Pubdate: Wed, 16 May 2001
Source: Palm Beach Post (FL)
Copyright: 2001 The Palm Beach Post
Contact:  http://www.gopbi.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/333

CONGRESS' PRESCRIPTION

The Supreme Court did not decide Monday to rule out the use of
marijuana for medical purposes. The ruling was narrow, applying only
to collectives that distribute the drug. The ruling, however, also was
narrow-minded, since government research has shown some potential for
therapeutic use.

The court's 8-0 decision -- Justice Stephen Breyer abstained because
his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, had ruled that the
cooperative could supply marijuana in cases of "medical necessity" --
does not affect the laws of the eight states that have legalized
marijuana for certain medical uses. But it will discourage other
states from passing such initiatives by making it more difficult to
obtain the drug and more hazardous for physicians to prescribe it. The
decision also conflicts with growing medical and public opinion, which
supports marijuana use -- if no other treatment works -- for people
suffering AIDS wasting, terminal cancer pain or the nausea that
chemotherapy causes.

The California case involved the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,
which the city of Oakland set up to provide marijuana for medical
purposes. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled
that marijuana's inclusion as a Schedule 1 drug under the federal
Controlled Substances Act means it has no accepted medical use.

The New England Journal of Medicine has suggested a reasonable change
to the law that would make marijuana a Schedule 2 drug like morphine.
That way, doctors could prescribe it without losing their licenses to
prescribe other drugs. But opponents insist that such a change would
lead to legalization.

In 1999, a $1 million federal study found that cannabinoids, the
drug's active ingredients, did seem to be useful in treating pain and
the severe weight loss that comes with AIDS. But since smoking harms
the lungs, the government suggested developing inhalers or other
methods of delivering it. There has been no action on that
recommendation.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that the ruling affects only
large-scale distributors and does not address the issue of patients
trying to "avoid starvation or extraordinary suffering." That's the
concern of the California Medical Association, which supports medical
marijuana use. California also supported the cooperative.

The decision does not bar patients from obtaining the drug. But it
contradicts the court's professed support in many other rulings of
states' rights. Congress should change the law to allow a humane exemption.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew