cannabisnews.com: Md. Starts Test Run Of Medical Marijuana

Md. Starts Test Run Of Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on September 30, 2003 at 21:03:40 PT
By Tim Craig, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post
Silver Spring lawyer Jonathan L. Katz considers it a defense attorney's dream: A Maryland law taking effect today allows anyone convicted of possessing marijuana to argue for a drastically reduced sentence if the drug was used for medical purposes. "How many people out there don't have any kind of physical pain that marijuana might alleviate?" asked Katz, who specializes in defending people charged with marijuana-related offenses. "People with sports injuries and back injuries. For people with asthma, marijuana can help breathing. For anorexics, it can help stimulate the appetite. There are a whole bunch of people who like marijuana who can now try to use this defense."
Prosecutors say they are a bit nervous, noting the law lacks language defining just who can use the defense and how a judge should interpret it. "All I can assume is now we will have defendants come into court with the health section of High Times [magazine] and try to tell me Timothy Leary prescribed use of this," said Harford County State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly (R). Maryland's unique approach to medical marijuana -- reducing penalties for possession rather than actually legalizing the drug -- is being watched by other states as a possible model for how to handle the prickly issue. The first-if-its-kind legislation has also drawn the attention of the White House, which lobbied hard against it and of a national marijuana advocacy group, which argues the measure does not go far enough. Locally, though, doctors, lawyers and judges wonder how the law will play out in county courthouses and state appellate courts. The General Assembly's intent was clear last spring when it approved the bill, a compromise between lawmakers who wanted to show compassion for people with severe illnesses and those who wanted to prevent outright legalization. Legislators spoke of friends and relatives who had depended on marijuana to ease the pain of cancer and other diseases. Some recalled the case of Kathleen Maria "Kitty" Tucker, who was arrested for growing marijuana in her Takoma Park home four years ago. A judge would not let her argue that she used it to relieve fibromyalgia, a disorder that causes muscle pain. "I could not bring any of that evidence forward," said Tucker, who was sentenced to six months' probation and a $500 fine after she agreed to a plea bargain. The judge later agreed to strike the conviction from her record if she completed probation. The new law limits the fine for marijuana possession to $100 if the defendant can prove that the drug was used as a medicine. Otherwise, the defendant could be fined as much as $1,000 and spend one year in jail. Although the measure instructs judges to consider "medical necessity" before sentencing, it does not specify what illness a defendant must have or what evidence the defense needs to produce to argue the case. It doesn't differentiate between people with physical or psychological conditions. "This is somewhat open-ended," said former Republican state delegate Donald E. Murphy, who lobbied for passage of the legislation. "It really leaves it up to the judge's discretion." Katz said defense lawyers would constantly test the law's reach. They would be neglecting their clients if they did not try to find out what "physical, emotional or psychological pain" causes them to use the drug. "Sometimes people are self-medicating without even realizing it," he said. He said he expects to call doctors to testify about how marijuana can help some patients. T. Michael Preston, executive director of the Maryland State Medical Society, said his organization recommends against such testimony because federal law prohibits doctors from prescribing the drug. Federal authorities have threatened to revoke the medical licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients. James N. Vaughan, chief judge of the District Court of Maryland, which hears most marijuana possession cases, said he has seldom heard the medicinal-use defense in his courtroom and doubted that defendants would go through "some great, elaborate ruse" for an offense that carries a fairly light sentence. In 2001, 17,676 people in Maryland were charged with possessing marijuana, according to FBI statistics. Since the mid-1990s, some have argued in court they used the drug as medicine. In 1995, an HIV-positive farmer from Charles County was charged with possessing 10 grams of marijuana with intent to sell it. Jerome Edward Mensch, who was then 43, argued that he needed marijuana to counteract the side effects of prescription drugs. After a legal tussle, a Circuit Court judge ruled that Mensch could make the argument to a jury, though he ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation. Four years later, Tucker was denied the right to make the same argument in Montgomery. Tucker said she hopes that the new law will "offer some relief" to people who use the drug as medicine but worries that it does not go far enough. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he, too, is concerned that Maryland's law is too vague and confusing to be effective. The bill that passed the General Assembly is is much different from the original, which would have created a closely supervised program and provided terminally ill patients with permits to possess as much as three ounces of marijuana. Del. Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George's), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rewrote the bill because he worried that it violated federal laws banning marijuana possession. Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert), House minority whip, said the final version has "many potential flaws" because the state was trying to pass a law that could stand up to federal scrutiny. "It was a very good attempt to address the situation, but the fix is not at the state level. The federal government has to change the federal law so medical marijuana can be prescribed," O'Donnell said. But the Bush administration has been stepping up the pressure on the nine states that have legalized medical marijuana. In those states, qualified patients can possess the drug without risk of prosecution under state law, although possession remains a federal crime. The White House lobbied Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) to veto the Maryland legislation last spring. Ehrlich refused and became the first Republican governor to sign a medical marijuana bill. Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas F. Gansler (D) said he hopes that terminally ill patients will never have to plead their cases in court. "The bill does send a message to prosecutors and the law enforcement community that if someone is possessing marijuana, and doing so legitimately for medicinal purposes, then perhaps that is not where the resources of the law enforcement community ought to be implemented," Gansler said. Note: New Law's Reach An Open Question. Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Tim Craig, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page B01 Copyright: 2003 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Ehrlich Signs Marijuana Bill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16364.shtmlEhrlich Lowers Fine for Medical Marijuana Users http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16357.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 01, 2003 at 10:36:45 PT
News Brief from The Associated Press
Examples of European Policy on Cannabis Use
ASSOCIATED PRESS Oct. 1 — Some examples of cannabis policies in Europe: NETHERLANDS: Legislation dating back to 1976 decriminalized cannabis. Consumption and sale allowed in so-called coffee shops, which have annual sales around $3 billion.

BELGIUM: Decriminalized possession of cannabis in 2002. BRITAIN: On Sept. 12, downgraded marijuana from Class B to Class C drug. Possession now carries maximum sentence of two years, but government says most offenders will get off with a warning. FRANCE: Possession of soft drugs risks heavy fine and year in prison, but in practice cannabis use seldom prosecuted. Government may eliminate jail time but toughen fines for cannabis use. NORDIC COUNTRIES: Possession and consumption of soft drugs illegal. GERMANY: Cannabis consumption illegal, but possession of small quantities seldom prosecuted, although varies in German jurisdictions. GREECE: Cannabis smokers face prison if caught, but enforcement lax. ITALY: 1993 referendum decriminalized possession of ''minimum daily dose'' of marijuana. SPAIN: Possession of marijuana for personal use carries no sanctions. PORTUGAL: Cannabis illegal, but under 2001 law those possessing small amounts no longer jailed and instead given mandatory counseling, and sometimes community service or small fine. CROATIA: Last month, ended criminal prosecution for possessing marijuana for personal use. Sale remains punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Comment #2 posted by Patrick on October 01, 2003 at 07:19:31 PT
What good is this bill anyway???
The Feds bust people in California that are deputized by the State. And didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that there are no grounds for a medical defense of cannabis posession since mj is not a "medicine" to the pea brained prohibition mind of what was once a government for the people by the people? The only way out of this crap is to remove the Schedule 1 lie/status of cannabis so these band aid state laws wouldn't be passed giving federal jack boots an opp to tromp on them and citizens at a later time. Yeah Sam Adams I agree it only benefits the lawyers not the sick.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on September 30, 2003 at 21:22:07 PT
Ironic, isn't it?
I think the original MPP bill only permitted use of medical MJ for a specific set of illnesses, with a written doctor's recommendation, and with a valid state ID card.It's interesting to study the government's solution. At first, it seems like they're incompetent and passed a bill that doesn't make sense. But there are some interesting ramifications. Now, you'll probably have a whole lot more people spending money on lawyers to mount a credible medical defense. As opposed to a single, part-time state employee that could have administered the state-run medical MJ program in MPP's bill. This is a common thread in government solutions and policies; they all seem to end up benefiting lawyers in the end. Just an observation.Also, maybe the government likes it more open-ended. Ultimately it gives them more discretion, more power over people. They get to decide whether it's medical use, not a doctor. If they don't like someone, they can decide it's not medical use.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment