Pubdate: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 Source: Oakland Tribune (CA) Copyright: 1999 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Contact: 66 Jack London Sq., Oakland, CA 94607 Feedback: http://www.newschoice.com/asp-bin/feedback.asp?PUID486 Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/alameda/tribune/ Author: Editorial, Oakland Tribune Note: Several years ago the Tribune editorialized in favor of allowing recreational use of MJ for adults. MARIJUANA PROVES TO BE A 'MEDICAL NECESSITY' REMEMBER the term "medical necessity." It could neutralize federal and legal resistance to the use of marijuana as a medicine to treat people suffering from AIDS, anorexia, chronic pain, cancer and other acute ailments. If so, much credit must go to the persistence of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That three-judge panel made the phrase part of the legal debate over marijuana last week by instructing U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to consider whether its use might be a "medical necessity" for some sick and dying people. If that proves to be the case, Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law Californians approved three years ago, may finally emerge from a legal quagmire created by federal law's prohibition on its distribution and use. Federal prosecutors used that ban to seek an injunction closing the Oakland cannabis cooperative after Prop. 215 passed. Judge Breyer granted it, concluding that the cooperative's argument that marijuana was medically necessary didn't pass legal muster. The cooperative's executive director, Jeff Jones, appealed the ruling. Justices Mary Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt and Barry Silverman concluded that the cooperative made its case that, "There is a class of people with serious medical conditions for whom the use of cannabis is necessary." Shifting the burden of proof, they also concluded that government officials failed "to identify any interest it may have in blocking the distribution of cannabis to those with medical needs." It was a thoughtful, constructive ruling that injects a dose of common sense and reality into the post-Prop. 215 standoff between California, several of its municipalities and the federal government. Medical underpinning for the appeals court's decision was published earlier this year in the form of a report by the Institute of Medicine that said marijuana may have value as a pain reliever, nausea suppressant and appetite stimulant. The study sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy supports medical marijuana advocates seeking to get the Food and Drug Administration to reclassify the drug from Schedule I, which makes it illegal, to Schedule II, which categorizes it with drugs like morphine that doctors can prescribe. While we agree with such reclassification, we also are acutely aware that it can be a short distance between medical and recreational use. Medical marijuana must be handled in the same manner as other prescription drugs. No matter what form it is consumed in -- some proponents advocate an inhaler -- medical marijuana must be prescribed by a doctor who does so for legitimate medical reasons and with the patient's best interest at heart. Nothing could reverse pro-medical marijuana sentiment quicker than abuse of reasonable guidelines for its use. One of the Californians working hardest to reconcile voters' wishes and federal law has been Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Since taking office early this year, he has formed a task force to examine how marijuana can be distributed for medical use without violating federal codes. His predecessor, Dan Lungren, opposed implementation of Prop. 215 and used federal agents and prosecutors to prevent it. Lockyer has taken a hands-off approach while working with attorneys general in other states with similar laws to seek changes in federal policy. Although it is likely to be appealed, the appellate court's recognition that marijuana is a "medical necessity" closes the chasm between extreme positions. Marijuana should withstand further tests of its medical usefulness. When that happens, the appeals court's phrase "medical necessity" could be instrumental in getting it accepted legally as a pharmaceutical product. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea