cannabisnews.com: Pot Shots 





Pot Shots 
Posted by CN Staff on July 30, 2003 at 14:42:41 PT
By Sarah Phelan 
Source: Metro Santa Cruz 
The Bush administration has attacked medical marijuana on several fronts, but its latest effort to go after doctors has got the outspoken director of a Santa Cruz-based medical marijuana referral service stepping out of the shadows and onto the warpath. He offers an inside look at how medical marijuana works and why the feds have taken on a war they can't win. The Marimed Referral Service on the east side of Santa Cruz exudes the edgy yet laid-back atmosphere you'd expect from an operation that occupies "Suite M for Marijuana," as Marimed director William Malphrus jokes.
This is where Malphrus and his associates match doctors willing to do physical evaluations and make medical marijuana recommendations with patients who believe they qualify for the benefits of the Proposition 215-approved green stuff. Recently, Malphrus, who favors loud shirts and speaks with a distinct Georgian drawl, has kept a low profile for fear his organization would be targeted for working in an area that is legal under California's medical marijuana law, but increasingly under fire from the feds. But that reticence burned off like so much summer fog when the Bush administration announced this month that it wants the Supreme Court's permission to strip prescription licenses from doctors who recommend medical marijuana--an activity U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson called "no different from recommending heroin or LSD." That's the kind of cartoonishly right-wing comment that gets medical marijuana activists fired up. Malphrus scoffs, saying marijuana is "God given, unlike heroin and LSD--not to mention cocaine and crack--which are man-made." But to him, that kind of government rhetoric is nothing new. Nor are the threats against doctors who recommend marijuana for medicinal purposes. When Prop. 215 passed in 1996, the Clinton administration announced that doctors who recommended medical marijuana faced losing their federal licenses to prescribe medicine. But in January 1997, doctors and patients statewide filed a class action suit against the feds, alleging the federal threat violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. In September of 2000, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that doctors can recommend marijuana to patients who may benefit from it without fear that the feds will strip them of their licenses to prescribe medicine, or otherwise impose sanctions. In his decision, Judge Alsup expanded and made permanent a previously granted temporary injunction that prevented the feds from revoking a doctor's license to prescribe medicine. But now, the feds are arguing that Alsup's decision prevents the DEA from protecting the public, and licenses doctors to treat patients with illegal drugs. Their request to strip doctors of their licenses would gut medical marijuana laws and hurt doctor-patient relationships--and according to seasoned medical marijuana activists, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. "The Supreme Court has so many requests, it's doubtful they'd revisit the issue of a doctor's right to prescribe medical marijuana, and they certainly cannot do anything that will impede a doctor's income," says Malphrus. Either way, the threat hasn't put a damper on Malphrus' referral service. "We have doctors lined up from Santa Barbara to San Francisco, and since October 2002, we've signed up almost 1,600 new patients," he says. That translates to about 200 new matches a month and includes, according to Malphrus, "veterans who fought for our country and were wounded, cops from other counties and a big-time Catholic priest." Business may be good, but Malphrus insists he ain't getting rich on these transactions. "You're allowed to recoup your investment and cover your overheads," he says, pointing to his modest office where a couple of assistants answer phones and help do background checks. "But if you're doing it legitimately, you're not getting rich." Malphrus also insists that unlike some medical marijuana clubs "where people can walk in and say they have a back problem," people who get referrals through Marimed have to have been seeing a doctor for their condition and have a complete paper trail about their medical situation. "If not," says Malphrus, "going to one of our doctors is as far as they can get." Won't Back Down Malphrus describes his operation as a "screening service" in which patients get matched with the best doctor to suit their needs. "If a person comes in and they haven't seen a doctor in ages, or they have no insurance, but think of themselves as sick and obviously have a medical condition, we'll do a background check, and try and find any medical records, before we send them to a doctor," he says. "All patients have to be documented, so Marimed can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a problem. We have to verify that they are documented, or there has to be one helluva good reason if they are not, such as a visible or verifiable problem. We do a good and thorough screening process." Malphrus, who formerly operated two cannabis buyers clubs in Santa Cruz County, says there's a big difference between a referral service like Marimed and a medical marijuana dispensary. "Once you get a recommendation, you can take it and join any medical marijuana dispensary in the state," he says, "but dispensaries have to operate in the shadows between the laws, and that's the part that's scary from the federal point of view." Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected medical marijuana buyers' clubs, a decision that outlawed medical marijuana exceptions under federal law, but did not touch on medical marijuana laws that have passed in California and eight other states. A bill to provide federal protection to medical marijuana users in those states failed once again in the House last Wednesday--though it did receive 152 supporting votes, 58 more than it got when it was voted down in 1998. Still, as current medical marijuana laws stand, the party providing the medication runs all the risks, Malphrus explains. "Prop. 215 allows two individuals to exchange some of the product without it being illegal. Beyond that, it gets dicey," he says, noting that under 215, a person with a valid doctor's recommendation can have up to 6 pounds of "product," and grow a certain number of plants--though even that figure varies by region. He points to Alameda County, which once allowed 144 plants, but then slashed the legal number to 72. Those are the kind of inconsistencies that explain why Malphrus prefers to be on the referral end of things. So, what could the feds do to him? "Kiss my ass," he says. It's a joke, of course, but there's a somber side to his fightin' words, too. His brash attitude, he says, is partially fueled by the fact that after having open heart surgery in 1999, he was told he had only five years to live. "After that," he says, "I did lots of self-evaluation. I wanted to make the world a better place, so I got involved in this industry, in which I consider myself an expert, an activity that meshes with my personal religious, medical and political beliefs. I have no bad thoughts about medical marijuana, except maybe the cost." He's quite aware, he says, that he's putting himself at risk by putting his own face on the medical marijuana issue. "I'm putting myself at risk, yes, but it would be awfully expensive and an awful waste of taxpayers' money for the feds to go after me for this. I'm just a sick individual who's found a way to get involved," he says. "I protect my doctors 100 percent, and for the past few years, I've just been riding on Valerie and Michael Corral's achievements. But they're having their trials and tribulations, and now the political climate warrants my stepping up to the plate, taking the bull by the horns and becoming more public. Unlike Clinton, I definitely inhaled. I intend to keep on sending people to doctors, where they can get legal, legitimate recommendations, until they send me to jail." The Rights Behind the Fight Valerie Corral hopes they won't be able to. The co-founder of the Santa Cruz-based Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) implies that Malphrus may be onto something in his legal arguments for the rights of physicians when she points outs that five attempts have been made by the feds to overturn doctors' rights to recommend--and each has failed. "I have faith in the wisdom of the courts," says Corral. That said, she upbraids the Bush administration for "continuing to speak out about being compassionate conservatives, when none of its actions substantiate those claims." The government, says Corral, should be providing safe access to medicine and creating a more compassionate society. "Imposing fear on physicians--and the nation--and making people go on the streets to find their medicine is none of those," she says. For his part, Malphrus acknowledges that he and everyone else involved with medical marijuana owe a lot to WAMM and the Corrals, "who are compassionate and responsible warriors for this cause." In other places, he says, things aren't always so rosy. "In Oakland, if you visit a cannabis buyer's club, you have to worry about getting robbed or hit up on the way out," he says. "Whereas Santa Cruz is the best city and county in the nation for medical marijuana, because the local government is on the citizen's side and does everything it can to help implement Prop. 215." Malphrus sees the feds' recent attacks--the raid on WAMM's property last fall, as well as the prosecution of San Francisco medicinal marijuana grower Ed Rosenthal--as little more than delay tactics along the way to medical marijuana's inevitable decriminalization. He says it's not just government, but big-business interests that have stymied the growing cultural acceptance of medical marijuana. "Pharmaceutical companies don't want the feds to legalize a medication that a person can acquire and grow for themselves. They want you dependent on their products, because of their profit factor," he says. "And insurance companies don't want it legalized, because then they'd have to cover the cost of the medical marijuana prescriptions." Still, Malphrus sees things changing all around him. Canada's recent decision to legalize marijuana for terminally and chronically ill patients makes it the first country to do so. "The Canadian government was smart enough to realize that there's huge income to be made from taxing medical marijuana, while being able to provide relief for its citizens' ills. So, it got over the embarrassment of negative attitudes towards medical marijuana and onto healing its citizens. That's what we should be doing," he says. It's only a matter of time, Malphrus believes, before the feds get around to realizing that. "It would be pretty much a tragedy if they don't. Because if you're using it for medicinal purposes, you're exercising your right to choose whatever medication works for you. Whether it's proven scientific fact, or a psychological aspect, really doesn't matter. If you feel it helps, that's your personal choice," he says, describing his position as "Jeffersonian."  He Fought the Law For Malphrus, who is diabetic and says he has had severe stomach problems since childhood, it's a political crusade that is also extremely personal. "No pharmaceuticals have been able to settle my stomach. Marijuana has," says Malphrus, who grew up in Georgia, a state where possession of an ounce earns a mandatory 25 years. In California, where he's lived since 1991, his pot crusading has led to run-ins with local law enforcement, beginning with a 1995 arrest in Monterey County for growing the crazy lettuce. "The judge understood I wasn't growing to sell, so he gave me three years unsupervised probation," he says. Six years later, a Santa Cruz Superior Court judge ordered that almost one pound of the green stuff be returned to Malphrus, thus ending a nine-month-long court case which began when an Airborne Express employee opened a package sent to him by his wife (under the pretenses of an invalid return address) and found 1 ounce of pot, a couple grams of hash and a bottle of hash oil. Sheriffs deputies then searched the couple's residence, where they found and confiscated a pound of bud--despite evidence, says Malphrus, that he had a valid physician's recommendation. "Technically, I did not commit a crime, since I was on board an airplane when the hash oil was intercepted," he says. But he pled guilty to possession of hash oil and paid a $100 fine rather than see his wife charged with trafficking. To this day, however, he feels he was targeted by the then-DA because of his involvement with the now-defunct Santa Cruz Cannabis Pharmaceuticals, of which he was a director. These days, Malphrus is particularly pissed at President Bush, who as governor of Texas and a presidential candidate claimed to support states' rights, but is now supporting the crackdown on growers, dispensaries and medical marijuana clubs across the nation. "Richard Nixon was responsible for scheduling marijuana as a Schedule One drug, and basically we're still going through the prohibition period on this drug," he says. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)--which says the United States currently spends $1.2 billion annually incarcerating drug offenders, and another $6-to-$9 billion tracking them down and arresting them--also believes the U.S. may be moving closer to the end of what it calls "marijuana prohibition," especially in light of the Canadian decision, which it should be noted is still extremely controversial even there. Until that time, though, Malphrus believes that the feds can still give anyone in the medical marijuana industry grief, if they so choose. "They'll do whatever they can to shut you down, but hopefully they'll eventually recognize that U.S. voters want this to change," he says. "The old politicians are dying, and the new ones grew up in era of having free sex and smoking pot--and they didn't lose their brain cells doing it. They know the government propaganda is bullshit. So, state by state, the marijuana laws are slowly changing. And they're gonna have to, because that's what people want." Note: Refer Madness: Though he's an outspoken advocate of medical marijuana, Malphrus keeps his business solely to physician referrals. From the July 30-August 6, 2003 issue of Metro Santa Cruz.Source: Metro Santa Cruz (CA)Author: Sarah Phelan Published: July 30 - August 6, 2003Copyright: 2003 Metro Publishing Inc.Contact: msc metcruz.comWebsite: http://www.metroactive.com/cruz/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Hinchey - Rohrabacher Amendment http://freedomtoexhale.com/dofcomm.htmMore Doctors Need To Join The Brave Few http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16957.shtmlThe Sick Shouldn't Be Victims of The Drug War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16917.shtml Green Milestones - Metro Santa Cruzhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15707.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #15 posted by afterburner on July 31, 2003 at 22:20:36 PT
California Progress
US CA: Column: Proposition S Proceeds Apace 30 Jul 2003 
Anderson Valley Advertiser 
http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v03/n1154/a06.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by afterburner on July 31, 2003 at 19:34:55 PT:
SARSSTOCK #5
My neighbor, who watched the Stones concert on TV here in Canada, was disappointed that the Stones played only 3 songs. He was surprised when I told him that they actually played at least 18 songs. I was so busy dancing that I forgot my count at one point.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Dan B on July 31, 2003 at 13:01:48 PT
Max Flowers - Excellent
Thanks for writing your comments. Of particular importance is your comment that "The 'they' to which he refers don't care much what voters want; they are pursuing an agenda which doesn't really respond to voter will---just corporate mega-industry megadollars."For an excellent series of articles dealing with the overall schemes of right-wing corporate-politicos, I urge everyone to read the article at the following URL, along with the articles linked at the bottom of that article: http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/beattherightinthree.htmEnjoy the reading. It is fascinating, and the best part is that it directly implicates corporate America in the lie that is the war on some drugs.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on July 31, 2003 at 10:29:20 PT
Go Virgil
Keep talking! We need to hear it!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Virgil on July 31, 2003 at 10:26:59 PT
Groundhog Day- Year 66 minus 2 days
Well I wake up and today seems a lot like yesterday and with no new articles up it seems the sounds of silence carry on. At least the same old lies are not their to bore me to death.The Great Depression gets capital letters. You will have to excuse me if you think Cannabis Prohibition does not deserve them. Cannabis Prohibition is the target we are out to destroy. Let's do some personification(recall Death and its sythe) and demonization of our own. Do not think we need to lie like the prohibitionists. I do think hate is in order and please do not slogan back, "I hate hate." Well, if you hate hate, then you should really hate Cannabis Prohibition. You probably already do hate Cannabis Prohibition even if you moralize a different word for your feelings.There is plenty to say about Cannabis Prohibition. The life story of CP is very interesting especially the part about Timothy O'Leary taking the Marijuana Tax Act to the Supreme Court and having it pronounced dead/unconstitutional. It was revived with hatred by Nixon who devised a regulatory/judicial/executive branch in one questionably unconstitutional agency known as the DEA by executive order. O'Leary killed it and Nixon frankensteined the damn thing. It must again be killed and dismembered along with the conspirators that keep the beast alive. See how easy the demonization is?Here is a "Cannabis Prohibition is" rant. Cannabis Prohibition is in need of remedy. Free Cannabis For Everyone.Cannabis Prohibition is a failure.Cannabis Prohibition is a huge failure.Cannabis Prohibition is a proven failure.Cannabis Prohibition is for dummies.Cannabis Prohibition is for crooks.Cannabis Prohibition is for fools.Cannabis Prohibition is the path to ruin.Cannabis Prohibition is intellectually dishonest in its argument.Cannabis Prohibition is illuminating of plutocratic rule.Cannabis Prohibition is a subverter of truth and democracy.Cannabis Prohibition is worthy of repentance.Cannabis Prohibition is a murderer in need of a death sentence.Cannabis Prohibition is worthy of a swift demise.Cannabis Prohibition is a road designed by bad intentions and paved with treason and victims that crimed no one.Cannabis Prohibition is evil.Cannabis Prohibition is supported by evil doers.Well, I do not want to get too boring. Cannabis Prohibition is a terrible thing. Damned, I was not even trying. Well, it is. And it is time to get informed and get real. This has to change. This Groundhog Day scenerio is to old for me. Not only do people need to stop being arrested for seeking herbal relief, there are plenty of people in jail now that do not deserve to be there.Cannabis Prohibition has earned your hate. It ask for your hate. Give it some patriotic hate already. It is destroying the country because it is the center pole in the great circus we call the War of Insanity and they call the WOD.Cannabis Prohibition is hateful.Cannabis Prohibition is worthy of your hate. Cannabis Prohibition is the great illuminator of corruption in government.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Virgil on July 30, 2003 at 21:01:19 PT
One more thing
The only thing I saw on the Stones seemed to be their last song- Can't get no satisfaction.Well, if I died tonite I would not want it go unsaid that Cannabis Prohibition is immoral.Let the herb grow. It can remedy many things. Cannabis Prohibition is remedy for freedom. Maybe that is the sentence to get the brain-dead moralizers thinking.That is all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Virgil on July 30, 2003 at 20:25:15 PT
