Medical Marijuana
(For further discussion of this issue during the recent legislative session, go to the January 27, 2002 issue of LegUp under "Rod's Publications.")
In 2001 I made it clear to my constituents that after much study and prayerful consideration I had reached a difficult decision to support a bill which allowed seriously ill patients to have access to marijuana under very restrictive, state-supervised control. I am still convinced of this correctness of this position and I have great peace with it.
All physicians I have questioned on this issue are unanimous on the following point: patients respond to medication, and even the manner of ingestion of medication quite differently. Medications effective on some individuals are ineffective on others, even in the manner of delivery. Oral ingestion, by pill, capsule, or liquid doses, may work with some people, while intravenous injection, topical application, inhalers or suppositories may be more effective or less effective depending on the patient.
For whatever reason, it has been conclusively shown that some individuals in the excruciating pain of cancer, or the pain, discomfort and near helplessness of debilitating disease, receive tremendous therapeutic benefit from marijuana. Former Reagan aide Lynn Nofziger, an ardent opponent of medical marijuana, changed his mind about the issue when he saw relief on his daughter's face for the first time. Her body was riddled with cancer and she was in severe pain. But marijuana was effective with her.
Until such time as an effective inhaler for THC becomes available, and this could be in the next three to five years, I will support the relief of pain and suffering for the 150 or so people in New Mexico who would be eligible for a tightly-controlled program.
For those familiar with the American experience, there is nothing remarkable about such a concept. No one questions the use of morphine, a far more powerful, far more addictive and far more dangerous drug. There is nothing new in this.
John Adams was perhaps the most devout Christian ever to serve as President. His biography says this about his dying daughter in his home in August 1813:
"Nabby was so emaciated as to be almost unrecognizable; her suffering was extreme. Opium provided her only relief." (John Adams, by David McCullough, p. 613)
All the ideological rigidity and extremism on this issue pales when one considers we are a people of mercy and of compassion. We want our doctors to be the same when they treat our loved ones.
The New Mexico Family Council (NMFC)
While the NMFC (a pro-family, Christian organization associated with Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family) was "officially opposed" to the so-called Medical Marijuana bill, they were so with considerably less fervor than exhibited on the other issues. Kevin Jackson of the NMFC, a remarkably intellectually honest lobbyist on the issue, told me:
"It is a tough call. If inhalers or other forms of ingestion were available and perfected, we would be in a more comfortable position. But as it stands, there is a very strong, compassion-based argument which can be made in favor of alleviating suffering."
Claims made by opponents:
Opponents of medical marijuana say that such a program for suffering patients would "open the door" to legalization; that it would allow those who want to abuse the drug to get their foot in the door, or "come in through the back door of this program."
These comments are unfounded on one count, and absurd on the other. First, the program has massive safeguards and procedures involving physician referral and state supervision. Second, no "dope smoker" is sitting around waiting for a medical marijuana bill, so they can use it as a pretext to "get to be able to smoke dope." These people are already smoking marijuana and couldn't care less if we have a program for suffering patients.
Using this "opening door" argument is like saying that the criminals and robbers of New Mexico are thrilled about having the "concealed carry law" because this allows them to get their foot in the door. Now they will be more efficient at robbery because they get to carry concealed weapons. That is ridiculous. The criminals are already carrying concealed weapons. The new law is for the law-abiding citizen who wants to carry lawfully.
The medical marijuana concept is for suffering patients who refuse to violate the law, and must endure the pain. People who smoke marijuana recreationally are not "waiting" for anything, let alone this program. They are already doing it, will continue to do so and this measure would have no effect on them in any way.
My response to those who claim that there is an absolutist position on this issue:
I support the efforts of physicians and other health care providers who have found that certain conditions, for which there are no other means of alleviating suffering, can be treated effectively with applications of THC. If a statute can be designed which allows for this application, for severe medical conditions, I would support such legislation.
I believe that reasonable efforts to alleviate needless pain and suffering should be undertaken if they can be shown to be consistent with the principles of law. To do otherwise is to be purposefully cruel, solely for the satisfaction of adhering to some artificially rigid, ideologically-cast standard, not supported by science. There is no support for such a position anywhere in the American tradition, be it in our philosophy as a people, our history, our Judeo-Christian experience, nor in our common sense and common decency.