Medical Marijuana E-mail to Minnesota House   

We write to express the strong opposition of Minnesota's law enforcement community to the passage of H. F. 655 which would legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes in Minnesota. The reasons for this opposition are many, including:

1. Marijuana is not an accepted "medicine". The use of smoked marijuana as a medicine has been rejected by the American Medical Association and, perhaps even more importantly, by the major medical organizations representing the groups of patients proponents say need it the most, i.e., the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the American Cancer Society. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the most restricted category, which includes substances which have a high potential for abuse and the lack of any accepted medical use. For a thorough discussion of the medical dangers of marijuana, we strongly encourage you to read the attached articles written by two highly experienced professionals working in the field: Andrea Grubb Barthwell, M.D. and Mark Stanford, Ph. D.
• [Dr. Barthwell is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the global health care and policy consulting firm EMGlobal LLC. She has served as President of Encounter Medical Group (an affiliate of EMGlobal), was a founding member of the Chicago Area AIDS Task Force, and is a past president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. In 1997, she was named by her peers as one of the "Best Doctors in America" in addiction medicine and in 2003, she received the Betty Ford Award, given by the Association of Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse. Dr. Stanford is the Director of Addiction Medicine for the Department of Alcohol and Drug Services in Santa Clara County, California. He has lectured extensively on the issue of psycho-pharmacology and has authored a textbook in that area. He is on the clinical faculty of UC Berkeley Continuing Education Department of Mathematics and Science and has taught at San Jose State University and Cal State Hayward. He is an active member of the Association for the Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse.]
2. Currently there are many other medical substitutes that can be used to treat the same medical conditions that smoking marijuana is being proposed for. A list of over 20 such medications is set forth in the footnote below.1 In fact, there already exists a legalized form of "medical marijuana" in our Country - it's called Marinol. Marinol is an approved pharmaceutical product that is widely available through a doctor's prescription. It comes in the form of a pill (which can accurately regulate the dose of THC delivered, unlike smoked marijuana), and it is also being studied by researchers for suitability by other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or a patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which is the main active chemical found within marijuana. However, unlike marijuana which also contains more than 400 different chemicals (including most of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke), Marinol delivers therapeutic doses of THC in a manner that has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration.2 There is, therefore, no medical need to substitute a dangerous and addictive drug like marijuana for an approved prescriptive drug like Marinol that can provide a synthetic form of THC treatment with safe and controlled amounts to assist patients suffering from nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy and the loss of appetite associated with AIDS, two of the recognized and approved uses of Marinol.3 As noted above, many other drugs have been approved by the FDA and can be delivered in controlled quantities and qualities (unlike smoked marijuana) to treat the pain, nausea and other symptoms of the types of illnesses the use of marijuana is being proposed for in this bill.
3. Authorizing the use of marijuana through this legislative proposal will encourage Minnesota's residents to use a "medicine" that has not been approved by the FDA, the federal regulatory agency that exists to insure that true medicines are safe when used by Americans. Without FDA approval there is no way to insure that the quantities of THC delivered by marijuana are measured and safe. In fact, there is no way to do this with the smoking of a raw plant that contains numerous other harmful chemicals. Please read the attached FDA statement on this issue before you pass into law a proposal that endangers Minnesota's residents. It is also important to keep in mind that no drug in America is approved for delivery to a person through smoking. Smoking tobacco is harmful enough, smoking marijuana, which contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke, is of even greater danger.4
4. As a Schedule I controlled substance, the possession, sale or manufacture of marijuana is a federal crime. Consequently, current federal law is in conflict with the proposed medical marijuana law under consideration by the Minnesota Legislature. This will only subject Minnesota residents as well as law enforcement officials to conflicting and confusing laws, rules, roles and positions. To place our citizens and law enforcement officers in this position is simply poor public policy.
5. Legalizing marijuana for "medical" uses will lead to increased illegal use of this dangerous controlled substance. It is foolish to think that there will be no additional use of marijuana occurring as a result of legalizing its use for medicinal purposes under H.F. 655. First of all there will be no practical way to enforce the law to ensure that marijuana obtained for medical purposes is not used by other persons, including children. Secondly, under H.F. 655, "no person is subject to arrest or prosecution for constructive possession, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, being an accessory, or any other offense for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana." Consequently, there will be no way to ensure that those who obtain marijuana for a medical purpose will not share it with other persons. Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes will clearly lead to more illegal marijuana use and the crimes associated with it, endangering our youth and all of Minnesota’s residents.
• The U.S. Supreme Court itself acknowledged the adverse impacts of increasing crime and illegal marijuana use that will result from the passage of state laws similar to H.F. 655: In a 2005 decision, the Supreme Court stated: “The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the [state] market. The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will precisely match the patients' medical needs during their convalescence seems remote, whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious. Moreover, that the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the [state] exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so."5
6. If enacted, this bill will result in widespread use of marijuana for "medical" purposes. Testimony presented by the author of H.F. 655 indicated that this bill will impact only 150-200 seriously ill and dying persons in Minnesota. This testimony flies in the face of the experience in the state of Oregon after they adopted a law with a virtually identical definition of "debilitating medical condition" as that proposed here in Minnesota. As of April 1, 2008, Oregon has issued medical marijuana cards to 16,635 persons, 14,599 of whom were authorized to use it for "severe pain" (see the attached list of statistics from the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program). The definition of "debilitating medical condition" under this proposal is far too broad. It includes any condition that produces "chronic pain," "severe nausea," or "severe and persistent muscle spasms" - descriptions that could easily include chronic back problems or migraine headaches. (See item 9 below for further discussion of this issue.)
7. The quantities of marijuana authorized by this bill are far too large. Under this proposal, a "registered organization" can possess12 marijuana plants and 2.5 ounces of marijuana for each “registered qualifying patient” they supply. One marijuana plant can produce 1-2 pounds of smokeable marijuana, and the implementation of high quality production methods could increase plant yields. One ounce of smokeable marijuana can produce up to 56 marijuana cigarettes (joints), or 896 joints per pound. Using a low estimate of one pound of smokable marijuana per plant, passage of this legislation would allow authorized growers (registered organizations) to possess the equivalent of 10,752 marijuana cigarettes per “registered qualifying patient”. In order to maximize profits from their plants, growers will likely use the optimal growing methods to produce as much smokeable marijuana from each plant as is possible. Anyone who thinks that this amount of marijuana, multiplied by thousands of prospective users, will not lead to increased availability and use of marijuana for non-medical purposes by youth and adults in our state is being extremely naïve. The simple fact of the matter is that "registered organizations" (which, by the way, have no obligation under this proposal to destroy unneeded marijuana grown for a "patient") will be producing large quantities of "medical" marijuana if this proposal becomes law and this will make them easy and likely targets for theft. Also, because marijuana is a widely used illegal substance, incentives will exist for some unscrupulous persons involved in the sale or distribution of "medical marijuana" to steal and distribute the substance for illegal uses. This bill, therefore, will put more marijuana on the streets for illegal use, endangering the safety of our citizens and law enforcement officers.
8. Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Purposes Will Lead to the Perception that Marijuana is Harmless, which is far from the truth. Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes will lead many to conclude that the drug is in fact safe. In states where the issue of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has been put on the ballot for voters to decide, well-financed and organized campaigns spearheaded by pro-marijuana legalization groups have contributed to the misperception that marijuana is harmless.6 According to the Office of National Drug Policy, these campaigns are led not by medical professionals or patients-rights groups, but by pro-drug donors and organizations in a cynical attempt to exploit the suffering of sick people.7 The misperception that marijuana is harmless, which will be furthered by adopting this legislation, is perhaps most prevalent among teens where its use continues to be of significant concern. If youth perceive marijuana as harmless as a result of this legislation, increased use by children will surely result.
Based upon statistics compiled in 2002 and 2003 by the National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health: • 8 of the 10 states with "medical" marijuana laws in effect in 2002 and 2003 showed a worse percentage change than the national average in monthly marijuana use by youth (12-17 years old) and 7 of these 10 states actually showed an increase in monthly marijuana use by such youth. • 10 of the 12 states with "medical" marijuana laws in effect in 2003 were above the national average for first use of marijuana by youth (12-17 years old). • 9 of the 12 states with "medical" marijuana laws in effect in 2003 were above the national average for monthly marijuana use by youth (12-17 years old). See the attached documents containing these statistical comparisons (each contains two pages - you need to scroll down to see both.)
9. This bill is not "tightly crafted" as has been implied by proponents. Testimony presented by the author of H.F. 655 indicated that this bill is "tightly crafted" so as to not adversely impact law enforcement or endanger residents and that persons using it will be under the care and scrutiny of a medical doctor. None of these things are true.
