Medicinal cannabis regulation complicates a whole slew of federal and state laws governing how people under the supervision of the criminal justice system or with criminal records must stay clean and clear of illicit drugs.

Pubdate: Tue, 20 Apr 2010
Source: Aspen Times Weekly (CO)
Copyright: 2010 Aspen Times
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/zKpMPhQ7
Website: http://www.aspentimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3784
Author: Rick Carroll

ASPEN — A judge ruled Monday that a local man convicted of a felony drug charge cannot use marijuana for medicinal purposes, although he has a state registry card allowing him to do so.

Judge James Boyd took up the topic during a sentencing hearing in Pitkin County District Court in Aspen for Keith Timothy Pfeiffer, who pleaded guilty Feb. 8 to attempted distribution of cocaine.

Boyd said the issue is a “troubling one for the court,” and his remark and ruling come at a time when judges across Colorado are grappling with the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws. An amendment to the state constitution permits marijuana to be used for certain medical purposes.

But Boyd noted that “no matter what the state of Colorado has decided, the United States of America says that it is not legal.”

Even so, Boyd said he would entertain a motion arguing that Pfeiffer be allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, along with recommendations from a doctor who “can add the diagnosis it [medical marijuana] goes with.”

Prosecutor Jonathan Pototsky encouraged Boyd to not allow Pfeiffer, who has a number of physical ailments, to use marijuana for medical purposes as part of his probation. It is standard procedure that those who are given probation are not permitted to use illegal drugs or alcohol; medications they are allowed to use must be taken at
prescribed doses.

Pfeiffer has been on the state’s medical marijuana registry since December, his attorney, John Van Ness, told the judge. Pfeiffer uses marijuana to cope with pain from hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver. Both of his hips were replaced as well, Van Ness said.

“There are some problems, including pain, that doctors say are helped by medical marijuana,” Van Ness told the judge.

He added: “I don’t want to take that away from him.”

Yet Pototsky argued that Pfeiffer “hides behind his illness.”

“I don’t see why he should have his medical marijuana certificate,” Pototsky told the judge.

[snip]

Continues:  http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n306/a03.html

If you’re from Ohio or interested in its cannabis policies, you may have seen my April 7^th interview with the Ohio News Network (ONN):

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2010/04/07/story-medical-marijuana.html

Via ONN, this interview made its way across state to Toledo and maybe beyond.

http://www.wtol.com/global/story.asp?s=12275194

I was interested to hear the comments made by Patricia Harmon of the Drug Free Action Alliance. For one, Ms. Harmon asserted,

“In states that have passed medical marijuana laws, the youth use is higher than it is in states that have not passed it.”

Not so. A 2009 Congressional Research Service review of state and federal policies concerning medical marijuana concluded,

“No clear patterns [concerning teen use] are apparent in the state-level data. Clearly, more important factors are at work in determining a state’s prevalence of recreational marijuana use than whether the state has a medical marijuana program.” (p. 32)

In fact,

“California, the state with the largest and longest-running medical marijuana program, ranked 34th in the percentage of persons age 12-17 reporting marijuana use in the past month during the period 2002-2003.” (p. 32)

Ms. Harmon also claimed that

“the federal government has failed to find any positive use for marijuana.”

I would characterize that to be a failure as well. In 1998, DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] Administrative Law Judge Francis Young recommended,

“that the Administrator [of the DEA] conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II.” (p. 68)

That was over 20 years ago. Further, because cannabis remains in Schedule I in defiance of his recommendation, the federal government has routinely obstructed research.

According to an April 2010 “Perspective” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine,

“Restrictive federal law and, until recently, aggressive federal law enforcement have hamstrung research and medical practice involving marijuana.” (p. 1453)

Thus, it’s a circular argument to on one hand conclude that the federal government has failed to “find any positive use for marijuana,” while on the other hand, have that same government thwart the very research that would find that positive use.

All in all, I was pleased with the interview, for it served as a great opportunity to meet the opposition and assuage their concerns.

An excellent oped from the Nelson Daily News earlier this week makes an interesting comparison:

Seventeen per cent of Canadians report having used cannabis in the past year, despite it being illegal.  Prohibition, it seems, is hardly stopping people from using cannabis.

For perspective, cigarettes are available at every corner store and the Canadian Cancer Society reports that tobacco use stands at 18 per cent.

That’s a very expensive one percent difference.

And he’s using a stupid prohibitionist law to help pave the way.

… but he’s not planning to dismiss any charges related to arrests of Willie’s band members for alleged cannabis possession.

“I understand the disappointment to all of those fans,” said Hudson. “In fact, I was at the Willie Nelson concert that night and contrary to some of the blogs I have read, I was not there in an official capacity. I was there as a paying fan myself, to support Willie Nelson’s music, and more importantly, to support our community. My wife and I stood out in the cold for about 30 minutes before the show too, so I was just as disappointed as everyone else that the concert was canceled.”

But, at the same time, he’s not conceding anything.

In fact, Hudson said that a “selective prosecution” charge has been raised by the defense.

“That issue has been raised,” he said.  “But it is not against the law to do that.  What is against the law if you ‘selectively prosecute’ one person and turn your head to other people.  That is the issue that has been raised by the defense.  Whether there is any merit to it, I don’t know.  But we will look at it.”

That’s very reassuring.