Judge allows prescription marijuana

Nine states currently permit use of drug for medical reasons

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Supreme Court handed a majorvictory Tuesday to the nine states that allow the medical use ofmarijuana, refusing to let the federal government punish doctorsfor recommending pot to their ill patients.

The justices declined without comment to review a lower-courtruling that said doctors should be able to speak frankly with theirpatients.

''My goodness, this is so incredible,'' said California cancerpatient Angel Raich, who smokes medical marijuana with a doctor'srecommendation every two hours that she is awake. ''Hopefully,there'll be more doctors now that will feel safer in recommendingcannabis to patients that need it.''

The ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which hadsought to punish doctors who recommend marijuana -- or who simplydiscuss the drug's benefits -- by revoking the all-importantfederal licenses they need to write prescriptions.

A ruling in favor of the federal government would have guttedthe state marijuana laws, which generally depend on a patient'sability to get a doctor's recommendation. The nine states areAlaska, 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 goafter cultivators, dealers and users, just as they have done inraids on ''cannabis clubs'' and other locations in California overthe past few years.

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

Still, Dr. Frank Lucido of Berkeley, Raich's physician, said thejustices' move Tuesday ''takes some of the fear and intimidationfactor out of doctors performing their practice.''

Even some supporters of these laws had expected the SupremeCourt to step into the case. They said the court's refusal tointervene could encourage other states to consider passing medicalmarijuana laws.

''It finally definitively puts to rest these federal threatsagainst doctors and patients,'' said Graham Boyd, an American CivilLiberties Union attorney representing patients, doctors and othergroups in the case.

Patients with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other illnesses saymarijuana relieves pain, stimulates appetite and wards offnausea.

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

''An integral component of the practice of medicine is thecommunication between doctor and a patient. Physicians must be ableto speak frankly and openly to patients,'' the 9th Circuit said atthe time.

In their appeal, federal prosecutors argued that doctors whorecommend marijuana are interfering with the drug war andcircumventing the government's judgment that the illegal drug hasno medical benefit.

The conflict began after California voters passed the nation'sfirst medical marijuana law in 1996. The Clinton administrationsaid doctors who recommended marijuana would lose their federallicenses to prescribe medicine, could be excluded from Medicare andMedicaid programs, and could face criminal charges if they helppatients actually obtain marijuana.

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

The case pitted the First Amendment free-speech rights ofdoctors against government authority to discourage illegal druguse.

Some California doctors and patients, in court papers, compareddoctor information on pot to physicians' advice on ''red wine toreduce the risk of heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, orchicken soup.''

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

''The provision of medical advice -- whether it be that thepatient take aspirin or Vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise orrest, smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana -- is not purespeech. It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, itis subject to reasonable regulation,'' the administration said.

On the Net:

Supreme Court case file:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-40.htm

American Civil Liberties Union:http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyMain.cfm

Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org

Drug Policy Alliance: www.drugpolicy.org

 


Comments

More from The Daily






Loading Recent Classifieds...