SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA

It's TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Juan Williams.

The Supreme Court takes up the politically charged issue of medical
marijuana tomorrow, Wednesday. The case is called United States
vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. In 1996, California voters passed
Proposition 215, which legalized the use of medical marijuana. The law
allowed people who were sick or dying to use marijuana if a doctor
recommended it. Supporters say that marijuana helps to ease nausea in AIDS
and cancer patients. They also claim that marijuana increases appetite and
can ease pain.

Opponents argue that allowing states like California to legally sell
marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, undermines federal drug
laws. Since Proposition 215 passed five years ago, a long and confusing
legal battle has ensued, with the pendulum swinging back and forth between
the state courts upholding the law and the federal courts seeking to block it.

In the past four years, nine states have passed medical marijuana laws:
California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington state,
Nevada and Colorado. When the Supreme Court takes up the case tomorrow, it
will not consider the question of whether it's constitutional for states to
enact marijuana laws on their books. Instead, it will focus on a narrower
question: Is medical necessity a defense against violating federal drug
laws that ban the sale, distribution and possession of marijuana?The idea
that marijuana should be legal for sick people is part of a long-running
and contentious national debate over drug use and the so-called war on
drugs. Today on TALK OF THE NATION, a look at the social, political and
legal issues surrounding medical marijuana.

Two guests with, as you might imagine, different views on this matter will
be joining us shortly. And as always, we welcome you and your calls. Our
number is (800) 989-8255. That's (800) 989-TALK. Our e-mail address for
you is totn@npr. org.

But first, joining us now is Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. Mr. Jones is named as a defendant in the
case United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative.

Welcome to TALK OF THE NATION, Jeff Jones.

Mr. JEFF JONES (Executive Director, Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative):
Thanks for having me on, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Jeff, are you going to be in court tomorrow?

Mr. JONES: Yes. We're going to be attending the hearing of oral arguments
about 11 AM running about one hour.

WILLIAMS: Now as I understand the current state of the law, you're not
allowed to distribute marijuana to anyone at the moment because of a court
injunction, is that right?

Mr. JONES: That's correct. Judge Breyer of the lower District Court in San
Francisco has ruled it being not within our scope of ability to dispense
medical cannabis to any patient, and then re-ruled recently in July of last
year to allow a narrow exemption for medical necessity patients once they
qualify over a . . . (unintelligible) hurdle. That was immediately stayed
within a month by the United States Supreme Court on August 29th and that's
what brings us to the hearing tomorrow.

WILLIAMS: All right. Now, Jeff, you mentioned the justice--Judge
Breyer. I think that's Charles Breyer, who's the brother of Supreme Court
Justice Stephen G. Breyer. And the Supreme Court Justice Breyer has had
to recuse himself from the case because of the involvement of his brother
at the lower court level. How does that impact this case? Does it have any
impact at all?

Mr. JONES: I'm not specifically knowing that. I'm not a legal attorney on
this issue. I feel that, you know, we need all the votes we can to get a
split decision of four-four or better to have this case move forward with a
victory for the patients that are suffering and the merit of the case. But
we look at the justices that are left making, you know, the plight of the
patient hopefully first and giving some dignity to these patients in the
last days that they might spend on the Earth here.

WILLIAMS: All right. We're speaking with Jeff Jones, executive director of
the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. He's named as a defendant in the
case United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, which will be
heard tomorrow at the US Supreme Court.

Now, Jeff Jones, I wanted to ask you, when you were able to distribute
marijuana, where did you get the marijuana from? Do you grow it yourself?
Do you buy it?

Mr. JONES: Since the passage of Prop. 215 in California in '96, patients
brought it on themselves to start cultivating legally within the law and
some created more medicine than their need and checked it back into our
cooperative for purposes of getting it back out to members that were
qualified.

WILLIAMS: And what about the patients themselves now?How did they get a
recommendation from a doctor that they were in need of marijuana?

Mr. JONES: Well, specifically, under the California law, they would visit
their local primary physician and preferably get them to specifically,
explicit, say, 'I recommend medical cannabis use for my condition and my
patient for these reasons. ' Under the current ruling or arguments
tomorrow, it's a much more limited necessity argument, ruling out a lot of
the status of patients under the state law.

WILLIAMS: Now does everyone who comes to the Oakland club in fact have a
doctor's prescription or recommendation?

Mr. JONES: Well, currently right now we're not dispensing. We're open for
hemp store related activities, selling the merchandise and items that raise
awareness on our issue and help to fund-raise for our litigation. So not
all participants in our program need to be medical patients. But for--those
that are qualified with badges from our intake department need to have a
valid, certified recommendation checked, duly screened by our nurse, for
calling the doctor and then the State Medical Board making sure that
there's a legitimate recommendation in hand.

WILLIAMS: Oh, so you call the State Medical Board, you said?

Mr. JONES: That's correct, making sure that the license of the doctor is
valid and does not have any punitive damage on it or pending litigation.

WILLIAMS: So it's not the case that someone could pretend to be sick and
come in and say, 'You know, I just want to get high. '

Mr. JONES: No. Not unless they're possessing a doctor's recommendation or
from a physician that is supporting their use.

WILLIAMS: All right. Thank you so much for speaking with us this afternoon.

Mr. JONES: You're very welcome. Thanks for having me on.

WILLIAMS: Sure. Jeff Jones is the executive director of the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. He's a defendant in the case being taken up by
the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

With us for the rest of the hour to talk about the Supreme Court case and
the issues surrounding medical marijuana are our guests: Calvina Fay, she's
executive director of Drug Free America Foundation, an organization based
in St. Petersburg, Florida, which opposes the use of medical marijuana.

Welcome to the program, Ms. Fay.

Ms. CALVINA FAY (Executive Director, Drug Free America Foundation): Good
afternoon.

WILLIAMS: And in Los Angeles is Gina Pesulima, communications director for
Americans For Medical Rights. Ms. Pesulima's group has sponsored ballot
initiatives allowing the medical use of marijuana in several states. Those
states include Maine, Nevada, Colorado and California.

Welcome to TALK OF THE NATION, Ms. Pesulima.

Ms. GINA PESULIMA (Communications Director, Americans For Medical Rights):
Thank you. Good afternoon, Juan.

WILLIAMS: And, of course, we welcome all of you. Join the conversation:
(800) 989-8255. That's (800) 989-TALK.

Gina Pesulima, let me start with you and ask: What's at stake in the case
as it's going to be argued tomorrow before the Supreme Court?

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, what is at stake across this nation is the issue of
whether or not patients can use medical necessity as a defense to exempt
them from federal drug laws in order to have safe and legal access to
marijuana in the type of centers that are run like the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Center.

WILLIAMS: Well, now let me just say that, to my mind, I'm very skeptical of
this. I'm wondering if, in fact, this isn't sort of the camel's nose under
the tent and this is really a veil or a ruse in order to have the much
broader argument about whether marijuana should be legal in the United States.

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, that's been said many times. But I can tell you--I can
assure you that, you know, we began working with patients and working as a
patient advocacy group shortly after Proposition 215 passed in California
and we moved to support similar efforts in other states to pass medical
marijuana laws. Since we began working across the United States to pass
these laws, we have focused solely on the issue of medical marijuana and
helped to craft laws in these states that provide a process of regulating
the law and making sure that only qualified patients with a legitimate
doctor's recommendation are able to take part in using medical marijuana
under these laws.

WILLIAMS: All right. Let me ask Calvina Fay for your take on this. Do you
think that, in fact, this argument is much broader than the one that will
be presented at the court tomorrow?

Ms. FAY: Absolutely. What we feel is at stake is it gives a green light
for people all over this country to use an illegal drug. It doesn't have
anything to do with medicine. It has to do with trying to legalize drugs in
this country.

WILLIAMS: Well, now what we heard just a few minutes ago from Jeff Jones,
who's executive director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, was
that you have to go to a doctor, you have to get a referral, a
recommendation. And, in fact, Jeff Jones says he checks with the Medical
Board in California to make sure that the doctor is a legitimate doctor who
can prescribe drugs.

Ms. FAY: First of all, let me correct the terminology 'prescribe,' because
you can't prescribe it. It's 'recommend. '

WILLIAMS: OK.

Ms. FAY: Secondly, let me point out that the way the initiative is written
in California and in the other states, it allows for the so-called
medicinal use of marijuana to treat a number of things. It names things
like AIDS and glaucoma and what have you. But then in every case, it ends
with 'or any other condition that could benefit from the use of it,' or I'm
not quoting it exactly, but essentially that.

WILLIAMS: You mean, if you're not feeling well today.

Ms. FAY: Exactly. And we have documented proof that people are going into
these clubs and they are purchasing marijuana for treating things such as
athlete's foot, headaches, menstrual cramps, backaches, you name it. It's
not about medicine. It's about legalizing drugs.

WILLIAMS: Now, Ms. Pesulima, when you said it's not about legalizing the
drugs, in this case marijuana, you were making the argument that, really,
this is a matter of the state in the referendum vs. the federal authority.
Is that right?

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, right. But first I'd like to address what Ms. Fay
just spoke to you.

WILLIAMS: Oh, please do. Yes.

Ms. PESULIMA: It's not correct that the laws that were passed in the
states leave an open-ended provision allowing for patients to use medical
marijuana for any other condition that they so please to. What is correct
is that, in many of these states, the laws that have been written and
passed have a provision that allow for the departments of health of those
states to conduct reviews, receive applications from patients that have
conditions that are not listed in the law and are not covered, and to
conduct reviews involving panels of doctors and reviewing peer-reviewed
research and other anecdotal research in order to approve additional
symptoms or conditions for the use of medical marijuana. So that's, I
think, what she's referring to. But it's not correct that there are
open-ended provisions allowing for the use of medical marijuana for any
condition. And there are. . .

WILLIAMS: Well, let's give Ms. Fay a chance to respond on that point.

