Marijuana.com

Suetaz

Medical marijuana: A nation gone to pot?

July 02, 2004 | EDITORIAL | The Republican

For a nation that has been waging a decades-long war against drugs without success, it is difficult to admit that someone might benefit by smoking marijuana.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to decide whether seriously ill people who smoke pot under a doctor's care are subject to a federal ban on marijuana.

Attorney General John Ashcroft strongly opposes the California law that permits medical use of marijuana, saying it "seriously undermines Congress' comprehensive scheme for the regulation of dangerous drugs."

There are common drugs prescribed by doctors every day that are far more dangerous than marijuana.

As we've noted before, the United States has the best hospitals in the world, the most skilled doctors, the most advanced technology and the most modern medicines, but its laws governing marijuana are archaic.

Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine and others conclude that marijuana use can relieve pain and nausea associated with illnesses such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS. And, the studies show, marijuana is less toxic than some of the common prescription drugs that doctors use to treat patients.

The Justice Department asks the court to make no distinction between a California doctor who prescribes marijuana for a cancer patient and a drug lord in the jungles of Colombia who grows coca for drug trafficking. Such thinking may explain why the U.S. government is losing the war on drugs.

A doctor practicing in a state that recognizes that medicinal value of pot risks a charge of malpractice if he or she doesn't recommend marijuana when all else has failed.

The Supreme Court will hear the case next winter, but ultimately it is the function of Congress to change the laws governing marijuana. Federal law categorizes pot as a "schedule 1" or dangerous drug under the Controlled Substances Act. At the very least, Congress should amend the law to allow for the medical use of marijuana.

Some lawmakers might fear that voters will think they are soft on drugs if they approve such a change.

Such thinking, to borrow a phrase from the cult movie on the dangers of marijuana, is reefer madness.

[Suetaznote: The source link doesn't give a name for the author of this fine editorial. I hope to see many more editorials like this. The media needs to do the right thing in stopping the reefer madness and help us spread the truth.]

__________________

 

Bellatrix

Thanks Suetaz; this reminded me of an article in the current issue (July 2004, just to be exact) of the Canadian Edition of Time Magazine. In "Curbing the Drug Marketers" by Daren Fiona and Barbara Kiviat, Dr. Gary Gross, an assistant professor of medicine at Yale, is quoted in the article as saying, "You can't tell doctors never to try anything except what's been tested."

However, the above article states...

And then goes on to say...

Well, well, weeeeell, I thought to myself. I guess Dr. Gross' assertion only counts for pills, eh? And here we have marijuana, which Johnny Asscrack describes as "dangerous" even though a number of studies and mountains of anecdotal evidence claim otherwise. Maybe he and Gary Gross should have a little chat, but I'm sure if someone used Dr. Gross' statements publicly to defend medicinal marijuana that he would retract them pretty damn quick. Then I was remembered that in Canada, our medicinal marijuana program was mostly handled by the Health Ministry. Handled extremely badly, mind you, but the Justice Department didn't have a whole lot to do with it (discounting the fact that the Minister of Health was the former Minister of Justice...grrrr). What's the American equivalent of that? And why haven't they been involved in any of this?

I came across the United States Department of Health and Human Services, headed by a fellow named Tommy G. Thompson. He could be Johnny's brother by the looks of it. Even the hair is the same. The very first thing we see in the "major initiatives" portion of his bio is to "strengthen the nation's preparedness for a bioterrorism attack" (would marijuana count as bioterrorism?), but has nothing specific on what he's done (an "initiative" is just an idea or a proposal - it's safe to say he's done squat). Also prominent feature on Mr. Thompson's resume is his inception of the "Welfare to Work" program in Wisconsin in 1996, and anyone who has seen "Bowling for Columbine" knows how that program works (pretty much legalized slavery). There is nothing about medical marijuana on this page. If you use the search engine in the upper right you can find a few studies on medicinal marijuana - but most come from NIDA and we all know where those go ("It's not my fault my child is troubled - it's the evil drugs").

The Health Canada site has an entire section dedicated to medicinal marijuana. Sure, there's some of the usual reefer madness rhetoric, but at least it's there, and it's pretty toned down compared to the garbage on the US Dept of Health and Human Services website. What a mess!

__________________

Marijuana.com Community Posting Guidelines
Marijuana.com Article Submission Guidelines

FREE MARC EMERY

Greenbud

Here's an email I just got this morning. Thought I'd share this with everyone:

I've written my letters to my representatives. I urge everyone else to do the same!!

__________________
"I believe in the near future, the government will use anti-drug hysteria to set up a police state."
-author William S. Burroughs, 1947

Community Posting Guidelines | Front Page Article Submission Guidelines

iGame3D

Thanks Greenbud I just sent a message to Steve Rothman New Jersey District 9 pawn of the pharmeceutical industry, who voted no on the Hinchey amendment last year.

One look at this guys web site makes me sick.

Here he is shaking hands with President "Unacol-Heroin Nation" Karzai