Marijuana medical applications

There is much interest in the medical applications of Cannabis sativa L. (marijuana). An oral spray consisting of the marijuana constituents, cannabidiol (CBD,19) and A -mzw-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, 20), has been approved recendy in Canada for the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), and it is possible that this drug will be approved elsewhere in the near future. ... 

Research into medical applications of marijuana is made all the more difficult by the fact that all forms of cannabis remain in the schedule 1 category, which makes it almost impossible for scientists to obtain marijuana of consistent potency needed for studies. Often current marijuana laws make it very difficult for scientists at universities and pharmaceutical companies to get permission to do cannabis research at all. And if they succeed in getting permission to do cannabis research, it is very difficult for them to obtain the drug legally. Furthermore, confiscated marijuana that researchers obtain from law enforcement sources (a common source of marijuana used in cannabis research programs) varies gready in potency and is sometimes tainted by other drugs, pesticides, and other impurities. Nevertheless, scientists have continued to do what research they can. 

In regard to marijuana or its active component, A -THC, the following potential medical applications have been listed as areas still to be explored analgesia, antihypertensive activity, treatment of migraine, management of dying patients and sexual stimulation. 

The basic question is whether a medical necessity defense is applicable to the federal Controlled Substances Act. Put another way, do patients who believe (or whose doctors believe) that marijuana is necessary for their treatment have the right to receive the drug even though it is illegal under federal law ... 

Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should construe the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance. 

---