BIPARTISAN GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE ON MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

[continued from http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02.n1401.a04.html ]

So I am especially grateful to them for coming and speaking out on behalf
of others this way. We have with us Cheryl Miller (ph) from Tom's River,
New Jersey, and Cheryl's (ph) husband Tim (ph) is going to speak on their
behalf.

MILLER (ph): I'd like you all to meet my wife, Cheryl Miller (ph). In
Washington I'm better known as Mr. Cheryl Miller (ph), because when we come
to Washington it's pretty much about her.

MILLER (ph): I'd like to say, first, Cheryl (ph) was born in 1946 and she
never used marijuana, not in the '50s, not in the '60s, not in the '70s,
not in the '80s. She did what was the right thing to do for her. She didn't
use marijuana when all her friends were.

She has multiple sclerosis, diagnosed in 1971. She has been in a wheelchair
since 1981. She hasn't even been able to scratch her own nose when it
itched for the last 10 years. It's something I don't even want you to imagine.

It was kind of like a "Tale of Two Cities" when we found out about medical
marijuana. It was the best of news and it was the worst of news. There was
something when her neurologist called us aside after a visit to him -- we
go twice a year -- and he said he was worried about six more months going
by, that she might not live that long. Now, you take a neurologist very
seriously when he says that and he bothers to say that to you.

He asked us, is there something that he might be forgetting? We told him
we'd heard about marijuana might help her spasticity. And he said, of
course, he would prescribe it if he could, but he can't. And then he
suggested she try Marinol, because it had very little side effects like
marijuana has very little side effects.

We found out that Marinol did work good, but, of course, you have to wonder
what would the real plant work like. Not knowing exactly what to do and
knowing she couldn't smoke because of concerns for her throat, we put it in
a salad dressing. And three days later she ate a salad that deep down
inside I almost hope wouldn't work. But we could move her arms where
spasticity pulls back.

She's been turned down from being in therapy in a rehab, because it takes
too many people with the spasticity, but not with the marijuana it doesn't.
With her conventional medicine that I'm being told works just fine by a lot
of people, doesn't work just fine.

We tried, starting 10 years ago, to contact our representatives and found
out how hard it was, before today, for people to just go on record, say
what they think. We were heartened when one New Jersey congressman did
agree to meet us, Representative Rob Andrews, who up until that point did
not agree. But when he saw that he believed Cheryl (ph) was telling the
truth and I was telling the truth, we wanted to gain just her health back a
little bit. We wanted her to have therapy. We wanted her to be as well as
she could. It's not going to save her life either. And this is probably her
last trip here. This will be her ninth and probably last trip.

I just want to say that it's obvious we didn't come here to fool anybody.
And, as her husband, until today we felt largely ignored.

I promised her I would protect her. I'm not able to. This is very important
that 2592 at least get discussed on the floor, because we're tired of hit
and run. "No, it's not good for you, but I won't talk to you." It's too
late for Cheryl (ph), but there's a lot of other Cheryl's (ph) left. It's
not too late for some of them.

So for those people who have lost children to drugs, we feel very sorry,
but I'm quite tired of hearing what children might do. Cheryl (ph) was
well. We have talked to children. They're a little bit upset about hearing
that, and maybe we should ask them what they think because they know
better. They know the difference between drugs and medicine. And when
everybody else does and some more people that voted against medical
marijuana in '98 show the guts that Rob Andrews said when he changed his
mind on this position after meeting Cheryl (ph), it might not be too late
for somebody else.

MILLER (ph): And that's why we came here, to just plead with whoever might
listen to do whatever it takes to get this discussed on the floor, because
there is no logical argument against it.

And that's all we're asking for, is no more hit and run on patients, just
logical discussion. Thanks.

FRANK: Thank you. I would note that Representative Andrews became a
cosponsor, in fact, last December and is one of the cosponsors.

Next we have Gary Stork (ph) from Madison, Wisconsin.

STORK (ph): My name is Gary Stork (ph), and I'm a glaucoma and arthritis
patient and a resident of Madison, Wisconsin, which has what I am told is
the oldest medical marijuana law on the books in the United States,
Ordinance 2320, which allows city of Madison patients to possess cannabis
for medical use pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner.

I want to thank Representative Frank and Representative Paul for sponsoring
H.R. 2592 and hosting this press conference, my congressperson,
Representative Tammy Baldwin, for being one of the first cosponsors, the
other honorable representatives who have cosponsored and those who have
joined us today.

I'm very honored to be here today speaking on behalf of patients who need
medical marijuana and humbled to be following the footsteps of patients
like the late Robert Randall, who wrote a book called "Marijuana RX: The
Patient's Fight for Medicinal Pot," and Lyn Nofziger wrote the forward. And
I'm very glad to see Lyn here today, because he knows firsthand how
important this is.

This is my first solo trip to Washington. The last two times I was here
with our friend Jackie Richert (ph). Jackie (ph) is in chronic, unrelenting
pain from illness including Aylors (ph) Danlow (ph) Syndrome and advanced
reflex sympathetic dystrophy, for which she is prescribed a number of
drugs, including morphine. Jackie (ph) was approved for both a
compassionate IND and a research IND in 1991, but George Bush the elder
closed the program to new applicants in 1992 and the federal government
defaulted on its promise to provide her with supplies of medical marijuana.

Jackie (ph) takes shots of morphine to control her pain, and on our last
two trips I actually had to help her with shots in the hallways of
congressional office buildings. It seemed very ironic. If it is legal for
Jackie (ph) to have morphine, why not cannabis?

My story: I was born 47 years ago in Wisconsin, and it was apparent from
birth I was not blessed with the same good health my three older siblings
enjoyed. Years later, these symptoms were diagnosed as Noonan (ph)
syndrome, a genetic condition typified by physical traits and medical
conditions, including glaucoma and heart defects. I've had three open heart
surgeries to date.

As a young child, I worried a lot about going blind. I lost a great deal of
eyesight to glaucoma before it was even diagnosed, and even then
conventional medications could not adequately control my elevated pressures.

Around 1972, after indulging in some marijuana with friends, I went to see
my eye doctor, who was very pleased to find my pressure significantly
lower. Faced with the choice of risking further vision loss or breaking the
law, I felt I had no choice but to do all I could to save my sight and that
if the law was preventing me from preserving my vision, it was a bad law.

Since that day, I've medicated each day I've had access to cannabis, and it
has preserved my vision from a lifetime of glaucoma.

In the late 1970s, I hooked up with Bob Randall, and he and my U.S.
senators at the time, Gaylord Nelson and William Proxmire, and my
congressperson, Henry Royce (ph), tried to get me enrolled in the IND
program, but my doctor was unwilling to go through the mountains of red
tape involved. The best he would do was write me a letter, which he did on
June 4th, 1979, saying he would prescribe me marijuana if it were legal.

I think it's ludicrous that over 23 years later, my doctors can still not
legally prescribe cannabis.

STORK (ph): H.R. 2592 would allow doctors to do so.

In the last four years, as my arthritis worsened, I was diagnosed with
degenerative disk disease and prominent regional myofacial pain. This
causes chronic, often severe, neck and back pain. Cannabis now also helps
me manage this pain and allows me to use less over-the- counter and
prescription medication, allowing me a better quality of life. And my
doctor and I agree that my pain is fairly well controlled at the present
time with exercise and my current regiment of medications, including marijuana.

The benefits of cannabis clearly outweigh the risks. H.R. 2592 would allow
my doctors, Cheryl's (ph) doctors, Jackie's (ph) doctors, anyone's doctor
to prescribe marijuana if they felt it would ease their suffering, just
like any other medication.

This is something that people support poll after poll, election after
election. We did a poll in Wisconsin that found over 80 percent support the
state legislature passing a bill. Few issues have this kind of popular
support. When are the politicians going to catch up with the people?

Generations of patients have waited for Congress to do the right thing. The
time is now. Bring H.R. 2592 to the floor for a vote.

FRANK: Thank you.

I'll now be calling on one further speaker and we'll have questions.

But I do want to stress one point: We have this debate in which we have
been told marijuana is never useful. It never does it. You've heard now,
second hand from a father and firsthand, in effect, from two others who
have used it and who have benefited from it. And when people contradict the
direct testimony of those who have, in fact, encountered this, I think the
only thing to do, if Ron and Lyn will forgive me, is to quote Marx --
Chico, who said, in one notable movie you will remember, "Who you going to
believe me or your own eyes?" And we have to say that to those who tell us
that it never works: Who you going to believe, the politicians who say that
or the people who, in their pain, have experienced it?

Now, I'm going to call on one of the leading advocates here, Keith Stroup
from NORML. And I also want to acknowledge the presence of Students for a
Sensible Drug Policy, Commonsense for Drug Policy, the Drug Policy Alliance
and the Marijuana Policy Project. And as I stressed, there are obviously
areas that all these organizations have that go in other directions, but on
this particular issue there is great unanimity.

And I am delighted to have Keith here with us.

STROUP: Thank you, Congressman Frank.

My name is Keith Stroup. I'm the director of NORML, the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

>From NORML's standpoint, as Representative Frank suggested, there are a
lots of reasons why we think current marijuana prohibition is a bankrupt,
failed public policy. It's a waste of law enforcement resources that should
be focused on more serious crime, especially terrorism in these days. We're
needlessly destroying the lives and careers of literally hundreds of
thousands of genuinely good citizens each year.

But these concern pale in comparison, frankly, to the needs of the
seriously ill and dying patients, such as the patients we've heard from
today. They must got to the front of the line.

Let me make my position clear. I believe it is absolutely unconscionable to
deny an effective medication to seriously ill patients. We know that there
are tens of thousands in this country for whom traditional medication is
simply ineffective, but for whom marijuana offers important relief to their
pain and suffering. For those to deny an effective medication to patients
simply to support their anti-drug position is holding patients hostage to
the war on drugs. So it's time we stop debating whether marijuana is
effective as a medicine.

STROUP: It clearly is. And tens of thousands of patients have been telling
us that for many years.

Since 1966 now, nine states, as you see on the chart, have approved the
medical use of marijuana. In eight of those states it was by citizen
initiative and, in fact, we have never lost an initiative on this issue
where it has been placed on the ballot before the people.

According to two recent national polls, 73 percent of the American public
now support the medical use of marijuana; three out of four Americans. One
of those was the Gallup poll taken in 1999, the most recent was a Pew
Charitable Trust poll taken 2001.

As the California supreme court said just last week in a decision that
offered wonderful protection to patients in that state, they said those
seriously ill patients who possess or use marijuana as a medicine are
entitled to the same legal protection as patients who possess any other
medication. And in the state of California, patients now enjoy that protection.

So it is now time for Congress to act and end this confusing conflict
between state and federal marijuana policy. H.R. 2592 should be promptly
reported out of committee and voted on at the floor of the House.

The American people expect no less, tens of thousands of patients demand no
less, it is time to amend federal law so that states that wish to legalize
medical use may do so without federal interference. Thank you.

FRANK: I just want to stress, by the way, on how frankly limited this bill
is. In most of the country, state law which now prohibits this would remain
in effect. It in fact would not provide the kind of relief I would like to
provide this bill, even for some of the people who are here. But it would,
I think, be an important first step.

And we also believe that if the federal government were to do this, in some
states people have said, "Well, what's the use, because it will still be
federally prohibited?"

So we do think getting the federal prohibition out of the way would allow
other states to make this decision that might now feel deterred.

With that, any of us who are here would be glad to respond if members of
the media have questions.

QUESTION: I'd like to direct my question to Dr. Paul, please. As a
physician, sir, when do you think medical marijuana should be prescribed to
a patient? I mean, when that patient first hits your office or as a last
resort or what?

PAUL: Well, I think that has to be individualized. I'd hardly think that
would be the first thing to cross the physician's mind, or the patient, but
I think if conventional methods fail and were doing poorly it would be
prescribed.

So I would say somewhere in between, not when it's gone for a long, long
time, and the doctor has been unsuccessful, nor as the patient arrives. But
it would have to be individualized according to the situation.

QUESTION: Do you now of any other countries, besides these nine states here
in America, that have prescribed medical marijuana for their patients?

PAUL: Well, I think in Europe they do.

(UNKNOWN): It was recently legalized in Canada, and it is very close to
being formally legalized in England, and there are several other European
countries looking at it as well.

