Click here for printer-friendly
verson
Mr. Chairman, distinguished doctors, honored guests,
my name is Eric Sterling. I am the president of The
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a non-partisan educational
charity that promotes crime prevention strategies and
innovative solutions to the problems of the criminal
justice system. The criminal justice system should not
be concerned with persons who use marijuana for medical
purposes. That is not the case today. People are using
marijuana for medical purposes, they are being arrested,
and they are going to jail. It was reported earlier
this month that an Oklahoma man, claiming to use marijuana
for migraine, I believe, was sentenced by a jury to
90 years in prison. The court refused to hear the witnesses
he sought to present.
The San Francisco Examiner reported last Sunday that
a physician serving 6000 patients in a remote area of
Northern California is being investigated by DEA. A
graduate of Tufts Medical School, since November he
has recommended marijuana to three patients.
Senators Faircloth, Helms, Inhofe and Smith of New
Hampshire have introduced a bill, S. 40, to send physicians
to prison for eight years if they suggest using marijuana
to their patients in the course of their professional
practice. This crime would be committed even if the
physician responds to a request for information.
Certainly physicians should be able to discuss marijuana's
potential benefits and side effects with a patient without
worrying that their "patient" is actually a police informant
seeking not medical advice but incriminating statements.
Yesterday, the conclusion of the majority of the presentations
I heard -- Dr. Mattes, Dr. Mulligan, Dr. Kaufman, Dr.
Consroe and Dr. Payne -- was, in essence, that extensive
research program into marijuana's medical potential
is warranted.
I have six recommendations.
1. First, this workshop should state unequivocally
that marijuana has medical potential and that assertion
of such potential is not a hoax or fraud. This is not
an endorsement of any particular treatment, but a recognition
that claims of medical benefit are entitled to be considered
and examined.
2. You should recommend that NIH make clear that it
welcomes well-designed research into marijuana's medical
potential, and recommend that it budget accordingly.
NIH should welcome privately funded research. It should
call for an aggressive research program.
3. Marijuana should be rescheduled to Schedule II.
This workshop should recommend that FDA immediately
undertake the necessary review to make this happen.
The scientific decision by HHS is binding on DEA. Dr.
Consroe alluded to the bureaucratic obstacles in doing
research in marijuana. If marijuana were rescheduled
to Schedule II, most of those obstacles for legitimate
research would be eliminated, but the structure for
criminal enforcement of the law would remain unchanged.
Cocaine's placement on Schedule II does not impede DEA
in any way.
4. The compassionate IND program should be reopened.
This workshop has reviewed the wide variety of potential
medical benefits from marijuana. You briefly discussed
the plight of non-responders. Research studies with
an "n of one" ought to be permitted, especially for
non-responders. The discussion about the populations
in which the research is undertaken illustrates that
those populations may be quite small.
5. America's doctors should call for a moratorium
on the prosecution of persons who have good faith claims
that they are using marijuana medically. Doctor Temple
noted that the people are not "waiting for the science."
They want relief, and they should not be penalized for
that. It must no longer be a crime to want relief, and
take medication that seems to provide it. Science must
not stand by silently during the persecution of people
who use politically incorrect medications. Scientists
cannot wash their hands while sick and desperate people
are prosecuted in the name of a scientific vacuum.
6. Scheduling decisions should be made by the scientific
community and not by a law enforcement agency. The scheduling
power should be taken from the Justice Department, where
it does not logically belong, and transferred to FDA.
Dr. Jones noted that the 1975 conference on medical
marijuana was much larger. He implied that the smaller
audience yesterday was due simply to the development
of better drugs over the past twenty years. Another
explanation is that for the past twenty years research
in this field has been suppressed by redtape, by harassment,
by threats of prosecution, and political propaganda.
If scientific research itself had not been denigrated
and attacked, this room would have been full of scientists.
While DEA's record in this matter is shameful, NIDA's
record in this area has been less than stellar. It has
been inhospitable to clinicians who have experience
using marijuana. Nevertheless, NIH, if it takes this
workshop seriously, will have done a service in invigorating
scientific discussion and debate.