Our
View: Patients’ rights go up in smoke
A
U.S. district judge ruled Wednesday that
patients at a Santa Cruz medical marijuana
collective can, for the time being at least,
grow and use marijuana without the specter
of raids by drug agents. The decision represents
a temporary parting of the clouds for advocates
of the drug’s therapeutic effects,
and it is high time — pun intended
— that the weather cleared.
The
Drug Enforcement Administration has vigorously
targeted collectives like the one in Santa
Cruz ever since Californians approved the
drug’s medicinal use in 1996. It has
done so at the behest of the Clinton and
Bush administrations.
Clinton’s
drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, once said that
medical marijuana laws were not compassionate,
as the initiatives used to pass them are
often titled, but rather an undermining
force against national drug policy. The
Bush administration has taken roughly the
same stance, even though Bush campaigned
in 2000 with the vow that he would leave
the issue up to the states (see gay marriage).
The
stand of the two presidents is politically
wise. Support for medical marijuana would
likely cost a presidential candidate a huge
amount of votes while gaining them relatively
few, despite the fact that 73 percent of
Americans support the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. While support for medical
marijuana may be enough to completely alienate
more conservative voters, it is unlikely
to be the sole voting determinant for a
large portion of more liberal voters.
The
position of the two administrations also
has unanimous backing from the Supreme Court,
which ruled in 1999 that illness was irrelevant
in determining the legality of marijuana
use. The court’s decision was based
on the fact that the Food and Drug Administration
has not declared smoked marijuana to have
positive analgesic effects.
FDA’s
stubborness
Which of course brings us to the FDA’s
stubborn stand. It, along with the DEA,
recognizes the physically comforting properties
of THC, the active ingredient in pot. But
due to the perceived side affects involved
with smoking, it recommends a synthetic
form of THC developed in 1986 known as Marinol.
Supporters
of pot dispensaries like the one in Santa
Cruz argue that Marinol has numerous drawbacks
which make it an unsuitable substitute for
smoked marijuana.
Users
of the Marinol pill have reported unpleasant
psychoactive side effects that are much
stronger than those associated with smoked
marijuana; difficulty in determining a proper
dose; and pain-killing attributes that are
slow to take effect. Various source have
reported that whereas the effects of smoked
marijuana are immediate, Marinol can take
anywhere from 45 minutes to four hours to
take effect.
The
cost of Marinol is also an issue. Depending
on the amount of the drug required, the
cost of a monthly prescription can range
from $400-$900. If the terminally ill were
allowed to grow their own marijuana or receive
it free of charge from co-ops like the Santa
Cruz facility, they would be spared these
expenses.
Double-standard
on smoking
Moreover,
the FDA’s whole rationale that smoked
marijuana is not fit for medical use because
of the deleterious effects of smoking is
hopelessly flawed. For one, marijuana, unlike
smoked tobacco, leads to dilation, as opposed
to constriction, of various blood vessels,
making it unlikely to lead to negative cardiovascular
side effects when used in moderation.
Second,
since when did the FDA begin to regulate
smoking? Cigarettes are legal, and the use
of marijuana for recreational purposes is
not outlawed because smoking is unhealthful
— it is outlawed because the psychotropic
consequences are seen as detrimental to
society.
Once
the smoking pretext is discredited, medical
marijuana can be seen as comparable to other
drugs that are illegal for recreational
use but legal for medicinal use, including
narcotics such as morphine, codeine and
hydrocodone.
Other
arguments against medical marijuana include
the perception that it could lead to “diversion,”
meaning that it could ease access to marijuana
for those seeking the drug for social use.
But as long the co-ops adhere to strict
rules requiring doctor’s prescriptions
and special identification cards (as they
do now), the threat of diversion is virtually
nonexistent. And for the record, anyone
who can’t currently obtain marijuana
probably hasn’t tried.
The
anti-medical marijuana establishment needs
to admit that its stand is based on moralistic
personal values that reflexively oppose
marijuana. Then it needs to visit a terminally
ill patient and ask itself what morality
really means.
|
