New York judge with cancer makes case for marijuana
“It’s brave and wonderful, but it’s heart-wrenching,” said Ellen Yaroshefsky, a law professor at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law. “There are key moments in history where a judge makes a bold stand. This is one of the moments, and we should be proud of it.”
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES UNCLEAR
In New York, disciplinary actions involving judges are handled by the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct, which reviews allegations of criminal activity and other wrongdoing and decides on an appropriate reprimand. That could range from a confidential cautionary letter to dismissal, although more serious forms of punishment require approval from the state’s chief judge.
Robert Tembeckjian, counsel for the commission, declined to say whether any inquiry could or would be opened into Reichbach’s statements.
“Information relating to the conduct of judges that appears in newspapers is routinely reviewed by the commission,” Tembeckjian said.
The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office did not immediately comment on whether any action was being contemplated against the judge. But first-time possession of a small amount of marijuana is classified only as a civil offense.
THE EMERGING EVIDENCE
Last year, five scientific journals published prominent articles trumpeting cannabinoids (compounds in marijuana) as potential anti-cancer agents.
These include:
- Clinical trial data published in January 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Clinical Investigation that found cannabinoids significantly inhibit skin tumor growth in mice. Investigators of the study concluded, “The present data indicate that local cannabinoids administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer.”
- Clinical trial data published in the March 2003 issue of The FASEB Journal that found that the “local administration of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid inhibits angiogenesis (tissue growth) of malignant gliomas (brain tumors).”
- A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ “favorable drug safety profile” and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).
- Clinical trial data published in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that found the administration of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the growth of human glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose-dependent manner. Investigators concluded, “Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent (something which prevents the growth of malignant cells.)”
- And finally, a clinical review in the December 2003 issue of the journal Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that summarized “the demonstrated antitumor actions of cannabinoids,” and elaborated on “possible avenues for the future development of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.”
AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA BLACKOUT
Despite these stunning findings, media coverage of them in North America has been virtually non-existent. As noted by Richard Cowan, editor of the website MarijuanaNews.com, “The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored this story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.”
Why the media blackout? For starters, all of these studies were conducted overseas. And secondly, not one of them has been acknowledged by the U.S. government.
A spokesman for the state court system, David Bookstaver, also declined to address whether Reichbach might face consequences for the editorial, saying only that “everyone’s thoughts in the court system are with Justice Reichbach as he battles a very serious disease.”
One potential conflict that may arise from Reichbach’s comments is his ability to hear cases involving marijuana possession, said Monroe Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University.
“He has admitted to unlawful conduct,” Freedman said. “Ordinarily, that could be a problem, but it’s a very narrow, specific situation and I would hope nothing would come of it that would be adverse to the judge.”
Support for medical-marijuana legislation is gaining support among New Yorkers. A poll from Siena Research Institute released on Wednesday found 57 percent of New Yorkers supported establishing a legal framework for allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana for cancer, chronic pain and other illnesses.
On Tuesday, a New York Assembly committee approved medical-marijuana legislation, and the Democratic-controlled Assembly appears poised to pass it for the third time in five years. A spokesman for the state Senate Republican majority said that chamber was unlikely to act on the measure this year.
###
(Reuters)