Pubdate: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 Source: Tennessean, The (TN) Copyright: 2003 The Tennessean Contact: http://www.tennessean.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/447 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) OF MARIJUANA, DOCTORS AND THE HIGH COURT Marijuana is just as illegal in the United States today as it was last week. The recent U.S. Supreme Court action doesn't change that. But by refusing to hear the federal government's case against a California law, the court underscores the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, and protects the ability of physicians to give their patients the best possible advice. The case focused on the California medical marijuana law, passed by referendum in 1996, that allows patients to obtain, grow and use marijuana if they have a doctor's recommendation. The law does not give doctors the right to give marijuana to patients. Many physicians believe that marijuana relieves the severe effects of cancer, AIDS and other chronic diseases in some patients. They believe dope, whether smoked or ingested, is particularly effective in helping restore the appetite of patients with AIDS and those taking chemotherapy. Eight other states have passed similar laws. After the California law's passage, the Drug Enforcement Authority during the Clinton administration threatened to revoke the prescription-writing license of any doctor who recommended the use of marijuana. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have argued that medical use of marijuana subverts the government's battle against drugs. A group of doctors sued the government over the DEA policy, claiming that their First Amendment rights were at stake. The physicians won in district court and at the federal appeals level. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case, which leaves the appeals court decision intact. This case doesn't settle the debate over the efficacy of medical marijuana. One study shows that as many as 44% of oncologists have recommended its use to cancer patients, but some doctors say marijuana is only an intoxicant, not a medical drug. Yet the court was not asked to determine the medical worth of pot. It was asked to decide whether states have the right to establish their own rules of medical practice, and whether doctors have the right to talk freely to their patients. In both cases, the answer is yes. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin