News (Media Awareness Project) - US NY: Editorial: Reefer Madness |
| Title: | US NY: Editorial: Reefer Madness |
| Published On: | 2000-09-05 |
| Source: | Albany Times Union (NY) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 09:54:35 |
REEFER MADNESS
The Clinton Administration Adds To The Pain Of The Seriously Ill Who Need Medical Marijuana.
Not even the recommendation of doctors will be enough for seriously ill, often terminally so, residents of California to legally obtain marijuana. The U.S. Supreme Court, at the annoying behest of the Clinton administration, has seen to that for now. A ruling by a lower federal court that allowed a patients advocacy group to dispense marijuana, in accordance with state law, to the victims of ailments that can't otherwise be treated with legal alternatives has been put in abeyance until the Supreme Court considers the issue.
What happened is that politics has prevailed over medicine yet again. Evidence abounds that smoking marijuana can relieve the pain, nausea and vomiting experienced by many AIDS patients as well as those undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. It also can provide benefits to those afflicted with hepatitis and multiple sclerosis. It's often the only, yes, drug that offers such relief.
But the White House will hear none of it. Instead it's preoccupied with the idea that even the sensible use of marijuana somehow undermines the spirit of the law. "Disrespect" and "disregard" are its greater concerns.
It's an odd occasion, with about 5,000 Californians better off because of an admittedly unconventional approach to coping with pain and illness, for this administration to come off so high-minded. The President who once made such a point of the fact that his own experiment with marijuana took place beyond the reach of U.S. authority nonetheless has had a rather casual, pick-and-choose attitude toward the sanctity of the law.
It took the rather unusual interference, of the Clinton administration to prod the Supreme Court into a 7-1 rulng that counters the will, at least for now, of the people, as expressed in a 1996 referendum. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, on the grounds that the government, in his words, "has failed to demonstrate that the denial of necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance the public interest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of such medicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes."
Nice that someone in Washington has a straight face and a clear head. Elsewhere, though, people suffer, and needlessly so.
The Clinton Administration Adds To The Pain Of The Seriously Ill Who Need Medical Marijuana.
Not even the recommendation of doctors will be enough for seriously ill, often terminally so, residents of California to legally obtain marijuana. The U.S. Supreme Court, at the annoying behest of the Clinton administration, has seen to that for now. A ruling by a lower federal court that allowed a patients advocacy group to dispense marijuana, in accordance with state law, to the victims of ailments that can't otherwise be treated with legal alternatives has been put in abeyance until the Supreme Court considers the issue.
What happened is that politics has prevailed over medicine yet again. Evidence abounds that smoking marijuana can relieve the pain, nausea and vomiting experienced by many AIDS patients as well as those undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. It also can provide benefits to those afflicted with hepatitis and multiple sclerosis. It's often the only, yes, drug that offers such relief.
But the White House will hear none of it. Instead it's preoccupied with the idea that even the sensible use of marijuana somehow undermines the spirit of the law. "Disrespect" and "disregard" are its greater concerns.
It's an odd occasion, with about 5,000 Californians better off because of an admittedly unconventional approach to coping with pain and illness, for this administration to come off so high-minded. The President who once made such a point of the fact that his own experiment with marijuana took place beyond the reach of U.S. authority nonetheless has had a rather casual, pick-and-choose attitude toward the sanctity of the law.
It took the rather unusual interference, of the Clinton administration to prod the Supreme Court into a 7-1 rulng that counters the will, at least for now, of the people, as expressed in a 1996 referendum. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, on the grounds that the government, in his words, "has failed to demonstrate that the denial of necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance the public interest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of such medicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes."
Nice that someone in Washington has a straight face and a clear head. Elsewhere, though, people suffer, and needlessly so.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
