also wrong to imply that 
such an outcome is the real goal of medical marijuana advocates--who, 
according to Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffrey, are perpetrating "a cruel 
hoax" on sick people to advance the cause of legalization.

Many patients really do get relief from marijuana that they cannot obtain 
from legal alternatives, either because those drugs don't work for them or 
because they can't stand the side effects. The U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the 9th Circuit observed that the government "has offered no evidence to 
rebut [the Oakland cooperative's] evidence that cannabis is the only 
effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals."

Still, the drug warriors are right to be worried. Their inflexibility on 
this issue has made it easy to portray them as heartless fanatics who'd 
rather let someone's grandmother waste away while undergoing chemotherapy 
than concede that there might be anything good to be said about marijuana.

The medical marijuana debate has also called attention to the arbitrariness 
of the government's drug distinctions. When doctors can prescribe cocaine 
and morphine, it's hard to understand why marijuana is completely off-limits.

A week before the Supreme Court heard the Oakland case, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration officially rejected a petition to move marijuana 
out of Schedule I, the most restrictive drug category. The DEA argued that 
marijuana meets the criteria for Schedule I because it has "no currently 
accepted medical use" (not surprising, since it's illegal) and "a high 
potential for abuse" (with abuse defined as illegal use).

Considering the pros and cons of marijuana as a medicine tends to reveal 
myths as well as circular reasoning. When the National Academy of Sciences 
prepared a report on the issue at Barry McCaffrey's request, it concluded 
not only that there was substantial evidence of marijuana's therapeutic 
utility but that the drug's dangers had been greatly exaggerated.

When it came to marijuana's potential side effects, the main concern of the 
report's authors was not "amotivational syndrome" or brain damage or heroin 
addiction--commonly alleged hazards for which they found little or no 
evidence. Rather, they were worried about the respiratory effects of 
smoking, of particular concern with frail patients who use the drug frequently.

Instead of endorsing cannabis as a medicine, the NAS panelists called for 
the development of inhalers that could rapidly deliver measured doses of 
marijuana's active ingredients (THC and possibly one or two other 
chemicals) without the toxins generated by burning the plant. In the 
meantime, they said, marijuana should be available to patients with no 
viable alternatives--the same sort of people who would be covered by a 
"medical necessity" defense.

Nine states, including California, allow patients to use marijuana, and 
their laws will still apply to state and local police and prosecutors (who 
handle the vast majority of marijuana cases) even if the Supreme Court 
rules against the Oakland club. But the prospect of a THC inhaler suggests 
that the viability of the medical marijuana issue will be limited.

Once there's a legal alternative that's safer than smoked marijuana and 
works just as well, reformers with a broader agenda will have to proceed 
without the sympathetic attention generated by cancer and AIDS patients. 
They will have to defend marijuana as an intoxicant rather than a medicine, 
thereby alienating anyone who thinks pot smoking is acceptable only in 
special circumstances. At that point the drug warriors will breathe a sigh 
of relief, and the reformers may regret all that talk about medical necessity.

Jacob Sullum's weekly column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. If you'd 
like to see it in your local newspaper, write or call the editorial page editor.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD