Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 2003. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Los Angeles Times - October 15, 2003
Though the decision itself is a surprise, it is hard to imagine how Congress or the executive branch could have any constitutional right to dictate the advice that physicians give their patients.
The medical marijuana battle stems from the fact that the Drug Enforcement Administration still nonsensically lists marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance having no "accepted medical use." Legally, it is on a par with heroin and crack cocaine.
Tuesday's ruling, even if it fails to budge the DEA on the Schedule I classification, should end the Bush administration's intimidation campaign. That includes threats to yank federal prescription privileges from doctors recommending marijuana in the nine states that allow the practice.
Ideally, the ruling would prompt the administration to respect Proposition 215, the measure passed by California voters in 1996 allowing limited medical use of marijuana, for instance in quelling nausea from chemotherapy and in helping AIDS patients regain appetite. However, the DEA could also decide that because the court has undermined its ability to prosecute doctors, it should escalate its crackdowns on cannabis clubs, the chief suppliers of medical marijuana. Earlier this year, DEA officials closed several clubs in California, raided some growers and arrested activists.
It is reasonable for federal law enforcement officials to worry that medical legalization could lead the public to see marijuana as safe. Polls show that some teenagers are unaware that driving while stoned can seriously impair their abilities behind the wheel, and many Americans don't realize that marijuana smoke contains carcinogens.
If the DEA honestly wants to rein in casual use, it should help California enforce the terms of Proposition 215 by monitoring cannabis clubs and cracking down on any that allow recreational use. Though Proposition 215 was not as tightly worded as this editorial page would have liked, the measure by no means sanctions nonmedical uses. If the administration has ideas about how to tighten implementation of Proposition 215, it should be working with rather than against California law enforcement agencies.
031015
LT031006
Copyright © 2003 - Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Los Angeles Times, Permissions, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. http://www.latimes.com.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Pacific Life Foundation and donations from users like you.
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2003. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2003. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .