A few days before Halloween my wife came home and told me she had heard Sen. David Brinkley (R), Maryland state senator from the 4th district, representing Carroll and Frederick Counties, on the Afternoon News Journal with Shari Elliker. Her show is heard on WBAL-AM. He was on to state he intended to reintroduce his medical marijuana bill from last year. That evening I visited the show’s web page and found the following article http://carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/article_479ed848-d9a2-11df-93ab-001cc4c002e0.html. In it, Dan Riffle of Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) points out the short comings under current Maryland law. It highlights other positions as well, like those of “The Partnership for a Drug-Free America” (The Partnership) and the DEA. Obviously the DEA opposes medical marijuana legislation, favoring instead the use of Marinol. I’ll have more on that later in this article.
“The Partnership for a Drug-Free America” told the reporter that they understand that some report the benefit of smoked marijuana. Despite that, they still believe that marijuana is harmful. This says to me that “The Partnership” has decided that what they learn from the DEA has more weight than all of the anecdotal evidence to the contrary. They claim for instance that it is harmful to the teenage mind. Is it a bad idea for a teenager in high school to start smoking pot? Yes just the same as it is a bad idea to start drinking in high school. Yet they still do, just as many of us did when we were in high school. These are after all intoxicants and an underdeveloped teenage mind is likely to choose intoxication over U.S. History or Algebra. However I challenge the assertion that it damages the brain. There are simply too many anecdotes about successful people who did both, smoked pot in high school and did well in life. However that is a debate about prohibition as a national policy and has nothing to do with the debate over medical marijuana.
This debate is about the best policy to allow severely ill patients in Maryland to use marijuana to alleviate their symptoms or the side effects of certain medical treatments.
In 2007 there were 24,710 arrests for marijuana (http://www.drugscience.org/States/MD/MD.pdf ). According to Dan Riffle of Marijuana Policy Project they are aware of only a handful of cases where the Darrell Putnam Compassionate Use Act’s (Darrell Putnam) affirmative defense was invoked. As everyone should know by now Darrell Putnam is not a defense against the crime but a mitigating circumstance in sentencing. To invoke Darrell Putnam you must first plead guilty to possession of a controlled dangerous substance. Even if that defense at sentencing was used 100 times (and no one I know thinks it any where near that large a number), it would account for less than one half of one percent of all marijuana arrests that year.
Concerning Marinol as an alternative to smoked or orally ingested marijuana, I was surprised by some of the testimony about this drug. In particular I was horrified by the comments of Sen. Nancy Jacobs. She related to the committee the anecdote about her mother who had used Marinol when she was suffering with Parkinson’s disease. She told the committee that, not only did the drug not do what she was told it would, which was increase her appetite it caused her to have hallucinations. Conversely, Sen. Jacobs also told the about a friend of hers from California. She is paralyzed from the waist down. She has successfully used marijuana to alleviate “phantom pain” in her legs.
Last year we made an historic achievement by passing SB 627 in the senate by a vote of 35-17. Maryland has already demonstrated that it is time for real, effective medical marijuana legislation in this state. Legislation that passes by a more than 2 – 1 margin has to be considered to have passed by a landslide. Medical marijuana legislation will face the same fate as last year if Chairman Vallario uses his “third” vote to prevent the bill from going to the floor. Members of any committee get an extra vote on an issue. Members get to vote on a bill that is before the committee they are assigned to, while the rest of their house will only get to vote on the final bill. Committee chairs get a “third vote” in that they have the power not to call for a vote on any bill before their committee. If a bill cannot make it through committee, it is not heard by the full Senate or House Delegates.
I have reached out to both Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and Marijuana Policy Project concerning an idea I have. In an e-mail to Rob Kampia, Executive Director and Dan Riffle, Legislative Analyst, both of MPP as well as Caren Woodson, Dir. Of Government Affairs and Kristin Ford, Field Liaison both at ASA, regarding this idea. The idea being that both groups and as many patients the two groups can muster hold a joint press conference to inform the public on our positions concerning the best way to implement effective medical marijuana legislation in Maryland.
Even before that e-mail, I had reached out to Dan Riffle at MPP concerning this idea. He said that he doubted MPP would be interested. Furthermore he told me that MPP feels that patients like myself that testified in favor of SB 627 “gummed up the works,” when as a part of our testimony we spoke about the importance to patients that any law contain the right to personally cultivate our own medicine. To date I have not heard back from MPP.
Caren Woodson, Dir. Of Government Affairs at ASA has replied to the idea. She informed me that, “ASA has a standard policy to not do press conferences with MPP unless extraordinary circumstances are in play.” She went on to say that ASA had been “burned” by MPP in the past, citing MPP’s remark about patients “gumming up the works.” She rightly asks if I felt like patients had “gummed up the works?” The answer is of course no. If anyone is gumming up the process it is MPP.
I find it difficult to reconcile MPP’s position on personal cultivation as a provision of medical marijuana legislation in Maryland with their overall mission statement. In their mission statement they assert they are endeavoring to “3. Change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana.” If in fact marijuana was to finally enjoy the same treatment under the law as alcohol it stands to reason people would be able to “grow their own.” This would be in keeping with our right to produce our own alcoholic beverages but with limitations as to the quantity of beer, wine, or spirits.
Currently under U.S. law a person may produce, up to 100 gallons of alcoholic beverages per person (200 gallons per household). That is the equivalent of about three 12oz beers a day. Of course that can double to almost a six-pack a day if you are the only one in your house that drinks. Change beer to whiskey and you produce enough to get pretty schnockered every day before you are breaking any laws. So why than is MPP resisting inclusion of personal cultivation in any proposed medical marijuana here in Maryland. Their answer is the Morhaim/Bentley bill is better than what we have now. I disagree.
We are currently at a point where what is included in the bill is up for negotiation. MPP believes including personal cultivation is a “poison pill.” I on the other hand believe that at the opening of negotiations you ask for everything and negotiate down from there. When out to buy a new car have you ever asked the salesman “what is the real price of that car” or something to that effect. I was once a car salesman and I can assure you that if they don’t point to the sticker price, they won’t be selling cars there long. They are trained first you ask for sticker, let the buyer offer something lower. That way you at least have a chance of getting full price. This is the attitude we should have when it comes to medical marijuana legislation, ask for everything, see how much support you can garner, then begin to broker a deal if you can’t have it all. Do not begin by giving away patients rights in favor of the rights of pharmacies to get into the cannabis selling business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Barry, I have a great deal of respect for you as a person and as an activist, and I thought we had a constructive conversation last week, so I'm confused by this post. Let me note at the outset that I'm pretty sure I've never used the words "gummed up the works" in my life.
Your question to me was "why did Rep. Morhaim shut out patients from the discussion?" My answer was that I wasn't aware of him doing so, but to the extent that was the impression you got, I could understand how he wouldn't be eager to meet with people whose testimony was disproportionately devoted to singling out problems with the bill. I don't think that you or anyone else who testified that day "gummed up the works" - I think Vallario did.
On home cultivation, MPP's position is and has always been that patients should have the right to cultivate their own medicine. I/we firmly believe that's the most effective and affordable way to ensure access. That's why it's in our model bill. That's also why we tried half a dozen times to convince Dr. Morhaim to include it in the bill (for the same reasons you assert) before it was introduced last year.
Ultimately, I'm not a legislator, so I don't get to decide what goes in the bill. If I did, it would include home cultivation. But the sponsor - who I should should note is also the deputy majority leader - undoubtedly has a better idea of what is passable and what is not. And frankly, it's hard to disagree. If there's a medical marijuana bill that Vallario will give a vote, it probably doesn't include home cultivation.
As for the press conference, as I said on the phone, I just disagree with you as a matter of strategy as to the benefits of such an exercise. I think doing so would serve as a distraction that hinders, rather than bolsters, the chances of passing a bill. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, and that's okay.
My door remains open to you and anyone else trying to improve Maryland's law. I'm always willing to discuss this with you, just as I did for over an hour last week. I've also spoken with Kristen and Caren at ASA and other allied organizations, and will continue to do so.
I believe that passing a law that protects patients from arrest (and trial, and legal fees, and a conviction, and loss of employment...) and provides a legal, if imperfect means of access to doctor-recommended medicine is a good thing. So that's what I intend to try to do. I hope that you will join me.
I apologize if I miss quoted you. We do disagree on tactics. This is why I believe what I do. Chairman Vallario has no incentive to do anything other than what he did last year and in 2007, simply not call the bill for a vote. I believe the only incentive we can muster against that is overwhelming public support. The best way to do that in my mind is to get as many of our faces in front of as many TV cameras and radio microphones as possible. Holding a press conference to announce that our bill has sponsors, and is being put in the hopper is the most efficient way to begin that process.
As for Del. Morhaim’s idea of centralized growing it is simply too risky to put all our medicine in a few locations. The reason medical marijuana is even an issue is because of people who were already dealing with a decentralized supply. This is why the caregiver system makes much more sense. You will still have substantial grow operations only they will be supplying tens of people instead of thousands.
This is what I believe will happen under Del. Morhaim’s system. We will get the bill passed but not without a vocal dissent. Then whether you are growing in green houses or in fields, it is not going to be hard for the opposition locate these facilities. They will then flood the DEA’s hotline with tips about those locations until they can no longer be ignored. Then in one afternoon the entire supply of medicine is gone.
Caregivers that grow their own for use only by people living at that residence will not have to submit their supply for testing. Everyone growing more than that will have to periodically submit samples for testing. They should also be subject to inspection, in a way similar to restaurants. This is a point that since I favor inspection of larger caregiver operations that I’m willing to concede. If testing of the supply is good for caregivers than individual patients should being willing to allow testing of their supply as well. This way the state can monitor the supply. This supply should be distributed on a non-profit basis. I favor the Oregon law of caregiver co-ops where the patients own their medicine jointly, there by keeping everybody out of the black market. It should be illegal to own “black market cannabis.” You can only own that which you grow yourself or in conjunction with other card holding patients. Co-ops may, as a way to off set production cost, sell any excess but only to card holding patients and again on a non-profit basis.
This is the way to simultaneously decentralize the supply and deny the cartels any involvement with medical marijuana. The state retains a right of control as to insuring that only marijuana is being grown. The usable parts of the plants can than be used as best serves the patients needs. This should most certainly include the production of hashish. Hashish is an issue that can be negotiated, possibly a delay in implementation until we prove the system is a success.
You stated when asked if a law should contain personal cultivation, your answer is yes. You have also told me that you are following the advice of legislators as to what they think will pass. If you have ideas of how to get Dr. Morhaim’s bill passed Chairman Vallario I would love to hear them. But if he is going to block it than why not let him block all that we want.
Now some may not agree with the provision of “black market cannabis” being illegal. Others may not agree with the inspection process. And still others will have other objections. However, if we all agree that a decentralized supply system and personal cultivation are going to be the best system for distributing medical marijuana than that’s what we spend our precious energy on. For patients like me that is our biggest contribution. To get bundled up in heavy coats and brave the cold of Annapolis in January and February, these are sacrifices that should only be asked for when the reward is in their very best interest, not just better than what we have.
I finally figured out how to delete my four repeat responses to Dan.
Post a Comment