News (Media Awareness Project) - US CT: Is Marijuana A Medicine? |
Title: | US CT: Is Marijuana A Medicine? |
Published On: | 2001-04-09 |
Source: | Connecticut Post (CT) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-26 19:03:05 |
IS MARIJUANA A MEDICINE?
As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether to allow medicinal marijuana,
many people here are unaware that the drug is legal for specific medical
purposes in Connecticut.
But despite a law passed 20 years ago, it has yet to be prescribed.
In 1981, the Connecticut General Assembly approved medical marijuana to
treat the side effects of cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. The statute
took effect in 1982.
But since then, no prescription has been written or filled, according to
the state Department of Consumer Protection. No state pharmacies dispense
marijuana because the drug cannot be obtained legally, said June Neal, a
DCP spokesman.
That's because federal law prohibits its cultivation, distribution or
possession.
We have a law, but it is a useless law, said Betty Gallo, a spokeswoman for
A Better Way, a lobbying group that supports medicinal marijuana and is
pushing for changes in Hartford.
This year, A Better Way is lobbying for a study to be conducted by the
University of Connecticut on ways to distribute medicinal marijuana.
The bill passed through the [Legislature's] Public Health Committee but it
hasn't come up for a full vote yet, she said.
She said the bill calls for the study to be completed by Feb. 1, 2002.
Gallo said she is unaware of any physician who has registered with the
state or written a prescription for the drug.
Physicians fear writing marijuana prescriptions because doing so is not
specifically decriminalized in the law, and they could be subject to arrest.
Gallo said there was a recent incident in which police arrested a man for
possession of marijuana even though he had a doctor's note. She said she
has been in contact with the man in an effort to get him to testify before
the Legislature.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering arguments about a medical
necessity exception to federal drug laws.
At issue is whether a patient's need for marijuana should supersede the
1970 federal law that classifies it as an illegal substance with no known
medical value.
People interviewed in downtown Bridgeport supported the use of prescription
pot to relieve people suffering with chemotherapy treatment or glaucoma, a
disease that can cause blindness.
I was unaware that Connecticut has legalized but it's definitely a good
thing, said Sonya Oxendine, 31, a mental health worker. It ensures the
quality of care people need and deserve.
People with disease are going to use it anyway, said Gil Gonzalez, 32, an
entrepreneur from Norwalk. Of course it should be allowed for medical use,
to relieve pain.
I haven't given it much thought, but if it works for people, then let them
use it, said Nick Johnson, 35, an engineer from Watertown.
Voters in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
recently approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana.
In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it
last year.
The case before the Supreme Court is U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's
Cooperative, a California-based club that supplies medical marijuana under
a referendum that authorized medical marijuana in the state in 1996.
The Marijuana Policy Project Foundation in Washington says up to 2 million
people across the nation use the cannabis weed to relieve symptoms of pain,
the nausea related to chemotherapy and in the treatment of glaucoma. Others
claim it reduces muscle spasms and relieves pain, particularly in the case
of paralysis.
But the federal government has taken the position that marijuana is illegal
and should stay that way. Arrests and confrontations have resulted in
California because of federal enforcement efforts.
Lawyers for the Oakland club are arguing that judges and juries should have
the right to decide for patients.
Several justices seemed to think that approach was a stretch at best.
The court's ruling is expected by the end of June.
A ruling for the federal government would not overturn the California voter
initiative, but would eliminate clubs like the Oakland one from
distributing the drug openly.
A ruling for the Oakland club would allow special marijuana clubs to resume
distributing the drug in California, which passed one of the nation's first
medical marijuana laws in 1996.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether to allow medicinal marijuana,
many people here are unaware that the drug is legal for specific medical
purposes in Connecticut.
But despite a law passed 20 years ago, it has yet to be prescribed.
In 1981, the Connecticut General Assembly approved medical marijuana to
treat the side effects of cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. The statute
took effect in 1982.
But since then, no prescription has been written or filled, according to
the state Department of Consumer Protection. No state pharmacies dispense
marijuana because the drug cannot be obtained legally, said June Neal, a
DCP spokesman.
That's because federal law prohibits its cultivation, distribution or
possession.
We have a law, but it is a useless law, said Betty Gallo, a spokeswoman for
A Better Way, a lobbying group that supports medicinal marijuana and is
pushing for changes in Hartford.
This year, A Better Way is lobbying for a study to be conducted by the
University of Connecticut on ways to distribute medicinal marijuana.
The bill passed through the [Legislature's] Public Health Committee but it
hasn't come up for a full vote yet, she said.
She said the bill calls for the study to be completed by Feb. 1, 2002.
Gallo said she is unaware of any physician who has registered with the
state or written a prescription for the drug.
Physicians fear writing marijuana prescriptions because doing so is not
specifically decriminalized in the law, and they could be subject to arrest.
Gallo said there was a recent incident in which police arrested a man for
possession of marijuana even though he had a doctor's note. She said she
has been in contact with the man in an effort to get him to testify before
the Legislature.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering arguments about a medical
necessity exception to federal drug laws.
At issue is whether a patient's need for marijuana should supersede the
1970 federal law that classifies it as an illegal substance with no known
medical value.
People interviewed in downtown Bridgeport supported the use of prescription
pot to relieve people suffering with chemotherapy treatment or glaucoma, a
disease that can cause blindness.
I was unaware that Connecticut has legalized but it's definitely a good
thing, said Sonya Oxendine, 31, a mental health worker. It ensures the
quality of care people need and deserve.
People with disease are going to use it anyway, said Gil Gonzalez, 32, an
entrepreneur from Norwalk. Of course it should be allowed for medical use,
to relieve pain.
I haven't given it much thought, but if it works for people, then let them
use it, said Nick Johnson, 35, an engineer from Watertown.
Voters in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
recently approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana.
In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it
last year.
The case before the Supreme Court is U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's
Cooperative, a California-based club that supplies medical marijuana under
a referendum that authorized medical marijuana in the state in 1996.
The Marijuana Policy Project Foundation in Washington says up to 2 million
people across the nation use the cannabis weed to relieve symptoms of pain,
the nausea related to chemotherapy and in the treatment of glaucoma. Others
claim it reduces muscle spasms and relieves pain, particularly in the case
of paralysis.
But the federal government has taken the position that marijuana is illegal
and should stay that way. Arrests and confrontations have resulted in
California because of federal enforcement efforts.
Lawyers for the Oakland club are arguing that judges and juries should have
the right to decide for patients.
Several justices seemed to think that approach was a stretch at best.
The court's ruling is expected by the end of June.
A ruling for the federal government would not overturn the California voter
initiative, but would eliminate clubs like the Oakland one from
distributing the drug openly.
A ruling for the Oakland club would allow special marijuana clubs to resume
distributing the drug in California, which passed one of the nation's first
medical marijuana laws in 1996.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...