• This bill has an extremely broad definition of "debilitating medical conditions" for which medical use of marijuana could be authorized. This bill lists some medical conditions which would be included, such as epilepsy, cancer, glaucoma, HIV and Tourette's syndrome, but these are just examples. The definition also includes any chronic or debilitating disease that causes severe or chronic pain, muscle spasms, nausea or seizures. This would include people suffering from arthritis, back or neck pain, migraine headaches or other similar problems. In other words, just about any condition a doctor, a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner concludes warrants marijuana as a treatment would be included. If this bill is enacted, the existence of conditions like "chronic pain", "severe nausea" and "severe and persistent muscle spasms" needs to be connected to one of the described illnesses or diseases identified in the statute and requiring a medical diagnosis. • There is no requirement in the bill for ongoing monitoring by the doctor recommending "medical marijuana" to a patient to determine if the use of this substance is in fact aiding the patient and not interfering or causing adverse reactions to other prescribed medicines. Additionally, if this bill is enacted only medical doctors should be able to diagnose an illness or disease and authorize a patient to use marijuana - not physician's assistants or advance practice registered nurses. How can it be argued that this is a "tightly crafted" bill when a doctor has no obligation to even see a patient authorized to use marijuana again after the authorization is given? (In fact, there is not even a requirement in this bill that the authorization be given after a personal visit to a doctor's office - authorization could be issued after receiving an email or talking to the "patient" on the phone.) What will occur is exactly the experience that has happened in Oregon, where a small handful of "doctors" have authorized marijuana to thousands of "patients". As it sits now, this is not a medical intervention, but is the equivalent of a home remedy without any protection or assurances as to the safety of the patient or the public. • This bill also does not provide for any type of background check to be done on a person providing marijuana to the registered patient. Allowing persons convicted of drug crimes to actually hold drugs for a marijuana patient is a major problem and will likely violate their terms of probation. These are just a few of the many problems that exist in this overly broad and unenforceable bill which is contrary to the interests of protecting the public safety.
10. Legitimate law enforcement investigations will be adversely impacted if this proposal becomes law.
• This bill requires law enforcement officers who have seized marijuana intended for use for medical purposes through a valid search warrant or arrest to return the marijuana to the patient or physician - this would potentially subject a Minnesota law enforcement officer to federal prosecution for illegally distributing a controlled substance under federal law, which is unprecedented and inappropriate. If not returned, the bill requires law enforcement to pay the "fair market value" of the marijuana to the patient or caregiver - there is no precedent in current law which requires law enforcement agencies to pay damages associated with lawful investigations and, in fact, a qualified immunity exists in these circumstances - an immunity that would inappropriately cease to exist as to marijuana lawfully seized if this bill passes. • Another section of the bill creates a safe harbor from arrest or prosecution for anyone "in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana," not just the "qualifying patient." This would hamper (if not outright prohibit) the ability to investigate and prosecute someone manufacturing, distributing, or possessing marijuana illegally, or any other criminal offense, while the person is in proximity to someone possessing a marijuana registry ID card. This is unheard of and would clearly hamper legitimate law enforcement investigations and jeopardize public safety. • This bill directs the Minnesota Department of Health to consider all registration data as confidential which means law enforcement officers will have no way of knowing who or which organizations have permission to lawfully grow or possess marijuana under this legislation, if enacted. This will cause law enforcement officers to waste a great deal of time and resources doing preliminary investigations only to later learn that the person or organization has permission to grow and use marijuana under this legislation, if enacted. • These are just a few of the many problems that exist in this overly broad proposal which will adversely impact law enforcement efforts. This bill is so broad and so limited in the ability of either law enforcement or the Commissioner of Health to enforce its provisions or monitor compliance with its terms to protect the safety of Minnesota's residents, that there will be no effective way to do so.
11. Possession of marijuana may even be permitted in prisons, jails and local detention facilities. While the current bill says you cannot "smoke" marijuana in a "correctional facility, it does not say you can't legally possess it if you have a registration card in such a facility. This is simply inappropriate and unacceptable. Also, this prohibition may not even apply to local jails or police detention facilities. Usually the word "correctional facility" only applies to prisons and not local jails or police lock-ups.
12. Many years of experience has shown us that marijuana is a key gateway drug to other drug use and addiction. It is a dangerous and addictive substance that is often associated with crime and violence. Marijuana is a gateway drug to the use of other illegal drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine. Long-term studies of youth who use drugs show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana. The use of marijuana often lowers inhibitions about drug use and exposes users to a culture that encourages the use of other drugs.8 Research also shows a strong link between frequent marijuana use and increased crime and violent behavior.9 Young people who use marijuana weekly are nearly four times more likely than nonusers to engage in violence.10 Cases right here in our state have shown the danger of marijuana use and the violent crimes it can lead to - the Grant Everson murder case in Chaska is just one glaring example.
13. Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago. One study showed that the average THC levels in marijuana in the past two decades has increased from 6 percent to more than 13 percent, with some samples containing THC levels of up to 33 percent (which is far higher than the 1 percent potency levels in marijuana used in the mid-1970's).11 Marijuana is a potent and dangerous substance, the use of which should not be encouraged in any way and this is exactly what will occur if this bill becomes law.

