LEGALIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Last week, voters in San Francisco passed an initiative prompting city
officials to study the logistics of growing and dispensing medical marijuana
to qualifying patients. Such a measure, approved in the birthplace of the
Grateful Dead, psychedelic culture and the Summer of Love, probably isn't so
surprising.

In reality, though, the concept of letting certain patients obtain medical
marijuana has support in all corners of the country -- including Louisiana.
As we reported in last week's cover story ("The Best Medicine?"), six state
legislatures and three Louisiana governors approved medical-marijuana laws
between the years 1978 and 1991 in our state Capitol -- which is a long way
from Haight-Ashbury. But stringent federal controls on marijuana have
discouraged Louisiana officials from activating laws they put on the books
three times.

Louisiana is one of many states to recognize what the federal government
refuses to admit: marijuana has therapeutic value for some patients.
Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that using marijuana has helped some
people cope with -- if not survive -- debilitating illnesses; and that the
drug is far less addictive, less powerful and less dangerous than many
legally prescribed medications such as morphine, hydrocodone and other
opiates.

No one disputes the fact that marijuana had been used as medicine in
numerous cultures for centuries before the United States made it illegal 65
years ago. The driving force behind that legislation was Harry Anslinger, a
Prohibition agent-turned-U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics. Anslinger's
Congressional testimony against marijuana included such questionable
"evidence" as: "Most [marijuana users] are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and
entertainers. Their Satanic music -- jazz and swing -- result [sic] from
marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek relations with
Negroes, entertainers and any others." (Anslinger relied in part on
testimony from then-New Orleans district attorney Eugene Stanley.)

The American Medical Association (AMA) at the time challenged the bill,
objecting to its authors preparing it in secret without consulting the AMA.
"There are evidently potentialities in the drug that should not be shut off
by adverse legislation," AMA legislative counsel Dr. William Woodward
testified. "The medical profession and pharmacologists should be left to
develop the use of this drug as they see fit." In an additional letter to
Congress, Woodward wrote on behalf of the AMA that "the prevention of the
use of the drug for medicinal purposes can accomplish no good end
whatsoever." Despite the AMA's objections, Congress accepted Anslinger's
insistence that marijuana caused "violence, insanity and death," and
outlawed the herb in 1937.

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to classify
marijuana as a Schedule I drug -- one that has no therapeutic value and is
subject to the strictest degree of controls. As part of its refusal to
reclassify marijuana, the DEA maintains that not enough research exists to
support its therapeutic benefits. This stipulation creates a catch-22 for
medical marijuana -- because the federal government simultaneously places
far stricter guidelines on marijuana research than it does on other types of
pharmaceutical studies. Any researcher wishing to conduct marijuana studies
must obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug
Enforcement Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, which controls the only legally grown supply of
marijuana in the United States. By comparison, researchers developing new
pharmaceuticals are required by law only to have their protocols approved by
the FDA and an institutional review board.

Medical-marijuana opponents argue that letting doctors prescribe pot would
increase its availability on the streets -- an argument that overlooks the
fact that far more dangerous drugs are prescribed every day. State
medical-marijuana laws, including Louisiana's, generally contain provisions
to determine who is qualified to receive therapeutic marijuana and to screen
out anyone trying to obtain the drug for recreational use. Louisiana's law
had established a Marijuana Prescription Review Board to certify patients,
physicians and pharmacies as eligible to participate in the state's
medical-marijuana program. But because the program never got off the ground,
the board was dissolved.

There is no disputing the fact that marijuana, like many substances, can be
harmful. Yet, while a variety of prescription medications have caused
overdose deaths, marijuana has no lethal levels. The FDA's own chief
administrative law judge, Francis Young, noted this fact in a 1988 ruling
when he advised the FDA to reclassify marijuana. But the FDA's top brass
overruled his recommendation. Not surprisingly, one of the nation's biggest
donors to elected officials -- the pharmaceutical industry -- vehemently
opposes the federal approval of a medication that easily could be grown by
smaller companies across America.

Three times, this state has demonstrated that it supports medical marijuana,
and common sense and human empathy demand that we follow through. State
lawmakers should resume work on putting Louisiana's inactive
medical-marijuana law into effect. Louisiana's congressional delegation
should support changing federal research guidelines to make it easier for
scientists to conduct clinical trials. Louisiana at one time led the nation
in its advocacy of marijuana for qualified patients. It's time to finish
what we started.