MEDICAL MARIJUANA MOVEMENT NOTCHES SEVERAL VICTORIES

Two states move closer to legalizing medical marijuana, while court battles
in two other jurisdictions end with favorable verdicts for legalization
proponents.

Legislatures in Vermont and Maryland have moved toward legalizing the
medical use of marijuana. In addition, recent legal challenges in two
jurisdictions have ruled in favor of the controversial use of marijuana for
patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other debilitating illnesses.

In Vermont, the state Senate in March passed a comprehensive measure
legalizing and tightly controlling the cultivation and use of marijuana by
patients. The Vermont Psychiatric Association (VPA) has actively supported
the effort to legalize marijuana for specific purposes under significant
controls and restrictions.

"The VPA took this position because we felt that decisions about health
care should remain between individuals and their physicians," noted VPA
public affairs representative David Fassler, M.D., who is also an APA
trustee-at-large. "In general, we are wary about government intrusion into
the practice of medicine. We realize that the use of marijuana for medical
purposes remains controversial. Yet, many of the treatments we use in
medicine today are controversial. We are concerned, however, when these
issues get overly politicized. In general, that isnt a good way to make
public policy."

In December 1997, APA published a position statement emphasizing that
"while adequate research evidence is lacking at this time to support the
medicinal use of marijuana, there is clinical experience claiming potential
usefulness of marijuana in patients with AIDS and other debilitating
conditions, such as for symptoms of pain and vomiting, promotion of weight
gain, and reduction of intraocular pressure."

The position statement notes that research to substantiate these claims
should be expedited and concludes that marijuana should be approved for
medical uses and controlled as a Schedule II drug under the provisions of
the Controlled Substances Act.

Currently, marijuana is a Schedule I substance, defined as having a high
potential for abuse and addiction and no accepted medical uses.

However, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine, at the request of the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy, reviewed the scientific
evidence on the medical use of marijuana and found that "scientific data
indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs for pain
relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." It
recommended strictly controlled and defined clinical trials of marijuana
and the multiple cannabinoid compounds that are found in the plant.

Vermont Sees Medical Value

Supporters of legalizing the medical use of marijuana in Vermont agree,
arguing that marijuana simply shouldn't be listed as a Schedule I drug.

A report by the Vermont State Legislative Medical Marijuana Study Committee
released last December described 13 findings. The first finding was "there
is medical value in using marijuana to ameliorate some symptoms associated
with severe illnesses and the treatment thereof." That finding alone, the
report noted, contradicts the requirements for placing a drug in Schedule
I. Another finding states that "marijuana is misclassified by the federal
government as a Schedule I drug and should be reclassified to permit
physicians to prescribe and pharmacies to dispense medical marijuana."

Both the Vermont Attorney General's Office and the state's attorney
endorsed those two findings. The remaining findings describe a potential
system for distribution and control of medical marijuana and were generally
endorsed, with some amendments, by both offices.

The Vermont bill, S 76, passed the state Senate in March. A similar bill
passed the state House last year and is awaiting reintroduction. The new
law would require patients who want to use medical marijuana to register
with the state and to be certified by a physician as having one of a short
list of specified conditions. A panel of three physicians set up by the
Vermont Department of Health would decide whether a patient is eligible
under the program.

If eligible, a registered patient or his or her registered caregiver would
be allowed to grow and possess a limited amount of marijuana. The plants
and any marijuana for consumption would have to be secured, and both
patients and caregivers would be issued identification cards. Consumption
of marijuana would be strictly limited to the patient's residence.

Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who is a physician and candidate for
the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, strongly
opposed the measure, as does his successor, Gov. James Douglas, who cites
law-enforcement concerns.

Action in Other States

In Maryland, during the same week the Vermont bill passed, state delegates
gave preliminary approval to a measure that would essentially decriminalize
the use of marijuana for medical purposes by significantly reducing the
penalties for possessing or using the drug. A similar bill was awaiting
action in a Maryland Senate committee in late March.

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. (R) has indicated that he could support
the bill, which would cap the penalty for possession or use of marijuana at
$100, with no possibility of jail time.

In essence, the bill gives judges the ability to consider "medical use of
marijuana as a mitigating factor," and proponents of the measure hope that
judges would simply throw out charges brought against a patient using
marijuana for medical purposes.

Last year, residents of the District of Columbia won a suit in federal
district court after Congress attempted to stop a ballot initiative
allowing residents to vote on legalizing medical marijuana. The court said
that Congress - which has jurisdiction over D.C. - had overstepped its
authority, infringing on residents' right to self-determination. Since that
ruling, D.C. residents have not voted on such an initiative

Last fall, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the federal
government may not revoke the licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana
to their patients. The ruling upheld a five-year-old district court
decision in California responding to the federal government's threat to
revoke the DEA licenses of physicians who recommend marijuana to patients.
The appeals court decision indicated that the federal government's policy
interfered with the First Amendment right of free speech, in this case
between physicians and their patients.

Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
state also have enacted medical marijuana laws