Pubdate: Wed, 12 Mar 2014
Source: Metro Times (Detroit, MI)
Copyright: 2014 C.E.G.W./Times-Shamrock
Contact:  http://www.metrotimes.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1381
Column: Higher Ground
Author: Larry Gabriel
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?275 (Cannabis - Michigan)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)

LANSING ADDS PTSD TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA QUALIFYING CONDITIONS

Plus Sanjay Gupta 'Not Backing Down on Medical Marijuana.'

The action was heavy in Lansing on the medical marijuana front last
week -- something good, something not so good, and something
questionable.

First the good: The state Medical Marihuana Review Panel met last week
and voted 6-2 in favor of adding Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
to the list of qualifying conditions for medical marijuana
certification in Michigan. Now it's up to state Department of
Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Steve Arwood to decide
whether to allow it.

"It was a heated meeting," says Dave Brogren, president of Cannabis
Patients United, a nonprofit supporting the core principles of the
Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA); Brogren has a nonmedical seat
on the 11-member group.

Last year a PTSD petition passed by a 4-3 vote but didn't get the
requisite quorum (at least six of eight votes). A new petition this
year squeezed by with the minimum allowable six votes. One notable
change came from Michigan's chief medical executive Dr. Matthew Davis.
His vote flipped from a nay to a yea.

This doesn't mean PTSD will now be listed on the registry. Arwood has
the unilateral choice on whether to allow it or not. There's a lot
riding on this decision for patients and for activists who want to see
if the mechanism for adding conditions will be respected by state
administrators. Although provided for in the MMMA passed in 2008, the
state didn't even seat a panel for nearly four years. Then it was
disbanded in 2013 because it didn't meet stipulations on the makeup of
the panel.

Since the MMMA was passed, not one qualifying condition has been added
to the registry. At one point, a couple of years ago, it looked as
though Parkinson's disease would make it; since the board was
dissolved, it seems to have fallen through the cracks. The re-formed
board has not taken up the old business, nor have any new petitions
been presented yet. The decision on this PTSD petition will send a
strong message about the state's intention to honor the provision for
new qualifying conditions.

If Arwood adds PTSD to the registry, "It means that the process in
place seems to be getting some traction and is working," Brogren says.
"We worked hard on this process, and there was a lot of disagreement
over the last year and a half to work this out. It will be
disheartening if the state doesn't take this seriously."

The not-so-good part is that the panel voted 4-3 in favor of adding
insomnia to the list -- short of the six votes required for Arwood's
attention. There seems to be little background support for the
condition, and that means there will probably be no return to the
subject next year as happened for PTSD. Also a petition to add bipolar
disorder that never really had a chance was voted down.

Now we come to the questionable: SB 783, which curtails marijuana
growing operations in rental units without the landlord's permission,
passed in the Senate by a 31-7 vote -- well over the supermajority 75
percent margin necessary to directly change the MMMA. It now goes to
the state house for consideration. This act was first introduced on
Feb. 12, and is zipping through the legislature on greased skids
compared to HB 4271, which was introduced more than a year ago and
passed in the House. It's still waiting for a Senate vote. HB 4271
would allow local municipalities to choose whether to have
"provisioning centers" (dispensaries) within their borders. Word is it
has simple majority support, which is all it needs, so it's a matter
of when it comes to the floor.

There are two notable parts to SB 783: One is that it would prohibit
smoking or growing marijuana on a rental property if the landlord
writes it into the lease. This seems to be a bit of legislative
overkill because I think that a landlord could have that provision in
a lease anyway. On the other hand it does look like patients could be
denied the right to use their medication. Much of the medical
marijuana community sees this as an infringement on the MMMA. It
certainly restricts the choices available to medical marijuana
patients who need to rent.

The second provision is where things get questionable: It prohibits
smoking marijuana on private property open to the public, such as a
parking lot. However it would seem like an overeager law enforcement
officer could interpret this to mean smoking on your back porch is
probable cause to enter your home. Under the present mindset of law
enforcement when it comes to marijuana, I'm not a big fan of leaving
things up to interpretation.

Sanjay Gupta Doubles Down

He's not hitting the bong, but CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta hosted a special
program Tuesday night titled Weed 2: Cannabis Madness. Last summer he
came out in support of medical marijuana in Weed. He preceded Weed 2
with a column on CNN.com. The article covers what he has found since
his revelation from last year. Gupta wrote: "I am more convinced than
ever that it is irresponsible to not provide the best care we can,
care that often may involve marijuana. I am not backing down on
medical marijuana; I am doubling down."

Gupta revisited the young epileptic girl who got relief from seizures
featured in Weed; he also looked at the cases of a man who uses
cannabis for pain relief and a woman who treats her multiple sclerosis
with it. Gupta covered a lot of ground that's old hat to medical
marijuana activists, but being the public figure and opinion
influencer that he is, this is good stuff. He poses the question many
of you have asked in writing: "How can the government deny the
benefits of medical marijuana even as it holds a patent for those very
same benefits?" That would be patent no. 6630507, granted in 2001 to
the U.S. Health and Human Services titled "Cannabinoids as
Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants."

Yet just a couple of weeks ago National Institutes of Health director
Francis Collins said, "We don't know a lot about the things we wish we
did," regarding medical marijuana -- although the NIH website contains
thousands of papers on the subject. Some that contradict public
statements Collins has made regarding marijuana.

But, to me, Gupta's most compelling pronouncement was: "... [M]any
doctors and scientists, worried about being ostracized for even
discussing the potential of marijuana, called me confidentially to
share their own stories of the drug and the benefit it has provided to
their patients. I will honor my promise not to name them, but I hope
this next documentary will enable a more open discussion and advance
science in the process."

Is there a silent force out there in the medical and scientific world
supporting medical marijuana? I've heard from several patients who say
that doctors observe the results of their self-treatment with cannabis
and encourage them to "keep doing what you're doing." But when it
comes to journalists like me, they don't really want to talk. Health
care institutions don't like the controversy such attention can bring.
That's one of the next bridges to cross, getting doctors to openly
talk about what they're finding out about medical marijuana
treatments. The truth is much stranger than reefer madness fictions.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt