by Mark Miller

Fri, Mar 09, 2012 4:47 pm

While the Maryland House of Delegates – the lower house of the state’s General Assembly – currently debates three proposed medical marijuana bills, their efforts may go for naught as Governor Martin O’Malley (D) would reportedly veto any medicinal cannabis legislation due to fears of federal retribution.

Unfortunately, Gov O’Malley is not alone among state officials; Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler has questioned the legality of a medical marijuana program in response to correspondence from Delegate Dan K. Morhaim (D-Baltimore County), sponsor of two of the bills.

State Health Secretary Joshua M. Sharfstein has dropped support of all medical cannabis bills, including one he previously publicly endorsed, because of his interpretation of the U.S. government’s threats to prosecute those who participate in large-scale medical marijuana distribution. However, Sharfstein’s reluctance to endorse medical marijuana seems to run deeper than mere concern for fellow state workers; in 2011 he shot down efforts to legalize medi-pot by claiming there is no scientific consensus regarding medicinal marijuana’s benefits.

One of the bills, favored by law enforcement, would be tightly controlled with a selected educational institution dispensing the medicine. Delegate Morhaim’s preferred bill would create state-operated dispensaries to distribute medical pot to patients who receive a doctor’s recommendation.

The third bill, sponsored by Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D-Baltimore County), would actually allow patients to grow their own medicine and Glenn anticipates that TV talk show host, high-profile pot patient, and Baltimore native Montel Williams will testify on behalf of her bill.

While patients across the country commend the Maryland Medical Marijuana Work Group’s effort to create medical cannabis laws workable for Maryland; we respectfully oppose both of the proposed models: HB 1158 and HB 1024.  Both bills are heavily restrictive and, if passed, will create unimplementable programs much like the medical marijuana laws in New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and Delaware, where patients are still left without safe access and are still subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail time.  Patients deserve a right to medical cannabis, andHB 1024 and HB 1158 will fail.  Ask your legislators to support and pass Delegate Glenn’sHouse Bill 15, which takes a reasonable approach to legislating medical cannabis and is based on best practices of medical cannabis states from across the country.  In put your address below to generate your legislator’s contact information. (NOTE: Your Delegate’s phone number will be generated after you input your address).  Make sure to do two things: 1. Call your delegate using the phone numbers and script provided below 2. After you call, enter your information and click “Send Your Message” to send your legislators an email.

Dear Delegate ______________________

While the medical cannabis community of Maryland commends the legislature and medical marijuana study group’s effort to create a medical cannabis law workable for Maryland, we respectfully oppose  both of the proposed models: HB1024 and HB 1158.  Both bills are heavily restrictive and, if passed, will create unimplementable programs much like the medical marijuana laws in New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington, DC, leaving patients with out access and still subject to arrest and prosecution.  Patients deserve a right to medical cannabis, and HB1024 and HB1158 will fail.  If you believe Marylanders have a right to medical cannabis, please support Delegate Glenn’s HB15 which takes a reasonable approach to legislating medical cannabis, and is based on the best practices of medical cannabis states across the country.  Don’t try to reinvent the wheel, pass a bill we know will work: Vote for HB15!

Thank you.

​”For people who need it, and it’s something that physicians are endorsing for their patients, then the state would like to be able to accommodate that,” Cox said.

Marijuana is prohibited for any purpose by federal law, but 16 states and Washington, D.C., permit its use for some medical conditions. Currently, Maryland state law does not protect patients who use and possess marijuana.

The other proposal, which is backed by Maryland Del. Dr. Dan Morhaim (D-Baltimore County), is a near exact replica of a bill that failed to pass out of committee last year because of objections from Secretary Sharfstein and a fiscal note that alleged exorbitant costs to Maryland taxpayers. Advocates say the fiscal note is inaccurate.

​”As a legislator dedicated to addressing the needs of medical marijuana patients in Maryland, I am very disappointed in both legislative proposals being offered by the commissioned workgroup,” Del. Cheryl Glenn, sponsor of HB 15, said. “I am offering a different bill — what I believe is a common-sense approach to this issue, taking into account not only the needs of medical marijuana patients, but also the needs of the larger communities in which they live.”

According to Glenn, the ability of patients to grow their own medicine is key.

“In places that have ignored the need for patients to cultivate their own medical marijuana — such as Delaware, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia — thousands of patients have been forced to go without,” Del. Glenn said. “This is unacceptable and should be a lesson we learn from, not one we repeat in Maryland.”

“We hope that the Legislature will recognize the virtue of Delegate Glenn’s approach and pass HB 15 as a sensible way to address medical marijuana in Maryland,” said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, which has been working with Del. Glenn to develop a comprehensive state law.

​Marijuana is a more natural alternative to the prescription painkillers often given to patients after surgery or to those suffering from certain diseases, said William Rynn, a sophomore secondary education major at Towson.

“I absolutely support it,” Rynn said. “It has been shown to help treat glaucoma.”

​But other students had mixed feelings about the medicinal use of cannabis, largely due to a lack  of education on the subject.

“I have always been told that smoking and drugs are bad for y]ou,” said Kasey Acito, a junior athletic training major at Towson. “I don’t understand how it is going to make anyone feel better or why it should be legalized. But if it does make people feel better, go for it.”

According to Professor Cox, issues such as monitoring and controlling the production and distribution of marijuana must be taken into account as the state moves towards medicinal legalization.

​”[The state] has to consider its responsibilities that are associated with recognizing that marijuana is still a drug,” Cox said. “They have to enforce the law in regards to trafficking.”

She said there should also be quality control.

“There is variability in the product,” Cox said. “Any time you’re going to label something as a drug that is going to ease pain and provide medical benefit, then there should be some kind of quality control over the dose.”

But Food and Drug Administration regulations shouldn’t matter because of the organic nature of marijuana, according to Rynn.

“Marijuana is completely natural and not harmful,” he said. “The Food and Drug Administration approves a lot of drugs that can seriously damage your body, so there’s no reason why the regulations should be an issue anyway.”

Amrith Wadhera, a cultural studies major and member of the Towson University chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) said that supporters can come to group meetings to discuss their efforts.

Members talk about the issue at every meeting (Wednesdays at 5 p.m. in The Den) and screen medical marijuana films to increase understanding and awareness, according to Wadhera. The group meets in the room to the left of the main entrance; there will be a sign saying “NORML.”

• 6:00 a.m. EST, January 3, 2012

With any new medical treatment, the primary consideration for doctors is the evidence — how effective is it, what are the side effects, what are the indications, what is the appropriate dose, and so on. That should go for lawmakers and regulators, too, even when it comes to the emotionally charged issue of medical marijuana. There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence suggesting cannabis is useful in treating pain, nausea and other symptoms of chronic disease, but there is precious little in the way of rigorous scientific study. That’s why Maryland lawmakers should opt for a path toward legalizing medical marijuana that puts academic research ahead of wide availability.

A task force designated to study the issue split more or less evenly between a research-oriented approach limited to academic medical centers and one that would immediately have given doctors wide latitude to prescribe the drug. The legislature doesn’t have to adopt either of them, but given the passage of a medical marijuana bill in the state Senate last year, it’s a good bet that the General Assembly will give serious consideration to one or the other. State Health Secretary Dr. Joshua Sharfstein is backing the go-slow proposal, and the science — or the lack thereof — is on his side.

Medical marijuana has long been caught in a Catch-22 of federal regulations. A drug can’t be approved for use without evidence of its effectiveness and risks, but marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance meant it could not be studied. That’s absurd; much more dangerous drugs, including cocaine and opiates, are recognized for medical use, and doctors can consult a wealth of evidence about when they are appropriate. But the best the medical establishment can say about marijuana — despite widespread therapeutic use in more than a dozen states — is that it appears to hold promise for some conditions. How much promise, and under what circumstances, is not conclusively known, not in the way we would expect of any other drug put on the market. We do not know what patients would be good candidates for therapeutic use of marijuana, what strains of the plant make for the most effective treatments, what doses are necessary, or whether, in some cases, the risks — paranoia, for example — outweigh the benefits.

Dr. Sharfstein’s proposal more or less mirrors the advice of the Institutes of Medicine. He is advocating for academic medical centers (institutions like Johns Hopkins Hospital or the University of Maryland) to apply to the state for permission to try out treatment protocols on particular classes of patients — say, those in hospice or suffering from muscle spasms. The institutions would report their findings, and the state would gradually amass a body of knowledge about what works and what doesn’t. At that point, it would be appropriate for the state to consider expanding the availability of medical marijuana and giving more doctors latitude in prescribing it, but not before.

Advocates, including a pair of state senators who have been treated for cancer and are strong backers of medical marijuana, are unlikely to be happy with this approach. Sen. David Brinkley, aFrederick County Republican who previously sponsored legislation much like the more liberal of the task force’s two proposals, said his concern is to ensure that patients who are using the drug or could benefit from it can access it safely and legally. State law now allows those arrested on marijuana possession charges to be found not guilty by reason of medical necessity under certain circumstances. But they are still forced to procure the drug on the black market.

It’s true that the status quo is flawed, but jumping to the conclusion that Maryland should allow wide availability puts the cart before the horse.

Moreover, a research approach doesn’t necessarily mean that the number of patients who have access to medical marijuana would be unduly limited. More than one study could and likely would be conducted at a time, and patients wouldn’t necessarily have to travel to the urban centers where the state’s research hospitals are located to take part. But even if they did, that would make marijuana no different from any other experimental treatment.

Legalizing medical marijuana would be complicated no matter what approach Maryland takes. The state would have to figure out a way to regulate the growing of marijuana and to ensure its security from farm to user, as well as to make sure patients are legitimately using the drug to treat themselves and not selling it or giving it to others — a problem with all controlled substances. And the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law presents additional complications for all those who would be involved under either scenario. But those difficulties would unquestionably be greater under a more expansive program. Better to start small, gather evidence and leave open the possibility for more widespread use if and when medical marijuana is proven effective.