THE BUZZ: BUT I HAVE A PRESCRIPTION!

Doctors, scientists and activists discuss the legalization of medicinal
marijuana

It's hard to believe marijuana was once not only legal in the United
States, but an accepted pharmaceutical drug. A little more than 150 years
ago, W. B. O'Shaughnessy, at the Medical College of Calcutta, found the
leafy green plant helped alleviate pain and relax muscles. Over the next
half a century, doctors worldwide prescribed the drug for ailments such as
tetanus, asthma and labor pains.

Fast forward to the beginning of the 21st century. Although eight states,
including Alaska, Arizona and California, have passed laws legalizing the
use of marijuana for patients with their doctor's recommendation, federal
law prohibits the prescription of pot for medical purposes. Small but vocal
groups of doctors, scientists and citizens are working to change the
national policy.

"(In America, marijuana) is talked about in almost a mythological way,"
said Paul Armentano, spokesperson for the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws, a group that supports the rights of adults to
responsibly use marijuana - both for personal and medical use. "The debate
regarding medical marijuana rarely focuses on the science, but on years of
negative stereotypes."

America's troubled relationship with marijuana dates back to the 1920s,
when the plant gained popularity as a recreational drug. To counteract the
trend, the government passed legislation to limit recreational use. The
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, though purportedly intended to tax marijuana,
actually outlined strict penalties for anyone possessing, growing, selling
or prescribing the drug.

The American Medical Association opposed the legislation. It told Congress
"the obvious purpose of and effect of this bill is to impose so many
restrictions on the medicinal use (of cannabis) as to prevent such use
altogether ... to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on
further research may prove to be of substantial benefit."

The government simultaneously launched what Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard
University called a "disinformation campaign."

In an article in the International Journal of Drug Policy, Dr. Grinspoon
said, "under pressure from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the predecessor
of to the present Drug Enforcement Administration, the Journal of the
American Medical Association published in 1945 a vehemently anti-marijuana
editorial, which signaled a sea of changes in the attitude of doctors
toward this drug."

Armentano faults Congress, which he said "lags far behind public support
for the issue."

A public opinion poll conducted in October 2002 by CNN/Time magazine
concluded 80 percent of Americans believe adults should be allowed to
legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it.

However, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which determines White
House drug policy, said, "U.S. policy remains that marijuana should not be
used for medical purposes, and ONDCP does not support the use of marijuana
for any purposes, including medical." Reasons include that cannabis has no
medical value and that other legal pharmaceuticals are more effective.

The ONDCP does, however, recommend Marinol, a marijuana-based medicine in
the form of a pill that is currently available for anyone with a doctor's
prescription.

In the eight states that have passed legislation to allow medical
marijuana, Armentano said the federal government usually avoids stepping
over state boundaries. However, there has been a number of high-profile
cases in which the Drug Enforcement Agency prosecuted medical marijuana
users or growers.

Last year, the DEA raided a marijuana growers cooperative, a third-party
organization that provides marijuana to approved patients. Those involved
are currently standing trial in federal courts.

In contrast to U.S. policy, Britain is close to legalizing medical
marijuana and has commissioned government studies of its therapeutic use
and allowed a private pharmaceutical company to research and develop a
cannabis-based medicine.

Cultural differences are part of the conflicting American and British
policies, Armentano said.

"Leaders in Europe are more willing to look at marijuana as coming up with
the best societal policy," Armentano said. "In this country we have taken
the tactic of denying that medical marijuana has any value and stopping
research."

Ethan Russo, a neurological doctor and editor of The Journal of Cannabis
Therapeutics, said the research of marijuana for therapeutic use is
under-funded and often ignored by the federal government.

Russo said a National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report
presented to Congress in 1999 concluded, "cannabinoids are an interesting
group of compounds with potentially far-reaching therapeutic applications."

Russo said the two-year study had no effect on the government's position.

"What Congress did with that was ignore it and come out with a statement
that cannabis is a dangerous and addictive drug," he said. "Who is right?
The scientists that studied it or the politicians who are expressing an
opinion based on their politics and policies?"

Russo said one reason for the lack of therapeutic studies is the
government's control over the nation's cannabis, which allows officials to
decide who conducts which studies. Even within the medical community, he
said, there is a lot of prejudice and ignorance.

"The National Institute on Drug Abuse funds the majority of the world's
drug research, but only a fraction of that is therapeutic studies," Russo
said. "The rest is to prove marijuana to be harmful."

As far as adverse effects of marijuana go, Russo said users do experience a
loss of short-term memory.

"The only thing that has been demonstrated is short-term memory (loss), but
nothing that is permanent," he said.

One argument against marijuana is that it contains high levels of tar and
nicotine. Another is that new strains of marijuana, often from Canada, are
more potent and, therefore, more dangerous. But, Russo said, both arguments
ignore that, in a therapeutic context, more potent marijuana means smoking
less.

"In general, like a lot of things, you prefer a more potent drug (of) which
you use less," he said. "But the government gives us the idea that more
potent is more dangerous."

Another key element of fight to legalize medicinal marijuana, Armentano
said, is distinguishing itself from the campaign to legalize the drug for
recreational purposes.

"The two issues are separate. Each needs to stand on its own merit,"
Armentano said. "If some people believe that marijuana should be legalized
for recreational use, that should have no bearing on the science that says
that medicinal marijuana has a clear medical use."