Will Medical Marijuana Survive
In The Land Of The Free?
Medical Marijuana and the
Supreme Court's Constitutional Obligation:
Will the Court Be Politically Correct Or Truly Correct?
By William S. Eidelman, MD
12-16-4
The Medical Marijuana issue has made its way to the Supreme Court
again in Ashcroft v Raich. The Supreme Court is being asked by the
Attorney General to rule that Federal law trumps state law. The Feds say
that marijuana has no accepted medical value, while a growing number of
States say it does have value and sick people have the right to use it.
Will the Supreme Court strike down California's law, passed by an
initiative of the people, and currently favored by over 60% of the
population? Or will the Court strike down the Federal law, which is, as
will be shown below, based on a flimsy technicality?
This could be the deciding moment for medical marijuana, one way
or the other, although judges like to delay making momentous decisions.
They prefer to send it back to the lower court on a technicality without
taking up the central issues. This is what the Supreme Court did the last
time they were confronted with medical marijuana, in the case of the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club (OCBC). In that decision, the Court ruled
that the medical marijuana argument cannot be used as a defense against
charges of criminal possession or cultivation or sales, because "Congress
ruled that marijuana has no medical value."
The Court avoided the sticky Constitutional issue that, because
marijuana in fact has potent medical qualities, the law and regulation
saying it does not have accepted medical value is fraudulent, counter to
an enormous body of data, clinical, pharmacological, and bio-chemical. It
is counter to millions of people who have voted in favor of medical
marijuana.
A simple honest look at the facts shows that cannabis has been
used medically all over the world as far back as memory can take us, and
still is today in the east and even in the Arab world. Literally millions
of citizens have voted in favor of medical cannabis. There has been
extensive research on the pharmacology of cannabis, making its
mechanisms-of-action profile one of the best understood of all the drugs
(mechanisms of actions of common drugs are often obscure).
This is known by the Federal government, as shown by the following
quotes from a revue of known science regarding cannabis/marijuana
presented to the Supreme Court in the OCBC case*: "...progress in
cannabinoid pharmacology. has provided the foundation for the elucidation
of the specific effects mediated by cannabinoids and their roles in
psychomotor disorders, memory, cognitive functions, analgesia, antiemesis,
intraocular and system blood pressure modulation, broncodilation, and
inflammation.There is suggestive evidence that marijuana may have
beneficial therapeutic effects in relieving spasticity associated with
multiple sclerosis, as an analgesic, as an antiemetic, as an appetite
stimulant and as a bronchodilator."
What is the Federal government's response to this avalanche of
information in favor of medical cannabis? Legally, technically, the Feds
claim that cannabis is a new drug that must go through extensive expensive
testing required for approval, testing that has been prohibited by federal
law for more than sixty years. It turns out that cannabis is not a new
drug. It was "Grandfathered" into the US Pharmacopeia in 1906 and again in
1938, prior to it being yanked (when looked at retrospectively) without
honest discussion (the banning of cannabis was opposed by the AMA at the
time). Cannabis legitimately qualifies under existing Grandfather laws, as
do many drugs in wide use (aspirin, morphine, digitalis, cortisone, just
to start a long list).
The Federal government claims that until double-blind placebo
controlled studies are done within FDA guidelines, they can't approve
cannabis. Without having double-blind studies, their current standard for
approving new drugs, the huge body of information mentioned above becomes
meaningless. This is a misapplication of double-blind studies, which only
prove whether the effect of a drug or treatment is more than chance. While
such studies are important (if they are done correctly, which all too
often they are not), they are only crucial in cases of new drugs where
there is not a history of millennia of experience and knowledge, as is the
case with cannabis. Double-blind studies with cannabis would be
interesting and perhaps enlightening, but they won't "prove" that cannabis
works. The proof already exists.
Not only are such studies made unnecessary because of the
Grandfather clause within the Pure Food and Drug Acts, but the entire
argument is disingenuous in light of the enormous body of clinical and
pharmacological information. Because of this enormous body of information,
it is most appropriate, legal, and compassionate to invoke the Grandfather
Clause for medical cannabis, returning it to its original place in the US
Pharmacopeia (in what we would today call "over-the-counter."
