July 24, 2002

CNN.com 

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful Foggy Bottom.

Since Congress can't seem to get around to providing a drug benefit for Medicare, perhaps folks should just be allowed to grow their own. A lot of people think marijuana can't hurt people with cancer, glaucoma or other painful diseases, and it may even help. So why not let them have it?

In the CROSSFIRE is Keith Stroup, executive director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; and joining us from Oklahoma City is Asa Hutchison, who heads up the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.

CARLSON: Keith, thanks for joining us.

KEITH STROUP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORML: Thank you. Nice to be here.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Here's the problem I have. If you're for legalizing marijuana, I think you have a legitimate argument, probably not a correct one, but a legitimate one on your side.

STROUP: Thank you.

CARLSON: Why not just make it, rather than rolling out, as you did today at a press conference, people who are ill almost as a form of moral blackmail, support our position or you take a position against these ill people here up on the stage? Why not just make the argument directly rather than this kind of phony roundabout medical way?

STROUP: I would actually suggest that it is the other side that's doing that, and let me briefly explain. We do favor, my organization NORML believes, you should not arrest responsible marijuana smokers regardless, whether they're a patient or just smoking it for the fun of it.

Nonetheless, that issue is a side issue. The country is largely divided on that issue. I think we have a slight majority of the country on our side. But there's a lot of debate that has to happen. On the issue of whether seriously ill patients should have marijuana as a medicine or if their doctor recommends it, 73 percent of the American public now support that. Nine states have now approved it under state law, eight by voter initiative and one, Hawaii, by legislature.

It is inconceivable to me that we would want to deny an effective medication to seriously ill and dying patients. There are tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who get no relief from traditional medication. These are cancer patients, AIDS patients, MS patients, people with chronic pain, especially neuropathic pain. If marijuana helps them, I can't imagine a justification for denying them that medication.

CARVILLE: Mr. Hutchinson, let me give you just a chance before I get into it to respond to what Mr. Stroup said. He made a lot of points here. I thought some of them sounded good. So, tell us why he's all washed up and wrong.

ASA HUTCHINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: Well, first of all, on the point that we would not want to deny effective medication to someone who is ill or dying, we would not want to do that. We're a compassionate society. But we have always listened to the scientific and medical community as to what is good medicine. And thus far, they have not said that.

I think that we ought to listen to the American Medical Association that believes there is a not a medical benefit for marijuana, for smoking marijuana. And so I think that's the group that we should listen to, and they have not said it is good medicine. We want to be -- we are a compassionate society. We want to provide good medicine. We're authorizing continued studies of any health benefits. Thus far, they're not there and so we have the right policy.

CARVILLE: Let me read to you -- let me show you something here, Mr. Hutchinson. I'm going to read to you from Al Hunt's column in the "Wall Street Journal": "John Ashcroft's pre-September 11 agenda was fighting gun control, abortion, state laws permitting assisted suicide or medical marijuana and going after hookers and their clients, not terrorism. There are many more crimes and crime-catchers in America. So, priority is important." my question to you is, why should I really care or you care or the FBI or John Ashcroft care if some guy is taking chemotherapy, wants to take a couple of tokes. I mean, let him have it. What the hell. What's the problem?

HUTCHINSON: Well, first of all, Attorney General Ashcroft is certainly concentrating on our fight against terrorism. We have priorities that are out there from heroin and cocaine to terrorism. We also have responsibility, one of them is to enforce our laws in regards to marijuana.

Whenever you look at marijuana, 400 -- excuse me -- 225,000 Americans each year are admitted to treatment programs because of marijuana dependence. More teenagers go into treatment for marijuana addiction than any other drug including alcohol. It is a serious problem in our country. It has health consequences. It is more toxic than tobacco, and most people are not out there advocating we ought to increase tobacco use. When it comes to medical use, let's listen to science and medicine, and whatever they say, we should follow.

CARLSON: Now, Keith, here is the problem I have with the medical marijuana issue. It is apt, A, to make liars out of people. I think it already has in some places where people pretend to have ailments and they need to smoke dope to relieve those ailments; and, B, I think it implicates the government in the dope trade, essentially. San Francisco considering growing marijuana on city-owned property.

STROUP: Well, but they're only considering growing marijuana because the federal government will not allow the state to provide medicine that patients need. For example, the bill that we held a press conference on today, that former President Ronald Reagan's top chief, Lynn Noffsinger (ph) supports for example, and Dana Rohrbacher from California. It's not just a bunch of liberals.

What this bill does is simply amend federal law so that states that wish to allow the medical use of marijuana may do so legally and may provide it so that you don't have to have the city of San Francisco growing it. Right now, what happens is there is a conflict between state and federal law.

CARLSON: But I am just struck that there's no -- I mean, look, if smoking marijuana, as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) would say, marinol, you know, the pill form, if smoking marijuana was a treatment that was so effective that no other treatment could work for gravely ill patients, you would imagine -- you would have physicians protesting in the street on behalf of it, but you don't have that, do you?

STROUP: No, no, you do have many. In fact, the Institute of Medicine report that came out that the drug's czar's office spent $800,000 on two years ago, one of their major points was this: Marijuana is, without question, a therapeutic agent that can help cancer and AIDS patients and MS patients, et cetera.

They did say they want to find another way to deliver it other than smoking. So they're working on sublingual sprays and things like that. But they said: If someone is within six months of dying, if they're a terminal patient and no other medication would work, let them smoke marijuana.

CARVILLE: I think, Mr. Hutchinson, he makes a point here. I'm sure that you were a strong supporter of state's rights when you were in the United States Congress.

Why should you care if the state of California or Alaska or Vermont or any other state wants to make medical marijuana legal? Why should the federal government need to be butting into that decision that that state wants to make?

HUTCHINSON: Well, there is a conflict between state and federal law. But if you take, for example, bank robbery, it's a violation of both federal and state law. Just because the state legalizes it does not change the fact that it's a violation of federal law.

That's the conflict that we have. Federal law is...

STROUP: But should we have it, Asa? Should we have a conflict? Shouldn't the Feds step aside?

CARVILLE: You're really not equating bank robbery with a guy taking a couple tokes on a joint?

HUTCHINSON: I'm equating the fact that there's a lot of laws that we have out there that are both federal and state in conjunction, and they're separate jurisdictions.

Just because the state changes a policy on regards to marijuana does not mean that that changes the federal policy. You have the conflicts there.

We're continuing because it's the congressional mandate, because we have enforcement responsibilities to enforce the federal law.

I believe the American people still are opposed to legalization movement. I think that they want us to determine medicine based upon our FDA approval process. And that's what we want to be able to follow.

We shouldn't have referendum-based medicine. And that's the difficulty we're finding ourselves in.

CARLSON: Very quickly, Keith Stroup, that's, I think, an important point. Should we have referendum-based medicine? Why not wait for the FDA to approve it?

STROUP: Well, because we've been waiting for over 20 years already, and the government has planted their head in the sand.

Canada just legalized the medical use of marijuana. England is just a step away from legalizing it. Most of Western Europe is too.

So the fact that we have ideologues in our Congress who refuse to deal with marijuana as a medicine on a rational basis does not mean we should deny it to patients.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We're going to have to leave it there.

Keith Stroup, thank you so much.

STROUP: Thank you.

CARLSON: Mr. Hutchinson, thank you.

CARVILLE: Thank you so much, as always, both of you. Thanks for coming.