PLEASE REVIEW THE MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL (INCLUDING THE ATTACHMENTS) BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL.

The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association and the Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators all urge you to vote "NO" on this ill-conceived proposal which will adversely impact the safety and protection of Minnesota's residents.

FOOTNOTES:

1 THE ALTERNATIVES TO SMOKED MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE (List compiled by Dr. Eric Voth, Fellow of the American College of Physicians)

Legalization advocates would have the public and policy makers incorrectly believe that crude marijuana is the only treatment alternative for masses of cancer sufferers who are going untreated for the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and for all those who suffer from glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other ailments. Numerous effective medications are, however, currently available for these conditions. There has been a recent study by the Institute of Health to compare Metoclopramide with Marijuana to control vomiting and have found the former to 4 to 7 times better than marijuana.

Below is a list of the medications currently available for chemotherapy, and for all those who suffer from glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other ailments.

Serotonin Antagonists
Ondansetron (Zofran)
Granisetron (Kytril)
Tropisetron (Navoban)
Dolasetron

Phenothiazines
Prochlorperazine (Compazine)
Chlorpromaxine (Thorazine)
Thiethylperazine (Torecan)
Perphenazine (Trilafon)
Promethazine (Phenergan)

Corticosteroids
Dexamethasone (Decadron)
Methylprednisolone (Medrol)

Anticholinergics
Scopolamine (Trans Derm Scop)

Butyrophenones
Droperidol (Inapsine)
Haloperidol (Haldol)
Domperidone (Motilium)

Benzodiazepines
Lorazepam (Ativan)
Alprazolam (Xanax)

Substituted Benzamides
Metoclopramide (Reglan)
Trimethobenzamide (Tigan)
Alizapride (Plitican)
Cisapride (Propulsid)

Antihistamines
Diphenhydramine (Benedryl)

[SOURCE: 2001 WL 30659 (Appellate Brief) Brief of the Institute on Global Drug Policy of the Drug Free America Foundation; National Families in Action; Drug Watch International; Drug-free Kids: America’s Challenge, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (Jan. 10, 2001,), U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 121 S.Ct. 1711 (2001) and list reconfirmed on May 14, 2006]. This list was originally compiled by the Drug Free Schools Coalition and submitted to the Minnesota Legislature on February 14, 2007 by the Minnesota Family Council.

2 See “Medical” Marijuana - The Facts, a publication of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, found at www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinolp.html.

3 Id.

4 Hoffman, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Gori, G.B.; and Wynder, E.E.L. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New Hork: Plenum, 1975. See also NIDA, Research Report Series: Marijuana Abuse, Oct. 2002: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Marijuana3.html.

5 Gonzales v. Angel, et al., Supreme Court of the United States, 545 U.S. 1;125 S. Ct. 2195; 162 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4656; 73 U.S. L.W. 4407; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327, p. 2215

6 Office of National Drug Control Policy’s What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana (Important facts about our nation’s most misunderstood illegal drug), page 10. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf

7 Id.

8 U.S. Dept. of Justice publication: Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana, p 2. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html.

9 Adolescent Self-reported Behaviors and Their Association with marijuana Use, Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999: http://www.samhsa.gov/press/980922fs.htm
See also: Brook, J.S. et al. The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. American Journal of Public Health, October 1999.

10 Budney et al., Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment. Archives of General Psychiatry. 58(10): 917-924. 2001. (NIDA Notes Vol. 17 No. 3): http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_notes/NNVol17N3/Demonstrates.html
See also Marijuana: Facts for Teens, NIDA, Revised 1998:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html
See also State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc., July 1997.

11 Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project. University of Mississippi, 2002. See also:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/01020/index.html#ma4
http://www.recoverymonth.gov/2003/kit/OverviewAndGeneralFacts.pdf