ABWF Logo
clear spacer

Menu
menu item spacer
Home
menu item spacer Learn About
ABWF-CT
menu item spacer Legislative
Priorities
menu item spacer References, Reading and Articles
menu item spacer
Contact Information
menu item spacer
Affiliated Organizations menu item spacer
Legislative
Action Center
menu item spacer

 

Frequently Asked Questions
About Medical Marijuana

  1. Does the public support medical marijuana?
  2. Does medical research support medical marijuana?
  3. Who would benefit from allowing access to medical marijuana?
  4. Aren't there other medications that work just as well?
  5. Does allowing medical use of marijuana send the wrong message to kids?
  6. Does allowing medical use of marijuana increase overall use?
  7. Do patients in other states have legal access medical marijuana?
  8. How does the Supreme Court fit in?

 

Does the public support medical marijuana?
 Yes, and overwhelmingly so. A 2004 report by UConn Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that 83% of Connecticut residents think adults should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes if a doctor prescribes it. (1)

The American Association 2005 research survey conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) found that 72% of people 45 years of age and older agree that adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it. (2)

A 2002 Time Magazine poll conducted found 80% of U.S. citizens support the legalization of medical marijuana. (3)

Does medical research support medical marijuana?
Yes. Medical research has firmly established that marijuana is a medically valuable treatment for some conditions because it can alleviate pain, increase appetite and decrease nausea. In the most comprehensive study of the medical efficacy of marijuana, the Congressionally chartered Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report on medical marijuana found “the accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.” (4)

The study further found that “for patients such as those with AIDS or who are undergoing chemotherapy and who suffer simultaneously from severe pain, nausea, and appetite loss, cannabinoid drugs might offer broad-spectrum relief not found in any other single medication.” (5)

Additionally, many prominent medical and professional organizations have endorsed the medical use of marijuana, including: Connecticut Nurses Association, Institute of Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Bar Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, AIDS Action Council, California Academy of Family Physicians, Colorado Nurses Association, Consumer Reports Magazine, The Grey Panthers, Kaiser Permanente, Lymphoma Foundation of America, National Association of Attorneys General, National Lawyers Guild, National Nurses Society on Addiction, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

-back to top-

Who would benefit from allowing access to medical marijuana?
 Medical use of marijuana would benefit those with debilitating medical conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, or epilepsy.

The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be almost 17,000 new cancer cases in Connecticut in 2005 alone, and over 7,000 cancer deaths. (6) The Connecticut Department of Public Health, on December 31, 2004, issued its latest analysis of HIV and AIDS cases in the state: 13,889 residents live with AIDS, while 1,031 residents are HIV-positive. (7)

The suffering of these patients, many of them in the final stages of their lives, is devastating for them and their loved ones. The fear of arrest for using medicine that has been proven to help them adds to the suffering of the patient and their caretakers.

Not all patients living with these conditions will need medical marijuana, but it is important that doctors have this option available for those patients who would benefit from the treatment.

Aren’t there other medications that work just as well?
 Marinol is an oral medication that contains many of the components of marijuana and is currently available by prescription. However, this is not a viable solution for many patients. Research has shown that Marinol is often poorly absorbed and patients complain that dosage is hard to monitor and control. Marinol is also more psychoactive than marijuana, and thus many patients have trouble with the intoxication level.

The bottom line in practice is that for some patients suffering from symptoms of cancer, AIDS, and other serious diseases, only marijuana offers relief and significantly improves their quality of life. For many patients, marijuana also has fewer side effects than other heavy pain and nausea medications.

-back to top-

Does allowing medical use of marijuana send the wrong message to kids?
In states that allow medical marijuana, recreational use among youth has not increased. In fact, according to the California Student Survey, use among 11th graders dropped 21%, use among 9th graders dropped 44% and use among 7th graders dropped 34% since the passage of medical marijuana legislation in California. (8)

Does allowing medical use of marijuana increase overall use?
According to the 1999 Institute of Medicine report, “[T]here is broad social concern that sanctioning the medical use of marijuana might increase its use among the general population. At this point there are no convincing data to support this concern. The existing data are consistent with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse potential…No evidence suggests that the use of opiates or cocaine for medical purposes has increased the perception that their illicit use is safe or acceptable.” (9)

Do patients in other states have legal access medical marijuana?
 Ten states currently allow patients legal access to medical marijuana: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Thirty six states—including Connecticut—plus the District of Columbia have passed legislation recognizing marijuana’s medicinal value.

Additionally, the federal government is currently supplying seven patients with medical marijuana. In 1978 the federal government created the Investigational New Drug (IND) compassionate access program, which allowed some patients to receive medical marijuana directly from the federal government. Unfortunately, the IND was closed in 1992 after it was flooded by applications from AIDS patients. Today seven surviving patients still receive medical marijuana from the federal government each month. No more applications are being accepted, which is why state medical marijuana laws are so important.

-back to top-

How does the Supreme Court fit in?
Neither Raich v. Ashcroft, to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, nor Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative v. Ashcroft, decided by the Supreme Court in 2001, affect the authority of the states to legislate in the area of medical marijuana.

The Raich case involves the attempt by two medical marijuana patients in California to curtail the federal government’s police power to confiscate their medicine. It has long been assumed by the courts, legislatures and legal scholars that the federal law enforcement officials have (under current federal law) the authority to seize marijuana from patients notwithstanding state law protections. The ten states that have enacted medical marijuana laws did so with this understanding. The plaintiffs in Raich, however, have challenged this assumption, claiming that their cultivation and use of medical marijuana does not implicate interstate commerce, and therefore does not trigger the legitimate exercise of federal police power. If, as is likely, the Supreme Court rejects the plaintiffs’ challenge in Raich, the status quo will prevail: the federal government’s power to enforce marijuana laws will not be enhanced; the states’ power and authority to enact and enforce state medical marijuana laws will not be diminished; and none of the state medical marijuana legislation that is on the books, or in the works, will be affected.


Prepared by the Drug Policy Alliance, February 2005

  1. Kim Kavin, “Why We Can’t We Pass This Law?” The Hartford Courant, 8 August 2004.
  2. AARP The Magazine, “Older Americans’ Attitudes on Medical Marijuana,” March/April 2005.
  3. Joel Stein, “The New Politics of Pot,” Time Magazine, 27 October 2002.
  4. Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson Jr., and John A. Benson Jr., Medical Marijuana: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, D.C.: Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, 1999).
  5. Ibid.
  6. American Cancer Society, “Estimated New Cancer Cases for Selected Cancer Sites by State, US, 2005,” http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/Estimated_Cancer_Deaths_for_ Selected_Cancer_Sites_by_State,_US,_2005.pdf (2005)
  7. Connecticut HIV/AIDS Surveillance Program, “Connecticut AIDS Cases by Sex, Race,and Age through December 31, 2004,” Connecticut Department of Health. (2005)
  8. California State Attorney General, “10th Biennial California Student Survey Highlights,” State of California, Department of Justice. (2004)
  9. Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson Jr., and John A. Benson Jr., Medical Marijuana: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, D.C.: Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, 1999).


-back to top-

 

War On Drugs Clock
War On Drugs Clock

 

This site is kindly hosted by:
drugsense.org

All Contents © 2005, A Better Way Foundation, New Haven, Connecticut, USA