Ms. FAY: No. That's not at all what I'm referring to. Read the language in
the proposition that was passed and read the language in all of the
propositions. The language clearly says that marijuana can be used as a
so-called medicine for conditions such as glaucoma, HIV, what have you,
blah, blah, blah, and it ends in saying, 'or any other condition that could
benefit from the use of it. ' Clearly says that, which leaves it open-ended
for pretty much anything. There is no medical oversight. You don't have to
be under the constant care of a doctor, and a key word was used. You said
'allows' the health departments to do certain things. Well, certainly
they're allowed to do that. But there's no mandate of that. There are no
checks and balances in place.

And again, I will say, this is not about medicine. These initiatives are
not backed by medical groups. They are backed by businessmen who have
openly admitted that they would like to see drugs legalized. They're
putting the money into it. They're the ones who have funded these
initiatives. If you consult with the major medical groups in this country,
the American Medical Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology and
the American Cancer Society, they have all rejected crude, smokeable
marijuana as a so-called medicine.

WILLIAMS: Well, this is an interesting point because in 1997, the Institute
of Medicine, which is a branch of the National Academy of Sciences,
released a study asked for by the Clinton White House which said that
marijuana, at least the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, may be useful
in treating certain symptoms of illness. So it would seem that that is a
non-partisan scientific survey and they conclude that it does have some
benefit.

Ms. FAY: I'd like to respond to that. We don't disagree with that. The
THC, the major intoxicating ingredient in marijuana has, in fact, been
found through valid scientific research, to have some medicinal value. THC
is produced already in pill form. It's marketed under the name of Marinol.
It is FDA approved. It is available in prescription. We have absolutely no
objection to that. That is valid medicine and it is used and we support that.

WILLIAMS: Gina, we have about 10 seconds. What do you respond to what
Ms. Fay is saying? If you can take it in tablet form, why are we having
this argument over smoking marijuana?

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, this is a long-standing argument, Juan. There are 360
known compounds in marijuana, of which THC is only one. There are several
reasons why many patients have tried using Marinol, which is the brand name
for the THC pill.

WILLIAMS: Without success, I guess, you're saying.

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, without success.

WILLIAMS: OK.

Ms. PESULIMA: And we can get into the reasons, but I know. . .

WILLIAMS: Thanks. We're talking about medical marijuana and the case coming
before the Supreme Court tomorrow and taking your calls at (800) 989-TALK.

I'm Juan Williams. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

(Soundbite of music)

WILLIAMS: It's TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Juan Williams.

We're talking about whether groups may provide marijuana to seriously ill
people on the grounds of medical necessity despite federal drug bans. The
US Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow on just this issue. Our
guests are Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug Free America Foundation,
and Gina Pesulima, communications director for Americans for Medical
Rights. And, of course, you. Join the discussion. Give us a call: (800)
989-TALK. Our e-mail address is totn@npr. org.

Ms. Pesulima, I wanted to come back to you and ask about this notion that
there's something more to smoking marijuana than simply taking a pill that
contains THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. What's the
difference?

Ms. PESULIMA: Right. Right. Well, as I began to say before, I've done
interviews with many patients. I got into this work doing research on the
medical value of marijuana, and what I heard time and time again from the
patients that I interviewed--you have to remember we're talking about the
most seriously ill: people who have terminal conditions, people who are
taking their medication every day just to survive the ravages of their
diseases and to have a normal life in spite of the conditions that they
suffer.

The majority of people who use marijuana for medical purposes are using
marijuana for symptoms like nausea and vomiting. In the case of AIDS
patients, they suffer from wasting because they're unable to keep down any
food. The issue with the THC capsule is, one, when you have a patient who's
suffering severe nausea and vomiting, the pill is hard to swallow. And even
when they are able to swallow the pill, they vomit it back up. They simply
cannot ingest their medication. This is why patients who are undergoing
cancer chemotherapy will often be given their medication to survive the
chemotherapy through injection rather than taken orally.

And the other problem patients have with THC is that--with the THC capsule
is that it's difficult to control the dosage of THC that they're taking
into their body. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It's the
ingredient that produces the effect of the high. And most patients,
especially elderly people, people who have never used marijuana and are
using it to survive, can't tolerate those types of side effects. They take
one THC pill and get a strong dosage of that ingredient. Whereas patients
report that when they smoke marijuana, they can control the dosage and
instead of taking a whole THC capsule and being debilitate for the rest of
the day, they can take one or two puffs off a marijuana cigarette and have
much milder effect.

WILLIAMS: Does that make sense to you, Calvina Fay?

Ms. FAY: I'm just sitting here kind of chuckling to myself because all of
it is just so, so ridiculous to listen to her. First of all, think about
when a person is in the hospital and they're dying with cancer. What's the
first thing the doctor does?The doctor mandates no smoking around that
patient. They post signs. I've had family members that I've lost to
cancer. I know this firsthand. They not only don't want that patient
smoking, they don't want anybody around them smoking. And it's absurd to
think that we would hand a person who's dying with cancer a cigarette and
tell them to smoke it.

WILLIAMS: Well, what about a person with AIDS?

