|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
US CA: OPED: The Proposition 215 Dilemma
ccguide Thursday 03 Oct 2002 Pubdate: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386 Author: Jack W. Hook Note: Hook is a 19-year veteran of the DEA and currently serves as the acting special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in San Diego. THE PROPOSITION 215 DILEMMA By Jack W. Hook The issue of California's Proposition 215 law has been hotly debated the past several weeks. A recent seizure of marijuana by the Drug Enforcement Administration in Santa Cruz two weeks ago as well as the seizure of marijuana in San Diego last week has been criticized by local public officials as well as a minority of the public as extreme and picking on terminally ill patients. The DEA is viewed by proponents of Proposition 215 as non-compassionate people who target ill patients for investigation. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the men and women of the DEA are very compassionate people who dedicate their lives to identifying drug dealers and seizing drugs to make our communities a safer place to live. Furthermore, the DEA does not target drug users for investigation. Proposition 215 raises several issues between state and federal government that have raised questions in the public's mind. I would like to explain DEA's perspective on Proposition 215. Federal law is very clear; marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The DEA is mandated to enforce the provisions of this and other federal laws relating to controlled drugs for the public health and safety. When marijuana is observed in the ordinary course of law enforcement duties, the DEA is legally mandated to seize it. The DEA will continue to enforce federal drug laws. Proponents of Proposition 215 call marijuana medicine. This leads to a major public misconception that marijuana is a safe and effective medicine. In fact, the Institute of Medicine concluded, "if there is any future for marijuana as medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the cannabinoids," not in its smoked form. The California Medical Association opposes the medicalization of cannabis unless and until there is objective proof that such use is scientifically justifiable. Many years ago, tetrahydracannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, was proven to have some medical value. That is why the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug under the trade name Marinol. Marinol containing THC is available by prescription from a licensed physician. Just as the medical community regulates morphine, rather than recommending patients smoke opium, so Marinol seems the better choice for ill persons, as opposed to smoking marijuana. Proponents for medical marijuana have challenged the DEA's placement of marijuana into Schedule I of the CSA in 1994, 2001 and 2002. In 1994, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the DEA's continued placement of marijuana in Schedule I. In 2001 the DEA's research as well as the FDA advised that marijuana continued to meet the criteria for placement in schedule I - that it is a drug with high potential of abuse, and no proven medical value. In 2002, in United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative, the U.S. Supreme Court held that marijuana has no accepted medical use under federal law and stated that the CSA "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project)." The United States has had for decades a proven protocol to research, test and approve potential medicines for public consumption. This process is overseen by the FDA with the intent of preserving public health and safety of our citizens from harmful substances. This model has been replicated in other countries. This country has never approved medicine by popular referendum, and it is ill advised to do so now. The City of San Diego recently created a task force to draft proposed law enforcement guidelines regarding possession of medical marijuana. A recent review of the draft guidelines leaves much to be desired. The draft fails to provide comprehensive guidelines on who can proclaim themselves as a "caregiver." According to the proposed guidelines, a "caregiver" is anyone designated by a patient who has assumed responsibility for the housing or health or safety of that person. Under these guidelines, a patient is able to designate a convicted drug trafficker or worse yet a teen-ager to be their "caregiver." Once designated as a "caregiver," they are allowed to grow, possess and distribute marijuana to the patient. The "caregiver" may have up to 12 patients and possess the maximum amount of marijuana for each patient (three pounds of marijuana, 72 unharvested indoor marijuana plants and 20 outdoor marijuana plants). This totals 1,104 marijuana plants and 36 pounds of marijuana. [*FALSE - the guidelines permit a maximum of 90 plants - DG] This is allegedly a one-year supply for each patient. I have never heard of patients receiving a one-year supply of any drug without re-examination by a physician. A patient is a person who has received a prescription for marijuana from a physician. The guidelines do not preclude a teen-ager from receiving a prescription for marijuana to relieve pain from symptoms ranging from headaches to menstrual cramps. After providing a prescription to a "caregiver," the teen is sold marijuana without a parent's knowledge. The proposal to hand out City of San Diego Voluntary Medicinal Cannabis Certification Program cards is an unwise course of action. With unrestricted controls on "caregivers" and patients, this program becomes nothing more than a state/city legalized drug distribution program. It is questionable the voters had this in mind when voting for Proposition 215. I urge the San Diego City Council to carefully review the law enforcement guidelines regarding possession of medicinal cannabis and determine if the lack of controls will open the floodgates of marijuana users to relocate to San Diego. As appropriately stated by a local prevention professional, "San Diego will no longer be known as "America's Finest City," but rather, "America's Highest City." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!