 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| The Smoke About Medical Marijuana
by John M. Curtis Copyright December 4, 2000
"We would argue that medical necessity, an ancient defense that goes back centuries in Anglo jurisprudence, continues to exist," said Robert A. Raich, attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, signaling that his client has no intention of rolling over. "Patients have no other effective therapy . . . and they have a right to access that medicine," insisted Raich, suggesting that blocking access to medical marijuana deprives seriously ill patients of appropriate treatment. While it’s tempting to tout the benefits of medical marijuana, the scientific literature remains divided over its real benefits. Even carefully controlled double-blind studies used by the FDA to determine drugs’ safety and effectiveness have come under fire recently. One thing’s for sure, testimonials from happy marijuana users aren’t enough to twist arms at the DEA or Supreme Court. While the verdict’s still out on euthanasia, the same can be said for using banned euphoric drugs to ease the suffering of the medically infirmed. Whether marijuana has any redeeming medical benefits is of little concern to its users. Like the euthanasia debate, medical marijuana raises the same type of interminable controversy. Favoring California’s Compassionate Use Act, advocates cite various medical claims for patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, etc., including pain relief, appetite stimulation, and lowered eye pressure. Despite all the fancy claims, the scientific literature can’t confirm reliable medical benefits to ongoing marijuana use. While proponents like to cite scientific research, the truth is that genuine medical benefits carry little weight with marijuana users. For their purposes, pot makes them feel better while living with their sundry illnesses. When you cut to the chaste, pot smokers don’t care whether marijuana has any verified medical benefits, they only care that it relieves their misery. Without resorting to the red herring of "medical necessity," Aldous Huxley—the great British journalist, novelist and, yes, drug experimenter—argued for the use of mind-altering drugs in his classic utopia, Brave New World. Preventing patients from access to lifesaving medications has little to do with current debate over medical marijuana. Even the 1999 National Academy of Sciences report—based on the White House-sponsored study by the Institute of Medicine—couldn’t make categorical claims about medical benefits of cannabis. "Smoking marijuana should not generally be recommended for long-term medical use . . . Nonetheless, for certain patients such as the terminally ill or those with debilitating symptoms, the long-term risks are not of great concern," said the authors, suggesting that any long-term adverse effects from pot smoking are of little consequence to patients with terminal illnesses. While that’s obvious to almost anyone, using marijuana as therapeutic must be seen only in the context of helping patients alleviate their misery. Drinking alcohol, compulsive gambling, playing video games or other diversionary activities can also help patients feel better, without exaggerated therapeutic claims. Smoking marijuana or ingesting other forms of THC [the active ingredient in pot] may improve mood, but that’s a far cry from making unproven medical claims. Hiding behind "medical necessity" can’t ignore the fact that patients suffering serious illnesses deserve all the relief they can get. When Dr. Jack Kevorkian—the suicide doctor—euthanized terminally ill patients, the Michigan courts found little sympathy for his humanitarian efforts. Dr. Timothy Leary also found little mercy in California, insisting that his drug habit was part of his scientific research into human consciousness. Doing time in federal prison was a wakeup call for the one-time Harvard professor and counterculture icon referred to as the "high priest of LSD," whose rallying cry to "turn-on, tune-in and drop out" sent a troubled generation onto a self-destructive trajectory. "Medical necessity" didn’t cut it then, and it’s no excuse now. Sure, Leary’s logic was different, but today’s medical marijuana debate doesn’t hinge on whether scientists find any redeeming therapeutic value or even whether patients claim it relieves painful symptoms. As long as there’s a war on drugs, it’s difficult to justify prescribing marijuana out of "medical necessity." Whether marijuana’s a gateway drug [leads to other drugs] has little to do with questionable claims about its medical benefits. Using marijuana and relieving symptoms doesn’t mean that it has any redeeming medical benefits. While it’s tempting to attribute magical properties to marijuana, common sense suggests that all euphoric drugs superimpose feelings of well-being on sick bodies and troubled minds. Touting anecdotal reports about the marijuana miracles fail to see the true picture that patients’ subjective experiences aren’t necessarily correlated with the drug’s actual benefits. California’s Compassionate Use Act is more about humanely giving opiates to needy people rather than following the law of "medical necessity." With the Supreme Court about to debate medical marijuana, it’s time for all parties to face the music. Like other euphoric drugs, marijuana makes users feel better, but that has nothing to do with its alleged medical benefits. Viewing medical marijuana as a type of hospice care makes a lot more sense than spinning tall tales about its magical medical properties. Following Huxley’s lead, that’s all that counts. About the Author John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
utting medical marijuana in its pipe, the Supreme Court announced November 27 that it intends to settle the score on the hotly debated issue, currently placing state laws at odds with federal statutes. Federal laws strictly prohibit the sale, distribution or use of marijuana for any purpose, including the medical one at the heart of the marijuana debate. Four years ago, California voters passed Proposition 215—The Compassionate Use Act—authorizing patients or their caregivers to get marijuana for "medical necessity." Throwing out a roadblock, the high court issued an emergency restraining order preventing an Oakland marijuana club from further distribution. Without psychic powers, the Supreme Court’s already telegraphed its intentions about medical marijuana under federal law. Responding to the restraining order, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that "medical necessity" trumped the federal zero tolerance drug policy, allowing marijuana clubs to continue dispensing pot. Rejecting the idea of medical marijuana, DEA czar Barry McCaffrey steadfastly enforces Clinton’s zero tolerance policy.|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