Ms. FAY: With a person with AIDS, that's another issue, too. We know that
marijuana suppresses the immune system. When you have someone who has AIDS,
they have already a suppressed immune system. Why would you want to further
do that?You're doing further harm to them. That's not what this is
about. And the people that are free to use marijuana under this initiative
are not those sick and dying people that she's describing. Go down to the
Cannabis Buyers Club. Take a look at what's in there. Take a look at the
kind of people that are going in there. They are people that are drug
users. The people that have financed these initiatives are businesspeople
who admit they want drugs legalized. If this is such a great medicine that
we need to treat people, why don't we have all of our major medical groups
out there lobbying for this? Why are they saying, 'No, we reject this as a
medicine'?

WILLIAMS: Now these businessmen that you're referring to, Calvina
Fay--Calvina Fay is the executive director of Drug Free America
Foundation. These businesspeople want to sell it as cigarettes--sell
marijuana as cigarettes?

Ms. FAY: You'd have to ask them what they ultimately want to do with it.

WILLIAMS: Well, who are they?

Ms. FAY: Well, George Soros.

WILLIAMS: Soros? Well, he's not a businessman in this case. I mean, he's a
philanthropist who simply believes in this cause.

Ms. FAY: Well, he's also a businessman. He makes his money with commodities.

WILLIAMS: True. But I. . .

Ms. FAY: And, of course, drugs would be a really great commodity.

WILLIAMS: Oh, you think that? Oh, you think that Soros wants to bring
marijuana into the country?

Ms. FAY: You'd have to ask him what ultimately he's up to.

WILLIAMS: Uh-huh.

Ms. FAY: I can tell you that he wrote in his book, "Soros on Soros" that
he believes we should legalize all drugs except possibly crack cocaine,
regulate them and distribute them.

WILLIAMS: But that could be a response to the fact that we have so many
people in jail on drug charges and that some people are critics of the
so-called war on drugs.

Ms. FAY: It could be. Like I said, you'd have to ask him. But he's a
businessperson, and he's invested an awful lot of money into getting these
initiatives passed. We've pulled the public records on the initiatives
across the country, and George Soros and his two other business colleagues,
Peter Lewis and John Sperling, all three of those people being very
wealthy, are the backers behind these initiatives. That's where the money
is coming from. If you take it and you break it down, only about 2 percent
is coming from other sources.

WILLIAMS: And. . .

Ms. FAY: It's coming from these guys.

WILLIAMS: And where does the money come from for Drug Free America Foundation?

Ms. FAY: Well, we're a private foundation from private donations. We don't
have anywhere near the kind of money they have. We're like the flea on the
elephant. We just don't have that kind of money.

WILLIAMS: All right. Let me take some calls. Let me go to Midge who's in
Gates Mills, Ohio. Midge, you're on TALK OF THE NATION with Calvina Fay and
Gina Pesulima. Welcome.

MIDGE (Caller): Hi. Thanks for taking my call.

WILLIAMS: Oh, sure.

MIDGE: I just found it a very informative discussion so far that I've been
listening to. First, let me say that I am a cancer survivor and. . .

WILLIAMS: What kind of cancer did you have, Midge?

MIDGE: I have breast cancer, and at the time I had breast cancer, they also
found a lump on my kidney that ended up not being cancer. But I also had to
have a partial nephrectomy and I had a bone marrow transplant. Also, my
husband is an oncologist and I'm an RN.

WILLIAMS: Jeez.

MIDGE: And I do have to say that my husband is one of those physicians who
would never use marijuana and basically considers it a bogus discussion.
And I'm glad to hear them talk--not from the sense is--it is good to talk
about it. I shouldn't say that. But from my point of view, having been a
patient, there are so many wonderful medications out there now. I received
so much help. And when I had my bone marrow transplant and open sores in my
throat, there's no way that I could have taken marijuana to increase my
appetite, could have inhaled or smoked. This is absolutely ludicrous.

The one lady, I really agree with everything that she's saying, obviously,
in having been a patient. I can only stress that there are wonderful
medications out there, and doctors need to be educated. And I'm glad you're
having the discussion. And I think the discussion and the debate needs to
focus on patient comfort, patients being allowed to have dignity, dying
with dignity, living with dignity and being pain-free. And if there is
something in marijuana that's helpful, I agree 100 percent that there
should be study on it. But the idea of smoking marijuana and controlling
the dosage, I mean, forget about that. I mean, anybody who's lived through
the '60s knows you don't control the amount of marijuana when you inhale
and a lot of it depends on what each and every type of marijuana or what is
in it. But the thing is. . .

WILLIAMS: Well, Midge, let me ask you a question.

MIDGE: Yes. Go ahead.

WILLIAMS: As someone who has suffered with cancer. . .

MIDGE: Yes.

WILLIAMS: . . . wouldn't you want to give someone who is in that tragic
condition. . .

MIDGE: Yes.

WILLIAMS: . . . the right to do whatever they could to ease their pain and
discomfort?

MIDGE: Well, that is a really loaded question, because it can go in a lot
of directions. I think that we need people--and I'm not trying to skirt
that--but what I think we need is people who are well
educated. Oncologists really know what they're doing with pain
management. Unfortunately, a lot of physicians and a lot of nurses aren't.
They worry about people getting addicted to morphine when it should not
even be an issue. When it's been proven that no matter how high the dosage
is, when you don't need it anymore, people are not addicted. And also if
you have people who are pain-free, their appetite increases, they live
longer even when they're considered at the end. . .

WILLIAMS: Hey, slow down. Slow down, Midge. You're saying give them
morphine instead of marijuana?

MIDGE: Well, what I--yes, I am saying that because it--having been a person
who did have to receive a morphine drip, they do like a spinal epidural.
They give morphine--when I had the kidney surgery. Yes, and it can be
carefully titrated. You can be weaned off it. You can--other medications
can be used instead then when you can be weaned off it. It takes physicians
being educated about pain management. It's become a whole new field.

Also, there's a wonderful drug called Zofran that I was given when I was on
chemotherapy. People can receive chemotherapy and not be nauseated. I was
able to go home and eat a full meal. . .

WILLIAMS: Wow. This is wonderful. All right.

MIDGE: . . . and eat supper. It's just amazing and wonderful what is out
there and the new medications that are there that are already there to help
people. And. . .

WILLIAMS: Thank you for your call, Midge.

MIDGE: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Let me get a response here from Gina Pesulima, the communications
director for Americans for Medical Rights. What do you think about Midge's
perspective on this, Gina?

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, I think she made a lot of good points that I agree
with. So I'd like to back up and just first state that, you know, we're
not saying that marijuana used medicinally is a panacea. What we're saying
is--and I think that this caller is saying the same thing in essence--is
that doctors should have every available treatment option to provide to
their patients, especially patients who are living with terminal
conditions. And as is the case with all medications, patients react and
respond differently to all the medications that are available to them.

WILLIAMS: All right. Let me take a call from Barry Joe(ph) in Portland,
Oregon. Barry Joe, welcome to TALK OF THE NATION.

BARRY JOE (Caller): Hello, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Hi.

BARRY JOE: How are you today?

WILLIAMS: Fine, thanks. How are you?

BARRY JOE: I'm doing fine. I'm currently a designated primary caregiver and
grow marijuana under the Oregon Health Division Medical Marijuana Program.

WILLIAMS: Wait a second. What did you say you were?

BARRY JOE: I am a designated primary caregiver and grow marijuana.

WILLIAMS: Wait. So you're a doctor.

BARRY JOE: No, I'm not.

WILLIAMS: No, you're. . .

BARRY JOE: I'm just a well-bodied person. And Oregon Health Division runs a
registry of patients and individuals they designate to produce their
medical marijuana.

WILLIAMS: Wait. So wait a second. So what is a primary caregiver? What does
that mean?

BARRY JOE: In this case, it's--under--there's some legislation that defines
it, but basically it boils down to the person who's, you know, seriously
involved in the patient's well-being. And in this case providing the
marijuana medicine that works qualifies as that involvement.

WILLIAMS: So as a primary caregiver does that translate into pot grower?

BARRY JOE: Yes. And the simplest way to look at it, it's more somebody
who's dedicated and is allowed under the law to be the person responsible
for assisting the patient to produce the marijuana that they benefit from.

WILLIAMS: So where do you grow it?

BARRY JOE: Under the law, the registered plant location has to be at either
a place that's under the patient's control or under the caregiver's
control. So if I had you as a patient, Juan, and you were living in
Oregon, I could grow it at your house or I could grow it at my house. But
we would jointly possess under your patient card the marijuana, even though
it might be technically at my house at the time.

WILLIAMS: All right.

BARRY JOE: My protection, my exemption from the criminal law would be under
the patient who registered the garden.

WILLIAMS: So the local police can't bust you. The state police can't bust
you. But what happens if the FBI, if federal agents, come?

BARRY JOE: Well, it would be the Drug Enforcement Administration, and
that's why we take efforts on our end to prequalify any patients with the
four points of law that are going before the Oregon Supreme Court. That the
people have a medical necessity because they have a debilitating condition.
That marijuana works and they have exhausted the other legal remedies.
They've tried the pharmaceutical regimes and they've tried the alternative
therapies and they've found that the thing that works for them--and it's
different with every patient. And we're finding it's also different with
different kinds of marijuana. Just like dogs and horses, they're not all
the same. So what we find is that what works for one person works for another.

So our intent is to qualify people that they need the marijuana's
medicine. Then once we get that definition we go one step further to try
to find the particular variety or breed, so to speak, of marijuana that
meets that person's condition, because somebody with HIV has a different
thing that somebody that has a problem with their own saliva because
they've had their esophagus removed from cancer and they can't put their
own saliva somewhere in the body because the place where you and I might
deal with it is gone.

WILLIAMS: All right.

BARRY JOE: So it's a different--it's a mixed bag. It's. . .

WILLIAMS: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Barry Joe, I wanted to ask you two quick questions. One is: Do you smoke
marijuana even though you're not sick?

BARRY JOE: Well, marijuana in Oregon--it's one of the states where
possession and use has been decriminalized, where possession of less than
an ounce is technically a violation of the law, but it's not a criminal
activity. So I've been involved in the use of marijuana for, you know,
virtually my adult life. Under the Oregon part of the law where if I get
caught with up an ounce, I can get essentially a traffic ticket.

WILLIAMS: And what you do you think of the concern from Calvina Fay that
essentially what's going on here is not the argument that's going to be
heard at the Supreme Court tomorrow about the right of a state to enforce a
referendum issue to allow medical marijuana vs. the right of the federal
government to ban it as a criminal substance, but really it's an argument
about simply making marijuana legal in all the United States?

BARRY JOE: Well, I think it goes beyond that because it comes down to
control of resources. And I right now with a patient that's using a tea or
an oil or a tincture or using cookies made with marijuana leaves, they're
able to go into their doctor, and their doctor can't ethically prescribe
the pharmaceuticals that have the sometimes toxic side effects. And so
it's been my experience the patients that I grow for drop their
pharmaceutical load by a third or maybe two-thirds, and that's
economic. So my bag of chicken manure is in direct competition with the
pharmaceutical companies' labs. And the one way to stop me from competing
is to simply make the whole thing illegal.

WILLIAMS: Well, Calvina Fay has a point to make here.

Ms. FAY: Do you realize that what has just been described is that this
proposition in his state, Oregon. . .

WILLIAMS: Oregon.

Ms. FAY: . . . has legalized drug dealing? He is a drug dealer. That's
essentially what's been legalized.

WILLIAMS: Are you a drug dealer, Barry Joe? That's a pretty negative title
to carry around. Do you consider yourself a drug dealer?

BARRY JOE: Well, if the grocery store that has a pharmacy is considered a
drug dealer, I guess. It's just that our pharmacy's spelt with an F. We
put the farm in pharmacy.

Ms. FAY: Well, there's a big difference. There's a big difference. A
drugstore that's a pharmacy has to be licensed. They have to be inspected
by the government. They have to meet certain guidelines. And the medicine
that they dispense has to be shown to be legitimate medicine, shown to be
effective, shown to be safe. There's some regulation there. There is no
regulation over what you're doing, Barry. You're running wild there with. . .

WILLIAMS: Well, I think Barry Joe said he is designated there as a primary
caregiver, right, Barry Joe?

BARRY JOE: Right.

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, Juan. . .

BARRY JOE: I'm registered with the Oregon Health Division Medical Marijuana
Program, which is a state agency. And people have to be qualified and they
have to be designated.

WILLIAMS: All right.

BARRY JOE: And. . .

WILLIAMS: Now Gina wants to get in here. Go right ahead, Gina.

Ms. PESULIMA: I just want to--I mean, the statements that are being made
are inflammatory in regard to, you know, making people drug dealers in
places like Oregon. What this illustrates is the fact that marijuana can be
used medicinally, can be safely used medicinally and be regulated without
legalizing marijuana. And I wanted to say that to go back to Calvina's
earlier remark that this is a camel's nose under the tent.

What's occurring in Oregon is all within the law that passed by
voters. What it did is it set up a statewide registry system. It's run by
the Department of Health. Law enforcement has access to the entire list of
patients and caregivers that are registered with the system. In order to
check to make sure that they are legitimately registered in the case that,
you know, law enforcement finds marijuana growing at a residence or finds
somebody in possession of marijuana. So it's not true that there are no
regulations involved. And, you know, this is a prime example of how state
regulation can work without legalizing marijuana.

WILLIAMS: All right. Well, let me give Ms. Fay a chance to respond when we
return. We're going to take a short break. We're talking about whether
medical necessity can be used as a defense against federal laws that make
distribution of marijuana a crime. And you can continue this discussion
online. Go to npr. org. I'm Juan Williams. It's TALK OF THE NATION from NPR
News.

(Announcements)

WILLIAMS: Today we're talking about the tension between federal laws and
some state laws regarding the possession, use and distribution of marijuana
for medicinal purposes. My guests are Calvina Fay, executive director of
Drug Free America Foundation and Gina Pesulima, communications director for
Americans for Medical Rights and you. Join the conversation. We'd love to
hear from you, (800) 989-TALK. Our e-mail address is totn@npr. org.

Calvina Fay, I wanted to ask you about whether you would consider it
possible for the FDA to one day approve the medical use of marijuana?

Ms. FAY: I don't see how the FDA could ever approve crude smokeable
marijuana as medicine. You see, the process of FDA, they go through to
approve a medicine, there's minimum criteria that has to be met. And in
several cases, marijuana cannot meet that. The way we arrive at medicine is
like we did with marinol, the products. . .

WILLIAMS: THC.

Ms. FAY: . . . the THC that's FDA approved. A good analogy is to look at
how we got the Digitalis tablet to treat heart patients. It comes from the
digitalis plant. We don't take the digitalis plant and crumble it up and
roll it up in paper and smoke it. We extract from it what has the medicinal
value and it's produced in a laboratory in pill form. We do the same thing
with the THC from marijuana. It just--it can't meet the guidelines for FDA
approval. It's impossible. You're not able to dose it properly. It has all
these impure properties in it that not only have no medicinal value, but
they're dangerous.

