Pubdate: Tue, 23 Nov 2004
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright: 2004 Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Contact:  http://www.telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/509
Author: William T. Breault, chairman of the Main South  Alliance for Public
Safety in Worcester.
Note: Only publishes letters from state residents.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/soros.htm (Soros, George)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?214 (Drug Policy Alliance)

MARIJUANA SHOULD NOT BE RECLASSIFIED

As I See It

As chairman of The Main South Alliance for Public Safety, I have been
involved in fighting drugs in my community for many years.

I, and my colleagues, strive on a daily basis to keep drugs out of our
 city's oftentimes working directly with law enforcement. As one of
the amici listed in an amicus brief filed in the case, Ashcroft v.
Raich, we are anxious  to see the Drug Enforcement Agency and Food and
Drug Administration retain their rightful jobs in protecting the
public against those who seek to legalize drugs.

The promotion of drug legalization by groups, such as The National
Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws and the Massachusetts Cannabis
Reform  Coalition, pushes marijuana as medicine.

They are using it as a red herring as part of a strategy to
legalize marijuana for general use. Other pushers of legalization
include the  Lindesmith Center/Drug Policy Foundation, financed
heavily by billionaire George  Soros.

Physicians who treat people for cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other
diseases do not favor the use of marijuana. Not one American health
organization  accepts marijuana as medicine, including the American
Medical Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the
American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology and
the American Cancer Society.

The FDA and the DEA have repeatedly rejected marijuana for medical
use. Marijuana fails to meet any of the DEA's requirements and is
still a schedule  one drug. It has no medical utility and cannot be
prescribed. Marijuana fails the FDA's eight criteria for approving
drugs for medicine.

Two individuals (and the caregivers of one of the individuals) sued to
prevent the federal government from seizing their medicinal cannabis
or prosecuting them for cultivating and/or processing it.

Individuals contend, among other things, that the prohibitions of the
Controlled Substances Act were unconstitutional as applied to their
activities because of the noncommercial, interstate cultivation and/or
possession of marijuana for personal and medical use on the advice
of a physician and in accordance with state law does not substantially
affect interstate  commerce.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, and
the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the case. The case will be argued
Nov.  29.

The federal government is arguing that, under established federal
court precedent, Congress has the power to regulate interstate
activity, even when  that activity is noncommercial, if the activity when
aggregated with other similar activities substantially affects interstate
commerce.

The government maintains the marijuana is fungicable
particularly  since Congress has determined that marijuana has no
accepted medical use in the U.S. (i.e., Schedule 1)  and could be
sold to others, thereby potentially swelling interstate drug
trafficking. They point to Congresses findings  supporting the
enactment of the CSA, which stresses the intrastate use of  controlled
substances has a significant effect on interstate drug trafficking
and on the health and safety of U.S. citizens.

Other amicus briefs have been filed in this case. For the most part,
they discuss whether the activity in question affects interstate drug
trafficking and the use of illicit drugs.

Some take no position on marijuana or the drug abuse issue but
maintain  that any noncommercial intrastate activity is beyond
the reach of Congress's power to regulate.

We believe, for a number of reasons, the intrastate, noncommercial use
 of crude herbal cannabis for medical purposes does, indeed, affect
interstate commerce and in a very negative way.

There are a multitude of reasons why the court of appeals' ruling
will  have a ripple effect that can eviscerate the intricate fabric of
the Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Over the last century, our federal regulatory system, rather than
state law, has been the primary source  of regulation of
prescription medicine and the protection of patients.

Indeed, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act has become the international
gold standard for determining the quality, safety and efficacy of
medical  products.

If the states allow unstructured and ungovernable systems to flourish
within their borders, this federal regulatory structure will be
irreparably  harmed

It is neither legal nor compassionate to provide a harmful, addictive
drug with no scientifically proven medical  efficacy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin