Pubdate: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Orange County Register
Contact:  http://www.ocregister.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?194 (Hutchinson, Asa)

DRUG POLICIES NEED RETHINKING

The most important disappointment to emerge from former Arkansas Republican 
Rep. Asa Hutchinson's first week as head of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration is not that he vowed that the federal government will devise 
some method to enforce the federal ban on use of marijuana for medical 
purposes. His position is, after all, a law enforcement job and the U.S. 
Supreme Court recently affirmed (albeit on narrow grounds) the federal laws 
against sale and use of marijuana, even for medical purposes.

The most disappointing aspect of Mr. Hutchinson's comments on taking office 
was, as Kevin Zeese of Common Sense for Drug Policy told us, "not just the 
implicit disrespect for voters in the nine states [including California] 
that allow medicinal marijuana use, but his continuing peddling of the myth 
that there is no scientific evidence of marijuana's medical value." He also 
implied that any slackening of enforcement efforts might "send the wrong 
message" to teenagers, a rhetorical flourish that should have been 
discredited long ago.

Mr. Hutchinson told reporters that the scientific and medical communities 
have determined that there is no legitimate medical use for marijuana but 
"if they continue to study it we will listen to them." He said it is 
important to "send the right signal" when dealing with medical marijuana 
enforcement issues.

Those statements suggest he is completely unfamiliar with the Institute of 
Medicine report commissioned by former "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey after 
California and Arizona passed initiatives in 1996 authorizing medical use 
of marijuana and issued in March 1999. The Institute of Medicine is a 
division of the National Academy of Sciences convened to provide accurate 
information when science and public policy intersect.

The IOM report ("Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base") was 
based on review of all the scientific papers extant on the subject. It 
summarized its conclusions as follows:

"Advances in cannabinoid science of the past 16 years have given rise to a 
wealth of new opportunities for the development of medically useful 
cannabinoid-based drugs. The accumulated data suggest a variety of 
indications, particularly for pain relief, entiemesis, and appetite 
stimulation. For patients such as those with AIDS or who are undergoing 
chemotherapy, and who suffer simultaneously from severe pain, nausea and 
appetite loss, cannabinoid drugs might offer broad-spectrum relief not 
found in any other single medication. The data are weaker for muscle 
spasticity but moderately promising." While contending that the future of 
medical marijuana does not lie in the smoked plant, the report acknowledged 
that "until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system 
becomes available [which the report suggested might be 10 years], we 
acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from 
chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as 
pain or AIDS wasting." The report recommended that the federal government 
set up a program to allow such use, under tightly controlled conditions for 
severe illnesses only.

The IOM report also addressed the "sending the wrong message" issue. It 
reported, after analyzing several cases of modest liberalization, including 
the state-level debate on medical marijuana, that "there is no evidence 
that the medical marijuana debate has altered adolescents' perceptions of 
the risks associated with marijuana use."

Later, in an interview with Robert Novak and Al Hunt on CNN, Mr. Hutchinson 
rebuffed a question about whether in a federalist system state law should 
trump federal law by saying "that's not consistent with the supremacy 
clause of the Constitution." But in the recent Supreme Court case the 
government did not make a supremacy clause argument, an omission so 
striking that Justice Ruth Ginsburg asked about it. A government attorney 
responded that the supremacy clause was not at issue here, that in certain 
states the federal law and state laws were simply different. Mr. 
Hutchinson, a skilled and experienced attorney (probably the best member of 
the House team during the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate) should 
check the transcripts.

All this means state officials are bound to enforce state laws and it is up 
to federal officials to enforce federal law. Mr. Hutchinson has 
acknowledged that this will be a delicate problem.

Before he addresses it, he would do well to read the Institute of Medicine 
report (the summary, along with reports on other scientific studies, is 
available at www.csdp.org and at www.drugwarfacts.org) and research the 
legal issues more thoroughly.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD