news you can use

To some patients here, court marijuana ruling yet another cruel blow

By Stacy Milbouer, Globe Correspondent, 5/20/2001

LITCHFIELD - A unanimous US Supreme Court ruling against the medical use of marijuana last week will not stop a 46-year-old Litchfield man from smoking pot when he can get it.

Robert, who asked that his last name not be used, made his position on the subject clear a few months ago when the New Hampshire Legislature was considering a proposal to allow the medical use of marijuana. Sponsored by state Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a Libertarian from Manchester, the bill was voted down by the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee in March.

Before he was diagnosed eight years ago with an inoperable brain tumor, and given three months to live, Robert said, he was not a marijuana smoker.

At the time, he was a working as an environmental professional for Polaroid. He was married, a father, and living in the suburbs.

As a result of his tumor, Robert suffered seizures continually. In 1995 he underwent brain surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible, but the seizures just worsened. He had a second round of surgery in 1997 that he says essentially resulted in the removal of one third of his brain. The tumor had grown around his optic nerve, leaving him legally blind.

By that time he had to quit his job and go on disability. The anti-seizure drugs he was taking weren't working. Robert was still having up to six seizures a day.

Last summer, in yet another effort to shrink the tumor, Robert underwent chemotherapy and was prescribed the drug Marinol, which contains a highly concentrated form of the active ingredients in marijuana.

''I was delighted to discover,'' Robert told the House committee, ''that I was not having as many seizures. Rather than six or more a day, I was having only six a week. However, I was still having some pain and nausea from the chemo.''

Robert started doing his own research and found out that some doctors were using Marinol and marijuana for seizure control.

''And then one day when I was feeling severe pain and nausea, I had the opportunity to take few puffs from a marijuana cigarette, and immediately the pain, fatigue and ill feeling lifted away,'' he said.

''I actually went outside and did yard work. I was so amazed; I had worked outside for over four hours... when I hadn't been able to do any kind of physical activity for months.''

Robert said he talked to his doctors about smoking marijuana, was warned of its possible negative effects, and continued to smoke a few puffs each day for a week. He was seizure free. And he was relieved of some of the nausea and fatigue caused by the chemo.

But it's not easy for Robert to get marijuana. He admitted to trying to grow the plant himself, without success, and said he can not cope with trying to buy it on the street.

''Sometimes a compassionate person just leaves it on my front door,'' he said. He still has access to Marinol - which he said costs about $670 for a week's supply - but he says it's not as effective as smoking marijuana in controlling his symptoms, and is so strong it leaves him unable to function.

Monday's court ruling

dashed his hopes for obtaining a prescription for marijuana.

''One of the reasons cited for the New Hampshire bill's failure was because marijuana use was banned on a federal level. If the federal case had passed, it would have been easier for us to get a law passed here.''

The Supreme Court ruling upheld federal authority to stop California marijuana growers' clubs from distributing pot to people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other disabling diseases. But it did not explicitly overturn state laws that allow medical marijuana use.

Eight states, including Maine, have approved such uses. Twenty others have passed legislation that accepts the therapeutic properties of marijuana, an opinion widely supported in public opinion polls. But the Supreme Court action is seen as a setback for other states that are considering similar laws.

While a doctor prescribing marijuana in a state that has passed a medical use law cannot be arrested by local authorities, he or she can be prosecuted by federal authorities.

''Who knows when someone will want to make an example out of a doctor who prescribes marijuana, even if it is legal in his or her state?'' asked Dr. John Dalco, who specializes in addiction medicine in New Hampshire and Vermont. Dalco, who also does work for the New Hampshire Medical Society, testified against the proposed marijuana law this winter.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated there was no proof that smoking marijuana provided any medical benefits, despite studies to the contrary.

Dalco said he thinks the whole subject has been politicized. What's really needed, he said, is controlled scientific testing to actually determine the medical benefits - if any - of pot.

But proponents of legalizing marijuana for medical and other purposes say that type of testing has been blocked by the federal government, which they say is invested in keeping marijuana on the Drug Enforcement Agency's list of most dangerous drugs, which ranks it with heroin, cocaine and LSD.

Bob Melamede, a member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and a research professor at the University of Vermont who testified in favor of the proposed law here, said there is irrefutable proof that marijuana helps those suffering from cancer and other diseases.

''That Supreme Court ruling is nuts,'' he said. ''I'm a molecular immunologist and I know the medical benefits of smoking marijuana. There have been tests done to show this is true. This was a very narrow ruling on the part of the Supreme Court on a very narrow topic ...

''The ironic thing is that every time this subject is put before voters in referendums it passes. It's when it gets presented to state legislatures, as it was in New Hampshire, that it gets voted down.''

Vaillancourt, the sponsor of the failed New Hampshire bill, agrees.

''Believe me, this does get political,'' he said. ''I had representatives tell me they were going to vote for this legislation, but at the last minute they gave in to party pressure and voted against it.''

In a letter to Phil Greazzo, the head of New Hamsphire NORML, Governor Jeanne Shaheen expressed her opposition to the medical use bill. ''It is my feeling,'' she wrote, ''that there are currently enough existing legalized medications which are effective and have met with Food and Drug Administration approval. Legalizing marijuana through the political process bypasses the safeguards established by the FDA.''

Vaillancourt said he is unimpressed by the argument that the bill's passage could lead to the growth of marijuana for other purposes. ''As if people can't walk out their door right now, walk to the center of town and buy marijuana if they want to,'' he said. ''It's just that old reefer madness that people are still worried about.''

Enfield Police Chief John Giese, who spoke against the bill on behalf of the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police, disagrees.

He thinks that those who are pushing to legalize the medical use of the drug are pushing to legalize marijuana in general.

''We call them legalizers,'' said Giese. ''Listen, you've got the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association all saying that marijuana is not useful as a medicine. ...

''There are some people who really believe this is a choice and ... [say] if they're suffering they should be able to try this,'' he continued. ''And to some degree I agree with that. But on the other hand, what's ever freely available to adults in this society is also available to children.

''I think the real answer here is to put this before the Federal Drug Administration,'' said Giese. ''Let them study this and decide.''

Derry resident Leonard Epstein, a member of New Hampshire NORML, said that compassion should be a prime consideration in the debate.

''What if all the evidence that marijuana had medicinal benefits is wrong?'' he said. ''What if the only benefit a desperately sick person gets is that they feel better? Is it right to prosecute them and put them in jail for that?''

This story ran on page 01 of the Boston Globe's New Hampshire Weekly on 5/20/2001.

� Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.

Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.

Problems with this page? Then deal with it...