 |
Update - November 16, 2006
This bill will die when the 109th Congress adjuourns in the next few weeks. The 110th Congress will have a very different political complexion. Legislation on this subject may be very different.
H.R.
2087, the States Rights to Medical Marijuana Act
June 1,
2005
Click
here for printer-friendly version
WHAT IS H.R. 2087?
H.R. 2087, the States Rights to Medical Marijuana
Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on
May 4, 2005, would amend the Controlled Substances Act
and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to permit
states to carry out their medical marijuana laws without
Federal interference. The bill was introduced in coalition
with more than 30 cosponsors including Ron Paul (R-TX),
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Sam Farr (D-CA), and Dana Rohrabacher
(R-CA). This legislation would effectively protect medical
marijuana patient, doctors and pharmacists from prosecution
for medical marijuana activities authorized by state
law.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
The research
is clear. The compounds in marijuana have beneficial
effects for a number of conditions. There are, of course,
non-controversial compounds that treat those conditions
quite well, but for some people those non-controversial
medicines don't work, or the side effects are extreme
and unacceptable, and for some of those people, marijuana
does work. This does not mean that marijuana is a good
drug or a better drug.
In the words of the Institute
of Medicine, "there is no clear alternative for
people suffering from chronic conditions that
might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain
or AIDS wasting." (Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing
the Science Base, p. 179). Patients who find relief
from their condition by using marijuana cannot wait
for new drugs to be developed-- particularly when one
already exists. Refusing patient access to marijuana
can mean the difference between a successful round of
chemotherapy and premature and unneccessary death.
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy
of Sciences was commissioned by Barry McCaffrey, former
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
to study this issue. Their 267 page report concluded
in 1999 that there are a variety of medical benefits
from marijuana and its compounds. They noted the problems
with smoking marijuana and the problems of using a crude
plant as the source for the medicines. They also noted
that marijuana use, per se, is NOT a gateway to other
illegal drug use. They recommended more research, but
concluded that persons with life threatening illnesses
who did not respond to conventional medications be permitted
to smoke marijuana.
Disregarding the report it commissioned, the Federal
government continues to insist that marijuana has no
medical value. The Federal government has resisted legal
petitions to reschedule marijuana to permit its use
in medicine, and repeated its arguments in numerous
court cases. It opposes the use of marijuana in medicine
on its Websites,
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html, http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html#Medicine.
Private anti-drug groups also oppose the medical use
of marijuana, e.g., the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America and National
Families in Action
ANALYSIS
State Medical Marijuana Laws Frustrated by Federal
Law
Ten states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Rhode Island) have
functioning medical marijuana laws. (Arizona voters
adopted a medical marijuana law that is not functioning
due to legal consequences involving the word "prescription.")
However, the Federal government has tried to block
the implementation of those laws. In 1996, the Clinton
Administration issued a comprehensive regulation threatening
physicians who made recommendations to their patients
to use marijuana to treat their conditions. That regulation
was enjoined in Federal court because it interfered
in a physician's First Amendment right to counsel their
patient.
States like Colorado, Montana and Oregon issue state
identification cards to patients who have bona fide
recommendations from their physician to use marijuana
to treat their disease or condition. Numerous local
governments in California have collaborated with the
organizers of the medical marijuana dispensaries in
their communities to try to carry out the law.
However, the Federal government has raided medical
marijuana dispensaries throughout California and prosecuted
individuals who were growing marijuana for themselves
and such dispensaries. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
that an organization cannot claim, under the Federal
Controlled Substances Act, that an organization is entitled
to a "medical necessity" defense to a Federal injunction.
The court upheld Congress' finding in 1970 in the Controlled
Substances Act that there is no medical use for marijuana.
Various state courts, including the Florida Court
of Appeals, (Jenks v. State, No. 90-2462 (1991)) have
held that individual patients can claim a "medical necessity"
to use marijuana and avoid violating the state's marijuana
laws.
What about kids?
Many opponents of the legalization of the medical
use of marijuana insist that permitting such use sends
the wrong message to young people. This is a mistaken
analysis. The key thing taught in every drug education
program is that you should not take any drug
that is not prescribed by your doctor or given to you
by your parents. Only those drugs are okay for you to
take, and no others are. That's what is taught for all
drugs -- over-the-counter, prescription, and otherwise.
Federal and state law do not deny medical use of addictive
and potentially dangerous drugs-- such as morphine for
pain patients or cocaine for ophthalmic surgery patients--
out of fear of sending the wrong message to kids. Acknowledging
the medical value of those drugs has not caused a surge
in persons who think it is okay to use those drugs socially.
To deny medicine to very sick people because our society
is afraid of adequately educating young people about
drugs is not only stupid, but cruel.
Teenage marijuana use started dropping steadily in
1979. This continued throughout the 1980s while the
medical use of marijuana was being hotly debated, and
when bills to permit medical use of marijuana had scores
of sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives. Teenage
marijuana use continued to decline even after the DEA
Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled in
1988 that marijuana "has a currently accepted medical
use in treatment in the U.S.," that marijuana ought
to be rescheduled, and to find otherwise would be arbitrary
and capricious.
In 1976, the federal government started a "compassionate
use" investigational new drug program for medical marijuana.
The program remained relatively obscure despite the
successful treatment of patients until the late 1980's
when it received an unprecedented number of applications
from AIDS patients. In 1992, at this critical point
in the program, the Bush Administration closed the program
to new patients, insisting that the program was sending
the wrong message to youth. At this time, marijuana
use among twelfth graders was at its lowest point since
1979, with 22 percent of youth reporting marijuana use
in the past twelve months.
Ironically, however, when Pres. Bush closed the program on the ground it "sent the wrong message to youth," teenage marijuana use began to rise. From 1992 to 1997, reported marijuana use among eighth, tenth, and twelfth
graders again went up, nearly doubling to 22.1, 38.5,
and 42.4 percent respectively (Monitoring the Future,
2003.).
Teenage marijuana use continued going up in California--
as in the rest of the country-- until the widely-publicized
passage of California's Compassionate Use Act (Proposition
215, the medical marijuana initiative) in 1996, at which
point teenage use in California started to fall. Since
1996, government surveys of rates of teenage marijuana
use in California have stayed below the national average.
The historical record of teenage marijuana use completely
rebuts the assertion that such use is increased by public
discussion or acceptance of the medical value of marijuana.
ACTION OF CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
On July 18, 2002, the California Supreme Court upheld
the validity of California's Compassionate Use Act (Proposition
215, which had been approved by the voters in 1996 with
a 56% affirmative vote).
The justices unanimously ruled that medical patients
could move to dismiss attempts to prosecute them in
a pretrial motion. That means they do not have to go
through an entire trial and prove to a judge or jury
that they are valid medical patients.
The court also ruled that to prevent being prosecuted
or convicted all that a defendant must do is establish
at least reasonable doubt that their marijuana possession
or cultivation was actually criminal. Establishing reasonable
doubt is a very low threshold of evidence. Simply offering
to the court a document such as a prescription or letter
of recommendation from a physician would probably suffice.
The court held that for the purpose of this law, a prescription
for marijuana was the same as a prescription for any
other controlled substance a physician might write for
his or her patient. The People v. Myron Carlyle Mower,
S094490, July 18, 2002.
The complete opinion can be found here.
However, the Federal government continues to investigate
and prosecute individuals and organizations that are
attempting to follow and implement this law in California.
To allow the eleven states (plus Arizona) to carry out
their laws without interference requires an Act of Congress,
and this is the intention of H.R. 2087.
As of May 4, 2005, H.R. 2087 had 30 co-sponsors in
the House of Representatives. None of the 22 U.S. Senators
from any of the twelve states that have adopted medical
marijuana laws have introduced or cosponsored a bill
like H.R. 2087 to allow their state's law to operate
without Federal interference.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Write to your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators
and share your opinions about this issue. You can find
your elected officials here.
Invite
a speaker to come to your organization or business.
Attend upcoming drug
policy events.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Citations to much of
the published research into medical utility of marijuana
can be found here.
|
|
