Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001 Source: Marin Independent Journal (CA) Copyright: 2001 Marin Independent Journal Contact: http://www.marinij.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/673 Author: Rebecca Rosen Lum LOCAL POT ADVOCATES PIN HOPES ON LEGISLATION Advocates for medical marijuana are setting their sights on legislation a day after being dealt a blow by the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, denied any medical exception to the Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits the manufacture and distribution of marijuana. "It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's historic role as a laboratory for good public policy and a leader in the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for relief other than through medical marijuana," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a terse, prepared response. "The court's opinion and the concurring opinion will require further review before any conclusions are reached or recommendations are made about California law," he added. Supervisor Hal Brown said the ruling shows how estranged the state and federal governments have become. "It's outrageous to say there's no medical use for marijuana," Brown said, adding the state has little recourse but to comply - or seek legislative redress. "There is no Supreme Supreme Court," he said. "An act of Congress or other legislative remedy may be helpful." Lynnette Shaw, owner of the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, also called on lawmakers to approve medical marijuana. "We need to get marijuana-friendly legislators to act," she said. "Thirty-six states now have marijuana-friendly laws. It's time to change the policy makers. The court is picking on the most vulnerable people in our society." The ruling arose from a case involving the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. The club appealed a district court ruling prohibiting its activities. Marin County Assistant District Attorney Ed Berberian said the ruling only makes clear that federal officials may shut down distribution centers. "We will still attempt to apply Proposition 215, as we always have - which the law requires us to do," Berberian said. But "they have to make some decisions on how this ruling is to be applied." Matt Jacobs, spokesman for the regional office of the U.S. Attorney, referred all calls to the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Calls to that office were not returned. The medical community reacted swiftly to the ruling. "They're wrong," said San Francisco oncologist Ivan Silverberg, who wrote ballot arguments in favor of Proposition 215 in 1996. State voters passed the proposition to legalize medical marijuana use. "This flies in the face of legal rulings going back to the 1980s. It probably has to do with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture drugs to control nausea and vomiting." Doctors and medical marijuana proponents say cannabis relieves the nausea and vomiting that accompany chemotherapy, alleviates the internal eye pressure associated with glaucoma and slows the onset of blindness, and lessens the muscle spasticity and chronic pain of multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and spinal cord injuries. Silverberg noted that Marinol, a commercial drug that can be prescribed, is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major psychoactive chemical compound of marijuana, in capsule form. "I deal with cancer patients who are suffering terribly," Silverberg said. "If they can take a capsule and keep it down, fine. For others, if I can get them to keep down a meal, it is a miracle. For them, an alternate such as an inhaled route is such a blessing." Clay Shinn, 45, of San Rafael, takes eight protease inhibitors twice a day, along with a "cocktail" of six drugs to treat the AIDS that resulted from a tainted blood transfusion in the mid-1980s. "The medication I take makes me violently ill," he said. "Marijuana completely relieves your nausea before you can exhale." Venetta Babich, 75, another Fairfax client, had already lost one eye to glaucoma when she discovered medical marijuana "three or four years ago." It was a tough sell: "I thought, 'Oh, well.' I'd always been dead set against marijuana. But you do what you can to save your eyes." In about two weeks, the Marinwood resident reduced the pressure in her remaining eye by 50 percent, she said. "We're not people who crawled out from under wood to do this," she said. "We are law-abiding citizens who just want to live productive lives." Shaw said she fully expects the federal government will seek the closure of her and other buyers' clubs. But consumers say they will not sacrifice the relief they've found - regardless the cost or risk. "I would have to go back to the streets," said Richmond landscaper Tina Campbell. "I found out my first time here that I had been paying $20 to get $10 worth (of cannabis)," to relieve the lower back pain and muscle spasms that kept her from working. "Out on the street, if you get burned, you can't exactly go back. But I was miserable. Pain pills weren't helping and plus, they're addictive." With one in five Americans likely to develop cancer, and another 20 million to develop glaucoma, legislation legalizing cannabis use as a medical treatment may not be out of bounds, advocates suggest. "Now, I can give people a shot at a cost of about $140," Silverberg said. "Then you add in the cost of an office visit and you're talking about a $200 visit to a physician. I don't know, but I suspect that amount of money would buy you a lot of marijuana." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth