Posted on 11/13/2002 1:02:44 PM PST by RJCogburn
Physicians can discuss the pros and cons of medicinal marijuana with their patients without worry of the Drug Enforcement Administration cracking down on them, a federal appeals court ruled in October.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco unanimously ruled that a 1996 federal policy that said physicians could lose their DEA numbers if they discussed the issue tramples on First Amendment rights that allow a doctor and patient to discuss medical issues.
The policy had some physicians fearful of discussing the issue with patients who have cancer, AIDS or other debilitating diseases and had sought their physician's medical advice on the topic. But this court ruling -- which upheld the lower court rulings on the issue -- should alleviate those fears.
"Physicians can have a full, complete discussion about marijuana and offer an opinion on it," said Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Drug Policy Litigation Project, who argued the case before the 9th Circuit panel. "They can do what doctors do. They can give advice orally, in writing or other forms."
"Those involved feel vindicated," added San Francisco HIV/AIDS specialist Marcus Conant, MD, one of the physicians who filed the lawsuit against the government. "The case was simply about what can happen when a patient closes the door and talks to a doctor."
The ruling directly impacts physicians in most of the states that have legalized medical marijuana since the mid-1990s.
.
The case originated in California, the first state in the nation where medical marijuana was legalized. But Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, which have similar laws, are also under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.
Colorado and Maine are the only other states in the nation with such laws. And even though the 9th Circuit court doesn't have jurisdiction over cases there, Boyd said "it would be surprising" if the government targeted physicians there who give advice to patients.
The government could appeal the panel's decision to the full 9th Circuit or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if the case were appealed, the government could not sanction physicians while the case was under appeal. Since the lawsuit was filed in 1997, a court injunction has stopped the government from enforcing its policy.
"The court ruling makes clear that physicians should be comfortable in discussing any therapeutic options with their patients, including medical marijuana," said Jack Lewin, MD, CEO of the California Medical Assn., which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case arguing the federal rule censored physician's speech and jeopardized patient care.
"This ruling gives doctors a reason to breathe easier," Dr. Lewin said.
What physicians can say While doctors can talk about the issues with patients, they need to be careful that they don't cross a line and discuss anything that could be considered distribution of the drug, Boyd and others said.
Discussions about how marijuana could potentially help stimulate appetite or reduce pain, based on what physicians have seen in other patients or heard from colleagues, is well within the bounds of free speech.
So is entering a discussion into the patient's medical record or putting it into another form of writing in the way that a doctor would document other patient discussions or physician recommendations.
"Doctors write letters and notes and fill out forms for a million reasons," Boyd said. "They may give a patient a note to inform their employer that they are sick or have a disability. It is not a prescription. A prescription is an order written to a pharmacy to give a medication."
Notes regarding medical marijuana could be written in the same manner as notes written for disability or illness.
But if a seriously ill patient says he or she needs a note to get marijuana from a specific place, that could potentially cross the line into distribution.
"It would be prudent for a doctor to avoid that," Boyd said.
Dr. Conant said one of the reasons he took on the government in this case is because he believed that the government was letting politics interfere with what is said between a physician and patient.
"This is not the first time this has happened," he said. "And I don't think we've put the issue behind us."
In the past, the government censored what doctors could tell patients about abortion and stopped them from prescribing birth control pills. Court rulings helped change that.
"Physicians at times need to stand up and say that the government is wrong," Dr. Conant said.
Dr. Lewin agreed, saying the recent ruling should be a reminder to the government that it shouldn't try to practice medicine.
"The federal government is acting emotionally rather than logically, intruding on the physician-patient relationship," he said.
You and I both know that despite all the silly arguments, people know what pot is, and what it's for. Here you have Nevada, one of the most permissive states in the union, and pot couldn't get even close to approval.
This "let the doctor and patient decide" garbage is just the most outrageous red-herring.
people don't want the camel in the tent with them, so when its nose appears, they whack it with a club.
You and your failed drug war are the biggest jokes around Illbay.
The fact that there are myriads of other medications, each of which are far better for the purpose than pot, not to mention the fact that THC can be extracted, and even synthesized...these are things you "medical marijuana" frauds won't even address.
I'll take the advice of these doctors rather than believe anything that comes out of your keyboard.
LOL!
We have more of you little creeps behind bars than ever, and you aren't running around on the streets, committing more crimes to feed your sad habit, killing our children while behind the wheel of a car, and generally making the world sh*tty with your presence.
That's SUCCESS, buddy.
Keep it up, and you can go join your friends in the slammer. That's be my pleaure to see, I can assure you.
Straw man - right to life is an established inalienable principle. Your comparisan is juvenile.
Remember, "buddy," there are a LOT more of us than there are of you.
And may you be blessed with some goons from your local SWAT team breaking down your door at 3 AM looking for drugs. It's not just the "guilty" who are threatened by your drug war, Illbay.
We have more of you little creeps behind bars than ever, and you aren't running around on the streets, committing more crimes to feed your sad habit, killing our children while behind the wheel of a car, and generally making the world sh*tty with your presence.
I would rather have drug users on every block in my town than to have to live anywhere near a pathetic fascist like yourself.
We disagree.
Question for you: who was campaigning ad nauseum against the Nevada ballot question? Wasn't a federal official now, was it?
You've been trumpeting the fact that all states have drug laws, it's a state issue, etc., but the plain fact of the matter is that the Federal government is using the bully pulpit to push the Drug War on the states. And it's much more than rhetoric. It's money, it's power, it's political influence.
When the Feds stay out of it, you may very well get a different tune altogether in the states: SIXTY percent of Massachusetts voters asked a nonbinding ballot question about marijuana decriminalization voted for decriminalization. Sixty percent.
Is this some sort of Viagra pill for you or something? Jesus Horatio Christ, you sound as if you actually get off hearing about people getting thrown in the brig for smoking a plant. What a petty little man you must be behind your keyboard.
As a matter of fact, I've seen polls where 72% of people were in favor of some type of decriminalization -- so I wouldn't be bragging about Massachusetts' paltry 60%.
I know exactly what it was---I was actually presented with the ballot question---and I draw a different inference from the results than you do. The results tell me that without any outside influence from either side, without the Drug Warriors crying hippies with guns on the streets and the MJ weirdos waxing eloquent about how MJ cures cancer and allows airplanes to fly, 60% of those polled said yes, they'd prefer that marijuana "offenses" be handled administratively vice criminally.
But the important point is that the Massachusetts vote was for decriminalization, not legalization. Huge difference.
As a matter of fact, I've seen polls where 72% of people were in favor of some type of decriminalization -- so I wouldn't be bragging about Massachusetts' paltry 60%.
As a practical manner, how do you believe decrim differs from legalization?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.