OREGON NEWS SERVICE:
A statewide radio news service
10230 SW Crestwood Court
Beaverton, OR 97008
voice: (503) 643-3065
fax: (419) 858-1560
PHONE ACTUALITY LINE: 1-888-854-2938
ID Code: 06
December 8, 2003
ACLU of Oregon Files Complaint claiming DEA Abuse of RAVE Act
Portland, OR - The ACLU of Oregon has filed a complaint with the Drug Enforcement Administration over the DEA's effort to stop the second annual Oregon Medical Cannabis Awards Banquet, sponsored by Oregon NORML. After being approached by DEA officials citing consequences of the RAVE Act, Doubletree Hotel management initially canceled the event. The Rave Act places owners and managers of venues at considerable risk of criminal penalties if they knowingly permit drug violations on their property. After further analysis, hotel officials let the event go forward, but uniformed Portland police officers were posted outside the banquet room doors. David Fidanque, with the ACLU of Oregon, says the DEA is using the RAVE Act to try to silence opponents of its drug policies.
Fidanque, with the Oregon ACLU, says this incident and a previous one in Montana shows the DEA is targeting NORMAL. "Because its political activities are directly opposed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, we believe that they violated their assurances to Congress and to the American people that they wouldn't do this kind of a thing again under a federal law that we opposed because we were concerned this sort of thing might happen."
"The only two instances the DEA has used this law have been against NORML, where NORML was publicizing medical marijuana laws and their opposition to federal law and federal policies. We think it's clear that the DEA did this for political reasons because of their political opposition to NORML's politics." Fidanque says the presence of local police may have violated Oregon laws and city policies that prohibit police from spying on the political activities of individuals and organizations.
David Fidanque and the ACLU of Oregon are at 541- 954-7731
CITY, COUNTY, MARIJUANA CO-OP TO SUE
Santa Cruz Seeks Halt To U.S. Raids On Medicinal Pot
In what backers of medicinal marijuana say is a legal first, the city and county of Santa Cruz are planning to sue the federal government to stop it from raiding pot collectives.
The suit is expected to be filed Wednesday in San Jose and to seek an injunction against raids such as the one the Drug Enforcement Administration staged in September against the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana ( WAMM ), near Davenport.
Plaintiffs include ailing marijuana users and the Drug Policy Alliance as well as the city and county.
Attorney Gerald Uelmen, representing the marijuana collective and the county, said two things about the planned suit make it unique: that among the plaintiffs are terminally ill people who are "asserting their right to die and asserting their right to control the circumstances" and that government entities are "asserting their right to have primary responsibility for the health and safety" of their citizens.
The plaintiffs plan a news conference Wednesday featuring Santa Cruz Mayor Emily Reilly on the steps of the county courthouse in Santa Cruz, an event reminiscent of the day marijuana was distributed on the steps of Santa Cruz City Hall, with Reilly and other city officials looking on.
Reilly and Ellen Pirie, chairwoman of the county board of supervisors, have issued declarations of support. Santa Cruz County passed a medicinal marijuana law in 1992. The city passed one in 2000.
The planned federal lawsuit is the latest ripple spreading out from the DEA's Sept. 5 raid on the WAMM farm, where agents confiscated marijuana that the patients were growing and arrested Valerie and Michael Corral, who founded the organization.
The Corrals have not been charged. Valerie Corral, who uses marijuana to control epileptic seizures, is one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit.
Other ripples include:
-- A motion to have the seized marijuana returned. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule.
-- Two bills in Congress that aim at curbing federal power over medicinal marijuana in states that have passed laws permitting it. One, by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Salinas, would make medical need a legitimate defense in federal marijuana cases. The other, by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would declare federal policy invalid in those states.
-- The deputization of Valerie and Michael Corral by the city of Santa Cruz.
And, Valerie Corral would add: the deaths of 15 WAMM members since the raid, which severely restricted the members' ration of marijuana. She said the collective still has about 250 members.
In the lawsuit to be filed Wednesday, plaintiffs plan to name U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, federal drug czar John Walters, and DEA acting administrator John Brown as defendants. In addition to an injunction against such raids, it intends to ask for a declaration that the government has no right to interfere with the operations of WAMM and similar organizations.
Uelmen said WAMM is "a patient self-help alliance," as distinguished from a buyer's club. At WAMM, "each member receives according to need and returns to WAMM according to ability," he said.
Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice, also representing WAMM and the county, said the county will argue that suppressing the group throws a burden on county services to care for patients that WAMM would have helped. The city will argue that shutting down collectives that have been formally recognized under its 2000 ordinance throws severely ill patients into the criminal economy for their needs.
Plaintiffs' attorneys declined to release copies of their complaint until it is filed. Valerie Corral said it would be on the WAMM Web site ( www.wamm.org ) at that time. Note: see the website link for the Drug Policy Alliance on our "LINKS" page, or click here to go to the website now.
April 24, 2003
Copyright Santa Cruz Sentinel. All rights reserved.