QUESTION: If your legislation were enacted, how would it affect the states
where marijuana, medicinal use is allowed, for example...

FRANK: It would then say that it would be allowed, according to those state
laws. Now there are nine states, they don't all have identical laws. It
would be, as is every other aspect of the practice of medicine, a matter
for that state.

The conditions under which you could prescribe it might differ from state
to state. Who could prescribe it.

FRANK: I mean, some states say certain licensures or regulations are
required and not others. But it would leave it entirely up to the state. It
would say that there is no federal prohibition in those states where the
state has decided to do this. And it would then be up to each state.

QUESTION: And how much federal interference is there right now, that you
feel this legislation...

FRANK: Well, recently we saw -- first of all, it is hanging over people.
And as you heard, there are people who don't want to do things that they
consider to be illegal. Obviously, that's all of us, in general. And it's
only when you are driven by this pain that you get to that.

But we recently had a raid in California, ordered by the Justice
Department, of...

NOFZIGER: (OFF-MIKE) of that?

FRANK: Yes. Yes, sir.

NOFZIGER: That raid closed down a medical marijuana outfit that was
supplying medical marijuana to a lot of patients. And they had told -- the
people running it had told the DEA what they were doing, they had the
approval of the West Hollywood City Council, DEA was leaving them alone,
until somebody back here in Washington apparently ordered the raids.

And now they've closed it down, and they're threatening to put people in
jail and so forth for -- and meantime, there are literally hundreds of
people there in Southern California who are not getting their medical
marijuana legally.

PAUL: Let me just follow up on that, because that is an important question.

California legalizes for medical reasons. There was an individual there, a
well-known case, who was dying with AIDS and cancer and used his own
marijuana, was taken to court and tried on a federal law. And the atrocious
aspect of that case is he was not allowed to tell the jury that he did this
under state law.

So you talk about somebody who doesn't like the heavy hand of federal
government, the overbearingness on the states, here is a place that just
absolutely wouldn't even permit the state to be heard. That wouldn't happen
if this law would be passed.

QUESTION: If I could follow up just for a second, would your legislation
affect distribution? My understanding is that the federal government could,
in a sense, supply states, where it's legal, with medicinal marijuana. Is
that incorrect?

PAUL: I imagine that could follow, but that's not the purpose of the bill.
There's no responsibility for the federal government to get involved in
distribution.

FRANK: No, none whatsoever. This takes the federal government out.

Now, there has been an effort -- part of the problem here is you have a
catch-22 which has been existing at the federal level, under both, by the
way, the Clinton and Bush administrations, which is when I've been
interested in this. And that is, we have been told, "Well, there's no
evidence that marijuana helps." But it's, kind of, hard to conduct a trial
when it's illegal to test it.

So people have requested from the federal government over time, in both
administrations, the right to conduct a trial. Now, part of that means the
right to secure the marijuana legally. And what we have had is a refusal to
allow that. There are some requests pending now. I work with people at
Harvard Medical, Lester Greenspoon (ph) and others, who were trying to get
that.

So part of the problem is -- it's quite the opposite of what you're saying.
The federal government now -- it's not only illegal to do this, it is
illegal even to test whether or not it's a good idea to do it.

But all the bill says is this: It's up to the states. The federal
government would, if this bill passed, not be telling a state it had to do
it or telling a state that it couldn't do it. It would be a matter of state
policy.

And what the laws would be with regard to medical marijuana would be
entirely decided by a state. A state that chose still to prohibit them,
that prohibition would be in effect. Those nine states that have allowed it
would be allowed to carry that out without the fear that a federal
prosecution would come in and impact on people who were following state law.

QUESTION: Sometimes it's easier to move a bill in one chamber or another,
so what's the situation in the Senate?

FRANK: I, as is often the case, don't know. I will tell you that the
greatest institutional defect here in this Capitol is -- the greatest
institutional failing around here, in my judgment, is the failure of the
House and Senate to stay in better touch. We don't really know what each
other are doing.

I am not aware that there is a Senate version of the bill. I don't think,
there is not a Senate version of the bill. So, that's the answer.

Other questions? I think we have one more speaker actually, Congresswoman
Pelosi I'm told is approaching. So if you want to wait a minute, we will do
that.

