Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001 Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR) Copyright: 2001 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. Contact: http://www.ardemgaz.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/25 Author: Daniel Yee, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette HIGH COURT LIMITS LEGAL DEFENSE IN MEDICINAL-MARIJUANA CASES The medical marijuana movement in Arkansas and around the country was dealt a blow Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to allow "medical necessity" as a legal defense against federal drug laws. Justices said a California not-for-profit distributor of the drug can't use that kind of defense to circumvent the federal Controlled Substances Act, in which Congress has listed marijuana as having no medical use. The act only allows government-sponsored research projects to be exempt from federal marijuana provisions. "We must decide whether there is a medical necessity exception to these prohibitions," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's 8-0 ruling. "We hold that there is not." Despite the federal classification, however, proponents say marijuana provides relief to patients of chronic afflictions such as HIV, cancer or neuromuscular diseases when conventional medicine is no longer effective. The Supreme Court ruling may create a Catch-22 situation for states that already have medical marijuana laws or for citizens' groups such as those in Arkansas that would like to see a medical marijuana law become reality. The catch: Patients who are legally able to use the drug may have to find it illegally. While states have authority to allow medical use of the drug, the federal government does not support its legal distribution. Only Congress, which oversees the classifications of controlled drugs, can change the act to allow for medical use of marijuana. Despite the ruling and medical concerns from state Department of Health officials, a group of Arkansans steadily is working toward putting a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot in November 2002. The group needs about 56,000 signatures by July 2002. It also is hoping that the state Legislature will have an interim study on the issue. "It's tragic," said Denele Campbell, executive director of the Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, which is seeking to put the "Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act" on the ballot. "I think this is a bad decision on the part of the court. They failed to acknowledge some truths out there; some people's lives depend on the use of marijuana." The Supreme Court case involved an Oakland, Calif., cooperative that dispensed the drug to patients who had their doctors' approval for marijuana therapy. Yet despite a 1996 California law that allowed this, federal officials in 1998 sued the cooperative for violating federal drug laws. "Seeking to enjoin the cooperative from distributing and manufacturing marijuana, the United States argued that, whether or not the cooperative's activities are legal under California law, they violate federal law," the court's opinion summarized. Seven states -- mainly western states including California and Nevada - -- have passed medical marijuana laws. In Arkansas, people reportedly are using the drug on the sly to improve their conditions. "Thousands of people are breaking the law to use marijuana because they know its helping them by either keeping them alive or making them function better in spite of their disability," Campbell said. There may be some merit in proponents' claims. Marijuana contains tetrahydrocannabinol. That's the main ingredient in the drug marinol, which has been documented to reduce nausea, pain and "help people's sense of well-being," said Dr. Richard Nugent, who monitors the medical-marijuana issue for the state Health Department. But department officials insist that not enough is known about the possible dangers of using marijuana. Health experts do not know how marijuana will react with other medications and if smoking the drug would raise the spectre of lung cancer. "There's tar and a variety of noxious products in marijuana just like in a cigarette," Nugent said. "Marijuana smoked to treat a chronic illness will turn into chronic smoking, so why would we want to support getting into trouble with something else like we did with cigarettes?" Medical officials, Nugent said, also are wary of the inconsistency of a drug that could vary from plant to plant. "This happens to be one of the broad concerns about using any natural preparation. You kind of know what's in it but not exactly," Nugent said. "Clearly it will take very prolonged studies to figure [these concerns] out." Campbell's group is pushing for a law that would allow a chronic patient to grow up to 10 marijuana plants -- what the group estimates would yield a year's supply of the drug -- at home for personal medical use. Anyone who provides the plants to others would "lose their privileges and may be prosecuted," Campbell said. Unlike California's law, the proposed ballot measure in Arkansas would not provide patients with a way to obtain the drug. People who live in the Natural State would have to find marijuana on their own. "There's a burden on the patient to make the connections to obtain it illegally -- or on the black market -- or to obtain the seeds and try to grow their own," she said. "The Supreme Court decision is so tragic - -- if the decision had gone the other way, maybe we could put measures in [the initiative] to allow distribution to people." Despite the proponents' current hurdles, Campbell believes that her cause will find long-term success. "To restrict a natural substance that's a plant -- no matter how much you [consume], it's not going to kill you -- I think the government is overstepping," she said. "In the future medical marijuana will be legal across the nation, even if [the law] changes just one state at a time. It's important work." This article was published on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 - --- MAP posted-by: Derek