On Wednesday of last week I had the opportunity to meet with three of the four legislators spearheading the push to pass a comprehensive medical marijuana law here in Maryland. Last year as you may remember we had two competing bills. The first from Del. Dan Morhaim (D) Dist. 11 and the second from Del. Cheryl Glenn (D) Dist. 45. This year it appears we will have three. Del. Glenn has pre-filed her bill. Del. Morhaim is leaning towards to filing two bills, more on that later. It is my understanding that again this year Sen. David Brinkley (R) Dist. 4 is planning on also submitting legislation in the Maryland Senate I could not confirm that he and Del. Morhaim have the same strategy.
Before I address the more confusing story of Del. Morhaim and Sen. Brinkley’s legislation let me first discuss Del. Glenn’s bill. Del. Glenn pre-filed her bill to insure it gets a hearing. Del. Glenn’s bill has been assigned the designation HB 15. I spoke to Del. Glenn yesterday and again she stresses that for her the main issue is patient access. Del. Glenn’s bill allows for the personal cultivation of cannabis with some very reasonable limits.
Both Del. Glenn’s and Del. Morhaim’s bills call for a sliding scale for registration fees to insure that even those with limited means can have access to medical grade marijuana. Interestingly Del. Glenn has opened the door for private citizens to donate funds to insure the viability of her program in these tough economic times.
On to Del. Morhaim’s plans, the delegate tells me that it is his intention to introduce legislation based on the two different model legislations worked out over the summer in the Medical Marijuana Model Program Work Group (Work Group). The Work Group was unable to agree on a single model medical marijuana program so in the end they put forth two ideas. I will refer to them as the Sharfstein model which is explained next and the Morhaim model which is basically the same bill Del. Morhaim has introduced the past two years.
First the Sharfstein model, put forth by Sec. of the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene Dr. Joshua Sharfstein and supported by ten other members of the work group[i], is based on what Dr. Sharfstein calls his “yellow light” approach. It relies heavily on participation by one of the “academic medical research institution” such as Johns Hopkins or the University of Maryland. It is not limited to these two school’s research departments but requires that the “academic medical research institution” be a teaching hospital with a residency program. I’ve been a patient in area hospitals too many times in my life. It doesn’t matter which one I looked at they are all either a part of the Johns Hopkins Hospital system or University of Maryland Medical System. Therefor the question that has to be answered at this time is does either of these world class facilities want to be a part of this. Will any “academic medical research institution” be willing to put their federal research dollars which are controlled by the whims of the current political party in power, at risk by participating in a program designed to prove the medical efficacy of cannabis? For the most part federal research dollars in the past have always gone to studies trying to prove the dangers of marijuana.
I tried reaching someone with Johns Hopkins and after being passed around between two media relations people I was referred to Dr. Ryan Vandrey. Dr. Vandrey an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins was a participant in the Work Group. I asked Dr. Vandrey in an e-mail the following question: Did the Work Group actually discuss with Johns Hopkins the idea put forth in Dr. Sharfstein’s model? This is his answer to my question: “My involvement with the workgroup was conducted as an expert on the science of marijuana and other cannabinoids, not as a representative of Johns Hopkins. The proposals generated by the workgroup should not be interpreted as representing the views of Johns Hopkins, U of MD, or any other academic or medical institution, and as far as I know the proposals were not submitted to anyone outside of the workgroup for review or approval prior to submission to the state legislature.” I have not heard back from the University of Maryland at the time of this writing. I will add any info I receive from them in the form of a comment.
The Morhaim model differs in that it would be private citizens who would run the cultivation and dispensing centers. This eliminates the possibility of passing a law that relies on “academic medical research institution” that could refuse to participate. Something they have in common is the collection of data pertaining to the success of treatment, addiction (which I’m sorry I don’t agree that marijuana is addictive) and diversion, meaning the illegal transferring of medical marijuana to someone who is not a part of the program. Del. Glenn’s bill does not have a data collection provision.
While some don’t like the idea of data collection it does address one issue that Del. Morhaim thinks was missed in the legislation passed in the early states. That would be the opportunity to collect data on the evidence of significant differences in the various strains of cannabis. Patients in some of the early states claim there is such differences, which is why there are so many different strains in available in states like California. Del. Morhaim is leaving it to the regulation process to address this issue. I would hope that at a minimum there would at least be one sativa strain and one indigo strain available to aid in this.
Personally I do not object to this because I think if we are going to take momentum from states passing medical marijuana laws on to the halls of Congress, the more data we have on efficacy the better. Plus it would be helpful to the patient to know for certain whether or not it is financially worthwhile to pay for a higher grade or different strain of cannabis from what they have been buying on the street.
Del. Morhaim and I share one fear over this year’s session of the General Assembly. We are both concerned that senators and delegates will come to the conclusion that last year’s affirmative defense law is sufficient to protect patient’s rights. I hope we are both wrong. While it is a step in the right direction we must not stop until patients are protected from arrest. It is great that should I be arrested I have an affirmative defense. However, it stills mean the police departments in Maryland can come in my home, drag me out in flex-cuffs, make me spend the night in jail, hire a lawyer and stand trial for something the affirmative defense says is not a crime. After all I keep telling those who will listen, it is my right to be as pain free as possible.
[i] The Work Group asked its members to sign on to one or both models. There were 11 signing on to the Sharfstein model and 10 to the Morhaim model with four members signing on to both and one abstention, Michael Young V.P Maryland Fraternal Order of Police.
0 comments:
Post a Comment