Re: Physicians Can Recommend Pot

[Guest guest]

Hi(gh!) Phil and all

One brief comment about the alcohol/marijuana debate....(and you all know I

like a glass of white wine!). I've worked in Accident and Emergency

reception for 18 years now, and can truthfully say that every night of the

week the place is packed to the rafters with people who are there as a

direct or indirect result of alcohol. On the other hand, I can't think of a

single occasion when I've booked someone in who has got into a fight as a

direct result of marijuana, gone mad and smashed up the place as a direct

result of marijuana, killed someone on the road as a direct result of

marijuana, or got very sick and died as a direct result of marijuana. Just

a comment. Best wishes to all, Carol

Physicians Can Recommend Pot

>

> Hi or HIGH everyone -

>

> Not sure if this is good or bad. However, here's the info reported on

marijuana use. I personal wouldn't think it would benefit us. It give the

users the munchies ... who needs the munchies? I already have tooooo good

of appetite and toooo much weight. Also, I can't stand to have smoke -- any

kind of smoke -- in my airways. I get real choked up over it --- I would

have you know. Anyway, GOOOD (single malt --- real) Scotch is better ...

any day.

>

> Be well and BE Happy

> ~Phil~

>

>

>

>

>

> Physicians Can Recommend Pot

> Hoppin (The Recorder) --

>

> U.S. District Judge Alsup on Thursday ruled

> that doctors may recommend marijuana to patients they

> deem in need of the drug.

>

> In doing so, Alsup turned back claims that such

> recommendations would impair the government's war on

> drugs and expanded a previous injunction that

> prevented the government from revoking a doctor's

> license to prescribe medicine and made it permanent.

>

> The move means doctors can recommend medical options

> to their patients with immunity -- even if the option

> happens to be illegal.

>

> " In some cases ... it will be the professional opinion

> of doctors that marijuana is the best therapy or at

> least should be tried. If such recommendations could

> not be communicated, then the physician-patient

> relationship will be seriously impaired. Patients need

> to know their doctors' recommendations, " Alsup wrote.

>

> The ruling came just one week after the U.S. Supreme

> Court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,

> ordering that San Francisco Bay Area pot clubs remain

> closed while their right to distribute marijuana is

> litigated.

>

> Alsup's ruling sidestepped that issue, holding that

> restraining a doctor's speech by threatening his

> medical practice raised serious First Amendment

> questions.

>

> Both Alsup's case, Conant v. McCaffrey, 97-00139, and

> the separate controversy over the distribution of

> medical marijuana that has reached the Supreme Court,

> stem from state Proposition 215 -- also called the

> Compassionate Use Act -- a voter-approved, California

> initiative that made it legal for seriously ill

> patients to use marijuana.

>

> Shortly after Proposition 215 was enacted, the Drug

> Enforcement Agency issued a statement saying doctors

> may discuss the pros and cons of marijuana but may not

> explicitly recommend it. In court, government lawyers

> argued that a recommendation would lead the patient to

> purchase the drug -- which would be a crime -- and

> undermine the government's war on drugs.

>

> Alsup criticized the government in court for the

> assumption, and he did it again in his opinion.

>

> " Contrary to the government's argument, it is not true

> that a mere recommendation will necessarily lead to

> the commission of a federal offense. To the contrary,

> such recommendations can lead to lawful and legitimate

> responses, " he wrote, mentioning that it may lead

> patients to lobby the government to change the law.

>

> " In the marketplace of ideas, few questions are more

> deserving of free-speech protection than whether

> regulations affecting health and welfare are sound

> public policy, " said Alsup.

>

> In emphasizing the free-speech aspect of the case,

> Alsup drew a distinction between his case and that of

> his courthouse neighbor, U.S. District Judge

> Breyer. In a suit over the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'

> ative -- also brought in the wake of Prop 215 --

> Breyer first ruled that a medical marijuana defense

> could not be raised, was then reversed by the 9th

> Circuit, subsequently reinstated the defense, and was

> ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court.

>

> In a footnote, Alsup went so far as to mention that

> neither case is dependent on the other.

>

> Alsup also mentioned several possible ways for a

> patient to obtain marijuana legally, but also left

> open the door for government prosecutors to pursue

> criminal charges against doctors accused of aiding and

> abetting drug trafficking.

>

> Applying pre-enforcement justiciability standards

> recently enacted in the 9th Circuit's v.

> Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 00 C.D.O.S. 6504,

> Alsup found that there had been no efforts by the

> government so far to pursue this avenue, and therefore

> declined to adjudicate the plaintiff's claims in this

> arena, since there was no actual controversy.

>

> In the end, Alsup ruled, it's not a doctor's

> responsibility to prevent the crimes of his patients.

> " A sincere recommendation alone is not a federal

> crime, even if the doctor foresees it could be used to

> facilitate a federal crime, " Alsup wrote.

>

> That point is critical for the plaintiff doctors in

> the class action case, said Weissglass, an

> associate at San Francisco's Altshuler, Berzon,

> Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain.

>

> " This makes is clear that even if the doctor thinks

> the patient is going to go out and get marijuana,

> there's protection, " he said. " The way the opinion

> reads, it's very far-reaching. "

>

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> If you do wish to unsubscribe then you can click on the following link:

> <mailto:urticaria-unsubscribeegroups>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> This list is in the service of those who suffer from Chronic Urticaria

(hives). We strive to support and lift each other as a worldwide

cyber-family.

>

> We share whatever needs to be shared to help one another in our struggle

with Chronic Urticria.

>

> Any posting that is off the main topic of Chronic Urticaria, we post with

a prefix of NCU -. This is done out of respect for those who do not wish to

read such postings.

>