|Own your ow legal marijuana business||
Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
|Carl Olsen's Marijuana Archive|
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS
1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW
T 202-483-5500 F
202-483-0057 E-MAIL NATLNORML@AOL.COM
. . . a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana Prohibition.
March 20, 1997
Long-Term Marijuana Users Suffer Few Health Problems, Australian Study Indicates
March 20, 1997, Sydney,
Australia: The health of long-term marijuana users
is virtually no different than that of the general population,
according to the latest findings by the National Drug and Alcohol
Research Centre in Australia. The study, which involved
interviews with 268 marijuana smokers and 31 non-using partners
and family members, is one of the first ever conducted in
Australia to determine the effects of long-term marijuana
use. Its findings were reported by the Sydney Morning
Herald last month.
"We don't see evidence of high psychological disturbance among the [long-term users,]" said chief investigator David Reilly. "The results seem unremarkable; the exceptional thing is that the respondents are unexceptional."
Reilly did note that regular marijuana users complained of mild respiratory problems such as wheezing at about twice the rate of non-users. He warned that this result may be because nearly all of the marijuana users were also current or former tobacco smokers.
"The greatest danger to health posed by marijuana is prohibition," stated NORML's Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre.
The findings of the Australian study echo statements made approximately one-year ago by the premiere British medical journal, The Lancet, which proclaimed, "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health." The Lancet article further went on to recommend decriminalizing marijuana.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre of NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or Jamnes Danenberg of HEMP SA of Australia @ (+61) 8 297-9442 or via e-mail at: hempSA@va.com.au.
AMA Revises Medical Marijuana Guidelines For Doctors
March 18, 1997, San
Francisco, CA: New guidelines issued by the
American Medical Association (AMA) and its California affiliate
(CMA) support a physician's right to freely discuss the use of
marijuana as a therapeutic agent to his or her patient. The
guidelines were issued, in part, to encourage area physicians to
settle a federal lawsuit against Clinton administration officials
who have threatened to sanction doctors who recommend marijuana
to their patients under California state law. Many medical
marijuana proponents feel the new guidelines represent a shift
toward a growing acceptance of medical marijuana by America's
leading medical establishment.
"For the AMA, this is a very, very strong position to take," said Dr. Marcus Conant of San Francisco, one of the nation's most prominent AIDS physicians and lead plaintiff in the complaint against the government. "I don't think organized medicine can make it any clearer. ... The AMA has articulated ... the position that the federal government should get out of the business of dictating doctor-patient relationships."
NORML Board Member Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School was even more optimistic. "These new guidelines are one more small step toward the AMA's inevitable, complete acceptance and support of cannabis as a remarkably useful, safe, and inexpensive medicine," he said.
Under the proposed guidelines, which would be the basis for the settlement, physicians would be able to:
* Freely conduct a good faith discussion with a patient about the "risks and benefits of any potential medical treatment," including marijuana;
* Document the discussion in the patient's medical record;
* Testify about that discussion in court.
"The guidelines address our
fundamental concern that a physician be able to provide an
honest, individualized opinion about the medical advisability of
marijuana," stated Graham Boyd, attorney for the plaintiffs
in the California suit.
NORML's Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre sees the guidelines as a step in the right direction, but cautioned that the language still fell well short of the provisions of Proposition 215. He noted that doctors are still encouraged to avoid taking any "intentional" steps to help a patient obtain the drug, such as deliberately "cooperate[ing] with a cannabis buyers club" or "issuing a written 'recommendation' whose ostensible purpose is to provide the patient with a defense against state prosecution."
"Although the new guidelines provide support for the sanctity of the relationship between a physician and a patient, it fails to wholeheartedly endorse the needs of seriously ill patients in California who are relying on a doctor's 'recommendation' to legally possess medical marijuana," said St. Pierre.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre of NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or Dave Fratello of Americans for Medical Rights @ (310) 394-2952.
Connecticut Lawmakers Discuss Medical Marijuana Legislation
March 20, 1997,
Hartford, CT: Hearings took place today before the
Joint Committee on Public Health to debate legislation (S.B.
1263) that would license physicians to possess and supply
marijuana for the treatment of neurological disorders, AIDS
wasting syndrome, glaucoma, or the side effects of
chemotherapy. State law in Connecticut already allows
physicians to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients, but
fails to provide guidelines regarding supply.
The legislation also permits seriously ill patients and/or their caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for medical use. If an individual's marijuana is wrongly seized by law enforcement, the measure mandates that the marijuana or drug paraphernalia be returned to the owner.
S.B. 1263 also protects physicians under state law. Although issuing a prescription for marijuana remains in positive conflict with federal law, the measure exempts physicians licensed in Connecticut from any state criminal charges. Currently, a federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is challenging whether the federal government can legally sanction physicians who prescribe marijuana in compliance with state law.
NORML Board Member Dr. John P. Morgan of City University of New York (CUNY) Medical School testified on behalf of the bill. Morgan testified in favor of similar legislation in both Maine and Virginia earlier this year.
The Joint Committee on Public Health is chaired by Sen. Tony Nathaniel Harp (10th District).
For more information, please contact either Paul Armentano or Allen St. Pierre of NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or visit NORML's website for an up-to-date listing of all pending state marijuana legislation at: http://www.norml.org. Sen. Tony Nathaniel Harp may be contacted by writing to the Connecticut Legislative Office Building, Room 3000, Hartford, CT 06106, or calling (860) 240-0560.
For more information on the federal lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., please contact Attorney Rufus King of Berliner, Corcoran, & Rowe @ (202) 293-5555.
Colorado Hemp Bill Struck Down By Appropriations Committee
March 20, 1997, Denver,
CO: Legislation introduced by Rep. Kay Alexander
(R-Montrose) to permit Colorado State University to cultivate
test plots of industrial hemp for research purposes was struck
down today by the House Appropriations Committee by a vote of
6-4. The bill had previously passed the House Agriculture
Committee and proponents had not expected to face significant
opposition in Appropriations. The vote was a major setback
for local hemp advocates who have lobbied on behalf of the
measure for the past three years.
Similar industrial hemp legislation is still pending in at least seven states.
For more information, please contact Laura Kriho of the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project @ (303) 784-5632 or via e-mail at: email@example.com. For information on pending hemp legislation in other states, please contact Paul Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or
visit NORML's website at: http://www.norml.org.
MORE THAN 10 MILLION MARIJUANA ARRESTS SINCE 1965 . . . ANOTHER EVERY 54 SECONDS!
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
Major Studies of Drug and Drug Policy
Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding - The Report of the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Licit and Illicit Drugs
Short History of the Marijuana Laws
The Drug Hang-Up
Congressional Transcripts of the Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Frequently Asked Questions About Drugs
Basic Facts About the Drug War
Charts and Graphs about Drugs
Information on Alcohol
Guide to Heroin - Frequently Asked Questions About Heroin
LSD, Mescaline, and Psychedelics
Drugs and Driving
Children and Drugs
Drug Abuse Treatment Resource List
American Society for Action on Pain
Let Us Pay Taxes
Marijuana Business News
Reefer Madness Collection
Medical Marijuana Throughout History
Drug Legalization Debate
Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition
Marijuana, the First 12,000 Years
DEA Ruling on Medical Marijuana
Legal References on Drugs
GAO Documents on Drugs
Response to the Drug Enforcement Agency
|Drug Information Articles|
Taking a drug test:
How To Pass A Drug Test
Beat Drug Test
Pass Drug Test
Drug Screening Tests
Drug Addiction Treatment