|
 Same Day Multiple Prescriptions
Why
is Our Government Pursuing a War on Doctors?
Free
Electronic Newsletter
|
|
, Blockade of Effects of Smoked
Marijuana by the CB1-Selective Cannabinoid Receptor Antagonist SR141716
ARCH. GEN. PSYCHIATRY.
2001;58:322-328
, Marijuana and Medicine:
Assessing the Science Base (1999) [OpenBook]
,
Marijuana As Medicine?: The Science Beyond the Controversy (2000) INST.
OF MED. [Openbook]
, Policy Commentary: Breaking
the Federal/State Impasse Over Medical Marijuana: A Proposal, Winter, 11
HASTINGS WOMEN'S L.J. 59
(2000). $[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
 Summary:
Argues that medical marijuana must be distanced from illegal drug use and have
its own contended-for safe and effective uses researched and proven. Thereafter,
once provedn as a safe and effective drug for specific purposes, it ought to
be available through the same channels as all other drugs, prescribed by a licensed
professional and dispensed by a registered pharmacist.
, Smoke Screen: America’s Drug
Policy and Medical Marijuana, 55 FOOD
DRUG L.J. 601 (2000). [PDF]
$[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Conboy examines the medical effectiveness of marijuana and concludes that federal
drug policy is motivated by politics rather than true science. Author recommends
temporarily reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule II substance, which would
allow it to be prescribed, and clinical trials with plants grown under similar
biological conditions.
, Conant v. McCaffrey: Physicians,
Marijuana, and the First Amendment, 70 U. COLO.
L. REV. 975 (1999). $[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Dixon provides a primer on the effectiveness and history of the medical use
of marijuana and examines the decision in Conant v. McCaffrey, which held that
the federal government could not prosecute California physicians who merely
recommend the use of marijuana to their terminally-ill patients, unless the
physicians are also aiding and abetting in violation of federal drug laws. The
article also discusses the likely chilling effect on the physician-patient relationship
that would occur if physicians could be prosecuted for recommending the drug
in states that have passed medical marijuana laws.
, Seeley v. State: The Need
for Definitional Balancing in Washington Substantive Due Process Law, 73
WASH. L. REV.
669 (1998). $[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Farris analyzes the Washington Supreme Court decision in Seeley v. State, in
which a terminally-ill man challenged marijuana’s placement on Schedule I, and
criticizes the federal substantive due process reasoning on which the opinion
is based. Farris proposes a definitional balancing test, in which the court
identifies state and individual interests, and then assigns relative values
to those interests. It is suggested that the outcome of Seeley would have been
different had Seeley’s interest in obtaining palliative relief been justly considered.
, Cannabis, Compassionate
Use and the Commerce Clause: Why Developments in California May Limit the Constitutional
Reach of the Federal Drug Laws, 1999 ANN.
SURV. AM. L. 471 (1999).
$[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Gouldin discusses United States drug laws’ conflict with state attempts to legalize
medical marijuana. Article also examines major Commerce Clause decisions and
discusses the distinction between issues of mere national concern, such as drug
abuse, and interstate activities that fall within the scope of the Commerce
Clause.
, Urgent Compassion: Medical
Marijuana, Prosecutorial Discretion and the Medical Necessity Defense, 41
B.C. L. REV. 699 (2000). [HTML]
$[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
LeVay studies the medical necessity defense to violation of marijuana laws and
notes relevant case law. The author also argues for prosecutorial discretion
as a means of solving conflicts between federal and state laws, and notes that
prosecuting a seriously-ill person might increase their stress or be counterproductive.
, Medical Marijuana’s Fate in
the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s New Commerce Clause Jurisprudence,
72 U. COLO. L. REV.
201 (2001). $[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Article examines the recent Supreme Court decisions of United States v. Lopez
and United States v. Morrison, which both held that Congress exceeded the regulatory
power afforded to it by the Commerce Clause. Neusch suggests that Congress’
determination that all intrastate drug activity substantially affects interstate
commerce should be reevaluated under the reasoning of these cases.
, Good Cop, Bad Cop; Federal
Prosecution of State-Legalized Medical Marijuana Use After United States v.
Lopez, 88 CAL. L. REV.
1572 (2000). $[Lexis]
Summary:
This article notes that medical marijuana implicates both the state police power
and traditional state regulation of health care. Newbern asserts that the Commerce
Clause may prevent enforcement of federal drug laws in states which allow the
medical use of marijuana. Article summarizes Commerce Clause jurisprudence,
and notes the weakness of federal regulation when the marijuana is procured
and used strictly within a state. If defendants can demonstrate that the drug
never moved in interstate commerce, federal prosecution is uncertain.
, Marijuana as a Schedule I
Substance: Political Ploy or Accepted Science? 40 SANTA
CLARA L. REV. 1137 (2000).
$[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Smith discusses the controversial placement of marijuana on Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act and delineates the requirements for that schedule.
The author argues for rescheduling based on biochemical properties of marijuana
and notes its effectiveness in treating AIDS wasting syndrome, chemotherapy-induced
nausea and ocular pressure from glaucoma.
, Populations at Risk for Criminal
Liability under Compassionate Use Acts, 25 NEW
ENG. J. ON CRIM.
& CIV. CONFINEMENT 275
(1999). $[Lexis]
$[Westlaw]
Summary:
Article examines the potential for criminal liability of physicians, primary
caregivers and patients for their treatment with or use of medical marijuana.
Criminal repercussions at both the state and federal level are discussed.
|
|
