Friday, April 3, 2015

Tell the WA House "We Need 5!"

      It has been very apparent that the fix is in when it comes to 5052, The Cannabis Patient Pain and Suffering Act. The bill has changed little in the sincere cannabis community’s favor, since it left the Senate, where there was no change.   In House Committees there was a very small improvement, but overall the bill was still very unfavorable to MMJ in WA.  There is one last chance to fix the bill in the House of Representatives. These five key areas must improve, or there will be no way to fix the bill. This will leave the medical cannabis community in the unfortunate position of having to step in front of an out of control train, whose conductors are bent on continuing the failed war on weed at the expense of the most vulnerable citizens of Washington State.

Contact your Representative and explain why these 5 issues must be fixed in 5052, or the bill will have to be killed to protect the sincere medical cannabis patient in Washington State. 

60 Day Supply
AT A GLANCE
¡E Currently part of RCW
¡E First addressed in I-692
¡E In line with common practices in other states
OVERVIEW
Initiative 692 allows a qualifying patient or designated provider to legally possess a 60-day supply of medical cannabis. This supply threshold is in line with other common medications including:
„h Levothyroxine to treat hypothyroidism
„h Rosuvastatin to treat high cholesterol
„h Albuterol to treat asthma
„h Loratadine to treat allergies
„h Omeprazole to treat acid reflux
- Medical cannabis is a maintenance drug that allows seriously ill patients to participate in normal daily activities, from work and raising families to leisure and relaxation.
- Medical cannabis patients should be legally allowed to retain the same allotted supply as those taking other prescription drugs.
- Patients with cancer, MS, HIV/AIDS, seizures and other serious illnesses typically require larger quantities of medical cannabis to remain symptom free (500- 1000mg per day).
- With the maximum dose per serving set at 10mg, a typical patient would require 50-100 servings per day, which is equivalent to 5-10 edible products at a reported $15-$50 apiece.
- Many medical cannabis patients have difficulty getting to a dispensary more than once per month. Any reduction in supply forces those with mobility or income limitations to refill medications more frequently.
- Patients living in rural parts of the state, nowhere near a medical dispensary, would be forced to travel long distances multiple times each month to replenish the medication necessary to stay healthy.
Patient Cooperatives
- A ban on private patient cooperatives cuts off access to needed medicines for those with limited mobility or resources and disproportionately impacts people in remote areas.
- Rules for cooperatives must account for limitations of participants. Many patients are too sick to grow for themselves, lack transportation options, live in areas without stores and/or have a tight budget.
- Patient cooperatives increase efficiency and affordability, while reducing risk. The typical cooperative has less than 10 patients pooling resources, with cultivation limited to a single location where one of the members provides daily plant maintenance. When done correctly, patient cooperatives can actually reduce the number of illicit grows across the state.
AT A GLANCE
¡E Currently part of RCW
¡E Ensures patient access regardless of geography
¡E Reduces workload and costs for patients
¡E Particularly important due to lack of health insurance coverage
OVERVIEW
Patient cooperatives allow participants to pool resources in order to lower the risk, costs and workload of cultivating cannabis. This provision is particularly important in rural areas without stores and for low-income patients who can¡¦t afford to purchase cannabis.
Similar to an urban p-patch or a single family farm, products should not be subject to commercial oversight.
Doctor-Patient Relationship
- Health care professionals must maintain the right to exercise their best judgment and should not feel uneasy recommending medical cannabis to any patient who might benefit.
- Under the Conant decision, health care professionals have an undisputed right to recommend cannabis, but any prescriptive advice about dosage or delivery methods puts providers at risk.
- Requiring cannabis use to be noted in medical records jeopardizes a patient¡¦s ability to receive an organ transplant or other medical care.
- Requiring appointments to take place at a doctor's permanent office prevents homebound patients from receiving care, as well as those who are hospitalized or in hospice care.
- Artificially limiting the pool of health care professionals and forcing patients to renew annually is likely to create bureaucratic bottlenecks.
AT A GLANCE
¡E Currently part of RCW
¡E First addressed in I-692
¡E Mirrors standards of care for other medications
¡E Reflects best practices from other states
OVERVIEW
Since cannabis remains a Schedule One drug, illegal for any purpose under federal law, health care professionals face significant constraints. This includes an inability to recommend a specific dosage, possession limit or method of administration. Forcing health care professionals to do so would expose them to criminal charges and professional licensing sanctions.
Affirmative Defense
- Prosecuting medical cannabis patients needlessly is a waste of scarce state and local resources.
- Affirmative defense is the foundation for Washington¡¦s medical cannabis law and a key provision of the 1998 initiative (I-692) passed by voters with a wider margin than I-502 in 2012.
- Affirmative defense allows a medical cannabis patient or caregiver charged with a cannabis-related crime to explain the circumstances to a jury of their peers.
- Medical patients who need exceptional quantities of cannabis and a variety of products to stay symptom-free should also be protected and allowed to explain their medical need in court.
-
AT A GLANCE
¡E Currently part of RCW
¡E First addressed in I-692
¡E Common legal practice in states with medical cannabis
¡E Ensures appropriate adjudication of criminal cases
OVERVIEW
Affirmative Defense is a legal mechanism which allows a patient or care provider who has been charged with a cannabis-related crime to explain the circumstances in court. If the explanation is credible, it can negate criminal liability. Affirmative defense provides a cost-effective safety net to ensure patients and providers are not unnecessarily targeted for prosecution.
Direct Path for Licensing
- Medical cannabis patients require regulated dispensaries that are a separate path from the recreational marketplace, which is plagued by inconsistent and inadequate supply as well as high taxes.
- Medical licensees must meet or exceed product safety standards; employ knowledgeable, trained staff; and refuse sales to non-medical consumers.
- LCB oversight should be designed and conducted in consultation with Department of Health and/or an advisory committee of stakeholders with demonstrated medical cannabis expertise.
- Medical cannabis patients are trying to get healthy; recreational users are trying to have a good time. Patients require different products, fair pricing to accommodate increased doses for pain relief, and ultimately a separate pathway to medicine.
- A merit-based system should not consider if a business applied for a 502 license, since recreational regulations prevent talking about any medical benefits, donating product, or selling below cost.
OVERVIEW
RCW 69.51a must be preserved to qualify under Section 538 of 2015 federal budget prohibiting fund allocation to raid, arrest, prosecute, or imprison legal medical cannabis patients
Rolling patients into I-502 without standalone licensed medical businesses makes it harder for them to obtain safe, affordable medicine.
AT A GLANCE
¡E Currently part of RCW
¡E Ensures qualifying patients can access the most relevant medical products for their ailments
¡E Holds licensees to higher standards of product safety and training

No comments:

Post a Comment