News (Media Awareness Project) - US NJ: OPED: U.S. Law Fights Drug Abuse |
Title: | US NJ: OPED: U.S. Law Fights Drug Abuse |
Published On: | 2009-01-15 |
Source: | Times, The (Trenton, NJ) |
Fetched On: | 2009-01-15 18:50:06 |
U.S. LAW FIGHTS DRUG ABUSE
Times columnist Gregory Sullivan acknowledges marijuana's
therapeutic potential, but he argues that federal law must be
changed before New Jersey passes its Compassionate Use Medical
Marijuana Act (The Times, "Compassionate, but still illegal," Dec.
30). Mr. Sullivan is apparently unaware of the recent U.S. Supreme
Court action in the Garden Grove case, which resolved the conflict
between federal and state marijuana laws. The U.S. Supreme Court
refused to hear, and thus let stand, a decision from California's
Fourth District Court of Appeals, which said: "Congress enacted the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to combat recreational drug abuse
and curb drug trafficking. Its goal was not to regulate the practice
of medicine, a task that falls within the traditional powers of
the states. ... Congress regulates medical practice (only) insofar
as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a
means to engage in illicit drug dealing ... . Beyond this, however,
the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice
of medicine generally."
The federal case came about when police in Garden Grove, Calif.,
seized about one-third of an ounce of marijuana from a man named
Felix Kha during a traffic stop. The drug charge was dismissed when
Mr. Kha produced documentation showing he was a medical marijuana
patient. The court then granted Mr. Kha's motion for the return of
his marijuana, which the state of California recognizes as his medicine.
The city of Garden Grove refused to return it, however, because
marijuana is generally prohibited under federal law. The city
maintained that, to the extent state law mandated the return of Mr.
Kha's marijuana, it is pre-empted by federal law. The appeals court
said that California's law does not "exempt medical marijuana from
prosecution under federal law ... it merely exempts certain conduct
by certain persons from California drug laws." So, what we are left
with is a state statutory scheme that limits state prosecution for
medical marijuana possession but does not limit enforcement of the
federal drug laws. This scenario simply does not implicate federal
supremacy concerns.
In other words, there is no conflict between federal law and New
Jersey's Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. One has to do with
drug abuse and one has to do with the appropriate practice of
medicine in New Jersey.
In addition to the court decision, President-elect Barack Obama has
promised to end federal interference with states' medical marijuana
laws when he is in office.
Columnist Sullivan is correct when he says that the federal CSA
should be modified to permit the medical use of marijuana. The
federal government insists that marijuana remain a Schedule I drug,
which means that it has no accepted medical use in the U.S., and is
unsafe for use even under medical supervision. This is an
embarrassment to science, the medical profession and even common sense.
There is a wealth of scientific data that support the therapeutic
efficacy and safety of marijuana for a wide variety of symptoms and
conditions. Thousands of physicians have recommended marijuana for
hundreds of thousands of patients in the 13 states that have
legalized medical marijuana. Even common sense understands that
doctors prescribe far more dangerous and addicting drugs than
marijuana every day.
Yet common sense on the federal level may well be an uncommon
commodity. A previous attempt to modify the CSA in 1972 was met with
14 years of intense federal resistance. Finally, in 1986, after
three court orders, two years of hearings were begun that led to
Judge Francis Young's fairly famous decision in 1988. Judge Young
said that the evidence clearly showed that marijuana had therapeutic
value and that it should be available for patients in the U.S. His
decision was overturned by federal bureaucrats.
Patients in New Jersey should not have to suffer needlessly while
they wait for the federal government to catch up with advances in
medical science and practice. That's not how America was designed to operate.
Times columnist Gregory Sullivan acknowledges marijuana's
therapeutic potential, but he argues that federal law must be
changed before New Jersey passes its Compassionate Use Medical
Marijuana Act (The Times, "Compassionate, but still illegal," Dec.
30). Mr. Sullivan is apparently unaware of the recent U.S. Supreme
Court action in the Garden Grove case, which resolved the conflict
between federal and state marijuana laws. The U.S. Supreme Court
refused to hear, and thus let stand, a decision from California's
Fourth District Court of Appeals, which said: "Congress enacted the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to combat recreational drug abuse
and curb drug trafficking. Its goal was not to regulate the practice
of medicine, a task that falls within the traditional powers of
the states. ... Congress regulates medical practice (only) insofar
as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a
means to engage in illicit drug dealing ... . Beyond this, however,
the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice
of medicine generally."
The federal case came about when police in Garden Grove, Calif.,
seized about one-third of an ounce of marijuana from a man named
Felix Kha during a traffic stop. The drug charge was dismissed when
Mr. Kha produced documentation showing he was a medical marijuana
patient. The court then granted Mr. Kha's motion for the return of
his marijuana, which the state of California recognizes as his medicine.
The city of Garden Grove refused to return it, however, because
marijuana is generally prohibited under federal law. The city
maintained that, to the extent state law mandated the return of Mr.
Kha's marijuana, it is pre-empted by federal law. The appeals court
said that California's law does not "exempt medical marijuana from
prosecution under federal law ... it merely exempts certain conduct
by certain persons from California drug laws." So, what we are left
with is a state statutory scheme that limits state prosecution for
medical marijuana possession but does not limit enforcement of the
federal drug laws. This scenario simply does not implicate federal
supremacy concerns.
In other words, there is no conflict between federal law and New
Jersey's Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. One has to do with
drug abuse and one has to do with the appropriate practice of
medicine in New Jersey.
In addition to the court decision, President-elect Barack Obama has
promised to end federal interference with states' medical marijuana
laws when he is in office.
Columnist Sullivan is correct when he says that the federal CSA
should be modified to permit the medical use of marijuana. The
federal government insists that marijuana remain a Schedule I drug,
which means that it has no accepted medical use in the U.S., and is
unsafe for use even under medical supervision. This is an
embarrassment to science, the medical profession and even common sense.
There is a wealth of scientific data that support the therapeutic
efficacy and safety of marijuana for a wide variety of symptoms and
conditions. Thousands of physicians have recommended marijuana for
hundreds of thousands of patients in the 13 states that have
legalized medical marijuana. Even common sense understands that
doctors prescribe far more dangerous and addicting drugs than
marijuana every day.
Yet common sense on the federal level may well be an uncommon
commodity. A previous attempt to modify the CSA in 1972 was met with
14 years of intense federal resistance. Finally, in 1986, after
three court orders, two years of hearings were begun that led to
Judge Francis Young's fairly famous decision in 1988. Judge Young
said that the evidence clearly showed that marijuana had therapeutic
value and that it should be available for patients in the U.S. His
decision was overturned by federal bureaucrats.
Patients in New Jersey should not have to suffer needlessly while
they wait for the federal government to catch up with advances in
medical science and practice. That's not how America was designed to operate.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...