TO SOME PATIENTS HERE, COURT MARIJUANA RULING YET ANOTHER CRUEL BLOW

A unanimous US Supreme Court ruling against the medical use of
marijuana last week will not stop a 46-year-old Litchfield man from
smoking pot when he can get it.

Robert, who asked that his last name not be used, made his position on
the subject clear a few months ago when the New Hampshire Legislature
was considering a proposal to allow the medical use of marijuana.
Sponsored by state Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a Libertarian
from Manchester, the bill was voted down by the Health, Human Services
and Elderly Affairs Committee in March.

Before he was diagnosed eight years ago with an inoperable brain
tumor, and given three months to live, Robert said, he was not a
marijuana smoker.

At the time, he was a working as an environmental professional for
Polaroid. He was married, a father, and living in the suburbs.

As a result of his tumor, Robert suffered seizures continually. In
1995 he underwent brain surgery to remove as much of the tumor as
possible, but the seizures just worsened. He had a second round of
surgery in 1997 that he says essentially resulted in the removal of
one third of his brain. The tumor had grown around his optic nerve,
leaving him legally blind.

By that time he had to quit his job and go on disability. The
anti-seizure drugs he was taking weren't working. Robert was still
having up to six seizures a day.

Last summer, in yet another effort to shrink the tumor, Robert
underwent chemotherapy and was prescribed the drug Marinol, which
contains a highly concentrated form of the active ingredients in marijuana.

''I was delighted to discover,'' Robert told the House committee,
''that I was not having as many seizures. Rather than six or more a
day, I was having only six a week. However, I was still having some
pain and nausea from the chemo.''

Robert started doing his own research and found out that some doctors
were using Marinol and marijuana for seizure control.

''And then one day when I was feeling severe pain and nausea, I had
the opportunity to take few puffs from a marijuana cigarette, and
immediately the pain, fatigue and ill feeling lifted away,'' he said.

''I actually went outside and did yard work. I was so amazed; I had
worked outside for over four hours... when I hadn't been able to do
any kind of physical activity for months.''

Robert said he talked to his doctors about smoking marijuana, was
warned of its possible negative effects, and continued to smoke a few
puffs each day for a week. He was seizure free. And he was relieved of
some of the nausea and fatigue caused by the chemo.

But it's not easy for Robert to get marijuana. He admitted to trying
to grow the plant himself, without success, and said he can not cope
with trying to buy it on the street.

''Sometimes a compassionate person just leaves it on my front door,''
he said. He still has access to Marinol - which he said costs about
$670 for a week's supply - but he says it's not as effective as
smoking marijuana in controlling his symptoms, and is so strong it
leaves him unable to function.

Monday's court ruling dashed his hopes for obtaining a prescription
for marijuana.

''One of the reasons cited for the New Hampshire bill's failure was
because marijuana use was banned on a federal level. If the federal
case had passed, it would have been easier for us to get a law passed
here.''

The Supreme Court ruling upheld federal authority to stop California
marijuana growers' clubs from distributing pot to people suffering
from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other disabling diseases.
But it did not explicitly overturn state laws that allow medical
marijuana use.

Eight states, including Maine, have approved such uses. Twenty others
have passed legislation that accepts the therapeutic properties of
marijuana, an opinion widely supported in public opinion polls. But
the Supreme Court action is seen as a setback for other states that
are considering similar laws.

While a doctor prescribing marijuana in a state that has passed a
medical use law cannot be arrested by local authorities, he or she can
be prosecuted by federal authorities.

''Who knows when someone will want to make an example out of a doctor
who prescribes marijuana, even if it is legal in his or her state?''
asked Dr. John Dalco, who specializes in addiction medicine in New
Hampshire and Vermont. Dalco, who also does work for the New Hampshire
Medical Society, testified against the proposed marijuana law this
winter.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated there was no proof that
smoking marijuana provided any medical benefits, despite studies to
the contrary.

Dalco said he thinks the whole subject has been politicized. What's
really needed, he said, is controlled scientific testing to actually
determine the medical benefits - if any - of pot.

But proponents of legalizing marijuana for medical and other purposes
say that type of testing has been blocked by the federal government,
which they say is invested in keeping marijuana on the Drug
Enforcement Agency's list of most dangerous drugs, which ranks it with
heroin, cocaine and LSD.

Bob Melamede, a member of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws, and a research professor at the University of Vermont
who testified in favor of the proposed law here, said there is
irrefutable proof that marijuana helps those suffering from cancer and
other diseases.

''That Supreme Court ruling is nuts,'' he said. ''I'm a molecular
immunologist and I know the medical benefits of smoking marijuana.
There have been tests done to show this is true. This was a very
narrow ruling on the part of the Supreme Court on a very narrow topic
...

''The ironic thing is that every time this subject is put before
voters in referendums it passes. It's when it gets presented to state
legislatures, as it was in New Hampshire, that it gets voted down.''

Vaillancourt, the sponsor of the failed New Hampshire bill,
agrees.

''Believe me, this does get political,'' he said. ''I had
representatives tell me they were going to vote for this legislation,
but at the last minute they gave in to party pressure and voted
against it.''

In a letter to Phil Greazzo, the head of New Hamsphire NORML, Governor
Jeanne Shaheen expressed her opposition to the medical use bill. ''It
is my feeling,'' she wrote, ''that there are currently enough existing
legalized medications which are effective and have met with Food and
Drug Administration approval. Legalizing marijuana through the
political process bypasses the safeguards established by the FDA.''

Vaillancourt said he is unimpressed by the argument that the bill's
passage could lead to the growth of marijuana for other purposes. ''As
if people can't walk out their door right now, walk to the center of
town and buy marijuana if they want to,'' he said. ''It's just that
old reefer madness that people are still worried about.''

Enfield Police Chief John Giese, who spoke against the bill on behalf
of the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police, disagrees.

He thinks that those who are pushing to legalize the medical use of
the drug are pushing to legalize marijuana in general.

''We call them legalizers,'' said Giese. ''Listen, you've got the
American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association all
saying that marijuana is not useful as a medicine. ...

''There are some people who really believe this is a choice and ...
say if they're suffering they should be able to try this,'' he
continued. ''And to some degree I agree with that. But on the other
hand, what's ever freely available to adults in this society is also
available to children.

''I think the real answer here is to put this before the Federal Drug
Administration,'' said Giese. ''Let them study this and decide.''

Derry resident Leonard Epstein, a member of New Hampshire NORML, said
that compassion should be a prime consideration in the debate.

''What if all the evidence that marijuana had medicinal benefits is
wrong?'' he said. ''What if the only benefit a desperately sick person
gets is that they feel better? Is it right to prosecute them and put
them in jail for that?''