T
The420Guy
Guest
Hawaii's medical marijuana law has been in effect only since the end of
December and there is still much confusion about what it says, what it does
and does not permit and about its relationship to federal law. Both
physicians and potential patients are afraid to participate in the
program.A lack of education has contributed to this fear.
The fact is both physicians and patients in the program are specifically
protected under the state law. The law permits "acquisition" of marijuana,
but is silent on the details. It also permits patients to possess,
cultivate and use marijuana for medical purposes.
Patients are fearful, however, in part because they are required to
register with the Narcotics Enforcement Division of the Department of
Public Safety,a law enforcement entity. This is due to a political
compromise when the bill was passed last legislative session. Of the nine
states now permitting medical use of marijuana, only Hawaii requires
registration with the public safety department rather than the Department
of Health, with the proviso that the patient information be held in confidence.
Patients also are afraid of legal action against them by the federal
government since marijuana remains illegal under federal law. However,
research done by an attorney for the Maryland legislature (where a medical
marijuana bill is under consideration) showed that there has not been a
single reported case of a federal prosecutor arresting a patient. Simply
put, they have bigger fish to fry.
But the larger problem with the fledgling medical marijuana program is the
reluctance of physicians to participate. (The law requires a patient to
geta "written certification" from his or her physician that they qualify
under the law.)
The reluctance of doctors to get involved is due in large part to the
continuing misinformation or half-truths purveyed by the Hawaii Medical
Association, which strongly opposed the legislation last year. On the front
page of its newsletter last August, HMA warned that, "Under federal law,
physicians who recommend marijuana to a patient are in danger of losing
their federal license to prescribe controlled substances (DEA license) and
could be subject to criminal prosecution."
HMA has failed to notify its members, however, of an important legal
decision issued just one month later. In September, a federal district
court in the 9th Circuit, which includes Hawaii, issued a permanent
injunction forbidding the federal government from threatening physicians
with loss of their pr escriptive privileges.
This strongly worded opinion in Conant vs. McCaffrey held that the right
ofa physician to discuss or recommend the medical use of marijuana to a
patient was protected by the First Amendment. In this case, brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of physicians and
patients, Judge William Alsup wrote "this injunction applies whether or not
the physician anticipates that the recommendation will in turn be used by
the patient to obtain marijuana in violation of federal law."
It is important to remember that the doctor is issuing a certification that
the patient has a "debilitating condition," as defined in Hawaii's law, and
renders an opinion that "the benefits of marijuana use would likely
outweigh the health risks." Such a recommendation is entitled to First
Amendment protection as set forth in Conant.
While the federal government is challenging the ruling, legal observers
expect the order to be upheld. Despite the fact that this permanent
injunction was issued more than six months ago, HMA still has not notified
its members of this change in the legal situation.
In addition, HMA President Philip Hellreich's assertion in a February
Star-Bulletin story that the National Institute of Health is studying
alternative delivery systems is wrong: no studies of this sort are under
way in the United States.
(Another court challenge concerning medical marijuana was argued before the
U.S. Supreme Court this week. The decision expected in June in the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Club case will not have a direct effect on Hawaii and the
other eight states that have similar laws.)
Updated figures from Oregon, whose law is similar to Hawaii's, show that
1,700 patients and more than 500 doctors are participating in its program.
We believe that as the premier physicians' organization in the state, it is
HMA's responsibility to keep its members apprised of changes in the legal
situation as it effects them.
Meanwhile, the ACLU receives calls every week from patients desperately
seeking a doctor willing to help them. Will Hawaii's physicians let
compassion, not fear, guide their actions?
Newshawk: WallyB
Pubdate: Fri, 30 Mar 2001
Source: Honolulu Star-Bulletin (HI)
Copyright: 2001 Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Contact: letters@starbulletin.com
Website: Honolulu Star-Advertiser | Hawaii News, Sports, Weather and Entertainment
Details: MapInc
Author: Pamela Lichty
December and there is still much confusion about what it says, what it does
and does not permit and about its relationship to federal law. Both
physicians and potential patients are afraid to participate in the
program.A lack of education has contributed to this fear.
The fact is both physicians and patients in the program are specifically
protected under the state law. The law permits "acquisition" of marijuana,
but is silent on the details. It also permits patients to possess,
cultivate and use marijuana for medical purposes.
Patients are fearful, however, in part because they are required to
register with the Narcotics Enforcement Division of the Department of
Public Safety,a law enforcement entity. This is due to a political
compromise when the bill was passed last legislative session. Of the nine
states now permitting medical use of marijuana, only Hawaii requires
registration with the public safety department rather than the Department
of Health, with the proviso that the patient information be held in confidence.
Patients also are afraid of legal action against them by the federal
government since marijuana remains illegal under federal law. However,
research done by an attorney for the Maryland legislature (where a medical
marijuana bill is under consideration) showed that there has not been a
single reported case of a federal prosecutor arresting a patient. Simply
put, they have bigger fish to fry.
But the larger problem with the fledgling medical marijuana program is the
reluctance of physicians to participate. (The law requires a patient to
geta "written certification" from his or her physician that they qualify
under the law.)
The reluctance of doctors to get involved is due in large part to the
continuing misinformation or half-truths purveyed by the Hawaii Medical
Association, which strongly opposed the legislation last year. On the front
page of its newsletter last August, HMA warned that, "Under federal law,
physicians who recommend marijuana to a patient are in danger of losing
their federal license to prescribe controlled substances (DEA license) and
could be subject to criminal prosecution."
HMA has failed to notify its members, however, of an important legal
decision issued just one month later. In September, a federal district
court in the 9th Circuit, which includes Hawaii, issued a permanent
injunction forbidding the federal government from threatening physicians
with loss of their pr escriptive privileges.
This strongly worded opinion in Conant vs. McCaffrey held that the right
ofa physician to discuss or recommend the medical use of marijuana to a
patient was protected by the First Amendment. In this case, brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of physicians and
patients, Judge William Alsup wrote "this injunction applies whether or not
the physician anticipates that the recommendation will in turn be used by
the patient to obtain marijuana in violation of federal law."
It is important to remember that the doctor is issuing a certification that
the patient has a "debilitating condition," as defined in Hawaii's law, and
renders an opinion that "the benefits of marijuana use would likely
outweigh the health risks." Such a recommendation is entitled to First
Amendment protection as set forth in Conant.
While the federal government is challenging the ruling, legal observers
expect the order to be upheld. Despite the fact that this permanent
injunction was issued more than six months ago, HMA still has not notified
its members of this change in the legal situation.
In addition, HMA President Philip Hellreich's assertion in a February
Star-Bulletin story that the National Institute of Health is studying
alternative delivery systems is wrong: no studies of this sort are under
way in the United States.
(Another court challenge concerning medical marijuana was argued before the
U.S. Supreme Court this week. The decision expected in June in the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Club case will not have a direct effect on Hawaii and the
other eight states that have similar laws.)
Updated figures from Oregon, whose law is similar to Hawaii's, show that
1,700 patients and more than 500 doctors are participating in its program.
We believe that as the premier physicians' organization in the state, it is
HMA's responsibility to keep its members apprised of changes in the legal
situation as it effects them.
Meanwhile, the ACLU receives calls every week from patients desperately
seeking a doctor willing to help them. Will Hawaii's physicians let
compassion, not fear, guide their actions?
Newshawk: WallyB
Pubdate: Fri, 30 Mar 2001
Source: Honolulu Star-Bulletin (HI)
Copyright: 2001 Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Contact: letters@starbulletin.com
Website: Honolulu Star-Advertiser | Hawaii News, Sports, Weather and Entertainment
Details: MapInc
Author: Pamela Lichty
