Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Dying over drug politics
Past time to resolve conflict
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionThe conflict over state and federal medical marijuana laws must be resolved.
California and 12 other states now allow the use of medical marijuana, yet the federal government does not.
That means sick people with authorization from their doctors to use marijuana are still in legal jeopardy, that California employers can fire workers who use marijuana recommended by a physician, and that people in need of an organ transplant can be barred from organ-transplant waiting lists.
Too bad there is not a common-sense transplant.
The Star wrote last month about a Seattle man, Timothy Garon, denied a spot on an organ-transplant list because he had used medical marijuana, authorized by his physician, for symptoms related to Hepatitis C.
The University of Washington Medical Center, which has strict rules about organ recipients' drug use, denied Mr. Garon a shot at a new liver, in part, because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
He died May 1.
Now, the University of Washington Medical Center is using the same sorry reason to deny a spot on its organ-transplant list to Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Seattle, according to a May 19 article in The Los Angeles Times.
The Times reported Mr. Simchen, a diabetic with failing kidneys and pancreas, was also denied a spot in Seattle's Virginia Mason Hospital transplant program because of his use of medical marijuana.
Mr. Simchen cannot afford to wait for Congress to get around to resolving the state-federal law conflict. It has already been three years since the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that Congress act.
However, medical centers do not have to base life-and-death decisions on the federal government's inane, outdated 1970s drug-war policies.
There is no reason why, in 2008, marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is deemed to have no medical use, when drugs such as cocaine and morphine are listed as Schedule 2 drugs, available by prescription.
Medical-marijuana use, authorized by a physician, should never be a reason for denying anyone a shot at receiving a life-saving organ transplant. Indeed, people in need of organ transplants are some of the most-likely people to benefit from medical marijuana.
We understand there might be political risks to a member of Congress who takes this on. What we don't understand is why any physician would put politics before patients.
Posted by cassandra on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good editorial.
Indeed the whole War on Drugs has a bad smell, from CIA running supplies to environmental damage from reckless defoliation to overwhelming our prisons and criminal justice system with drug crimes to well . . . . the list goes on.
The more one knows about these factors the worse it looks. Trouble is the knee jerkers don't know much.
This may be one time a Libertarian position (re: controlled substances) has some merit.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 22, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are two questions being discussed here. The first is the premise of the editorial - Does marijuana have medical benefit? Every scientific, peer reviewed study has come to the conclusion that whole marijuana has no medical benefit. The other question is whether or not marijuana should be legal for all purposes. My guess is that it probably should be.
Cassandra brought up our prisons being overcrowded. The legality of marijuana has a negligible effect on our prison system. Inmates convicted of alcohol and meth. related crimes outnumber marijuana related convictions 100-1.
Alas, none of this has any effect on whether or not marijuana has medical value. It does not. At least, as former President Clinton proved, it is not an effective cure for infidelity....
Posted by cassandra on May 22, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sometimes when I'm with friends as today I forget how mind killing the culture of corporate media is. Thank you, gentlemen, for the reminder.
No one suggests crimes committed relative to drug use should be excused any more than crimes committed without that complication. I'm only suggesting that use by itself should not be an occasion for exciting the criminal justice system.
I don't doubt alcohol is a far bigger contributor to criminal activity, as is meth. That's not the point. We've tried outlawing the former, with bad results. and the latter seems impervious to legal proscribing.
Marijuana has proved successful in decreasing nausea among those getting chemo and increasing appetite and promoting feelings of well being without a hangover. It can also increase libido in those feeling deficient in this respect. These seems like medical uses of value. I don't know what scientific study you refer to, but ordinary experience of millions should be refutation.
Are we going to get another chorus of reefer madness? Too many have had good experiences.
Frankly this seems like parroting a party line from some source.
Some use MJ for glaucoma with good results. I personally would prefer something less mind bending, but I don't require everybody to have the same preferences as I. No doubt a liberal failing.
Finally when the War on Drugs has been such a corrupting and legally questionable influence, as with the CIA trafficking or a reason to trash the environment and the populations with defoliants in Latin America.
The salient issue seems to be, as with any available botanical medication, that one with modest ability can grow a good quality product in one's backyard and escape the pharmaceutical monopoly on medications.
I'm not interested in curing infidelity. People who worry about others' sexual deviations should get a life.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 3 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.