Happy conception day, Cannabis Prohibition
Last August 2nd was the 65th anniversary of Cannabis Prohibition. Now when I speak of Cannabis Prohibition I specifically mean federal prohibition that began with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 as signed by Roosevelt on August 2, 1937. August 2nd it was conceived and on October 1, 1937 it was born. Cannabis Prohibition has a life and a life story. It is a specific thing. Marijuana prohibition lacks accuracy because of the inclusion of hemp. Marijuana does not apply to hemp whereas cannabis is the proper umbrella that houses the full extent of the madness.Last year we were talking of the John Stossel show on ABC and I made note of the article that appeared here at Cnews- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13616.shtmlAt this time last year we received an important finding from the medical community. It concerned cannabanoids helping with past memories and its value in helping with fear. See how there was a flurry of articles on the subject and remember the role of fear by the government in advancing their agenda- http://www.cannabisnews.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/cnews/newsread.pl?13601From the BBC on July 31, 2002- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13598.shtml - Cannabis-like chemicals in the brain play a key role in erasing nasty memories, a study has found. Researchers in Germany have found that cannabinoids, produced naturally in the brain, help to manage fear. They believe that a lack of these chemicals may explain why some people have difficulty forgetting painful events and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or phobias. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 30, 2003 at 19:32:40 PT
Virgil
One time someone told me it isn't what you say but how you say it that matters. Maybe that's how I feel.I can't seem to keep the connecting at the CBC. When they go live it keeps buffering and I can't find it just on the radio. There must be so many people trying to access the live webcast that it isn't working right. I should be able to get it without buffering all the time with the satellite. I wish it would work. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Virgil on July 30, 2003 at 19:22:02 PT
I like pot
I have no problem with marijuana either, FoM. My problem usually comes when I am without marijuana. I have no problem with pot as it is three letters. I have no problem with weed as it is four letters. As long as it conveys understanding and lacks prejudice, I can go for it.I prefer cannabis over marijuana because it is shorter for one reason. I prefer Nazi over fascist because it is shorter. I must say that the issue is cannabis prohibition. It is just my thinking that marijuana prohibition fails in substitution of the term: cannabis prohibition. Of course my thinking is that it should be capitalized because it is an identifiable thing that has been around for 65 years, is bolsterous, and inescapable of notice. Cannabis Prohibition conveys a proper name in my view and it would have to be the view of only a few.When are the Stones going to start already?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 30, 2003 at 18:55:11 PT
One More Comment
I don't want anyone to think that Cannabis is the only word to use. There are other names but for me I believe using the word Cannabis is the right one but Marijuana is the common name used so that's fine with me too. Some names I never really heard before the Internet. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Virgil on July 30, 2003 at 18:49:50 PT
We have to get our act (words) together
"Richard Nixon was responsible for scheduling marijuana as a Schedule One drug, and basically we're still going through the prohibition period on this drug," he says.This guy is on our side and he cannot get his words right. Why he said drug instead of plant is a failure of us not having our words together. He was so close to Schedule One Lie and had the Nixon subject going. The whole point of our message should be that the federal government knows damn well the value that cannabis has to the people and that once you accept the corruption that barbarians policy with intentional infliction of the most onerous and mean-spirited laws ever divised, you have to ask, "If the government knows the value of cannabis to the people and the lack of harm, why do they continue the War of Insanity they call the WOD?"All politics is local. In one place it will break. Someone will get their act together.I am reminded of footage I saw that came from the Vietnam era when flag burning became an issue in itself. One guy set up a little booth with flags that started in size far smaller than a postage stamp and went up incrementally. He picked up the smallest flag with tweezers and burned it and asked "Should I be arrested for that?" He just worked on up in size and it was a powerful act.But here is where the seniors could bust it open. What happens when people show up in a small town with seedlings. What happens when a hundred sick people or seniors that show up say in Lebanon, Kansas. I say that because it is the geographical center of the country and a small place in the middle of nowhere. What happens when they pull a seedling a half-inch high out at the police station. Here in North Carolina a plant less than 4 ounces is a misdemeanor and would not affect someone that is retired very much.Well, a show down is coming. The federal government is in the wrong and they know they are in the wrong and they keep on. The corruption and lies will have to be addressed. I can now see why RC often ask "Have the sick and dying freed us yet?"Of course RC also ask- "What have you done for freedom today." And I might add- "What have you done about the complete corruption of government today?"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on July 30, 2003 at 16:42:12 PT
This is what turned me off
...the U.S. may be moving closer to the end of what it calls "marijuana prohibition," especially in light of the Canadian decision, which it should be noted is still extremely controversial even there.I just found this disappointing when the void of ignorance could have been accepted some facts and the principles of journalism begs for them. They are still way ahead of the NYT. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 30, 2003 at 16:30:31 PT
R-E-S-P-E-C-T That's What It Means To Me!
I agree that Cannabis deserves respect and words that are negative shouldn't be used in articles. We believe that Cannabis deserves liberty and that's why she always deserves respect from all of us that write I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Virgil on July 30, 2003 at 16:25:13 PT
Can't be that good with an attitude like that
Yes, it does break the silence and it does not try to tell 80% and rising of the people that have eroded government support anything to change their mind. Then again, nothing is going to change their mind once they have come to a reasoned position. The malicious nature of the federal position has shown those that can learn that the entire government is not about making a more perfect union, but about evaporating everything up.As the situation grows within people and the glaring failure of government comes into sharper focus, politicians will be thrown out left and right by the steeled conviction of people that have had too much.The cannabis situation between government and people has a similar parallel in the business world. The up and rising operating system throughout the world is Linux. Microsoft has all but a monopoly on OS's and cannot compete with Linux. It currently derides this free system that is more secure and more flexible in hopes of keeping the lid on and the current ploy to claim infringement and using a puppet is really just a joke. It is plaqued by lies, saying people with the current kernel are violating copyright. Well, first there puppet, SCO, has not revealed what code they think has been violated. In the Linux world a revelation of a violation would immediately be withdrawn and rewritten, and life would go on. Here we see the last ditch effort of Microsoft to hold the dam together- http://www.linux.org/news/2003/07/30/0005.html The tide is coming in and no amount of propaganda can reverse it. It may be true that propaganda just makes the situation worse for the prohibitionist. Then again failure is imminent and demonizing has got them this far and they know nothing else. The jig is up and they do not yet know. When they are thrown out of office they will know. It is all we can do. We have to show these criminal politicians the door. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Max Flowers on July 30, 2003 at 15:53:41 PT
"Crazy Lettuce"?
Overall this is a positive article, but why oh why did yet *another* journalist have to throw in a cutsie or demeaning slang term for cannabis? Even the story headline, "Pot Shots", once again relies on tired old pot puns. I agree with past posters who have complained that this kind of thing is detrimental and condescending. This plant deserves to be called by its horticultural name, not things like "crazy lettuce" (??) and "devil weed". But I guess it's ridiculous for me to hope for that to change, because humans---even purportedly professional journalists who are supposed to be careful with words as a code of their profession---assign slang words to things as a law of nature.Oh one more observation: Mr. Malphrus is a bit naive when he says "They'll do whatever they can to shut you down, but hopefully they'll eventually recognize that U.S. voters want this to change". The "they" to which he refers don't care much what voters want; they are pursuing an agenda which doesn't really respond to voter will---just corporate mega-industry megadollars.Sorry folks, maybe I've got a bad mood goin' here...MF
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment