US Supreme Court says no to medical marijuana
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The US Supreme Court voted six-three that medical use of marijuana was illegal in a vote last week, despite laws in 11 states that permit its use. The court ruling puts the federal government at odds with many in the scientific establishment and with public opinion. The decision is unlikely to affect people living in states that allow medical marijuana use, where state laws permitting this use are still in effect, however. Most people who are prosecuted for use or possession of marijuana are large scale drug dealers, not those using the drug under a doctor抯 supervision to alleviate symptoms of illness.
The case that led to the ruling was brought by two Californian women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who use marijuana to alleviate symptoms of medical conditions. Ms Raich has an inoperable brain tumour, scoliosis, and other health problems. Ms Monson has a painful degenerative spine disease.
The federal US Drug Enforcement Administration raided Ms Monson抯 home and confiscated marijuana plants that she had grown for her own use. Ms Raich received marijuana free from a friend. Both are reported to have followed their doctors?advice to use marijuana and said that they would continue to use their home grown drug. Californians voted to legalise marijuana for medical use in 1996. Perhaps 100 000 of the state抯 35 million residents are thought to use the drug legally.
US newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday, the Chicago Tribune, the Dallas Morning News, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer criticised the court抯 decision that medical use of marijuana should be illegal. The Washington Post said, "The government抯 crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn抰 mean it抯 unconstitutional" (7 Jun 2004, p A20).
The Washington Post explained that the Supreme Court relied on the "commerce clause" in the constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It ruled that legal use within California might influence marijuana sales in the illegal interstate market (so affecting interstate commerce). The court said that Congress would have to change the law to make medical marijuana use legal. Such bills have been introduced for a decade and are expected to be voted on soon. The bills would classify marijuana as a drug that could be prescribed or would exempt from prosecution people who used marijuana with a doctor抯 prescription.
Medical use of marijuana has broad support in the United States. A poll last year by the American Association of Retired Persons showed that 72% of members older than 45 thought that people could use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor recommended it. A 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Science, said, "Cannabinoids likely have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory . . ." It said that cannabinoids have "potential therapeutic value for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."(Janice Hopkins Tanne)
The case that led to the ruling was brought by two Californian women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who use marijuana to alleviate symptoms of medical conditions. Ms Raich has an inoperable brain tumour, scoliosis, and other health problems. Ms Monson has a painful degenerative spine disease.
The federal US Drug Enforcement Administration raided Ms Monson抯 home and confiscated marijuana plants that she had grown for her own use. Ms Raich received marijuana free from a friend. Both are reported to have followed their doctors?advice to use marijuana and said that they would continue to use their home grown drug. Californians voted to legalise marijuana for medical use in 1996. Perhaps 100 000 of the state抯 35 million residents are thought to use the drug legally.
US newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsday, the Chicago Tribune, the Dallas Morning News, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer criticised the court抯 decision that medical use of marijuana should be illegal. The Washington Post said, "The government抯 crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn抰 mean it抯 unconstitutional" (7 Jun 2004, p A20).
The Washington Post explained that the Supreme Court relied on the "commerce clause" in the constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It ruled that legal use within California might influence marijuana sales in the illegal interstate market (so affecting interstate commerce). The court said that Congress would have to change the law to make medical marijuana use legal. Such bills have been introduced for a decade and are expected to be voted on soon. The bills would classify marijuana as a drug that could be prescribed or would exempt from prosecution people who used marijuana with a doctor抯 prescription.
Medical use of marijuana has broad support in the United States. A poll last year by the American Association of Retired Persons showed that 72% of members older than 45 thought that people could use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor recommended it. A 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Science, said, "Cannabinoids likely have a natural role in pain modulation, control of movement, and memory . . ." It said that cannabinoids have "potential therapeutic value for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."(Janice Hopkins Tanne)