Lawyers For Berkeley Psychiatrist Say Client Target OAKLAND -- Lawyers argued Friday over whether the state should be allowed to continue its attempt to revoke the medical license of a Berkeley psychiatrist who has recommended marijuana to thousands of patients. Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Lew said he'll issue a written proposed ruling within about three weeks, which will then be submitted for the Medical Board of California's consideration. Lawyers for Dr. Tod Mikuriya, 70, say the state is on an anti-marijuana [continues 596 words]
Judge to Submit Ruling on Medical Pot Issue Within Three Weeks OAKLAND -- Lawyers argued Friday over whether the state should be allowed to continue its attempt to revoke the medical license of a Berkeley psychiatrist who has recommended marijuana to thousands of patients. Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Lew said he'll issue a written proposed ruling within about three weeks, which will then be submitted for the Medical Board of California's consideration. Lawyers for Dr. Tod Mikuriya, 70, say the state is on an anti-marijuana witchhunt against him, but he's protected by broad immunity granted to physicians by the state's medical marijuana law. They want Lew to dismiss the case before it goes to a full hearing in September. [continues 561 words]
Wants Permission To Punish Doctors Public Protection vs. Free Speech Issue WASHINGTON-The Bush administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court's permission to strip prescription licenses from doctors who recommend marijuana to sick patients. The administration, which has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, asked the high court to strike down an appeals court ruling that blocked the punishment, or investigation, of physicians who tell patients they may be helped by the drug. The administration's appeal, filed this week, gives the Supreme Court a chance to revisit the subject of legalized marijuana. Two years ago, the court ruled there is no exception in federal drug laws for people to use pot to ease pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses. [continues 254 words]
Supreme Court Is Asked To Reverse A Ban On Investigating Doctors. WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appellate decision barring federal drug agents from investigating California physicians who recommend that ill patients use marijuana to relieve suffering. If the high court decides this fall to take up this case, it would be the second medical marijuana decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to be reviewed. In the first case two years ago, the justices ruled that there is no exemption from federal drug laws for ill patients using marijuana. [continues 600 words]
Supreme Court Asked to Sanction Doctors Who Recommend Pot The Bush administration, pressing its campaign against state medical marijuana laws, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let federal authorities punish California doctors who recommend pot to their patients. The administration would revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who tell their patients marijuana would help them, a prerequisite for obtaining the drug under the state's voter-approved medical marijuana law. Justice Department lawyers this week asked the high court to take up the issue in its next term, which begins in October. The department is appealing a ruling by an appellate court in San Francisco that said the proposed penalties would violate the freedom of speech of both doctors and patients. [continues 658 words]
Three physicians and about a dozen cannabis-using patients attended the May 8 meeting of the state Medical Board's Enforcement Committee to decry investigations of doctors who have made a subspeciality of monitoring cannabis use. The Board's chief Investigator, David Thornton, sought to reassure the Committee (and the concerned citizens) that his agents were not out to persecute doctors who approve marijuana use. Thronton described one "egregious example" of a physician whose "medical office contained a computer, a printer and a cash register. [continues 2629 words]
So many doctors who recommend cannabis have found themselves under investigation by the Medical Board of California --which can revoke or suspend their licenses-- that Frank Lucido, MD, has called a conference to compare notes and discuss a coordinated response. The docs will meet in Berkeley on March 8. One of their chief concerns is that the Medical Board has never issued guidelines according to which they can discuss cannabis with their patients. (Tod Mikuriya, MD, has been requesting and suggesting guidelines since 1996.) Another concern is that almost all the complaints that have triggered Medical Board investigations have come not from patients or their loved ones, but from law enforcement or other third parties. [continues 1373 words]
At first glance, Judge Alex Kozinski seems miscast in the role of Tom Paine in the ongoing battle between the federal government and the states over medical marijuana. Kozinski, who serves on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and who may be the smartest member of that court, is a conservative appointed by President Reagan in 1985. But there he was the other day, writing an opinion saying that the feds have no business telling California and other states that they can't allow the medical use of marijuana, despite voter-enacted laws allowing precisely that. [continues 757 words]
If the federal government were right that medical marijuana has no medicinal value, why have so many doctors risked their practices by recommending its use for patients with cancer or AIDS? Marcus Conant, the doctor who identified the first cases of Kaposi's sarcoma among San Francisco AIDS patients, can answer that. Imagine you're the doctor for a 40-year-old lady with breast cancer. They put her on chemotherapy, and every time she takes her therapy, she throws up. She can't sleep; she's up sick all night. She has trouble caring for her children. Medical marijuana can alleviate her nausea and give her an appetite. [continues 526 words]
Although The California Case Deals With Medical Marijuana, It Has Broader Implications For Frank Discussions Between Physicians And Patients. Physicians can discuss the pros and cons of medicinal marijuana with their patients without worry of the Drug Enforcement Administration cracking down on them, a federal appeals court ruled in October. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco unanimously ruled that a 1996 federal policy that said physicians could lose their DEA numbers if they discussed the issue tramples on First Amendment rights that allow a doctor and patient to discuss medical issues. [continues 829 words]
If the federal government were right that medical marijuana has no medicinal value, why have so many doctors risked their practices by recommending its use for patients with cancer or AIDS? Marcus Conant, the doctor who identified the first cases of Kaposi's sarcoma among San Francisco AIDS patients, can answer that. Imagine you're the doctor for a "40-year-old lady with breast cancer. They put her on chemotherapy and every time she takes her therapy, she throws up." She can't sleep; she's up sick all night. She has trouble caring for her children. Medical marijuana can alleviate her nausea and give her an appetite. [continues 522 words]
The new front in the nation's drug war came into sharp focus at 7 a.m. on Sept. 5, when loud shouts and stomping woke Valerie Corral at her home north of Santa Cruz, Calif. Suspecting that the intruders weren't ordinary burglars, she snuck out a back entrance and walked around to her front door to tell them to leave. When she opened the door, stunned federal agents in flak jackets trained M-16s on the 50-year-old homeowner. When she asked to see a search warrant, the officers screamed at her to get down. They pushed her to her knees, then forced her to lie face down on the floor. With her hands handcuffed behind her back, an officer pressed his rifle muzzle to the back of her head. [continues 3069 words]
Six years ago, state voters agreed that people who are suffering from cancer, AIDS and other life-threatening diseases should be allowed the relief provided by marijuana. But rules governing medical marijuana remain, well, a hash. Blame the failure of the state Legislature to provide clear guidelines, and the federal government's determination to thwart the will of the voters of California and eight other states. In an important ruling, a federal court last week told the federal government it had no right to prevent a physician from helping sick patients. Three justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the government could not revoke the prescription drug licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to patients who are suffering, nor could the Department of Justice investigate doctors who recommended marijuana. Chief Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder stated what is obvious to everyone outside the Justice Department: "An integral component of the practice of medicine is the communication between doctor and a patient. [continues 90 words]
I was so pleased to read that doctors can no longer be accountable for suggesting marijuana use to patients when needed ("Medical Pot Use Given a Boost," Oct. 30). I just finished a year of treatments for breast cancer. While in chemotherapy treatment, nothing could control my severe nausea and vomiting. I was prescribed the so-called best prescription drug: Zofran. I even had it in IV form. After being so weak from vomiting that I didn't have enough strength to crawl back into bed, I tried marijuana following my fourth chemo treatment. The symptoms were gone instantly. The marijuana was the only thing that kept me symptom-free. It was a miracle drug for me. I don't condone drug use, but feel that medical marijuana is better than the very expensive and synthetic alternatives in many medical cases. Allyson Santucci Palm Desert [end]
Court Draws Line Between Speech, Smoke The legal haze surrounding medicinal marijuana became a little clearer thanks to a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. By this court's logic (which sometimes is not all that logical), it is OK for a physician to "prescribe" pot (which really means to suggest that a patient use it) or to speak in favor of its use. This ruling doesn't clear up other conflicts between state and federal laws, such as whether that same patient can grow, purchase or somehow obtain the marijuana and then possess it. But at least for now, the doctor-patient relationship remains above the legal fray. [continues 338 words]
California physicians who prescribe or even recommend the use of marijuana for medical purposes can breathe a little easier, thanks to a ruling Tuesday by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the federal government cannot punish such physicians by revoking their federal license to prescribe medications. This is welcome news, said Dr. Marvin Trotter, with the Mendocino County Public Health Department. Doctors are licensed by the state to practice medicine, he explained, but in order to prescribe controlled substances, they must have a license from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. [continues 537 words]
A federal appeals court in California this week struck an important blow for medical marijuana, and for the First Amendment. It held that the government cannot revoke the licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients. The federal government should now abandon its misguided policy of targeting doctors and sick people to fight marijuana use. The ruling gives new life to the medical marijuana initiative, also known as Proposition 215, which California voters passed in 1996. The law permits seriously ill people to use marijuana on the advice of their physicians, and it says that doctors may not be punished for recommending marijuana to their patients. Shortly after it became law, the federal government announced it would use its authority under the Controlled Substances Act to revoke the prescription licenses of doctors who recommended marijuana to a patient. [continues 121 words]
SAN FRANCISCO -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court has ruled that the government cannot revoke the prescription drug licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to sick patients. A three-judge panel also ruled unanimously Tuesday that the Justice Department cannot investigate doctors for merely recommending marijuana to patients, upholding a 2-year-old court order that prohibited such federal action. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that such investigation would interfere with the free-speech rights of doctors and patients. [continues 529 words]