WILLIAMS: Well, let's stop for a second here, Calvina, and talk about a
comparison. Let's say someone said to you, 'You know what?I'm going to have
a drink here. I'm not feeling well and I think a drink would help me,'
would you say to that person, 'No, you can't use alcohol'?

Ms. FAY: Well, of course, alcohol is a legal substance. I'm not making
minor of it. It's an addictive drug and it's an impairing drug. But I would
certainly object to someone promoting alcohol and calling it a
medicine. That's not what it is. It's a drug. It's not a medicine. And I
don't think it could receive FDA approval as a medicine.

WILLIAMS: Well, would you allow--if this was Prohibition and someone was
making the argument, 'Let's legalize alcohol today,' would you be in
support or opposed to that?

Ms. FAY: I think if we knew today what we knew years ago when we legalized
alcohol, we probably would not do that today. We know today much more about
the addictive powers of it, about the harms of it. And I think probably we
would not choose to legalize it. We didn't have that kind of information
years ago.

WILLIAMS: So you drink alcohol occasionally, but you don't smoke?

Ms. FAY: I've never understood the concept of smoking. To me it doesn't
make sense for a human being to suck smoke in their lungs. It's never even
occurred to me to smoke a cigarette because of that.

WILLIAMS: And the whole idea of drug legalization is one that personally
for you is offensive. Did you know people who have suffered from addiction?

Ms. FAY: I've had family members that I've lost to addiction. I have
friends that have lost children to drugs. I've worked with many families
through the years--I've been involved in this field for about 20 years
now. And I've seen what drugs do to--in children. . .

WILLIAMS: Including marijuana.

Ms. FAY: Including marijuana. And in most cases, the children start with
marijuana. That was their beginning drug.

WILLIAMS: Gina Pesulima, what about your experience on a personal basis?
Gina, are you there?Gina Pesulima, are you there?OK. I guess Gina is not
there.

Let's go back to the phones. Let's go to Debbie, who's in Eagle River,
Alaska. Debbie, you're on TALK OF THE NATION. Welcome. Debbie, are you
there? Oops. I guess we're having a little problem here.

Gina--I--I'm sorry, Calvina, I wanted to come back to you on the argument
that will appear before the court tomorrow. When the argument is made, it's
going to be solely on this issue of the right of a state to have a
referendum to enact a law vs. the right of the federal government to say
that we find this substance to be illegal. Is it hypocrisy on the part of a
Republican administration which believes in states' rights to try to
challenge the right of citizens to vote, make a decision one way or the
other, on the use of medical marijuana?

Ms. FAY: I don't think so. I think--I mean, of course, I can't speak on
behalf of the administration. I certainly don't represent them. But I would
expect nothing less of them. We have firm laws on the books, and I would
expect whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in office to enforce
our laws and to uphold our Constitution. And, you know, we have certain
federal laws that are there for the good of our entire nation. And, you
know, an independent state can't just decide they're going to ignore those
laws and throw them out. For example, we have--as much as we hate it, we
have a federal income tax. And one state can't just decide they're not
going to pay income taxes. I mean, that's the way our Constitution works.
We have federal laws for a reason.

WILLIAMS: But on the issue on something like medicinal marijuana, there's
never been a national referendum. Could there be such a thing?

Ms. FAY: Well, there's always a possibility for anything. But this is not
a new issue. The issue of crude marijuana as a so-called medicine was
argued 10 years, 20 years ago. It's been an issue that's cropped up time
and time again. And we know from individuals and groups who are very vocal
advocates for the legalization of drugs that they have said for the last 10
or so years--they've said that this is the way we're going to usher in drug
legalization. We have them on videotape. We have written statements from
them where they have said they will use marijuana as a so-called medicine
as a red herring to usher in drug legalization. So we know that's what
it's about.

WILLIAMS: All right. Let me try to get Al, who's in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, on the phone. Al, are you there?

AL (Caller): I certainly am.

WILLIAMS: All right. Wonderful. Go right ahead, Al.

AL: Well, you kind of nailed my question a little bit. But I think it's a
kind of interesting disclaimer that states' rights apply only in certain
things. Well, if we approve of the states' rights that they're pushing
for, that's great; but if it's something I don't believe in, that's not
great. I don't feel that there--if a state has a referendum and the
majority of the people support the referendum, I don't see how the federal
government can come in and say, 'Well, we don't think that your people are
well educated enough and have enough information to make a good decision;
therefore, we are going to be pressing our will against the people in
saying, "I'm sorry, we know better than you..."

WILLIAMS: But, Al, did you hear what Calvina said?She said you can't have a
state referendum that says, 'Let's not pay federal income tax.'

AL: Right. Well, first of all, you've got to start with the premise that
this substance is made illegal by, you know, the federal
government. Again, they're saying that the substance is bad for you.
Remember what happened--you know, it's kind of interesting she mentioned
Prohibition in the '20s. And how much bad has come out of the Prohibition
that they had in the '20s? Oh, gangs, gangsters, things like that, illegal
crime--I mean, organized crime.