The Federal government claims that other new and better drugs are
available. Cannabis, they insist, is not necessary. The government argued
this point before the Supreme Court in the (OCBC) case. This argument is
bad science and bad medicine. It is totally false. Other medications are
not always available, and in cases where they do exist, side effects or
allergies may preclude their use. Or side effects, which often require new
prescriptions, may be treated by medical cannabis and nothing else.
In making their argument against cannabis, the government says
that the presumed principle active ingredient, THC, is currently available
by prescription, therefore cannabis is unnecessary. Surely, the framers of
Constitution never intended for the government to take away a medicinal
plant that people could grow themselves and replace it with a synthetic
chemical drug they must purchase at a very expensive price and only with a
doctor's prescription. They surely never intended people be thrown in
prison for growing plants they themselves (framers such as Washington and
Jefferson) loved and grew in large quantity on their farms!
Finally, the Government argues that cannabis is dangerous. They
particularly don't like the smoking aspect of it. The government attorney
argued that smoked marijuana was not a legitimate form of medicine,
arguing the dangers of smoking. However, in the Fed's own evidence
presented at the OCBC case, they were unable to present any scientific
evidence that smoking marijuana is dangerous. There is not one documented
case of lung cancer caused by marijuana smoking. There is not one case of
emphysema documented to be caused by marijuana smoking. The argument that
smoking marijuana is too dangerous to allow is not supported by the
government's own data.
The only source of harm the Feds were able to demonstrate was the
harm created by violating marijuana laws. They in fact made the following
statements in the same report from where the earlier quote derived*:
"Cannabinoids have a remarkably low acute lethal toxicity despite potent
psychoactivity and pharmacologic actions on multiple organ
systems.Potential for dependence on marijuana has been assessed to be rare
among the general population.. Physical dependence on marijuana is a rare
phenomenon compared to other psychoactive drugs and if it develops, it is
milder when marijuana is the only drug instead of being used in
combination with other drugs." The word addiction is never mentioned.
The principal harm in using marijuana, for the vast majority of
the populace, comes from the laws against it. Strike down the laws, and
the 95% of the harm is done. Marijuana is extraordinarily safe when
compared to other drugs. The chief danger is the law prohibiting it.
In the face of the absolute certainty that marijuana in fact has a
wide range of accepted medical benefits with an unsurpassed record of
safety, how can Federal law and regulation stand in the light of the
Constitution when it states the opposite, that marijuana has no accepted
medical value? The Function of the Supreme Court
The function of the Supreme Court is to act as a system of checks
and balances to the Legislative and the Executive branches of government.
It is the Supreme Court's Constitutional obligation to overturn acts of
Congress or of the President (or those acting under his direction in the
Executive Branch) that violate rights protected by Constitution.
The Federal government, through both branches of government, has
declared that cannabis has no accepted medical value. Therefore, cannabis
users - no matter how sick they are - are targets in the War on Drugs.
This war involves guns and violence. In the War on Medical Marijuana, the
guns and violence comes from the side of the law enforcement agencies .
Sick people go to jail, have their medicine stolen, and/or are punished in
other ways. Sick people usually don't have guns, bombs, etc.
The War on Drugs is not a war on drugs. It is a war on citizens
who use unapproved drugs. This is a fact. It is the truth. The war on
drugs is really a war on citizens.
Conclusion: The Legislative and Executive Branch have laws and
regulations that are not based in fact or truth. They are using these laws
and policies to wage war on citizens using cannabis for medical purposes,
taking away their medicine, their liberty and property, and occasionally
their lives. It is the Constitutional Obligation of the Supreme Court to
strike down these laws and regulations.
http://www.dreidelman.com/
http://www.healingtransformation.com
323-463-3295
1654 N Cahuenga Blvd
Hollywood CA 90028
.
|
|
| User: "Tadapope" |
|
| Title: Re: Will Medical Marijuana Survive In The Land Of The Free? |
18 Dec 2004 07:16:40 PM |
|
|
Subject: Will Medical Marijuana Survive In The Land Of The Free?
From: "Doc"
Date: 12/18/2004 1:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <cq28b702qef@enews2.newsguy.com>
Will Medical Marijuana Survive
In The Land Of The Free?
Medical Marijuana and the
Supreme Court's Constitutional Obligation:
Will the Court Be Politically Correct Or Truly Correct?
By William S. Eidelman, MD
12-16-4
The Medical Marijuana issue has made its way to the Supreme Court
again in Ashcroft v Raich. The Supreme Court is being asked by the
Attorney General to rule that Federal law trumps state law. The Feds say
that marijuana has no accepted medical value, while a growing number of
States say it does have value and sick people have the right to use it.
Will the Supreme Court strike down California's law, passed by an
initiative of the people, and currently favored by over 60% of the
population? Or will the Court strike down the Federal law, which is, as
will be shown below, based on a flimsy technicality?
This could be the deciding moment for medical marijuana, one way
or the other, although judges like to delay making momentous decisions.
They prefer to send it back to the lower court on a technicality without
taking up the central issues. This is what the Supreme Court did the last
time they were confronted with medical marijuana, in the case of the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club (OCBC). In that decision, the Court ruled
that the medical marijuana argument cannot be used as a defense against
charges of criminal possession or cultivation or sales, because "Congress
ruled that marijuana has no medical value."
The Court avoided the sticky Constitutional issue that, because
marijuana in fact has potent medical qualities, the law and regulation
saying it does not have accepted medical value is fraudulent, counter to
an enormous body of data, clinical, pharmacological, and bio-chemical. It
is counter to millions of people who have voted in favor of medical
marijuana.
A simple honest look at the facts shows that cannabis has been
used medically all over the world as far back as memory can take us, and
still is today in the east and even in the Arab world. Literally millions
of citizens have voted in favor of medical cannabis. There has been
extensive research on the pharmacology of cannabis, making its
mechanisms-of-action profile one of the best understood of all the drugs
(mechanisms of actions of common drugs are often obscure).
This is known by the Federal government, as shown by the following
quotes from a revue of known science regarding cannabis/marijuana
presented to the Supreme Court in the OCBC case*: "...progress in
cannabinoid pharmacology. has provided the foundation for the elucidation
of the specific effects mediated by cannabinoids and their roles in
psychomotor disorders, memory, cognitive functions, analgesia, antiemesis,
intraocular and system blood pressure modulation, broncodilation, and
inflammation.There is suggestive evidence that marijuana may have
beneficial therapeutic effects in relieving spasticity associated with
multiple sclerosis, as an analgesic, as an antiemetic, as an appetite
stimulant and as a bronchodilator."
What is the Federal government's response to this avalanche of
information in favor of medical cannabis? Legally, technically, the Feds
claim that cannabis is a new drug that must go through extensive expensive
testing required for approval, testing that has been prohibited by federal
law for more than sixty years. It turns out that cannabis is not a new
drug. It was "Grandfathered" into the US Pharmacopeia in 1906 and again in
1938, prior to it being yanked (when looked at retrospectively) without
honest discussion (the banning of cannabis was opposed by the AMA at the
time). Cannabis legitimately qualifies under existing Grandfather laws, as
do many drugs in wide use (aspirin, morphine, digitalis, cortisone, just
to start a long list).
The Federal government claims that until double-blind placebo
controlled studies are done within FDA guidelines, they can't approve
cannabis. Without having double-blind studies, their current standard for
approving new drugs, the huge body of information mentioned above becomes
meaningless. This is a misapplication of double-blind studies, which only
prove whether the effect of a drug or treatment is more than chance. While
such studies are important (if they are done correctly, which all too
often they are not), they are only crucial in cases of new drugs where
there is not a history of millennia of experience and knowledge, as is the
case with cannabis. Double-blind studies with cannabis would be
interesting and perhaps enlightening, but they won't "prove" that cannabis
works. The proof already exists.
Not only are such studies made unnecessary because of the
Grandfather clause within the Pure Food and Drug Acts, but the entire
argument is disingenuous in light of the enormous body of clinical and
pharmacological information. Because of this enormous body of information,
it is most appropriate, legal, and compassionate to invoke the Grandfather
Clause for medical cannabis, returning it to its original place in the US
Pharmacopeia (in what we would today call "over-the-counter."
