Pubdate: Wed, 15 Oct 2003
Source: Cape Cod Times (MA)
Copyright: 2003 Cape Cod Times
Contact:  http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/72
Author: David Kravets, The Associated Press

COURT WON'T CURB MEDICAL MARIJUANA

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory yesterday to 
the nine states that allow the medical use of marijuana, refusing to let 
the federal government punish doctors for recommending pot to their ill 
patients.

The justices declined without comment to review a lower-court ruling that 
said doctors should be able to speak frankly with their patients. "My 
goodness, this is so incredible," said California cancer patient Angel 
Raich, who smokes medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation every 
two hours that she is awake. "Hopefully, there'll be more doctors now that 
will feel safer in recommending cannabis to patients that need it."

The ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which had sought to 
punish doctors who recommend marijuana - or who simply discuss the drug's 
benefits - by revoking the all-important federal licenses they need to 
write prescriptions.

A ruling in favor of the federal government would have gutted the state 
marijuana laws, which generally depend on a patient's ability to get a 
doctor's recommendation. The nine states are Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Nevertheless, it is still illegal under federal law to grow, sell or 
possess marijuana, and federal prosecutors can still go after cultivators, 
dealers and users, just as they have done in raids on "cannabis clubs" and 
other locations in California over the past few years. Less pressure on doctors

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana clubs in 
2001, declaring there is no medical exception to the federal law against 
marijuana.

Still, Dr. Frank Lucido of Berkeley, Raich's physician, said the justices' 
move yesterday "takes some of the fear and intimidation factor out of 
doctors performing their practice."

Even some supporters of these laws had expected the Supreme Court to step 
into the case. They said the court's refusal to intervene could encourage 
other states to consider passing medical marijuana laws.

"It finally definitively puts to rest these federal threats against doctors 
and patients," said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney 
representing patients, doctors and other groups in the case.

Patients with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other illnesses say marijuana 
relieves pain, stimulates appetite and wards off nausea.

The justices let stand a decision last October by the 9th U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals, which held that doctors have a constitutional right to 
speak candidly with their patients about marijuana.

"An integral component of the practice of medicine is the communication 
between doctor and a patient. Physicians must be able to speak frankly and 
openly to patients," the 9th Circuit said at the time.

In their appeal, federal prosecutors argued that doctors who recommend 
marijuana are interfering with the drug war and circumventing the 
government's judgment that the illegal drug has no medical benefit.

First Amendment Issue

The conflict began after California voters passed the nation's first 
medical marijuana law in 1996. The Clinton administration said doctors who 
recommended marijuana would lose their federal licenses to prescribe 
medicine, could be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and could 
face criminal charges if they help patients actually obtain marijuana.

Seven California doctors and some of their patients sued during the Clinton 
administration, and the Bush administration continued the fight.

The case pitted the First Amendment free-speech rights of doctors against 
government authority to discourage illegal drug use.

Some California doctors and patients, in court papers, compared doctor 
information on pot to physicians' advice on "red wine to reduce the risk of 
heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or chicken soup."

The administration argued that public heath - not free speech - was at stake.

"The provision of medical advice - whether it be that the patient take 
aspirin or Vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or 
refrain from smoking marijuana - is not pure speech. It is the conduct of 
the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation," 
the administration said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman