pdipoker

On August 29, 2013, the Federal Department of Justice issued a memorandum stating it will continue steadily to rely on state and local authorities to deal with marijuana activity through enforcement of state narcotics laws. Nevertheless, in light of new state laws permitting possession of a small amounts of marijuana and regulating production, processing and sale of marijuana, the Department designated eight criteria to steer state law enforcement. States must (1) stop the distribution of marijuana to minors; (2) prevent revenue from the sale of marijuana from flowing to criminal enterprises; (3) stop the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to states where it is illegal; (4) prevent marijuana activity from being used as an address for the trafficking of other illegal drugs; (5) prevent violence and the utilization of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; (6) prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences related to marijuana use; (7) stop the growth of marijuana on public lands; and (8) prevent marijuana possession or use on federal property. In the case that the Federal Government determines that States aren't staying with such criteria, the Federal Government reserves its right to challenge State laws. The Feds didn't say how some of that was to be done. They simply said the states should do that. But Florida has apparently been looking one other way.

The New Law

In passing CS/CS/SB 1030, Florida has missed some key issues. Consider, for instance, the new law, that has the following features:

It generates "low-THC cannabis" legal when prescribed by way of a medical doctor or osteopathic physician for someone who has certain medical conditions. Which conditions? Cancer, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms. Seems clear enough. Here's where in actuality the Florida Legislature decided to go off track-

An individual is considered qualified for this treatment if (among other things), the in-patient is a lasting resident of Florida and the doctor determines that the risks of ordering the pot are reasonable Doja Dispensary. How can a physician determine if the in-patient is a lasting resident? Will there be any protection in making that decision in good faith? Nope. How can a physician make the reasonableness determination? Is the study of marijuana use even the main medical school curriculum? No.

Surprisingly, the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association have responsibility, starting October, 1, 2014, to educate prescribing physicians via an eight hour education course. The way the Legislature decided to allocate that function to the FMA and FOMA, why they even want that task (beyond collecting non dues revenues) and the way the drafters created eight hours (does including water and bathroom breaks?) is really a wonder. And how such training pertains at all to the daily medical practice of the physicians taking such a course is also absent. Can an orthopedist take action? Sure. How about a pathologist? You bet. A physician? No problem. Why would a successful, practicing physician choose to pursue this new direction? How is that the "highest and best use" for an excellently trained cardiologist, family practitioner or anesthesiologist? Assessing someone with cancer or who has awful seizures who might benefit from medical marijuana requires only an eight hour course? I thought it required training in internal medicine, neurology and... cancer. So, is this a medically, clinically driven law designed to help people in need or one that just makes certain everyone gets their little bit of the pie? It appears to skip the mark.

Florida has reportedly had a lengthy and lingering trouble with the matter of drug diversion. People from throughout attended to Florida not only for the sun, but in addition for the oxies, roxies and many other controlled substances. Has that problem been licked? Was police consulted on the public safety issues mixed up in law? Were they in the drafting room when the bill was created? I don't know, but it is hard to see some of their fingerprints on the new law. It appears we have just dumped this issue in it! Where, for instance, may be the roadside test to try people operating motor vehicles beneath the influence of pot, medical marijuana or otherwise? It doesn't exist! There is no way to protect the public from this yet. The very best they could do is always to send it off to a confirmation lab and wait a day or so (at a big expense the taxpayers will bear). It is really a law without meaningful consequences, and all doctor training fees and licensure fees will do is put money in the pockets of the government and businesses waiting to pounce on the opportunity.

One bright spot... the Legislature has decided to review the utilization of medical marijuana. Yep. They've reserve one BILLION... After all million dollars (about the cost of a website) for the Department of Health Biomedical Research Program to review cannabidol and its influence on intractable childhood epilepsy, really a laudable seeming idea. So where will the rest of the money come from to do what regulations mandates-the Department of Health is to make a Compassionate Use Registry which (among other things) prevents someone seeking prescribed pot from multiple physicians; establishes dispensing organizations throughout Florida; polices the trained physicians, the dispensing organizations and patients who may be abusing regulations? Who knows. Question: you will want to study this BEFORE green lighting the complete idea? Colorado and Washington have both led just how on the matter, so you will want to study the public health and clinical issues before passing a law with so many open issues?

The Proposed Amendment

The proposed Florida constitutional amendment makes regulations passed by the Legislature look meticulous. It generates the complete issue appear to be a façade for the agenda of waltzing into both big business and recreational use. For instance, the amendment allows the utilization of marijuana (not just the reduced THC variety) for a number of ills, including "other conditions which is why a physician believes that the medical utilization of marijuana would probably outweigh the potential health threats for a patient." I could translate that because I'm a lawyer. It indicates "ANYTHING." Oh, and even better, the person who makes such a determination? A "physician," a definition which Florida law includes not only MDs and DOs, but in addition dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors and optometrists. The great thing in regards to the proposed amendment: It clearly prohibits the utilization of marijuana at any school, place of employment or smoking it in a public place. [The Florida law states that utilizing a vaporizer isn't "smoking."]. Good. Now, how will people be tested? There is currently no quick on-the-spot test for blood level.

So... let's be honest here: the proposed amendment is simply ways to develop a new industry, one that basically can't be regulated, one that has no agreed on science behind it, one that physicians haven't had the time and energy to seriously digest or conceive of. It's mud bogging, plain and simple. Shouldn't this kind of thing come from the physicians and scientists who is able to guide the legislative process?

So, back once again to the Justice Department criteria. Does the Florida law or proposed amendment accomplish some of them? Nope. Instead, it requires the complete problem and just dumps it on a currently overburdened police system. Do they stop the distribution of marijuana to minors? In word only. Where is the funding for that? Do they prevent revenue from the sale of marijuana from flowing to criminal enterprises? No. Do they stop the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to states where it is illegal? No. Do they prevent marijuana activity from being used as an address for the trafficking of other illegal drugs? Huh? Do they prevent violence and the utilization of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana? Not a mention. How about preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences related to marijuana use? The tool doesn't exist yet! Do they stop the growth of marijuana on public lands or prevent marijuana possession or use on federal property? Please.

How about the aftereffect of medical marijuana on the Americans with Disabilities Act? Will people who have cancer have the best for the prescription now under that federal law? Will physicians be legally liable for failing to prescribe it? What if it's used to treat pain? Will a pain clinic license be required? Where is immunity for prescribing it legitimately (assuming it may be), in light of the fact federal law prohibits it! Did Florida enter into some agreement with the federal government or are we now just on course to simply accept there are federal laws (criminal ones) that individuals just have to assume won't be enforced? How is anyone expected to navigate that?