T
The420Guy
Guest
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."
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.
Source: San Diego Union-Tribune (CA)
Webpage:
https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/opinion/news_1e2hook.html
Pubdate: 02 Oct 2002
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."
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.
Source: San Diego Union-Tribune (CA)
Webpage:
https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/opinion/news_1e2hook.html
Pubdate: 02 Oct 2002
