Pubdate: Sun, 02 Jun 2013
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright: 2013 Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Contact:  http://www.telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/509
Note: Rarely prints LTEs from outside circulation area - requires 
'Letter to the Editor' in subject line.

INTO THE WEEDS

Marijuana Rules May Be Too Complex and Pricey

Did you vote for Massachusetts' medical marijuana in November 
thinking that the new rules would be ushered in with mellow feelings, 
cordiality and a true meeting of the minds? If so, think again.

On May 24, state health officials laid out a set of proposed rules 
that would govern the licensure and operation of medical marijuana 
dispensaries, as well as the people who use them. The financial rules 
follow a set of Department of Public Health guidelines that state how 
marijuana clinics must operate -- as nonprofit, "seed to sale" 
operations, subject to state rules and possible local licensure, fees 
and zoning rules and restrictions.

The proposed financial rules include a fee structure that would 
require would-be dispensaries to pay a nonrefundable $1,500 initial 
licensing fee, followed by another $30,000 nonrefundable fee if they 
advance in the licensing process. Then, if successful, clinics would 
have to pay an annual $50,000 fee for a certificate of registration, 
as well as $500 for each agent they might use.

And those in need of medical marijuana? In addition to fighting 
cancer or whatever potentially life-threatening disease makes them 
eligible to obtain marijuana to ease their suffering in the first 
place, patients would have to pay a $50 fee each year to remain in 
the medical marijuana program.

Stepping back from all this, we foresee lots of trouble.

For starters, many cities and towns have already slapped moratoriums 
on the siting of pot dispensaries, arguing that they need more time 
to evaluate their impact. It's a familiar theme: A majority of voters 
favor passage of a given law because, while difficult to enact, it 
seems just and necessary. But when it comes time to actually 
implement the law, no one wants any part of it.

We have no quarrel with medical marijuana per se. Rather, our 
opposition to the November ballot measure was grounded in the fact 
that marijuana was not being treated as any other pharmaceutical 
agent, but singled out for special treatment, including a requirement 
that a system of cultivation and distribution be established that was 
financially self-sustaining.

Really, was there any reason medical marijuana products could not be 
handled by existing pharmacies, all of which now handle 
pharmaceuticals that are far more powerful than pot, and, when 
misused, can be deadly?

It is particularly distasteful to propose charging patients in need 
of medical marijuana an annual fee. Anyone who obtains a prescription 
of any kind may well have to pay something for their pills, depending 
upon their insurance plan. But charging an extra fee simply because 
the agent in question is marijuana strikes us as unfair and legally untenable.

According to the Department of Public Health, the proposed fees and 
regulations are in line with what other states are charging. Perhaps 
so, but let us not forget that these new rules are being proposed by 
an agency that has had two major public-health disasters recently. 
DPH couldn't manage to keep tabs on the Framingham compounding 
pharmacy whose products are believed to have led to dozens of deaths, 
in spite of warnings about that pharmacy's behavior. And DPW failed 
to curb the actions of former lab chemist Annie Dookhan, whose 
misstatements on her resume and suspiciously fast work habits went 
unchallenged for years, leading to a legal nightmare that has 
resulted in the release of hundreds of offenders and will cost 
taxpayers millions of dollars.

As for other states, Colorado's marijuana rules, signed into law this 
week, have already been challenged in court, as publishers of 
marijuana magazines object to their products being treated as if they 
were pornography. And in California, marijuana clinics continue to 
exist in a legal gray zone, sometimes subject to federal prosecution 
in spite of complying with all state rules.

The DPH has set a public hearing on the proposed fees for 1 p.m. June 
14 at its offices at 250 Washington St., Boston.

We encourage those affected by these fees and rules to urge that 
simplicity, fairness and legal clarity inform each step of the 
process. We disagreed with November's ballot proposal, but the voters 
have spoken. Respecting their will means making it legal and 
affordable for those in need to obtain medical marijuana when so 
prescribed by their physician. It should not mean erecting an 
impossibly expensive and complex bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, it appears that is exactly what Massachusetts is about to do.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom