cannabisnews.com: Initiative Seeks Law Change for Medical Pot Rx 





Initiative Seeks Law Change for Medical Pot Rx 
Posted by FoM on October 18, 1999 at 08:16:46 PT
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 
Source: Arizona Daily Star
Federal officials trumped the wishes of Arizona voters by threatening the livelihood of any doctor who went along with a 1996 initiative allowing them to prescribe marijuana. 
Now Arizona voters may be able to turn the tables with another change in the law. Sam Vagenas, director of The People Have Spoken, said doctors haven't written any prescriptions for marijuana despite the 3-year-old law because they fear the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will rescind their rights to prescribe other drugs. He said that fear exists even though Arizonans specifically voted to let doctors write prescriptions for otherwise illegal drugs for seriously and terminally ill patients. Arizonans haven't changed their minds since: In a statewide survey earlier this year, 66 percent opposed revoking the licenses of doctors who prescribe marijuana. With that in mind, Vagenas' organization has crafted a small but significant change in the law it helped push through in 1996. First Amendment protection The original law states that doctors have to ``prescribe'' marijuana; if approved by voters, the statutes would allow doctors to ``recommend'' marijuana to their patients. Vagenas said there is some legal belief a doctor's ``recommendation'' to a patient is protected by the First Amendment. The organization also drafted another provision to get around the problem that, prescription or otherwise, pharmacists cannot obtain or dispense marijuana without DEA approval. The initiative would instead require state Attorney General Janet Napolitano to make medical marijuana available to those entitled to get it. But Chic Older, executive director of the Arizona Medical Association, questions whether the changes will make doctors less fearful of suggesting marijuana to their patients. And an attorney who has filed suit against the government on behalf of two Arizona doctors who fear federal retribution said changing Arizona law is not the answer. Jonathan Emord is instead asking a federal judge to block the DEA and other federal agencies from retaliating against doctors who follow Arizona law. Only then, Emord said, will doctors here feel free to fully discuss medical options with patients - including marijuana. State vs. federal law At the heart of the issue is how doctors perceive the conflict between state and federal law. At a news conference in Washington shortly after the 1996 election, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said the DEA will review cases ``to determine whether to revoke the (DEA) registration of any physician who recommends or prescribes'' marijuana or other illegal drugs. Reno also warned that doctors who follow state over federal law could be excluded from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and face criminal prosecution. A month later, the Office of National Drug Control Policy published a new federal policy incorporating Reno's comments. That policy led to the lawsuit. One of the doctors that sued is Jeffrey Singer, a Phoenix surgeon who, according to Emord, wants to prescribe marijuana to patients who suffer serious or terminal illness. The problem, said Emord, is that Singer fears punishment. Singer said he is simply exercising his First Amendment rights. ``I am giving them advice in writing,'' Singer said. ``That's all a prescription is.'' Don't fear punishment He said doctors should not fear punishment for advising patients that, in their medical judgment, their condition would be helped through the use of marijuana - particularly if it is legal in the state where it is prescribed. Richard Fisher, the other doctor, is a Sun City specialist in geriatrics who, according to the lawsuit, frequently treats terminally ill patients with malignancies and those undergoing chemotherapy ``who suffer excruciating pain and nausea for which other palliative care is not effective.'' Emord said Fisher won't prescribe marijuana - even though allowed under Arizona law - because he fears criminal prosecution, revocation of his ability to write prescriptions and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Older said the Arizona Medical Association supports the ability of doctors to do whatever is in the ``best interests'' of their patients. He noted there is some anecdotal evidence marijuana has medical uses, particularly in alleviating nausea caused by chemotherapy. ``If I were sick 90 percent of the time I would want something to give me relief without fear of being arrested,'' he said. And Older said doctors won't prescribe it for fear of running afoul of federal law. Jim Molesa, a spokesman for DEA, said his agency is not threatening any doctors. He said the DEA, which regulates prescription writing, has a procedure that allows them to prescribe marijuana or otherwise illegal drugs to patients. No Arizona doctor has applied for such a license. Molesa conceded a doctor who simply wants marijuana for a patient would not get that permission. The physician would also have to show involvement ``in a medical research project sanctioned by the American Medial Association and other medical bodies,'' - something not required under Arizona law. Fear of federal government Emord said no one has applied for prescription writing privileges because of fear of the federal government. ``I don't trust the government not to put them under federal scrutiny,'' said Emord. ``I wouldn't be surprised at all if they put them under surveillance.'' Emord said that for the same reason changing Arizona law's wording from ``prescribe'' to ``recommend'' won't convince doctors here it is safe to discuss marijuana with patients. Older also questions whether changing the wording, by itself, will protect his organization's members. He said doctors have only one way of providing patients with controlled substances: prescriptions. Older said doctors still will be loath to recommend marijuana as there is no real legal or medical definition of a ``recommendation'' and whether that can be verbal or must be in writing. The change from ``prescribe'' to ``recommend'' is only one part of the initiative being pushed for in the November 2000 election ballot. The measure also would reduce the penalty for possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana to a $500 fine. Monday, 18 October 1999Related links:Medical Pot Back as Ballot Initiative - 10/14/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3274.shtmlVote Could Mandate Pot Tickets - 10/14/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3273.shtmlCapitalists for Cannabis - 9/29/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3059.shtml Arizona Proposition 200, 1996http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/MEDICAL/azprop200.htmlCannabis.com: Medical Marijuana http://www.cannabis.com/medical/
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: