Pubdate: Sun, 29 May 2005
Source: Call, The (RI)
Copyright: 2005 The Call.
Contact:  http://www.woonsocketcall.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2394
Author: Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr.
Note: Judge Jeremiah is chief justice of Rhode Island Family Court.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

MARIJUANA LAW NEEDS SAFEGUARDS

The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes continues to be a subject
of great debate.

This topic has become a salient one for our state since introduction
of the Medical Marijuana Act, currently under consideration in Rhode
Island. As chief judge of Family Court, founder and past president of
the New England Association for Drug Court Professionals and current
board member of the National Association for Drug Court Professionals,
I am concerned over the lack of clarity in this act as it is currently
written.

Though there is still much dissension over the scientific findings
regarding the medical use of marijuana, there is little disputing the
idea that stringent regulations are required in this matter.

Upon examining the Medical Marijuana Act, I see few safeguards in
place.

Under this proposal, qualified patients would be allowed to possess up
to 12 marijuana plants as well as 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana. The
act does not make reference to how patients would acquire these
marijuana plants. This detail is important because marijuana continues
to be a controlled substance.

Under the Controlled Substance Act, cannabis is classified as a
Schedule I drug, indicating a high potential for abuse. In the Rhode
Island Medical Marijuana Act, there are no provisions for doctors to
prescribe a Schedule I drug. Such a drug may be recommended only by
written certification, qualified by certain medical conditions. Given
the fact that patients cannot obtain marijuana as they do other
prescriptions, how will cannabis be obtained, delivered and
transported? These are questions yet unanswered, which must be
addressed by formal regulation.

Assuming that patients were able to obtain 12 marijuana plants, where
shall they be grown? Under the current proposal, these plants could be
grown in a back yard.

Physicians alone, then, cannot effectively monitor the use of
marijuana. Marijuana can only be recommended and not prescribed, thus
traditional checks and balances may be missing. Would effective
monitoring fall upon law enforcement? Indeed, law enforcement needs
clarification on how to differentiate medical use from illegal possession.

How will law enforcement obtain information on reasons for possession
and respect a patient's right to privacy? Though provisions are made
for patients to have a registered identification card obtained from
the Rhode Island Department of Health, it may be difficult for law
enforcement to verify authenticity of some. This is only recommended
in this act.

Finally, even if the Medical Marijuana Act did pass, there would
continue to be complications with federal laws. Given this, the act
states, "Any state or local law enforcement official who knowingly
cooperates with federal law enforcement agents to arrest, investigate,
prosecute, or search a registered qualified patient or a primary
caregiver or his or her property for acting in compliance with this
chapter shall have his or her employment suspended or terminated."
Such conditions may ultimately weaken law enforcement's authority to
differentiate medical from non-medicinal use.

Marijuana is a much sought-after drug of adolescents. Since the
inception of the Rhode Island Juvenile Drug Court in 1999, the
recorded number of arrests for marijuana possession is staggering.

The Juvenile Drug Court Post Adjudication Program, which handles more
serious offenses, records that out of 415 cases, 291 included
marijuana charges. In a great number of these cases, marijuana charges
accompany other charges, such as possession of a firearm, being
disorderly, theft, truancy, driving under the influence and possession
of other serious drugs.

Marijuana's classification as a Schedule I drug, and the apparent lack
of clarity in the proposed regulation, are strong concerns regarding
this legislation. The issue of medical marijuana remains complex and
is important enough to deserve our prompt attention. It is equally
important to assess whether assisting one party will create conditions
that jeopardize other parties. Prudent regulation of marijuana cannot
be viewed as a formality, but rather as a necessity, one which ensures
safety for young citizens and compassion for those who search for a
medicinal adjunct for ongoing medical problems.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake