mpp memo to senator bradley
DESCRIPTION
Official copy of the letter sent from the Marijuana Policy Project to Senator Rob Bradley, who chairs the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries.TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: MPP Memo To Senator Bradley](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082709/55cf9192550346f57b8e8fce/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
March 20, 2015
To: Senator Rob Bradley Chair of the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries Florida State Senate 404 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Suggested amendments to SB 1030 Dear Sen. Bradley, On behalf of our more than 12,500 subscribers in Florida, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) submits the following comments on the state’s ongoing efforts to implement SB 1030 and your committee’s recent introduction of legislation — SPB 7066 — indicating an intent to revise the law “relating to low-‐THC cannabis.” In its current form, SB 1030 will likely benefit very few individuals, while leaving behind many more with serious conditions that medical research has shown can be effectively alleviated by medical cannabis, such as neuropathic pain and wasting.1 It is unclear whether SB 1030 will result in a workable program even for the limited class of patients it was crafted to protect. We urge you to work for a more comprehensive and workable program. As you probably know, 58 percent of voters supported Amendment 2 this past November. Amendment 2 would have created a workable medical marijuana program benefitting thousands of individuals across the state suffering from debilitating conditions. While the question did not receive the 60 percent of votes required for enactment, it received an overwhelming majority. Already, backers of Amendment 2 have made it clear that they intend to redouble their efforts in 2016, a presidential election year, which will help drive an overwhelmingly supportive demographic to the polls. Creation of a workable medical marijuana program by the legislature will allow lawmakers to have more control over the language and the process and will provide relief to the seriously ill sooner. States have taken a variety of approaches that MPP supports to provide safe access to medical cannabis for patients with serious medical conditions. Any number of approaches could meet the goal of allowing the seriously ill to safely access medical marijuana under a doctor’s recommendation. However the language is crafted, we strongly encourage the legislature to make sweeping amendments to SB 1030 in order to more closely align it with the medical marijuana statutes of the 23 states 1 See, i.e., MPP’s summary of medical marijuana research: www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/MedConditionsHandout.pdf or the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research’s completed studies, http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?Itemid=135.
![Page 2: MPP Memo To Senator Bradley](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082709/55cf9192550346f57b8e8fce/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
that currently have these programs. Lawmakers have a chance to show their compassion for some very unfortunate constituents and to ensure that the seriously ill in your state do not have to wait until passage of a constitutional amendment. With all that in mind, MPP makes the following recommendations to SB 1030, the Charlotte’s Web bill. Physician Language: As drafted, SB 1030 uses problematic language concerning Florida physicians ordering medical marijuana oils on behalf of their patients. (FL Stat. § 381.986(2)) None of the workable medical marijuana programs in other states rely on physicians “ordering” or prescribing medical marijuana to their patients. Several states have laws that involve doctors “prescribing” marijuana, but they have not been implemented due to federal law. Instead, in states with workable laws, physicians provide their qualified patients with a recommendation to use medical marijuana. Simply recommending use of medical marijuana is a right physicians have based on a First Amendment right to free speech. Conant v. McCaffrey affirmed this right to recommend marijuana for treatment, but said nothing about the legality of a physician “ordering” medical marijuana. Using this unusual language about “ordering” cannabis oils could have a chilling effect on the number of physicians who are willing to participate in such a program. It is far better to simply have the doctor state his or her First Amendment-‐protected opinion that the patient could benefit from the medical marijuana. Then, the patient can get an ID card from the state and obtain the cannabis.
No requirement for independent lab testing: Another glitch in the law is the lack of mandatory testing. While the cultivators and dispensaries are allowed to grow, possess, and process marijuana and qualified patients are allowed to possess and use low-‐THC marijuana, there is no provision to allow independent laboratory testing. Independent testing ensures that medicine produced for some of the most seriously ill in Florida has been grown and produced free from contaminants. Additionally, independent testing ensures that medical cannabis is properly labeled so that patients know the ratio of cannabinoids in their medicine. Limited Conditions: The current law allows for only a limited number of patients to access the medicine. However, cannabis has been shown to alleviate several other debilitating conditions and symptoms that are not included in the law’s list of qualifying conditions.2 It is unnecessary to deny those suffering from conditions for which medical marijuana has proven beneficial, especially when individuals in other states are able to legally use medical marijuana to treat the same conditions. MPP strongly recommends that Florida expand its list of qualifying conditions to include PTSD, Crohn’s disease, intractable pain, glaucoma, severe nausea, and wasting. 2 See: http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/MedConditionsHandout.pdf.
![Page 3: MPP Memo To Senator Bradley](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082709/55cf9192550346f57b8e8fce/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Low-‐THC Only: This is perhaps the most serious flaw of SB 1030. There is no reason to place an arbitrary cap on the amount of THC that medical marijuana may contain, especially when most of the studies conducted demonstrating cannabis’ medical efficacy have used marijuana with concentrations of THC far greater than what Florida law allows. Marinol — which is 100 percent synthetic THC — is a Schedule III drug approved for nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and appetite loss in AIDS patients. In other words, although SB 1030 includes cancer as a qualifying condition, it fails to include strains that are rich in the cannabinoid that has been shown to alleviate cancer-‐related nausea. Natural marijuana is far preferable to Marinol for many nauseated patients — pills can take 45 minutes to take effect and can be difficult to keep down. In addition, marijuana’s other compounds are also beneficial; they operate synergistically and moderate the “high.” Meanwhile, another qualifying condition in Florida’s law — severe and persistent muscle spasms — also has been shown to respond to higher proportions of THC. Four countries, including Canada, have approved a prescription spray called Sativex, which has a 1:1 CBD/THC ratio, for multiple sclerosis-‐related spasticity. Yet patients in Florida are allowed to use only strains of marijuana with a far lower proportion of THC. This push to enact low-‐THC laws is a direct result of the very public and moving story of Charlotte Figi, who was able to find relief from intractable epilepsy by using a strain of marijuana that contains low amounts of THC and high amounts of CBD. However, Charlotte’s experience is just that — her personal experience. There are many parents of similarly situated children who have tried and failed to treat severe seizure disorders with CBD-‐only medical marijuana. In fact, many of these parents find higher amounts of THC necessary. Additionally, limiting the amount of THC in medical marijuana will greatly reduce its ability to curb pain and enhance appetite for those suffering from cancer (one of the current conditions). While it is true that THC carries with it an intoxicating effect, it is no more inebriating than the intoxicating effects that many of our prescription drugs induce. The effect has most commonly been described as a feeling of euphoria. Since when has it been standard medical practice to deny patients medicine that could improve both their physical and emotional well-‐being? Unreasonable restrictions on when a doctor may “order”: The law also insists that the doctor only recommend marijuana if all other alternatives have failed. This is unnecessary and unreasonable. The state of Florida licenses its trained physicians to make the difficult decision of what treatment is best for their patients. Many medications commonly prescribed for serious medical conditions can carry with them severe side effects, including the risk of fatal overdose. Marijuana has never once caused a fatal overdose. If a physician thinks their patient will derive the same
![Page 4: MPP Memo To Senator Bradley](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082709/55cf9192550346f57b8e8fce/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
benefits, without the serious side effects, from medical marijuana as opposed to a different treatment course, he or she should be allowed to treat that patient without having to first subject their patient to a treatment course they think is more dangerous or less likely to work. Smoking prohibited: Under current law, patients are prohibited from smoking medical marijuana as a delivery method, despite the fact that it is the most common and quickest way patients introduce medical marijuana into their system. In addition, it is also the least expensive, which is crucial considering the seriously ill are likely to have significant health care costs as is. Concerns about the health effects of smoking are somewhat legitimate, but that should be a decision that a patient makes, not the state legislature. While heavy marijuana smoking is linked to bronchitis, marijuana smoking is not linked to lung cancer or to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.3 Patients and doctors should be trusted to weigh all of the risks and benefits of various means of administration. Prohibiting a patient with terminal cancer from finding quick, cheap relief from nausea with a marijuana cigarette seems nonsensical given that they may legally smoke tobacco, which kills 400,000 Americans each year. Unreasonably high barriers to entry for producers: The restrictions on who can, and more importantly cannot, apply to produce medical marijuana are unreasonable. Limiting the program to five producers total is a recipe for conflict in the licensing process, and requiring those applying to have at least 30 years of contiguous operation as a horticultural nursery will automatically prevent many otherwise qualified individuals from seeking a license. In addition, the $5,000,000 bond requirement offers no protections to patients and will simply prevent qualified individuals who lack excessive resources from applying. Medical marijuana producers and cultivators licenses should be merit-‐based, not based on which entities can meet the unnecessarily high hurdles. This program should be about getting safe and affordable medicine to some of Florida’s most ill residents. Thank you so much for your time and attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert J. Capecchi Deputy Director of State Policies Marijuana Policy Project [email protected] 202-‐905-‐2007 3 See: DP Tashkin, “Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung,” Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2013.
![Page 5: MPP Memo To Senator Bradley](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082709/55cf9192550346f57b8e8fce/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
cc: Sen. Jeff Brandes, Sen. Greg Steube, Sen. Aaron Bean, Sen. Andy Gardiner, Rep. Steve Crisafulli, Rep. Katie Edwards, Rep. Jason Brodeur, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Mr. Tim Cerio