Medical pot lawsuit may witness success
The lawsuit filed this week over medical marijuana growing in Santa Cruz contains some fascinating legal arguments. The issue is far more than the one often cited states rights. That argument has never seemed powerful to us. Perhaps its because of memories of the civil rights battles of the late 50s and early 60s. Back then, segregationists argued that state law should trump federal law and that segregation should be allowed because individual states wanted it.
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy didnt agree, and two generations later we praise both men for working to extend federal protection to people of all races.
The lawsuit filed this week on behalf of medical marijuana users takes on the federal government, but the issues behind the lawsuit go far beyond a simple "states rights" argument.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelman is one of several attorneys representing the plaintiffs, and he explained some of the facets of the case that will make this lawsuit fascinating to follow as it makes its way through the judicial system.
* The Wo/Mens Alliance for Medical Marijuana does not transport any products across state lines, and cant involve the federal governments control of interstate commerce.
* That criminal penalties for WAMM cofounders Michael and Valerie Corral are illegal because they were deputized by the Santa Cruz City Council.
* Most important, that the drug seizures violate a patients right to "control the circumstances of their own deaths."
The medical argument is the strongest one in the lawsuit. Terminal patients are using marijuana to control pain and in some cases restore their appetite. Why federal drug agents would expend this much energy to deny relief to terminal patients is beyond us. Marijuana is probably less damaging to these patients than a number of other medications that theyre taking.
As Uelman pointed out, terminal patients arent taking marijuana as alternative medicine. In fact, the marijuana helps them cope with the pain and discomfort of such treatment as radiation and chemotherapy.
The federal government has argued that patients could be taken advantage of by those touting marijuana or other such so-called treatments as laetrile. But Uelman pointed out that patients dont use marijuana as a replacement for any other treatment. And an increasing number of medical doctors are suggesting that some patients can get relief from a medicinal form of marijuana.
We understand and support laws that control the use of marijuana by the general public. Our society really doesnt need one more legal drug.
But to withhold marijuana from patients who are suffering is the worst kind of folly its not only a bad idea, it actually hurts people.
The federal suit will find its way to federal court, and perhaps eventually on to the Supreme Court. We give credit to both the Santa Cruz City Council and the county Board of Supervisors for joining in on the lawsuit.
The irony is that some of those involved in this lawsuit wont be around for its conclusion. Some of them are dying, and are involved only because they know others will be in their position in the future. In the interest of reduced suffering, we hope that this lawsuit eventually will wind its way through the system and give patients in need the access to a drug that can reduce their suffering.
US: Medical Marijuana Movement Notches Several Victories
Pubdate: Fri, 2 May 2003
Source: Psychiatric News (US)
Copyright: 2003 American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
Contact: PNews@psych.org
Preference is given to letters submitted by APA members.
Website: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/
Author: Jim Rosack
Note: Newspaper of the American Psychiatric Association
http://www.psych.org/
MEDICAL MARIJUANA MOVEMENT NOTCHES SEVERAL VICTORIES
Two states move closer to legalizing medical marijuana, while court battles in two other jurisdictions end with favorable verdicts for legalization proponents.
Legislatures in Vermont and Maryland have moved toward legalizing the medical use of marijuana. In addition, recent legal challenges in two jurisdictions have ruled in favor of the controversial use of marijuana for patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other debilitating illnesses.
In Vermont, the state Senate in March passed a comprehensive measure legalizing and tightly controlling the cultivation and use of marijuana by patients. The Vermont Psychiatric Association ( VPA ) has actively supported the effort to legalize marijuana for specific purposes under significant controls and restrictions.
"The VPA took this position because we felt that decisions about health care should remain between individuals and their physicians," noted VPA public affairs representative David Fassler, M.D., who is also an APA trustee-at-large. "In general, we are wary about government intrusion into the practice of medicine. We realize that the use of marijuana for medical purposes remains controversial. Yet, many of the treatments we use in medicine today are controversial. We are concerned, however, when these issues get overly politicized. In general, that isnt a good way to make public policy."
In December 1997, APA published a position statement emphasizing that "while adequate research evidence is lacking at this time to support the medicinal use of marijuana, there is clinical experience claiming potential usefulness of marijuana in patients with AIDS and other debilitating conditions, such as for symptoms of pain and vomiting, promotion of weight gain, and reduction of intraocular pressure."
The position statement notes that research to substantiate these claims should be expedited and concludes that marijuana should be approved for medical uses and controlled as a Schedule II drug under the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.
Currently, marijuana is a Schedule I substance, defined as having a high potential for abuse and addiction and no accepted medical uses.
However, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine, at the request of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, reviewed the scientific evidence on the medical use of marijuana and found that "scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." It recommended strictly controlled and defined clinical trials of marijuana and the multiple cannabinoid compounds that are found in the plant.
Vermont Sees Medical Value
Supporters of legalizing the medical use of marijuana in Vermont agree, arguing that marijuana simply shouldn't be listed as a Schedule I drug.
