|
|
CLAIM V:
There Are No Compelling Medical Reasons to Prescribe Marijuana or
Heroin to Sick People.
DRCNet Response: We would certainly agree that the DEA would think there are no
compelling medical reasons to prescribe marijuana or heroin to sick people. They are not
sick, they don't know much about the problems of the people who are sick, and they care
even less. However, even if they were right, that isn't the issue. The issue really is:
What do we gain by punishing someone with AIDS or other serious diseasesd
DEA Statement |
Response |
| It is often suggested that, even if currently
controlled substances are not made available to the general public, some of them,
particularly marijuana and heroin, could be used to relieve suffering. |
|
| Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum
acknowledged that arguments urging the medical use of marijuana are often used as an
entree into the legalization debate. Medical use arguments can garner public support
because they seem harmless enough to the uninformed audience. The experts agreed that
these issues are peripheral to the real issue. |
|
| The medical pros and cons of prescribing
marijuana and heroin to sick people are best debated by medical professionals. It should
be kept in mind, however, that marijuana has been rejected as medicine by the American
Medical Association, the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology,
the International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies, and the American Cancer
Society. |
|
| Not one American health association accepts marijuana as
medicine. Statements issued by these organizations express concern over the harmful
effects of the drugs and over the lack of solid research demonstrating that they might do
more good than harm. |
|
| The International Federation of Multiple Sclerosis Societies,
for instance, said in a statement issued by its Therapeutic Claims Committee in 1992:
"Further studies are required to determine whether marijuana has a clinically useful
effect on multiple sclerosis. In view of the possible toxic effects of long-term use, its
use cannot be recommended. In the opinion of the committee, there appears to be no
generally accepted scientific basis for use of this therapy. It has never been tested in a
properly controlled trial. Long-term use may be associated with significant serious side
effects." |
|
| Marijuana also affects: |
|
- The immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections;
|
|
- The reproductive system by delaying the onset of puberty in young men and women; and
|
|
- Babies who are born to women who used marijuana during pregnancy; these babies are
smaller and more likely to develop other health problems.
|
|
| In July 1995, the Department of Health and Human Service held
its first research conference on marijuana. At the conference, new information about the
long-term dangers of marijuana use was released. Some of the major findings included the
following: |
|
- Peter Fried, Ph.D., from the Carleton University in Ottawa, found that marijuana use
during pregnancy has harmful effects on children's intellectual abilities a decade or more
after they are born.
|
|
- Through the use of an animal model, Billy Martin, Ph.D. of the Virginia Commonwealth
University, showed that compulsive marijuana use may lead to an addiction similar to that
produced by other illicit drugs.
|
|
- Roger Roffman, Ph.D. and Robert Stephens, Ph.D., both from the University of Washington,
showed that marijuana can put a serious chokehold on long-term users who try to quit.
|
|
- The American Medical Association policy statement on marijuana says, in part, "The
AMA believes that cannabis (marijuana) is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health
concern." This is not a new position for the AMA; it was adopted in 1969 and
reaffirmed in 1994.
|
|
| Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the
forum participants may be used in debates: |
|
| Under the federal statute known as the Controlled Substances
Act (see opposite page), regulated drugs are divided into categories known as schedules.
In Schedule I, for instance, are drugs with a high potential for abuse and no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. At the other end of the spectrum
is Schedule V, which is for drugs that have a low potential for abuse and have a currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. The Act provides a mechanism for
substances to be controlled (added to a schedule), decontrolled (removed from control), or
rescheduled (transferred from one schedule to another). |
|
| Heroin and marijuana are in Schedule I; cocaine, which is
sometimes used as a local anesthetic, is in Schedule II. Much of the debate about medical
uses for currently illegal drugs concerns substituting heroin for morphine and supplying
marijuana to AIDS and glaucoma patients or using it to treat side effects of chemotherapy.
|
|
- A petition to put marijuana in a less restrictive schedule of the CSA was rejected by
then DEA Administrator John C. Lawn, after public hearings, on December 29, 1989. The
United States Court of Appeals ordered further proceedings, however, to clear up what it
felt were some ambiguities in the record. Administrator Robert C. Bonner, who succeeded
Lawn, complied and issued a new ruling on March 26, 1992. "By any modern scientific
standard, marijuana is no medicine," Bonner said. The three-judge appeals court
upheld the ruling unanimously on February 18, 1994. "Our review of the record
convinces us that the Administrator's findings are supported by substantial
evidence," the court said, noting the "testimony of numerous experts that
marijuana's medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies."
|
|
DRUGS are scheduled under Federal law according to their effects, medical use, and
potential for abuse
|