The Federal government claims that other new and better drugs are
available. Cannabis, they insist, is not necessary. The government argued
this point before the Supreme Court in the (OCBC) case. This argument is
bad science and bad medicine. It is totally false. Other medications are
not always available, and in cases where they do exist, side effects or
allergies may preclude their use. Or side effects, which often require new
prescriptions, may be treated by medical cannabis and nothing else.
In making their argument against cannabis, the government says
that the presumed principle active ingredient, THC, is currently available
by prescription, therefore cannabis is unnecessary. Surely, the framers of
Constitution never intended for the government to take away a medicinal
plant that people could grow themselves and replace it with a synthetic
chemical drug they must purchase at a very expensive price and only with a
doctor's prescription. They surely never intended people be thrown in
prison for growing plants they themselves (framers such as Washington and
Jefferson) loved and grew in large quantity on their farms!
Finally, the Government argues that cannabis is dangerous. They
particularly don't like the smoking aspect of it. The government attorney
argued that smoked marijuana was not a legitimate form of medicine,
arguing the dangers of smoking. However, in the Fed's own evidence
presented at the OCBC case, they were unable to present any scientific
evidence that smoking marijuana is dangerous. There is not one documented
case of lung cancer caused by marijuana smoking. There is not one case of
emphysema documented to be caused by marijuana smoking. The argument that
smoking marijuana is too dangerous to allow is not supported by the
government's own data.
The only source of harm the Feds were able to demonstrate was the
harm created by violating marijuana laws. They in fact made the following
statements in the same report from where the earlier quote derived*:
"Cannabinoids have a remarkably low acute lethal toxicity despite potent
psychoactivity and pharmacologic actions on multiple organ
systems.Potential for dependence on marijuana has been assessed to be rare
among the general population.. Physical dependence on marijuana is a rare
phenomenon compared to other psychoactive drugs and if it develops, it is
milder when marijuana is the only drug instead of being used in
combination with other drugs." The word addiction is never mentioned.
The principal harm in using marijuana, for the vast majority of
the populace, comes from the laws against it. Strike down the laws, and
the 95% of the harm is done. Marijuana is extraordinarily safe when
compared to other drugs. The chief danger is the law prohibiting it.
In the face of the absolute certainty that marijuana in fact has a
wide range of accepted medical benefits with an unsurpassed record of
safety, how can Federal law and regulation stand in the light of the
Constitution when it states the opposite, that marijuana has no accepted
medical value? The Function of the Supreme Court
The function of the Supreme Court is to act as a system of checks
and balances to the Legislative and the Executive branches of government.
It is the Supreme Court's Constitutional obligation to overturn acts of
Congress or of the President (or those acting under his direction in the
Executive Branch) that violate rights protected by Constitution.
The Federal government, through both branches of government, has
declared that cannabis has no accepted medical value. Therefore, cannabis
users - no matter how sick they are - are targets in the War on Drugs.
This war involves guns and violence. In the War on Medical Marijuana, the
guns and violence comes from the side of the law enforcement agencies .
Sick people go to jail, have their medicine stolen, and/or are punished in
other ways. Sick people usually don't have guns, bombs, etc.
The War on Drugs is not a war on drugs. It is a war on citizens
who use unapproved drugs. This is a fact. It is the truth. The war on
drugs is really a war on citizens.
Conclusion: The Legislative and Executive Branch have laws and
regulations that are not based in fact or truth. They are using these laws
and policies to wage war on citizens using cannabis for medical purposes,
taking away their medicine, their liberty and property, and occasionally
their lives. It is the Constitutional Obligation of the Supreme Court to
strike down these laws and regulations.
http://www.dreidelman.com/
http://www.healingtransformation.com
323-463-3295
1654 N Cahuenga Blvd
Hollywood CA 90028
You should check with God. He lives right
down the street from you in Hollywood, California.
He's listed in the telephone directory simply as God. Knowing him personally
and rather well - I can assure you he
supports the use of cannabis/marijuana
for both medical and/or recreational use.
He guided our founding fathers to write
the constitution with exactly such support
in mind.
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
Oh Joy!
Tom
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
