White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
December 5-6 1996 Invitational Meeting to Craft Federal & State Reaction to the Passage of Propositions 200 & 215
Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.

California Compassionate Use Act of 1996
Permits the use of cannabis when recommended and approved by a California physician

California Health & Safety Code 11362.5
Enacted 11-6-1996
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

Compassionate Use Act 1996
additional provisions
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.

 Federal & State Government Attendees 12-6-96 WONDCP Meeting

Non-Governmental Agency Attendees 12-6-1996 WONDCP Meeting

Federal Response 12-5-1996
Meeting at White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
Information exchange
Arizona, California
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

Post Adoption of AZ 200 CA 215 Information Update
II Propositions’ Impact:
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

II. Post Adoption Propositions’ Impact- Continued
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?

III. Proposition Opponents’ Goals and Needs
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.

III Proposition Opponents’ Goals and 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

III Proposition Opponents Goals and Needs- Continued
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

III Proposition Opponents Goals and Needs- Continued more
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.

IV. Considerations to Date:
Federal Agencies
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

IV. Considerations to Date Federal Agencies 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.

IV. Considerations to Date Federal Agencies HHS
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/