A report by the Vermont State Legislative Medical Marijuana Study Committee released last December described 13 findings. The first finding was "there is medical value in using marijuana to ameliorate some symptoms associated with severe illnesses and the treatment thereof." That finding alone, the report noted, contradicts the requirements for placing a drug in Schedule I. Another finding states that "marijuana is misclassified by the federal government as a Schedule I drug and should be reclassified to permit physicians to prescribe and pharmacies to dispense medical marijuana."
Both the Vermont Attorney General's Office and the state's attorney endorsed those two findings. The remaining findings describe a potential system for distribution and control of medical marijuana and were generally endorsed, with some amendments, by both offices.
The Vermont bill, S 76, passed the state Senate in March. A similar bill passed the state House last year and is awaiting reintroduction. The new law would require patients who want to use medical marijuana to register with the state and to be certified by a physician as having one of a short list of specified conditions. A panel of three physicians set up by the Vermont Department of Health would decide whether a patient is eligible under the program.
If eligible, a registered patient or his or her registered caregiver would be allowed to grow and possess a limited amount of marijuana. The plants and any marijuana for consumption would have to be secured, and both patients and caregivers would be issued identification cards. Consumption of marijuana would be strictly limited to the patient's residence.
Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who is a physician and candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, strongly opposed the measure, as does his successor, Gov. James Douglas, who cites law-enforcement concerns.
In Maryland, during the same week the Vermont bill passed, state delegates gave preliminary approval to a measure that would essentially decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes by significantly reducing the penalties for possessing or using the drug. A similar bill was awaiting action in a Maryland Senate committee in late March.
Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. ( R ) has indicated that he could support the bill, which would cap the penalty for possession or use of marijuana at $100, with no possibility of jail time.
In essence, the bill gives judges the ability to consider "medical use of marijuana as a mitigating factor," and proponents of the measure hope that judges would simply throw out charges brought against a patient using marijuana for medical purposes.
Last year, residents of the District of Columbia won a suit in federal district court after Congress attempted to stop a ballot initiative allowing residents to vote on legalizing medical marijuana. The court said that Congress - which has jurisdiction over D.C. - had overstepped its authority, infringing on residents' right to self-determination. Since that ruling, D.C. residents have not voted on such an initiative
Last fall, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the federal government may not revoke the licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients. The ruling upheld a five-year-old district court decision in California responding to the federal government's threat to revoke the DEA licenses of physicians who recommend marijuana to patients. The appeals court decision indicated that the federal government's policy interfered with the First Amendment right of free speech, in this case between physicians and their patients.
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state also have enacted medical marijuana laws.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
PUBLISHES JUNK SCIENCE EDITORIAL
An editorial in the May 3rd edition of the British Medical Journal repeats numerous thoroughly debunked reefer madness claims and makes the novel claim that marijuana may cause 30,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom. The editorial was written by and based on the research of John Henry, professor at the Imperial College School of Medicine in London. The main problem with the research in question is that it's based on the known risks of cigarette smoking and assumes that marijuana causes as much harm. Prof. Henry's simplistic analysis uses the number of deaths caused by tobacco to extrapolate the number of deaths marijuana would cause - if it posed the same health risks as tobacco.
Marijuana does not share the addictive properties of tobacco, meaning marijuana consumers do not smoke upwards of twenty joints a day. Unlike daily (or hourly) tobacco smokers, most marijuana smokers use the drug infrequently and during a limited time period. According to the U.S. government National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, marijuana use among Americans typically peaks between the ages of 18 - 20 and declines steadily with increasing age. The British Medical Journal editorial contradicts its own arguments when it warns about increased marijuana potency. Both weak and strong marijuana will yield the desired result, only the potent marijuana requires significantly less smoke inhalation. It's actually less harmful.
The British Medical Journal has been published a great deal of methodologically suspect research on marijuana's relative harms ever since British Home Secretary David Blunkett first proposed cannabis reclassification. Critics contend that it's already widely acknowledged that marijuana can be harmful if abused; future research should focus on the effectiveness of criminal records as health interventions. Punitive marijuana laws have failed as deterrents. British rates of marijuana use are significantly higher than the many European countries that have already decriminalized marijuana. Despite zero tolerance, lifetime use of marijuana is higher in the United States than any European country.
NO CAUSE-AND EFFECT BETWEEN POT AND MENTAL ILLNESS
While I agree with Frank Sterle Jr.'s contention that there is a lot of media misinformation about cannabis, I must point out that assertions such as his -- that "pot-consumers' mental health depends in part on the reduction or prevention of cannabis consumption" -- are part of the problem (Pot can exacerbate some mental illness, Letters, April 23).
The study cited by Mr. Sterle reported a positive correlation between levels of marijuana use and symptom chronicity among schizophrenics. Such studies can tell us nothing about the cause-and-effect relations between the correlated terms. Perhaps cannabis worsens schizophrenia, or chronic schizophrenics are more likely to try self-medicating with marijuana, or a third factor affects both cannabis use and schizophrenia.
Even if marijuana use does negatively affect schizophrenics, this casts no light on the effects of cannabis on non-schizophrenics. Public policy on recreational drugs should be based on a clear understanding of the complex biological, psychological and social contexts involved, not on misinterpreted research outcomes.
Dr. Leonard George
Vancouver