You know, how many hundreds of millions, billions and billions of dollars
have we spent in--you know, not that I'm saying drugs are the greatest
thing in the world, but we spend billions upon billions upon billions of
dollars against the war on drugs, and it doesn't seem like it's a whole lot
closer when I was a teen-ager 20 years ago.

WILLIAMS: Well, let me allow Calvina to respond to you, Al.

AL: OK.

Ms. FAY: I would, because the fact--the mantra that you hear out there
that we've lost the war on drugs is really a myth. If you look
statistically--I mean, you know, I'll be happy to give some Web site
references or whatever, but all you have to do is look at the
numbers. Statistically, we have not lost the war on drugs. In the last 20
years, we have reduced overall drug use in this country by greater than 50
percent. If we had had that kind of progress in things like teen-age
pregnancy, HIV, cancer, anything like that, we would not be calling it a
failure. So we don't consider--we that have looked at the statistics do not
consider that we have failed in the war on the drugs. We certainly haven't
won it, but I wouldn't call that a failure.

Now we've had our little blips where we've had in recent years some slight
increase and there are reasons for it. It's because there's groups out
there promoting illegal drugs like marijuana as a so-called medicine. And
there is the George Soros money out there promoting other pro-legalization
activities. So there're reasons that we've lost a little ground. But we're
still nowhere near the percentage of drug use we were in this country back
in the '70s when we had our major drug epidemic in this country.

WILLIAMS: Gina Pesulima, communications director for Americans for Medical
Rights, I believe you're back with us.

Ms. PESULIMA: Yes, I am.

WILLIAMS: Thanks. Sorry we lost you there for a moment. Gina, I wanted to
ask you something that Calvina was commenting on. Calvina said, you know,
if this was Prohibition, she's not sure we would make alcohol legal today.
How do you feel about it?And what personal experience have you had with
people who've used marijuana? Did you find that it is, in fact, a danger?
Is it any different than tobacco, alcohol?

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, I think we, you know, should have learned a lesson
with Prohibition of alcohol, that when you force prohibition, something
goes on the black market and illegal activity springs up around that
substance. I personally have had loved ones ravaged by the disease of
addiction. And, you know, frankly, I must say that nobody wants their
children, nobody wants their loved ones to become addicted to
drugs. People who advocate the use of medical marijuana by patients, you
know, also love their children and do not want their children to be
addicted to substances, do not want their children to abuse marijuana.
These are two separate issues.

We're talking about the use of marijuana for medical purposes by a very
distinct and limited class of people who will suffer harm and who have, you
know, a medical need to use marijuana and have tried other substances, have
tried other approved medications and just aren't getting the kind of
results that they need to relieve their symptoms. And I think the caller
that we heard earlier from Oregon really helped to bring to light that
there's a huge difference between the type of fears that are being
expressed by Calvina and the scare tactics that are often used by
organizations such as hers.

There's a big difference between that and the way that these laws are
working on a ground level in the states where they've passed to improve the
lives of hundreds of thousands of patients. And we have members of law
enforcement and politicians in these states that oppose these laws from the
get go who are now saying that none of their greatest fears that they had
before these laws passed have come to pass, come to fruition.

WILLIAMS: All right. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR
News. How interesting that both of you, Calvina Fay and Gina Pesulima, on
opposite sides of this issue have both had relatives who've been impacted
by drugs. I mean, both of you come to this with some passion.

Ms. PESULIMA: Right. And I have to say that I don't think criminalizing
seriously ill people is the way to fight drug addiction. I don't think it's
the way to prevent young people from using substances like marijuana.

Ms. FAY: I certainly don't think fighting drugs, though, the answer to it
is making it more readily available and scamming the American public by
claiming that a drug that's addictive and does a lot of damage is a
medicine. The person that wrote Prop 215 out in California is a guy named
Dennis Peron. Dennis Peron was on public television bragging that he was
going to get away with this for a few years, bragging that he considered
all uses of marijuana as medicinal, and laughing about it and really kind
of laughing at the American public for buying into his scam. And, you
know, he bragged that he was going to get away with it for a few years. And
he's making a lot of money on this issue.

Ms. PESULIMA: Well. . .

WILLIAMS: All right. Let me read some e-mail to you, Gina. This one comes
from Chris in San Diego. And Chris writes, 'Why is it that alcohol and
tobacco products are more dangerous and lethal than marijuana, yet they are
legal and marijuana isn't?' What do you think? Gina.

Ms. PESULIMA: What do I think about that?

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

Ms. PESULIMA: Well, I agree with that.

WILLIAMS: So you would be for legalizing marijuana totally?

Ms. PESULIMA: No, I can't say I would be. I haven't made that decision yet
because I--and I concur with the IOM Report. I concur with the fears that
everyone else shares about. . .

WILLIAMS: The IOM Report being the Institute of Medicine, which is an
affiliate of the National Academy of Science, right?

Ms. PESULIMA: Right. I agree that there are risks associated with using
smoked marijuana. We agree with the IOM Report that research could continue
into creating alternative systems of delivery. We don't think that smoking
marijuana is the ideal way to take a medicine. But there are--the IOM
Report goes on to recognize that because it would be many years before
another system of delivery is developed that for in the meantime there is
no clear alternative