Cannabis News NORML - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
  Ruling Puts Limit on Growing Medical Pot
Posted by FoM on March 18, 2002 at 16:45:13 PT
By John Craig - Staff Writer  
Source: Spokesman-Review  

medical Doctors must say how much marijuana their patients need if patients and caregivers are to be protected under Washington's medical marijuana initiative, says the state Court of Appeals in Spokane.

The ruling in a Stevens County man's case is the first appellate court test of the 3-year-old law, which voters adopted in November 1998 as Initiative 692. The decision leaves Kettle Falls-area resident Ocean Israel Shepherd at least one toke over the line.

Shepherd, 53, failed to prove he was growing only the permissible 60-day supply of marijuana for medicinal use by another man, the Court of Appeals said.

Shepherd already has served his jail time and completed a required in-patient drug treatment program. He was hoping the appeal would ease restrictions on the cultivation and use of marijuana, which he regards as a beneficial herb.

Lawyers on both sides say the appellate court decision essentially adopts the analysis of Stevens County Superior Court Judge Rebecca Baker.

Baker ruled in March 2000 that Shepherd had a legitimate caregiver relationship with a Colville man who had a valid medical reason to use marijuana under Initiative 692.

She said Shepherd would be entitled to provide marijuana to the man if he could prove he wasn't growing more than a 60-day supply. But he failed to convince her he wasn't growing pot for himself as well as his friend, who suffers from bipolar disorder and a debilitating spinal problem.

Shepherd has no telephone in his rural cabin, and couldn't be reached for comment. His Spokane attorney, Frank Cikutovich, said he will ask the Washington Supreme Court to review last week's appellate court decision. Cikutovich said the American Civil Liberties Union and several Seattle-area groups promoting the medical use of marijuana have offered support.

"We're going to ask the state Supreme Court to step in and, hopefully, be a little more liberal on what a 60-day supply is," Cikutovich said.

Al Nielson, Stevens County's chief criminal deputy prosecutor, applauded the Appeals Court decision, but said it didn't go far enough.

Nielson said the decision properly puts the onus on doctors to say how much marijuana their patients need. But he was disappointed that the court didn't address the problem of distinguishing medical marijuana from plain old recreational pot.

People who use the drug for nonmedical purposes should not be caregivers, he said.

"That is an important consideration to law enforcement, and I think it is important that that particular part of the initiative be made clear," Nielson said. "It prevents people from using the initiative as a cover for criminal activity."

Shepherd has openly admitted using marijuana, but Cikutovich said Shepherd "has not stated that he smoked the marijuana that he grew for the patient."

Nielson viewed that distinction as an artifice. Cikutovich took a similar view of the court's finding that Shepherd's case was doubly flawed because a doctor's note used the wrong language.

"It just comes down to semantics," Cikutovich said. "I just see it as a hypertechnical reading of the statute."

The Appeals Court declared it wasn't good enough for Dr. Gregg Sharp, a Colville osteopath, to say in a note that "the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana may outweigh the risks for this patient."

The medical marijuana law requires a statement that the potential benefits "would likely outweigh" the risks, the three-judge appellate court said. All expert testimony must follow that standard, the judges noted.

Sharp has said it was an oversight that he used the wrong language, Cikutovich said.

"Hopefully, it's not just a question of language for these doctors," Nielson said. "I hope they recognize that the court is concerned that there be an honest analysis and statement."

But Nielson and Cikutovich believe the crux of the Appeals Court decision is the requirement for doctors to say how much marijuana a patient needs.

"Who better than the doctor to provide that?" Nielson asked. "How can they prescribe this unless they understand how it works and how much is needed?"

Nielson concedes that, even if a doctor says how much of the tetrahydrocannabinol drug in marijuana a patient needs, that still leaves the question of how many plants are needed to produce that amount.

Cikutovich points out that little research has been done to answer either of those questions because of tight federal restrictions. He worries that doctors may be reluctant to accept any greater role in helping patients obtain marijuana for medicinal purposes because federal law prohibits them from prescribing the drug.

"In effect, they're putting their medical license at risk trying to help people," Cikutovich said. "The federal law is still a shadow over them."

One thing he and Nielson agree on is that, as Cikutovich put it, "the waters are still muddy after the decision."

Note: Doctors must specify how much marijuana patient needs if supplier is to be protected.

Source: Spokesman-Review (WA)
Author: John Craig - Staff Writer
Published: Monday, March 18, 2002
Copyright: 2002 The Spokesman-Review
Contact: editor@spokesman.com
Website: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/

Related Articles & Web Site:

Washington Citizens For Medical Rights
http://www.eventure.com/i692/

Waiting for Medical Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6077.shtml

Federal Program Tries To Measure Need
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5765.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #1 posted by monvor on March 18, 2002 at 19:01:39 PT
John Walters
John Walters was just on Hannity and Colmes. The short segment was attempting to answer the question of whether the "If you buy drugs, you support terror" ads.

Out of one side of John's mouth he said that the ads were effective and the WoD was successful. Out of the other side of his mouth he said that there were "more teens using drugs than ever before".

Mr. Walters also borrowed heavily on the Bush administrations INTENTION to bring drug use down someodd percent over the next five years.

Another observation about the Fox network's "fair and balanced" aproach is that H&C would mention crack and heroin but then there was a video of somebody rolling a joint and holding a bag of cannabis.

The end remarks of the segment consisted of everybody smiling at the suggestion of building more jails ( for the crack and heroin addicts presumably ).

I can hardly wait to see what happens when the UK finally sets an example and decrims cannabis.

To the credit of Fox, I will say that what was not mentioned by H&C spoke volumes. Cannabis was not being grouped with crack and heroin. My observation was that, at least verbally, there was not an attack on cannabis per se. So, I feel the establishment might be shifting its weight ever so slightly to avoid the backlash of the rising desire of Americans to decriminalize cannabis.

More needs to be done to change drug policy, however. Sites like this do not get near enough posters. People might have the WoD debate at the edge of there awareness. I really think it is unfair that the voices of the antis go unchalleged so often. Especially when to challenge the Drug War retoric is so easy. More needs to be done in the media to counter prohibition. In my opinion the WoD would be a victory if cannabis was separated from the hard drugs and decriminalized.

All IMHO



[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 18, 2002 at 16:45:13