Federal authorities can now prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, but some local people disagree with the ruling.
The Supreme Court concluded that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
Becky Allen, health educator at Olin Health Center specializing in alcohol and drugs, said limiting treatment-option flexibility to patients is not beneficial.
"It takes one tool out of the physician's bag of possible treatment tools, and when you are dealing with chronic illness, you need as many tools as you can," she said.
Allen said her views don't reflect those of Olin Health Center or MSU. The court said the prosecution of marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said states should be allowed to set their own rules.
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
Although the state of Michigan is not among the states with laws protecting medical marijuana users, Ann Arbor residents passed a proposal in November protecting patients who use the drug. The proposal contradicted state and federal laws.
The office of Gov. Jennifer Granholm declined to comment on the Ann Arbor proposal and the current Supreme Court ruling.
In those states that have marijuana laws, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Dr. Barbara Conley, chief of Hematology and Oncology at MSU, said although none of the patients she has encountered have asked to use medical marijuana, she understands the reasoning for the use.
"For patients with advanced cancer, there is a syndrome called cancer cachexia when there is muscle wasting and starvation," she said. "Nobody knows what causes it, but they are beginning to learn about it. Some cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation also might cause it."
Marijuana serves as an appetite stimulant for those with cancer cachexia syndrome who might feel full when they are not, have a lost sense of taste or lose desire to continue eating.
Communications junior Broderic Jordan said the drug, when prescribed under proper circumstances, should be legal.
"It will be unfortunate when the people are using it need it and can't get it," he said.
Marketing senior Catie Puska said she supports the ruling but does not believe much change will occur due to the current ban on and continued use of recreational marijuana.
"People will probably still find and use it; it has already happened," she said.
Staff writer Maggie Lillis contributed to this report. She can be reached at lillisma@msu.edu.
