Michael Krawitz, from Elliston, Virginia, suffered a car
accident while serving in the US air force which left him permanently
disabled and in chronic pain.
Years later he received a
prescription for medical marijuana while abroad, which, when used with
other pain treatment, stabilised his condition for the first time.
But
when the department of veteran affairs found out about his cannabis
prescription, they asked him to undergo a drug test, he said, which he
refused.
They have now denied him further treatment.
Later
this month, Krawitz, 49, and other advocates for medical marijuana will
go before the US court of appeal as part of a historic lawsuit that they
hope will challenge the federal government’s classification of
marijuana.
Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is
classified alongside heroin as a dangerous drug, with no medical
benefits. Advocates argue that marijuana has a medical benefit and so
should be reclassified.
A wide range of US organisations support
either medical access to cannabis, its reclassification or both. They
include two of nation’s largest physician groups, the American Medical
Association and the American College of Physicians, in addition to the
American Nurses Association, the Federation of American Scientists and
the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to be heard at the US court of appeal for the DC circuit on October 16.
It
is the result of a long legal battle by the Americans for Safe Access
(ASA), a group of physicians, medical professionals and patients
advocating legal access to marijuana for medical use and research.
It
marks the first time in 20 years the scientific evidence regarding the
therapeutic value of marijuana will be reviewed by the courts. Previous
efforts have not been successful.
"Medical marijuana patients are
finally getting their day in court," said Joe Elford, chief counsel with
ASA. "This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically
motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana’s
medical efficacy."
Federal government says drug has no proven medical benefit
The case began more than a decade ago, when Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC) filed its petition.
In
that time, ASA says, much has changed, and the government’s position is
out of step with increasing evidence of the benefits of the drug.
Steph
Sherer, executive director of ASA said: "At the heart of this issue of
the scheduling of marijuana and the federal government’s refusal to look
at the research that’s out there every day is a bigger gap growing
between patients and doctors and the federal government."
Advocates
say that even the therapeutic research required to prove the case for
the beneficial effects of the drug is subject to a unique and overly
rigorous approval process.
While there is no conclusive scientific
evidence in favour of medical marijuana, the research that does exist
indicates it can be effective.
In a conference call sponsored by
ASA, Dr Donald Abrams, director of clinical programs at San Francisco
general hospital, told reporters research had shown cannabis benefited
patients suffering from HIV.
He also said he recommended it to his cancer patients as treatment for a variety of symptoms.
"In
my practice every day as a cancer specialist I see patients who have
loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting from their chemotherapy, pain on
and off of opiates, anxiety, depression and insomnia," Abrams said. He
added that cannabis could effectively treat all of those symptoms in
lieu of five separate drugs.
Krawitz
said: "The definition of cannabis as schedule I has caused my fellow
patients to be imprisoned, denied work, housing, right to own a firearm,
a place on a transplant list, and of greatest concern to me, is the
latest casualty of the drug war, my VA doctor."
In its decision
last year rejecting ASA’s petition to reschedule marijuana, which has
since been appealed, the drug enforcement agency concluded there was no
substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule 1.
The
DEA included the required scientific assessment from the US department
of health and human services (HHS) which had been prepared five years
earlier.
The HSS found there were no "NDA-quality [new drug
application] studies that have assessed (marijuana)
