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