California and Arizona legalized limited use of marijuana last November, but the Clinton Administration is fighting these state�s referenda. Each state saw citizens ratify a referendum that makes marijuana a legal drug for medicinal purposes.
The executive branch of the federal government has since decided it will sanction physicians in those two states who prescribe marijuana. Doctors in both states have countered with suits saying that their right to properly advise their patients is being infringed by federal drug enforcement agencies. Such suits were the cause of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Clinton�s director of drug policy, warning doctors in California and Arizona that if they prescribe marijuana they will be breaking federal laws. Thus, the fight is over who controls America�s drugs laws, the federal or state governments.
The debate over THC�s (marijuana�s active ingredient) medical value still rages. Federal drug enforcement officials see the drug as dangerous and a �gateway� to harder drugs. The federal government has always classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, substances that have no medical value and are highly abusive.
The problem that would be faced in Califronia and Arzona is people getting permission by word of mouth from doctors and then getting access to the drug illegally. Because of this, the federal government is warning that it will revoke the prescription-drug licenses of physicians who prescribe marijuana. But in doing this the federal government knows it is creating a new constitutional controversy.
Doctors and those who supported marijuana�s legalization in the two Western states oppose the federal government�s interdiction. Some physicians and the majority of November�s voters in California and Arizona don�t believe marijuana to be harmful. They claim that THC isn�t as risky as many prescription drugs that are more toxic and more available. Physicians in California and Arizone claim it helps a lot of people with serious health problems.
Susan Nelson, who developed lymphisma, used marijuana to help with gastro-intestenial tract trauma. The anti-nauseau drug prescribed by her doctor helped her digestion, but it also lowered her inhibitions. Smoking marijuana helped her with digestion and did not lower her inhibitions.
Pro-legalization forces also claim that marijuana can help control glaucoma, forestall AIDS-related wasting, ease the nauseau associated with cancer chemotherapy and counter the symptoms of epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. However, these are just claims. They have yet to be proven by scientific study.
Although there have been cases in which marijuana may have helped patients, there is no evidence that the drug offers enough benefits to counteract the risks. The National Institutes of Health recently examined the drug and found no evidence that marijuana is no better than other medicines routinely prescribed for gastro-intestinal problems.
In answering the question of who controls America�s drug laws, McCaffrey points out that any drug policy or law should be based on hard evidence and science, rather than politics or ideology. To be able to say that there is clear evidence of marijuana�s value, there must be clinical trials proving these claims. However, federal policy discourages such trials. Yet the drug-control office is now pledging serious consideration of e marijuana research.
For now, though, the war is on between the states and the federal government. McCaffrey isn�t about to give in.
Back to WordSmith homepage.� 1997 [email protected]
Get your own Free Home Page
