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