We will have copies of the bill available, I guess, they must be back
there. OK, she'll be here, and...

QUESTION: (inaudible) have any Republican co-sponsors. Is there any chance
you might be able to get enough signatures to get a discharge petition?

FRANK: No. There'd be no chance for a discharge on this. There are several
Republicans, they're mostly liberal Democrats. I -- one of the reasons we
want to have this press conference is trying to break out of that view that
people think this is, obviously there are both liberal and conservative
reasons to do this. I mean, it's been conservatives who're generally most
strongly asserted the right of MDs to practice medicine without excessive
regulation. There's the states' rights issue. There's also a, kind of,
joint liberal and conservative sense that people ought to be allowed their
own choices.

But no, with the current level we do not have that.

I am, I must say, perplexed by people, particularly who represent areas --
we have members of Congress who represent areas where the voters in those
areas heavily supported this. I mean, you know, we have those breakdowns by
congressional district. And I am somewhat puzzled that some of my
colleagues have felt that that doesn't gain any weight with them whatsoever.

But no, there's no chance for a discharge.

And to be honest, it's, this subject hasn't been as widely discussed. I
mean, I follow this and I feel strongly for it and have tried to argue for
it. In fairness this may be the first real effort we've had to, sort of,
present it to the press this widely with a broad range of both
philosophical and practical experience. So we hope at least to begin the
conversation.

QUESTION: So is the passage of this bill probably something that is still
years away?

FRANK: Well, it's not going to happen this year. That unfortunately is the
case.

On the other hand, by the way, that's not the only reason for doing it.
There's a great deal of executive discretion. There are more laws on the
books at any given time than can be fully enforced. Indeed, the federal
agency -- after the mass murders of September 11th, the federal law
enforcement agencies, said, "Look, we're going to be able to do less in
some areas."

So part of what we can do, you know, you can influence public policy short
of passing a bill. You can, if you demonstrate widespread support among
Congress, within the public, persuade those executive officials who make
the decisions who make the decisions about where to put law enforcement
resources that there are other things that might be more useful.

And I do think we have a realistic chance of at least discouraging the kind
of effort that Lyn Nofziger described, which had very real impact on people.

QUESTION: What kind of feedback are you getting in your own state, sir?

FRANK: Oh, most of the people that I talk to think this is a good idea,
when it comes up.

Massachusetts had a referendum not on medical marijuana but a broader one
on drug treatment. It lost fairly narrowly, probably because I think it was
considered to be an overreach in some areas.

But I have to say, as Ron Paul said it and others, this is one where I
think there's a kind of a cultural lag. Marijuana has been associated
throughout American history with the counter-culture, whether it was
African-American jazz musicians and people associated with them, and then
later with people who were protesting the war, who were rejecting American
capitalism.

FRANK: I think the treatment of marijuana -- because, as Jan Schakowsky
pointed out, we allow doctors to prescribe substances that have much more
effect on people's personality, that are much more addictive, et cetera,
than marijuana. And there is a, kind of, a social question, why is
marijuana treated so much more harshly than other substances which are far
more disorienting, et cetera? And I think it's the association with the
counter-culture.

And I think what's happened is that the public has gotten beyond that and a
lot of my electoral colleagues have not. So I really do think this is a
case where there's, kind of, a cultural lag on the part of elected
officials. And the public is capable of saying, "Well, yes, there were jazz
musicians in the '30s and there were peace protesters in the '60s, and then
there's sick people. And let's not put them all together."

Not, in my view, that because jazz musicians used it, it ought to be
outlawed. It would also -- maybe it would be illegal to use saxophones. I
mean, that's not...

(LAUGHTER)

... a very logical position. But I do think that's what's at issue.

And I think the very fact of discussing it -- and that's why I'm so
grateful to the three people who have had firsthand, personal and familial
experience have come forward, because I think that's a very important way
to get off the ideological miasma that has surrounded this issue and into
the reality.

Well, Ms. Pelosi may not be able to make it, so we won't hold you any
further. I think you've gotten enough room tone while we sat here and
waited for her, so thank you all very much.

(APPLAUSE)

END

NOTES: [????] - Indicates Speaker Unknown [--] - Indicates could not make
out what was being said.[off mike] - Indicates could not make out what was
being said.