Lawmakers Say No to Medical Marijuana

[Guest guest]

* Article reprinted from WebMD *

Lawmakers Say No to Medical Marijuana

House Rejects an Amendment Barring Feds From States With Legalization

July 8, 2004 -- The House of Representatives has defeated a measure

that would have barred drug officials from enforcing federal

anti-marijuana laws. The federal government can prosecute people

who use marijuana for medical reasons in states that allow medical

use of the drug.

Lawmakers voted down the amendment, which would have allowed

states with medical marijuana laws to regulate the practice without

federal interference.

Nine states -- California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington,

Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Nevada -- have laws allowing patients

to legally use marijuana if it is recommended and supervised

by a physician. California officials have clashed with federal

drug enforcement agencies in recent years over federal raids

of marijuana growing and distribution operations that were operating

with a state license.

Federal officials have said that national drug laws override

states laws or referenda supporting medical marijuana and that

the raids are an important part of national drug control strategy.

The amendment had limited bipartisan support among lawmakers

but was strongly opposed by the White House and several anti-drug

groups.

" The legalization of medical marijuana is simply the first step

in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws that we

work hard to enforce today, " says Rep. Max Burns (R-Ga.)

Some patients use marijuana for its ability to relieve a variety

of symptoms, including pain and nausea associated with chemotherapy,

muscle spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis, and extreme weight

loss caused by AIDS.

A report from the Institute of Medicine in 1999 says marijuana

holds promise for treating some symptoms but that smoking is

an unreliable and dangerous form of drug delivery.

Supporters in the House say state medical marijuana laws have

allowed doctors and patients to use the drug more responsibly.

" Because of these state laws, thousands of patients are able

to alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest

by state or local authorities, " says Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

Courts Involved

The House rejected a similar measure last year. But a handful

of federal courts have sided with states asking in effect to

be exempt from federal marijuana laws when it comes to medical

use.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case challenging

the federal government's enforcement of anti-marijuana laws in

states with medical legalization. The court is expected to hear

the case in November or December, with a decision following in

spring or summer of 2005.

Lawmakers' action on the medical marijuana question is " disheartening, "

especially for Californians, who have seen the most federal marijuana

raids, says E. Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice

Policy Foundation, a group advocating for looser drug laws.

" But [medical marijuana supporters] have a fair reason to be

optimistic that the Supreme Court may rule in their favor in

this case, " he tells WebMD.

Arthur T. Dean, chairman of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions

of America, tells WebMD that his group lobbied hard against the

House amendment and would also contribute briefs in the upcoming

Supreme Court case. The group maintains that medical marijuana

legalization sends mixed messages to American children and teens

about the risks of drug use.

" We believe that if the justices fully understand the impact

from a health perspective that smoked marijuana has, we're hopeful

that they'll rule on the side of kids, " Dean says.