Pubdate: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 Source: Contra Costa Times (CA) Copyright: 2003 Knight Ridder Contact: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/96 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm (Bush, George) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Conant (Walters v. Conant) FREE SPEECH VICTORY IN ITS ZEAL to thwart the use of medical marijuana in states that legalized it, the federal government overstepped its authority by trampling on the First Amendment. That apparently is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the Bush administration's appeal of a ruling that held doctors have a free-speech right to advise sick patients of the benefits of marijuana. Under the Clinton administration, efforts by the federal government to shut down cannabis clubs that distributed medical marijuana were upheld by the Supreme Court. It ruled the federal government does have the right to enforce its drug laws. However, federal authorities took the additional step in 1997 of threatening doctors who recommended marijuana with losing their right to prescribe medicines if they violated the no-marijuana policy. If a doctor were to lose his or her right to write prescriptions, his or her career would be over. That is a harsh penalty in any circumstance and certainly would have a negative impact on doctors who favor medical marijuana The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the federal government, explaining that doctors have a "core First Amendment (right) to speak frankly and openly with their patients." It is a freedom that cannot be infringed by the government, the court said. We have had many quarrels with the 9th Circuit Court, but its ruling on the constitutional rights of doctors was sound. The U.S. Justice Department's efforts to punish doctors who recommended marijuana threatened to erode the doctor-patient relationship and ran counter to medical ethics. Free discussion of health-care options should not be suppressed by any level of government. It is uncommon in a major case for the Supreme Court to refuse to even hear the federal government's appeal when it loses in the lower courts. But abridging doctors' free speech, medical ethics and doctor-patient relationship would be an egregious violation of basic rights. The high court's refusal to hear the appeal does not end the battle between the federal government and states like California that allow medical marijuana. However, it does give doctors the freedom they need to give sound medical advice to their patients and to give them the permission to use marijuana. Marijuana eases pain and nausea in patents with AIDS, those undergoing chemotherapy and is helpful in easing pain caused by spinal injuries and for glaucoma sufferers. We hope that the Supreme Court's rejection of Washington's attempt to threaten doctors will put a damper on federal efforts to prevent the use of medical marijuana. There are far more important and useful things for the Justice Department to attend to. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh