A luta continua nos EUA...

[Bas]

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Lake [mailto:rlake@mapinc.org]

Sent: Dienstag, 7. Juni 2005 10:18

To: DPFT-L@listserv.tamu.edu; hemp-talk@hemp.net; va-dpr@drcnet.org;

mmjlist@cannabismd.org; drugwar@mindvox.com

Subject: [mmjlist] USA Today: 4 Articles, 1 Superb Editorial [#Filter

Mails not addressed to local Domains (bcc)#]

Newshawk: Please Write LTEs www.mapinc.org/alert/0309.html

Pubdate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005

Source: USA Today (US)

Page: 1A - Front Page

Webpage:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...juana07.art.htm

Copyright: 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc

Contact: editor@usatoday.com

Website: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/index.htm

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466

Author: Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

COURT: LET CONGRESS LEGALIZE IT

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government may prosecute sick people who use

marijuana under a doctor's prescription to ease pain, the Supreme Court

ruled Monday. The justices said a federal ban on the drug trumps laws that

protect such patients.

The court's 6-3 decision came in an emotionally charged case that tested

"medical-marijuana" laws in California and nine other states intended to

protect patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The case pitted

patients with cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses who say marijuana

eases their pain against the U.S. government and its desire to prevent

illegal drug trafficking. It also was a test for a Supreme Court that

generally has favored states' rights over federal authority.

The ruling does not overturn California's 1996 law or the other laws, but

it cancels their provisions that exempt medical users from federal

prosecution. It also leaves the future of medicinal marijuana with the

Justice Department, which must decide how aggressively to pursue patients,

and with Congress, which could change U.S. law to allow medical marijuana.

Federal prosecutions make up a tiny percentage of marijuana charges

nationally, but the Bush administration says enforcement of marijuana laws

is a priority and insists the drug has no medicinal value. The

Republican-led Congress has shown no sign of passing a medical-marijuana

law.

The court's majority said Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce

overrides medical-marijuana laws in California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,

Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. The court

noted that it has restricted Congress' power to regulate state activities

in the past, but it said this case was different because it involved

economic activity.

For the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that even patients who

grow small amounts of marijuana for themselves could have a "substantial

impact" on the market for the "extraordinarily popular" drug. He said

exemptions from prosecution also could lead to prescription abuse.

But Stevens said backers of medical marijuana could persuade Congress to

allow such uses of the drug. Angel Raich, one of the two California women

who brought the case, vowed to pressure Congress. "I'm in this battle

literally for my life," said Raich, who uses marijuana to ease pain from a

brain tumor and a seizure disorder. Her lawyer, Randy Barnett, said he

would go to a lower court to claim that patients have a right to avoid

needless suffering.

*************************

Newshawk: mmfamily

Pubdate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005

Source: USA Today (US)

Page: 1A - Front Page

Webpage:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...r07_dom.art.htm

Copyright: 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc

Contact: editor@usatoday.com

Website: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/index.htm

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466

Authors: Joan Biskupic, Wendy Koch and John Ritter, USA TODAY

Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org

Cited: Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse http://www.mamas.org/

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

PATIENTS WHO USE MARIJUANA FEAR WORST IF FORCED TO STOP

Their Dilemma: Break Law or Be in Pain

Erin Hildebrandt moved her family from Maryland to Oregon last June for one

reason: She wanted to live in a state where she could use marijuana legally.

Hildebrandt has Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive

tract that gives her nausea. The 34-year-old mother of five underwent

surgeries and tried various treatments, but nothing worked until she tried

marijuana.

Now, she's a registered marijuana user in Oregon, one of 10 states that has

allowed patients who suffer from debilitating illnesses to use the drug as

a pain reliever. "Medical marijuana gave me back my life," she said. "I

don't do drugs. ... I'm just a mom."

But the Supreme Court's ruling Monday that state medical-marijuana laws do

not protect Hildebrandt and thousands of other medical-marijuana users from

federal prosecution has her fearing the worst. "I moved here to be a

law-abiding citizen, and I'm not sure that I am anymore," said Hildebrandt,

who lives in Lafayette, about 30 miles southwest of Portland. "I'm afraid

I'll have the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) at my door. Yesterday,

I would have told so much more (about the treatment). Now, I'm afraid."

Her remarks reflected the concern Monday of medical-marijuana users who

said the court's 6-3 decision had left them with a difficult choice: Break

the law in order to take a drug that makes life tolerable, or give up

marijuana and be miserable.

The California patients behind the dispute that was decided by the court,

Diane Monson and Angel Raich, were defiant Monday but hopeful that somehow

a Republican-led Congress would approve a federal medical-marijuana law --

even though it has shown no inclination of doing so.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, 48, of

Oroville, Calif., suggesting that she would continue to smoke marijuana to

ease back pain caused by a degenerative disease of the spine.

Raich, 39, of Oakland, called on Congress to show compassion for those who

have found marijuana uniquely effective in relieving their pain. "Now is

the time for Congress to step in to help us sick, disabled and dying

patients," said Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure

disorder. "Something will be done if it takes every last breath in my body."

In Washington, the message was: Don't look for action anytime soon.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of a bill that would give

Congress' blessing for states to make their own medical-marijuana laws,

said the Supreme Court has "now made it clear that this is up to Congress.

If Congress wants to do this, it can."

But Frank and other members of Congress suggested that even in a generation

of lawmakers who came of age as marijuana became popular among youths, few

are willing to go on record as voting for a bill to allow pot smoking.

"I think support is strong" for a federal medical-marijuana bill, said U.S.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "But people are still frightened a little bit by

the politics of it. If you had a secret vote in Congress, I'll bet 80%

would vote for it."

After taking several hours to digest the ruling, officials in California

and other states with similar medical-marijuana laws -- Alaska, Colorado,

Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state --

said they doubted that the decision would lead the U.S. Justice Department

to significantly crack down on individual users of medical marijuana,

including those who grow the leaf for their own use.

"People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes," California

Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Nothing is different today than it was

two days ago, in terms of real-world impact."

In Oregon, officials said they would temporarily stop issuing medical

marijuana cards to sick people. The cards allow patients with prescriptions

to possess the drug. "We want to proceed cautiously until we understand the

ramifications of this ruling," said Grant Higginson, a public health

officer who oversees Oregon's medical marijuana program.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a group in Oakland that supports more lenient

drug laws, estimated that there are more than 113,000 registered users of

marijuana in the 10 medical-marijuana states, with more than 100,000 in

California alone.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the USA. About 95

million Americans age 12 and older have used marijuana or hashish in their

lifetime, according to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

About 15 million people use marijuana regularly, the survey found.

The Bush administration has made marijuana a priority in its war on drugs,

casting it as an entry-level drug with no scientifically proven benefits

that leads many users to try more dangerous ones such as cocaine and

heroin. But DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said after the ruling that the

administration's focus would remain on major growers and traffickers.

John Walters, the White House's anti-drug czar, said that those who

flagrantly flout federal law will be punished, but he agreed with Tandy's

emphasis on major traffickers.

"I don't think anybody makes a career out of arresting and punishing

low-level users," he said.

The high court's ruling Monday came four years after it ruled that federal

anti-drug laws could be used to shut down cannabis cooperatives that sell

marijuana for medical purposes. The cooperative at issue in the case was

set up in California after the voters there in 1996 passed the nation's

first medical-marijuana law.

Federal enforcement of that ruling has been sporadic, however, and dozens

of clubs continue to dispense marijuana to patients.

Several California cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Huntington

Beach and Modesto, have cracked down on marijuana co-ops and dispensaries

recently. Oakland limited the number of clubs last year, and San Francisco

in April put a moratorium on new clubs while the city's Board of

Supervisors decides how to regulate the more than 40 facilities in the city.

Monday's case dealt with whether federal law could be used against those

who possess or grow marijuana in small amounts, for their personal use.

Such prosecutions are rare but are not unheard of: In August 2002, federal

agents seized six plants from Monson's home and destroyed them in an

incident that led to her involvement in Monday's case.

Writing for the court's majority Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens called

the California dispute a "troubling" case because of the legal and ethical

dilemmas faced by Monson, Raich and other medical-marijuana users.

"The case is made difficult by strong arguments that (Raich and Monson)

will suffer irreparable harm because ... marijuana does have valid

therapeutic purposes," Stevens wrote. "The question before us, however, is

... whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets ... (covers)

drugs produced and consumed locally."

Stevens also cited the government's argument that medical marijuana laws

could inspire abuses such as unwarranted prescriptions that could lead to

interstate drug trafficking violations.

"One need not have a degree in economics," Stevens wrote, "to understand

why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other

drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include

use by friends, neighbors and family members) may have a substantial impact

on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance."

Relying on a 1942 ruling that permitted government restrictions on local

wheat farming, the majority said Congress may regulate purely intrastate

activities -- such as the personal growing of marijuana -- if it finds that

failing to regulate them would harm the U.S. government's ability to

regulate the commodity.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony

Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Dissenting were two conservatives, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and

Clarence Thomas, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who is usually at the political

center of the divided court. The dissenters said states should have the

right to set their own course in dealing with medical marijuana.

O'Connor said the majority was giving the federal government far too much

authority. "The government has made no showing in fact that the possession

and use of homegrown marijuana for medical purposes, in California or

elsewhere, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce," she said.

Despite predictions by California's Lockyer and others that the ruling's

impact on the vast majority of marijuana-using patients would be minimal,

advocates for medical marijuana called the ruling a huge disappointment.

"In the war on drugs, we have had a war on patients," said Sandra Johnson,

a lawyer and ethicist at Saint Louis University. "This is a tremendous

setback. ... Untreated pain is a public health issue."

Randi Webster, a co-founder of the San Francisco Patients Co-op on the edge

of the city's Haight-Ashbury district, said she wasn't surprised by the

ruling. "The first thing I thought was, what a crying shame that once again

politics is taking the place of compassion," she said.

"We're very disappointed," said Sandee Burbank, director of the non-profit

Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, known as MAMA, in Oregon. "It's going to

make it harder for doctors and patients to have access (to medical

marijuana) because of the fear."

She says her group, which provides information about the benefits and risks

of medical marijuana, will work harder to push Congress to resolve the

issue.

"My phone's been ringing off the hook," she says, describing patients who

are afraid that U.S. officials will take their plants away. In Oregon, she

said, many medical marijuana users grow their own plants. More than 10,000

residents have had permission from the state to do so.

In Washington, Walters, the anti-drug czar, saw the ruling as a rejection

of the idea that marijuana is a proven pain reliever.

"The medical marijuana farce is done," he said. "I don't doubt that some

people feel better when they use marijuana, but that's not modern science.

That's snake oil."

*************************

Newshawk: Please Write LTEs www.mapinc.org/resource/

Pubdate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005

Source: USA Today (US)

Page: 2A

Webpage:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...rside07.art.htm

Copyright: 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc

Contact: editor@usatoday.com

Website: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/index.htm

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466

Author: Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

Cited: Institute of Medicine http://www.iom.edu/

Cited: The Institute of Medicine report

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

POT STUDIES DIFFICULT TO ORGANIZE, ANALYZE

Advocates of medical marijuana tout its ability to alleviate the symptoms

of a number of diseases, from multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, epilepsy and

AIDS to nausea caused by chemotherapy. While experts say marijuana may be

promising, they note that there hasn't been enough solid research to prove

these claims.

"The evidence is just not there," says Stanley Watson, a University of

Michigan professor of psychiatry and one of two principal authors of a 1999

report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a private, non-profit

organization that advises the government on health policy. "The studies

that have been done have just not been well-enough designed."

Organizing a study of the health benefits of an illegal drug is a

challenge, says John Benson, the other principal author of the IOM report,

which called for more research into marijuana's possible medical benefits.

The American Medical Association in 2001 issued a statement that seconded

that call.

Marijuana's potential benefits are limited by the harm caused by smoking,

which can increase the risk of cancer, damage the lungs and cause pregnancy

complications, such as low birth weight, states the IOM report.

The IOM report found no conclusive data to support the idea that pot causes

people to take up harder drugs, or that approving it for medical use would

increase its use among the public.

Yet marijuana's medical benefits are often modest, Watson says. Almost all

breast cancer patients treated with a chemotherapy drug called cisplatin

become nauseated. Standard drugs can reduce that rate to 10%, while

marijuana lowers the number to only 25%. "If you have a family member with

this illness, what would you put them on?" Watson asks.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a drug called Marinol -- a

form of THC, an active ingredient in marijuana -- to treat AIDS-related

weight loss as well as chemo-induced nausea. Benson says the drug, which

often produces a hangover, is not very popular.

Scientists have studied marijuana's effects on several ailments:

. AIDS. Research shows that marijuana stimulates the appetite among AIDS

patients, who often waste away. "Patients gained a little weight, and they

ate a lot of junk food," says Benson, who notes that sweets and snacks

don't improve nutrition.

. Glaucoma. Smoking marijuana should not be used to treat glaucoma,

according to the IOM report. Although it relieved eye pressure, those

effects were short-lived.

. Epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. There is "limited scientific evidence"

that marijuana produces any measurable medical benefits, according to an

article last year in Neurology.

The drug remains popular with some patients, however. In two Canadian

studies also published in Neurology, one found that 36% of 220 MS patients

used marijuana, while another article found that that 21% of 160 epilepsy

patients reported using marijuana in the past year. Of those epilepsy

patients, 68% say the drug made seizures less severe and 54% said seizures

were less frequent.

Scientists don't put much faith in reports from patients unless a drug's

effects can be measured by a physician, Benson says. Patients may feel

better not because of marijuana, but because of the "placebo effect," in

which ineffective drugs appear to produce results.

*************************

Newshawk: Please See http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0309.html

Pubdate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005

Source: USA Today (US)

Page: 2A

Webpage:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...erpts07.art.htm

Copyright: 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc

Contact: editor@usatoday.com

Website: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/index.htm

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466

Note: The decision is on line in various formats here

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html and as a 79

page .pdf file here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Raich)

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

WHAT THE JUSTICES WROTE

Excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions in the California

medical marijuana case the Supreme Court decided Monday:

"The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase

the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that all

such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will

precisely match the patients' medical needs during their convalescence

seems remote; whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the

admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious. Moreover,

that the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face

of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of

unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve

their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so."

. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority

"Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the court has endorsed making it

a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for

one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by

some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to

regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I

would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were

a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use

Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical

marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause

cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."

. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the dissenters

******* Editorial Below *******

Newshawk: Please See http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0309.html

Pubdate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005

Source: USA Today (US)

Page: 12A

Webpage: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...edtwo07.art.htm

Copyright: 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc

Contact: editor@usatoday.com

Website: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/index.htm

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Raich)

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?232 (Chronic Pain)

COURT'S RULING ON MARIJUANA REEKS OF 'REEFER MADNESS'

Diane Monson has suffered for years from degenerative spine disease and

painful muscle spasms. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court told Monson that

she can be prosecuted for trying to relieve her own pain.

Three years ago, federal agents barged into her house, seized and destroyed

the six marijuana plants Monson was growing at her doctor's suggestion.

Monson, an accountant who lives in Oroville, Calif., had been getting

relief from the active ingredient in marijuana that no ordinary drug had

been able to provide.

It was all legal under the laws of California, one of 10 states that since

1996 have authorized patients to grow or obtain marijuana for medical needs

with a doctor's recommendation. But the high court ruled that Congress'

blanket ban on marijuana trumps the states' compassionate desire to create

a limited exception for medicinal reasons.

Monson and Angel Raich are the latest collateral damage in Washington's

indiscriminate war on drugs. Raich, an Oakland mother of two, is subject to

severe, debilitating pain from an inoperable brain tumor and more than a

dozen other ailments. Her desperate measures, seeking relief in using

marijuana grown for her at no cost by her two caregivers, caused her to

join Monson's court case three years ago -- and now could make her also

liable to federal prosecution.

The Court's 6-3 decision was a stretched interpretation of the clause in

the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate interstate

commerce.

Under Monday's ruling, growing marijuana at home for medicinal purposes,

with no money changing hands, is somehow now a form of interstate commerce.

It makes you wonder what the majority was smoking. As Justice Clarence

Thomas said in his dissenting opinion, "If Congress can regulate this ...

under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything."

That warning ought to be a rallying cry for conservative members of

Congress elected under the banner of small government and respect for

states rights. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court's majority,

told Monson, Raich and anyone in a similar fix that their recourse is to

get Congress to change the 1970 federal law that bans possession or

distribution of marijuana.

Given the "reefer madness" in Washington that has led to an overemphasis on

marijuana prosecutions in the war on drugs, the prospects for early

congressional action seem remote. In the meantime, surely federal

prosecutors and drug-control agents have better things to do than to swoop

down on critically ill people who are abiding by state law and haul them

off to court.