# Medical marijuana: How much is enough?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

An interesting article on medical Marijuana that was published today in the Seattle Times. I find it very disturbing that law enforcement is getting involved on determining "limits".... they are only designed to be the enforcement part of government.... not the legislative portion. The rule makers should listen to the chemical and drug experts, however it appears that due to stigma many are afraid to take the political risk of advocating something that society has been brainwashed into believing is bad.

Read on...

*Medical marijuana: How much is enough?*
By Carol M. Ostrom

Seattle Times health reporter

A state Health Department proposal that medical-marijuana patients be allowed more than 2 pounds of pot every two months took law enforcement by surprise and prompted the governor to tell health officials to start over.

Faced with a legislative mandate to spell out what constitutes a "60-day supply" by July 1, the department in February briefed Gov. Christine Gregoire's office on its recommendation: Patients or caregivers could possess up to 35 ounces of cultivated marijuana and be allowed a plant-growing area of 100 square feet.

Gregoire promptly directed Department of Health Secretary Mary Selecky to solicit more comment from law enforcement and medical providers. "I wouldn't say she was upset" by the amount, said Gregoire's spokesman, Pearse Edwards, but she believed input had been one-sided.

The issue of how much marijuana a patient needs remains one of the most contentious parts of the law voters passed in 1998, which allows patients with certain chronic, fatal and debilitating diseases to possess a 60-day supply of marijuana with a doctor's authorization.









Muraco Kyashna-Tocha, 48, of Seattle, has grown 
marijuana legally since 1999. Kyashna-Tocha has 
had five neck and back surgeries and said that using 
marijuana manages her pain enough so she can engage in daily life.

Last year, in an effort to help end conflict between law enforcement and patients or their pot-growing caregivers, the Legislature directed the state Health Department to define how much marijuana patients can possess under the law.

In four hearings around the state last fall, hundreds of patients and medical-marijuana advocates lined up to speak. But conspicuously absent from most hearings were the voices of two important "stakeholders": doctors and law-enforcement officials.

Doctors have a stake because under the law, they must authorize qualified patients to use marijuana.

And law-enforcement officers have a stake because they must decide whether to treat pot smokers and growers as patients or criminals.

*Why the detour?*

Now the Health Department says it can't meet the July 1 deadline for a final rule, though it hopes to have an official draft by then so it can gather public comment during the summer. Once it makes a decision, it isn't subject to a veto by the governor, although Selecky ultimately answers to Gregoire.

Medical-marijuana activists suspect the process got derailed by objections to the amount of marijuana the department planned to propose. Some worry that a process supposed to be guided by science has been hijacked by politics.

Officially, law-enforcement leaders say they just want a number - any number - for the amount of pot qualified users can possess. They say they're not doctors and they wouldn't presume to set an amount any more than they would tell a patient how much cholesterol medication to take.

But when pressed, they express discomfort with the amounts revealed to the governor in the briefing.

Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said he's been invited to an upcoming "stakeholder" meeting by the Health Department. He said the amounts originally proposed by the department "fly in the face of reasonableness from our perspective."

At 35 ounces, the amount of usable marijuana the health department planned to recommend is nearly a kilogram - 2.2 pounds - Pierce said. "That's a lot."

Cowlitz County Sheriff Bill Mahoney says the whole issue is now "very, very difficult for law enforcement to deal with" because nobody knows what constitutes a 60-day supply.

"From my standpoint as a sheriff, I just need the state to step up and define it. I don't care what the number is."

But, he adds: "Most of our cops, if they were forced to come up with a number, they'd say 3 ounces."

*Basis of calculation*

How did the state Department of Health (DOH) calculate the amount? According to its briefing memo, obtained through a Public Disclosure Act request, the department began with the average dosages given to a handful of patients enrolled in a federal medical-marijuana program.

It doubled that amount, because some patients might eat the marijuana instead of smoking it.

Sunil Aggarwal, a University of Washington medical and doctoral degree student who studies "medical cannabis" there, says the department's calculation used an incorrect multiplier.

Because "oral administration" of medical marijuana is much less efficient than smoking, the limit should be about 71 ounces for 60-day supply, he has told health officials.

The 35-ounce amount is more than permitted in some places that allow medical marijuana use, but less than others. For example, Oregon allows 24 ounces of usable marijuana and six mature plants, while limits in California counties and cities range from 8 ounces to 3 pounds in Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Trinity counties, the Health Department's memo said.

The federal program, called "Compassionate Investigational New Drug"program, supplies a limited number of patients with 300 to 450 "joints" per month, or about 9 ounces, according to department research.

Karen Jensen, an acting assistant secretary for DOH, said the department is now conducting "informal conversations," with law-enforcement officials and medical providers.

"The rule needs to be something that works for law enforcement and the medical community and the advocacy community," Jensen said, although she and the governor's office deny that the current process is a "negotiation."

Aggarwal says he worries that there is political "backdoor dealing" going on, with law enforcement at the head of the table. "This was supposed to be a public process, and it was supposed to be based on the best available medical science. ... That's why it went to the DOH in the first place."

Jensen maintains "definitive science" is scarce. "We don't have some standard out there that we can go to. There are studies and reports, but no hard-core science out there for us to lean on."

*Guidelines*

The Legislature told the Health Department to base its decision on research, expert advice and public input. Public input, so far, has been overwhelmingly from patients and advocates.

Tom Curry, executive director of the Washington State Medical Association, says Selecky recently sought some names of doctors knowledgeable about medical marijuana or patients with conditions authorized under the law, such as cancer, HIV, or multiple sclerosis.

One is Dr. Bob Wood, director of the HIV/AIDS Program for Public Health - Seattle & King County.

Wood, who doesn't care for patients directly these days, says he doesn't authorize patients under the law, but he did march to Westlake Plaza during the recent "free marijuana" rally.

Watching a few rail-thin patients in wheelchairs "smoking up a storm," Wood said he thinks there's "a lot of variation" in what patients need. Some may just need the occasional hit to deal with pangs of nausea, but some with serious or fatal diseases may simply want to stay high all the time.

"I would say, if that person isn't driving a school bus or driving down the road in a wheelchair, I don't see how they're hurting anybody," Wood says.

Still, despite state laws allowing medical marijuana use - and the very limited federal program - it remains illegal under federal law.










And* because "science has been effectively blocked by the feds," *Wood says, it may be hard for the health department to settle on a hard-and-fast number.

*Pierce, a former Bellingham WA police chief, says sheriffs and police chiefs have always maintained that setting a limit on a 60-day supply "is really a medical decision that should be determined by physicians."*

His group, he says, has told the department: "You shouldn't be talking to the law-enforcement community to find out what the right number is, any more than you should be talking to the advocate community."

But on this issue, Pierce says, doctors aren't willing to step forward. "Most physicians are reluctant to identify what the appropriate supply is, because many of them don't feel there is an appropriate supply."

Law enforcement's interest is simple, he says. "We don't want folks who are involved in the sale of drugs to be able to hide behind the medical-marijuana law. Because we think that's not good for our community ... [or] for the people who have a legitimate use for medical marijuana."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ... ly21m.html
---

Right. Purely looking out for the best interests of the community :eyeroll:

Personally, I believe medical use of marijuana is long overdue. It is truly sad that our government keeps embarassing itself and denying the benefits of THC. This is just another example of the double standard and corruption that exists in government. The tobacco industry is allowed to continue profiting on a drug it heavily lobbies favor for. It is regulated, taxed, and legal. Alcohol is a drug. It is abused far more heavily than either pot or tobacco. Far more people are killed by drunk drivers due to irresponsibility.

I fail to see a difference.

Ryan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

me too! i want to raise pot and sell it to the government for medical reasons and make some cash! maybe brother Obama can help us with this one?? good debate material for Russert to introduce in future presidential debates.... :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Pot should be legal for adults and especailly for medical reasons. Our drug laws are insane.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Swift how about personal experience this country is so worried about phony drug issues that they routinely allow people to suffer.

I know this from personal experience. I spent 56 hours over a weekend in agony after surgery because the medical group that did my surgery could locate "my" doctor "out of town".

If it wasn't for the or nurse getting wind of this situation I never would of got any help.

I have no respect for doctors that allow anyone to be in pain and I have no respect for legislators that in your mind are somehow more suited than "computer engineers" to make these decisions.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

First -let me be clear I wouldn't smoke anything ever.

Second- I don't believe the studies are unbiased, like your synthetic thc example, drug companies and their lobbyists have strong financial incentive to prohibit competition as does the alchohol lobby.

third- the drug problem you speak of is compounded by the way we handle it, unless you want to make the case that the Illegal POT is somehow unavailble to anyone that wants it.

I watched my best friend die of incurable cancer and he used pot illegally to keep food down and have an appetite, he said it helped him a lot. Thats enough for me.

And when I complained to my surgeon about his unavailability in my time of need of his help he actually thought it was funny and implied that I couldn't of been in much that much pain.

I told him I would like to catch his a$$ outside of this hospital and let him decide about pain. ef head doctor.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Find yourself in chronic pain from a car accident injury and your opinion about pain drug administration in this country will change. Look up spondylolisthesis, you cannot believe how aback injury can change your life.

If you think following the money trail on any issue is conspiracy theory you are naive and the comment about me being emotionally involved is condesending and typical of the callous attitude many healthcare "professionals" have toward their patients.

Fortunately the surgeon I have been working with has the sense to agree that people the need pain relief should not have to jump through hoops because of the overblown drug abuse issue, an entirely different topic that should not be considered with medical uses for drugs.

With physical therapy and exercise I have not needed any drugs for my back for over a year, but I would shoot myself if I wasn't given them when it happened such was the pain.

Until you walk in someone elses shoes you really don't "know" what this issue means to some people.

ANd I am very well studied on the topic of illlicit drug use, but no amount of reason will change the way we treat that issue.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

the increase use of recreational pot will not serve anyone, least of all our children. you can change the laws for enforcement, there is no need to make it more readily available for abuse.....no different than alcohol, which is addictive to some as well.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

you are the one that came up with the garbage about me being too emotionally involved to be able to discuss this, thats the condescension I speak of.

If personal experience with a topic rules out discussion in your mind well then gee whiz we will all just dicuss what we've read or heard on TV.

I dont have to reread my posts I am definitely not some weepy emotional type.

As a libertarian I've researched this topic and given it serious thought for years and you can go back through the archives on this site and see my position clearly and consistantly stated. And stated when I wasn't in your imagined "emotional crisis". :roll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Swift asserts


> There is no need for legalized THC. That is my callous and condescending opinion as a healthcare practioner.


however a quick check of wikipedia would indicate his obviously emotional response :wink: is incorrect.

unfortunately for swift the rest of the world doesnt doesnt seem to agree



> *Synthetic THC*, also known under the substance name dronabinol, is available as a prescription drug (under the trade name Marinol) in several countries including the U.S. and Germany. In the United States, Marinol is a Schedule III drug, available by prescription, considered to be non-narcotic and to have a low risk of physical or mental dependence. Efforts to get cannabis rescheduled as analogous to Marinol have not succeeded thus far, though a 2002 petition has been accepted by the DEA. As a result of the rescheduling of Marinol from Schedule II to Schedule III, refills are now permitted for this substance. Marinol has been approved by the FDA in the treatment of anorexia in AIDS patients, as well as for refractory nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy.


An analog of dronabinol, nabilone, is available commercially in Canada under the trade name Cesamet, manufactured by Valeant. Cesamet has also received FDA approval and has began marketing in the U.S. as of 2006 and is a Schedule II drug.

In April 2005, Canadian authorities approved the marketing of Sativex, a mouth spray for multiple sclerosis to alleviate pain. Sativex contains tetrahydrocannabinol together with cannabidiol. *It is marketed in Canada by GW Pharmaceuticals, being the first cannabis-based prescription drug in the world.*

doggone imternet just has too much info


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:wink: apology accepted, now don't go getting all emotional anymore


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

swift You spend too much of your time in conferences and reading books. Spend more of it living with the people that are dying of cancer. My mother and 3 good friends have died of cancer. None of them could get the desired results from synthetic THC. It does not produce the same results as the natural THC.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

delete


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

From this law enforcement perspective I can understand making the use of medical marijuana legal with a medical prescription. I believe there are some people who may benefit from it's use. I'll leave that aspect up to the medical professionals. However, on the LE side, making it legal in these situations is NOT going to alter in any way the illegal abuse. Having narcotic opiates legal for prescrition use has not altered the illegal abuse of opiates. Just like having alcohol legal for adults has not altered the illegal abuse of alcohol by minors. Whatever the substance, someone is always going to abuse it, and someone else is going to be there to try and make a profit from that abuse.

On a lighter note, I think that this would be considered too much:










8) :lol:

:beer:

huntin1


----------

