Medical Marijuana Inc (MJNA)

[jacklanvo99]

Medical marijuana (MJNA)

Over the past several weeks, I have spoken with hundreds of voters regarding the issue of medical marijuana, many of whom voted “Yes” on Question 3, all of whom now believe the law is vague and subject to exploitation.

They worry that marijuana will become readily available to those without legitimate medical needs, yet not comfortably accessible by those who may benefit from its medical use. All have expressed a desire to ease the suffering of those with debilitating conditions, but want to do so in a responsible, rational manner.

As passed, Question 3 is very broad. It makes marijuana available to those with specific illnesses like cancer, but also makes it available for other conditions as determined by physicians. This provision opens the door for a few unscrupulous doctors to certify use for such things as anxiety and non-specific pain. In Colorado, for instance, 94 percent of those with medical marijuana cards have them for the treatment of “pain,” in the general sense, not tied specifically to diseases.

Question 3 does not require a physical examination by a physician or a prescription. After receiving a certification from a doctor, who doesn’t even have to be from Massachusetts, a person gets a “registration card” for life, allowing possession of a 60-day supply of marijuana, obtained at dispensaries that likely will be, as in other states, nothing more than storefronts selling all types of marijuana products, including cookies, candies and drinks.

The Question 3 law is full of many other loopholes. There are no restrictions or notification requirements for use by minors. Caregivers will have access to unrestricted amounts of marijuana if serving multiple patients. Local officials fear they won’t have licensing or zoning controls over dispensaries and grow operations. And, as of Jan. 1, there will be no specific controls on home grown operations and on medical marijuana possession amounts until regulations are passed.

Also, the Department of Public Health, to the limited extent allowed under the law, will be responsible for the costly regulation and oversight of the program, even while embroiled in the compounding and drug testing lab controversies.

Finally, the new law appears to run afoul of the federal controlled substances law.

Common sense, experiences in other states, and the law itself, tells us that the new law is not about compassion for those with legitimate medical needs, but rather is about a whole new industry already attracting lawyers and other players from across the country.
So, what next? First, a nine-month freeze on the effective date of the law should be implemented. At the very least, this will let the state receive guidance from the federal government and allow cities and towns time to examine and address local concerns.

Second, alternatives should be considered. Notwithstanding conflicts with federal law, a better program would satisfy the voters’ expressed desire to make marijuana comfortably available to those who may have a legitimate medical need, and yet not burden communities, guard against it becoming an illicit source of marijuana, and protect against those seeking ready profit.

Such a program would require parental consent and supervision for minors. It would require certification only from a patient’s Massachusetts doctor after a thorough examination and consultation. It would limit marijuana use only for listed, specific conditions, and establish a process to add conditions to that list.

Marijuana, like other controlled substances used in medical treatment, would be subject to the state’s existing Prescription Monitoring Program, and would be dispensed only by prescriptions written on tamper-resistant forms.

It would create an effective and safe distribution network that eliminates home cultivation and the placement of retail dispensaries in local communities. It would establish a schedule of fees to offset the costs of the program, and establish a trust fund to ensure revenue is reserved for this purpose. And, finally, it would affirm the authority of municipalities to regulate dispensaries.

Massachusetts should learn from the experiences of other states and proceed with caution. In doing so, it could find itself in the unique position of being able to fulfill the expressed will of its voters by implementing a responsible and rational medical marijuana program.



John F. Keenan is the state senator representing the Norfolk and Plymouth District. He chairs the Senate’s Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse.


Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x459330143/COMMENTARY-Toward-a-responsible-medical-marijuana-program#ixzz2Gx3vfmMg


Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x459330143/COMMENTARY-Toward-a-responsible-medical-marijuana-program#ixzz2Gx3W3M1E