|
|
|
December 5-6 1996 Invitational Meeting to Craft
Federal & State Reaction to the Passage of Propositions 200 & 215 |
|
|
|
Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permits the use of cannabis when recommended and
approved by a California physician |
|
|
|
|
|
Ensure seriously ill Californians have the right
to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes |
|
Deemed appropriate and recommended by a
physician who has determined that the persons health would benefit from the
use of marijuana. |
|
Cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain,
spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine |
|
Or any other illness for which marijuana
provides relief |
|
|
|
|
Ensure patients and primary caregivers not
subject to prosecution or sanction |
|
Encourage federal and state governments to
implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution |
|
Nothing supersedes legislation prohibiting
conduct that endangers others or diversion for non medical purposes. |
|
No physician shall be punished, or denied any
right or privilege for having recommended marijuana to a patient for
medical purposes. |
|
Exempts patient or primary caregiver with
written or oral physician recommendation and approval from marijuana
possession and cultivation penalties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meeting at White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy |
|
Agenda |
|
Introductions |
|
Information exchange |
|
ONDCP, DOT, DOJ/DEA, DOTreas, HHS, DOE NRC |
|
Arizona, California |
|
Discussion |
|
Closing Remarks and Adjourn |
|
|
|
|
|
I. Proponents’ Goal and Strategy: |
|
Legitimatize illicit drug use through
“medicalization” approach |
|
Take AZ and CA successes nationwide using
coalition of legalizers, libertarians, compassionate and recreational users |
|
The MAP (Internet) communication network |
|
“Compassionate use” message |
|
Substantial financial resources from as small
group |
|
Initiatives where legislative approach is
unsuccessful |
|
|
|
|
Gives children wrong message- “drugs are good” |
|
Balkanizes the nation’s “national” drug strategy |
|
Subverts FDA’s science-based designation of
medicinal substances |
|
Increases taxpayers’ burden to litigate medical
proof issues, potential for conflicting results and additional litigation
costs |
|
Creates law enforcement conflicts- limited
federal prosecution and enforcement resources, deputization and immunity
issues, contraband seizure authority/immunity |
|
Pits federal government against the states- 10th
Amendment issues |
|
Contradicts U.S. international treaty
obligations- 1961and 1972 treaties |
|
Causes confusion for drug-free workplace
entities and medical profession |
|
|
|
|
Raises federal resource allocation issues-
should federal block grant funds for law enforcement and treatment be tied
to supporting the National drug strategy to discourage inconsistent or
conflicting individual state policies which undermine that strategy? |
|
|
|
|
|
Goals |
|
Prevent passage of “medicinal marijuana” or
similar provisions in other states |
|
Blunt the negative consequences, including
obtaining the repeal of Proposition 200 and 215 and other “medicinal
marijuana” or similar provisions already passed in other states. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Needs |
|
Reframe issue: threat of drugs to developing
children; to by-standees (fellow workers, responsible drivers, school
environments, on economically struggling families, and to domestic violence
situations, etc.) Follow example of secondary smoke issues which energized
non smokers to focus on their rights to a pollution-free environment;
public hides, often enables and often does not understand addiction and its
impact physically, emotionally, environmentally; put human face on the
issue such as MADD did. |
|
Ensure existence of a national drug strategy
given interstate mobility and international treaty obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
More Needs |
|
Provide guidance and assistance to law
enforcement in California and Arizona |
|
Protect the FDA protocol for the scientific
based designation of “medicines” |
|
Develop and implement national communications
strategy (based on the reframed issue) with a rapid response element
similar to the proponents’ MAP Internet approach |
|
Involve the medical community (which defeated
the mid ’80’s attempt to use heroin medically); at present appears a
sizable faction supports marijuana for the terminally ill, why? Tension
between individual treatment issues and developing a common good public
policy need to be resolved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even More Needs |
|
Broaden the community involvement, particularly
the business community given the negative impact of drugs on business
profitability and funding needs. |
|
Identify lead national group to mobilize and
coordinate interested state and local groups- legislatures, chambers of
commerce, CADCA, PDFA, Lions, Parents groups, etc., to be the first line of
defense against formal or stealth efforts to legalize illicit drugs. |
|
|
|
|
|
ONDCP |
|
1. Drug Cabinet Council meeting 12/12, issue on
the agenda |
|
2. Funding for medical research literature
review |
|
3. Lead government’s message development |
|
4. Model State Drug Law Alliance monitoring and
development of laws with national strategy |
|
5. Assist in developing medical information
clearing house |
|
6. Determine what impact the initiatives have on
federal funding to states which do not cooperate in a national drug
strategy |
|
|
|
|
|
DOJ/DEA |
|
1. Determine whether the state ballot
initiatives may be preempted, in whole or in part, through a federal
lawsuit or through new federal legislation; |
|
2. Outline DEA enforcement strategy and review
prosecution guidelines for U.S. Attorneys’ offices, |
|
3. Provide guidance and support to state and
local law enforcement agencies regarding their officers’ ability to seize
federal contraband and make arrests for violation of federal law. |
|
4. Develop strategy for taking administrative
action against medical practitioners who do not comply with applicable
federal law, |
|
5. Consider whether to send a letter to DEA
physician registrants and/or medical associations regarding physicians’
continuing obligations under federal law |
|
6. Analyze whether states other than California
and Arizona have similar medical use provisions. |
|
|
|
|
1. Effectively communicate data in the five
institutes of the NIH fact sheets reflecting their scientific assessment of
smoked marijuana |
|
2. Analyze all available data on drug use,
especially marijuana, and expand ongoing drug use surveys to determine
current levels of drug use in California and Arizona and to track changes
in these states in drug use, |
|
3. Participate in efforts by all affected
parties to develop a more effective “message” for each of the relevant
constituency about the use of marijuana, (preteens, teens, parents,
physicians, public health officials, etc.) about the use of marijuana |
|
4. Participate in discussions in all other
states (where needed) to educate key public and private health leaders
about the problems with the two initiatives |
|
5. Strengthen our drug abuse prevention efforts
directed at preteens and teens (specifically for marijuana) through a new,
coordinated federal/ |
|