Mead A
California Medical Association, San Francisco, USA.
J Psychoactive Drugs. 1998 Apr-Jun;30(2):149-53. doi: 10.1080/02791072.1998.10399684.
The author describes the scope of California's Proposition 215 and explains the legal and scientific controversies that surround its enactment. The federal government's response to the law (including its threats to any physicians who might recommend medical marijuana to patients) and the litigation that ensued are outlined. The author recounts the complicated role played by the California Medical Association during this time, as it sought to adhere to the principles of the scientific process while also attempting to resist improper governmental intrusion into the physician-patient relationship. The legal impact of the federal Controlled Substances Act on the availability of marijuana for either research or therapeutic purposes is described. The conflict between Proposition 215 and federal law is explained, and author offers a legal analysis of the extent to which physicians have free speech rights under the federal constitution to discuss and recommend the medical use of marijuana to patients. The California Medical Association's efforts to address and reconcile the competing interests, culminating in written legal guidelines for physicians, are described in detail.
作者描述了加利福尼亚州215号提案的范围，并解释了围绕其颁布的法律和科学争议。概述了联邦政府对该法律的回应（包括对任何可能向患者推荐医用大麻的医生的威胁）以及随之而来的诉讼。作者讲述了在此期间加利福尼亚医学协会所扮演的复杂角色，因为它试图坚持科学程序的原则，同时也试图抵制政府对医患关系的不当干涉。描述了联邦《受控物质法》对用于研究或治疗目的的大麻供应的法律影响。解释了215号提案与联邦法律之间的冲突，作者对医生根据联邦宪法在讨论并向患者推荐大麻医疗用途方面享有言论自由权的程度进行了法律分析。详细描述了加利福尼亚医学协会为解决和协调相互冲突的利益所做的努力，最终形成了针对医生的书面法律指南。
