cannabisnews.com: Owens' and Salazar's Joint Statement on Marijuana Owens' and Salazar's Joint Statement on Marijuana Posted by FoM on June 01, 2001 at 06:54:20 PT Editorial Source: Rocky Mountain News Last fall, a majority of Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a state registry program for medical marijuana. We spoke out against this amendment at the time and worked to defeat it. And we remain strongly opposed to it -- as officials responsible for upholding anti-drug laws; as private citizens concerned about drug-related crime; and as husbands and fathers concerned about legitimizing illicit drug use among Colorado's young people. We also opposed this effort because the physician community made it clear that marijuana offered no benefits to patients that were not already provided by existing drugs. Nevertheless, once the voters had spoken, we accepted the will of the majority and immediately took steps to implement the marijuana registry program within the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The future of state medical marijuana programs was put in doubt, however, by a May 14th ruling of the United States Supreme Court. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative case, the Court ruled that there is no medical necessity to the federal Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. In light of the Oakland decision, a number of news commentators and editorial writers assumed that Colorado's medical marijuana program would be scrapped. Our solemn duty as elected constitutional officers, however, was to analyze the Supreme Court's ruling carefully to determine whether the will of a majority of Colorado voters could still somehow be given effect. For us to ignore the legal possibility that Colorado's marijuana program might still survive -- even after the Oakland decision -- would be to substitute our personal opinions for that of the will of the majority. This we cannot and will not do. For whatever our grave personal concerns about medical marijuana, we have sworn to protect Colorado's constitution and laws at all times. After exhaustive research and vigorous debate by attorneys in both our offices, we have concluded that the Supreme Court's holding in the Oakland case was deliberately narrow enough to permit Colorado's medical registry to go forward. This is admittedly a close question, on which reasonable attorneys can and do disagree. Frankly, the Supreme Court's decision does not strike any of us as a model of clarity. The legal experts with whom we have consulted all agree that it seems to raise more questions than it answers. However, we are persuaded that the question presented in the Oakland case was presented in extraordinarily narrow terms. The Court struck down the ability of so-called marijuana "buyers' cooperatives" to distribute marijuana for medical purposes. Yet the justices did not expressly invalidate the registry program. On balance, the Court's ruling appears to leave at least some room for Colorado to implement its marijuana program -- as absurd and wasteful as that result may be. The registry part of that program will therefore take effect tomorrow as provided by last fall's amendment. However, we remind anyone intending to register for the program -- as well as physicians considering prescribing marijuana to their patients -- that it remains a federal crime to possess, manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana. To fulfill our duties under federal law, we are today contacting the Colorado Medical Association to remind the physicians of Colorado that doctors who dispense marijuana for any purpose risk federal criminal prosecution. We are also writing the acting United States Attorney for the District of Colorado to encourage the criminal prosecution of anyone who attempts to use this state program to circumvent federal anti-drug laws. Finally, it is our hope that the federal courts and Congress will address the medical marijuana issue in the near future. For states such as Colorado to establish registry programs with no apparently valid legal purpose strikes us as an unfortunate but unavoidable reality of current federal law. Revisiting this question, before additional state resources are needlessly expended on what amounts to a state-sanctioned protest vehicle against federal drug laws, would be in the best interests of all Colorado voters. Related Article:Q&A on Marijuana Registry:The questions most freqently asked the state health department about its medical marijuana registry: Q. Can you refer me to a doctor? A. No. It is the responsibility of the patient to work with a doctor with whom he has a bona fide relationship. Q. Where do I get seeds or plants to grow medical marijuana? A. The medical marijuana registry is not authorized to provide information on acquisition of marijuana. Q. I do not have the money for the $140 application fee. Is it a one-time payment? Can it be waived? Can I make installment payments? Will my insurance pay? A. The answer to all these questions is "No." Full payment must be made at the time of application. The fee must be paid with the renewal application each year. The fee cannot be waived but the registry can suggest organizations that might be willing to help with the fee. The registry cannot accept installment payments. Insurance companies are not required to pay. Q. Why can't I go to a pharmacy to fill a prescription for medical marijuana? A. Pharmacies can only dispense medications that are prescribed. Marijuana is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I drug, which means it cannot be prescribed by any health care professional. Amendment 20 allows patients to grow medical marijuana for their private use. Q. Can I use my medical marijuana registry identification card in another state? A. No. At this time there is no agreement with other states to recognize the Colorado law. Q. Is my confidentiality protected? A. Yes. Your confidentiality is protected by law and by the procedures used by the registry. No lists of patients or doctors are given out to anyone. Law enforcement may only verify the information on a specific identification card. The registry database resides on a stand-alone computer and is password protected. The office and all files are locked at night and when the registry administrator is out of the office. Complete Title: Owens' and Salazar's Joint Statement on Medical MarijuanaSource: Denver Rocky Mountain News (CO)Published: May 31 - June 1, 2001Copyright: 2001 Denver Publishing Co. Contact: letters denver-rmn.comWebsite: http://www.denver-rmn.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:Coloradans For Medical Rights http://www.medicalmarijuana.com/OCBC Versus The US Governmenthttp://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmPot Law Passes Muster, But Doctors Risk All http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9925.shtmlMedical Pot Law Set To Kick In http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9914.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by lookinside on June 01, 2001 at 21:18:36 PT: semantics... in california it's called a recommendation...not aprescription...a doctor cannot "prescribe" marijuana... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 01, 2001 at 07:46:01 PT Doctor Please! Doctor Please, Some More of TheseOutside The Door She Puffed Some More!Forgive me folks. I just needed to laugh! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dddd on June 01, 2001 at 07:41:30 PT "I got this Humboldt Skunk from my doctor.... ....that's where I get all my crack and meth too...man..."An excellent insight Ethan,,,,,I didnt realize it when I firstread the article,,but yes,,,,doctors dont "dispense" drugs...Theysimply prescribe them.Will they go after doctors who prescribe Marijuana?dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on June 01, 2001 at 07:23:51 PT: This is Clearer, but Toothless "doctors who dispense marijuana for any purpose risk federal criminal prosecution."What doctors are dispensing marijuana? I know of absolutely none. It is generally not our job to dispense medicine (aside from drug company samples), but rather to recommend treatments, and prescribe pharmaceuticals. Thus, until there is an approved "Panama Red" or "Afghani Blonde Sieved Hashish," I do not think that these two public officials need to worry about doctors getting themselves into trouble.What this really amounts to is a thinly veiled threat. It is not sufficient that they opposed the ballot initiative and lost, but rather, they seek to twist the knife through coercion and vainly attempt to derail a process beyond their control. It will not work, and I hope that the electorate will be viciously vindictive. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: